- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The Doctrine and Covenants has been an 800 pound gorilla in my room for a while now, and I have been trying to ignore it. I still can, but like Luke Skywalker I cannot hide forever. I’m good with the idea that Joseph Smith was not perfect and that not everything he did and said were inspired. I do believe he did have a significant spiritual experience in the grove, and I do believe he was a prophet. The gorilla comes in with what was inspired or given by revelation and what was not. I don’t think I can go through section by section and say “yes, I believe this” and “no, I don’t believe this” and I have actually actively avoided doing so (although there are some parts I definitely don’t believe). I also won’t use the D&C as proof of anything – that is to say, I don’t treat it as the same as the Bible or even the Book of Mormon when I study, etc. In reality, I don’t actually treat it like scripture at all – but that’s because I don’t know what’s true and what isn’t.
So, what do you all do with the D&C? We don’t seem to discuss it much here, and we never (or at least much more rarely than any other scripture) use it as reference. Eventually I’m going to have to come to terms with it.
Back in the day D&C was always my favorite, in many ways it still is. There’s lots of personal dealings with individuals in the D&C, it has a more intimate setting. It’s rooted in a history and a culture that is easier to relate to, the people mentioned in the D&C are historical figures that we know somethingabout. There’s more information to get a clearer historical context. I don’t have to study ancient Hebrew culture to extrapolate meaning. I wouldn’t have a problem going through the D&C deciding what was and wasn’t revelation, at least any more or less than I would any of the other standard works.
The way I look at it… of all the LDS-specific standard works the D&C is probably the most upfront about what it is (
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/introductionhttp://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/introduction” class=”bbcode_url”> I used to really like it, too, Nibbler. That’s actually part of what makes it an 800 pound gorilla. And it’s a good point that it is what it says it is – but is it really? I believe the D&C is like the Bible or any revelation received by man, it will always contain both truth and distortions based on the understanding of the particular human voice. One of my favorite Brigham Young quotes is this one (American Moses p.197):
Quote:“I believe the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men, and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the ass when he rebuked the prophet [Balaam] in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are.”
Most of it is junk IMO and I disregard it. However, there are some gems of wisdom that can be beneficial to mankind. Example: D&C 89 where it states “all things in moderation, and that mild barley drinks are good for man to consume.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I knew cwald would quote that part. Maybe I’m psychic. :ugeek: Scripture is the best effort of people to record what they believe to be the word of God to them. With that definition, I’m fine with the D&C – even if I can’t word it that way in most group settings at church unless I have a long time to build up to it and lay the proper foundation.
I don’t need to pick and choose which parts I believe actually did come from God and which parts didn’t. I can “liken all things unto (myself)” and simply focus on what I want to take from each section – and that can mean things to embrace, things to avoid, things to dismiss or any other reactions I might have. As long as I am interpreting according to the dictates of my own conscience, I believe God will understand and appreciate the effort.
Hi DJ. Depending on your personality is what will best for you . Like others have said, I don’t see it as any different then the scriptures(man kind doing their best to interpret what they believe is a message of god(not to make a declaration that it isn’t). However for me, just like the scriptures, “the proof is the pudding” trumps truth by a long shot(even though I’m An sting support of free truth). But all scriptures is objectively completely subjective. Truth or not is speculative and irrelevant(to me). The proof is solely in the pudding in what good it can or can’t for so society as a whole and individually).
Witt that in mind I never achieved rest(always restless) when I took most things in the bovine seriously. Why, because for so much of it the proof wasn’t in the pudding as in D&C. Like the arbitrary law of no parking here for 1 hour and pound examine repeatedly there isn’t anything that takes place in that hour of no parking to give the law any meaning or relevancy.
In short for me even it something is “true” it must have a well articulated and demonstrated useful and helpful point for others in bettering their lives(collectively and individual). If there is them the truth becomes relevant, if there isn’t then it well doesn’t matter what someone ask or wants to do if it isn’t helping. Obedience for obedience and truth sake is entirely ill-relevant and meaningless(destructive).
Long story short, I don’t read the bible or D&C different them any other book. Take what is demonstrably useful and positively helpful and healthy for others and self and apply it. If it isn’t, truth or not it’s getting discarded right them and there(at least in own mind and life). No need to struggle with it if the proof isn’t in the pudding. Only if the proof is in the pudding of adding positive effect and health is truth or application worth the struggle.
But that’s my personality values not Principles rule my participle self. I.e. Someone breaks a law and the principle wants do justice and punishment where is I really don’t care what the law was, the question is who or what was hurt, by how much, the context of the situation, what can be retired or amending?
That’s how I read the D&C and scriptures like and other book or knowledge. Attempting to experience the good or not good of something and adding or discarding at will based on that.
However that’s what world for my personality type to live authentically.
Yours may differ depending on your personality to be authentic with self.
Anyways I hope someone can help you. If I had to try to find truth in subjective books unverifiable regardless of if it helped or and proof in pudding or not, I would never have any peace or rest in my life lol. So I don’t do that.
I see so much of the D&C as just Joseph Smith trying to get somebody to do something (go on a mission, sell some property, stop nagging about polygamy, etc) and then playing the “prophet card” to make them do it. With so much of the “I want you to do this, and the Lord said so” in the D&C, it’s hard to take the other parts seriously. Sheldon wrote:I see so much of the D&C as just Joseph Smith trying to get somebody to do something (go on a mission, sell some property, stop nagging about polygamy, etc) and then playing the “prophet card” to make them do it. With so much of the “I want you to do this, and the Lord said so” in the D&C, it’s hard to take the other parts seriously.
Exactly, Sheldon. I read all these revelations to individuals (and I know the TBM answer as to why they’re there) and think, “Just because that applied to him/her doesn’t mean it applies to me.” And many of those are quite specific – going a specific place for a mission, etc., and the Lord was clearly talking to that individual (provided He actually was speaking, of course).
That said, I do get what the rest of you are saying, and I view the Bible and BoM very similarly. It’s just harder because these people are more real, and I’ve been to these places. I’m even distantly related to one of them. I do see, though, that the WoW is good advice (if nothing else, and it’s not a commandment) and there’s other good stuff in there just as there’s good stuff in the others. For me it’s just a little harder to sort it out.
As a side note, Joseph probably needed to emphasize the “whether from my own mouth…” part more – it seems to work for the modern prophets so well that they don’t even need to say it anymore, and we’d probably have a much smaller and more usable D&C.
Quote:“Just because that applied to him/her doesn’t mean it applies to me.”
Bingo. We over-apply SO much that was personal in nature to the collective whole. (burning vs. stupor being perhaps the best example)
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:“Just because that applied to him/her doesn’t mean it applies to me.”
Bingo. We over-apply SO much that was personal in nature to the collective whole. (burning vs. stupor being perhaps the best example)
You used your Jedi powers to perceive my thoughts, Ray – that is exactly the specific scripture I was thinking when I wrote that. I have been a member for over 30 years, served a mission, served in two bishoprics, was a counselor in an elders quorum presidency, was young men’s president, etc. I can honestly say without reservation that I have never experienced a “stupor of thought” related to anything spiritual I have ever asked about or done. I have has “warm fuzzies” and something not really fully describable in relation to the positive, but nothing else – I have never even felt “bad” about anything. If I haven’t had what I perceive as the positive influence of the Spirit (the burning) I have felt and experienced nothing at all. Maybe Oliver Cowdery did, and maybe that is how God worked with him – and keep in mind the scripture is specifically about translating (even though it does go on to talk about revelation in general, it’s still not clear it addressing anyone other than Oliver).
I alluded to this earlier. I have no problem seeing the story of Jonah, or the parting of the Red Sea, or the stripling warriors as figurative. But it’s pretty clear that these guys in the D&C were real people, some of whom lived very near where I live. I know lots of people (including my wife) who were baptized in the Susquehanna River and others who were baptized in Cayuga Lake. It’s more difficult for me to not see these things as literal.
Sheldon wrote:I see so much of the D&C as just Joseph Smith trying to get somebody to do something (go on a mission, sell some property, stop nagging about polygamy, etc) and then playing the “prophet card” to make them do it. With so much of the “I want you to do this, and the Lord said so” in the D&C, it’s hard to take the other parts seriously.
That how I read it now. Especially those dealing with Martin Harris. It sounds like JS is just playing him and using God to do it.
The D&C is interesting. I agree that there are lots of sections that are simply irrelevant today. In the 1920/1930s the church agreed. Under the direction of Heber J. Grant, Elder Talmage created a cut-down version of the D&C.
Quote:Latter-day Revelation was subsequently translated into several languages and was, for many years, the only version of the Doctrine and Covenants available in some countries. Yet, the English edition quietly disappeared soon after its release.
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/the-articles-of-faith-first-edition/ More information:
Quote:Latter-day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published in 1930 under the imprint of the LDS Church, the volume was actually compiled by James E. Talmage, who by this time was a senior apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve. This work was characterized as containing “Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the sections comprising scriptures of general an enduring value…”. Its purpose, in the words of Talmage, was “to make the strictly doctrinal parts of the Doctrine and Covenants of easy access and reduce its bulk.” Accordingly some ninety-five sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were completely omitted, along with parts of twenty-one others. The most noteworthy of these omissions was the entire text of Section 132! Fundamentalist Mormons were outraged, “accusing the [LDS] church of changing the scriptures.” In response, then Church President Heber J. Grant, ordered the work immediately “withdrawn” from sale and the remaining copies “shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists,” according to Talmage biographer, James P. Harris.”
Newell G. Bringhurst, “Section 132: Contents and Legacy” in The Persistence of Polygamy, (Independence: John Whitmer Books: 2010), 83-84.
Significantly, 132 was removed. Also, all of the “go on a mission” type sections to individuals were taken out. Essentially the only things left were actual statements of doctrine and belief. I have a copy if you want me to check any other sections. It’s still
available on AmazonThis perspective on the D&C is useful too:
Quote:“The editing process uncovered Joseph’s anomalous assumptions about the nature of revealed words. He never considered the wording infallible. God’s language stood in an indefinite relationship to the human language coming through the Prophet. The revealed preface to the Book of Commandments specified that the language of the revelations was Joseph Smith’s: “These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.” The revelations were not God’s diction, dialect, or native language. They were couched in language suitable to Joseph’s time. The idioms, the grammar, even the tone had to be comprehensible to 1830s Americans. Recognizing the pliability of the revealed words, Joseph freely edited the revelations “by the holy Spirit,” making emendations with each new edition. He thought of his revelations as imprinted on his mind, not graven in stone. With each edition, he patched pieces together and altered the wording to clarify meaning. The words were both his and God’s.”
Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman.
Here’s the intro from the Book of Commandments (josephsmithpapers)
I had heard about this edited version before and found it interesting. I didn’t know there were copies available. I wonder why it costs so much – perhaps because it’s out of print? Seems like Deseret Book or someone might pick up on it and publish a cheaper copy to make a few bucks (like Lectures on Faith or the apocrypha). mackay11 wrote:Quote:Latter-day Revelations: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Published in 1930 under the imprint of the LDS Church, the volume was actually compiled by James E. Talmage, who by this time was a senior apostle in the Quorum of the Twelve. This work was characterized as containing “Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the sections comprising scriptures of general an enduring value…”. Its purpose, in the words of Talmage, was “to make the strictly doctrinal parts of the Doctrine and Covenants of easy access and reduce its bulk.” Accordingly some ninety-five sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were completely omitted, along with parts of twenty-one others. The most noteworthy of these omissions was the entire text of Section 132! Fundamentalist Mormons were outraged, “accusing the [LDS] church of changing the scriptures.” In response, then Church President Heber J. Grant, ordered the work immediately “withdrawn” from sale and the remaining copies “shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists,” according to Talmage biographer, James P. Harris.”
Newell G. Bringhurst, “Section 132: Contents and Legacy” in The Persistence of Polygamy, (Independence: John Whitmer Books: 2010), 83-84.
Thanks to all for this thread. Was the condensed version prepared at HJG’s request considered just teaching or missionary materials, or was it on track for being printed for the whole church and canonization? What was the definition of a “Fundamentalist Mormon” at this time? Were there any more details re. who objected? (As in, any names we would recognize?)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.