D&C Changes

[splitbamboo]

Now you can say it was a picture that prompted or inspired Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham that may or may not used the papyri (aka. "The Book of Breathings") as the source material I guess.

So I'm a little slow on the uptake and maybe this is already been discussed extensively, but I have been reading Royal Skousen's article in JBMS about how Joseph translated the BoM and I would suggest that this was his MO for all translation. Joseph didn't require the original text to translate (note that he was often looking into a hat and the plates were not visible) and thus as Skousen concedes, he translated as stated by Joseph himself "by the power of God."

Skousen's analysis of the process as a linguist is very enlightening.

[Moliere]

The Book of Commandments printed in 1833 has a very short form of today's Section 27 (it was Section #28 in 1833), and does not mention the restoration of priesthood from either John-Baptist or Peter, James, and John (verses 8 & 12 in today's section 27). Sometime while revising the text for the 1835 edition of The Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith inserted these verses and several others.

The date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood is unknown. Most faithful LDS put it after the appearance of John-Baptist in May, 1829 and before April 1830, since it is assumed that this was a necessary precursor to founding/restoring the Church. Bushman has suggested a date of summer, 1830. (Rough Stone Rolling (2005), page 118; see also the long note #35 on pg. 588).

Good points

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?44486-Why-don-t-we-know-the-date-of-the-MPH-restoration

[Katy Lied]

Thanks Mol

I tried to trace the D&C sections through the various versions of history, and both of the priesthood revelations are missing from the Book of Commandments. Section 13 (Aaronic) is always referred to as a later insertion of an earlier event, and the revelation for the Melch priesthood restoration is missing altogether. As I stated above, this is not problemmatic for me, as JS often omitted or obscured significant events and revelations (non believers might say he made it up later.) But when you examine the record of some of the known events, even those with third party corroboration, JS never refers to some of them at all in any of his writings. For example, the initial publication day of the BOM would be a momentous occasion, but JS never referred to it at all, not even in his journals. (According to Bushman)

[Solon]

I seem to remember him giving more detail later in that book, but I can't find it this morning. Suffice it to say that either the two accounts of priesthood restoration were either not considered significant enough to record or publish in the first book of commandments or they were made up and included in the 1835 version to retroactively rewrite history....or Joseph learned line up line and final came to understand that those angelic visits and laying on of hands were actually important 5 years after they happened.

The Book of Commandments printed in 1833 has a very short form of today's Section 27 (it was Section #28 in 1833), and does not mention the restoration of priesthood from either John-Baptist or Peter, James, and John (verses 8 & 12 in today's section 27). Sometime while revising the text for the 1835 edition of The Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith inserted these verses and several others.

The date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood is unknown. Most faithful LDS put it after the appearance of John-Baptist in May, 1829 and before April 1830, since it is assumed that this was a necessary precursor to founding/restoring the Church. Bushman has suggested a date of summer, 1830. (Rough Stone Rolling (2005), page 118; see also the long note #35 on pg. 588).

[Pheidippides]

Just a heads up...
On my iPad, I had to delete and redownload my D&C to see the changes. My android automatically triggered an update. (insert snarky apple comment of choice here)

Yup. There are instructions on the church website on how to do this.

[ERCougar]

Just a heads up...
On my iPad, I had to delete and redownload my D&C to see the changes. My android automatically triggered an update. (insert snarky apple comment of choice here)

[Moliere]

Hey Mol,

Do you have a cite for this? I looked and can only find this for the original Book of Commandments (actually, the original JS History, which is where D&C 13 was taken from), it does say Aaronic Priesthood:

A quick look back at Prince's "Power from on High" and I found the following in pg. 11:

The status of Mormon authority in 1829 was as follows. Motivated by passages in the Book of Mormon, Smith and Cowdery had sought and received authorization to baptize. Later they encountered additional Book of Mormon passages describing a higher authority which was needed to confer the Holy Ghost and ordain to offices, which they subsequently received. Neither level of authority had yet been called "priesthood." Prior to 1831 the only use of the term was in the Book of Mormon, where it was used synonymously with the office of high priest (BM, 1830, 258-60), an office which did not exist in Mormonism until late 1831. Prior to then men acted by virtue of the office to which they had been ordained, either elder, priest or teacher. In performing ordinances they sometimes referred to their authority explicitly, as in the baptismal prayer, though without using the term "priesthood." Authority was general implied, as in the blessing of the bread and wine (BM, 1830, 575-76) and in the ordination of priests and teachers (BM, 1830, 575). It was not until several months after the June 1831 general conference, when the "high priesthood" was conferred, that the term "priesthood" entered Mormon usage at all.

Also from pg. 10:

With the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants several previously published revelations were revised, among which was one dated September 1830. Whereas the earlier 1833 Book of Commandments version made no mention of angelic visitations, this 1835 version now included the restoration of two levels of authority, identifying for the first time the restorers as "John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias; which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, jr. and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto this first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron...And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry..." (DC, 1835 L:2,3)

I seem to remember him giving more detail later in that book, but I can't find it this morning. Suffice it to say that either the two accounts of priesthood restoration were either not considered significant enough to record or publish in the first book of commandments or they were made up and included in the 1835 version to retroactively rewrite history....or Joseph learned line up line and final came to understand that those angelic visits and laying on of hands were actually important 5 years after they happened.

[Katy Lied]

Are you going to mention that those revelations were redrafted some 1-2 years after 1830 to include the word "Priesthood"?

Hey Mol,

Do you have a cite for this? I looked and can only find this for the original Book of Commandments (actually, the original JS History, which is where D&C 13 was taken from), it does say Aaronic Priesthood:


1_2.jpg http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSu...olume-a-1?p=23

In April 1838 JS renewed his effort to draft a “history” with the aid of his counselor Sidney Rigdon. George W. Robinson served as scribe. JS’s journal for late April and early May 1838 notes six days on which JS, Rigdon, and Robinson were engaged in “writing history.” Though not completed and no longer extant, that draft laid the foundation for what became a six-volume manuscript eventually published as the “History of Joseph Smith,”

[LA Ute]

Horrified is such strong term. I think I'd put it at mildly disturbed.

But you've been disturbed for a long time.

[Pheidippides]

I like this.




I'm excited too, and tend to agree with you. I hope this does not horrify you.

I also like Katy Lied's summary.

Horrified is such strong term. I think I'd put it at mildly disturbed.

[LA Ute]

Interesting development. While many would hope for a more expansive explanation or exploration, and even an open apology for the policy, IMO these things take time so as not to "shake the faith" of those that grew up with the view that such policies were dictated by God. I see this as another step toward fertilizing the ground for a more open look at and even acknowledgement of our past mistakes. For some it is not fast enough, for others it would be too fast and even disturbing. To refer to beloved prophets as racist is a harsh thing, and probably not that helpful because individually, that is a very charged word. We need to mature as a faith, and I believe this type of self-introspection is a sign of that. I recently attended a meeting where I heard a member of the Twelve call the policy "racist" several times. I thought that was pretty significant.

I like this.

So I've been through the side-by-side comparison (skimmed only) and there are some major things in there.

(1) Serious, the church produced a side-by-side. I can't get over how awesome I think that is. That's the biggest thing of all, IMO.
(2) The historical information is beefed up in many sections.
(3) New intro to both OD1 and OD2. The one for OD1 is less...er...incorrect? Somehow that doesn't capture it. They imply that polygamy was a revealed practice to JS (I disagree but that's hardly orthodox) but the fact that they tie 132 and plural marriage together so tightly, and make it clear it was JS that revealed it, is something I didn't get as a kid, for dang sure. I scratch my head over the statement at the end that the manifesto led to the end of plural marriage. I guess that's not technically wrong but it's not exactly forthcoming. Still, they can hardly give a full explanation of post-manifesto polygamy at that point, so I'll not throw too many stones. Progress.
(4) We've already beat the hell out of OD2 here. Progress.
(5) In the POTG, look very carefully at the changed description of the Book of Abraham. Now an inspired translation started after JS received some papyri, not a translation of the papyri. Innocuous to those who know nothing, meaningful to those who know something. Not sure what I think - misleading but accurate? Red herring? I guess I view it as a, "yeah, we know all about this issue" statement.

Overall, I think this is a huge development. I haven't been through the study guides yet but I'm excited.

I'm excited too, and tend to agree with you. I hope this does not horrify you.

I also like Katy Lied's summary.

[Uncle Ted]

Here is the explanations for most of the significant changes made to the headings:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/site/explanations-for-the-doctrine-and-covenants-section-headings

Explanations for the OD1 and OD2 changes are missing, however.

[Uncle Ted]

Progress yes, but Lebowski is right, the church has a hard time admitting sometimes leaders have been flat out wrong on issues. Look how long it took just to admit members involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The issue of race being a big one, and now homosexuality. The church has almost quietly been changing what they are saying about being gay (finally admitting people are just gay, none of the no inborn tendency garbage). They don't admit they were wrong, they start saying something else. I have yet to hear someone in authority just say, "What we have been saying concerning being gay, um forever, was wrong" (except for accepting your gay of course and having a relationship with someone, that is still wrong). There is the conundrum, admitting you were wrong on all the details concerning being gay, but it is still wrong to be gay. I guess it makes it kind of hard when BKP is still sitting there on the stand.

I like to blame it taking so long for the church to issue an apology for the MMM on the lawyers...

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?5593-MEP-BRM-and-Racism&p=715631&viewfull=1#post715631

[Northwestcoug]

It really doesn't bother me that things changed, or were remembered differently, or that different versions were calibrated to a single story. I find it entirely possible that something significant happens but no one realizes at the time how significant it is, or how much it will matter in the future. I think this is the more likely story of the evolution of a spiritual movement. Later on someone will suggest that more emphasis be placed on a spcific interpretation of a historical event. That's pretty much how history is written up. As long as the parameters are defined by revelation (as we believe), I think there is a lot of room for differences in historical interpretation, and I don't sweat it when I find out that JS's first vision story evolved and changed. I think too many people want there to be one true explanation or one true story arc, and I think God allows for a lot more messiness in religious worship.

The last thing that really shook me was the disclosure that Isaiah's "Line upon line, precept upon precept" was a text-proof, and doesn't mean that at all. That really made me sorrowful because I love that interpretation of how God teaches and reveals. Not that God can't do it that way anyway, but it just feels so loving and nurturing the way Isaiah (apocryphally) put it.

I would love to be part of a religion that has a more honest view of its history. I would love to have faith in a belief system that is courageous enough to freely apologize for its past. But of course official Mormonism can't allow for that. The official history of the church is inextricably tied to its doctrine. Its doctrine is its history, and vice versa. There is no reason for mormon doctrine to exist if it's history is not factually correct, or at the very least its interpretation of history.

I understand and agree with you when you say that history is susceptible to human error, and we shouldn't expect more from the church. However, nowhere in official church teachings can we find alternate views that are presented as acceptable. Even in the face of inescapable evidence, the church will not budge until it is forced to.

[Pheidippides]

So I've been through the side-by-side comparison (skimmed only) and there are some major things in there.

(1) Serious, the church produced a side-by-side. I can't get over how awesome I think that is. That's the biggest thing of all, IMO.
(2) The historical information is beefed up in many sections.
(3) New intro to both OD1 and OD2. The one for OD1 is less...er...incorrect? Somehow that doesn't capture it. They imply that polygamy was a revealed practice to JS (I disagree but that's hardly orthodox) but the fact that they tie 132 and plural marriage together so tightly, and make it clear it was JS that revealed it, is something I didn't get as a kid, for dang sure. I scratch my head over the statement at the end that the manifesto led to the end of plural marriage. I guess that's not technically wrong but it's not exactly forthcoming. Still, they can hardly give a full explanation of post-manifesto polygamy at that point, so I'll not throw too many stones. Progress.
(4) We've already beat the hell out of OD2 here. Progress.
(5) In the POTG, look very carefully at the changed description of the Book of Abraham. Now an inspired translation started after JS received some papyri, not a translation of the papyri. Innocuous to those who know nothing, meaningful to those who know something. Not sure what I think - misleading but accurate? Red herring? I guess I view it as a, "yeah, we know all about this issue" statement.

Overall, I think this is a huge development. I haven't been through the study guides yet but I'm excited.