Commenting
on section 101 in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph F. Smith, in a
sermon was recorded to have said the following:
. . . I here declare that the principle of
plural marriage was not first revealed on the 12th day of July, 1843. It was
written for the first time on that date, but it had been revealed to the
Prophet many years before that, perhaps as early as 1832. About this time, or
subsequently, Joseph, the Prophet, intrusted this fact to Oliver Cowdery; he
abused the confidence imposed in him, and brought reproach upon himself, and
thereby upon the church by "running before he was sent," and
"taking liberties without license," so to speak, hence the
publication, by O. Cowdery, about this time, of an article on marriage, which
was carefully worded, and afterwards found its way into the Doctrine and
Covenants without authority. This article explains itself to those who understand
the facts, and is an indisputable evidence of the early existence of the
knowledge of the principle of patriarchal marriage by the Prophet Joseph, and
also by Oliver Cowdery. (JOD 20:29 | 7 July 1878)
In 1883,
Joseph F. Smith gave an even more detailed account of his understanding of this
section:
Joseph received it [a revelation on plural
marriage] in 1831 but he was told by the Lord that the time was not come to
reveal it, and was forbidden to publish it save it be to a few. Joseph did
entrust this to a few soon after 1831.
Lyman E. Johnson, one of the Apostles
received this from Joseph, we also understand that Oliver Cowdery received it
from Joseph also [sic]—did not know of any others that Joseph entrusted it to.
L.E. Johnson testified of this to Orson Pratt as early as 1832 or a little
later, and Brother Orson Pratt has left his written testimony of the facts
relating to this matter: Oliver Cowdery was not so discreet in regard to this
matter but in consequence of his conduct brought reproach upon the Church in
bringing upon the Church the accusation of fornication & polygamy—he wrote
an article to stave off the impression that had been made which was published
in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants which has been left out of the New
Edition because it was not one of the Revelations. (Joseph F. Smith, Statement
on Oliver Cowdery and Polygamy, Provo Utah General Stake, Quarterly Stake
Conference, Sunday afternoon session, 271-72 [available online here])
What is interesting
about this is that it shows that at least some Latter-day Saints, including
Smith, a then-future president of the Church, were not “canonical inerrantists,”
that is, they did not believe that, if something was in the canon ipso facto it meant that it was inspired,
and, furthermore, for Smith, there was something in the canon that should never
have been there to begin with! The fact that he believed, irrespective of
whether his understanding was correct, that this section was inserted into the
1835 Doctrine and Covenants “without authority” and was reflective of Oliver
Cowdery subverting Joseph Smith.
While one
could appeal to Joseph Smith commenting that the Song of Solomon was not
inspired in his revision of the Bible as evidence of this, I think it is rather
telling that a then-apostle of the Church would have a similar understanding
but of modern revelation is telling,
too. It does show that something being canonical does not automatically mean it
is inspired, just as there are things that are inspired that are not part of
our canon (e.g., the rather positive appraisal of the Apocrypha in D&C 91).
For a
thorough discussion of this section in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, see Chapter
7: Oliver Cowdery’s Article on “Marriage” in Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 1: History (Salt Lake City: Greg
Kofford Books, 2013), pp. 153-82.
