The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, Part 1
Christopher Kirkland
12

John Shaw, while revelations were sometimes edited after scribes took them down, because of transmission errors or Joseph feeling the language didn’t reflect what he received (various revelations are not mostly words, like Section 76 for example, on the various degrees of glory in the afterlife), that does NOT appear to be the case for Section 84. Therefor I must assume that Joseph thought the wording there best reflected the Lord’s revelation to him — which, by the way, seems to be a revelation that IS a revelation of directly communicated words, and not a heavenly vision or other form of revelation that he is describing with his best human efforts. It appears to be in first person from the Lord, speaking to Joseph. Not the case with other revelations, and those are the ones I am aware of that had any significant revision. Section 76 for example, was put into a poetic form, and was published with Joseph’s approval. Either way, we must presume that what is in print is the best effort to interpret what was revealed, and my analysis is my best effort to interpret that interpretation. I also feel that even if the varying word choice factor was non-existent, there is no other explanation that makes doctrinal or practical sense of the revelation.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.