Doctrine and Covenants section 1 is a fascinating document.\u00a0 Written in late 1831, it would chronologically fall in place right around section 67, but was intended as a preface for the compilation of Joseph Smith\u2019s revelations known as the Book of Commandments. \u00a0By extension, it later served as the preface for the Doctrine and Covenants.<\/p>\n
Section 1 is intended to get people\u2019s attention and make it clear that modern revelations from the Lord are important to pay attention to.\u00a0 It declares that the text is written in \u201cthe voice of him who dwells on high \u2026 the voice of the Lord,\u201d[1]<\/a> and that \u201cthe voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouth of my disciples whom I have chosen in these last days \u2026, for I the Lord have commanded them.\u201d[2]<\/a> \u00a0Right off the bat, we have a document presented as the voice of the Lord and that voice declaring that He has authorized disciples to give voice to His warnings. \u00a0It specifically names Joseph Smith as \u201cmy servant\u201d and states that the Lord \u201cspake unto him from heaven and gave him commandments\u201d and that \u201cthese commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0 As indicated by the title that was given to the first attempt at publishing a collection of revelations or sections (the Book of Commandments<\/a>\u2014the title was actually capitalized to emphasize the name in what is now D&C 1:6 in the early drafts of the document<\/a>), commandments is a term being used here to refer to the revelations.\u00a0 The point about the weight of authority given to the revelations (commandments) Joseph Smith recorded is driven home again in the closing section, which states: \u201cSearch these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled.\u00a0 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.\u201d[4]<\/a>\u00a0 The text of this revelation is intent on convincing us that the Lord\u2019s authority stands behind the revelations compiled in the Doctrine and Covenants.<\/p>\n This last phrase that I\u2019ve quoted (\u201cwhether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same\u201d) has been used extensively to make the point that we should listen to and obey the words of modern leaders of the Church.\u00a0 One example of how it has been used recently is Elder David A. Bednar\u2019s statement in a 2015 general conference that: \u201cThe Savior declared, \u2018whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.\u2019\u00a0 May we hear and heed the eternal truths taught by the Lord\u2019s authorized representatives.\u201d[5]<\/a>\u00a0 In this case, the verse is used to add weight to the teachings of Church leaders as they were voiced in general conference.\u00a0 When I was younger, the way this verse was used at Church led me to believe that general authorities essentially had a permanent mind-melding with God and that, as a result, everything they said was what God would say (and therefore the gospel truth).\u00a0 I recognize that this was, perhaps, an extreme interpretation, but I have met plenty of other Latter-day Saints who have held similar beliefs about prophetic infallibility and constant inspiration.\u00a0 Of course, one of the core paradoxes of our religion is created by holding the belief that authorized individuals speak for God in tension with the reality that all humans are imperfect and therefore do not always speak or act in the ways God would have them do, even if they are given high callings in our Church.<\/p>\n This tension is demonstrated by an incident that occurred during the Reed Smoot hearings of the early 20th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 During the proceedings of the trials, President Francis M. Lyman (the president of the Quorum of the Twelve) had to take back an earlier statement while under questioning.\u00a0 A senator named George Frisbie Hoar then asked President Lyman whether he was \u201canswering [questions] under the direction of the Lord, according to your belief, or merely in your human and uninspired capacity?\u201d\u00a0 The apostle responded that: \u201cI believe I shall answer the questions that are asked me here as the spirit of the Lord directs me, and truthfully.\u201d\u00a0 Senator Hoar pressed the point and Elder Lyman affirmed that he believed that the spirit of the Lord directed him in his answers during the trial.\u00a0 So, the senator then asked: \u201cThen, in your belief, did the spirit of the Lord direct you to make the answer which you just took back and said was a mistake?\u201d\u00a0 President Lyman chose to not respond to the question.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n While the incident might seem a little silly in retrospect, it caused a big enough stir in the Church at the time that Elder B. H. Roberts felt the need to address some concerns that it raised.\u00a0 \u00a0A portion of his response is as follows:<\/p>\n I think it a reasonable conclusion to say that constant, never-varying inspiration is not a factor in the administration of the affairs of the Church; not even good men, no, not even though they be prophets or other high officials of the Church, are at all times and in all things inspired of God. It is only occasionally, and at need, that God comes to their aid.<\/p>\n That there have been unwise things done in the Church by good men, men susceptible at times to the inspiration of the Spirit of God, we may not question. Many instances in the history of the Church, through three quarters of a century, prove it, and it would be a solecism to say that God was the author of those unwise, not to say positively foolish, things that have been done. For these things men must stand responsible, not God.<\/p>\n It is well nigh as dangerous to claim too much for the inspiration of God, in the affairs of men, as it is to claim too little. By the first, men are led into superstition, and into blasphemously accrediting their own imperfect actions, their blunders, and possibly even their sins, to God; and by the second, they are apt to altogether eliminate the influence of God from human affairs; I pause in doubt as to which conclusion would be the worse.[7]<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, Elder Roberts\u2014both in his role as a high-ranking general authority and as a prominent historian of the Church\u2014felt that it was unwise to claim that everything Church leaders say is the word of God, given under His inspiration, while still indicating that it is equally unwise to go to the total opposite view and say that Church leaders are never inspired by God.<\/p>\n Perhaps, considering the above, an important question to ask is whether D&C 1:38 was intended to be used in the ways it is often used today to add weight to the words of current Church leaders.\u00a0 In its original context, the statement seems to be addressing concerns about the revelations that Joseph Smith had been recording and whether it was appropriate to publish a collection of those revelations.\u00a0 A conference was held on 1-2 November 1831 to discuss a proposal to publish a compilation of revelations.\u00a0 According to David Whitmer, \u201ca few of the brethren\u201d objected to the decision to publish the revelations, believing \u201cthat it was not the will of the Lord that the revelations should be published.\u201d[8]<\/a> \u00a0One of the reasons seems to be that there were concerns about whether the revelations were truly the words of God and, if so, why the language in them was imperfect.\u00a0 Joseph Smith dictated Section 1 and then afterwards, \u201csome conversation was had concerning Revelations and language\u201d and Joseph Smith recorded another revelation in response to that conversation.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n This second revelation (now D&C 67) addressed these concerns directly. It noted that \u201cthere were fears in you hearts\u201d and observed that their \u201ceyes have\u00a0been upon my Servent Joseph & his language you\u00a0have known & his imperfections you have known\u00a0& you have sought in your hearts knowlege that\u00a0you might express beyond his language.\u201d[10]<\/a> \u00a0Then it offered a challenge to give them \u201ca testimony of the truth of those commandments\u201d (the revelations)\u2014to choose a revelation from the collection and then \u201cappoint him that\u00a0is the most wise among you or if there be any among\u00a0you that shall make one like unto it then ye are\u00a0Justified in saying that ye do not know that is true.\u201d[11]<\/a>\u00a0 According to one account: \u201cAfter the above was received,\u00a0Wm<\/sup><\/u>.<\/sup> E. McLellin, as the wisest man in his own estimation, having more learning than sense, endeavored to write a commandment like unto one of the least of the Lord\u2019s, but failed; it was an awful responsibility to write in the name of the Lord.\u201d\u00a0 Although this is likely a mischaracterization of McLellin<\/a> rooted in his later disaffiliation from the Church, it does continue to put the focus of the incident on Joseph Smith’s wording in the revelations.\u00a0 In any case, the elders who were present were convinced and were willing \u201cto bear testimony of their [the revelations\u2019] truth to all the world.\u201d[12]<\/a><\/p>\n Given that the people who were present when Section 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants was dictated had concerns about revelations and language, I believe that the statement \u201cwhether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same\u201d is responding to a different concern than we usually assume. \u00a0The way it\u2019s frequently used today, the phrase is answering the question: Should the words of Church leaders be treated like they are the Lord\u2019s own words? \u00a0In the context in which it was dictated, however, it seems to be responding to a question about the revelations that were being compiled in the Book of Commandments:\u00a0 Are the revelations word-for-word dictations of what the Lord said (only using Joseph Smith to state the words as he received them) or are they Joseph Smith\u2019s words? \u00a0(From a perspective where the revelations are considered authentic, the latter option would involve President Smith capturing the concepts that the Holy Spirit was revealing to him using his own words.)\u00a0 The text of D&C 1 acknowledges that the revelations \u201cwere given unto my servants \u2026 after the manner of their language,\u201d even though they “are of [the Lord],”[13]<\/a> but ultimately sidesteps answering the question by stating that it doesn\u2019t matter whether they are Joseph Smith\u2019s words or the Lord\u2019s words because, either way, they are approved by the Lord: \u201cWhether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.\u201d<\/p>\n Thus, I don\u2019t believe that a close reading of the verse in its original context leads to it being an adequate proof-text for the idea that the words of Church leaders should be automatically treated as though they are the words of God or for the concept of prophetic infallibility.\u00a0 Instead, the text is primarily geared towards stating that the revelations published in the Doctrine and Covenants (or, originally, the Book of Commandments) are to be viewed as the will of God, whether they are word-for-word dictations from the Lord or whether they are the words of the Lord’s servants capturing what they were commanded through the Holy Spirit.\u00a0 Now, that\u2019s not to say that we should ignore the teachings of our current Church leaders\u2014elsewhere in Section 1 we told that the Lord\u2019s disciples give \u201cthe voice of warning\u201d with \u201cmine authority\u201d and that \u201cthey who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people.\u201d[14]<\/a>\u00a0 The point I\u2019m ultimately getting at is more along the lines of what Elder B. H. Roberts wrote\u2014that \u201cit is well nigh as dangerous to claim too much for the inspiration of God, in the affairs of men, as it is to claim too little.\u201d\u00a0 There must be balance in all things.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Further Reading:<\/strong><\/p>\n Julie M. Smith: “A Closer Look at D & C 1:38”<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> D&C 1:1-2.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> D&C 1:4-5.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> D&C 1:17, 24.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> D&C 1:37-38.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> David A. Bednar, \u201cChosen to Bear Testimony of My Name,\u201d CR, October 2015, https:\/\/www.churchofjesuschrist.org\/study\/general-conference\/2015\/10\/chosen-to-bear-testimony-of-my-name?lang=eng&media=video#watch=video<\/a>.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> \u201cProceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Election of the United States Senate: in the matter of the protests against the right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a senator from the state of Utah, to hold his seat [Jan. 16, 1904-April 13, 1906],\u201d 456-457. https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/proceedingsbefor01unitrich\/page\/456\/mode\/2up<\/a><\/p>\n [7]<\/a> B. H. Roberts, \u201cRelation of Inspiration and Revelation to Church Government,\u201d Improvement Era<\/em> 8 (March 1905): 367, https:\/\/archive.org\/details\/improvementera0805unse\/page\/366\/mode\/2up<\/a>.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Whitmer, David.\u00a0An Address to All Believers in Christ.<\/em>\u00a0Richmond, MO: By the author, 1887.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> “History, 1838\u20131856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805\u201330 August 1834],” p. 161, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 26, 2020, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834\/167<\/a><\/p>\n [10]<\/a> “Revelation, circa 2 November 1831 [D&C 67],” p. 115, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 26, 2020, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-circa-2-november-1831-dc-67\/2<\/a>. Compare D&C 67:3, 5.<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> “Revelation, circa 2 November 1831 [D&C 67],” p. 115, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 26, 2020, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/revelation-circa-2-november-1831-dc-67\/2<\/a>. Compare D&C 67:6-7.<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> “History, 1838\u20131856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805\u201330 August 1834],” p. 162, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 26, 2020, https:\/\/www.josephsmithpapers.org\/paper-summary\/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834\/168<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n