Another changed revelation

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Shawn Henry
Posts: 7256

Another changed revelation

Post by Shawn Henry »

In June of 1829, Oliver wrote down a revelation from JS known as “Articles of the Church of Christ”. Church historian John Whitmer also included this in Revelation Book 1. What strikes me about this revelation is that it seems Oliver was to organize the church, despite the April 1830 "Articles and Covenants" stating a different church governance.

Look at how it starts:

A commandment from God unto Oliver [Cowdery] how he should build up his Church & the manner thereof——
Saying Oliver listen to the voice of Christ your Lord & your God & your Redeemer & write the words which I shall command you concerning my Church my Gospel my Rock & my Salvation.

The church history says that Oliver Cowdery wrote “Articles of the Church of Christ” in June 1829 in response to a JS revelation, and Oliver did indeed write the last few sentences, but this portion above seems to be taken directly from Joseph's revelation. The Lord speaks directly to Oliver.

So, did Oliver decide to become more than just a scribe, or did Joseph not like the fact that Oliver was to take charge of the church, or is it something else?

This revelation on church governance and Section 18 on church governance also have some similar language. The 1829 revelation says, "concerning my Church my Gospel my Rock & my Salvation". Section 18 reads "concerning the foundation of my church, my gospel, and my rock", but my salvation is omitted. Both say, "I speak unto you even as unto Paul mine apostle."

The idea that Oliver was to lead the church does coincide with David Whitmer's history of events. Whitmer claims that upon completion of the BoM, JS gave Oliver the seer stone and told him his work was complete. It makes sense that a revelation with Christ speaking to Oliver in first person would be received by Joseph.

It's odd that this has never really surfaced in church history. No one has leveled any claims that Oliver tried taking control, or that he erroneously recorded a revelation from Joseph.

One thing to note is that when this revelation was recorded in the revelation book, somebody removed the opening paragraph that showed that it was Jesus talking to Oliver. It is only because a copy in Oliver's handwriting resurfacing decades later that we know about it. Interestingly, more of than 1829 revelations were to Oliver than they were to Joseph.

Here is the JSPP link to the article and its history: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... transcript

AgeOfAquarius
Posts: 1633

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by AgeOfAquarius »

Shawn Henry wrote: January 24th, 2025, 7:45 pm In June of 1829, Oliver wrote down a revelation from JS known as “Articles of the Church of Christ”. Church historian John Whitmer also included this in Revelation Book 1. What strikes me about this revelation is that it seems Oliver was to organize the church, despite the April 1830 "Articles and Covenants" stating a different church governance.

Look at how it starts:

A commandment from God unto Oliver [Cowdery] how he should build up his Church & the manner thereof——
Saying Oliver listen to the voice of Christ your Lord & your God & your Redeemer & write the words which I shall command you concerning my Church my Gospel my Rock & my Salvation.

The church history says that Oliver Cowdery wrote “Articles of the Church of Christ” in June 1829 in response to a JS revelation, and Oliver did indeed write the last few sentences, but this portion above seems to be taken directly from Joseph's revelation. The Lord speaks directly to Oliver.

So, did Oliver decide to become more than just a scribe, or did Joseph not like the fact that Oliver was to take charge of the church, or is it something else?

This revelation on church governance and Section 18 on church governance also have some similar language. The 1829 revelation says, "concerning my Church my Gospel my Rock & my Salvation". Section 18 reads "concerning the foundation of my church, my gospel, and my rock", but my salvation is omitted. Both say, "I speak unto you even as unto Paul mine apostle."

The idea that Oliver was to lead the church does coincide with David Whitmer's history of events. Whitmer claims that upon completion of the BoM, JS gave Oliver the seer stone and told him his work was complete. It makes sense that a revelation with Christ speaking to Oliver in first person would be received by Joseph.

It's odd that this has never really surfaced in church history. No one has leveled any claims that Oliver tried taking control, or that he erroneously recorded a revelation from Joseph.

One thing to note is that when this revelation was recorded in the revelation book, somebody removed the opening paragraph that showed that it was Jesus talking to Oliver. It is only because a copy in Oliver's handwriting resurfacing decades later that we know about it. Interestingly, more of than 1829 revelations were to Oliver than they were to Joseph.

Here is the JSPP link to the article and its history: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... transcript
"The idea that Oliver was to lead the church does coincide with David Whitmer's history of events. Whitmer claims that upon completion of the BoM, JS gave Oliver the seer stone and told him his work was complete. It makes sense that a revelation with Christ speaking to Oliver in first person would be received by Joseph."

I have read Whitmer'sbook "Address to all believers" and Idid not see anywhere where he claims that upon completion of the BoMJS gave Oliver the seer stone and told him his work was complete.
That seems absolutely bogus.
Oliver was given a chance to translate some of the BOM, but he failed to do it right. That'srecorded in the D&C, Yet, it does seem that Oliver took liberty to change, add things to revelations, etc.


I would suggest reading this about Mormon History https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eds1bE ... p=drivesdk

User avatar
LDSFreedom
Posts: 776
Location: The Land of the New Jerusalem

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by LDSFreedom »

AgeOfAquarius wrote: January 24th, 2025, 8:42 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: January 24th, 2025, 7:45 pm In June of 1829, Oliver wrote down a revelation from JS known as “Articles of the Church of Christ”. Church historian John Whitmer also included this in Revelation Book 1. What strikes me about this revelation is that it seems Oliver was to organize the church, despite the April 1830 "Articles and Covenants" stating a different church governance.

Look at how it starts:

A commandment from God unto Oliver [Cowdery] how he should build up his Church & the manner thereof——
Saying Oliver listen to the voice of Christ your Lord & your God & your Redeemer & write the words which I shall command you concerning my Church my Gospel my Rock & my Salvation.

The church history says that Oliver Cowdery wrote “Articles of the Church of Christ” in June 1829 in response to a JS revelation, and Oliver did indeed write the last few sentences, but this portion above seems to be taken directly from Joseph's revelation. The Lord speaks directly to Oliver.

So, did Oliver decide to become more than just a scribe, or did Joseph not like the fact that Oliver was to take charge of the church, or is it something else?

This revelation on church governance and Section 18 on church governance also have some similar language. The 1829 revelation says, "concerning my Church my Gospel my Rock & my Salvation". Section 18 reads "concerning the foundation of my church, my gospel, and my rock", but my salvation is omitted. Both say, "I speak unto you even as unto Paul mine apostle."

The idea that Oliver was to lead the church does coincide with David Whitmer's history of events. Whitmer claims that upon completion of the BoM, JS gave Oliver the seer stone and told him his work was complete. It makes sense that a revelation with Christ speaking to Oliver in first person would be received by Joseph.

It's odd that this has never really surfaced in church history. No one has leveled any claims that Oliver tried taking control, or that he erroneously recorded a revelation from Joseph.

One thing to note is that when this revelation was recorded in the revelation book, somebody removed the opening paragraph that showed that it was Jesus talking to Oliver. It is only because a copy in Oliver's handwriting resurfacing decades later that we know about it. Interestingly, more of than 1829 revelations were to Oliver than they were to Joseph.

Here is the JSPP link to the article and its history: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... transcript
"The idea that Oliver was to lead the church does coincide with David Whitmer's history of events. Whitmer claims that upon completion of the BoM, JS gave Oliver the seer stone and told him his work was complete. It makes sense that a revelation with Christ speaking to Oliver in first person would be received by Joseph."

I have read Whitmer'sbook "Address to all believers" and Idid not see anywhere where he claims that upon completion of the BoMJS gave Oliver the seer stone and told him his work was complete.
That seems absolutely bogus.
Oliver was given a chance to translate some of the BOM, but he failed to do it right. That'srecorded in the D&C, Yet, it does seem that Oliver took liberty to change, add things to revelations, etc.


I would suggest reading this about Mormon History https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eds1bE ... p=drivesdk
See this reference for information about the stone: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/ ... one-images
IMG_0489.png
IMG_0489.png (375.13 KiB) Viewed 872 times
See page 32 from David Whitmer’s “An Address to All Believers In Christ”

AgeOfAquarius
Posts: 1633

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by AgeOfAquarius »

LDSFreedom wrote: January 25th, 2025, 2:34 am
AgeOfAquarius wrote: January 24th, 2025, 8:42 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: January 24th, 2025, 7:45 pm In June of 1829, Oliver wrote down a revelation from JS known as “Articles of the Church of Christ”. Church historian John Whitmer also included this in Revelation Book 1. What strikes me about this revelation is that it seems Oliver was to organize the church, despite the April 1830 "Articles and Covenants" stating a different church governance.

Look at how it starts:

A commandment from God unto Oliver [Cowdery] how he should build up his Church & the manner thereof——
Saying Oliver listen to the voice of Christ your Lord & your God & your Redeemer & write the words which I shall command you concerning my Church my Gospel my Rock & my Salvation.

The church history says that Oliver Cowdery wrote “Articles of the Church of Christ” in June 1829 in response to a JS revelation, and Oliver did indeed write the last few sentences, but this portion above seems to be taken directly from Joseph's revelation. The Lord speaks directly to Oliver.

So, did Oliver decide to become more than just a scribe, or did Joseph not like the fact that Oliver was to take charge of the church, or is it something else?

This revelation on church governance and Section 18 on church governance also have some similar language. The 1829 revelation says, "concerning my Church my Gospel my Rock & my Salvation". Section 18 reads "concerning the foundation of my church, my gospel, and my rock", but my salvation is omitted. Both say, "I speak unto you even as unto Paul mine apostle."

The idea that Oliver was to lead the church does coincide with David Whitmer's history of events. Whitmer claims that upon completion of the BoM, JS gave Oliver the seer stone and told him his work was complete. It makes sense that a revelation with Christ speaking to Oliver in first person would be received by Joseph.

It's odd that this has never really surfaced in church history. No one has leveled any claims that Oliver tried taking control, or that he erroneously recorded a revelation from Joseph.

One thing to note is that when this revelation was recorded in the revelation book, somebody removed the opening paragraph that showed that it was Jesus talking to Oliver. It is only because a copy in Oliver's handwriting resurfacing decades later that we know about it. Interestingly, more of than 1829 revelations were to Oliver than they were to Joseph.

Here is the JSPP link to the article and its history: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... transcript
"The idea that Oliver was to lead the church does coincide with David Whitmer's history of events. Whitmer claims that upon completion of the BoM, JS gave Oliver the seer stone and told him his work was complete. It makes sense that a revelation with Christ speaking to Oliver in first person would be received by Joseph."

I have read Whitmer'sbook "Address to all believers" and Idid not see anywhere where he claims that upon completion of the BoMJS gave Oliver the seer stone and told him his work was complete.
That seems absolutely bogus.
Oliver was given a chance to translate some of the BOM, but he failed to do it right. That'srecorded in the D&C, Yet, it does seem that Oliver took liberty to change, add things to revelations, etc.


I would suggest reading this about Mormon History https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eds1bE ... p=drivesdk
See this reference for information about the stone: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/ ... one-images
IMG_0489.png
See page 32 from David Whitmer’s “An Address to All Believers In Christ”
Well, I'll be.. 😅😁 thank you, much appreciated!
So it said "according to Witmer Joseph gave Oliver the seer stone....." it does not say that Joseph said his work was complete or that Oliver was to lead the church.
If anything..... it just meant the work of translating the BoM was over. However, during the translation time the subject of John was brought up and that lead Joseph to inquire about and at some point was commanded by God to work on translating the Bible. There was no indication Joseph was giving everything over to Oliver....
( I posted this on a different thread too...
D&C 35 headnotes: Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Sidney Rigdon, at or near Fayette, New York, December 7, 1830. At this time, the Prophet was engaged almost daily in making a translation of the Bible. The translation was begun as early as June 1830, and both Oliver Cowdery and John Whitmer had served as scribes. Since they had now been called to other duties, Sidney Rigdon was called by divine appointment to serve as the Prophet’s scribe in this work (see verse 20).
D&C 42:15 15 And all this ye shall observe to do as I have commanded concerning your teaching, until the fulness of my scriptures is given. -- The Fullness of my scriptures is the translation of the Bible. )

I also posted a link to an article that said the Saints never raised enough money to print the translation of the Bible.
Also at some point things fell a part quite a bit for the church in 1838- one of which was the excommunication of Oliver Cowdery.

So, I thank you for finding that citation to the stone that I missed! But still, I do not believe it had anything to do with Oliver taking over. My understanding anyway.

User avatar
Telavian
Posts: 4145
Contact:

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by Telavian »

This would be so ironic if Oliver was to lead the church, but Joseph got jealous and took it over instead.

In Nauvoo it seems Joseph was a bit of an ego manic, however before that his head wasn't so big.

User avatar
LDSFreedom
Posts: 776
Location: The Land of the New Jerusalem

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by LDSFreedom »

Telavian wrote: January 25th, 2025, 9:12 am This would be so ironic if Oliver was to lead the church, but Joseph got jealous and took it over instead.

In Nauvoo it seems Joseph was a bit of an ego manic, however before that his head wasn't so big.
Except for Fanny Alger, etc. :o

User avatar
Luke
Posts: 11494
Location: England

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by Luke »

Telavian wrote: January 25th, 2025, 9:12 am This would be so ironic if Oliver was to lead the church, but Joseph got jealous and took it over instead.

In Nauvoo it seems Joseph was a bit of an ego manic, however before that his head wasn't so big.
I think that Oliver would have asserted his claim at some point in time if this were true, yet he never did.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
Posts: 7256

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: January 25th, 2025, 11:10 am
Telavian wrote: January 25th, 2025, 9:12 am This would be so ironic if Oliver was to lead the church, but Joseph got jealous and took it over instead.

In Nauvoo it seems Joseph was a bit of an ego manic, however before that his head wasn't so big.
I think that Oliver would have asserted his claim at some point in time if this were true, yet he never did.
You would think, yet no one disputes that the revelation is in his handwriting and the opening paragraph is unambiguous.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
Posts: 7256

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by Shawn Henry »

AgeOfAquarius wrote: January 25th, 2025, 4:01 am a translation of the Bible.
The New Translation has at least two big problems.

1. It violates the 1 Nephi 3:7 principle that the Lord provides a way to fulfill that which he commands. It was never completed. It doesn't even fix 1% of the Bible. The missing books of the Bible are still missing. It never went forth with the BoM in one volume.

2. The vast majority of the work is plagiarized from Adam Clarke's commentary. Joseph didn't even do most of the work. And some of what he did do, preserved known errors.

AgeOfAquarius
Posts: 1633

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by AgeOfAquarius »

Shawn Henry wrote: January 25th, 2025, 9:14 pm
AgeOfAquarius wrote: January 25th, 2025, 4:01 am a translation of the Bible.
The New Translation has at least two big problems.

1. It violates the 1 Nephi 3:7 principle that the Lord provides a way to fulfill that which he commands. It was never completed. It doesn't even fix 1% of the Bible. The missing books of the Bible are still missing. It never went forth with the BoM in one volume.

2. The vast majority of the work is plagiarized from Adam Clarke's commentary. Joseph didn't even do most of the work. And some of what he did do, preserved known errors.
Actually it was completed- I posted an article about it in another thread, the saints never bothered to raise enough money to get it printed. So yes, exactly it never went forth with the Book of Mormon in one volume. EDIT- IT NEVER WENT FORTH IN ONE VOLUME FROM THE CHURCH - HOWEVER.... IT IS NOW IN ONE VOLUME PUT OUT BY RESTORATION ARCHIVES (The New Testament and The Book of Mormon)
I can understand about the missing books of the Bible and all the errors that may have been retained- but from what I can tell he completed what the Lord wanted of him- why with the errors and all, I don't know....
I don't know who Adam Clarke is.
So, it doesn't fall on Joseph- the saints never bothered to raise the money to make sure to get it printed.
I appreciate your info tho, but I'm pretty sure we will just have to agree to disagree 🤍🤝

AgeOfAquarius
Posts: 1633

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by AgeOfAquarius »

I unfortunately woke up a short time ago and taking longer than wanted to go back to sleep, so I looked up Adam Clarke... this is what I found. I now draw the conclusions that Joseph had nothing to do with Adam's writings, but if people think that, 🤷‍♀️ everyone can come to their own conclusions. I never believed that to be the case anyway, but ...

https://thelatterdayliberator.com/adam-clarke-jst/

Adam Clarke vs. Joseph Smith’s Translation Of The Bible


https://www.google.com/search?q=adam+cl ... e&ie=UTF-8
Last edited by AgeOfAquarius on January 26th, 2025, 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Luke
Posts: 11494
Location: England

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by Luke »

Shawn Henry wrote: January 25th, 2025, 9:06 pm
Luke wrote: January 25th, 2025, 11:10 am
Telavian wrote: January 25th, 2025, 9:12 am This would be so ironic if Oliver was to lead the church, but Joseph got jealous and took it over instead.

In Nauvoo it seems Joseph was a bit of an ego manic, however before that his head wasn't so big.
I think that Oliver would have asserted his claim at some point in time if this were true, yet he never did.
You would think, yet no one disputes that the revelation is in his handwriting and the opening paragraph is unambiguous.
I like the revelation. I think it’s an interesting document. But Oliver didn’t feel that it gave him the right to lead the Church, else he surely would have said so.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
Posts: 7256

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: January 26th, 2025, 1:53 am
Shawn Henry wrote: January 25th, 2025, 9:06 pm
Luke wrote: January 25th, 2025, 11:10 am

I think that Oliver would have asserted his claim at some point in time if this were true, yet he never did.
You would think, yet no one disputes that the revelation is in his handwriting and the opening paragraph is unambiguous.
I like the revelation. I think it’s an interesting document. But Oliver didn’t feel that it gave him the right to lead the Church, else he surely would have said so.
Unless he was unwilling to fight Joseph on it. If Joseph received it, why isn't Joseph the one letting Oliver take charge?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
Posts: 7256

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by Shawn Henry »

AgeOfAquarius wrote: January 26th, 2025, 1:49 am I now draw the conclusions that Joseph had nothing to do with Adam's writings, but if people think that, 🤷‍♀️ everyone can come to their own conclusions.
It's not that people think that. It's that every scholar including all BYU scholars think that. It is very obvious, in some cases Adam Clarke's commentary makes mistakes and Joseph copies those mistakes. It can't get more obvious.

Joseph stopped the work, but it definitely wasn't complete. There are entire books with no changes, many books with only a few inconsequential changes. Unless the Lord commanded Joseph to bring forth a giant nothing burger!

User avatar
Luke
Posts: 11494
Location: England

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by Luke »

Shawn Henry wrote: January 26th, 2025, 10:46 am
Luke wrote: January 26th, 2025, 1:53 am
Shawn Henry wrote: January 25th, 2025, 9:06 pm
You would think, yet no one disputes that the revelation is in his handwriting and the opening paragraph is unambiguous.
I like the revelation. I think it’s an interesting document. But Oliver didn’t feel that it gave him the right to lead the Church, else he surely would have said so.
Unless he was unwilling to fight Joseph on it. If Joseph received it, why isn't Joseph the one letting Oliver take charge?
Shawn… this is Mormonism. The religion of people making leadership claims. If what you are saying is true, then Oliver would be the only person with grounds to make a leadership claim (perhaps the best claim in all of Mormonism) and NOT make the claim. Such would be astounding. :D

AgeOfAquarius
Posts: 1633

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by AgeOfAquarius »

Shawn Henry wrote: January 26th, 2025, 11:11 am
AgeOfAquarius wrote: January 26th, 2025, 1:49 am I now draw the conclusions that Joseph had nothing to do with Adam's writings, but if people think that, 🤷‍♀️ everyone can come to their own conclusions.
It's not that people think that. It's that every scholar including all BYU scholars think that. It is very obvious, in some cases Adam Clarke's commentary makes mistakes and Joseph copies those mistakes. It can't get more obvious.

Joseph stopped the work, but it definitely wasn't complete. There are entire books with no changes, many books with only a few inconsequential changes. Unless the Lord commanded Joseph to bring forth a giant nothing burger!
BYU scholars can believe what they want and you provide no proof of your claim.
I do believe Joseph finished what the Lord wanted at the time.
We agree to disagree.

Lynn
Posts: 1399

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by Lynn »

With just a few seconds to spare. Joseph corrected what he was led to as for the Bible (IV/JST)

Here are a few examples:
a little more on Enoch & Adam
the land that came up, being the west coast of USA (set to go back under soon)
identifying Peleg as the Brother of Jared
clarifying somewhat about suffering a witch to live
Moses was given the 50th Power- the NAME, at the Burning Bush
John 1 Logos (Divine Word) doctrine- GOSPEL (God Spell = Divine Name) aka the record of John
the Restorer to come
identifying the true John of the Book of Revelation

AgeOfAquarius
Posts: 1633

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by AgeOfAquarius »

Lynn wrote: January 26th, 2025, 12:28 pm With just a few seconds to spare. Joseph corrected what he was led to as for the Bible (IV/JST)

Thank you, I completely agree.

zoologist
Posts: 57

Re: Another changed revelation

Post by zoologist »

Shawn Henry wrote: January 24th, 2025, 7:45 pm In June of 1829, Oliver wrote down a revelation from JS known as “Articles of the Church of Christ”. Church historian John Whitmer also included this in Revelation Book 1. What strikes me about this revelation is that it seems Oliver was to organize the church, despite the April 1830 "Articles and Covenants" stating a different church governance.

Look at how it starts:

A commandment from God unto Oliver [Cowdery] how he should build up his Church & the manner thereof——
Saying Oliver listen to the voice of Christ your Lord & your God & your Redeemer & write the words which I shall command you concerning my Church my Gospel my Rock & my Salvation.

The church history says that Oliver Cowdery wrote “Articles of the Church of Christ” in June 1829 in response to a JS revelation, and Oliver did indeed write the last few sentences, but this portion above seems to be taken directly from Joseph's revelation. The Lord speaks directly to Oliver.

So, did Oliver decide to become more than just a scribe, or did Joseph not like the fact that Oliver was to take charge of the church, or is it something else?

This revelation on church governance and Section 18 on church governance also have some similar language. The 1829 revelation says, "concerning my Church my Gospel my Rock & my Salvation". Section 18 reads "concerning the foundation of my church, my gospel, and my rock", but my salvation is omitted. Both say, "I speak unto you even as unto Paul mine apostle."

The idea that Oliver was to lead the church does coincide with David Whitmer's history of events. Whitmer claims that upon completion of the BoM, JS gave Oliver the seer stone and told him his work was complete. It makes sense that a revelation with Christ speaking to Oliver in first person would be received by Joseph.

It's odd that this has never really surfaced in church history. No one has leveled any claims that Oliver tried taking control, or that he erroneously recorded a revelation from Joseph.

One thing to note is that when this revelation was recorded in the revelation book, somebody removed the opening paragraph that showed that it was Jesus talking to Oliver. It is only because a copy in Oliver's handwriting resurfacing decades later that we know about it. Interestingly, more of than 1829 revelations were to Oliver than they were to Joseph.

Here is the JSPP link to the article and its history: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... transcript
Interesting find, @Shawn Henry. Very interesting. I wonder if the JS-OC relationship was akin to the Moses-Aaron one (sec 28). Looking at the first few miracles/plagues of Exodus, who performed them—Moses or Aaron? Whose rod was it? Likewise, who was supposed to build up the church—Joseph or Oliver?

Another possibility: Sec 30 teaches that Oliver had power to build up Christ’s church among the Lamanites. Perhaps from the start the intent was for him to build up the church among the seed of Lehi specifically… or maybe it shifted to that after some time.

Anyway, thanks for your post. It got me pondering.

Post Reply