Come, Follow Me D&C: 2021 February

February 8–14: Doctrine and Covenants 12–13; Joseph Smith—History 1:66–75

Section 13

This section has drawn some criticism in that mention of the priesthood and mention of the appearance of John the Baptist wasn’t recorded or talked about until several years after the dates that were given for the restoration of the priesthood.

In Rough Stone Rolling (p75) Bushman plays devil’s advocate:

The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication. Did Joseph add the stories of angels to embellish his early history and make himself more of a visionary?

References to John restoring the Aaronic priesthood did not appear in the Book of Commandments (1833). An account of John restoring the AP appears in the 1835 edition of the D&C (p180). Section 13 appears in the 1876 edition of the D&C. In later editions of the D&C (editions after the 1833 Book of Commandments), sections were edited to include references to the priesthood and priesthood restoration.

I find it interesting, similar to the Priestly source (P) in the Torah. In a way history repeating itself, though over a shorter period of time.

February 8–14: Doctrine and Covenants 12–13; Joseph Smith—History 1:66–75

Section 13

This section has drawn some criticism in that mention of the priesthood and mention of the appearance of John the Baptist wasn’t recorded or talked about until several years after the dates that were given for the restoration of the priesthood.

In Rough Stone Rolling (p75) Bushman plays devil’s advocate:

The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication. Did Joseph add the stories of angels to embellish his early history and make himself more of a visionary?

References to John restoring the Aaronic priesthood did not appear in the Book of Commandments (1833). An account of John restoring the AP appears in the 1835 edition of the D&C (p180). Section 13 appears in the 1876 edition of the D&C. In later editions of the D&C (editions after the 1833 Book of Commandments), sections were edited to include references to the priesthood and priesthood restoration.

I find it interesting, similar to the Priestly source (P) in the Torah. In a way history repeating itself, though over a shorter period of time.

I’ve always struggled with the priesthood thing, even as a more full on believer. From my own point of view, Joseph has this word-for-word account of the visit of John the Baptist but for the Melchizedek priesthood with Peter, James and John it’s “Oh, yeah, we got that too.” But the church places a great deal of emphasis on this priesthood (and keys) I think mostly to try to convince itself and others of the “one true church” concept. In the intervening years I have lost any faith in the one true church as an entity, and question not only the priesthood as any power or authority other than as earthly administrative. I have come to understand baptism as a more personal expression of belief and faith and not necessarily as something necessary for salvation (the argument can easily be made either way in the Bible) and not something that needs to be done by anyone with any “authority.” And I have read (and thoroughly enjoyed) Rough Stone Rolling and Bushman isn’t the only one who casts little shadows of doubt on the whole priesthood story and evolution – Terryl Givens does so as well.

But are we not way off script here? I have not read the manual for the week’s reading, but I bet the thought/discussion provoking questions have nothing to do with any doubts that the priesthood exists or that it is absolutely necessary to the mission of the church and to our own salvation/exaltation.

February 15–21: Doctrine and Covenants 14–17

Sections 14, 15, and 16 are similar; the sections where David, John, and Peter Whitmer to declare repentance unto the people, essentially be missionaries.

The lesson manual highlights D&C 14:2 and how the verse compares the word of god to a sword. It then highlights five other places in scripture where the word of god is being compared to something.

Psalm 119:105 – a lamp lighting the way forward

Isaiah 55:10-11 – rain/water that causes things to grow

Matthew 4:4 – bread, something that sustains life

1 Nephi 15:23–24 – iron rod

Alma 32:28 – seed

Out of all the examples given, the one found in the D&C was the only one that was a weapon, something that takes away life, an instrument of destruction. The others examples were of things that help people or of things that sustain life. Maybe it only stood out to me because I have an aversion to some of the war imagery we use to with respect to the gospel. Hymns like “We Are All Enlisted,” “Let Us All Press On,” “Hope of Israel,” “Onward Christian Soldiers,” and on and on.

I’m sure it’s meant to be metaphorical, or at least it should be, I know we aren’t alone in warlike imagery, and I’m sure there are plenty of war imagery verses in the bible… but Isaiah talked about beating swords into plowshares.

Section 17 is to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris and is in relation to being the three witnesses.

And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith.

Here are all the questions from that lesson:

AP related:

What blessings have you received through the ordinances of the Aaronic Priesthood?

What blessings have you received through priesthood ordinances?

What might build your family’s faith in the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood?

Would they enjoy drawing a picture of the event, based on what they read in Joseph Smith—History 1:68–74?

What impresses members of your family about Oliver Cowdery’s words (JSH 1:71)?

Other:

What does it mean to you “to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion”? (D&C12:6).

How do the principles and attributes in verses 7–9 (D&C 12) help you do this?

Why are the characteristics listed in this verse necessary when we are doing the Lord’s work?

How can we follow the example of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to find answers to our questions?

What are some of your family’s “days never to be forgotten”?

What effect did the Holy Ghost have on Joseph and Oliver?

When has the Spirit helped your family understand the scriptures and rejoice in the Lord?

Even as a true believer I had trouble answering questions like this. Am I more blessed than my non-member neighbors (all of my literal neighbors are non-members) because the priesthood? Even the religious ones (about half my street goes to some church)? They certainly believe their baptisms, marriages, etc., are valid and some in some cases think my baptism is not (although they are respectful of us). I think the majority of my neighbors are “humble and full of love, having faith, hope, and charity, being temperate in all things.” My family’s days never to be forgotten? We had some great camping/vacation trips and other outings, and our family game days were great (mostly). I’m just going to leave it there because my cynicism could go on for pages.

Yes, I agree. I think it was more the plan to compare the two rather than alter the original and then point out the differences. They really wouldn’t have to work that hard because it seems unlikely that Joseph would have been able to reproduce an exact copy of that size. However, if you’re claiming to have translated it it’s pretty hard to save face and not come up with some other explanation.

Trying to be charitable towards JS, I am thinking that maybe he used the word “translate” because his contemporaries would not have understood the nuances of the revelatory process. Then once he went with that word choice then he had to defend it. Unfortunately, that still leaves us with JS both putting words into God’s mouth with this D&C revelation AND introducing elements into the BoM narrative in order to keep with the illusion that translation meant more of a traditional translation.

When I learned that JS had changed/updated previous revelations in the D&C as his doctrinal understanding evolved, it troubled me. How can a person that has written the “word of God” ever go back and change it? Unless, receiving the word of God is a much more collaborative process than I had previously supposed. To me, the story of the 116 plates has JS doing something similar in making changes to what was supposed to be a sacred text literally engraved in metal plates. Only, instead of JS making changes as his understanding evolved these changes seem designed to get him out of his current predicament.

Which leads me to wonder, is it possible that the entire BoM narrative was a vehicle for JS to communicate what he felt were divine truths to his contemporaries? That “finding” these spiritual truths in ancient texts made them more authoritative?

In Rough Stone Rolling Bushman asserts that Joseph was more a seeker of truth than a restorer. I think Joseph was trying very hard to restore Christianity as it existed before the creeds, keeping in mind in the canonized version of Joseph’s story he did say it was the creeds that were an abomination, not the churches themselves.

Joseph could have been invoking god’s authority to settle debates. Waffling on infant baptism because the Bible is unclear on the subject? Wondering about what happens to children that die before they were baptized? Is baptism required for resurrection? What’s this about original sin; am I guilty of sin because something my parent did? Here’s a book of scripture from prophets that settles the matter.

Maybe Joseph saw the Book of Mormon as a method for resolving debates because the Bible was too ambiguous. Having a book of scripture could grease the wheels of faith for some. It might be hard for people to put full trust in a pastor but it could be easier for them to place their faith in an answer if it came from something they viewed as a definitive source, something they held to be scripture.

If the Bible was clear on infant baptism they’re be no debate. Since it wasn’t clear, some people needed a book they believed to be on par with the Bible to resolve the questions. At least from Joseph’s perspective.