Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
canard78

Why Did The Original Version Of The Revelation In D&C 27 Have No Reference To Priesthood?

Recommended Posts

Changes and edits have been made to the D&C. This has not been hidden by the church in both foundational and current times.

In 1974, Elder Packer said in conference:

The Prophet Joseph Smith was an unschooled farm boy. To read some of his early letters in the original shows him to be somewhat unpolished in spelling and grammar and in expression.

That the revelations came through him in any form of literary refinement is nothing short of a miracle. That some perfecting should continue strengthens my respect for them.

Now, I add with emphasis that such changes have been basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered.

Why are they not spoken of over the pulpit? Simply because by comparison they are so insignificant, and unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about. After all, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the books are true.

I came across the change in what is now D&C 27 in another thread and decided to research further. The Josephsmithpapers.org website has been invaluable.

The original revelation was received in 1830 (Aug or Sep) by "Joseph the Seer at a time that he went to purchase wine for Sacrament & he was stoped (sic) by an Angel & he spok (sic) to him" giving instruction on what wine to use.

I've coped below the full D&C 27 as it is today. This matches the 1835 version (section 50). When we go back to the earliest version of the revelation it has no reference to the Priesthood restoration. Revelation Book 1 (started 1830 or 1831) has a handwritten copy of the revelation. In 1833 the Book of Commandments has an identical version put into print (still no Priesthood references).

Here's the version we use today. I've underlined the parts that don't appear in the 1830 original and 1833 printed version and added two words in brackets that were in the original but omitted in the 1835 version.

When you read the additions, would you say these still agree with Elder Packer that "nothing fundamental has been altered" and that the changes are "unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about."

1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory — remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;

6 And also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days;

7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he a(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;

8 Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron;

9 And also Elijah, unto whom I have committed the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers, that the whole earth may not be smitten with a curse;

10 And also with Joseph and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, your fathers, by whom the promises remain;

11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

12 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 dame, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;

13 Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in gone all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;

14 And also with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world.

15 Wherefore, lift up your hearts and rejoice, and gird up your loins, and take upon you my whole armor, that ye may be able to withstand the evil day, having done all, that ye may be able to stand.

16 Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, which I have sent mine angels to commit unto you;

17 Taking the shield of faith wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked;

18 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of my Spirit, which I will pour out upon you, and my word which I reveal unto you, and be agreed as touching all things whatsoever ye ask of me, and be faithful until I come, and ye shall be caught up, that where I am ye shall be also. (even so) Amen.

Why is this important?

References to the details of the Priesthood restoration appear much later than the event itself and after the 1830 revelation/1833 publication.

While looking for section 50 of the 1835 edition, I noticed section 6, revealed in Dec 1832, which says:

3 Therefore thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers, for ye are lawful heirs according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God: therefore your life and the priesthood hath remained, and must needs remain, through you and your lineage, until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of the holy prophets since the world began.

If the priesthood had continued through the lineage of their fathers according to the flesh, why the need for a restoration?

In Oct 1834, Oliver Cowdery gives a detailed description of the ordination of priesthood but doesn't mention Aaronic, nor that the Angel was John:

"...we received under his hand the holy priesthood, as he said, "upon you my fellow servants, in the name of messiah I confer this priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth that the sons son of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the lord in righteousness""

Latter Day Saints' messenger and advocate, Vol. I, Oct 1834, p. 15-16.

http://contentdm.lib...0-1846/id/7160

In September 1835 there's a statement by Oliver with more detail saying:

He [Joseph Smith] was ordained by the angel John, unto the lesser or Aaronic priesthood, in company with myself, in the town of Harmony, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, on Fryday, the 15th day of May, 1829, after which we repaired to the water, even to the Susquehanna River, and were baptized

By 1838, JSH has more detail (underlined differences to 1834 version)

69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

...

72 The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament

If we could say in 1830 that Joseph was already talking about his priesthood ordination then that would undermine the argument that the priesthood restoration was something that 'evolved.' Given the 1835 version of the 'sacrament wine' revelation seems to have been edited around the time that Oliver was starting to talk about an Angelic priesthood restoration, it continues to be a challenging 'interpolation.'

Alternatively, maybe this gradual disclosure was in line with the instruction in JSH 74:

...we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and our having been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood.

Given the above statement was put in print nearly 10 years after the event it seems to be a circular argument and not entirely satisfactory.

Is there something I've missed? Is there any evidence that the D&C 27 version was always the original full words of the angel and for reasons of secrecy were only added in 1835 (having been omitted when Joseph put the original in writing in 1830 and 1833). Is the changed acknowledged or commented on in the 1830s?

What changed between 1833 and 1835 that meant it was now ok for it to no longer be a secret? Was there anything about the establishment of the church in Kirtland, Zion's camp in 1834 or something else that triggered the openness?

And would you say the additions to the 'sacrament wine' revelation fit under the definition of not "fundamental" to the original revelation and "unimportant" to be "not worth talking about"?

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding is that this is two different revelations which were cobbled together into one section of the D&C. Two separate revelations, one section. While this is interesting, it is hardly "worth talking about" except as a oddity in the history and development of the D&C. There was an article in the Ensign years ago on this and perhaps someone can look it up.

We dind many scholastic articles published on historical oddities in the Bible.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post

As I understand it, Joseph was always refining revelations. The JST is an example of him refining the book, often adding huge chunks of revelation that was not in the original. Joseph had not problem with continuing revelation that clarifies or increases a previously given revelation.

The Lord teaches precept on precept, line upon line, and Joseph worked precisely in that manner.

Share this post


Link to post

Changes and edits have been made to the D&C. This has not been hidden by the church in both foundational and current times.

In 1974, Elder Packer said in conference:

I came across the change in what is now D&C 27 in another thread and decided to research further. The Josephsmithpapers.org website has been invaluable.

The original revelation was received in 1830 (Aug or Sep) by "Joseph the Seer at a time that he went to purchase wine for Sacrament & he was stoped (sic) by an Angel & he spok (sic) to him" giving instruction on what wine to use.

I've coped below the full D&C 27 as it is today. This matches the 1835 version (section 50). When we go back to the earliest version of the revelation it has no reference to the Priesthood restoration. Revelation Book 1 (started 1830 or 1831) has a handwritten copy of the revelation. In 1833 the Book of Commandments has an identical version put into print (still no Priesthood references).

Here's the version we use today. I've underlined the parts that don't appear in the 1830 original and 1833 printed version and added two words in brackets that were in the original but omitted in the 1835 version.

When you read the additions, would you say these still agree with Elder Packer that "nothing fundamental has been altered" and that the changes are "unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about."

Elder Packer’s remarks do not relate to the more extensive changes that were made to the D&C by the Prophet Joseph Smith himself when he prepared them for publication in the second edition. His remarks relate to the less significant changes that have been made to the text of the standard works over the years since their original publications by Joseph Smith. These changes are indeed minor, and for the most part relate to correcting spelling and punctuation, and very few grammatical and editorial changes which do not affect the meaning of the text. You are confusing different things together. The changes that were made by Joseph Smith himself were quite extensive sometimes, and were done by revelation. God has the right to edit his own works. Some of the changes consisted in combining two or more revelations received at different times into one section. Many of the revelations in the D&C were not given all at once, but in stages spread over a period of time, and Joseph Smith knew by inspiration how best to combine them into one section. The article you had linked to in the Fair Wiki lists some of those, and explains the additions. If you read it all the way through it explains those.

Why is this important?

References to the details of the Priesthood restoration appear much later than the event itself and after the 1830 revelation/1833 publication.

While looking for section 50 of the 1835 edition, I noticed section 6, revealed in Dec 1832, which says:

If the priesthood had continued through the lineage of their fathers according to the flesh, why the need for a restoration?

You are now asking a different kind of question. This has nothing to do with changes or additions made in the D&C. It is a question of whether it is teaching correct doctrine or not. the answer is that it does. What that means is that the right to hold that priesthood has continued in them through the lineage of their fathers. That does not mean that they should be automatically be born with that priesthood. To Abraham the Lord made this promise:

“And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall
bear this ministry and Priesthood
unto all nations;

“And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father;

“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this
right
shall continue in thee,
and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.” (Abraham 2:9–11)

It means the right to hold that priesthood had continued through the lineage of their fathers. It does not mean that they should be automatically be born with that priesthood.

In Oct 1834, Oliver Cowdery gives a detailed description of the ordination of priesthood but doesn't mention Aaronic, nor that the Angel was John:

Latter Day Saints' messenger and advocate, Vol. I, Oct 1834, p. 15-16.

http://contentdm.lib...0-1846/id/7160

In September 1835 there's a statement by Oliver with more detail saying:

By 1838, JSH has more detail (underlined differences to 1834 version)

If we could say in 1830 that Joseph was already talking about his priesthood ordination then that would undermine the argument that the priesthood restoration was something that 'evolved.' Given the 1835 version of the 'sacrament wine' revelation seems to have been edited around the time that Oliver was starting to talk about an Angelic priesthood restoration, it continues to be a challenging 'interpolation.'

Alternatively, maybe this gradual disclosure was in line with the instruction in JSH 74:

Given the above statement was put in print nearly 10 years after the event it seems to be a circular argument and not entirely satisfactory.

Is there something I've missed? Is there any evidence that the D&C 27 version was always the original full words of the angel and for reasons of secrecy were only added in 1835 (having been omitted when Joseph put the original in writing in 1830 and 1833). Is the changed acknowledged or commented on in the 1830s?

What changed between 1833 and 1835 that meant it was now ok for it to no longer be a secret? Was there anything about the establishment of the church in Kirtland, Zion's camp in 1834 or something else that triggered the openness?

And would you say the additions to the 'sacrament wine' revelation fit under the definition of not "fundamental" to the original revelation and "unimportant" to be "not worth talking about"?

I don’t see what the argument here is. The fact that progressively more detail was disclosed by Joseph Smith and Oliver about the ordination to the Aaronic priesthood is neither here nor there. I don’t see what the argument is about.

Edited by mathonihah

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding is that this is two different revelations which were cobbled together into one section of the D&C. Two separate revelations, one section. While this is interesting, it is hardly "worth talking about" except as a oddity in the history and development of the D&C. There was an article in the Ensign years ago on this and perhaps someone can look it up.

We dind many scholastic articles published on historical oddities in the Bible.

I'd be interested to see that article. If that's the case then it's suggesting the revelation on the sacrament wine given didn't include the people the wine would be drunk with? If so, where's the original? There ought to be an 1830 version somewhere of the priesthood bits. If we're publishing a revelation that says 1830, one should be able to feel confident that it was indeed all given in that year.

I've not seen evidence of the priesthood bits being anywhere other than added in 1835, but I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding is that this is two different revelations which were cobbled together into one section of the D&C. Two separate revelations, one section. While this is interesting, it is hardly "worth talking about" except as a oddity in the history and development of the D&C. There was an article in the Ensign years ago on this and perhaps someone can look it up.

We dind many scholastic articles published on historical oddities in the Bible.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/01/great-and-marvelous-are-the-revelations-of-god?lang=eng

Sorry, can't quote it, using ipad

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, can't quote it, using ipad

Other changes were made as later revelations incorporated more teachings that had not been a part of the initial revelation. The revelation now known as Doctrine and Covenants section 27 is an example. Joseph Smith’s history explained that the first part of the revelation was received and written down in August 1830 and “the remainder in the September following.”7 In the earliest manuscripts, only verses 1–5 and parts of 15 and 18 were included, but as the text of the revelation was being prepared for publication in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, the second portion of the revelation was added, nearly tripling the size of the revelation.

Share this post


Link to post

Elder Packer’s remarks do not relate to the more extensive changes that were made to the D&C by the Prophet Joseph Smith himself when he prepared them for publication in the second edition. His remarks relate to the less significant changes that have been made to the text of the standard works over the years since their original publications by Joseph Smith. These changes are indeed minor, and for the most part relate to correcting spelling and punctuation, and very few grammatical and editorial changes which do not affect the meaning of the text. You are confusing different things together. The changes that were made by Joseph Smith himself were quite extensive sometimes, and were done by revelation. God has the right to edit his own works.

Elder Packer doesn't make this distinction.

Just before saying "nothing fundamental has been altered," Elder Packer says:

"Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them.

Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books." (emphasis added)

The original publication of section 27 was 1833. A fairly 'fundamental change' (in my view) was made in its next publication in 1835 with an added section of scripture.

I agree that the Lord can update his word, but a logic and accuracy to the dating of the revelations would seem reasonable.

Some of the changes consisted in combining two or more revelations received at different times into one section. Many of the revelations in the D&C were not given all at once, but in stages spread over a period of time, and Joseph Smith knew by inspiration how best to combine them into one section. The article you had linked to in the Fair Wiki lists some of those, and explains the additions. If you read it all the way through it explains those.

I had read it all the way through and referenced it because I had. That article doesn't address section 27 specifically. I think it should given it's one of the more challenging changes. Given it didn't I had raised it here for the very intention if wanting to get my head around why the priesthood reference was added and dated as 1830 even though there's no evidence that part existed anywhere until 1835.

You are now asking a different kind of question. This has nothing to do with changes or additions made in the D&C...

...It means the right to hold that priesthood had continued through the lineage of their fathers. It does not mean that they should be automatically be born with that priesthood.

Fair point, I didn't quite get my around all of it but it was just shared as a side point of interest as I'd noticed it while looking for the other section.

I don’t see what the argument here is. The fact that progressively more detail was disclosed by Joseph Smith and Oliver about the ordination to the Aaronic priesthood is neither here nor there. I don’t see what the argument is about.

The argument is that some would suggest that the gradual disclosure of the 1829 ordination is also evidence of it being made up to increase their authority. If we're going to address these issues intellectually/apologetically we need to show that this isn't the case. Although some full-of-faith members can shrug this off and say 'God can do what he likes' - this isn't possible for all and could still be better addressed.

I don't this to bust into a full AP restoration discussion. I simply want to address one apparent early reference to the restoration or a later addition that is out of place in the timeline.

If we can evidence that the new parts of section 27 are actually contemporaneous to the original 1830 parts then this would help our case in showing that there was an awareness and discussion of the event much earlier than 1830.

Share this post


Link to post

Why does it bother anyone that the doctrines developed over time?

As I am developing my personal world view, I find myself constantly revising earlier versions of how I understood things before.

Does that mean I was not "inspired" before, when I first found the church and understood things differently than I do now? Is there something wrong with Joseph learning line by line and revising what he earlier wrote?

Do you think all this was written by the finger of God in stone tablets, or as it developed over time, in the tablets of the heart?

What's wrong with that view?

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

New gift :) ?

Thanks for the reference. A couple of things. Is the full version from September in Revelation Book 1? Where is the original September version? Or did it get added to the 1835 D&C version from memory?

Also, has this book added to JSP.org: "Joseph Smith, in “Manuscript History of the Church,” vol. A-1, 51, Church History Library." (And when was that written?) - on iPod so can't check.

Sorry for so many questions, just trying to work backwards and see where we can find the Septemer version before 1835? It would close the loop on a fairly substantial criticism 'against'.

Share this post


Link to post

Why does it bother anyone that the doctrines developed over time?

I don't think the ongoing development of doctrine (or the corollary editing/expansion of revelations) bothers (a) anyone who accepts that God exists and reveals His will to mankind or, moreso, (b) those who've actually experienced this process in their own lives. It does, however, seem to bother those who approach the whole topic from the assumption of fraudulent behaviour.

And this is where interpretive frameworks come into play. As I've repeatedly attempted to teach my history students, historical 'facts' don't speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted, and interpretations inevitably rely upon the (often unquestioned) assumptions brought to each enquiry.

If one assumes a priori that Joseph Smith was a fraud, then one will see things like 'missing' copies of revelations as evidence of nefarious intent. Nevertheless, this is not in any way an outcome of the fact that we may lack a written copy of a revelation later referred to; rather, it's a direct expression of the questioner's assumptions. The Jesuits whose letters provided much of the raw data for my PhD thesis repeatedly referred to texts for which we have not only no extant copies but for which we have no evidence that they ever existed -- outside of the later references, themselves. Nevertheless, these missing letters and reports are listed in catalogues alongside their extant companions without any fanfare. In short, these textual lacunae simply don't get interpreted as something suspect because people are not inclined to approach 16th-century Jesuit letters from an assumption of deception. In this case, the differences in interpretation have nothing to do with the 'facts' at all but rather stem from the assumptions brought to bear on the data.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post

Elder Packer doesn't make this distinction.

Just before saying "nothing fundamental has been altered," Elder Packer says:

"Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them.

Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books." (emphasis added)

The original publication of section 27 was 1833. A fairly 'fundamental change' (in my view) was made in its next publication in 1835 with an added section of scripture.

I agree that the Lord can update his word, but a logic and accuracy to the dating of the revelations would seem reasonable.

I had read it all the way through and referenced it because I had. That article doesn't address section 27 specifically. I think it should given it's one of the more challenging changes. Given it didn't I had raised it here for the very intention if wanting to get my head around why the priesthood reference was added and dated as 1830 even though there's no evidence that part existed anywhere until 1835.

I am convinced that Elder Packer was referring to the changed that have been made to LDS scriptures since Joseph Smith. By "original publication" he meant the final ones which were published by Joseph Smith. He did not mean the first one that was published by Joseph Smith.

The argument is that some would suggest that the gradual disclosure of the 1829 ordination is also evidence of it being made up to increase their authority. If we're going to address these issues intellectually/apologetically we need to show that this isn't the case. Although some full-of-faith members can shrug this off and say 'God can do what he likes' - this isn't possible for all and could still be better addressed.

Well that is a poor argument. I don't think that one needs to say any more about that.

I don't this to bust into a full AP restoration discussion. I simply want to address one apparent early reference to the restoration or a later addition that is out of place in the timeline.

I think that the explanation that I already gave is adequate for that.

If we can evidence that the new parts of section 27 are actually contemporaneous to the original 1830 parts then this would help our case in showing that there was an awareness and discussion of the event much earlier than 1830.

I simply disagree with you. I don't think that the Church has an obligation to provide an answer to every silly question asked by the critics.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the ongoing development of doctrine (or the corollary editing/expansion of revelations) bothers (a) anyone who accepts that God exists and reveals His will to mankind or, moreso, (b) those who've actually experienced this process in their own lives. It does, however, seem to bother those who approach the whole topic from the assumption of fraudulent behaviour.

And this is where interpretive frameworks come into play. As I've repeatedly attempted to teach my history students, historical 'facts' don't speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted, and interpretations inevitably rely upon the (often unquestioned) assumptions brought to each enquiry.

If one assumes a priori that Joseph Smith was a fraud, then one will see things like 'missing' copies of revelations as evidence of nefarious intent. Nevertheless, this is not in any way an outcome of the fact that we may lack a written copy of a revelation later referred to; rather, it's a direct expression of the questioner's assumptions. The Jesuits whose letters provided much of the raw data for my PhD thesis repeatedly referred to texts for which we have not only no extant copies but for which we have no evidence that they ever existed -- outside of the later references, themselves. Nevertheless, these missing letters and reports are listed in catalogues alongside their extant companions without any fanfare. In short, these textual lacunae simply don't get interpreted as something suspect because people are not inclined to approach 16th-century Jesuit letters from an assumption of deception. In this case, the differences in interpretation have nothing to do with the 'facts' at all but rather stem from the assumptions brought to bear on the data.

Excellent points.

And what you said implies is that those who presume fraud in this case are in fact making definite assumptions about what "true revelations" should be like, and it seems that the assumption is that they should be perfect the first time and unchangeable and not to be developed over time.

Those who seek to accuse of fraud seem to know the least about revelation and how it happens over time.

They seem to take a very fundamentalistic view of revelation which is itself incompatible with their own lack of faith. The presumption is that those who believe in revelation must be fundamentalists.

The same happens I have noticed with the alleged "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon; the assertion that they exist presumes some sort of infallibility of revelation, that such revelations were not filtered and written by a human mind with certain presumptions and historical perspectives already deeply seated in that mind.

I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
It would close the loop on a fairly substantial criticism 'against'.

What exactly would be the criticism and it's assumptions?

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

Those who seek to accuse of fraud seem to know the least about revelation and how it happens over time.

A point I've personally made several times in the past. I have no concerns with how Almighty God interacts with His prophets because it precisely mirrors how He works with me.

The presumption is that those who believe in revelation must be fundamentalists.

And our lack of rigid fundamentalism seems to drive a number of them perfectly mad.

The same happens I have noticed with the alleged "anachronisms" in the Book of Mormon.

Which anachronisms generate no scholary concern whatsoever when encountered in other, less controversial specimens of 'contact literature'. In fact, as I've stated many times on this forum before, they are one of the distinguishing hallmarks of such texts. Consequently, they only become problematic in the Book of Mormon when one approaches the text from the perspective of presumed fraud.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post

They seem to take a very fundamentalistic view of revelation which is itself incompatible with their own lack of faith. The presumption is that those who believe in revelation must be fundamentalists.

As is probably clear, I was not watching these threads too closely, so I didn't catch where the argument originated.

Now I see it was Rob Bowman, a fundamentalist, who first brought up the issue.

I pegged it exactly.

Share this post


Link to post

As is probably clear, I was not watching these threads too closely, so I didn't catch where the argument originated.

Now I see it was Rob Bowman, a fundamentalist, who first brought up the issue.

I pegged it exactly.

Though, to be honest, our secular critics seem equally fundamentalistic to me in their rigid positivism.

Share this post


Link to post

A point I've personally made several times in the past. I have no concerns with how Almighty God interacts with His prophets because it precisely mirrors how He works with me.

This is exactly the point indeed!

We presume that the way the prophets receive revelation is somehow different than the way we do- the difference is that 1- they are chosen and called by God to receive revelation for the entire church - 2- they are probably more righteous than we are and therefore closer to the spirit, 3- they are highly practiced at hearing and following the spirit. This is what I have observed about the Apostles and therefore the Prophet.

But the mechanics of the way they receive revelation is no different than the way we receive it- line upon line, modified over time, as we are ready for it, and filtered through our very human minds.

The prophets of old- Isaiah and the others were no different. They saw things which they did not understand and put it in their own terms, as filtered through their ancient points of view. They see visions of modern times and can describe them only as they understand them

The chariots shall rage in the streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways: they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings.

Nahum 2:4

It seems to me he is describing a scene like Times Square at night, but doesn't have the words to describe it. That is apparently acceptable in the old Testament, but if Joseph uses the word "horse" in the Book of Mormon, it is an "anachronism."

All Joseph is doing is the same thing- describing what the Lord has shown him in his own terms. Yet of course, since the presumption is that Joseph is a fraud, suddenly it all becomes suspect.

Pretty ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post

Though, to be honest, our secular critics seem equally fundamentalistic to me in their rigid positivism.

Yes of course- I agree completely!

What is ironic is that virtually no philosophers hold these positions anymore, yet they live on in other disciplines without understanding the roots of the positivism they still espouse without knowing the arguments against that way of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post

New gift :) ?

Thanks for the reference. A couple of things. Is the full version from September in Revelation Book 1? Where is the original September version? Or did it get added to the 1835 D&C version from memory?

Also, has this book added to JSP.org: "Joseph Smith, in “Manuscript History of the Church,” vol. A-1, 51, Church History Library." (And when was that written?) - on iPod so can't check.

Sorry for so many questions, just trying to work backwards and see where we can find the Septemer version before 1835? It would close the loop on a fairly substantial criticism 'against'.

No, old gift, don't usually use it for responding but Internet s wonky and not all my toys are working with it.

iPad is no good for detail research, best move is to write FAIR as not only should someone know, but then we can add it to our wiki article.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think the ongoing development of doctrine (or the corollary editing/expansion of revelations) bothers (a) anyone who accepts that God exists and reveals His will to mankind or, moreso, (b) those who've actually experienced this process in their own lives. It does, however, seem to bother those who approach the whole topic from the assumption of fraudulent behaviour.

And this is where interpretive frameworks come into play. As I've repeatedly attempted to teach my history students, historical 'facts' don't speak for themselves. They have to be interpreted, and interpretations inevitably rely upon the (often unquestioned) assumptions brought to each enquiry.

If one assumes a priori that Joseph Smith was a fraud, then one will see things like 'missing' copies of revelations as evidence of nefarious intent. Nevertheless, this is not in any way an outcome of the fact that we may lack a written copy of a revelation later referred to; rather, it's a direct expression of the questioner's assumptions. The Jesuits whose letters provided much of the raw data for my PhD thesis repeatedly referred to texts for which we have not only no extant copies but for which we have no evidence that they ever existed -- outside of the later references, themselves. Nevertheless, these missing letters and reports are listed in catalogues alongside their extant companions without any fanfare. In short, these textual lacunae simply don't get interpreted as something suspect because people are not inclined to approach 16th-century Jesuit letters from an assumption of deception. In this case, the differences in interpretation have nothing to do with the 'facts' at all but rather stem from the assumptions brought to bear on the data.

Get published already, I'm dying to read it.

Share this post


Link to post

Get published already, I'm dying to read it.

:good:

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

Get published already, I'm dying to read it.

Thanks. I'll get right to it ... just as soon as I can figure out how to stop having to work 60 hours/week.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks. I'll get right to it ... just as soon as I can figure out how to stop having to work 60 hours/week.

I know what that is like.

Share this post


Link to post

Why does it bother anyone that the doctrines developed over time?

As I am developing my personal world view, I find myself constantly revising earlier versions of how I understood things before.

Does that mean I was not "inspired" before, when I first found the church and understood things differently than I do now? Is there something wrong with Joseph learning line by line and revising what he earlier wrote?

Do you think all this was written by the finger of God in stone tablets, or as it developed over time, in the tablets of the heart?

What's wrong with that view?

I've no problems with God revealing doctrine over time. That's not what I've asked.

On a very basic level I've asked when the interpolation happened. People have said it was merged a month later in Sep 1830, and yet the version published in 1833 remains the original 'sacrament wine' version, the priesthood addition appears in the 1835 version.

So my first question is just trying to establish if there's a copy of the priesthood added version anywhere before 1835. And if not, why not (lost, never recorded).

This not a question about God unfolding doctrine over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Bernard Gui
      In the thread discussing women passing the sacrament in the mother’s lounge, Rivers said,
      Reading in 3 Nephi 18 today, I came across this passage:
      It would appear that at least among the Nephites, passing (giving) the sacrament was done by disciples ordained by Jesus with specified authority and instructions.
      In our time those who are ordained to pass (give) it to the members are called deacons. This seems to contradict that claim that passing the sacrament is not a priestly ordinance.
      Comments?
×
×
  • Create New...