Difference between revisions of "Doctrine and Covenants/Textual changes"

Revision as of 22:06, 2 October 2006

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Criticism

Joseph Smith made revisions, additions, and deletions to his early revelations when preparing them for publication. Critics claim that revelations from God are inerrant and should never be changed, and this proves that Joseph Smith did not receive revelation.

Source(s) of the Criticism

• Tanners

Response

How do the LDS understand prophetic revelation?

It is important to realize that the LDS Church does not believe in a doctrine of prophetic inerrancy. Prophets are not fax machines; they do not simply "download" messages from God. Rather, God inspires prophets through a variety of means: the prophet may be given precise words to speak or simply receive information which he is to communicate in any way which suits his listeners. Many critics come from conservative Protestant backgrounds and religious traditions which endorse doctrines of Biblical inerrancy. (Some members of the Church may also have absorbed some 'fundamentalist' ideas about scripture and prophets.) Both groups of people will be troubled by this doctrine because it does not match their preconceptions, but Joseph Smith cannot be faulted for not following a prophetic model which he never endorsed and which the Church does not teach.

Furthermore, revelation is not always an instantaneous event—it may often be a process of studying a matter out, and applying reason and effort to achieve greater clarity and understanding.^[1]

The Doctrine and Covenants itself announces that:

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.DC 1꞉24

Thus, the Doctrine and Covenants acknowledges the weakness of the prophets through which they came, and insists that the wording is in the manner of their language, not direct, word-for-word divine sound bites.

Brigham Young (who authored one of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants—DC 136 described the process in similar terms:

I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities...

The laws that the Lord has given are not fully perfect, because the people could not receive them in their perfect fulness; but they can receive a little here and a little there, a little today and a little to-morrow, a little more next week, and a little more in advance of that next year, if they make a wise improvement upon every little they receive...^[2]

Biblical examples

Unhidden

Critics attempt to trouble Latter-day Saints who have not considered that one aspect of the prophet's mission includes the editing and modification of revelation prior to publication. The critics often act as if these changes are a type of "dirty secret" which the Church is "hiding" from its members.

Unfortunately for the critics, there is plenty of evidence that the Church has done nothing to hide the fact that changes were made.

The official Church magazine, the Ensign has published several discussions of the editing process:

• Robert J. Woodford, "The Story of the Doctrine and Covenants," Ensign (December 1984): 32. off-site
• Robert J. Woodford, "How the Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants Were Received and Compiled," Ensign (January 1985): 27. off-site
• Melvin J. Petersen, "Preparing Early Revelations for Publication," Ensign (February 1985): 14.off-site

Elder Boyd K. Packer also discussed the changes to the revelations in general conference:

Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them.

Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books.

The Prophet Joseph Smith was an unschooled farm boy. To read some of his early letters in the original shows him to be somewhat unpolished in spelling and grammar and in expression.

That the revelations came through him in any form of literary refinement is nothing short of a miracle. That some perfecting should continue strengthens my respect for them.

Now, I add with emphasis that such changes have been basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered.

Why are they not spoken of over the pulpit? Simply because by comparison they are so insignificant, and unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about. After all, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the books are true.

After compiling some of the revelations, the ancient prophet Moroni said, “… if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Mormon 8꞉17) “And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. …” (Mormon 8꞉12)^[3]

It is difficult to understand how detailing changes and discussing them in general conference constitutes "hiding the truth." Church members pay comparatively little attention to such matters, however, because the mechanism by which revelations are produced are of far less importance than the content of the revelations, and whether the reveltions are true.

And, this information has been available since the first publication of the revelations which later became the Doctrine and Covenants. The Saints of Joseph Smith's day had read the revelations in their initial form, many having been published in Church newspapers. Oliver Cowdery wrote, upon the publication of the revised revelations:

On the revelations we merely say, that we were not a little surprised to find the previous print so different from the original. We had given them a careful comparison, assisted by individuals whose known integrity and ability is uncensurable. Thus saying we cast no reflections upon those who were entrusted with the responsibility of publishing them in Missouri, as our own labors were included in that important service to the church, and it was our unceasing endeavor to have them correspond with the copy furnished us. We believe they are now correct. If not in every word, at least in principle. For the special good of the church we have also added a few items from other revelations. ^[4]

Oliver clearly understood that some changes were corrections, and some were additions given by revelation which were made prior to publication.

Orson Pratt said similarly:

Joseph, the Prophet, in selecting the revelations from the Manuscripts, and arranging them for publication, did not arrange them according to the order of the date in which they were given, neither did he think it necessary to publish them all in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, but left them to be published more fully in his History. Hence, paragraphs taken from revelations of a latter date, are, in a few instances, incorporated with those of an earlier date. Indeed, at the time of compilation, the prophet was inspired in several instances to write additional sentences and paragraphs to the earlier revelations. In this manner the Lord did truly give 'line upon line, here a little and there a little,' the same as He did to a revelation that Jeremiah received, which, after being burned by the wicked king of Israel, the Lord revealed over again with great numbers of additional words.^[5]

The claim that the changes have been hidden simply cannot be sustained.

Some changes

• Analysis of some of the changes.

Conclusion

The words were Joseph's, and he could change them as he received additional insight. -->

Endnotes

1. [note]  See DC 8꞉1-3 and DC 9꞉7-10.
2. [note]  Brigham Young, "The Kingdom Of God," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt (8 July 1855), Vol. 2 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1855), 314.off-site wiki
3. [note]  Boyd K. Packer, "We Believe All That God Has Revealed," Ensign (May 1974): 93.off-site; also in Boyd K. Packer, "We Believe All That God Has Revealed," in Conference Report (April 1974), 137.
4. [note] Oliver Cowdery, "No title?," Evening and Morning Star (January 1835; Kirtland reprint 1), 16. off-siteGospeLinkEvening and Morning Star, vol. 1, p. 16?
5. [note]  Orson Pratt, "Priesthood," Millennial Star 19 (15 April 1857), 260.

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

Template:DCWiki

FAIR web site

• FairMormon Topical Guide: Infallibility FairMormon link
  
• FairMormon Topical Guide: Personal beliefs of prophets FairMormon link
  

D&C FairMormon articles on-line

•  ^{[needs work]}

External links

Template:DCLinks

Printed works

Template:DCPrint