Latter-Day Revelation

In 1930, a small volume authorized by President Heber J. Grant, and edited by Apostle James E. Talmadge titled “Latter-Day Revelation” was published by the church, which was a highly edited version of the Doctrine and Covenants. Talmadge wrote that the book’s purpose was “to make the strictly doctrinal parts of the Doctrine and Covenants of easy access…by including only the sections compromising scriptures of general and enduring value.” Ninety-five sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were completely omitted, most notably section 132 on plural and celestial marriage, along with parts of twenty-one others. Only twenty complete sections were retained along with parts of twenty-one others. Because of LDS fundamentalist reaction, particularly at the removal of section 132, President Grant ordered the withdrawal of the book from sale and the remaining copies were shredded. (from the cover leaf to “Latter-Day Revelation”)

Like other church members who have encountered the book, I struggled to understand how ninety-five complete sections of the Doctrine and Covenants could be determined to not be of “general and enduring value.” Although the book’s preface attributed their removal to the idea that “many of these revelations, once of present and pressing significance, became relatively of reduced importance with the passing of the conditions that had brought them forth”, I wondered…are some revelations more legitimate than others? How could a revelation as fundamental to church doctrine as D&C 132 be eliminated? Were some of these sections removed for other reasons? And how could a fundamentalist faction, or any other outside party influence the designation of scripture, revelation, or doctrine for the church?

In my investigation, I found this compelling account from early church history which may provide some insight:

The year is 1829. The translation of the Book of Mormon is finished, but due to a lack of funding, the manuscript lay unpublished at the office of the E.B. Grandin Company in Palmyra, New York. In his autobiography “An Address to All Believers in Christ”, David Whitmer, one of the original three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, records the following:

“When the Book of Mormon was in the hands of the printer, more money was needed to finish the printing of it. We were waiting on Martin Harris who was doing his best to sell a part of his farm in order to raise the necessary funds. After a time, Hyrum Smith and others began to get impatient, thinking that Martin Harris was too slow and under transgression for not selling his land at once, even if at a great sacrifice. Brother Hyrum thought they should not wait any longer on Martin Harris, and that the money should be raised in some other way. Brother Hyrum was vexed with Brother Martin, and thought they should get the money by some means outside of him, and not let him have anything to do with the publication of the Book, or receiving any of the profits thereof....

Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon for considerable money, and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon.

Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copyright, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eyewitness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copyright, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking.

Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: 'Some revelations are of God, some revelations are of men, and some revelations are of the devil.' So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copyright was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man. When a man enquires of the Lord concerning a matter, if he is deceived by his own carnal desires, and is in error, he will receive an answer according to his erring heart, but it will not be a revelation from the Lord. This was a lesson for our benefit and we should have profited by it in the future more than we did.” (Page 31).

LDS apologists point out that the original copy of this unpublished revelation contains this condition which may not have been met, thus challenging the claim that the revelation had failed; “…if the People harden not their hearts against the enticing’s of my spirit.” Upon further examination, however, the question is raised whether a legal copyright could have been obtained in Canada, suggesting that the revelation proposed the impossible and therefore could not have been from God.

The idea of revelation coming from multiple sources, particularly one’s own mind, was something Joseph Smith struggled with more than once (see “Author’s note” below). In 1869, speaking in Provo, Utah, Apostle George A. Smith stated that “there was no point on which the Prophet Joseph dwelt more than the discerning of spirits" (the origin of his and others’ inspiration and revelation). Speaking from his own experience, the Prophet insisted that true religion was one of individual participation in revelation from God but that in their zeal many could be deceived. (Minutes of Meetings held in Provo City, 28 November 1869, Church Archives)

Mormon historian and general authority B. H. Roberts later commented concerning this 1829 episode: “May this Toronto incident and the Prophet's explanation be accepted and faith still be maintained in him as an inspired man, a Prophet of God? I answer unhesitatingly in the affirmative. The revelation respecting the Toronto journey was not of God, surely; else it would not have failed; but the Prophet, overwrought in his deep anxiety for the progress of the work, saw reflected in the 'Seer Stone' his own thought or that suggested to him by his brother Hyrum, rather than the thought of God ... in this instance of the Toronto journey, Joseph was evidently not directed by the inspiration of the Lord.” (A Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 165)

Like Elder Roberts, I find it helpful to acknowledge that church leaders may have at times spoken in error, or from their own mind, although generally from a faithful heart. As President Dieter F. Uchtdorf said in the October 2013 General Conference, “To be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.”

Why is this helpful? For one, it releases the brethren (and sisters) from the incredible burden of unrealistic expectations they may inherit by the nature of their callings. Yes, they have important stewardships to fulfill, but they are also human and subject to the same process of trial and error that we are. Although the expectation of infallibility is prevalent in LDS culture, it is simply not realistic. The brethren themselves have warned that they are subject to sin and error as a part of their mortal condition just as everyone else. To ever think that they cannot err, even in the exercise of their official duties is unreasonable, and can leave us frustrated and questioning.

Secondly, to realize that a church leader’s individual journey, with all its nuanced struggle is reflected in their words and actions, helps us accept their missteps while still maintaining faith in them as B.H. Roberts unhesitatingly affirmed.

To this point, consider this observation from the Mormon History Association’s award-winning biography of Emma Smith, “Mormon Enigma” by Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippets Avery: “…those followers who saw Joseph as a man with a prophetic calling generally remained faithful, while those who saw him only as a prophet and deified him almost invariably found themselves disillusioned.” Even Emma, when pushed too far by a woman who questioned Joseph’s purported improprieties responded, “Madame, my husband was but a man, except when the spirit of God was upon him.” (Pages 32 and 297)

While recently serving as the Bishop of a young single adult ward at Utah State University, I frequently counseled students who had questions about events in church history or had concerns with church doctrine or policy. Some felt their differences were irreconcilable and wondered if they could remain active. After sharing the above sentiment by Newell and Avery, I would ask them about their expectations of church leaders. Was it possible to both acknowledge weakness and be ok with it, or were discrepancies and mistakes ‘deal-breakers’ for them, and if so, was that fair, reasonable, or wise? Could they make room in their assessments for human fragility and error?

In the answers to these questions lay the resolution I had sought in my own inquiry; The church need not be an ‘everything ever said or done is correct or the church is false’ proposition. If it must be, then for many it will fail as its more complete and newly-curated narratives reveal disagreement, conflict, human error, and historical discrepancies. These vicissitudes are not unique to the church but are common to all organizations that have existed for any length of time. The attempt to reconcile them is both reasonable and requisite as it helps to remove barriers to a clearer and more accurate understanding. Only when we make peace with our doubts can we (and the church) truly move forward.

The responsibility to separate truth from error is a personal obligation and is not meant to be passed up the line. In addition to our birth-rite agency, we were given reason, logic, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and personal inspiration to help navigate the world around us, including organized religion. I believe this is the “individual participation in revelation from God” that Joseph Smith insisted was a part of pure religion. Later, he expounded more on this important, personal obligation:

“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel–said the Lord had declared by the Prophet that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men…applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves…” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 237)

Brigham Young also spoke to this concern: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation…let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” Brigham Young, (12 January 1862) Journal of Discourses 9:150.

Hugh B. Brown, a counselor to President David O. McKay counseled that “while Mormons should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile.” (An Abundant Life, the Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown p.139)

This warning in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is particularly noteworthy, “Apostasy may be accelerated by a faulty assumption that scriptures or church leaders are infallible”, suggesting that erring on the side of over-belief can cause one to stumble just as much as erring on the side of disbelief. (Page 59)

And finally, consider this statement by George Q. Cannon, an Apostle and counselor to four church presidents, "Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. … Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or woman." (George Q. Cannon, 15 February 1891, Collected Discourses 2:178)

The point is not that our leaders are not inspired or divinely called but that we cannot abdicate our responsibility to “Prove all things and hold fast that which is good” to them. (1 Thessalonians 5:21). It is through our own, personal endeavor that the doctrine of Christ is clarified and distilled upon our minds as we learn to separate the wheat from the chaff…that which is of general and enduring value, from that which is not. If there truly is opposition in all things, then the discerning of spirits in the restoration becomes as crucial for church members as it was for Joseph Smith as the restoration’s Prophet.

TestifyofChrist

January-2023

Author’s note:

An event similar to the Toronto revelation of 1829 occurred in August of 1836 and was canonized as section 111 of the Doctrine and Covenants;

The section’s introduction states “Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet at Salem, Massachusetts, August 6, 1836. At this time the leaders of the church were heavily in debt due to their labors in the ministry. Hearing that a large amount of money would be available to them in Salem, the Prophet, Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, and Oliver Cowdery traveled there from Kirtland, Ohio, to investigate this claim…”

The revelation proclaimed “…I have much treasure in this city for you, for the benefit of Zion, and many people in this city…Therefore, it is expedient that you should form acquaintance with men in this city, as you shall be led, and as it shall be given you…I will give this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it…and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours.” (D&C 111: 2-4)

Concerning this revelation, Elder B. H. Roberts wrote: “… There came to Kirtland a brother by the name of Burgess who stated that he had knowledge of a large amount of money secreted in the cellar of a certain house in Salem, Massachusetts, which had belonged to a widow (then deceased), and thought he was the only person who had knowledge of it, or of the location of the house. The brethren accepting the representations of Burgess as true made the journey to Salem to secure, if possible, the treasure. Burgess…met the brethren in Salem, but claimed that time had wrought such changes in the town that he could not for a certainty point out the house, and soon left.” (Comprehensive History of the Church, 1:411.) Joseph and the others returned to Kirtland empty-handed.

Section 111 was one of the sections removed from “Latter-Day Revelation” in 1930.