The Doctrine and Covenants has seen many changes since its creation in 1833. Some of those changes have been simple: a period here, a comma there. Some have been more extreme.
Joseph made his fair-share of changes to the book. Brigham made a few of his own. Most of the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants begin with the words “Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet…” We are told that the revelations are the literal words of Christ, the transcript of His speech to the Prophets. What, then, is the need for change? Why edit, alter, rewrite, or delete the words of God?
The introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants makes this concept clear. The words therein are not the words of some man; some lowly Prophet, some uneducated farm-boy. They are the words of Jesus.
“The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days.”
“In the revelations, one hears the tender but firm voice of the Lord Jesus Christ, speaking anew in the dispensation of the fulness of times.” [1]
Now, I must immediately make myself clear: I do not care if Joseph or Brigham, in answer to revelation, added a verse to a pre-given revelation. Perhaps Joseph felt inspired to add a little line to a certain section, or a little precept to another. There is nothing criminal about that.
My concern is instead with the sections in the Doctrine and Covenants which have been altered beyond their original meaning. The Lord would not one day ask that all members abstain from drinking coffee, (as it is the Devil’s drink,) but the next instruct all members to drink coffee freely, as much as they can, (for it is now the Lord’s drink.)
Though there have been many changes to the Doctrine and Covenants, I will only present a few.
It is necessary to discuss the ways in which Joseph received the revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.
Of Joseph’s revelation-and-transcription methods, Orson Pratt gave two. He claimed that Joseph would sometimes use his Seer Stone to receive the words of God. Other times, the Prophet found that no Seer Stone was needed.
“…sometimes Joseph used a seer stone when enquiring of the Lord, and receiving revelation, but that he was so thoroughly endowed with the inspiration of the Almighty and the spirit of revelation that he often received them without any instrument or other means than the operation of the spirit upon his mind.” [2]
While the method of revelation without a Seer Stone is not always clear, we have been given very specific accounts of the way that revelation occurred with the seer stone. David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, claimed that Joseph, during the translation of the Gold Plates, would put the stone in his hat, press his face to the hat, and read the words which appeared on the stone. If the words were dictated and written correctly, they’d disappear and new words would appear.
“Joseph Smith put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” [3]
Based on this account, there couldn’t have been any errors in the text. If there had been, the text on the stone wouldn’t have changed. It was foolproof.
Joseph, around the year 1830, decided to stop using the Seer Stone to receive and dictate revelations. We aren’t to assume that the revelations suddenly became incorrect. Joseph, the Prophet, the Revelator, was so endowed with the spirit of revelation, that he could receive the words of the Lord, in their entirety, without aid of his stone.
So, I ask again: what could warrant a change of the revelation?
I will discuss a single instance of change to the Doctrine and Covenants, though there are many. [4]
The Aaronic Priesthood was restored May 15, 1829. We do not know when the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored. It is assumed that the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored the same year, soon after its lesser brother was conferred upon the Prophet. It is also assumed, and widely taught, that it was Peter, James, and John who conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood upon the prophet.
“Sometime after John the Baptist’s appearance, the ancient Apostles Peter, James, and John also appeared to Joseph and Oliver, again under the direction of Jesus Christ, and conferred upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood.” [5]
Joseph confirms this, in his “Joseph Smith History,” written in 1838.
“The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first Elder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized.” [6]
I do not want any confusion. The Church makes it very clear. The Melchizedek Priesthood was restored in the same year as the Aaronic, by Peter, James, and John.
“To help students broaden their understanding of the context of this passage, explain that shortly after John the Baptist’s visit, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James, and John. This occurred in May 1829, somewhere near the Susquehanna River.” [7]
This is not how it happened.
In 1830, Oliver Cowdery, under the direction of the Prophet, wrote and released “The Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ.” This document served as a written record of the Church history and functioned as a sort of “handbook” for the early Church.
The Articles and Covenants made no mention of the Melchizedek Priesthood. It did mention the Aaronic. I should say, it did mention the Priesthood, though it made no distinction between the higher and lower.
“God visited him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all whiteness, and gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high, and gave unto him power, by the means of which was before prepared that he should translate a book.” [8]
In 1830, at the time of the publication of the “Articles and Covenants,” there was only a single priesthood. The 1830 Articles and Covenants are now contained in Doctrine and Covenants section 20.
1831 marks the first time that a “higher priesthood” is ever mentioned. [9] In June of 1831, a conference was held, the first of its kind in the Restored Church. During the conference, several men were ordained and given office in the “high priesthood.”
Among those to whom the priesthood was conferred was Joseph Smith Jr.
“Joseph Smith jr. & Sidney Rigdon were ordained to the High Priesthood under the hand of br. Lyman Wight.” [10]
This conference poses a problem for the Church. If Joseph Smith was given the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1829 as we are told to believe, why would he be given the High Priesthood again in 1831?
Richard Bushman, faithful scholar and historian for the Church of Jesus Christ, had the same question.
“During the turbulent meeting, Joseph ordained five men to the high priesthood, and Lyman Wight ordained eighteen others, including Joseph. The ordinations to the high priesthood marked a milestone in Mormon ecclesiology. Until that time, the word ‘priesthood,’ although it appeared in the Book of Mormon, had not been used in Mormon sermonizing or modern revelations. Later accounts applied the term retroactively, but the June 1831 conference marked its first appearance in contemporary records… The Melchizedek Priesthood, Mormons now believe, had been bestowed a year or two earlier with the visit of Peter, James, and John. If so, why did contemporaries say the high priesthood was given for the first time in June 1831? Joseph Smith himself was ordained to this ‘high priesthood’ by Lyman Wight. If Joseph was already an elder and apostle, what was the necessity of being ordained again?” [11]
In 1833, the Book of Commandments was published. The book was a sort of “first-edition” of the modern Doctrine and Covenants. It outlined the history and the revelations of the Church. The book makes no mention of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. There is no mention of Peter, James, or John confirming the Priesthood. John the Baptist is left out of the book as well.
It is justifiable to assume that in 1833, the Church had no concept of a priesthood restoration by the hands of Christ’s apostles. It is also justifiable to assume that the idea of a “Melchizedek Priesthood” had no relevance at the time. A high priesthood and a low priesthood were all that existed.
It is not until 1835 that the modern concept of a Melchizedek Priesthood restoration by the hands of Peter, James, and John was ever conceived.
In 1835, the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were changed to include a priesthood restoration by Peter, James, and John.
In 1835, six years after the supposed priesthood restoration, these words were added to the Revelation found in Chapter 28 of the Book of Commandments:
“…and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;
And also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days;
And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias;
Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron;
And also Elijah, unto whom I have committed the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers, that the whole earth may not be smitten with a curse;
And also with Joseph and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, your fathers, by whom the promises remain;
And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;
And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;
Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;” [12]
The Church made no effort to mention these changes. The heading of the section in our current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants still claims the revelation was received in 1830. It was not. The revelation was altered. Changed. Added to. Molded to match the history the Church wanted, not the history the Church had.
What is righteous about changing this revelation? What is decent about changing the words of God to fit a narrative? What is righteous about lying about the date in which this revelation was transcribed?
Please understand: The Melchizedek Priesthood and its restoration story did not exist until 1835. It was not restored in 1829. Yet, we are told, constantly, a different story. We are told a lie. We read a lie. When we read the words of God, we are actually reading the words of wicked men, liars, who seek only to establish themselves as God’s chosen. The history does not matter to them. The narrative matters. Only the narrative.
Why does the Book of Mormon, a record which contains the fulness of the gospel, make no mention of a Melchizedek Priesthood? Why does the same book make no mention of two priesthoods whatsoever? [13]
We have already seen that the words in the first revelation were not just haphazardly written—using the Seer Stone and the power of the Holy Ghost, the words were explicitly written, carefully, without error. Joseph didn’t just forget to include the part of the revelation which mentioned the Melchizedek Priesthood.
A Church which changes the words of their God to fit the story they’d like their tithe-payers to believe is not a true Church. [14]
David Whitmer acknowledged the changes to the Doctrine and Covenants. He disagreed with them. He thought the leaders of the Church were wrong to change things the Lord said.
“Some of the revelations as they are now in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants have been changed and added to. Some of the changes being of the greatest importance as the meaning is entirely changed on some very important matters; as if the Lord had changed his mind a few years after he gave the revelations, and after having commanded his servants (as they claim) to print them in the “Book of Commandments;” and after giving his servants a revelation, being a preface until His Book of Commandments, which says: “Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, and my preface unto the Book of my Commandments, which I have given them to publish unto you, oh inhabitants of the earth.” Also in this preface, “Behold, I am God, and have spoken it; these commandments are of me.” “Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful.” The revelations were printed in the Book of Commandments correctly. This I know, and will prove it to you.
These revelations were arranged for publication by Brothers Joseph Smith, Sydney Rigdon, Orson Hyde and others, in Hiram, Ohio, while I was there, were sent to Independence to be published, and were printed just exactly as they were arranged by Brother Joseph and the others. And when the Book of Commandments was printed, Joseph and the church received it as being printed correctly. This I know. In the winter of 1834 they saw that some of the revelations in the Book of Commandments had to be changed, because the heads of the church had gone too far, and had done things in which they had already gone ahead of some of the former revelations. So the book of “Doctrine and Covenants” was printed in 1835, and some of the revelations changed and added to.” [15]
[1] Introduction to The Doctrine and Covenants, p. v
[2] “Report of Elders Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith,” Deseret Evening News, 17 Sept. 1878, Vol. XI, No. 38
[3] David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, 12
[4] One significant change made to the Doctrine and Covenants includes the deletion of Doctrine and Covenants 101:4. This section, was included (though not written) by the Prophet Joseph, in response to allegations of his adulterous sexual relationship with Fanny Alger. The section, as it appears in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants asserts that polygamy is forbidden in the Church of Jesus Christ.
“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.“
This verse remained in the Doctrine and Covenants for many years, until Brigham Young, a prolific polygamist, having married over 50 women and children in his lifetime, removed it. In the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the verse was removed, as it no longer aligned with Church doctrine and practice.
[5] Church of Jesus Christ, Topics and Questions, “Restoration of the Priesthood”
[6] Joseph Smith History 1:72
[7] “Foundations of the Restoration Teacher’s Manual,” Lesson 5: The Restoration of the Priesthood
[8] The Articles and Covenants were published in the Book of Commandments, as well as several newspapers at the time. It was formally released in 1830, though parts may have been recorded as early as 1829.
[9] Interestingly, this occurs just months after Sidney Rigdon’s baptism and ordination as an elder into the Restored Church. Rigdon had been a notorious “Campbellite,” a religious sect of the early 1800s, which famously preached two priesthoods, a higher and a lower.
[11] Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 2005,157-158
[12] Doctrine and Covenants 27:5-13
[13] Some apologists will claim that the Book of Mormon does, in fact, contain the Melchizedek Priesthood, citing verses which mention the “high priesthood.” The Book of Mormon does not have a Melchizedek Priesthood. Rather, it has a single priesthood, called the “high priesthood.” All who are given this priesthood have the same authority. There is no hierarchy.
[14] It could be asked what motivation the men had to lie, or change the history. It is simple. During the existence of a single priesthood, there was little hierarchy. One member of that priesthood had just as much authority as another. It is not until the creation of a higher priesthood that certain men could have more power than certain others.
[15] David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, 56
