The 1930 "cut-Down" D&c. The One That Removed Section 132 And 135...

[canard78]

In another thread Sargon mentioned a book I'd never heard of: 

 

“Generating even more controversy in discussing the revelation was an officially sanctioned scriptural work entitled, Latter-day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published in 1930 under the imprint of the LDS Church, the volume was actually compiled by James E. Talmage, who by this time was a senior apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve. This work was characterized as containing “Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the sections comprising scriptures of general an enduring value…”. Its purpose, in the words of Talmage, was “to make the strictly doctrinal parts of the Doctrine and Covenants of easy access and reduce its bulk.” Accordingly some ninety-five sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were completely omitted, along with parts of twenty-one others. The most noteworthy of these omissions was the entire text of Section 132! Fundamentalist Mormons were outraged, “accusing the [LDS] church of changing the scriptures.” In response, then Church President Heber J. Grant, ordered the work immediately “withdrawn” from sale and the remaining copies “shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists,” according to Talmage biographer, James P. Harris.”

 

Newell G. Bringhurst, “Section 132: Contents and Legacy” in The Persistence of Polygamy, (Independence: John Whitmer Books: 2010), 83-84.

 

 

BCSpace then managed to track it down on Amazon:

 

If I have the right book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Latter-Day-Revelation-Selections-Doctrine-Covenants/dp/B000PKT1N2

 

then I think it no coincidence that one copy was available for $30 at nearly the same instant of the above quoted post but now multiple copies are available for north of $100.

 

 

Curiosity killed the spare money in my bank account, especially when I found one that would ship to UK for about $40 inc. shipping costs.

 

The title page says:

 

Latter-day Revelation

Selections from the Book of Doctrine & Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Containing revelations given through Joseph Smith the Prophet

Published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Salt Lake City, Utah, USA 1930

 

The foreword is 2 pages long and, among other things, says:

 

Many of the revelations given prior to the organization of the Church during its early years related to immediate duties and callings of individuals; others dealt especially with conditions in the Church at particular times. A distinguishing feature of these communications from the Lord appears in their timeliness; they were granted to meet circumstances calling for Divine direction of specific nature. Except as illustrative instances of the Lord's way of directly communicating with His prophets, many of these revelations, once of present and pressing significance, became relatively of reduced importance with the passing of the conditions that brought them forth.

 

This little book contains selected Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the selections comprising Scriptures of general and enduring value, given as the Word of the Lord through the First Elder and Prophet in the present dispensation, which is verily the "Dispensation of the Fulness of Times."

 

The complete Doctrine and Covenants is a current publication, accessible to all, so that comparison between that volume and this is a simple undertaking.

 

 

 

Here's a list of the sections included (some verses in these sections are removed, I've not made a list of them yet). The book does not have verse numbers included:

 

1,2,4,7,13,18,19,20,22,27,29,38,42,43,45,46,50,56,58,59,63,64,65,68,76,84,87,88,89,93,98,101,107,110,119,121,124,130,131,133,134

 

Section 132 is the big gap in this. Have you spotted any other significant omissions? Brigham Young's sole contribution is dropped (136), as is eulogy to the dead Joseph and Hyrum Smith (135).

 

The collection of sections was compiled by James E. Talmage and has Heber J. Grant's name in the front as Copyright holder (on behalf of the Church).

 

Does this mean the omissions, in the view of President Grant/Elder Talmage, had neither general nor enduring value? Given the D&C has gone through many different iterations over the years, both growing and shrinking, would you be happy to see this selection of sections become the version used today? Or are there any favourites you'd be sad to see if the church cut down the D&C to Talmage's list?

Edited September 19, 2013 by canard78

[Damien the Leper]

Interesting. I may have to purchase this.

[BCSpace]

Or are there any favourites you'd be sad to see if the church cut down the D&C to Talmage's list?

 

91, 132, 135, 137*, and 138* come foremost to mind.  It would be interesting if there were any section by section statements from them as to why they felt any had to be removed.

 

*Very significant omission imho besides 132

Edited September 19, 2013 by BCSpace

[canard78]

91, 132, 135, 137*, and 138* come foremost to mind.  It would be interesting if there were any section by section statements from them as to why they felt any had to be removed.

 

*Very significant omission imho besides 132

 

I would imagine that the only reasons given were the ones in the foreword - that the ones kept are those that aren't out of date. Having said that, some of the omissions aren't out of date; 138, for example, isn't really a 'date specific' one.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I would imagine that the only reasons given were the ones in the foreword - that the ones kept are those that aren't out of date. Having said that, some of the omissions aren't out of date; 138, for example, isn't really a 'date specific' one.

138 wasn't canonized until conference April 1976.

Edited September 19, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[foster]

Section 8, which is used often, is not in the compilation.

[canard78]

138 wasn't canonized until conference April 1976.

 

Thanks, I didn't realise it was so late. What about 137, another missing dream/vision?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Thanks, I didn't realise it was so late. What about 137, another missing dream/vision?

It was adopted at the same time as 138.

[BCSpace]

It was adopted at the same time as 138.

Thanks, I didn't realise it was so late. What about 137, another missing dream/vision?

 

 

True.  Thanks for reminding me.

[rpn]

How can you not believe Section 122 applies today to all?

[canard78]

How can you not believe Section 122 applies today to all?

Lol. You'll have to ask Elder Talmage/Pres Grant when you meet them.

They're words of comfort to Joseph. Nice to read about, but "of its time."

[rpn]

But I've walked with it as my lifeline for all my life, and a darn fine lifeline they've been.  The idea that they only applied to Joseph takes them far too literally.

[Questing Beast]

I found this: "Danger Will Robinson!" http://www.pdfebooksm.com/latter-day-revelation-selections-from-the-book-of-doctrine-and-covenants-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-co-PDF-13456982/ You too can have your very own free PDF of this "controversial" LDS book, just "sign up". Ye gods! I think not....

 

ETA: I find that Deseret Book published it in 1915, and that the full title is: Latter-Day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints http://www.mormonwiki.com/James_E._Talmage#Published_works

Edited September 22, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

How can you not believe Section 122 applies today to all?

Ironically, 121 and 122 DID apply to "all" at the time those words were given. It was a dictated letter to the priesthood and church, from Carthage jail, and JS couched the words to include every faithful priesthood holder that would hear it read in conference. Only later did the editors excise the words as given in 121 and 122 to point solely to JS....

[daz2]

I think the Proclamation on the Family should replace section 132.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In another thread Sargon mentioned a book I'd never heard of:

BCSpace then managed to track it down on Amazon:

Curiosity killed the spare money in my bank account, especially when I found one that would ship to UK for about $40 inc. shipping costs.

The title page says:

Latter-day Revelation

Selections from the Book of Doctrine & Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Containing revelations given through Joseph Smith the Prophet

Published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Salt Lake City, Utah, USA 1930

The foreword is 2 pages long and, among other things, says:

Here's a list of the sections included (some verses in these sections are removed, I've not made a list of them yet). The book does not have verse numbers included:

1,2,4,7,13,18,19,20,22,27,29,38,42,43,45,46,50,56,58,59,63,64,65,68,76,84,87,88,89,93,98,101,107,110,119,121,124,130,131,133,134

Section 132 is the big gap in this. Have you spotted any other significant omissions? Brigham Young's sole contribution is dropped (136), as is eulogy to the dead Joseph and Hyrum Smith (135).

The collection of sections was compiled by James E. Talmage and has Heber J. Grant's name in the front as Copyright holder (on behalf of the Church).

Does this mean the omissions, in the view of President Grant/Elder Talmage, had neither general nor enduring value? Given the D&C has gone through many different iterations over the years, both growing and shrinking, would you be happy to see this selection of sections become the version used today? Or are there any favourites you'd be sad to see if the church cut down the D&C to Talmage's list?

If this in new version on sale now, it will open the Church to unnecessary attacks, and say much about earlier revelations and doctrines. No to mention the changes to educational material. I just hope if new I an others don't end up embarrassed, we all ready openly criticize present and former Prophets and Apostles on site that are supposed, or attempt to convince others they are pro-Mormon. So please tell me you are speaking of times past, long times past. Sorry did not see 1930 in thread, but now that I know, I would still like to know what changed. Edited September 22, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[canard78]

If this in new version on sale now, it will open the Church to unnecessary attacks, and say much about earlier revelations and doctrines. No to mention the changes to educational material. I just hope if new I an others don't end up embarrassed, we all ready openly criticize present and former Prophets and Apostles on site that are supposed, or attempt to convince others they are pro-Mormon. So please tell me you are speaking of times past, long times past. Sorry did not see 1930 in thread, but now that I know, I would still like to know what changed.

The D&C should always be a concertina scripture. It's the one that is still 'living.' If, like my waistline, it regularly changes size, expands and contracts, that should be something we can be comfortable with. Unfortunately, in 1930, there were too many people who couldn't deal with that and kicked off.

[Stone holm]

The D&C should always be a concertina scripture. It's the one that is still 'living.' If, like my waistline, it regularly changes size, expands and contracts, that should be something we can be comfortable with. Unfortunately, in 1930, there were too many people who couldn't deal with that and kicked off.

Hard to imagine they would chop 132 given its importance to the Temple. However, was Pres Grant the Pres who finally really stopped polygamy?

[rockpond]

Hard to imagine they would chop 132 given its importance to the Temple. However, was Pres Grant the Pres who finally really stopped polygamy?

My understanding is that polygamy was finally completely stopped within the church around 1914. Heber J. Grant became president in 1918. He was, however, the final prophet who had practiced plural marriage (though only one wife was still living when he became the Prophet).

[Questing Beast]

The so called second manifesto was in 1904, making any and all practice of plural marriage by anyone an excommunication offense.

 

Section 132 then became a dinosaur. Too bad that we still have it. "Patriarchal marriage" is not required for temple marriage and never was....

[Stone holm]

The so called second manifesto was in 1904, making any and all practice of plural marriage by anyone an excommunication offense.

 

Section 132 then became a dinosaur. Too bad that we still have it. "Patriarchal marriage" is not required for temple marriage and never was....

 

No it is still relevant.  A Priesthood holder, can still have two eternal wives -- they just aren't suppose to both be alive.  In addition, a civil divorce does not necessarily result in a cancelation of sealings -- so a divorced man can remarry in the Temple without having the sealing to a former wife canceled.

[Questing Beast]

Stony, it's messy, walk away....

[foster]

The so called second manifesto was in 1904, making any and all practice of plural marriage by anyone an excommunication offense. Section 132 then became a dinosaur. Too bad that we still have it. "Patriarchal marriage" is not required for temple marriage and never was....

If you mean The Law of The Priesthood (plural marriage) is and was not required for The New and Everlasting Covenant of eternal marriage then you are correct. Section 132 cover both New and Everlasting Covenant and The Law of The Priesthood.

[Questing Beast]

I mean, patriarchal marriage = plurality of wives. So we agree....

[Stone holm]

I mean, patriarchal marriage = plurality of wives. So we agree....

 

"Patriarchal marriage" equals eternal marriage which does not require that there be more than one wife.