Sunday, January 5, 2020

Joseph F. Smith vs. "Canonical Inerrancy"


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.