- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It was being prepared as a version that included only those sections that were related to everyone in the Church at the time. A “Fundamentalist Mormon” at that time was someone who still believed that polygamy was the ultimate height of Heaven (whether they still retained former marital relationships in secret or simply believed it relative to the next life) – a qualifier for the highest eternal reward. It is both interesting and instructive that Section 132 was not included in a version that was meant to focus solely on the “strictly doctrinal parts”.
I would love to have such a version widely disseminated today – perhaps even with the other sections included as a second compilation within the same cover. I’m not going to pay to get a copy, but it does underscore how the leadership never has seen eye-to-eye on everything – and highlight why it is silly to expect the membership to be any different.
Given you’ve already got it in your triple combination (or quad) it would probably be cheaper if I types in the section numbers that were kept 
I found mine for $20 somewhere (eBay maybe) and couldn’t resist.
Ann, I’ll dig it out an see what else there is to say.
Thanks google… This from the Millenial Star (a review of the new publication):
Quote:THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 1931
EDITORIAL
LATTER-DAY REVELATION
Under the above title, a little book has been published by the authority of the First Presidency. It is a welcome addition to our Church literature, for it presents the essential teachings of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in selected Sections or parts of Sections, in such a manner that they can be understood without an historical knowledge of the special needs of the day, needs no longer existing, that led to the receiving of each revelation…
The preface to Latter-Day Revelation explains the purpose of the book:
…Many of the revelations given prior to the organization of the Church and during its early years related to immediate duties and callings of individuals; others dealt especially with conditions in the Church at particular times. A distinguishing feature of these communications from the Lord appears in their timeliness; they were granted to meet circumstances calling for Divine direction of specific nature. Except as illustrative instances of the Lord’s way of directly communicating with His prophets, 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.
This little book contains selected Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the selections comprising Scriptures of general and enduring value, given as the Word of the Lord through the First Elder and Prophet in the present dispensation, which is verily the “Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.”
The complete Doctrine and Covenants is a current publication, accessible to all, so that comparison between that volume and this is a simple undertaking. Every omission from the full text is indicated in these pages by asterisks where parts of Sections are left out and by the absence of some Sections in their entirety.
http://archive.org/stream/millennialstar9304eng/millennialstar9304eng_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/millennialstar9304eng#page/56/mode/2up Here’s a section of an essay about it with more information:
Quote:Shortly after his call to the Twelve, he wrote Jesus the Christ, another classic of Mormon literature commissioned by the First Presidency. He also integrated the Ready References into a scripture index for publication in 1916, then was assigned to make corrections, and add chapter headings and footnotes, to the Book of Mormon in 1920.31 All of this provides some context for understanding his assignment in 1930 to prepare a shortened version of the Doctrine and Covenants.
It was a nondescript little book that appeared on the shelves of Salt Lake City bookstores in late 1930 that bore the title Latter-day Revelation: Selections from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The volume carried the imprint of the church, yet it disappeared as quickly as it appeared. It did not pretend to be a substitute for the Doctrine and Covenants. The forward stated:
Quote:This little book contains selected Sections and parts of Sections from the Doctrine and Covenants, the selections comprising Scriptures of general and enduring value, given as the Word of the Lord through the First Elder and Prophet in the present dispensation, which is verily the “Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.”
The complete Doctrine and Covenants is a current publication, accessible to all, so that comparison between that volume and this is a simple undertaking.
A simple undertaking it was. Among those who immediately objected were Mormon fundamentalists accusing the church of changing the scriptures. Of most concern was that the new book omitted verses 1-4 of section 131 pertaining to the “new and everlasting covenant of marriage.” Section 132 regarding the eternal marriage covenant and plural marriage was missing altogether. In all, Latter-day Revelation retained twenty and parts of twenty-one sections of the Doctrine and Covenants and omitted ninety-five.
In addition, the new version contained theological terminology not generally used by Latter-day Saints. For example, section 27 is titled “Sacramental Emblems and the Future Communion.” Section 76 is referred to as “Perdition and Graded Kingdoms of Glory.” Section 110 is described as “A Glorious Theophany followed by Visitations of Ancient Prophets.” In the title for Section 130, the Godhead is referred to as “The Holy Trinity.” There is mention of “the imminence of the Lord’s advent,” “commandments comprised in the Decalog,” and “the Twelve [being called] to ordain evangelical ministers, or Patriarchs.”
According to LDS Institute of Religion professor Dale C. LeCheminant, Latter-day Revelation became scarce almost immediately after it was released. When historian T. Edgar Lyon inquired about it at Deseret Book, an assistant store manager “took him down to the basement vault where he showed him fifty remaining copies. He then told Lyon that the book had been on display a short time. Some copies had been sold when the fundamentalists got one and immediately charged the Mormon Church with changing the scriptures … Heber J. Grant then gave orders for the remaining books to be withdrawn and shredded to avoid further conflict with the fundamentalists.”
This did not prevent the book from being translated into Dutch, Norwegian, and Spanish. In some countries this would be the only version of the Doctrine and Covenants that would be available for several years.
Because Latter-day Revelation offers no information about who the compiler was or how the book came to be, there has been speculation about who it might have been and what the process was. The usual choices for editor have been Elder Talmage or Elder John A. Widtsoe, both of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The speculation regarding Widtsoe came from the doctoral dissertation by Dale C. LeCheminant, who spoke of the appeal the Doctrine and Covenants had for Widtsoe. Nevertheless, two journal entries from Elder Talmage reveal that it was he who compiled the book. The first entry is dated 28 June 1930:
Quote:By prearrangement I sat with the First Presidency during the afternoon, and together we examined in detail the copy I had prepared for the prospective bringing out of a book containing extracts from the Doctrine and Covenants. The purpose of this undertaking is to make the strictly doctrinal parts of the Doctrine and Covenants of easy access and reduce its bulk, furthermore making it suitable for distribution by missionaries and for general use by investigators. Many of the revelations received by the prophet Joseph related to personal directions in temporal activities incident to the early years of the Church, the immediate importance of which was localized as to time and place. Part of my work in the immediate future will be the carrying of this book of extracts through the press.
For 22 November 1930, he recorded the following:
Quote:I had the pleasure of presenting to the First Presidency advance copies of the little book “Latter-day Revelation” which is described on the title pages as “Selections from the book of Doctrine and Covenants.” The selections were decided upon by the First Presidency and the Twelve and the matter of arranging, editing, proof reading, etc., has been under my immediate direction, and I must be held personally responsible for the correctness of the type and the matter.
Ironically, Talmage reviewed the book in the Improvement Era, and he may also have been responsible for the official 1930 announcement in the Deseret News titled “Timely Doctrinal Treatise.”
It is interesting to compare Latter-day Revelation to what Talmage mentioned were the criteria for deciding what to include in his redaction. The sections and passages retained in full are, in fact, theological, or spiritual rather than temporal, compared to those that were omitted, and most Latter-day Saints would agree that they form the essential core of the revelations. Conversely, many sections of the Doctrine and Covenants contain instructions to specific individuals, calling them on a mission, for instance, or to church callings or assignments. These, along with announcements of meetings, the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple, general and repetitive calls to repentance, to be patient and prayerful and to preach the gospel, and procedural means for settling disputes and recording ordinances were all deleted.
Other sections were excised because, like polygamy, the church no longer advocated the practice of the tenet. An example is the communal experiment known as the United Order (sections 49, 51, 82, 70, 72, 78, 82, 83, 85, 92, 96, 104, and parts of 42 and 84). Still, there were other cuts that went further than this and cannot be entirely explained by an appeal to changing church practices or the absence of enduring theological content. Examples are the revelation that Satan rules the waters (61), that male children do not need to be circumcised (74), that animals will be resurrected (77), that the Apocrypha should be read (91), and how to differentiate between good and evil spirits (129). These may have been thought to be of minor importance, or perhaps they were considered to be difficult or controversial.
Whatever motivation lay behind such changes, the impression left with the reader is one of scripture and revelation that is fluid and adaptable to new circumstances and of a process rather than a terminable event. Indeed, Talmage writes in the Articles of Faith of “the gift of revelation in varying degrees,” existing on a continuum with inspiration, and adds that “by neither of these directing processes does the Lord deprive the human subject of agency or individuality; as is proved by the marked peculiarities of style and method characterizing the several books of holy writ.” Two pages later he continues even more explicitly: “While the revelations of the past have ever been indispensable as guides to the people, showing forth as they do, the plan and purpose of God’s dealings under particular conditions, they may not be universally and directly applicable to the circumstances of succeeding times.” In other words, one would expect to see the revelations added upon, modified to fit new situations, and given varying degrees of emphasis.
http://signaturebooks.com/2010/12/excerpt-articles-of-faith-first-edition/ In total there are 41 sections retained in full or part. 20 in full and 21 in part. I’m not sure which are in full or part (except those list in the previous comment) but here are the sections in the index: 1,2,4,7,13,18,19,20,22,27,29,38,42,43,45,46,50,56,58,59,63,64,65,68,76,84,87,88,89,93,98,101,107,110,119,121,124,130,131,133,134
(cwald will be pleased to know that mild barley drinks is still in section 89
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
Even without going into what’s right and wrong, some of it is fairly irrelevant. I don’t mean doctrinally, but that in some apparent obscure historical documents are in there, which apparently serve no purpose. You know, stuff along these lines:
“And yea, I command Brother Cwald that he shall remove that moss on his roof. And yea, it shall come to pass that he shall be commanded to go three miles down the road. And walk back again. And then he shall give two of his chickens to Brother Lyman, to put in the second henhouse from the left.”
This kind of thing. The kind of thing that makes you completely bewildered as to why it’s there. It’s not even controversial. I can’t really agree or disagree with it, because it’s hard to form any opinion about it.
As for the Official Declarations – don’t get me going on them.
By the way, the RLDS/CoC seems to add stuff to D&C regularly.
SamBee wrote:
“And yea, I command Brother Cwald that he shall remove that moss on his roof. And yea, it shall come to pass that he shall be commanded to go three miles down the road. And walk back again. And then he shall give two of his chickens to Brother Lyman, to put in the second henhouse from the left.”
Brilliant, and so accurate
SamBee wrote:By the way, the RLDS/CoC seems to add stuff to D&C regularly.
In fact, the CoC D&C is up to section 164. It doesn’t simply take off from the end of our D&C. About 50 sections are unique to them, and they don’t have 26 of ours (or either Official Declaration, of course). They do have the WoW, which is Section 86 in their D&C.Their last 10 sections came in:
1982
1984 – Women in the Priesthood
1988
1992
1994
1996 – Naming W. Grant McMurray as the first non-lineal-decent President
2000
2004
2007
2010 – CoC no longer requires converts to be baptized when they join the CoC, so long as they were previously baptized in another Christian faith.
Glad you enjoyed it! I really think some stuff could be stripped out, as it’s of historical but perhaps not spiritual reference.
I really like the JFS section though. I would like to see Lectures on Faith put back in.
The ODs don’t strike me as scripture, even if I oppose discrimination in the church.
One of my very first “uh-oh” moments came with the revision history of D&C and its relation to polygamy doctrine, particularly the 1835 Marriage section of the D&C and its later revision/omition and replacement by Section 132. That really disturbed me, particularly the explanation that we did not have a copy of section 132 written down by Joseph himself since Emma “burned” it. The whole thing had me sort of agreeing with Rock Watermann and that Joseph was not a polygamist and that Section 132 was added later to justify the actions of Young and Co. Interesting to me that they still have not found any proof of DNA descendants of Joseph through Polygamy, but I digress. The point being, we are never taught our actual history, and when I can then go right to church websites and see the revisions and early editions myself, and their contents, seeing that we had originally laid out that marriage is between one man and one woman, only to 30 years later revise it and attach it to Joseph, well, it is really easy for me to start see the ravelings of a conspiracy theory. MomofTwo wrote:…the explanation that we did not have a copy of section 132 written down by Joseph himself since Emma “burned” it.
Because I’m a little OCD on some details I can’t help but comment on this one. Joseph rarely wrote anything personally. Virtually all revelations were written by a scribe. As the story goes William Clayton wrote 132 originally, but we don’t have the original because it was destroyed somehow, presumably with Emma. Along the conspiracy lines WC could have easily (re)written the revelation at any time under Brigham, so I don’t understand the fuss about it. This detail is a non-issue or it actually helps the traditional story because any talk of the revelation written by Joseph is absurd.
Back in the day whenever a new revelation was received it was a common practice for people to copy it so they could read it and take it with them when they traveled and preached. The reality is there are many hand written copies of most revelations from Joseph, it is to be expected that someone would have asked to copy 132 as soon as they learned it existed. That a “reliable” copy was taken by BY and used as if it was the original plays against the conspiracy theory in my mind, because he could have easily asked WC to write an “original.”
Thanks Orson, I see great rationality in your comments. I had not thought about other copies being written down and perhaps a copy of the original still being in circulation. What are your thoughts about the delay in time however with the revision? I suppose the time frame still bothers me. The delay in adding 132 to our printed D&C? That is hard to explain other than to say whoever was in charge of printing revisions was not connected to the records and doctrine departments closely enough to make the change. After 1852 when polygamy was made public there was absolutely no reason to keep 132 out. I think there is plenty of evidence that the 132 revelation did exist from the Nauvoo period, as I recall even William Marks or others who were against polygamy did verify that the revelation was read by Hyrum in a Nauvoo (High Council?) meeting during Joseph’s lifetime. On another note (at the risk of a derail), I have heard the arguments there there is not one child verified to come out of Joseph’s polygamy, or that a contemporary account from a (plural)wife’s diary has not been found. My thought is if it was a conspiracy to attribute the practice to Joseph it was a massive conspiracy that included BY “insiders” as well as anti-Mormons and disaffected Mormons. So many people point to Joseph from so many different loyalties and backgrounds it really is overwhelming. My question, only looking at the Utah contingent, is where are the “defectors”? From such a massive conspiracy surely somebody would become disaffected and desire to expose the efforts of it. Where is the person that got tired of lying and came clean – stating that BY worked to pin the practice on Joseph? Besides the many women that claimed to have married Joseph there are many first hand accounts of relatives and others that witnessed sealings or visits by Joseph to his plural wives.
So my point is be very cautious regarding conspiracy theories.
I whole-heartedly agree on being cautious about conspiracy theories, and I did not mean to imply I had jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon, I simply meant that the events surrounding this particular historical item are so muddied it is hard to find the truth. You are totally right, it would have been a grand scale effort to keep that many people quite, but you are also right that not a single child came from those polygamous marriages, and even the ones that Fawn Brodie speculated about were disproved with DNA evidence a few years back. I guess that does support the idea that most of the marriages were only spiritual in nature and not physical, but still the polyandry portion of it all is still perplexing and bothersome. Yes it is confusing and troubling. It takes time to let the dust settle and to be comfortable with all the ambiguity. I don’t believe all the potential children have been disproved, none have been confirmed but some results are inconclusive or missing the proper chain to make a test possible.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.