Commenting on LDS D&C 77 and the interpretation Rev 5:8-10 offered therein, George A. Njeim offered the following concerning the text:
The alleged explanation given by
Joseph Smith is not found anywhere in our church literature. Neither did it
ever appear in print during his lifetime. It may be found in the Doctrine and
Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, in Utah, as Section
77. Its first appearance in print came the first of August, 1844, in the Times
and Seasons. Joseph Smith was killed the 27th of June, 1844, and could in
no way say a word either for it or against it. In the year 1852 it appeared in
Europe as a part forming the Pearl of Great Price, and later on was made
part of the canon of the church in Utah.
Other objections to the accuracy of
this interpretation are these: Joseph Smith is supposed to have received the explanation
the first of March, 1832, while working on the translation of the Scriptures.
Had he regarded his inspiration as being divine, he would have had it included
it in what was printed of the Book of Commandments and the Inspired Version. It
was in the fall of 1833 that that book was assembled after the printing press
in Independence was destroyed. The Inspired Version carries no such correction.
Again, this did not appear in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants,
nor in the 1844 edition, which was mostly prepared under the direct supervision
of Joseph Smith, himself.
I have no doubt that Joseph Smith gave
the explanations embodied in this Section, but I have doubt that he regarded
his source of information as being divine. It was only natural for one whose faith
rests in the teachings of the New Testament to study and receive ideas
regarding the Revelation to St. John. But, if we are to judge from Joseph Smith’s
other writings, he was just as confused about REVELATION as other people were.
In a discourse of his reported in the Contributor, Vol. 4, pp. 171-175, for the year
1882-83, he asserts his belief in the four beasts as this Section claims, but
does not appear to be certain. There was division of opinion regarding the
meaning of the beasts and he tried to settle some of these divisions. He says, “I
now do it in order that division of sentiment and opinion may be done away, and
not that correct knowledge on the subject is so much needed at the present time.”
(itc. mine) Also, as reported in the Mormon church history, Vol. 5, pp. 324-25,
he recognizes the impenetrability of REVELATION, and his advice was this: “If
young Elders would let such things alone it would be better.” What is true of
his explanations regarding the sea of glass and the four beasts is also true of
the other explanations he gives in this document including the two witnesses. (George
A. Njeim, Insights into the Book of Revelation: As Illuminated by the Book
of Mormon [Lawrence, Kans.: George A. Njeim, 1970], 56 n 1)