WHY
WERE CHANGES MADE?
The next part of this thesis will
present available evidence to determine why the changes were made.
It should be noted that those who criticize
changes in Latter-day Saint revelations base their views upon a fixed concept
of how revelation comes. To them revelation must be dictated from God to man in
such a manner that there should be no corrections, revisions, additions or omissions;
all revelation is absolute, in the sense that once received the final word has
been said; revelation is not the language of man but the language of God; hence
man speaks the words God puts into his mouth. The words of God therefore are
given to each prophet who in turn records them for the people to whom they were
directed.
. . .
The question we need to answer is:
what does God do in giving revelation and what contribution does man make in
seeing that those instructions are given to the party concerned?
Brigham H. Roberts wrote an account of
a senatorial committee investigating certain doctrines and teachings of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The subject of revelation came up
in connection with a discussion of the Manifesto. In referring to this he said:
When the subject of the Manifesto (the
instrument of 1890 through which plural marriages were discontinued) was under discussion,
one of the brethren chanced to remark that he assisted in framing the document
for publication, correcting the grammar, without changing the sense or meaning.
Then another senator put the question: “”You mean to say that in an inspired
communication from the Almighty, the grammar was bad, was it? You corrected the
grammar of the Almighty, did you?” (Brigham H. Roberts, “Relation of
Inspiration and Revelation to Church Government,” The Improvement
Era, VIII [1905], 358-359)
The Senator’s questions reflect the point
of view that God reveals His words unto a prophet, and therefore any changes or
corrections would be a reflection upon God.
. . .
Joseph Smith’s statement that Oliver
Cowdery was assisting with the punctuation and spelling bears out that Joseph
Smith’s grammar needed revision and was not that of God’s.
Brigham H. Roberts presented this same
idea when he wrote:
. . . Where the Almighty uses a man as
an instrument, the manner in which that revelation is imparted to men may receive
a certain human coloring from the prophet through whom it comes. We know this
to be true, because the message delivered to Israel through Jeremiah, differs
in style of phraseology from that delivered by Isaiah, Amos, or Ezekiel. The inspiration
of the Lord need not destroy the personality o the man through whom it is made.
. . .And so there is nothing of weight in the phrase “correcting the grammar of
the Almighty.” We do not correct his grammar. Perhaps the brethren made slight corrections
in the grammar of Wilford Woodruff. The grammar may be the prophet’s, the idea, the truth, is God’s. (Brigham H.
Roberts, “Relation of Inspiration and Revelation to Church Government,” The
Improvement Era, VIII [1905], 364-365)
These ideas place the responsibility of
clothing the revelations with language upon the prophet who speaks. The
individual differences of each prophet would b recognized in his writings.
. . .
Truths from God often come in regard
to circumstances of a particular time or period, and God speaks to men
pertaining to those circumstances, revealing His aid unto them. As time passes people
of later generations may not be familiar with the conditions of this
particular period and fail to catch the meaning of the revelation. Brigham
Young wrote:
When revelations are given through an
individual appointed to receive them, they are given to the understandings of
the people. These revelations, after a lapse of years, become mystified to
those who were not personally acquainted with the circumstances at the time.
(Brigham Young, “Remarks on a Revelation Given in August 1831,” Journal of
Discourses, III, [1855-1856], 333)
Having developed the idea that Joseph
Smith had the responsibility of furnishing words, grammar, spelling, punctuation,
etc., to the commandments accredited to him, it will now be feasible to
determine what problems he faced when putting those impressions down in
writing.
Joseph Smith’s formal education was
very meager, and he was not a qualified grammarian. To write or dictate would
necessitate assistance from some source with regards to spelling, punctuation,
etc. Oliver Cowdery was one source of such help (Letter from Joseph Smith to
Edward Partridge, Frederick G. Williams and others) and William W. Phelps was
another. (Joseph Smith, “History of Joseph Smith,” The Latter-day
Saints’ Millennial Star, XX, [1891], 550)
It appears that Joseph Smith studied
the revelations he produced, with the intention of making any corrections he
felt were needed. At a special conference in November 1831, permission was
given to Joseph Smith to correct the errors found in the Revelations, as
directed by the Spirit. In the Conference minutes we find:
Remarks by Brother Sidney Rigdon on
the errors or mistakes which are in the commandments and revelations, made either
by the translation in consequence of the slow way of the scribe at the time of
receiving or by the scribes themselves. Resolved, by this conference that
Brother Joseph Smith, Jr. correct those errors or mistakes which he may
discover by the Holy Spirit while reviewing the revelations and commandments
and also the fulness of the scriptures. (“Far West Record”)
In the private journal of Joseph Smith,
he recorded the following, December 1, 1832, “Wrote and corrected revelations.”
(“Private Journal of Joseph Smith”) (Melvin J. Petersen, “A Study of the Nature of and
the Significance of the Changes in the Revelations As Found in A Comparison of
the Book of Commandments and Subsequent Editions of the Doctrine and Covenants,”
[MA thesis; BYU, 1955], 128, 129-30, 131, 133-34)
Further
Reading:
Biblical Prophets Changing their Words and the Words of Previous Prophets
