New Official Website: Revelations In Context

[David T]

This is huge.

http://history.lds.org/series/doctrine-and-covenants-revelations-in-context?lang=eng#/date/10/1

Get this in the hands of all of your Gospel Doctrine teachers ASAP.

For a particularly great example, check out this one on "oliver Cowdery's Gift" - http://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-oliver-cowdery?lang=eng

[rockpond]

Awesome... This looks great, thanks for sharing. Stories behind the Doctrine & Covenants sections, along with illustrations... sweet!

I think we are going to see a lot of great stuff coming out of the Joseph Smith papers project. But this one should definitely add some depth to our gospel doctrine classes this year.

[Questing Beast]

"Great stuff coming out of the JS papers project", will necessarily be the "odd" stuff too. That O. Cowdery page linked to does footnote "rod/sprout" versions in the first publications of the revelation, and can be discussed without too much difficulty. More problematic are the revelations that get seriously altered by 1835, and I noticed no reference to the fact that the ID of John the Baptist, much less Peter, James and John, and the empirical appearances of them, were all details added in much later. This sort of historical construction will be the problematic part, and I don't expect the Church's websites to address any of that....

[David T]

QB, in the words of Elder Holland, "one miracle at a time". This effort is big in and of itself, and is opening doors of discussion many thought would take much longer to be opened through official channels.

This is a marvelous undertaking, and won't please everyone, but it still needs to be acknowledged as a big leap forward.

[altersteve]

This sort of historical construction will be the problematic part, and I don't expect the Church's websites to address any of that....

Why wouldn't they address it?

[David T]

Hey, QB, On the Emma Smith Elect Lady post, there is a footnote discussing that the 'only use wine of your own make' revelation was partial, and that the other parts (you know, those that include the angelic visitations by name) don't appear until 1835. Well, here's the footnote: "_{JSP. Joseph Smith’s history also explains that only the first portion of the revelation “was written at this time, and the remainder [of the revelation] in the September following.” Early manuscript versions only contain the first portion, while the earliest surviving copy of the later portion is found in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants."}

_{Each essay is written by a different historian, and will choose what they feel is interesting or helpful differently. I don't expect all to point out all textual uncertainties and variations, seeing as these are thematic when it comes to context and background. Still - important, important roads being paved here.}

Edited February 1, 2013 by David T

[daz2]

I concur David. There are a lot of good things happening.

[Hamilton Porter]

That is awesome. D&C is the most boring of scriptures. This should add some spice.

edit: Footnotes to Oxford publications? Is this too good to be true?

Edited February 1, 2013 by Hamilton Porter

[rockpond]

That is awesome. D&C is the most boring of scriptures. This should add some spice.

Oh...so sad to call it the "most boring". I get that perspective. BUT, when I taught D&C in early morning seminary I thought it was really fun because it was easier to relate to and because we know more of the context and back story.

Now it looks like we have even more of the back story.

Edited February 1, 2013 by rockpond

[cinepro]

That is a really great website. Hopefully the Church News can do an article on it and explain how it came about (and get the word out).

[David T]

edit: Footnotes to Oxford publications? Is this too good to be true?

Oxford publications and Signature Books publications. A sure sign of the Apocalypse.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Great stuff coming out of the JS papers project", will necessarily be the "odd" stuff too. That O. Cowdery page linked to does footnote "rod/sprout" versions in the first publications of the revelation, and can be discussed without too much difficulty. More problematic are the revelations that get seriously altered by 1835, and I noticed no reference to the fact that the ID of John the Baptist, much less Peter, James and John, and the empirical appearances of them, were all details added in much later. This sort of historical construction will be the problematic part, and I don't expect the Church's websites to address any of that....

If it's in the Joseph Smith Papers (and presumably on the associated Joseph Smith Papers website) the Church has already addressed it, just by virtue of its presence in the published volumes and on the website.

Are you forgetting what entity publishes the Joseph Smith Papers?

Edited February 1, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That is a really great website. Hopefully the Church News can do an article on it and explain how it came about (and get the word out).

Stay tuned.

[David T]

Oh...so sad to call it the "most boring". I get that perspective. BUT, when I taught D&C in early morning seminary I thought it was really fun because it was easier to relate to and because we know more of the context and back story.

Now it looks like we have even more of the back story.

To be accurate, now the Church is providing through official channels more of the back story. It's been out there available to read for a good amount of time - but many would not read it because it was not official, and therefore questionable. This official publication adds legitimacy to this work, and now officially sanctions its use in lessons.

[rockpond]

To be accurate, now the Church is providing through official channels more of the back story. It's been out there available to read for a good amount of time - but many would not read it because it was not official, and therefore questionable. This official publication adds legitimacy to this work, and now officially sanctions its use in lessons.

Always available - yes. Easily accessible? Not so sure - but this (and the JS Papers Project) fixes that. I'm excited to start reading!

[Questing Beast]

Don't misunderstand my pov, I think any advance in the Church "officially" opening discussion of the fulsome history is a good thing. But none of the discussion is going to go where disgruntled, "educated" (former) members or critics want it to go, which is the Church backing down from its truth claims, e.g. literal angelic messengers (as opposed to metaphysical ones), literal priesthood authority given by God which invalidates every other authority claim anywhere in the world at any time henceforth and forever, ongoing revelation by the only prophet on the earth at a time, and the only "road" to salvation. These are underscored by the way the Church does things, e.g. limiting women in leadership, presiding roles.

The history can be discussed, debated, argued endlessly now, even with the Church's officially provided source material, but none of that will alter a whit the Church's policy on exclusivity. In the end the Church will declare that "we have what we have and we are what we are, even if we don't agree on the details of how exactly it all came about". Words to that effect. That is what I am expecting, which is an improvement on not engaging in open study of all the historical evidence and facts, but is still going to leave the "problem" in place, that the Church's truth claims are not going to change. And I don't think that they should. Every religion has the right to claim for itself whatever it wishes.

The LDS faith has exclusivity claims. If they can be shown by a reasonable interpretation, a defensible interpretation, of the historical evidence, that's all that should matter. There are always going to be divergent, even hostile, points of view. Nothing will eliminate those....

[Doug the Hutt]

I read through 'Thou art an Elect Lady'. They summarized the article:

Emma Smith's life as the wife of the restoration prophet included blessings and revelations alongside her many trials.

The thing I felt that could have been done better is to describe the trial of sharing her husband with dozens of other, sometimes younger and better looking, women. I'd argue the prospect of plural marriage was the most difficult of her challenges. Somehow they forgot to mention it. They did mention the struggle of Emma's family objecting to Joseph (though they forgot to mention that it had to do with Joseph's career choices), the loss of their first child, being poverty-stricken and dependent on the Church and friends for their financial support, moving around a lot, having Jonny Law constantly dragging her husband into court, etc. I think articles like these are good when someone doesn't know anything about Church history but become examples of how the Church skirts the issues, intentionally tells partial truth and avoids introducing meaningful details where those details could affect someone's opinion were they to be discussed.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Doug the Hutt

[David T]

I read through 'Thou art an Elect Lady'. They summarized the article:

Emma Smith's life as the wife of the restoration prophet included blessings and revelations alongside her many trials.

The thing I felt that could have been done better is to describe the trial of sharing her husband with dozens of other, sometimes younger and better looking, women. I'd argue the prospect of plural marriage was the most difficult of her challenges. Somehow they forgot to mention it. They did mention the struggle of Emma's family objecting to Joseph (though they forgot to mention that it had to do with Joseph's career choices), the loss of their first child, being poverty-stricken and dependent on the Church and friends for their financial support, moving around a lot, having Jonny Law constantly dragging her husband into court, etc. I think articles like these are good when someone doesn't know anything about Church history but become examples of how the Church skirts the issues, intentionally tells partial truth and avoids introducing meaningful details where those details could affect someone's opinion were they to be discussed.

No, that was most likely bracketed until a further discussion, such as papers on D&C132. These aren't meant to be comprehensive in and of themselves, but to provide the necessary context and insight for what is mentioned in the revelations under discussion. I think being charitable at the very beginning of this operation would serve us well.

Edited February 1, 2013 by David T

[telnetd]

For a particularly great example, check out this one on "oliver Cowdery's Gift" - http://history.lds.o...owdery?lang=eng

The first paragraph said:

"Oliver Cowdery lay awake wondering. Could the stories he was hearing be true?

The 22-year-old schoolteacher was boarding at the Palmyra, New York, home of

Joseph Smith Sr. in the fall of 1828. Soon after he arrived in the area, he started

hearing stories of the Smiths’ son Joseph Jr., his encounters with angels, and his

discovery of gold plates"

Which angels?

Gail

[cinepro]

It might be helpful if the Church clarified things by calling the CES websites "Revelations Out of Context".

That way readers who have a preference would know where to look.

[Calm]

This is huge.

http://history.lds.o...=eng#/date/10/1

Get this in the hands of all of your Gospel Doctrine teachers ASAP.

As I am the bulletin person in the ward, I put it in the ward bulletin for today and plan on continuing to do so when there is room.

I also wrote the Bishop and suggested some sort of announcement be made in SS or perhaps the home page be printed up and posted on the ward bulletin board. I am also a librarian so I may just post it on the bulletin board that is on the library's door.

Edited February 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

That is a really great website. Hopefully the Church News can do an article on it and explain how it came about (and get the word out).

You request, I deliver.

[MormonMason]

"Great stuff coming out of the JS papers project", will necessarily be the "odd" stuff too. That O. Cowdery page linked to does footnote "rod/sprout" versions in the first publications of the revelation, and can be discussed without too much difficulty. More problematic are the revelations that get seriously altered by 1835, and I noticed no reference to the fact that the ID of John the Baptist, much less Peter, James and John, and the empirical appearances of them, were all details added in much later. This sort of historical construction will be the problematic part, and I don't expect the Church's websites to address any of that....

Section 27 was originally two separate revelations (one which was published and one that wasn't) that were combined into one revelation later in 1834 for the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. (Several other examples of this can be seen on a careful reading of the Doctrine and Covenants). Unfortunately, the original manuscripts of both originally separate revelations were lost and we now only have the copies that contain the combined revelation and a copy of the original first revelation, if I recall correctly.

Edited February 24, 2013 by MormonMason