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

[mfbukowski]

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.

So it's just historical curiosity and this has nothing to do with implying that the "interpolation" might make the whole thing suspect?

So now you are just curious and being a History Detective and this has no implications for doctrine etc?

That did not seem to be the case when you said this:

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.....

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"?

Edited December 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

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.

I'll join the chorus of saying your phd paper sounds very interesting.

As mentioned to mfb, this isn't a question about unfolding doctrine. It's a question of a document's history.

Is there even an original full version to be missing? If Joseph wrote/combined the updated version in Sep 1830, why was the Aug version published in 1833.

Of course a cynic would look through the eye of scepticism. But the great value of fairmormon.org and similar is it addresses these issues academically. It has not yet discussed the history of section 27.

A few years back as a branch president, a worried member mentioned the 4 'contradicting' versions of the First Vision. It was news to me at the time (yes, some of us still don't know!). The fair website was an excellent resource as it addresses the vision issue chronologically, historically, academically. It doesn't simply have a one line response saying 'if you believed you wouldn't be asking this question.'

Why not have a specific response for section 27 if it's possible rather than just waving people away to the 'God can do what he likes, when he likes, so have more faith' answer?

[canard78]

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.

If that's case then it would be an odd use of the English language by one of the two of you.

Webster defines "original" (adj) as: "being the first instance or source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is or can be made" - what was the first published instance of the sacrament wine revelation? 1833.

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

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

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.

I agree on one point. I care little for the critics. But I care a lot for members with shaken faith who find unanswered issues. Worry and concern can become an obstacle to faith. If we're able to add a better, more satisfying answer to the D&C 27 question then perhaps one more soul can be saved (or at the very least reassured). For a member needing clarification on the foundational principles of the restoration, it's not a "silly question." Isn't that what FAIR and mormon apologetics are all about... Going beyond the "have faith, stop asking questions" answer that is, sometimes, insufficient.

If we can establish D&C 27 was indeed documented somewhere in 1830 then it utterly undermines the AP restoration criticism. Is we can't then it hangs as evidence in the other direction.

[Hamba Tuhan]

As mentioned to mfb, this isn't a question about unfolding doctrine. It's a question of a document's history.

Why not have a specific response for section 27 if it's possible rather than just waving people away to the 'God can do what he likes, when he likes, so have more faith' answer?

No, I agree. And unfortunately, I'm in no position to shed light on this particular issue. I was speaking more to those who originate such criticisms and also to the need for members to be more educated when it comes to the construction of history in general.

If we can establish D&C 27 was indeed documented somewhere in 1830 then it utterly undermines the AP restoration criticism. Is we can't then it hangs as evidence in the other direction.

No, it only 'hangs as evidence in the other direction' if you've adopted a particular interpretive framework. Lack of 'original' documentation is a common issue when dealing with history. As indicated above, it only becomes a problem (or 'evidence') if one approaches the issue with certain value-laden assumptions.

[mathonihah]

If that's case then it would be an odd use of the English language by one of the two of you.

Webster defines "original" (adj) as: "being the first instance or source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is or can be made" - what was the first published instance of the sacrament wine revelation? 1833.

I think you are being pedantic about it. It depends on what frame of reference you are using. If you are talking from today's point of reference, and you are aware of and referring to the main criticisms of the "changes" to the LDS scriptures (BoM especially) that the critics have been making (I.e. the many "changes" made to the Book of Mormon), then "original" can refer to the last editions approved by Joseph Smith. A quick Google search will soon convince you that that is where the bulk of the criticisms have been coming from. You keep hearing about the "thousands" of changes made to the Book of Mormon since it was originally published, by which they mean all of the minor (punctuational and spelling) changes that have been made by others to those texts since the death of Joseph Smith.

I agree on one point. I care little for the critics. But I care a lot for members with shaken faith who find unanswered issues. Worry and concern can become an obstacle to faith. If we're able to add a better, more satisfying answer to the D&C 27 question then perhaps one more soul can be saved (or at the very least reassured). For a member needing clarification on the foundational principles of the restoration, it's not a "silly question." Isn't that what FAIR and mormon apologetics are all about... Going beyond the "have faith, stop asking questions" answer that is, sometimes, insufficient.

If we can establish D&C 27 was indeed documented somewhere in 1830 then it utterly undermines the AP restoration criticism. Is we can't then it hangs as evidence in the other direction.

That has an explanation which I have already given. You just don't want to accept the explanation. The sections in the D&C are not monolithic blocks of text dictated all at once. Some of them were, but many of them weren't. They are composites consisting of bits of revelations received at different times, and then combined together by inspiration by Joseph Smith to form the blocks of text that constitute the sections of the D&C. Therefore the phenomenon you have observed is not unusual or unexpected, but is in the nature of the thing. A lot of editing has also been made (by inspiration by Joseph Smith) in many of those sections. The "antis" have carefully noted all the changes and published it on the Internet, as if they should undermine the credibility of those revelations, or of Joseph Smith. The answer is that it doesn't, once you know that it is not such an unexpected thing. Take a look at this link where some sections with big changes have been enumerated (scroll down to where it says "Changes Made in the D&C").

[mfbukowski]

I was speaking more to those who originate such criticisms and also to the need for members to be more educated when it comes to the construction of history in general.

Ah yes. The "construction of history". I love it love it love it.

But just let me ask, where does "history" end and the alleged "present" begin??

[Hamba Tuhan]

But just let me ask, where does "history" end and the alleged "present" begin??

Now. No, I mean now. No, wait ... right now! Quick! Now!

[canard78]

No, I agree. And unfortunately, I'm in no position to shed light on this particular issue. I was speaking more to those who originate such criticisms and also to the need for members to be more educated when it comes to the construction of history in general.

Cheers, thanks for clarifying. I agree that there is a tendency among most people to see history as a Facebook timeline that is easily chronological. I majored in History (a good few years ago), but I still need to remind myself of this when reading history. Especially church history. Because God was involved in it, it's easy to make the presumption it should all be well documented and logical.

No, it only 'hangs as evidence in the other direction' if you've adopted a particular interpretive framework. Lack of 'original' documentation is a common issue when dealing with history. As indicated above, it only becomes a problem (or 'evidence') if one approaches the issue with certain value-laden assumptions.

I'd still be interested to establish whether there's an 'original document' from sep 1830 that has gone missing or if the Sep version was only first documented in 1835.

[canard78]

I think you are being pedantic about it. It depends on what frame of reference you are using. If you are talking from today's point of reference, and you are aware of and referring to the main criticisms of the "changes" to the LDS scriptures (BoM especially) that the critics have been making (I.e. the many "changes" made to the Book of Mormon), then "original" can refer to the last editions approved by Joseph Smith. A quick Google search will soon convince you that that is where the bulk of the criticisms have been coming from. You keep hearing about the "thousands" of changes made to the Book of Mormon since it was originally published, by which they mean all of the minor (punctuational and spelling) changes that have been made by others to those texts since the death of Joseph Smith.

I hadn't intended for this to be a long debate about grammatical edits in church publications, nor really about Elder Packer's talk. If you read it as 'the final original published by Joseph' that's fine. My question was more about how Joseph got to the 1835 version anyway. Given we can't check whether Elder Packer had one or the other in mind when he gave his talk it's probably not worth debating it further.

That has an explanation which I have already given. You just don't want to accept the explanation. The sections in the D&C are not monolithic blocks of text dictated all at once. Some of them were, but many of them weren't. They are composites consisting of bits of revelations received at different times, and then combined together by inspiration by Joseph Smith to form the blocks of text that constitute the sections of the D&C. Therefore the phenomenon you have observed is not unusual or unexpected, but is in the nature of the thing. A lot of editing has also been made (by inspiration by Joseph Smith) in many of those sections. The "antis" have carefully noted all the changes and published it on the Internet, as if they should undermine the credibility of those revelations, or of Joseph Smith. The answer is that it doesn't, once you know that it is not such an unexpected thing. Take a look at this link where some sections with big changes have been enumerated (scroll down to where it says "Changes Made in the D&C").

My point is not simply to question why any edits are ever made. I'm fine with that in principle. I'm fully aware of the grammar changes to the BoM and D&C.

I am trying to establish what documentation we have for the September version which includes the priesthood information. Revelation Book 1 and 2 was where a lot of the early revelations were documented. The Aug 1830 sacrament wine version is in it. The Sep 1830 priesthood version isn't (to the best of my knowledge). The 1833 published version is the Aug one. The 1835 version includes the Sep additions.

Is the 1835 version the earliest document we have of it? If Joseph has said he updated or combined the sacrament wine revelation in Sep 1830, then do we have the original anywhere? Maybe there was a written original and it was lost. Maybe he only first documented the Sep version in 1835. Can we establish this through any sources?

As mentioned, if we do, it would be a great piece of evidence for helping those who feel troubled about the timing and manner of the AP restoration being shared with the saints and wider world.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Because God was involved in it, it's easy to make the presumption it should all be well documented and logical.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that God's direct involvement adds if anything an extra layer of 'chaos'.

I'd still be interested to establish whether there's an 'original document' from sep 1830 that has gone missing or if the Sep version was only first documented in 1835.

According to the Ensign article, the Prophet indicated that he conflated two revelations on p. 51 of the 'Manuscript History of the Church'. This means that this detail would have been recorded sometime between 11 June and 3 November 1839 (http://josephsmithpa...1856-volume-a-1), four years after the publication of the expanded section in the D&C.

Assuming (because I don't know for sure) that this is the earliest surviving mention of the September 1830 revelation, how we would even begin to assess whether an 'original document' existed or not? Obviously, Joseph Smith had felt completely comfortable revising/enlarging/conflating his revelations and had published these new sections without any concern. Why, four years after the fact, would the Prophet feel the need to fabricate an earlier revelation to explain the additions to the 1830 revelation? Did he feel the need to do this for any other additions to pre-existing sections of the Book of Commandments? If so, we might be able to establsih a pattern. Otherwise, the 'evidence' -- assuming one approaches these events as s/he would any other history -- would default to accepting the narrative in the MHotC.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[cdowis]

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.

That's why I was so insistent on another thread to get Rob to tell us his assumptions in his arguments about whether the plates should be on public display. If he assumes that there is no modern revelation, then his argument is moot.

He admitted that modern revelation is possible, but JS had such a flawed character that all Christians agree that God would never have called him as a prophet. So the real argument is the character of JS, and the question of the plates and how they were displayed was moot. As I explained, JS was merely following the instruction of the Lord.

Thus, DC 27 is not about how it appears, but whether there is modern revelation, and whether God would have spoken to such a person as JS. Otherwise this is merely an exercise on an interesting, but relatively minor footnote in church history.

Edited December 28, 2012 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Now. No, I mean now. No, wait ... right now! Quick! Now!

LOL - exactly! But for some reason people are more willing to acknowledge that we construct "history" a lot more than they are willing to admit we also construct the present!

(And the future....)

(we call that "faith"......)

Edited December 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

As mentioned, if we do, it would be a great piece of evidence for helping those who feel troubled about the timing and manner of the AP restoration being shared with the saints and wider world.

And again, my point that there is no need for anyone to "feel troubled" about any of these issues. If we would stop pandering to those who attack us on that basis and truly understand why these are non-issues in the first place, we wouldn't have to waste all this time sifting through dusty documents to find the "truth" that is not there to find in the first place. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter one whit. You will never get to any conclusive explanation that eliminates or proves anything. That is impossible in principle. Each "discovery" will lead to other questions ad infinitum and you will never get to the bottom of anything. There are several possible scenarios for every bit of "evidence" you find, as you yourself have already tacitly admitted.

Maybe there was a written original and it was lost. Maybe he only first documented the Sep version in 1835. Can we establish this through any sources?

Edited December 28, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That's why I was so insistent on another thread to get Rob to tell us his assumptions in his arguments about whether the plates should be on public display. If he assumes that there is no modern revelation, then his argument is moot.

He admitted that modern revelation is possible, but JS had such a flawed character that all Christians agree that God would never have called him as a prophet. So the real argument is the character of JS, and the question of the plates and how they were displayed was moot. As I explained, JS was merely following the instruction of the Lord.

Thus, DC 27 is not about how it appears, but whether there is modern revelation, and whether God would have spoken to such a person as JS. Otherwise this is merely an exercise on an interesting, but relatively minor footnote in church history.

Totally agree.

And it is clear that from the very beginning Rob had his mind made up years ago. We don't need to ask him what his assumptions are- all you have to do is look at his website to see what they are. Talking to him is a waste of time in my opinion, and all he is here for is to try his arguments against us here to see how well they do.

Clearly they don't do too well. All he does is succeed in alienating people. Maybe it is a very good thing that he is here after all. He is his own worst enemy.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I will try to find the text online, but if you are interested this is something that Joseph Smith III put together dealing with the subject...

http://restorationbookstore.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=ppc35000&Category_Code=

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Here is an article written by a friend of ours on the subject...

http://www.angelmess...care/bcvsdc.pdf

Edited December 28, 2012 by BookofMormonLuvr

[canard78]

I could be wrong, but I suspect that God's direct involvement adds if anything an extra layer of 'chaos'.

According to the Ensign article, the Prophet indicated that he conflated two revelations on p. 51 of the 'Manuscript History of the Church'. This means that this detail would have been recorded sometime between 11 June and 3 November 1839 (http://josephsmithpa...1856-volume-a-1), four years after the publication of the expanded section in the D&C.

Assuming (because I don't know for sure) that this is the earliest surviving mention of the September 1830 revelation, how we would even begin to assess whether an 'original document' existed or not? Obviously, Joseph Smith had felt completely comfortable revising/enlarging/conflating his revelations and had published these new sections without any concern. Why, four years after the fact, would the Prophet feel the need to fabricate an earlier revelation to explain the additions to the 1830 revelation? Did he feel the need to do this for any other additions to pre-existing sections of the Book of Commandments? If so, we might be able to establsih a pattern. Otherwise, the 'evidence' -- assuming one approaches these events as s/he would any other history -- would default to accepting the narrative in the MHotC.

Thanks for finding this document. He says he: "received the following revelation; the first paragraph of which was written at this time, and the remainder in the September following."

That's not strictly accurate. Verse 7 of the 1833 version was written in August, then appears in bits through the Sep 1830/1835 version:

14 And... 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...

18 ...be faithful until I come, ... (even so) Amen.

Also, you asked "Why, four years after the fact, would the Prophet feel the need to fabricate an earlier revelation to explain the additions to the 1830 revelation?" Do you mean 1838 or 1835?

We have the August version twice, one in handwriting (Revelation Book 1 1830 or 1831), one published (BoC, 1833). We don't appear to have an original copy of the Priesthood addition as far as I know and its first appearance is writing or print is in 1835.

Why wasn't the 1833 version based on the September version? Maybe the compilers were working from Revelation Book 1, and the Sep version (not in the RB1) was missed. Maybe Joseph knew it was still time to "keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood."

I'd still love to be able to establish whether an original Sep version existed in writing before 1835. But I guess that's the frustrations of history. We can only go on what's left and piece it together later.

[canard78]

That's why I was so insistent on another thread to get Rob to tell us his assumptions in his arguments about whether the plates should be on public display. If he assumes that there is no modern revelation, then his argument is moot.

He admitted that modern revelation is possible, but JS had such a flawed character that all Christians agree that God would never have called him as a prophet. So the real argument is the character of JS, and the question of the plates and how they were displayed was moot. As I explained, JS was merely following the instruction of the Lord.

Thus, DC 27 is not about how it appears, but whether there is modern revelation, and whether God would have spoken to such a person as JS. Otherwise this is merely an exercise on an interesting, but relatively minor footnote in church history.

If we want to engage in historical debate it's not just about whether JS was a prophet or not, as that's a matter of faith and the spirit and is largely independent of historical documenting. If we want to establish history we have to go to the original sources and see what's there.

I started this thread, not Rob. While I apprecaite you and mfb seem to relish the opportunity to pull down his arguments, I've nothing to do with that. My intention of starting it was to understand the chronology and history of this particular revelation.

I've already had some 'new news' on this topic having had the MHC page shared. I will continue to seek an answer on whether the Sep version has or had an original before its publication in 1835.

Edited December 29, 2012 by canard78

[canard78]

And again, my point that there is no need for anyone to "feel troubled" about any of these issues. If we would stop pandering to those who attack us on that basis and truly understand why these are non-issues in the first place, we wouldn't have to waste all this time sifting through dusty documents to find the "truth" that is not there to find in the first place. The bottom line is that it doesn't matter one whit. You will never get to any conclusive explanation that eliminates or proves anything. That is impossible in principle. Each "discovery" will lead to other questions ad infinitum and you will never get to the bottom of anything. There are several possible scenarios for every bit of "evidence" you find, as you yourself have already tacitly admitted.

What you mean is: "(I don't) feel troubled about these issues... it doesn't matter one whit (to me)"

I'm glad it doesn't trouble you. But does that mean you oppose the principle of historically based apologetics? Isn't this board founded on a group of people who have pioneered this?

How do you feel about an article like this: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision?

The page above (and ones like it) helped me greatly when I was on the Branch Presidency. A member came to me, very concerned to hear that Joseph Smith had made 4 accounts of the first vision etc, etc, etc. Her faith in him as a prophet had taken a knock and she was troubled. I'm very grateful to those who had spent the time "sifting through dusty documents" which meant I could give her a reasonable explanation about why the accounts differed. She went away happy and was able to put aside the niggling doubt and embrace her faith.

Niggling, unanswered doubts can be problematic. Where it is possible to answer them historically, it's responsible to do so. Where we can't, we should hold up our hands and say "we don't know that, you'll have to take that on faith."

It seems that we're reaching the second option as far as section 27 is concerned.

[canard78]

Here is an article written by a friend of ours on the subject...

http://www.angelmess...care/bcvsdc.pdf

Thanks for sharing this. Very interesting.

On page 4 it quotes Oliver Cowdery:

On the revelations we merely say, that we were not a little surprised to find the previous print t [book of Commandments and the Star] so different from the original. We have given them a careful comparison, assisted by individuals whose known integrity and ability is uncensurable. Thus saying we cast no reflections upon those who were interested with the responsibility of publishing them in Missouri, as our own labors were included in that important service to the church, and it was our unceasing endeavor to have them correspond with the copy furnished us. We believe they are now correct. If not in every word, at least in principle. For the special good of the church, we have added a few items from other revelations.

http://archive.org/details/eveningmorningst01unse or http://ia600302.us.archive.org/9/items/eveningmorningst01unse/eveningmorningst01unse.pdf (Volume 1, Edition 1, Page 16)

Cowdery said he compared the revelations to "the original" and corrected where needed or added a few items from other revelations. I can only presume the second applies to (what is now) section 27 (section 50 in 1835). The published version in BoC perfectly matches the written 1830/31 version in Revelation Book 1 so no correction was needed. Instead they've added from "other."

I'd still love to know where the 'other revelation' was found to be able to publish the Sep 1830 version of the revelation in 1835.

[Nevo]

I'd still love to be able to establish whether an original Sep version existed in writing before 1835. But I guess that's the frustrations of history. We can only go on what's left and piece it together later.

For what it's worth, the editors of The Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, Volume 1 note that the remainder of the ca. August 1830 revelation (that was supposedly recorded in September 1830) "is an expansion as first published in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. The earlier versions of the revelation instead have a much shorter conclusion..." (see p. 431n220).

The editors don't specify whether they think this "expansion" originated in 1830 or 1835, but I think the latter date is the safer bet. In any case, the "September" portion of the revelation seems not to have been extant when John Whitmer copied the revelation into Revelation Book 1 in the spring/summer of 1831. Given the great care taken to preserve Joseph's revelations by this time it strikes me as extremely unlikely that so significant a text—if it existed—would have been lost or overlooked.

BYU professor Steven Harper in his book Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants writes: "The angel gave Joseph part of Doctrine and Covenants 27, including the first four and a half verses and parts of verses 14 and 18. According to Newel Knight, the rest of verses 5-18 were revealed a few weeks later, but the later verses are not in the earliest manuscript or the first published version of section 27" (p. 92). Harper cites "Newel Knight's Journal," in Scraps of Biography (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor's Office, 1883), 62-63. Knight's "journal" was not recorded at the time, however. His "journal" was actually an autobiographical sketch written ca. 1846 and may well reflect a post-1835 perspective.

For his part, Steven Harper—like the JSP editors—treats the 1835 text of section 27 as a later addition to the original revelation rather than as a single continuous revelation recorded in two parts (as claimed in the Manuscript History): "The 1835 text of section 27 adds considerable detail to the earlier prophecy that Christ would partake of sacramental wine with Joseph Smith and others.... [The 1835 text of D&C 27] is the earliest document we have confirming that Peter, James, and John ordained Joseph an apostle" (p. 93-94).

But to cut to the heart of the matter, in spite of the lack of references to the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood prior to 1835, I do not think Joseph and Oliver invented the story. I believe their testimony. As Oliver Cowdery wrote Phineas Young in March 1846 (when Cowdery was still estranged from the Church):

I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character as those who might believe in my testimony, after I shall be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and look down through time, and witness the effects these two must produce. (Quoted in

Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844

, ed. John W. Welch [Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005], 244).

[mfbukowski]

What you mean is: "(I don't) feel troubled about these issues... it doesn't matter one whit (to me)"

I'm glad it doesn't trouble you. But does that mean you oppose the principle of historically based apologetics? Isn't this board founded on a group of people who have pioneered this?

How do you feel about an article like this: http://en.fairmormon...;s_First_Vision?

Frankly, it's useless to me and I haven't even read it. I see no reason to do so, but if it helps others, fine. I just think if they understood these issues better, they would feel as I do.

I am willing to accept Joseph on the same terms that Muslims accept Mohammad as a prophet without looking at his biography or the history at all, or on the same terms as people accept the Dali Lama or the human person called Gautama Buddha or Jesus Christ or Zoroaster or Baha'u'llah as enlightened figures. Of course I also believe that Jesus is the Christ, son of God and savior of the world, and Joseph is a prophet, but not based one whit on history.

We accept Paul as an apostle of the New Testament, but know very little of his history and his history is irrelevant. We have no idea how many different versions of the NT didn't survive, or were redacted in the first century, or who the authors even were, really, yet we unquestioningly accept these as "Scripture". Maybe somebody made the whole thing up. We have no clue.

But yet we have a real living person who lived a mere 200 years ago (not even) with people following him around writing down and telling stories about all kinds of things he did or didn't do, and because the times were different and nearer historically than New Testament times, we put every word, every draft, every revision under a microscope mostly because we can.

The New Testament would never have such survived such scrutiny historically if it was possible, I am convinced. And yet we accept it all pretty much unquestioned as scripture.

The page above (and ones like it) helped me greatly when I was on the Branch Presidency. A member came to me, very concerned to hear that Joseph Smith had made 4 accounts of the first vision etc, etc, etc. Her faith in him as a prophet had taken a knock and she was troubled. I'm very grateful to those who had spent the time "sifting through dusty documents" which meant I could give her a reasonable explanation about why the accounts differed. She went away happy and was able to put aside the niggling doubt and embrace her faith.

Well good, I am glad it helped her.

On the other hand, perhaps if she learned to take it all in the terms I teach, perhaps the next time something similar happens she would shrug it off and not worry about it. As it is, the next time, she may seek out someone else who will not be able to answer it historically because there IS no article, or no one has figured out how it all supposedly "works out".

Once you truly understand that these issues are ultimately irrelevant, you are immune to any such attacks. All the chatter about these issues becomes irrelevant. You notice I never post on those threads because to me, such issues don't exist.

Niggling, unanswered doubts can be problematic. Where it is possible to answer them historically, it's responsible to do so. Where we can't, we should hold up our hands and say "we don't know that, you'll have to take that on faith."

It is all on faith anyway. If you worry about ONE "niggling unanswered doubt" then there will just be another five minutes later. If you understand - truly understand- that it is all on faith anyway, you won't have to have the doubt phase. It all just goes away. You just go to plan B automatically and skip step one!

Religion has nothing to do with history, because history is nothing but interpretations anyway. For that matter, ALL we have is interpretation period. I agree with Nietzsche who said "There are no facts, only interpretations". Once you really understand that, you have no need to go to FAIR to find out THEIR interpretation when you realize that after you have read it anyway, it was STILL "JUST" an interpretation someone else dreamed up!

It seems that we're reaching the second option as far as section 27 is concerned.

That's where I started in the first place!

I mean think about it. Who's word do we have on any of this? Joseph's. It ultimately all came out of Joseph's mouth, didn't it? The Book of Mormon came out of Joseph's mouth. The Doctrine and Covenants came out of Joseph's mouth. The Book of Abraham came out of Joseph's mouth. Every report of every revelation we have came out of Joseph's mouth!!

So he made a mistake or two in reporting? What possible difference does it make? Either he was a prophet or not- you take the whole Book of Mormon on faith purely and you are going to quibble about this??

This is going to prove he was NOT a prophet when all we have for all these other revelations is what came out of his mouth?

You either accept it all on testimony or you don't. That's the end of the story here. Either God tells you this guy was a prophet of the Lord or it's game over from word one anyway.

Edited December 29, 2012 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

Frankly, it's useless to me and I haven't even read it. I see no reason to do so, but if it helps others, fine. I just think if they understood these issues better, they would feel as I do.

I am willing to accept Joseph on the same terms that Muslims accept Mohammad as a prophet without looking at his biography or the history at all, or on the same terms as people accept the Dali Lama or the human person called Gautama Buddha or Jesus Christ or Zoroaster or Baha'u'llah as enlightened figures. Of course I also believe that Jesus is the Christ, son of God and savior of the world, and Joseph is a prophet, but not based one whit on history.

We accept Paul as an apostle of the New Testament, but know very little of his history and his history is irrelevant. We have no idea how many different versions of the NT didn't survive, or were redacted in the first century, or who the authors even were, really, yet we unquestioningly accept these as "Scripture". Maybe somebody made the whole thing up. We have no clue.

But yet we have a real living person who lived a mere 200 years ago (not even) with people following him around writing down and telling stories about all kinds of things he did or didn't do, and because the times were different and nearer historically than New Testament times, we put every word, every draft, every revision under a microscope mostly because we can.

The New Testament would never have such survived such scrutiny historically if it was possible, I am convinced. And yet we accept it all pretty much unquestioned as scripture.

Well good, I am glad it helped her.

On the other hand, perhaps if she learned to take it all in the terms I teach, perhaps the next time something similar happens she would shrug it off and not worry about it. As it is, the next time, she may seek out someone else who will not be able to answer it historically because there IS no article, or no one has figured out how it all supposedly "works out".

Once you truly understand that these issues are ultimately irrelevant, you are immune to any such attacks. All the chatter about these issues becomes irrelevant. You notice I never post on those threads because to me, such issues don't exist.

It is all on faith anyway. If you worry about ONE "niggling unanswered doubt" then there will just be another five minutes later. If you understand - truly understand- that it is all on faith anyway, you won't have to have the doubt phase. It all just goes away. You just go to plan B automatically and skip step one!

Religion has nothing to do with history, because history is nothing but interpretations anyway. For that matter, ALL we have is interpretation period. I agree with Nietzsche who said "There are no facts, only interpretations". Once you really understand that, you have no need to go to FAIR to find out THEIR interpretation when you realize that after you have read it anyway, it was STILL "JUST" an interpretation someone else dreamed up!

That's where I started in the first place!

I mean think about it. Who's word do we have on any of this? Joseph's. It ultimately all came out of Joseph's mouth, didn't it? The Book of Mormon came out of Joseph's mouth. The Doctrine and Covenants came out of Joseph's mouth. The Book of Abraham came out of Joseph's mouth. Every report of every revelation we have came out of Joseph's mouth!!

So he made a mistake or two in reporting? What possible difference does it make? Either he was a prophet or not- you take the whole Book of Mormon on faith purely and you are going to quibble about this??

This is going to prove he was NOT a prophet when all we have for all these other revelations is what came out of his mouth?

You either accept it all on testimony or you don't. That's the end of the story here. Either God tells you this guy was a prophet of the Lord or it's game over from word one anyway.

Thanks for your detailed reply. I appreciate your strength of faith. I aspire to it. As I do for all who engage with Mormimism.

It's an interesting point that historicity apologetics has the potential to reduce reliance on faith and increase the confidence in logic.

I also agree that we hold Joseph, Brigham etc to a different standard to Old World prophets.

Imagine Joseph had tried to sacrifice a son on an altar before stopping because an angel told him to do a passing ram instead. Imagine he had earlier thrown one of his wives and sons out into the desert and left them to die. And yet... Abraham...

[canard78]

For what it's worth, the editors of The Joseph Smith Papers: Histories, Volume 1 note that the remainder of the ca. August 1830 revelation (that was supposedly recorded in September 1830) "is an expansion as first published in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. The earlier versions of the revelation instead have a much shorter conclusion..." (see p. 431n220).

The editors don't specify whether they think this "expansion" originated in 1830 or 1835, but I think the latter date is the safer bet. In any case, the "September" portion of the revelation seems not to have been extant when John Whitmer copied the revelation into Revelation Book 1 in the spring/summer of 1831. Given the great care taken to preserve Joseph's revelations by this time it strikes me as extremely unlikely that so significant a text—if it existed—would have been lost or overlooked.

BYU professor Steven Harper in his book Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants writes: "The angel gave Joseph part of Doctrine and Covenants 27, including the first four and a half verses and parts of verses 14 and 18. According to Newel Knight, the rest of verses 5-18 were revealed a few weeks later, but the later verses are not in the earliest manuscript or the first published version of section 27" (p. 92). Harper cites "Newel Knight's Journal," in Scraps of Biography (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor's Office, 1883), 62-63. Knight's "journal" was not recorded at the time, however. His "journal" was actually an autobiographical sketch written ca. 1846 and may well reflect a post-1835 perspective.

For his part, Steven Harper—like the JSP editors—treats the 1835 text of section 27 as a later addition to the original revelation rather than as a single continuous revelation recorded in two parts (as claimed in the Manuscript History): "The 1835 text of section 27 adds considerable detail to the earlier prophecy that Christ would partake of sacramental wine with Joseph Smith and others.... [The 1835 text of D&C 27] is the earliest document we have confirming that Peter, James, and John ordained Joseph an apostle" (p. 93-94).

But to cut to the heart of the matter, in spite of the lack of references to the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood prior to 1835, I do not think Joseph and Oliver invented the story. I believe their testimony. As Oliver Cowdery wrote Phineas Young in March 1846 (when Cowdery was still estranged from the Church):

I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character as those who might believe in my testimony, after I shall be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and look down through time, and witness the effects these two must produce. (Quoted in

Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844

, ed. John W. Welch [Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005], 244).

Thank you for this excellent, detailed summary of what greater minds than mine have said on the topic of what is known and unknown about D&C 27.

Here's the quote from Knight's book:

In the beginning of August 1, in company with my wife, went to make a visit to Brother Joseph Smith, Jun., who then resided at Harmony, Penn. We found him and his wife well, and in good spirits. We had a happy meeting. It truly gave me joy to again behold his face. As neither Emma, the wife of Joseph Smith, nor my wife had been confirmed, we concluded to attend to that holy ordinance at this time, and also to partake of the sacrament, before we should leave for home. In order to prepare for this, brother Joseph set out to procure some wine for the occasion, but he had gone only a short distance, when he was met by a heavenly messenger, and received the first four verses of the revelation given on page 138, of the Doctrine and Covenants (new edition), the remainder being given in the September following at, Fayette, New York.

In obedience to this revelation we prepared some wine of our own make, and held our meeting, consisting of only five persons, namely, Joseph Smith and wife, John Whitmer, and myself and wife. We partook of the sacrament, after which we confirmed the two sisters into the Church, and spent the evening in a glorious manner. The Spirit of the Lord was poured out upon us. We praised the God of Israel and rejoiced exceedingly.

"Newel Knight's Journal," Classic Experiences and Adventures, Chapter 5

Edited December 30, 2012 by canard78

[mfbukowski]

It's an interesting point that historicity apologetics has the potential to reduce reliance on faith and increase the confidence in logic.

Indeed! And trust me, logic will get you absolutely nowhere in religion. They are all totally illogical and are supposed to be. They are not about logic and have nothing to do with it.

Morals are illogical, choices are illogical, the very designation of one choice as more "important" than another is illogical, Mr. Spock's writers notwithstanding. It always cracked me up with Mr. Spock would say something like "logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Pure bunk! Logic dictates no such thing. Logic is basically math. Where can you deduce anything about morality or the importance or value of anything from math without first making it an assumption? You can't!

And the bottom line is that "historicity" itself is not logical- it is all just interpretations. Candles in the wind. Here today gone tomorrow.

What lasts is what the Lord tells you and you know with certainty deep inside you. What lasts is what you know for yourself- not what you read somewhere that someone said that someone interpreted for you.

Edited December 30, 2012 by mfbukowski