Why are there unpublished revelations in our day?

Unpublished Revelations

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Author: Caldwell, C. Max

Not all revelations of God to his latter-day prophets have been formally published, let alone accepted by the common consent of the Church as canonized scripture. Just as the compilers of the Bible had to decide which texts to include, similar decisions have been made in this dispensation with respect to modern revelations. Initially this process was carried out by those assigned by the Prophet Joseph Smith to gather the revealed materials, organize them, and, under his supervision, print the Book of Commandments (1833) and the Doctrine and Covenants (1835). They included those revelations that were relevant “for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days” (D&C [1981], “Explanatory Introduction”). Latter-day Saints believe that divine inspiration played a role in guiding these selections (DS 3:202).

Many revelations are not included in the standard works, however; for example, those given to specific individuals under particular circumstances containing personal instructions rather than doctrine for the Church. Many are published in the History of the Church or are found in collections of Church documents. Examples include a revelation calling John E. Page to go to Washington, D.C. (HC 6:82), and a revelation about the division of the United Firm (Kirtland Revelation Book, p. 111). Also excluded are temple ordinances and other sacred matters not published to the world.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regards its canon of scripture as open, and two earlier revelations were added to the canon in 1979 (D&C 137 and 138). Latter-day Saints believe that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (A of F 9).

Another example of revelation received but not published is the revelation underlying the announcement by the First Presidency in June 1978 extending the priesthood to all worthy male members of the Church. Only an official statement concerning that revelation was published (see Doctrine and Covenants: Official Declaration 2). Other changes in the Church, such as the recent expanding of the role of the seventy, accelerating temple building, and expanding missionary activity, are viewed by Latter-day Saints as manifestations of divine direction. The revealed basis of these changes is not always published, as it more often was in the early years of the Church. As Elder James E. Faust declared, “In our time God has revealed how to administer the Church with a membership of over six million differently than when there were just six members of the Church” (Faust, p. 8).

A few writers have attempted to collect and publish revelations that are attributed to prophets but not published in the scriptures. Some of these texts are based on credible sources; others come from sources that are suspect, if not invalid. When a so-called revelation contains statements and declarations that are clearly out of harmony with the standard works and official statements of the First Presidency, such materials are considered to be spurious.

In biblical times, false prophets sometimes spoke and wrote in the names of others and claimed revelations from God (cf. Deut. 18:20-22Matt. 7:15). Today, some people similarly find journals or produce documents containing alleged revelations. The main guideline used for assessing these is as follows: “No one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses…until I shall appoint…another in his stead” (D&C 28:2, 7). Latter-day Saints believe that the right to receive revelation for the entire Church is reserved for the president of the church.

Bibliography

Cook, Lyndon W. The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Provo, 1981.

Faust, James E. “Continuous Revelation.” Ensign 19 (Nov. 1989):8-11.

More thoughts on the Doctrine and Covenants and its Development

This section is written by Robert Woodford and found in the December 1984 Ensign entitled “The Story of the Doctrine and Covenants”

Orson Pratt remembers:

Orson Pratt 1811-1881

“We often had access to the manuscripts [of the revelations] when boarding with the Prophet; and it was our delight to read them over and over again, before they were printed. And so highly were they esteemed by us, that we committed some to memory; and a few we copied for the purpose of reference in our absence on missions, and also to read them to the saints for their edification. These copies are still in our possession.” (The Seer [Mar. 1854]: 228.)

The Doctrine and Covenants did receive edits

Many other people made copies of the revelations; but because care was not always taken in copying, many errors were made, repeated, and multiplied as the copies were copied. Realizing the importance of having correct copies, the leaders of the Church determined to publish them. Because the originals contained spelling and grammar errors, a Church conference moved that Joseph Smith should make the necessary corrections. (Far West Record, p. 16.) This was the beginning of controversies and charges made by persons who do not know or understand that the text of recorded revelation can be edited and “changed.”

First, we must recognize that Joseph Smith’s purposeful changes are in a different category from copying errors. Orson Pratt, who worked closely with him, described some of these changes:

“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 the revelations of a later 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. And even though this revelation was burned by the wicked king of Israel, the Lord revealed the central message again with great numbers of additional content. (See Jeremiah xxxvi.32.)” (Millennial Star 17 [25 Apr. 1857]: 260.)

An example appears in section 20 [D&C 20]. When part of this revelation was originally given in 1830, the offices of bishop, high councilor, and high priest were not yet part of the Church, so Joseph Smith added them to the 1835 edition, as footnotes in the editions between 1876 and 1920 explain. Section 107 [D&C 107] is another example. Close textual study shows at least five separate revelations received between November 1831 and 28 March 1835, the latter date being assigned to the compilation.

The Book of Commandments, 1833

William E. McLellin 1806-1883

At a momentous conference of the Church in Ohio, beginning 1 November 1831, a council of high priests of the Church in Ohio (Joseph Smith presiding) made the decision to publish the revelations under the title Book of Commandments and voted 10,000 copies for the first edition. (D&C 1; Far West Record, p. 15.) The Lord’s will concerning the publication of the revelations was manifested when Joseph Smith received section 1, the Lord’s “preface” to the book, during an interlude. Then began a lively discussion by Joseph Smith asking the elders what testimony they were willing to attach to the commandments. Some said they were willing to testify that the revelations came from God; others, however, expressed criticism of the language in which the revelations were expressed. (Far West Record, p. 16, History of the Church, 1:224.) Out of the discussion emerged a revelation, now section 67, in which a challenge was given by the Lord to anyone present to write a revelation equal to “the least” among those already given. (D&C 67History of the Church, 1:225.) William E. McLellin, “having more learning than sense,” tackled the project overnight and failed. (History of the Church, 1:226.)

That experience settled the controversy. Oliver Cowdery read section 67 the next morning and “the brethren then arose in turn and bore witness to the truth of the Book of Commandments.” (Far West Record, p. 16.) During this same session, Joseph Smith received by inspiration a statement intended to be a verification of the truthfulness of the revelations that the elders were apparently going to sign and include in the Book of Commandments, somewhat as the testimony of the Three and Eight Witnesses included in the Book of Mormon. However, this declaration was not published at the time, probably because the press was destroyed in the middle of the project. (History of the Church, 1:226.) With a few minor changes in wording, the revelation now appears in the introductory pages of the Doctrine and Covenants as “Testimony of the Twelve Apostles to the Truth of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.”

It may be a surprise that the brethren at the conference would express any opposition to the wording of the revelations. Elder Parley P. Pratt, describing how the revelation which is now section 50 [D&C 50] was given, wrote:

“After we had joined in prayer … he dictated in our presence the following revelation—(Each sentence was uttered slowly and very distinctly, and with a pause between each, sufficiently long for it to be recorded, by an ordinary writer, in long hand.)”

Elder Pratt continued:

“This was the manner in which all his written revelations were dictated and written. … As he dictated them so they stood.” (Autobiography, 5th ed., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1961, p. 62.)

Since all of the sections have been edited at some time or other, Elder Pratt’s description, while it may be accurate in describing the dictation, is not complete in accounting for the final form of the revelations. President Wilford Woodruff defined revelation as “the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to man. Joseph Smith said to Brother John Taylor in his day: ‘Brother Taylor, you watch the impression of the Spirit of God; you watch the whisperings of that Spirit to you; you carry them out in your life, and it will become a principle of revelation in you, and you will know and understand this Spirit and power. Joseph Smith was full of revelation. He could translate anything given to him of God. He could receive revelation without the Urim and Thummin. … [The revelations] were given to him by the inspiration of Almighty God.’” (Millennial Star, 12 Oct. 1891, p. 642.)

Elder Orson Pratt confirmed President Woodruff’s statement and added: “Joseph … received the ideas from God, but clothed those ideas with such words as came to his mind” (Minutes of the School of Prophets, Salt Lake Stake, 9 Dec. 1872, Church Historical Department Archives, italics added).

Joseph Smith, acting on the vote of the conference that he correct the errors of language and clarity that he could discover, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, set to work at once. The conference did not end until November 12 and Oliver Cowdery and John Whitmer, the messengers who would take the revelations to be printed in Independence, Missouri, were planning to leave by November 15. Actually, they didn’t set out until November 20, arriving in Independence on January 5.

A few months later, in the spring of 1832, Joseph Smith joined them for conferences and also to transact more business about the book. At an April 30 meeting, they decided to print only 3,000 instead of 10,000, to restrict availability of the manuscripts to those concerned with the printing, and to appoint Oliver Cowdery, W. W. Phelps, and John Whitmer to review the revelations again and “select for printing such as shall be deemed by them proper, as dictated by the Spirit and make all necessary verbal corrections.” (Far West Record, p. 25.) This last motion gave these brethren the responsibility of selecting those revelations to appear in the LDS newspaper, The Evening and Morning Star.

They made their selections from revelations that Oliver Cowdery and John Whitmer had brought to Independence in January 1832 and from those Joseph Smith brought the following April. Starting in June 1832, each issue of the Evening and Morning Star for over a year contained one or more revelations. Unfortunately, these copies contained printing errors. When Oliver Cowdery began reprinting the Evening and Morning Star in Kirtland in 1834, after mob violence stopped publication in Independence, he explained: “In the first 14 numbers, in the Revelations, are many errors, typographical, and others, occasioned by transcribing manuscript; but as we shall have access to originals, we shall endeavor to make proper corrections.” (Evening and Morning Star, 26 Sept. 1834, p. 192.)

While the revelations were appearing in the Evening and Morning Star, the same manuscripts were being used to print the Book of Commandments. This particular printing involved a long and arduous process. Not only were they using a hand press, but proofsheets had to go over a thousand miles to Kirtland to be checked by the Prophet. Some sheets must have reached him by 1 December 1832 since he spent that day correcting revelations in Kirtland while printing was continuing in Missouri.  (Evening and Morning Star, Dec. 1832, p. 56; Joseph Smith Journal, 1 Dec. 1832, Church Historical Department Archives.)

The next major decision, written in a letter from Sidney Rigdon on 25 June 1833, on behalf of the First Presidency, was not to bind the books—Independence had no binderies and it would take too long to ship them elsewhere. The letter also listed some typographical errors found in the part they’d received. (History of the Church, 1:362–364.) A week later, Sidney Rigdon wrote further instructions about shipping the books to Kirtland, but a mob destroyed the press and burned most of the printed pages less than three weeks later on 20 July 1833. (History of the Church, 1:390.) Several courageous members saved some incomplete copies—up to the middle of verse 36 in our present section 64. (See William E. Berrett, Teachings of the Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City: Deseret Sunday School Union, 1968), p. 7; statement by John Taylor, 15 Apr. 1858, Church Historical Department Archives; The Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, vol. 12, July 1926, p. 196.)

These precious copies were bound and circulated—eagerly quoted by missionaries, and cited officially.  (Journal History of the Church, 2 Jan. 1834, Church Historical Department Archives; History of the Church,2:27; see also History of the Church, 2:129; The Orson Pratt Journals, Elden J. Watson, comp. and publ. (Salt Lake City, 1975), 2 Apr. 1834, p. 38.)

The Doctrine and Covenants, 1835

Persecution in Missouri did not dampen the Saints’ determination to print the Prophet’s revelations. In April 1834, Sidney Rigdon was set apart to arrange the “Book of Covenants” for publication; Oliver Cowdery was assigned to aid him as well as to reprint all former issues of the Evening and Morning Star. In September, they were joined by Joseph Smith and Frederick G. Williams. (Peter Crawley, “A Bibliography of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in New York, Ohio, and Missouri,” BYU Studies 12 (Summer 1972): 487–89, 507–508.)  Other elders began gathering funds, and Edmund Bosley even covenanted to consecrate his property to that end. (History of the Church, 2:161.)

While this committee was preparing this edition, Oliver Cowdery was issuing the Kirtland reprint of the Evening and Morning Star. The revelations contained in the reprint were corrected, and since they agree favorably with the same ones later published in the Doctrine and Covenants, he must have been using the same manuscripts that the committee was using.

Some of the revelations were reprinted on handbills or broadsheets in Kirtland, only a few of which have survived. Sections 59, 88, 89, and 101 were printed in December 1833 or January 1834. (History of the Church, 2:51; Kirtland Council Minute Book, Church Historical Department Archives, pp. 74, 76.) Since they seem similar to the texts used in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, they must have been printed because they were judged too important to wait for the publication of that edition. Broadsheets of section 109 were also printed in Kirtland at the time of the temple dedication.

Since the book was to be presented at the conference of 17 August 1835, several priesthood leaders were apparently given unbound copies to read ahead of time. They were then able to testify at the conference to the truthfulness of the revelations. After hearing the testimonies, the whole conference voted, first as quorums, then as a congregation, to accept the book as arranged. Our present section 134 was also unanimously voted into the publication, as was a section on marriage penned by Oliver Cowdery which was deleted from the book in 1876 and replaced by section 132 on the eternal marriage covenant. Members who could not attend the conference were informed by the publication of the high council minutes of 17 August 1834, in the Doctrine and Covenants itself, and in the Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate, their Kirtland newspaper.  (Messenger and Advocate 2(Aug. 1835): 161–64; D&C, 1835 ed., pp. 255–57.)

The book was bound in Cleveland and was ready for distribution by the second week in September. (W. W. Phelps to Sally Phelps, 16 Sept. 1835, Church Historical Department Archives; Orson Pratt Journals, Nov. 1835, p. 73.)

The change of the name from Book of Commandments to Doctrine and Covenants reflected a change in the contents of the book. The Book of Commandments contained only revelations. The Doctrine and Covenants contained the “Lectures on Faith”—seven theological treatises—in the first part, which was titled “On the Doctrine of the Church of the Latter-day Saints”; and the revelations, or “PART SECOND, Covenants and Commandments” in the second part. The title, “Doctrine and Covenants,” probably came from the titles of the two parts of the book. In 1921 the “Lectures on Faith” were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants, “not because they were called in question, for they are excellent lectures of great value on the the principles of faith, but because they were not revelations.” (Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1957, p. xvii.)

There were some additional changes made in the Doctrine and Covenants. Some revelations were combined; for example, chapters 17–19 in the Book of Commandments were combined into our section 23; chapters 30–33 became section 30; and chapters 44–47 became section 42. Chapter 28 was combined with another revelation to become our current section 27.

Additional revelations, some of which had been received after the destruction of the press in Missouri, were also included, along with the minutes of the 24 September 1834 high council meeting (which authorized the publication) and the minutes of the 17 August 1835 conference (in which the book was approved). The title page of this edition made it clear the book contained a “careful selection” of Joseph Smith’s revelations. A brief preface was also included.

None of the Quorum of the Twelve was present at that August meeting—they were all on missions in the East but W. W. Phelps read into the minutes a testimony from the Quorum of the book’s truthfulness. (The handwritten minutes in the Kirtland Council Minute Book, pp. 98–106 contain no mention of the testimony, but the published accounts of the minutes record it as read by W. W. Phelps.) This testimony was almost identical to the statement the Prophet Joseph Smith had received by revelation four years earlier during the 1831 conference in which the Brethren approved the Book of Commandments. None of the Quorum objected to his name being attached to this four-year-old document. But William E. McLellin would claim thirty-five years later that the testimony was a forgery and that he could not have had faith in the Doctrine and Covenants, since most of the revelations had been edited from those in the Book of Commandments. (The True Latter-day Saints Herald [Plano, Ill.] 19 (1 Aug. 1872): 472; History of the Church, 3:31.) Some dissidents have relied on his testimony without realizing that it totally contradicts his earlier support, recorded before his excommunication and apostasy. He had, as clerk of the Quorum of the Twelve, signed a document citing the Doctrine and Covenants as the basis for a decision. (History of the Church, 2:395.) He was also present at the 1831 conference where the elders put on record their willingness to bear witness to the Book of Commandments. (History of the Church, 2:245; Far West Record, pp. 15–16.)

There were some at the time the book was published who objected to the editing of the revelations, apparently misunderstanding the process of revelation and the principle of “precept upon precept” that the Lord applied as he continued to give new understanding to the Saints. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon (Richmond, Missouri: David Whitmer, 1887), pp. 48–52; History of the Church, 2:481.) The Church’s viewpoint, however, is adequately explained by Elder B. H. Roberts:

“Some of the early revelations first published in the ‘Book of Commandments,’ in 1833, were revised by the Prophet himself in the way of correcting errors made by the scribes and publishers; and some additional clauses were inserted to throw increased light upon the subjects treated in the revelations, and paragraphs added, to make the principles or instructions apply to officers not in the Church at the time some of the earlier revelations were given.” (History of the Church, 1:173.)

Editions in 1844, 1845, and 1846

Soon after all the Twelve arrived in England on their missions, they met on 6 April 1840 and voted to publish both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. (Manuscript History of the British Mission, 15, 16 Apr. 1840, Church Historical Department Archives.) The Book of Mormon appeared; the Doctrine and Covenants didn’t—probably because the First Presidency announced that in October a new edition was to be published in Nauvoo. (Times and Seasons [Oct. 1840]: 186.) In fact, when the first British edition finally appeared in 1845, it followed the format of an 1844 Nauvoo edition.

That second edition came a little easier than the first. As early as July 1840 Samuel Bent and George W. Harris were assigned as fund raisers; Ebenezer Robinson began stereotyping (a type of printing) the Doctrine and Covenants and the hymnbook sometime between spring and August of 1841; Joseph Smith “read proof” on the new edition in February of 1843; the Quorum of the Twelve voted in November 1843 to raise money for the paper, and on December 5 the Prophet had them send the money to Orson Hyde in the East with an order to buy the paper. (History of the Church, 4:164; The Return 2 (July 1890): 302; Wilford Woodruff Journal, 1–4 Feb. 1843, Church Historical Department Archives; History of the Church, 5:264, 273; History of the Church, 6:66, 100.)

On 12 June 1844, the Nauvoo Neighbor ran a notice that the Doctrine and Covenants would be ready in about a month, but the assassination of Joseph Smith and the wounding of publisher John Taylor delayed the work. It probably appeared sometime in October 1844, since the Neighbor stopped running the notice after its October 30 issue.

Some changes had been made: eight sections were added, including one written after Joseph Smith’s death—sections 103, 105, 112, 119, 124, 127, 128, and 135 in current editions. The minutes of the approving 1835 conference were dropped.

Since stereotyping is a process that produces metal plates, the 1845 and 1846 Nauvoo editions duplicated the 1844 edition. During the exodus from Nauvoo, Church leaders carefully instructed the three trustees left behind in Nauvoo to bring the stereotype plates with them to Winter Quarters, but the plates were never used again and must have been lost. (Journal History of the Church, 28 Sept. 1846, pp. 2–3; 11 Nov. 1846, p. 2; 1 Apr. 1847, p. 3, Church Historical Department Archives.) Instead, the Utah Saints imported copies from England in 1854. In fact, until a greatly revised edition was printed in Salt Lake City in 1876, all of the Church’s editions of the Doctrine and Covenants were printed in England.

British Editions, 1845–1869

As in America, the history of the Doctrine and Covenants was a lively one. When Wilford Woodruff was sent on his second mission to England in 1844, one of his purposes was to publish the Doctrine and Covenants. (Brigham Young Journal, 19 Aug. 1844, p. 51, Church Historical Department Archives.) His mission acquired sudden urgency when he learned that John Greenhow, a member of Sidney Rigdon’s break-away Church of Christ, was planning to publish the Doctrine and Covenants in England and thus secure the copyright. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, 1–3 Mar. 1845.) Elder Woodruff, in a little over three months, published first and thus kept the copyright in the Church.

This 1845 edition was useful for two reasons: it supplied books for members in Britain, who were hungry for the Prophet’s revelations, and it helped deflate slanderous articles that the Church had printed a “secret book” in the United States full of “heresy, blasphemy, slavery and treason.”  (Manuscript History of the British Mission, 22 June 1841, p. 4.)

This edition copied the Nauvoo editions, as did later editions published in 1849, 1852, 1854, 1866, and 1869. From 1852 to 1869, stereotype plates were used.

The 1854 edition was intended for the Saints in Utah and most of the copies were shipped to Saint Louis, then brought west by wagon.

The 1854 edition also established the need for a textual change. Orson Pratt, who was in charge of publishing that edition, discovered that a disaffected member named Charles B. Thomson was publishing a newspaper containing “revelations” he supposedly had received from “Baneemy.” Since “Baneemy” was the code name for “the elders” that Joseph Smith had given in Section 105:27 [D&C 105:27], Elder Pratt proposed that the real names be printed in the next edition, thus exposing Thomson. (Orson Pratt to Brigham Young, 20 Nov. 1852, Church Historical Department Archives.) Because changes in the stereotype plates would have been so costly, the changes were actually made in the 1876 edition.

1876–1880 Editions

Orson Pratt was an important figure in the next stage of the history of the Doctrine and Covenants. In January 1875 he was deep into an extensive revision to divide the sections into verses, add other revelations the Prophet Joseph Smith had received, arrange the sections in chronological order, and add “in parentheses” the real names after the code names—the change he had recommended over twenty years earlier. (Historian’s Office Journal, 7 July 1874–14 Nov. 1875, p. 70.) He also wrote new introductions to many sections. In all this he was following the counsel given him by President Brigham Young. This edition was ready for distribution in 1876.

The major change, however, was the addition of twenty-six sections. Sections 2 and 13 [D&C 2D&C 13] contain significant historical events; sections 77 and 113 [D&C 77D&C 113] include interpretations of scripture by Joseph Smith; sections 85, 121, 122, and 123 [D&C 85D&C 121–123] are extracts of letters; section 109 [D&C 109] was the dedication prayer for the Kirtland Temple; section 110 [D&C 110] recorded the visit of the heavenly beings who appeared in the temple 3 April 1836; sections 116, 129, 130, and 131 [D&C 116D&C 129–131] were inspired statements by Joseph Smith; section 136 [D&C 136] was a revelation Brigham Young received after the Prophet’s death; and the greatest number—sections 87, 108, 111, 114, 115, 117, 118, 120, 125, 126, and 132 [D&C 87D&C 108D&C 111D&C 114D&C 115D&C 117–118D&C 120D&C 125–126D&C 132]—were revelations included in Joseph Smith’s history but never before published in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Orson Pratt was also involved in a project to publish the Doctrine and Covenants in the Deseret alphabet and left Salt Lake on 18 July 1877 to go to England for that purpose. But he returned on 27 September 1877, after learning of Brigham Young’s death, and that particular edition never was finished.

However, Orson Pratt returned yet again to England late in 1878 to print a new edition of the Book of Mormon using electrotype plates. The idea of doing an electrotype edition of the Doctrine and Covenants as well came up, and Elder Pratt, President John Taylor, and William Budge, president of the British Mission, corresponded extensively about it. (See for example Orson Pratt to John Taylor, 1 Mar 1879, Church Historical Department Archives.) Basically, it would follow the 1876 format, with the addition of an index in place of the table of contents and footnotes. When President Taylor also requested that Elder Pratt include marginal references and footnotes, he called four reliable elders, John Nicholsen, Hugh Findley, John Rider, and Moroni Snow, to help.

Soon, one complete set of electrotype plates was shipped to Salt Lake City, and the first edition published from them in Utah appeared in 1880, a year after the first electrotype British edition.

In the October 1880 general conference, President George Q. Cannon held up copies of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price and said, “As there have been additions made … by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the Conference, to see whether the Conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.” President Joseph F. Smith so moved, it was seconded, and the congregation voted affirmatively. (Deseret Evening News, 11 Oct. 1880, p. 2, col. 4.)

1882–1920 Editions

In the next thirty-eight years, no fewer than twenty-eight printings of the Doctrine and Covenants were made, most from the electrotype plates made in 1879, others in a similar format. Some were bound to make double or triple combinations; some were vest-pocket size; later Salt Lake editions added a concordance—but all of them had a constant text with unaltered footnotes, and the same material could be found on the same page.

When the 1908 edition came from the press, it contained the first addition since Orson Pratt’s edition in 1876: President Wilford Woodruff’s declaration, the Manifesto, concerning the practice of plural marriage. Most usually, the Manifesto was on a separate page that was glued in; some printings, especially vest-pocket editions, didn’t contain the Manifesto as a regular part of the text until the 1921 edition.

The 1921 Edition

The next major changes appeared in the 1921 edition. On 18 March 1920, Elder George F. Richards was appointed chairman of a committee to prepare a new edition of the Book of Mormon.  (George F. Richards Journal (1918–1920), 18 Mar. 1920, Church Historical Department Archives.) That project went to press in December. In March 1921, the First Presidency assigned the same committee to prepare a new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. The committee, including Elders Anthony W. Ivins, James E. Talmage, Melvin J. Ballard, and Joseph Fielding Smith, worked intensively for another nine months, and the new edition was published in December.

Their revisions reworked the footnotes, expanded the introductory statements at the beginning of the revelations, divided the text into double columns, and deleted the “Lectures on Faith.”

The 1981 Edition

The edition in use today was published in 1981. It was expanded to include Joseph Smith’s Vision of the Celestial Kingdom and Joseph F. Smith’s Vision of the Redemption of the Dead—transferred from the Pearl of Great Price—becoming sections 137 and 138 [D&C 137D&C 138], respectively. The statement of the First Presidency regarding the revelation extending the priesthood to ‘all worthy male members of the Church,’ released 9 June 1978, was also added as Official Declaration—2 [OD 2]. President Woodruff’s 1890 manifesto remained as Official Declaration—l [OD 1], and his explanation for issuing the manifesto has also been added.

The new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, incorporating these additions, also included some alterations. The footnotes were revised according to the format of the footnotes in the LDS edition of the King James Version of the Bible, which had previously been published and distributed to members of the Church. These footnotes included cross-references to the Topical Guide in the Bible. In addition, the introductory statements at the beginning of each section were revised and a gazetteer was included. (For further information, see Bruce T. Harper, “The Church Publishes a new Triple Combination,” Ensign, Oct. 1981, p. 8.)

With the publication of this new edition, study of the Doctrine and Covenants enters a new era. Members of the Church now have easier access to the historical and doctrinal setting in which this book of scripture was produced.

Why were the Lectures on Faith removed from the Doctrine and Covenants?

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures “were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons.” (1921 Introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants.) This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

  1. a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
  2. b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
  3. c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
  4. d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. (As told to John William Fitzgerald, A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants, M.A. Thesis, Brigham Young University, 344.)

The “Decanonization” of the Lectures on Faith

The following is a portion of a document entitled The ‘Lectures on Faith’: A Case Study in Decanonization” written by Richard S. Van Wagoner, Steven C. Walker, and Allen D. Roberts.

On 18 March 1920, the First Presidency selected Elder George F. Richards to chair a committee to prepare a new edition of the Book of Mormon. Other committee members included Anthony W. Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, and James E. Talmage. By June the group had expanded to include John A. Widtsoe and Joseph Fielding Smith. After the work on the Book of Mormon was completed, the committee turned its attention to the Doctrine and Covenants. Elder Talmage reported in a 23 February 1921 letter to Apostle George Albert Smith that “preliminary steps have already been taken toward a thorough revision of the Doctrine & Covenants, and we all know that the current editions, as printed in this country and in Liverpool, contains [sic] many errors by way of omission. Moreover there are certain improvements by way of Section Headings, amplification of notes, and rearrangement of text in the double column style to be made, if the present tentative plans are carried into execution.”

Among the changes decided upon was the deletion of the Lectures on Faith. The committee’s introductory explanation in the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants states that “Certain lessons, entitled ‘Lectures on Faith,’ which were bound with the Doctrine and Covenants in some of its former issues, are not included in this edition. Those lessons were prepared for use in the School of Elders . . . but they were never presented nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons.”

Canonization procedures in the Church have never been officially specified. And not all revelations given to Church presidents have been presented to the Church for sustaining. The title page to the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants notes that the revelations were “Carefully Selected From The Revelations of God” and compiled by a committee of four presiding elders, including Joseph Smith. Elder George F. Richards, original chairman of the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants committee, wrote in his journal 29 July 1921 of other noncanonized revelations: “We read the revelations which do not appear in the present edition of the Doctrine & Covenants, about twenty in number, with the view of recommending to the First Presidency certain of them to be included in the edition we are just now preparing.” The First Presidency apparently did not approve these suggested additions, for no new revelations were included in the 1921 edition.

This evidence seems to suggest that while all scripture is revelation, not all revelation is scripture. And the Doctrine and Covenants itself seems contradictory about what actually constitutes scripture. Section 68:4 affirms that “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.” But Section 28:13 implies that revelations must be accepted by a Church vote prior to canonization: “For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church by the prayer of faith.”

Statements by General Authorities on this issue also seem to conflict. First Presidency member George Q. Cannon responded to this very issue in an 1891 question:

Elder George Q. Cannon 1827-1901

It seems nonsensical that the Prophet of God should submit to such a test as this [common consent], and not deem the revelations he received authentic until they had the approval of the different quorums of the Church. They were authentic and divinely inspired, whether any man or body of men received them or not. Their reception or non-reception of them would not affect in the least their divine authenticity. But it would be for the people to accept them after God had revealed them. In this way they have been submitted to the Church, to see whether the members would accept them as binding upon them or not. Joseph [Smith] himself had too high a sense of his prophetic office and the authority he had received from the Lord to ever submit the revelations which he received to any individual or to any body, however numerous, to have them pronounce upon their validity (Juvenile Instructor 26 [1 Jan. 1891]: 13-14).

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, writing before he was called to the Twelve, supports Cannon’s thinking:

Bruce R. McConkie 1915-1985

Revelations given of God through his prophets . . . are not subject to an approving or sustaining vote of the people in order to establish their validity. Members of the Church may vote to publish a particular revelation along with the other scriptures, or the people may bind themselves by covenant to follow the instructions found in the revealed word. But there is no provision in the Lord’s plan for the members of the Church to pass upon the validity of revelations themselves by a vote of the Church; there is nothing permitting the Church to choose which of the revelations will be binding upon it, either by a vote of people or by other means (1966, 150).

These two statements contradict two presidents of the Church. Wilford Woodruff declared in 1892, while giving a legal deposition before the Western District of the Missouri U.S. Circuit Court:

Wilford Woodruff 1807-1898

The church has a right to reject or approve of revelations and any man independent of the action of the church has a right to accept it or reject it as he sees fit and the church has a right to say whether they will accept it or reject it as a revelation, and before a revelation can be accepted by the church, as a law, it must in some form or other be presented to the church and accepted by the church, and that has been true since the time I first became connected with the church (1893, 206).

 

Joseph F. Smith 1838-1918

President Joseph F. Smith stated similarly in his 1904 testimony before the Senate committee investigating the seating of Reed Smoot: “I will say this, Mr. Chairman, that no revelation given through the head of the church ever becomes binding and authoritative upon the members of the church until it has been presented to the church and accepted by them.” Questioned whether “the church in conference may say to you, Joseph F. Smith, the first president [sic] of the church, ‘We deny that God has told you to tell us this?,’ ” President Smith replied: “They can say that if they choose. . . . And it is not binding upon them as members of the church until they accept it” (1907, 1:96). It thus appears that at least two Church presidents have verified the principle of common consent in canonizing revelation into the standard works of LDS scripture. There is no mention, however, of a procedure for decanonizing scriptural items such as the Lectures on Faith.

While writing a master’s thesis at BYU in 1940, John W. Fitzgerald wrote to Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, a member of the 1921 committee that had deleted the Lectures on Faith from the Doctrine and Covenants, and asked him why items published under Joseph Smith’s direction were removed.

Smith listed four reasons:

(1) They were not received as revelations by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

(2) They are only instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.

(3) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead.

(4) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief [i.e., on the Godhead], it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up The Doctrine and Covenants (in Fitzgerald 1940, 343-45).

This reply poses several historical difficulties. While it is true that the Lectures were never identified by Joseph Smith as revelations, Section 102 (present section 134) is similarly not termed a revelation in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants but declared the Church position on “Governments and Laws in general.” Probably written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and later declared by the Prophet to be the belief of the Church, the statement has never purported to be a revelation but has been included in all editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Wilford Woodruff Manifesto, first placed in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1908 as an “official Declaration” and now Official Declaration 1, was not presented to the Church as a revelation either and was first issued on 25 September 1890 as a press release through the office of Utah’s delegate in Congress, John T. Caine. Addressed “To Whom It May Concern,” the document encouraged Mormon support of recent laws “enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages.” Moreover, though the Manifesto in essence negates the last half of the 1843 revelation dealing with plural marriage (Section 132), that part of the revelation has not been removed — even though those who enter polygamy are excommunicated. Furthermore, a glance through the Doctrine and Covenants shows that a sizeable portion of it includes documents described in the book itself as “declarations of belief,” “reports of visions,” “historical narratives,” “admonishments,” “answers to questions,” “explanations of scripture,” “minutes of instruction meetings,” “prayers,” “letters,” and “items of instruction.”

Joseph Fielding Smith’s assertion that the Lectures are “instructions,” not “the doctrine of the Church,” is historically erroneous. The 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants specifically titles the Lectures, “the Doctrine of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.” The second part of that edition was labeled “PART SECOND Covenants and Commandments” (Woodford 1974, 41 – 42). Furthermore, the Articles of Faith, written by Joseph Smith and later canonized by inclusion in the 1880 Pearl of Great Price, directly parallel the Lectures as instructions on the general subject of faith. Moreover, the 1835 First Presidency declared in the preface to the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants that the Lectures on Faith contain “the important doctrine of salvation.” The Lectures were expressly given to teach Church leaders and missionaries doctrines considered truthful and binding upon present and future Church members. To hold that such materials would not be doctrine puts the missionaries in a curious position.

Smith’s third and fourth points, which question the Lectures’ Godhead teachings, touch on their main difficulty. Simply put, the Lectures present Joseph Smith’s 1835 understanding of the Godhead, which was modified by the time of his death in 1844. For example, Lecture 5 explains, “There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things, by whom all things were created, and made. . . . They are the Father and the Son — the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power . . . the Son .. . a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man.”

The catechism for this lecture also queries:

How many personages are there in the Godhead? Two: the Father and Son. Who is the Father? He is a personage of glory and of power. The Only Begotten of the Father possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit.

It was not until 1841, twenty-one years after the First Vision, that the Prophet taught that “there is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones” (Clayton 1841). That idea was further developed when Joseph declared two years later in Ramus, Illinois: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” (D&C 130:22).

Near the end of Joseph Smith’s life his 1844 King Follett funeral sermon enunciated key Mormon concepts such as “God, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens is a man like unto one of yourselves”; “God came to be God”; “God himself, the father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ”; “You have got to learn how to be Gods yourself” (Times and Seasons, 7 Aug. 1844). Present-day Mormon theology parallels Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo teachings, though most Latter-day Saints are unaware that the Prophet’s understanding of the Godhead evolved. The Lectures on Faith provide a window through which to view his 1835 perceptions.

Since the Lectures on Faith have not been included in the Doctrine and Covenants for more than sixty years, most Latter-day Saints are not familiar with their content and historical importance. Joseph Fielding Smith recognized this when he said: “I suppose that the rising generation knows little about the Lectures … . In my own judgement, these Lectures are of great value and should be studied. .. . I consider them to be of extreme value in the study of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (1966, 194). Despite the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants committee’s concern over the Godhead confusion, Elder Bruce R. McConkie remarked about one of the Lectures in a 4 January 1972 address at BYU:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie 1915-1985

In my judgment, it is the most comprehensive, intelligent, inspired utterance that now exists in the English language — that exists in one place defining, interpreting, expounding, announcing, and testifying what kind of being God is. It was written by the power of the Holy Ghost, by the spirit of inspiration. It is, in effect, eternal scripture; it is true.

When the Lectures on Faith were removed from the scriptures in 1921, Church leaders were evidently unaware that the 1835 First Presidency considered the Lectures the “doctrine” portion of the Doctrine and Covenants. Neither the Lectures’ importance nor their historical significance should be underestimated by Latter-day Saints. Their inclusion and eventual removal from the Doctrine and Covenants provides us with an important case study of the infrequent process of decanonization of Mormon scripture. (Richard S. Van Wagoner, Steven C. Walker, and Allen D. Roberts. The ‘Lectures on Faith’: A Case Study in Decanonization.” Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, 20 (Fall 1987):71-77.

About LDS Scripture Teachings

I write about ways scripture applies in our lives: LDSScriptureTeachings.org
This entry was posted in Church History, Joseph Smith, Messiness of scripture, Miracles, Prophets, Receiving Revelation, Scriptures and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Why are there unpublished revelations in our day?

  1. Well, that was a pretty long blog post, but definitely worth the study! Thank you for sharing this, Mike 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s