DC 110 as a summary?

[Duncan]

I read a quotation from Robert J. Woodford in his work on the Doctrine and Covenants that Section 110 was a summary of the events of April 3, 1836, he said

“This section is not a revelation in the sense that the words are necessarily inspired of God. It is, however, a description by Joseph Smith of what happened at the time he and Oliver Cowdery were visited by four heavenly beings on April 3, 1836.”  Historical Development, 3:1458

 

I have never heard that idea before but where would it come from? is their anything more known about this?

[waveslider]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I read a quotation from Robert J. Woodford in his work on the Doctrine and Covenants that Section 110 was a summary of the events of April 3, 1836, he said

“This section is not a revelation in the sense that the words are necessarily inspired of God. It is, however, a description by Joseph Smith of what happened at the time he and Oliver Cowdery were visited by four heavenly beings on April 3, 1836.”  Historical Development, 3:1458

 

I have never heard that idea before but where would it come from? is their anything more known about this?

I've never heard of that either. That is interesting. When I look at the chapter heading the last part reads:

"After rising from prayer, the following vision was opened to both of us."
D&C 110:1

So it does seem to be a summary of that vision.

[mfbukowski]

Oh yeah!

After all, visions are not revelations!

[Calm]

It is not saying the vision wasn't a revelation, just that Joseph described it in his own, apparently usual speech as opposed to God telling him what to say. Don't know if it is accurate and like you said, the vision itself was a revelation so what is the issue?  'At worst ' it sounds like the JS History in the PoGP if being in a vision didn't somehow enlightened his speech as well as well as his vision, etc.

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not saying the vision wasn't a revelation, just that Joseph described it in his own, apparently usual speech as opposed to God telling him what to say. Don't know if it is accurate and like you said, the vision itself was a revelation so what is the issue?  'At worst ' it sounds like the JS History in the PoGP if being in a vision didn't somehow enlightened his speech as well as well as his vision, etc.

I am interested to know as well!

[stemelbow]

Not sure I understand any difference between words that are not necessarily inspired by God being scripture and words proclaimed to be inspired by God.  All written words have the capacity to inspire others to do good.  In that sense, it hardly matters what we call revelation. 

[Oliver_Cowdery]

D&C 110 is probably a third hand account.  The earliest version of the document we have is written in the third person.  At some point before canonization the account was modified to be a first person account.  As it reads now it sounds like Joseph or Oliver wrote those words.  But I can find no evidence to support that idea. 

As it stands the way D&C 110 is presented in our scriptures is misleading.  I had hopes that the 2013 edition of the D&C would have at least added a note.  But that didn't happen.

 

See this thread: 

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Freedom]

My this same standard, can we dismiss the entire book of Mormon? It is, after all, largely a third hand summary. 

[JAHS]

D&C 138 appears to be in President Joseph F. Smith's own words too. I don't agree with Woodford. Perhaps it wasn't God Himself speaking but it is inspired of God. In my opinion all words found in the scriptures are inspired of God, whether in the first, second, or third person. The following scripture comes to mind:

"And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost. And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." (D&C 68:2-4)

[Oliver_Cowdery]

5 minutes ago, Freedom said:

My this same standard, can we dismiss the entire book of Mormon? It is, after all, largely a third hand summary. 

Third handedness is not necessarily a reason to dismiss something outright.  However, it is reason for scrutiny.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In my opinion all words found in the scriptures are inspired of God, whether in the first, second, or third person.

Ah, but what if a section was only canonized into scripture based on a faulty premise of authorship?

Mistakes have been made.  Parts of the D&C have already been decanonized. And in at least one instance a section header was mistakenly canonized as scripture. Scripture isn't always "scripture".  Authorship matters.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not saying the vision wasn't a revelation, just that Joseph described it in his own, apparently usual speech as opposed to God telling him what to say.

 

25 minutes ago, Freedom said:

My this same standard, can we dismiss the entire book of Mormon? It is, after all, largely a third hand summary.

That is also an accurate description of most of the scriptures.

Genesis/Moses is (depending on what you believe about the historicity) Moses description of his vision of the creation and the history of the Patriarchs prior to Egypt, as much as 2000 years after the events (even further back than Moroni to Joseph Smith).

The gospels are even worse - they aren't even Christ's own record of his life.  2nd hand recollections.
 

15 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

 Scripture isn't always "scripture".  Authorship matters.

Whose authorship counts?
Not all scripture has to have God as its author.

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

 

And in at least one instance a section header was mistakenly canonized as scripture.

Hadn't been aware of this.  Do you have more details?

[Oliver_Cowdery]

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Hadn't been aware of this.  Do you have more details?

 

The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20 shows that D&C 20:1 was actually an introductory head note written by John Whitmer.  So you know how the church has taught that we know by revelation that Christ was born on exactly April 6, 1 A.D.?  That was an assumption that also was most likely based on a simple transcription error.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[Oliver_Cowdery]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not all scripture has to have God as its author.

Perhaps not.  But if something is going to be called scripture the author should at least be written who its claims to be in the text.  

Otherwise we might just as well consider canonizing the Hoffman forgeries.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

 But if something is going to be called scripture the author should at least be who he claims to be in the text. 

Sounds like a "thus saith the Lord" requirement.
I thought the Church no longer required that to believe something came from the Lord.

[ksfisher]

31 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

 

The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20 shows that D&C 20:1 was actually an introductory head note written by John Whitmer.  So you know how the church has taught that we know by revelation that Christ was born on exactly April 6?  That was an assumption that also was most likely based on a simple transcription error.

That would make sense, except that the way the sections reads verses 1 through 4 seem to be tied together.  Thematically the four verses seem to go together as well as being one (long) sentence.

 1 The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April—

 2 Which commandments were given to Joseph Smith, Jun., who was called of God, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church;

 3 And to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church, and ordained under his hand;

 4 And this according to the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom be all glory, both now and forever. Amen.

 

If the revelation were to start with verse 2 it would seem to start mid thought.

[ksfisher]

40 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

Perhaps not.  But if something is going to be called scripture the author should at least be who he claims to be in the text.  

Just as Moses was given a spokesman in Aaron, Joseph Smith was given scribes. 

Edited October 26, 2016 by ksfisher

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

 

The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20 shows that D&C 20:1 was actually an introductory head note written by John Whitmer.  So you know how the church has taught that we know by revelation that Christ was born on exactly April 6, 1 A.D.?  That was an assumption that also was most likely based on a simple transcription error.

Yes, also the earliest version of D&C 20 was written as a revelation given to Oliver Cowdery and called the Articles of the Church.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-3-articles-of-the-church-of-christ-june-1829/1

[Oliver_Cowdery]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Sounds like a "thus saith the Lord" requirement.
I thought the Church no longer required that to believe something came from the Lord.

D&C 110 as currently written claims to be written by Joseph (or Oliver).  There was no one else behind that curtain but the two of them.  The D&C 110 presents itself as something it is not; a first hand account.  

Imagine someone hands you a record that claims to be the record of Adam.

Let's say the record begins like this:

Quote

 "I, the totally real Adam, being not born but created by goodly God parents do make a record of my days..."

In this example the record didn't claim to be written by the Lord, it claimed to be written by the real Adam. You may find Adam's record compelling and seek answers from the Lord to know if it is true.

And then you find out the record was altered to change the identity of the author. At no point in that example did it matter that the phrase "thus saith the Lord" was absent.  However discovering that the record is not written by what the record itself claims would change the way you evaluate the accuracy of that record.  Calling a record that was altered like that scripture would be a big stretch.  

Edited October 26, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[ksfisher]

22 minutes ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

  Calling a recored that was altered like that scripture would be a big stretch.  

Joseph Smith seemed to be comfortable with D&C 110 being scripture.  Does it matter whether he personally wrote it, dictated it, or oversaw its authorship by a scribe or secretary?  

Also, where in the actual verses of D&C 110 does it claim that it was written by Joseph Smith?  It is written in first person, but, as I've mentioned above, there are other methods of putting a first person account down on paper.

[ksfisher]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, also the earliest version of D&C 20 was written as a revelation given to Oliver Cowdery and called the Articles of the Church.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-3-articles-of-the-church-of-christ-june-1829/1

The historical introduction from your link makes it sound like these were two distinct, though similar in content, revelations.

"Oliver Cowdery wrote “Articles of the Church of Christ” in June 1829 in response to a JS revelation that commanded him to “rely upon the things which are written” in order to “build up my church.”1 The content and tone are similar to JS’s April 1830 “Articles and Covenants,” a text that was presented at the church’s first

 

 

conference and adopted by vote as a governing document.2 Both texts relied on the same Book of Mormon passages and both were written to govern believers, but Articles of the Church of Christ was superseded once the church was established and was never ratified by the membership.3 John Whitmer
seemed to recognize the two as independent documents by including both in Revelation Book 1, as if they were discrete revelatory texts.4 JS, however, did not write or dictate Articles of the Church of Christ, and it was not included in either the Book of Commandments or the Doctrine and Covenants. "

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by ksfisher

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The historical introduction from your link makes it sound like these were two distinct, though similar in content, revelations.

"Oliver Cowdery wrote “Articles of the Church of Christ” in June 1829 in response to a JS revelation that commanded him to “rely upon the things which are written” in order to “build up my church.”1 The content and tone are similar to JS’s April 1830 “Articles and Covenants,” a text that was presented at the church’s first

 

 

conference and adopted by vote as a governing document.2 Both texts relied on the same Book of Mormon passages and both were written to govern believers, but Articles of the Church of Christ was superseded once the church was established and was never ratified by the membership.3 John Whitmer
seemed to recognize the two as independent documents by including both in Revelation Book 1, as if they were discrete revelatory texts.4 JS, however, did not write or dictate Articles of the Church of Christ, and it was not included in either the Book of Commandments or the Doctrine and Covenants. "

 

Two early versions of the Articles of the Church, one came through the Symonds Rider family, and the other in the form of Revelation Book 1, according to the JSPP authors commentary.  

What we have today as D&C 20 was an evolution of early content produced by Oliver and Joseph and perhaps others as well, and evolved through multiple different versions until our present one.  

I haven't read this essay yet, but it looks interesting.    https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/download/6973/6622

[Oliver_Cowdery]

52 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Joseph Smith seemed to be comfortable with D&C 110 being scripture. 

How do you know that?

I do not know of any instance where Joseph spoke about D&C 110.  As I understand it the record we now call D&C 110 was discovered and canonized as scripture long after Joseph's death.

See this link:

http://www.templestudies.org/home/abstract-of-anderson-trever-r-doctrine-and-covenants-section-110-from-vision-to-canonization/

Edited October 26, 2016 by Oliver_Cowdery

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Not sure I understand any difference between words that are not necessarily inspired by God being scripture and words proclaimed to be inspired by God.  All written words have the capacity to inspire others to do good.  In that sense, it hardly matters what we call revelation. 

I have had this problem with striving to alwas be in contact with the Holy Ghost continually and for short periods, I think I have done it.

But if one is in that state- and someone says "did you pray about it?" I have often wondered what that is supposed to mean.  Can I have a revelation about where I left my keys through the Holy Ghost without praying about it?    

Edited October 26, 2016 by mfbukowski