Changes in Doctrine and Covenants 7

[Edtuttle]

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

[NeuroTypical]

Hi Edtuttle!

I'm loving the Joseph Smith papers project. It's great to be able to go there and try to match our learnings and beliefs and assumptions against the source documents.

Honestly, I don't know enough about the history to address your question. If nobody else here does, you may want to try over at the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board - that crew tends to be pretty well up to date on scholarly research and such things.

[Suzie]

The problem is the use of the word "translation" in the current heading of Doctrine and Covenants 7. The parchment in question was not in Smith's possession at any time but because it's quite plausible that he used the Urim and Thummin just like he did with the golden plates, he used the word "translate" to describe the process.

The word "translation"implies that there was an actual document that was in his possession and that he read it, interpreted, and translated, it did not happen that way. Perhaps, a better wording would have been "seen through revelation".

Having said, a few verses in Doctrine and Covenants 7 were added in 1835 under the supervision of Smith himself, right after he was done translating section 7 he worked on a few parts of the book of John, one can assume he received further knowledge that he later on he thought important to add.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm inclined to go with your number 2). John tends to speak very modestly of himself in the Gospel that bears his name; and I think it's noteworthy that nearly all the "new material" in modern D&C 7 either discusses John's specific mission or else is very complementary towards himself--just the sort of thing that the historical John would have been inclined to omit from a written record that he intended for public consumption.

[Edtuttle]

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

Edited March 3, 2014 by Edtuttle

[Just_A_Guy]

Ed, you may have already noticed this; but--if you compare the JSPP draft that you posted with the modern D&C 7, there are a lot more additions than just the one sentence you mention.

[Edtuttle]

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.

[SpiritDragon]

I'm no expert by any stretch.

My understanding is that the first presidency of the church oversaw the process of compiling revelations into the doctrine and covenants. Many of these were already found in the book of commandments which had been printed in small quantities two years previously due to the destruction of the printing press being used.

During this process the prophet felt inspired to make changes to some of the revelations to ensure that they were more easily understood by the general public.

I actually see merit to this and can accept it as valid for the following reason; the original revelations were specifically for certain individuals to help with specific challenges, be they personal, or pertaining to church administration and so forth. The precise wording given originally may well have been the best wording (or at least adequate) to help these individuals get the message they needed at the time. Upon the time of compiling the revelations into a volume for mass distribution it is logical that the Lord knew that certain points would need greater clarification and/or emphasis to convey meaning to a broad spectrum of people as opposed to the original recipient. This doesn't make the Lord a "changeable God," but it does make Him understanding of the needs of His people.

On a cynical or faithless note it does appear to be convenient for the prophet to be allowed to make changes as he saw fit under the guise of "revelation," but also extremely smart of him to put himself in that position in the first place.

Ultimately the question will come back down to whether or not JS is/was a prophet. If so than the changes are acceptable and sanctioned by the Lord. If not than both versions are fraud and it doesn't matter that changes were made.

I understand how the changes can be troubling. I still believe. Through the Holy Ghost we may know the truth of all things, I wish you the best and pray you will get the answers you need.

[The Folk Prophet]

Changes have never troubled me. They fall under my understanding of continuing revelation and within the scope of the church being ultimately led by the Lord. Either the Lord leads the church or He doesn't. If he does, changes to scripture are part of it. Line upon line, etc...

[Edtuttle]

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.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

It is a matter of curiosity. But not a matter of concern. It is the words of the Lord that matter, not the words of John. Maybe Joseph added to it. If so, I am confident that it was the Lord's will and that it is the Lord's words. I agree it would be of interest to know, but beyond that...'sall good.

[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.

[The Folk Prophet]

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.

Right. This remains true across the board. Specifically, "I can see, though, where a person could have major difficulty on this particular issue. Unless you have a sure testimony of Joseph..."

There are things we can address with logic, science, and historical evidence. There are things that we cannot, nor will we every likely be able to in this life. That is because, imo, the Lord wants us to rely on testimonies of faith. He could prove the gospel true if He so desired. So many anti style criticisms of the church disregard this important fact. We are to rely on faith and testimony. This is important. For the Lord to provide more sure evidence of truth would hurt His purposes. We are to come to Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, relying upon faith, and by this means we become who we need to be. If not so, there would be no purpose in the veil of this world. We could have come down simply to gain a body but have retained a remembrance of our pre-earth life.

[Traveler]

How many times have we been reading in the scriptures only to realize new and different meaning to things? If we stop to think about it; many of the points of doctrine are given over and over with different words. Does that mean that one scripture is better or more correct than another? For some reason man has created the notion that divine truths of G-d must have a unchanging static vocabulary. Perhaps because we think G-d is flawlessly never changing so that once we have received some divine revelation we can stop learning and proudly proclaim we know it all or all of it!

I would submit that understanding is not about doctrine or specific words or even meanings. That even Satan knows full well the doctrines taught in scripture. Thus it (it being truth) is not about information or doctrine. It (truth) is about changing who we are in our core (or heart). Thus being born again or being born of the spirit is not about assimilating doctrine or information as much as becoming a different kind of person. What does it matter what excuse a person uses to keep the seed of truth from finding place in their dark little plot of dust?

The Traveler