Edtuttle

I agree, and my testimony carries me through such questions. I can see, though, where a person could have major difficulty on this particular issue. Unless you have a sure testimony of Joseph, it looks like he is creating stuff willy nilly. Thank heavens for testimony.

I am certainly in agreement. The Lord has the prerogative to inspire his prophet to change revelations, especially given different circumstances. Changing the name of Jesse Gauge in D&C 81 to Frederick Williams is a good example. So was Joseph then inspired to revise what John had written and then hid up? I wish that there were some explanation to the changes. Otherwise, we cannot be certain what was exactly written by John.

You have a sharp eye. Yeah, the whole end of verse six and verse seven are additions to the text also. The same question exists for those additions also, I suppose.

Thanks for the quick response. I definitely agree, the word "translation" is distracting there. Joseph seemed to use the word as a term of art -- for instance, he certainly didn't presume to have the autographs of scripture when he wrote what we now have as the JST. But I think he did intend for us to understand that sometime John wrote on a parchment and hid it up somewhere. There is an actual piece of paper somewhere containing John's account of that interchange with the Savior. What is now D&C 7 is an English language copy of what John wrote, and Joseph never claimed to have the original. So my question really is, (1) did Joseph not see (or understand) the whole document the first time he wrote it out and then later was inspired to add the remainder or (2) did John write what was originally in the Book of Commandments and Joseph add a clarifying sentence? I like the idea that John was too modest to say too much, and Joseph was inspired to fill in the blanks,. though I wish I could find somewhere to verify it. Is there any way to know? -Ed

I have long been a lurker, and have enjoyed learning from the discussions here. I have recently run across a perplexing question that I cannot answer for myself. The question of changes in the text of the Doctrine and Covenants has never had much currency for me. As described by FAIR, the alterations in the revelations’ text came from “advancements in Church organization or later revelations, or expanded upon ideas within the original text.” Recently, though I came across a change that doesn’t necessarily fit that explanation and, in fact, raises troubling questions. In response to Joseph and Oliver’s questioning about whether John the Beloved had died or not, Joseph received through the Urim and Thummin “a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself.” (current heading to D&C 7). Now, I have always thought that this section provided a great defense to some problems with the Book of Abraham – God allowed Joseph to translate documents that he did not possess. Problems with rolls could fall aside if Joseph could translated hidden Abrahamic documents as easily as he did Johannine writings. I recently came across the original text in the Joseph Smith papers. Troublingly (in my mind), the original text as revealed to Joseph differs from that contained in our current scriptures. The original document and the Book of Commandments 6:1 record: “And the Lord said unto me, John, my beloved, what desirest thou?” The text then moves to John's response. (Account of John, April 1829–C [D&C 7]). The 1835 edition, however, tacks something new on the end of the Savior's sentence before turning to John's reply: “For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you.” (1835 edition, 33:1 – current D&C 71:1). So what happened here? Believing in the text as inspired, John wrote something on parchment and it is buried somewhere. I presumed that current D&C 7 contained the full and correct translation of that document. But with the changes, as I see it Joseph either (1) did not make a full translation of the document the first time around and the Lord inspired him to complete the translation later; (2) made a complete translation of the parchment and he (or members of the First Presidency who were helping with revisions) was inspired to add some John left out when he wrote it initially; (3) made up the addition; or (4) made the whole thing up. Any ideas? Ed