NCCG.ORG New Covenant Ministries for Mormons - LDS Archive - Articles on LDS History, Doctrine & Practice - 25. A FALSIFIED REVELATION IN THE DOCTRINE & COVENANTS

In the Kirtland Revelation Book which is a hand-written MS containing copies of early LDS revelations, we find an example of a conveyor-belt type of revelation. In it is a revelation (dated March 15, 1832) to Jesse Gause who later apostatised. The revelation calls Gause to be Smith's counsellor. By the time it was printed in the Doctrine & Covenants (Section 81) the name of Jesse Gause was no longer present (v.1) and instead we find the revelation addressed to "Frederick G. Williams". In the handwritten Kirtland Revelation Book the name "Jesse Gause" is CROSSED OUT in both the introduction and in verse 1 and "Frederick G. Williams" added above the deleted text. Bearing in mind this was a personal revelation (not unlike a temple name which is the same everyone of the same gender entering on a particular day) we are forced to conclude that some "personal" revelations were not personal at all but simply conveyor-belt generated whenever deemed necessary.

The 1981 edition of the D&C tries to wriggle its way around this blunder by writing:

"The historical records show that when this revelation was received in March 1832, it called Jesse Gause to the office of counsellor to Joseph Smith in the First Presidency. However, when he failed to continue in a manner consistent with this appointment, the call as subsequently transferred to Fredrick G. Williams".

This attempt to conceal the facts that the original REVELATION was ALTERED is a pretty poor one. Even the index of the Kirtland Revelation Books (p.17) shows that the personal revelation was addressed to Gause. Further, on pp.10-11, on March 8, 1832 Smith himself wrote:

"Chose this day and ordained brother Jesse Gause and Broth Sudney to be my councellors of the ministry of the presidency of the high Priesthood".

Mormon scholar D. Michael Quinn (before he was excommunicated for telling the historical truth about other aspects of Mormon history) admits the falsification (see Journal of Mormon History, Vol.1, 1974, p.24, footnote 15).

This should cause us to pause for thought - can a "personal" revelation simply be transferred to someone else when the original recipient apostacises? Worse, why should the matter be concealed (the 1981 edition of the D&C made a pretty lame explanation).

You may conclude what you will. But were a revelation addressed to me personally be suddenly "given" to someone else I would seriously question its inspired nature.

This page was created on 2 April 2000

Updated on 10 March 2001