Can revelation be altered?

[ehkape]

Do you feel revelations should be changed once the Lord has given them? Or should they remain in the exact same way they were received / recorded in the first place?

I had a look at the newly released book "The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations" (Great book, I can only recommend it :))

I noticed that there are quite a few differences between our D&C and the original manuscripts / Revelation Books kept by Joseph and his scribes. Some are very minor, but some are real big ones.

Example 1 :Joseph Smith Papers · Document Library

minor changes in wording, prefixes etc.

Example 2: 19th Century Mormon Publications : Compound Object Viewer

whole sentences are "missing" in the early text respectively added in our D&C

compare the 2nd column, 2nd paragraph with our D&C20: 62-68

Does anybody know when these extra verses were added? Who added them? Why isn't there a footnote that says "additional revelation received in SLC, 10.05.1899(or whenever it was) by..."?

Thanks for your answers,

ehkape

[HiJolly]

Do you feel revelations should be changed once the Lord has given them? Or should they remain in the exact same way they were received / recorded in the first place?

I do.

I had a look at the newly released book "The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations" (Great book, I can only recommend it :))

I own the book. It's big and heavy.

I noticed that there are quite a few differences between our D&C and the original manuscripts / Revelation Books kept by Joseph and his scribes. Some are very minor, but some are real big ones.

Yes. I had noticed this about 12 or 13 years ago. My Great Grandfather's journal referenced several particular verses in connection with what we should pray for and anticipate, and when I looked them up they were about mundane things. I finally realized he had a different edition of the D&C than what I have.

Example 1 :Joseph Smith Papers · Document Library

minor changes in wording, prefixes etc.

Example 2: 19th Century Mormon Publications : Compound Object Viewer

whole sentences are "missing" in the early text respectively added in our D&C

compare the 2nd column, 2nd paragraph with our D&C20: 62-68

Does anybody know when these extra verses were added? Who added them? Why isn't there a footnote that says "additional revelation received in SLC, 10.05.1899(or whenever it was) by..."?

Thanks for your answers,

ehkape

Some we know, some we don't. Some sections in the D&C we don't have anything 'original' for, at all. It's all meticulously laid out in the 'papers' book.

Joseph altered his own revelations at will, along with the text of the Book of Mormon and the Bible. He knew what scripture was, without all the idolatry and such. I think it was a sign of his prophetic calling.

HiJolly

[Blackmarch]

Do you feel revelations should be changed once the Lord has given them? Or should they remain in the exact same way they were received / recorded in the first place?

I had a look at the newly released book "The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations" (Great book, I can only recommend it :))

I noticed that there are quite a few differences between our D&C and the original manuscripts / Revelation Books kept by Joseph and his scribes. Some are very minor, but some are real big ones.

Example 1 :Joseph Smith Papers · Document Library

minor changes in wording, prefixes etc.

Example 2: 19th Century Mormon Publications : Compound Object Viewer

whole sentences are "missing" in the early text respectively added in our D&C

compare the 2nd column, 2nd paragraph with our D&C20: 62-68

Does anybody know when these extra verses were added? Who added them? Why isn't there a footnote that says "additional revelation received in SLC, 10.05.1899(or whenever it was) by..."?

Thanks for your answers,

ehkape

God gives the prophet revelation, and sometimes instruction for how much to give, and it's also up to God how much he wants to explain it to him... sometimes it's left up to the wisdom of the prophet to give and understand. Sometimes they are commanded not to give it out to others (as is the case with Nephi in the book of Mormon)

Much like a Teacher, they give what they see as necessary to help understand.. but may or may not go into a comprehensive exposition at that time.

I recall reading that JS said taht he could give much more than what we currently have as section 76... enough to fill many pages.

[rameumptom]

Joseph Smith had no problem with changing a revelation, if a later revelation revealed more to him on a topic. That's part of what continuing revelation is all about.

Otherwise, we may as well just be as the Traditional Christians, who end their Bible with the Book of Revelation, or the Jews who end it with Malachi. Why have more, if we already have enough? Or, as Nephi would say, "A Bible, a Bible! We have got a Bible and need no more Bible!"?

[Elgama]

I have no bother with God changing revelation why shouldn#t he? he does in the Bible for example with Ninevah and was the king Hezekiah? Because of repentance things changed

[Traveler]

Revelation must change.

Isaiah 28:10&13, 2Nephi 28:30

There are many reasons that revelation must change. For the most part scripture is extremely dependent on culture, language and written text. Everything about the basis of scripture is in a constant state of change and evolution. Although the ideas and concepts remain the same, how we view concepts are heavily dependent upon the context in which we perceive things. When we couple how communication is evolving with the spiritual growth of individuals we see the necessity of learning beyond a reading of stagnant text. Devolution from stagnant canonized text is readily observed in the historical observation of great civilizations that during a learning era of revelation develop profound religious and social enlightenment, advanced sciences, wondrous art, robust economies, architecture, vast libraries and advanced education; then fall into decline and rotting societies that cannot even maintain that which once was despite their vast stores of text explaining just about everything.

The Traveler

[Saguaro]

Check out this article:

LDS.org July 2009 Ensign - The Joseph Smith Papers: The Manuscript Revelation Books

It discusses the revelation process and changes and corrections that were made, specifically to the Book of Commandments and the Doctrine and Covenants.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Our language is not perfect and our use of words also changes. I think there are several examples in the Book of Mormon that say something to the effect of "in other words...".

If you've ever had to translate something from one language to another this is apparent. For example, when, in English one says, "That doesn't work." to translate into Spanish you wouldn't say "work" you would use the word for "function." And in portuguese you would use the word "give" for work - "That doesn't 'give', in other words, it doesn't work.

I think there are clarifications and further insight given to the meaning of revelation all the time because it likely doesn't come in the form of 'english' but mostly in the form of spirit to spirit communication that that individual later has to translate into imperfect English (or whatever earthly language).

[HiJolly]

I think there are clarifications and further insight given to the meaning of revelation all the time because it likely doesn't come in the form of 'english' but mostly in the form of spirit to spirit communication that that individual later has to translate into imperfect English (or whatever earthly language).

Yes! And as soon as we take the meaning conveyed thru pure intelligence (or whatever method it happens to be), the meaning is altered, loses something pure and simple that used to exist, and cannot continue to exist as we convert it to the symbolic and less precise wording of language.

HiJolly

[rameumptom]

Lehi and Nephi saw the same Vision of the Tree of Life, but each saw it via their own perceptions and perspectives. Lehi saw it in conjunction with his family in mind. Nephi saw it in view of future generations, the Nephite dynasty, etc. Nephi noticed the river of water was filthy, while Lehi's mind was preoccupied with other things. Just because we receive pure knowledge, does not mean we interpret it exactly the same way.

[ehkape]

Thanks for all your answers :)

Most of you said that revelation can be changed because God continues to speak to us. Thats what I believe too. But honestly - that wasn't my question. Maybe I wasn't precise enough.

If you have a look at my 2nd example (come on guys, how many of you did :) )you'll find that the revelation was well structured and complete in the manuscript. It talks about the church organisation, also known as "Articles and Covenants of the church". In it, the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers and Deacons are explained. That was back in 1830 when the church was organized.

A few years later all of it sudden 3 more verses are squeezed in, talking about "presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests and a president of the high priesthood". Ooops, where do all these offices come from?

Thats what I'm wondering about. If you read our D&C today, you get the impression, these offices have been there from the beginning. But they weren't. There was not a single High Priest at the organisation of the Church. Joseph and Oliver were Elders and that seemed to be the highest office available in 1830.

Now, is OK to squeeze in extra verses adding extra doctrine / offices/ prophesies or whatever? Is that still continuing revelation? I'm not so sure what to think about it.

[ehkape]

Thanks for the article Saguaro

[ehkape]

I own the book. It's big and heavy.

LOL

But it looks good on the bookshelf

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks for all your answers :)

Most of you said that revelation can be changed because God continues to speak to us. Thats what I believe too. But honestly - that wasn't my question. Maybe I wasn't precise enough.

If you have a look at my 2nd example (come on guys, how many of you did :) )you'll find that the revelation was well structured and complete in the manuscript. It talks about the church organisation, also known as "Articles and Covenants of the church". In it, the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers and Deacons are explained. That was back in 1830 when the church was organized.

A few years later all of it sudden 3 more verses are squeezed in, talking about "presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests and a president of the high priesthood". Ooops, where do all these offices come from?

Thats what I'm wondering about. If you read our D&C today, you get the impression, these offices have been there from the beginning. But they weren't. There was not a single High Priest at the organisation of the Church. Joseph and Oliver were Elders and that seemed to be the highest office available in 1830.

Now, is OK to squeeze in extra verses adding extra doctrine / offices/ prophesies or whatever? Is that still continuing revelation? I'm not so sure what to think about it.

Well, none of the options for the Church are really good ones. Adding the text of the "new revelation", keeping both sections in the D&C, and leaving it to the Church membership to synthesize the two, might make historians happy--but it would result in a clunky volume of scripture and confuse the heck out of the membership (already, many of us don't do well reconciling--say--D&C 132 with Official Declaration 1 vis a vis Jacob 2:27).

Alternately, we could just delete the old section and add a new section saying the way things "should be" in light of all revelations we have on the subject. Methinks deleting anything more from the D&C would send our Anti friends into conniptions.

There's no perfect solution here; but I think publishing the actual manuscripts is indisputably a much-overdue step in the right direction.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon ehkape. It is a pleasure to meet you! :)

If you have a look at my 2nd example (come on guys, how many of you did :) )you'll find that the revelation was well structured and complete in the manuscript. It talks about the church organisation, also known as "Articles and Covenants of the church". In it, the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers and Deacons are explained. That was back in 1830 when the church was organized.

A few years later all of it sudden 3 more verses are squeezed in, talking about "presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests and a president of the high priesthood". Ooops, where do all these offices come from?

Now, is OK to squeeze in extra verses adding extra doctrine / offices/ prophesies or whatever? Is that still continuing revelation? I'm not so sure what to think about it.

Not everything that would be the Church as we know it today was given to Joseph Smith at one go. It is God's way for us to learn piecemeal, so to speak. As we are given light and truth and obey, then our capacity to receive more light and truth increases. Joseph Smith and the early Saints had to grow just as all of us do. Also, it is useful to understand the type of person Joseph Smith was. Unlike most other theologians and/or philosophers, Joseph didn't just write down the revelations he received as some intellectual pursuit for understanding, but he had a drive to implement and make God's word become a reality. As he received revelation, he acted on it and implemented it. It was precisely because of this attitude, I believe, that eventually lead to Joseph Smith receiving further light and knowledge pertaining to the Kingdom of God. So, as we study the early documents of the Church we will see a definitive pattern of growth and understanding as Joseph Smith and the Saints became prepared to live the next level of understanding that God wanted to establish with His people. Our 9th Article of Faith says it all:

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God"

It is OK for God's prophet to add further understanding to scripture. As the Church grows new offices may be needed and instituted just as it has been done in the past.

Regards,

Finrock

[HiJolly]

Thanks for all your answers :)

Most of you said that revelation can be changed because God continues to speak to us. Thats what I believe too. But honestly - that wasn't my question. Maybe I wasn't precise enough.

If you have a look at my 2nd example (come on guys, how many of you did :) )you'll find that the revelation was well structured and complete in the manuscript. It talks about the church organisation, also known as "Articles and Covenants of the church". In it, the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers and Deacons are explained. That was back in 1830 when the church was organized.

A few years later all of it sudden 3 more verses are squeezed in, talking about "presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests and a president of the high priesthood". Ooops, where do all these offices come from?

Thats what I'm wondering about. If you read our D&C today, you get the impression, these offices have been there from the beginning. But they weren't. There was not a single High Priest at the organisation of the Church. Joseph and Oliver were Elders and that seemed to be the highest office available in 1830.

Now, is OK to squeeze in extra verses adding extra doctrine / offices/ prophesies or whatever? Is that still continuing revelation? I'm not so sure what to think about it.

I understood your point, and commented from that viewpoint. Yes. It is ok. It is still continuing revelation. I think it's fine. Joseph was not afraid to alter, change, revise and remove whatever he felt he should, by the spirit. Totally.

Several times I mentioned in the adult Gospel Doctrine class (I taught it last year, on the D&C and Church History) that various Sections were edited and changed over time, including section 107 (on priesthood).

David Whitmer left the Church because he felt a revelation must be 'perfect' and therefore unchanging. That's a ridiculous (and non-scriptural) point of view. Pretty sad when people judge from ignorance.

HiJolly

[Traveler]

....

Now, is OK to squeeze in extra verses adding extra doctrine / offices/ prophesies or whatever? Is that still continuing revelation? I'm not so sure what to think about it.

Isaiah tells us that we are never given the answer to everything to start with. It comes line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.

The goal in the restoration was not to create offices and an organization but from the very beginning the goal has been to prepare saints for exaltation to the Celestial Kingdom. It never has been about being converted and WALLA! You are done. It is about a way, a journey and a long time commitment.

It is not about programs – it’s about people.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

A few years later all of it sudden 3 more verses are squeezed in, talking about "presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests and a president of the high priesthood". Ooops, where do all these offices come from?

Perhaps the same source as the Johannine Comma or the extra ending to the Lord's prayer. Maybe as these positions entered into existence, it was thought to be the ideal place to add them.

[Snow]

Do you feel revelations should be changed once the Lord has given them? Or should they remain in the exact same way they were received / recorded in the first place?

How would you know if they were remembered or recorded correctly?

[Elgama]

I'd have thought it was more practical as the church grew there were more people to fill the positions in 1830 the numbers weren't available so presumably the church was organised the way it needed to be as people became available to do it and as it grew more callings were necessary to care for the church

[ehkape]

I agree. The church grew and we are adding different offices even today (take the several quorums of the 70s for example or different area authoryties) I think that is what a living and growing church has to do.

But do we have to pretend that we had it all from the very beginning? Because thats what our current edition of the D&C does. Pretending* to have had High Priests, bishops etc from the beginning, when there were only Deacons, Teachers, Priests and Elders. (*I can't find a better word)

BTW, has anybody else ever noticed that DC20 makes no difference at all between the aaronic and the melch. Priesthood? The names are not even mentioned. I wonder if the MP could have been restored some time after the church was organized. Could that be a possibility?

[rameumptom]

I don't think it is a pretending that we had it all from the beginning. Our history shows that in the beginning, the Church began with 2 Presiding Elders. The Presidency came into being later. And the 12 and 70 didn't come about until 1835.

It shows continuing revelation. And it is available for us to see the changes, such as in the JSP, as well as elsewhere. I was aware of such changes years ago, and they made sense to me. How they are documented in scripture or elsewhere has nothing to do with revelation, etc. It just has to do with organization.

And the early Church was not filled with expert journalists or bookkeepers. These were people that had responsibility thrust upon them, and they did their best. Remember, we still do not know what day the First Vision was, or the day that Peter James and John ordained Joseph Smith. Great bookkeeping is not required to run a church in its infancy.

[HiJolly]

I agree. The church grew and we are adding different offices even today (take the several quorums of the 70s for example or different area authoryties) I think that is what a living and growing church has to do.

But do we have to pretend that we had it all from the very beginning? Because thats what our current edition of the D&C does. Pretending* to have had High Priests, bishops etc from the beginning, when there were only Deacons, Teachers, Priests and Elders. (*I can't find a better word)

BTW, has anybody else ever noticed that DC20 makes no difference at all between the aaronic and the melch. Priesthood? The names are not even mentioned. I wonder if the MP could have been restored some time after the church was organized. Could that be a possibility?

Yes, I consider it a possibility. And I don't consider that a problem, as you might have already supposed.

And I wouldn't use the word "pretend", either. I think 'revising' works just fine.

HiJolly

[Elgama]

I agree. The church grew and we are adding different offices even today (take the several quorums of the 70s for example or different area authoryties) I think that is what a living and growing church has to do.

But do we have to pretend that we had it all from the very beginning? Because thats what our current edition of the D&C does. Pretending* to have had High Priests, bishops etc from the beginning, when there were only Deacons, Teachers, Priests and Elders. (*I can't find a better word)

BTW, has anybody else ever noticed that DC20 makes no difference at all between the aaronic and the melch. Priesthood? The names are not even mentioned. I wonder if the MP could have been restored some time after the church was organized. Could that be a possibility?

will it really affect anybodies eternal progression by thinking it did exist in the beginning of church organisation? Anyone who wants can research it its hardly difficult to get hold of information