Who Wrote D&c 110? Does Jsp Have A Different Version?

[canard78]

Never mind, I posted a wee bit too soon.

 

Just wrote a few more in reply to your other post, thanks

Edited October 16, 2013 by canard78

[Calm]

Thanks - useful context.

 

Cal... looks like you have your wiki article written by Nevo

Probably isn't the first time.  

[canard78]

Might as well use this one rather than post a new one...

 

Check with your friend if you get a chance to see if he has more info because I am curious too.  

 

I have sent your list of questions off to the list.  We will see what they come up with.

 

I'll try to find out - my hunch is that it's a distorted mormon rumour. He seemed a little vague about it but will ask when I see him next.

[volgadon]

- Where/from whom did Warren Cowdery get the account of what happened 'behind the veil?'

 

 

Consider the surname.

[T-Shirt]

As I understand it, Warren Cowdery had written other parts of Joseph Smith's history and he used the same third-person style of writing there, as well.  According to the Joseph Smith Papers, when he wrote into Joseph's journal, he had copies of first-person accounts in front of him, which he copied into the journal in the third-person.  As far as I know, there are no other copies of section 110, but I suppose there may have been at some point, or Cowdery was simply, in his typical third-person style, transcribing a dictation directly form Joseph Smith or possibly his brother.  Given what we do know, I would find it difficult to conclude that Warren Cowdery made up the account or was writing a rumor he heard from somewhere. It was his responsibility to record the history at that particular point and I just don't think he would have included something that he had not received from, or had confirmed by, Joseph Smith.

Edited October 16, 2013 by T-Shirt

[Hamba Tuhan]

- Any thoughts on why Joseph didn't publish this and instead it remained relatively unknown until many years later?

 

For some reason I'm reminded of some of the points previously brought up in this thread.

[canard78]

For some reason I'm reminded of some of the points previously brought up in this thread.

 

You mean this?

 

It's a fair point and if the brethren are ministered to by angels/the lord, that may well be why they don't speak of it.

150 years ago or so people were more willing to accept celestial visitors. Joseph's claim of a vision was not entirely unusual.

Perhaps the leaders keep it quiet because they want to save the church the ridicule. I believe that even Lorenzo Snow didn't mention his vision of the Lord publicity. I'd need to check but I think it was only known after his death from his personal writings (a letter to his daughter?).

One wonders whether the personal writings of his successors have similar stories.

 

 

Just to clarify - I'm not making any accusations. I'm just interested to understand the different origins. I'd be very happy to go back to my friend and say: "the scribe who wrote down the account of the vision had a personal style of writing in the third person. Most other scribes wrote in the first person, as if Joseph was writing it. Once it was published it was simply switched back to the first person."

 

Based on the feedback so far that's the most likely conclusion.

Edited October 17, 2013 by canard78

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just to clarify - I'm not making any accusations.

 

No, I didn't think you were, but the whole scenario does suggest that prophets --Joseph included -- are neither so thorough nor so quick when it comes to sharing everything as we sometimes think they are or should be.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[canard78]

Thanks all. I sent the following email to my friend:

 

Off the back of our conversation I thought I'd do a little digging. I've developed a keen interest in church history over the last year or so - especially when so much is now available from approved sources.

 

Your comment about the vision of Elijah being different to the D&C version (110 I presume) piqued my interest.

 

You said a friend had mentioned that Joseph Smith's journal contained a different account to the one we have in the D&C. Did they get any more specific? Did they say whether Joseph had written it down himself?

 

Where I think the comments might come from is in the narrative style of the scribe when the account now found in section 110 was first written down.

 

Joseph Smith wrote very little down himself. This started with the Book of Mormon translation for example where he dictated and a scribe copied down what was said.

 

John Whitmer was one of Joseph's early scribes. He was called in 1831 as church historian and started compiling revelations and other statements/records (section 47 has his calling). Other scribes followed. Most of the scribes used a first person style. So if they were writing a journal entry on Joseph's behalf they would write it as "I went and did/said XYZ" and refer to themselves in the third person. 

 

Warren Cowdery (the older brother of Oliver Cowdery) was a scribe briefly around 1836. He used a different narrative style to other scribes by writing in the third person. Even when writing down a dictation from Joseph he would use third person ("he went and did/said XYZ.")

 

The handwritten account of the vision now found in D&C 110 was done by Warren Cowdery and written in the third person. You can see it here: http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-1835-1836?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=194&s=undefined&sm=none

 

This was later added the Doctrine and Covenants and switched to the first person (given it's the account of Joseph and Oliver's vision). It's also interesting to note that from 1836 onward Joseph sermons etc made more mention of Elijah/turning hearts of fathers to children etc. So there are other sources that support this event in 1836.

 

Unless your friend knows of a completely different account somewhere that is different to the 110 account I think you can rest assured that the version first recorded in 1836 and the version we have in the D&C today are the same and consistent (but for the first vs third person narrative). 

 

It's always interesting to see how these things develop and get incorporated into our canon. Sometimes people get a little concerned about things "changing" in scripture but they tend to be minor/grammatical and don't change the message. 

 

As Elder Uchtdorf so eloquently expressed a couple of weeks ago: 

"I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

 

In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”6

 

This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.

 

It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. But in spite of this, the eternal truth of the restored gospel found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not tarnished, diminished, or destroyed."

 

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/come-join-with-us?lang=eng

[volgadon]

Worth quoting in full. http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passing-up-the-heavenly-gift-part-two-of-two/

 

 

Second, as Dan Vogel pointed out, there are two contemporaneous documents penned just after the Kirtland temple dedication which invoke the Elijah theophany.³⁰ The first was written by a hostile source a week following the appearance of the Savior and those who bestowed keys:

They [the Mormons] have lately had what they term a solemn assembly. This was at the completion of the lower story of the Temple which is finished in a very singular order having four Pulpits on each end of the House and curtains between each. Also, curtains dividing the house in the center. They have had wonderful manifestations there of late behind the curtains. This was in the night. Their meeting held for several nights in succession. None but the Prophets and Elders were admitted. The number of Prophets now amounts to twelve. Some can see angels and others cannot. They report that the Savior appeared personally with angels and endowed the Elders with powers to work Miracles.

31

The second more explicit account comes from a member, W. W. Phelps, who wrote his wife:

On Sunday, April 3, the twelve held meeting and administered the sacrament. It was a glorious time. The curtains were dropt in the afternoon. And There was a manifestation of the Lord to Br Joseph and Oliver, [by?] which they [learned?] thus the great & terrible day of the Lord as mentioned by Malachi, was near, even at the doors.

32

Malachi 4:5 promised the coming of Elijah, and the Joseph Smith journal account would record that Elijah declared Malachi’s promise to be fulfilled (D&C 110:14), and said “the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors” (D&C 110:16). When Snuffer claims there are no contemporary sources, he is wrong.

Thirdly, why would Joseph and Oliver have spoken about the event frequently, since the full temple ordinances for which the keys were necessary were not given to anyone until much later? A review of the Nauvoo-era discourses shows Joseph preparing the Saints for these ideas and lamenting their reluctance to accept anything new.³³ Extensive public teaching about such things would make little sense until the Saints were ready to participate in the ordinances. One wonders if even Joseph understood their full import initially.³⁴

Fourthly, Joseph “wrote” very little, so his failure to write about Elijah is unremarkable. He would often dictate material, but seldom took up the pen himself. The account that we have of Elijah’s appearance is found in Joseph Smith’s journal, in the handwriting of Warren A. Cowdery. And so, Snuffer must dispense with that evidence: “So far as any preserved record exists, from April 1836, until their respective deaths in 1844 and 1849, neither Joseph nor Oliver ever mentioned this event to anyone. Only Warren Cowdery’s third person handwritten account mentions it” (75).

This borders on the absurd. Warren Cowdery was Joseph’s scribe, and made an entry in Joseph’s personal journal (the vast majority of which was always written by scribes, not Joseph himself). Where does Snuffer think the account came from, if not from Joseph or Oliver? And, why would he presume anyone but Joseph was the source, since it was placed in Joseph’s journal? Clearly, either Joseph and/or Oliver mentioned it to someone, and did so quite early on.³⁵

Furthermore, we can narrow the time frame considerably—it need not stretch to 1844 or 1848 as Snuffer argues: “Warren Cowdery, who inserted the account of the vision in the… journal, could have written it at any time” (76). Technically true, but still misleading. An initial upper bound can be placed on its composition, since Willard Richards made a first person copy in 1843, which he inserted into the Manuscript History of the Church.³⁶ This demonstrates that the text existed by then, and that Richards (who by that date had received the Nauvoo temple ordinances from Joseph) likely understood the vision’s significance. Yet he did not speak or preach about it publicly either. Richards was preparing the Manuscript History under Joseph’s direction, and had reached 5 August 1838 before Joseph’s martyrdom.³⁷ Given that Joseph accorded a high priority to the history, and would periodically review it, Snuffer’s confidence that Joseph communicated nothing at all before his death about the vision seems misplaced (324). His claim that the vision was “unknown in the 1830′s and 40′s” is also shown to be false (77).

We can tighten the timeline further by noting that Warren Cowdery arrived in Kirtland 25 February 1836,³⁸ was writing editorials hostile to Joseph Smith by July 1837, and in 1838 would leave the Church never to return.³⁹ Unless Snuffer would have us believe that Cowdery somehow had access to Joseph’s journals after his estrangement, and moreover that he would make an entry about a spectacular manifestation when he was at odds with the Prophet, we have a narrow window between April 1836 and July 1837 during which the text was written.

PTHG later uses the fact that Warren wrote a March 1837 article about the Savior’s Mount of Transfiguration vision of Elias, Elijah, and Moses to argue “if Joseph and Oliver failed to mention the appearances of Moses and Elijah, the scribe who wrote the event displayed an interest in the subject” (77). But if Warren knew nothing in March 1837 (as opposed to simply having no permission to mention the event) this does not help Snuffer’s case—it would narrow the writing of the vision to between March and July 1837. Warren’s article may, on the other hand, have been stimulated by what he had already written for Joseph, but was to keep private.

PTHG’s account is also misleading when it claims that the Warren Cowdery account “was finally discovered and published in the Deseret News on November 6, 1852″ (77). Willard Richards had placed the vision in the Manuscript History in 1843, and the serial publication of that history began on 15 November 1851.⁴⁰ The 1836 Elijah vision was not suddenly “discovered” and then published; it appeared nearly a year later when the on-going newspaper account had reached the events of 3 April 1836.⁴¹

Though he cites the Joseph Smith Papers project, Snuffer does not inform his audience of the editors’ conclusions that hurt his thesis. For instance, the editors point out that “this account of visitations closes the journal. After more than six months of almost daily recording of developments in Kirtland, entries ceased.”⁴² This might push the record back to within days of the event. Furthermore, Snuffer claims again that “we [do not] know what source told Warren… about the event,” and notes simply that “it is written in the third person” (76). He does not tell his readers that the editors indicate that as Warren worked on Joseph’s history, he “also produced third-person accounts. In that endeavor, he had before him a first-person text (the earlier entries of [the] journal), which he changed to third person as he copied them into the history…. For this material, he must have relied on another original text—no longer extant—or on oral reports from either or both of the participants.”⁴³ It is thus unsurprising that Warren wrote as he did, and he likely did so on the basis of a first person account fairly soon after the event.⁴⁴

Snuffer also claims that the language of D&C 110 proves that “rather than ordaining or conferring something, Elijah made a statement about what Joseph had previously received…. [T]he ‘keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands’ is a statement about what was already there. The sealing authority had been given to Joseph earlier” (92). This is quite a stretch—Moses and Elias had just appeared and “committed” their keys; why ought we to assume Elijah is simply there to point out what has happened years ago? Elijah speaks in the [Page 266]present tense, not the past. He does not say, “The keys have been committed,” he says they are committed—and Elijah then said that his prophesied coming was foretold and is now fulfilled. And Moroni had long ago told Joseph Smith Elijah would have a role in restoring priesthood: “Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah” (Joseph Smith—History 1:38).

One does not often see such tortured efforts to dispense with data fatal to one’s thesis.