Evolution of Mormonism has included evolution of the very scriptures we use. A great many alterations are punctuation and grammar, but some do have actual doctrinal significance. I want to look only at a few sections, which have endured alterations that affect the way we understand and enact church discipline.
D&C 42:74-93
STRUCTURAL CHANGES
Section 42 is made up of three different partitions, from two different revelations. As part of distinguishing the partitions, prefacing remarks or titles were originally used to create separations:
- Partition 1, “The Law,” was the first revelation, received on Feb 9 1831. It somewhat constitutes our current verses 1-73, some mights say especially vv. 11-69. I will refer to it but not examine it.
- Partition 2, the first portion of the second revelation, was prefaced with an explanation that this partition addresses “how…to act upon the points of the Law” that have been received. This partition constitutes our current verses 78-93.
- Partition 3 was titled “How to act in cases of adultery,” with specific instructions for the handling of that offense. It constitutes our current verses 74-77.
Until the 1835 D&C, these three partitions were understood to be separate but related. One, two or all three partitions might be published at any time, and whenever the second and third partitions were published together, partition 3 followed partition 2:
- How to act upon the Law (vv. 78-93)
- Cases of adultery (vv. 74-77)
- Cases of adultery only (vv. 74-77)
- Cases of adultery only (vv.74-77)
- How to act upon the Law only (vv.78-93)
- Cases of adultery only (vv.74-77)
- How to act upon the Law (vv. 78-93)
- Cases of adultery (vv.74-77)
- Cases of adultery only (vv.74-77)
- How to act upon the Law only (vv.78-93)
The preface for partition 2--"How to act upon the Law"--is not recorded beyond Symonds Rider’s manuscript, and as of July 1832 the header or title “How to act in cases of adultery” was removed from partition 3. In 1835, the decision was made to combine all three partitions, and to move partition 3 (How to act in cases of adultery) into its current position between partitions 1 and 2.
On the surface this move might make sense, as the section on adultery is moved into a position immediately preceding another reference to adultery, seemingly tying the subject together through that keyword. The loss of the prefacing titles further facilitated this move.
But these partitions were not meant to be conflated on a keyword basis, or there wouldn’t have been a title separation between partition 3 and partition 2. Doing so opened up a door for trouble, as can be seen when comparing the structure of the original with the current version:
- ORIGINAL STRUCTURE OF D&C 42:74-93
- PREFACE: “How the Elders of the church of Christ are to act upon the points of the Law given by Jesus Christ to the Church in the presents of twelve Elders February 9th 1831 [D&C 42:1-73] as agreed upon by seven Elders Feby 23d 1831 according to to the commandment of God—“ (Not in current version)
- An opening statement declares the expectation that the church is to obey God’s commandments and covenants. (v. 78)
- The greatest offense of killing cannot be justly handled by church courts, so this offense must be handled by the state. (v.79)
- There is “no forgiveness” for killing (vv. 18 and 79). Reconciliation cannot be made, as one party necessary for it is no longer part of this world. Therefore, as the church has no authority to see that a killer “die” (v. 19), they are to be handed over to the state, which has authority to try a person for their life.
- The second greatest offense, adultery, can be disciplined by the church. So it is used as an example to lay out the basic pattern for church discipline in “all cases”. (vv.80-83)
- There are no qualifiers to the “all cases” statement. It does not say “all such cases,” or “all cases of adultery.” It simply states “all cases.”
- It is clarified how widely this instruction is to be applied to varied offenses, even to “all cases” brought forth for discipline. (vv.84-87)
- “law of the land” appears to be an erroneous 1835 alteration from the “Law of God” (addressed later).
- Instruction is given to offended members on responding to offenses and delivering up the offenders for church discipline. (vv. 88-92)
- It is re-emphasized that this is blanket instruction for all offenses. (v.93)
- PREFACE / TITLE: “How to act in cases of adultery” (Not in current version)
- Now that the blanket pattern has been laid out, specifics are given concerning the crime of adultery. (vv.74-77)
- CURRENT STRUCTURE OF D&C 42:74-93
- The crime of adultery is specifically addressed (vv.74-77)
- The opening declaration (v.78) now seems like a random insertion interrupting the flow of an ongoing discussion about adultery, as v. 80 is now seen as a return to that subject.
- Stating that killers are to be delivered to the law of the land also seems like an odd sidestep point. (v.79)
- Mentioning adultery in v. 80 now reads like a return to the subject, in the same exclusive context. Therefore this portion is understood as pertaining to “all cases” of adultery. (vv.80-83)
- There is a flip-flop return to other offenses which are to be delivered up to “the law of the land,” as it is no longer only killing. (vv.84-86)
- Flip-flopping back, iniquities of “any manner” (apparently expecting that we infer this excludes the iniquities just listed in verses 84-86?) are to be handled according to the Law of God. (v.87)
- Instruction is given to the offended for responding to offenses and delivering up the offenders for church discipline. (vv. 88-92)
- These details are no longer required or followed in full by CHI-1.
- The final declaration that we are to do “all things” in this way is confusing (v.93), as the altered text and structure have muddied up any single understood course of conduct.
NOTABLE TEXT CHANGES
From the time of the original revelations until their publication in the 1835 D&C, the text itself underwent numerous changes. Most of the important changes occurred near or in 1835, becoming part of that edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.
- "THE WORLD" CHANGED TO "THE ENEMY" (v.80)
This change first appeared in the 1835 D&C and June 1835 Evening and Morning Star (EMS). While these words can be understood synonymously in the LDS world, they can also be understood differently.
- “The enemy” is a title given to Satan throughout scripture. It always refers to one who intends harm. “The world” is generally understood as all those not belonging to the covenant people. Today we’d say “non-members.” This is far greater in scope than “the enemy,” as it also includes all the truly good people who are non-members.
- Witnesses against the accused were therefore required to be church members (specifically, those of the local “church” or congregation). This alteration changed the requirement so witnesses can be non-members, so long as they don’t serve “the enemy.” That creates a dangerous grey are for interpretation.
- This causes a change in procedure and as such it had better have the Lord’s approval, or we should expect to incur some sort of loss as a result of departing from what He has approved (Isaiah 24:5). Not to mention the difficulty of screening out servants of the enemy, as honesty is not a requirement in that camp.
- “THE LAW" CHANGED TO "THE LAW OF THE LAND” (vv.84-86)
This change first appeared in 1835 D&C and June 1835 EMS. In the original transcript of the revelation, and in every version until 1835, the only crime for which “the church” was to hand offenders over to “the law of the land” was killing (v.79). The remainder were to be handled by the church, according to the Law of God.
In all versions of partition 2 prior to 1835, the semi-poetic pattern of the sentences makes clear which “Law” is really being referred to in these verses:
- And if a man shall rob, he shall be delivered up unto the law,
- And if he shall steal, he shall be delivered up unto the law,
- And if he lie, he shall be delivered up unto the law,
- If he do any manner of iniquity, he shall be delivered up un to the law, even that of God.
There are at least two notable reasons why the church was expected to have its own functioning court system, rather than relying on the courts of “the land”:
- The state’s judicial system was already understood to be corrupt. As Mormons were intended to become their own independent people—rather than another Sunday religion in the world—the church court system was to be the reliable source of justice for members, to offset the injustice they should expect from the state’s corrupt system.
- In the church court system there is hope for mercy to swallow up justice, unlike the state judicial system. Opportunities for reconciliation to be made and forgiveness granted is built into the very process, rather than punishment being automatically rendered for every offense, which thing is just, but not merciful.
- “THOUS SHALT TAKE ANOTHER WITH THEE, AND THEN IF HE CONFESS NOT” WAS REMOVED (v. 89)
This was removed in the Oct 1832 and Jun 1835 EMS, and finally the 1835 D&C. It remained in all other versions prior to 1835, including the 1833 BoC. The understood practice required the offended party to approach the offender, and if reconciliation wasn’t made they were to bring another with them and try again, before finally turning the offender over for church discipline. Arguments can be made both in support of and opposition to this change.
- Some arguments for the change
- Simply because a second person hears an exchange doesn’t necessarily make that person a “witness” to the offense. They are arguably only a witness to an exchange between an accuser and accused.
- Just because we don’t have proof that Joseph or God approved this or other alterations, doesn’t stand as proof that he didn’t.
- Some arguments against the change
- The requirement to bring another party and approach the offender a second time builds two opportunities for reconciliation and forgiveness into the system before the church becomes involved, rather than only one.
- Without bringing the second party, the offended person can only hope that another witness will independently report the offense, so that the necessary two witnesses can initiate the church’s scriptural disciplinary involvement.
- While the second party may not be a witness to the original offense, they are witness to the efforts of the offended to seek reconciliation and the possible refusal of the offender before the case is turned over to the church.
- The content was first removed in the Oct 1832 EMS—which publication was not managed by Joseph—but it was present afterward in the 1833 Book of Commandments, which was published by the church. Either someone made a mistake in the EMS, which mistake was corrected in the Book of Commandments, or the Book of Commandments simply ignored the EMS, being considered scripture as opposed to a community newsletter. The Jun 1835 EMS publication was merely a reprint of the Oct 1832.
- The original version was an accepted revelation from God, through Joseph. God’s approval of changes would seemingly then come through Joseph as well. But Joseph wasn’t responsible for The Evening and Morning Star, and Joseph entrusted others to prepare for publication his transcribed revelations which make up the “Covenants” portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, in which this content lies. Joseph himself was instead focused on editing the Lectures on Faith (the “Doctrine” portion of the 1835 “Doctrine and Covenants”). Therefore alterations to these revelations were perhaps more likely performed by these other editors, their stylistic voices even being recognizable in many cases, while Joseph’s approval of these alterations is only assumed.
D&C 107
This section is made up of two parts, received at two different times. Verses 60-100 are (roughly) the content of a revelation from Nov. 11, 1831. Verses 1-59 are said to be from a revelation sometime around April of 1835, with no specific date declared as of yet. The Joseph Smith Papers have yet to publish any versions of this portion dated prior to the 1835 D&C. Without any originals to compare to the 1835 D&C, and knowing that some degree of freelancing took place in editing that initial edition, it is impossible to guess how much of the content can comfortably be attributed to revelation, and how much to the hand of men.
- Examining the Nov. 11 revelation (vv.60-100), we find some of the Aaronic Expansions, with major additions related to the rights and role of Aaron’s lineage in the office of bishop (vv. 68-71, 73, 76-77). Said to be expanded by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, I have yet to discover the source of their understanding which allowed them to insert these additions, but hope the purported April 1835 revelation will be published. These changes affect the disciplinary process as they affect the calling of bishops, therefore affecting whether a bishop properly qualifies to serve as the “common judge.” (Non-Aaronic bishops are only allowed to serve if Aaron has no available descendants to fill a vacancy. If the vacancy is improperly filled, can it be truly said that God will sustain the impropriety? That seems debatable…)
- Another notable addition is the phrase “in spiritual matters” (v. 80). The church disciplinary system was built to handle not only “spiritual” matters, but temporal ones. Else the bishop, whose role is exclusively related to “temporal things” (v. 68) would not be considered a “judge” (D&C 58:18; 107:72, 74-76). This added phrase is apparently part of the church’s transformation from a people of God to another Sunday religion. This is further attested to by the switch from “court” to “council” in every instance in this section.
- One very notable word change was the switch from “me” to “him” in our current verse 84. The original transcript uses the word “me,” the first-person word identifying the speaker: God. Joseph was merely acting as voice for His words. The moment this word was altered to “him,” God ceased to be the speaker. This was no longer a revelation in which God spoke to us, but was rather, at best, a revelation to Joseph Smith, which he then attempted to express in his own words. This weakens the importance of fidelity to what was originally spoken, as it is taken to be Joseph’s words rather than God’s.
D&C 68
The two Joseph Smith Papers sources of this revelation predating the 1835 D&C are Revelation Book 1, and the Oct. 1832 Evening and Morning Star. These two sources are consistent with one another, so the following changes found in the 1835 D&C came after these publications.
- Like section 107, this section endured additions concerning the rights and role of Aaron’s lineage in the office of bishop (vv.15-21). I have yet to find any explanation of these expansions and their sources, other than third party attributions to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. No source is provided for these attributions.
- The word “Laws” has been replaced entirely, being changed to “covenants” in verse 13, and “covenants and commandments” in verse 23. No explanation is given for the change, but these terms, while related, are not interchangeable. It could be understood as part of the transition from understanding the church as being a people of God, to being a Sunday religion. That is only speculation.
- One change which functioned to transition power from a more localized model to a centralized one is the switch from utilizing a “council of high priests” to instead utilizing the First Presidency (vv. 15, 22-23). Transgressing bishops could no longer be tried and punished by a local council of high priests, but instead their case must be tried directly by the highest court of the church. The result both removes from the accused bishop at least one opportunity for appeals (having no lower trials), as well as making more difficult the accusation and trial of a transgressing bishop, as the First Presidency has become increasingly distanced from the rank and file membership who might report the wayward bishop.
- Changing the word “judge” to “high priest” in verse 22 also affects the disciplinary process, as not all high priests are called to be judges or bishops. This creates for all the high priests the same effects noted above for bishops; removing opportunities for appeal, and making them harder to discipline in cases of transgression. It is respect of persons (Acts 10:34), due to rank.
