LDS doctrine is quite clearly understood by members of my generation, namely the ancient or primitive church of Christ was restored by Joseph Smith. Lately President Russell M Nelson is writing that back, suggesting we are still in the process of restoration.
Book of Commandments section 4,March 1829, now sec 5 in the modern D&C looks different in many respects with Joseph making adjustments. In verse 5 of the BoC, which would be around verse 14 in today’s D&C states “If the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them …….I will establish my church like unto the church which was taught by my disciples in the days of old“.
If a comparison is made between these two sections, the first thing to be noted, is how difficult it is to lay them side by side, as parts of the BoC are missing and parts of D&C are additional material. So we are not talking about tweaking a phrase or two. I will repeat an observation made elsewhere, why aren’t readers today provided with italics to show additions in the D&C and why aren’t there footnotes showing original verses that have been omitted? The current edition falsely leads the reader into a belief that what they are reading is the original revelation as recorded by Joseph Smith. Careful study of the changes lends credence to the notion that doctrine was evolving, not being restored. Clarification is always useful, but retrospective changes where meaning or doctrine is introduced, enhanced or redacted without transparency is misleading at best or deceitful at worst.
The idea of a restoration was not unique to Mormonism at the time of its inception, many movements and discussion of the need to restore or take Christians back to the primitive church was a much reported subject in popular literature. When the church began proselyting, it used the Book of Mormon, it didn’t begin to use the Joseph Smith story until much later, in the British Isles in particular. So a restoration message did not feature as a significant doctrinal talking point. This contextual information makes the ‘reformation’ reference in establishing Christs church as in the meridian of time easier to understand. Further evidence of the lack of importance of a ‘restoration’ is found in Joseph’s earliest First Vision accounts.
For in the 1832 and 1835 versions there isn’t any discussion with deity about which sect to join? I am suggesting the evidence stemming from BoC 4 ‘I will work a reformation among them ….and establish my church as taught by my disciples of old.’ Reveals Josephs thinking in 1829he wasn’t certain at that point of the churches position, the alterations reveal where his thoughts lead him eventually, to a certainty of a ‘restoration’, with the additional need of authority, then namely priesthood authority, then two priesthoods, then an organisation of quorums and finally the necessity of keys bestowed by Elijah.
Anticipating criticism of my analysis, why take issue over the choice of a word ‘reformation’ vs ‘restoration’? Firstly, the term restoration was topical, so Joseph chose in BoC sec 4 1829 to use reformation instead of restoration. Secondly, he redacted the term ‘reformation’, why not leave it, allowing room to explore the term and it’s context at the time, ie for Joseph the terms could have been interchangeable. Third, why doesn’t the church highlight the changes in modern D&C scriptures, permitting the reader to see the transition of doctrinal ideas. Fourth, why does the modern LDS church allow false narratives to remain active, never in fifty years did I ever hear a talk, attend a lesson, read an article about Joseph’s first vision accounts, that he made reference to a reformation. I recently ditched my copy of Saints, does it mention the word ‘reformation’?