I attended a gospel doctrine lesson last week that introduced this year's course of study - the D&C. The key highlights taught were:

1) the D&C is unique scripture in that it wasn't translated and so we get to hear the voice of Jesus directly.
2) it was specifically written for our day and so holds very particular relevance to each of us.

As I sat there as a closet apostate listening to the lesson and hearing verses of the D&C quoted, I couldn't help but think:

1) the whole tone and language of the D&C sounds like JS and not Jesus. I can't stand the whole snotty, guilt-trip type tone used that doesn't really align with the Jesus of the New Testament. I'd find it hard to respect, let alone revere a deity that spoke so harshly to well-meaning members.

2) Our day? Don't even get me started on how different a world it is in 2013 to the 1830's. There is no relevance to our lives now and much of the book is very, very boring.

3) Why did 'Jesus's words' need to be corrected in the switch from Book of Commandments to D&C and in later versions?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2013 04:00PM by sherlock.

Why is Joseph Smith wrong about 2/3 of the stuff in the doctrine & covenants?

I'm surprised that the D&C hasn't been swept under the rug yet.
It will be one day, mark my words.

I think it will happen at the same time as the PoGP. TSCC will pull some crap about "JS spoke as a man, so we need to remove D&C and PoGP from our cannon" and it'll become another "historical" document that only the most devout mormons ever lay eyes on.

Then their focus on the BoM will be more merited, and they can focus all there apologetics in one area (as they know they are doomed with the BoA).

The D&C reads just like Joseph Smith cooking up revelations from God to get people to do whatever he wants. How do Mormons not see this?

Also, why the sudden dearth of new revelations after JS's death?

Between 1830-1844 there are over 130 sections, all by (or credited to) JS with occasional assistance.

After JS's death, there's one section by John Taylor, one by BY, one by Joseph F. Smith, an "official declaration" from 1890 and another "official declaration" from 1978, and nothing else.

The CoC / RLDS has added a lot more to their D&C than the LDS church has. The leadership could easily pull some stuff from old Journal of Discourse or Ensign talks and stick them in there if they wanted to. Also, I never understood why the "Official Declarations" weren't just made official sections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_and_covenants