If material emendations are made to scripture in the form of additions, corrections or deletions, shouldn’t the reader be made aware of them. Varying texts, removing plain and precious parts is an accusation levelled at Biblical scribes to ensure their view of orthodoxy prevailed. Therefore should we not expect the restoration to be free from accusations of text tampering. In the case of the D&C, the accusation is to disguise the changing, evolving nature of Joseph’s doctrine’s. The reader of the modern D&C is denied any opportunity from the text to make any initial assessment of doctrinal development. This situation would be improved if modern versions included through section headings, footnotes or italics, information disclosing each sections original texts, additions or modifications.
Before I give examples of D&C changes, it would be helpful to understand briefly the historic development of this Mormon canon. My ereader edition of the Book of Commandments published in 1833 contains 67 sections. The first edition Doctrine & Covenants 1835 expanded the number of sections, as did the 2nd edition of 1844. Clearly chronological additions would be inserted over time, also it is understandable that material considered worthy of being canonised might be included, for example my 1981 and subsequent editions include a vision given to Prophet Joseph F Smith disclosed in 1918, sec 138. Additions of new sections are not an issue, however clarity would be improved if the dates of their addition were stated.
Date D&C Additions Section 2 appeared for the first time in 1981, “Behold I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah……” we currently understand the significance of Elijah bestowing the keys of sealing authority, without it families would not be eternal. Moroni informs Joseph of this fact on the evening of 21st Sept 1823. Section 2 is extracted from Joseph Smith History 1:38, understandably it should be canonised, as it doctrinally underpins Mormon eschatology (final destiny of the soul). We are not informed that Joseph Smith’s history from which this section is derived was written in 1838.
Section 13 cites ordination of the Aaronic Priesthood on the banks of the Susquehanna river May 15, 1829. It was written by Joseph Smith in 1839. Oliver Cowdery’s version is shorter than Josephs, the salient point being “I confer this priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon the earth…sons of Levi”, etc.
Why is this relevant? We are mistaken if we believe that this information and its theological importance existed from the dates they are purported to have transpired. David Whitmer is just one such key participant who observed he knew nothing of any such angelic ministrations and this is a couple of years into the existence of the church. Is it only curious that priesthood ordination and keys are unknown by the earliest founding members?
The occurrence of sections 2 & 13 are years before their disclosure, supporting the claims of D Michael Quinn, Charles Farrell, Dan Vogel and Gregory Prince that Priesthood significance was not divinely restored, it evolved. This presents a baffling conclusion, why did God allow Joseph twenty years between 1823 and 1844 to figure out how the priesthood functions? Would it not have been simpler to get it right from the start?
Retrospective Additions A highly significant example is provided in D&C section 27, revelation given August 1830 found in the Book of Commandments chap 28. The BoC version is considerably shorter, it ends midway through verse 5. The later version adds “The Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel”….and continues to verse 18, pertinently it reveals a succession of keys committed to bringing about the restoration between John the Baptists inaugural confirmation of keys culminating with those bestowed by Elijah. These additional verses were included in the 1835 version.
D Michael Quinn observed in Origins of Power that Joseph’s concept of authority derived initially from being author of the Book of Mormon, then transformed to a general form of Priesthood with only a few offices, to angelic ministrations revealing distinctions between Aaronic and Melchizedek, leading to ordinations, then organising Presiding quorums. Arguably these phases more accurately describe an evolution rather than a restoration. The absence of transparency over the emergence of retrospective additions does not aid a defence against evolution. These additions were recognised by leaders in the 19th century such as Orson Pratt in his Journal of Discourses and Church President John Taylor who said Joseph Smith had a right “to give a portion of revelation and add to it afterwards” 12 Oct 1883, Salt Lake School of Prophets Minute Book.
If you are making it up, then going back to straighten things out, making it look like it was there all along is consistent with the notion of fabrication. Surely if additions or alterations were that significant, shouldn’t some divine adviser or heavenly messenger have pointed this out to Joseph. Why make it appear as though he is retrospectively stumbling through the process of figuring out the order of the Priesthood?