Apparatus

faith the instruction. of Almighty God

JSP flags Bullock's word as possibly 'inspr.', and Clayton reads 'inspiration'. What is asked for differs: instruction is content delivered, inspiration is a condition of the speaker. Woodruff and Clayton both name the Holy Ghost here, which Bullock does not; T prints both Bullock's 'instruction' and Clayton's gift of the Holy Ghost, so the received text carries a reading no single report supports.

JSP B n. 1

but if we start wrong it is hard to get right

Bullock and Clayton report a claim about the difficulty of recovery; Woodruff reports a claim about the risk of error. The modal force differs: 'hard to get right' concedes that a wrong start can be corrected with effort, 'you may go wrong' makes going wrong a contingency rather than a condition to be repaired. Smith identifies the saying as an adaptation of a Lorenzo Dow proverb and notes that Woodruff reports its parts out of the order the other audits give.

Smith, p. 59; Smith, p. 102 n. 83; Smith, p. 102 n. 85

they do not comprehend any thing that is past or that which is to come

The four reports name four different objects of human ignorance: past and future (B), relationship to God (W), the self (R), and all three together (C). Richards's contrapositive is the strongest form, tying knowledge of God directly to self-knowledge, and Smith observes that it is not equivalent to Clayton's conjunction. JSP flags Clayton's 'no' as possibly 'nor', which would not change the sense. T follows Bullock and drops the self-knowledge claim entirely.

JSP C n. 2; Smith, p. 93 n. 6; Smith, p. 288 n. 11; Smith, p. 288 n. 12

never say anything against. the man of God

Bullock and Clayton report a demand made on behalf of 'the man of God' in the singular, Woodruff a demand made on Joseph Smith's own behalf ('against me'), and Richards a demand extended to 'the servants of God' in the plural. Smith notes that Richards alters the sense. The scope matters in April 1844: the plural would make the claim cover the whole leadership against whom the Nauvoo dissenters were then agitating.

Smith, p. 288 n. 15

every man has a right to be a false as well as a true prophet—

Bullock and Richards report the claim as a right held by the individual, including a right to be wrong; Woodruff and Clayton report it as a duty of government to tolerate. The two are not the same argument, and only the first grants a positive right to false prophecy. Bullock and Richards agreeing on the more striking formulation is some evidence that it was spoken. T carries only the toleration form, so the sharper claim did not enter the received text.

Smith, p. 288 n. 17

ninety nine of 100 are false prophets

Bullock has 'false prophets', Clayton 'false teachers'. The claim's target differs: prophets would indict claimants to revelation, teachers the general ministry. T follows Clayton. Smith records that the later Manuscript History expanded the phrase further, to 'ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers', without manuscript warrant, so the drift from Bullock's wording continued past T.

Smith, p. 289 n. 20; Smith, p. 289 n. 21

who holds this world in its orbit & upholds all things by his power

Woodruff's plural 'worlds' extends the claim from this earth to a plurality of worlds, which is the cosmology the sermon goes on to teach; Bullock and Clayton keep the singular. Clayton's 'the planets' and 'in its sphere' are, as Smith observes, premodern images of cosmic maintenance. T follows Bullock, so the received text makes the narrower claim.

Smith, p. 62; Smith, p. 249; Smith, p. 290 n. 27; Smith, p. 290 n. 28

Adam walkd talked & communed. with him as one man talks & communes: with another.

Clayton alone has Adam 'received instruction', which makes the exchange didactic; Bullock's 'communed' makes it companionable, and JSP flags his word as possibly 'Comd.' Richards reports only the likeness and no conversation at all. T fuses Clayton's instruction with Bullock's communing.

JSP B n. 14; Smith, p. 289 n. 29; Smith, p. 289 n. 30

I am going to tell you what sort of a being of God

Bullock announces an inquiry into what God is; Woodruff and Clayton announce an account of how God became God. The second is the far stronger thesis, and it is the one the rest of the section argues. T follows Clayton, which is why the received text opens the argument with the becoming rather than the being.

Smith, p. 289 n. 31

for he was God from the begin of all Eternity & if I do not refute it

Bullock's clause has no attributing verb, so it can be read as an assertion that God was God from eternity or as the opinion about to be refuted; Woodruff's 'We suppose' and Clayton's 'We have imagined' mark it unambiguously as a common belief to be corrected, and Richards's bare 'refute the Idea' agrees. Three witnesses against one on the modal frame make the refutation reading much the likelier, and T prints Clayton's.

Smith, p. 51; Smith, p. 275; Smith, p. 289 n. 31

God himself the father of us all dwelt on a Earth same as J C himself did

All three reports have the Father's prior mortality, but they locate it differently: Bullock and T on 'an earth' as Christ was, Woodruff on an earth 'like us', Clayton on 'a planet' and explicitly 'in the flesh'. Clayton's is the most corporeal and, as Smith notes, reflects Nauvoo planetary theology. Smith shows the claim being deduced from John 5:19, and records that the Utah redactors later replaced the whole of it with the Snow couplet.

Smith, p. 31; Smith, p. 268 n. 79; Smith, p. 290 n. 26; Smith, p. 289 n. 33

you have got to learn how to be a God yourself

Bullock and Clayton have 'be', Woodruff and Richards 'make yourselves'; the second makes deification a work performed on oneself rather than a state attained. Richards alone has the plural 'Gods'. Clayton alone supplies the motive, 'in order to save yourself', which subordinates deification to salvation. T pluralises, giving a reading no report has in that exact form.

Smith, p. 31; Smith, p. 290 n. 37

same as all have done

Bullock's 'all' leaves the antecedent open; Clayton reads it as prior Gods, and T prints Clayton's plural. The difference decides whether the pattern being followed is that of other men who have been exalted or that of a succession of Gods, which is the sermon's most contested claim. V007 records the neighbouring 'be a God' / 'make yourselves Gods' variation, not this one.

independent pass (Codex Sol) S11.2; recorded there as matched to V007, which is a different locus; added on the principal's audit of the 93 matches, 2026-09-15

from grace to grace until the resurrection.

Three different metrics for the ascent: grace (B, from John 1:16), capacity (W, R) and exaltation (C). They are not interchangeable — grace is given, capacity is enlarged, exaltation is conferred. T prints all three in a single series, a reading no eyewitness supports and the clearest single instance of its compositive method.

Smith, p. 31; Smith, p. 138; Smith, p. 275

& sit in everlasting power as they who have gone before

Bullock has power, Woodruff burnings, Clayton glory; Richards has burning and power together, which is some evidence that both words were spoken. 'Everlasting burnings' (Isaiah 33:14) recasts fire as the medium of God's dwelling rather than as punishment, and it is the reading that does most theological work. Bullock could not see Woodruff or Richards when he compiled T, and T accordingly prints glory and power without burnings.

Smith, p. 138; Smith, p. 290 n. 38

that all Earthly tabernacles shall be dissolved

What is offered as consolation differs. Bullock offers only the dissolution of the body; Woodruff and Richards offer a rising into everlasting burnings, which continues the Isaiah 33 language of the previous section; Clayton offers immortal glory defined negatively, by the end of sorrow, suffering and death. T sets Bullock's dissolution and Clayton's glory side by side and again omits the burnings.

to inherit the same powers exaltation. until you ascend. the throne of Etl. power same as those who are gone before

Bullock and Clayton expand Romans 8:17 into shared power, glory and exaltation; Woodruff carries the expansion one step further to 'the station of a God', which names the terminus the others leave implicit. Richards has the bare scriptural phrase and nothing more. T follows Bullock and Clayton, so the explicit statement of the endpoint is not in the received text.

Smith, p. 31; Smith, p. 290 n. 41

so that he obtains K rolling. upon K.

Four models of what the Son's finished work does for the Father. Bullock has accumulation of kingdoms; Woodruff has succession, the Father advancing and the Son taking his place; Clayton has the Father's glory increased; Richards has the Father gratified. JSP flags Richards's word as possibly 'glorified', which would move his reading toward Clayton's. T fuses Bullock and Clayton and leaves the succession out.

JSP R n. 2; Smith, p. 32; Smith, p. 290 n. 42

he did not put the 1st. pt. to it a man a Jew without. any authy. thought. it too bad to begin to talk about the head of any man

Bullock alone supplies a motive for the interpolation — the Jew 'thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head' — which turns a philological claim into a charge of deliberate theological suppression. Woodruff and Clayton report only the act. Smith records that the three reports spell the Hebrew word differently and that Bullock adopted Clayton's spelling for T; T also takes Bullock's motive clause.

Smith, p. 33; Smith, p. 291 n. 48; Smith, p. 291 n. 49

thus the Head God brought. forth the Gods in the Head council—

Clayton's object is singular and identical to the subject: the head God brought forth the head God. Bullock, Woodruff and Richards all have the head God bringing forth the Gods in the plural. Clayton's reading, if not a slip, would describe divine self-generation rather than the generation of a council, which is a materially different claim. JSP flags Bullock's abbreviation here as possibly 'K'. Smith notes Bullock's 'head council' against the 'grand council' T prints.

JSP B n. 34; Smith, p. 291 n. 50

the Head God called togr. the Gods & set in Grand Council

Clayton has 'worlds' where Bullock, Woodruff and Richards have the singular, so on his report the council planned more than this earth. Agency also differs: in Bullock and Richards a head God convenes the council, in Woodruff and Clayton the council itself is the acting subject. T prints Bullock's sentence and Clayton's together, which is why the received text has both a convening head God and a self-seated body of counsellors.

Smith, p. 33; Smith, p. 64; Smith, p. 291 n. 50

& how can we escape the damnation. of hell witht. God reveal to us.

Bullock and Woodruff make revelation the condition of escape; Clayton makes it God's presence, and adds the image of being bound with chains by men. The first is an epistemic claim about how truth is got, the second a claim about divine accompaniment. T takes Bullock's condition and Clayton's chains into one sentence.

& he begins to unfold the heavens to us & tell us all about. it bef our prayers get to his ears

Bullock has God answering before the prayer arrives, which makes the divine response anticipatory; Woodruff has an ordinary sequence of asking and answering; Clayton has a matched readiness on both sides. The three describe different relations between petition and answer. T takes Bullock's unfolding and Clayton's mutual readiness but drops Bullock's 'before our prayers get to his ears'. The passage falls at the end of T's S17.

which is Element & in which dwells all the glory— that nothing can destroy they never can have an ending they exist eternally—

Two claims here belong to one witness each. Bullock alone says the glory dwells in element, which makes matter itself the seat of divine glory. Clayton alone dates element's existence to God's own — 'from the time he had' — which sets God and element on the same footing and, read strictly, gives God a beginning. Richards's 'no beginning no end' supports the eternity without the comparison. T prints Bullock's and Clayton's clauses in sequence.

Smith, p. 34; Smith, p. 248; Smith, p. 292 n. 59; Smith, p. 292 n. 60; Smith, p. 293 n. 62

that God made man & put into it Adams Spirit & so became a living Spirit—

Genesis 2:7 reads 'living soul'; none of the reports has it. Bullock has 'living Spirit', Woodruff 'Human soul', Clayton 'living body'. The three name different results of the joining, and Clayton's 'body' in particular reverses the usual direction of the verse. Clayton alone supplies the material origin, 'out of the earth'. T combines Clayton's earth with Bullock's 'Adam's spirit' and Clayton's 'living body'.

Smith, p. 35; Smith, p. 36; Smith, p. 293 n. 63

the mind of man is as immortal as God himself—

Three reports against one: Woodruff, Richards and Clayton all have 'coequal', Bullock alone 'immortal'. The claims differ in kind — immortality asserts equal duration, coequality equal standing — and the second is much the stronger. Clayton alone specifies what is coequal, 'the intelligent part'. T prints Bullock's word at this point while keeping 'coequal' a few lines later, which is how both readings entered the tradition. Smith treats the coequal reading as the archetype.

Smith, p. 36; Smith, p. 139; Smith, p. 279

intelligence is self existent it is a Sp from age to end & there is no creatn abt. it

Bullock has 'from age to end' where Clayton has 'from age to age'. If Bullock's reading is what he heard rather than a slip of the pen, it gives intelligence a terminus and contradicts the self-existence the same sentence asserts; every other witness, and T, has perpetuity. Woodruff reduces the claim to 'Eternal'; Richards and Clayton both add 'no creation about it', which is the negative form of the argument. Woodruff's, Richards's and Clayton's counterparts fall at the head of S22, one section later than Bullock's.

Smith, p. 36; Smith, p. 170; Smith, p. 280

because he was greater

Clayton alone gives a reason for God's primacy among the spirits: not a difference of kind but of degree, 'because he was greater'. On Bullock's report God simply finds himself in the midst of spirits and institutes laws. Clayton's clause makes the whole arrangement follow from comparative greatness, which is consistent with the sermon's account of coequal intelligences and is the reading T prints.

he saw proper to institute laws for those who were in less intelligence that they mit. have one glory upon another

The end the laws serve differs by report: graduated glories (B), exaltation with God himself (W), advancement like God (C), enlargement of capacity (R). Woodruff's is the only one that states parity with God as the terminus; Bullock's is the only one that keeps the outcome graduated. T sets Clayton's purpose clause and Bullock's together.

Smith, p. 37; Smith, p. 294 n. 67

given me by Inspiration of the H S.

The reports differ over the claimed source of what is being taught: Bullock has the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Woodruff the revelations of Jesus Christ, and Clayton leaves the giver unnamed. T follows Clayton and so drops the attribution altogether, which removes from the received text the one place in this passage where the speaker names the channel of his own authority.

independent pass (Codex Sol) S22.4; upheld in the second pass (cursor-grok-4.6-high, data/REJECTIONS.md); adjudicated by the principal 2026-09-15

& those revns. which will save our dead will save our bodies—

Woodruff, Richards and Clayton all have the revelations saving our spirits; Bullock alone has them saving 'our dead'. The substitution turns a claim about the constitution of the living person into a claim about vicarious work for the dead, which is the theme of the sections that follow. T follows Bullock, so the received text reads the sentence proleptically.

for all the Spirits must either obey the Gospel or be damned

The reports differ over both the scope of the requirement and what it requires. Bullock puts it on 'all the Spirits' without qualification; Clayton restricts the class to those who did not obey 'in the flesh', which leaves the mortally obedient outside the demand; Richards has the gospel condition without Clayton's mortal qualifier; and Woodruff makes the requirement baptism specifically rather than the gospel generally. T takes Clayton's scope, so the received text states the narrower claim.

independent pass (Codex Sol) S24.1; upheld in the second pass (cursor-grok-4.6-high, data/REJECTIONS.md); adjudicated by the principal 2026-09-15

the provision. which God made from before the foundation. of the world.

Bullock and Richards date the provision before the world; Clayton characterises it instead by its fit to human need. The one locates it in the divine decree, the other in its adequacy to the case, and they answer different objections. T fuses the two, so the received text has both the date and the fit.

there is a Saln. for him or in the world to come—

Bullock and Richards have the scriptural pair 'this world or the world to come' (Matthew 12:32); Clayton has 'the world of spirit'. The spirit world is a determinate intermediate state, the world to come an undifferentiated future, and the sermon's argument about postmortem repentance turns on which is meant. T prints the scriptural pair.

& so you can see how far you can be Savior

Bullock alone applies the title 'Savior' to the living man acting for his dead; the other three have only the verb. A title claims a standing, a verb an action, and in this sermon the distinction is not idle. T follows Bullock. The earlier note on this entry attributed 'saviors on mount Zion' to Woodruff, Richards and Clayton; the phrase is in none of them, and Smith does not use it.

Smith, p. 38; Smith, p. 282

those that are witht. wisdom until they get exalted to wisdom

Bullock has wisdom, the other three knowledge. In this sermon knowledge is the operative term — it is what a man carries out of this world and what makes exaltation possible — and wisdom is not otherwise used that way. Clayton alone extends the claim explicitly into the world of spirits. T follows Clayton.

Smith, p. 38; Smith, p. 282

a sinner has his own mind & is in his own condemner

Four words for the same interiorising of damnation: condemner (B), damns (W), disappointment (R), torment (C). Richards's is markedly the mildest — disappointment is not punishment — and Bullock's the most forensic. The common ground, that the suffering is the mind's own, is the doctrinally consequential part, and T prints Clayton's and Bullock's terms together.

Smith, p. 39; Smith, p. 282

no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissn. of the body but they must do it in this world

Bullock, Richards and Clayton make the limit temporal — the sin must be committed in mortality and cannot be committed after death — while Woodruff makes it a prerequisite of knowledge, that no one can commit it until he has received the Holy Ghost. The two are not equivalent: one bounds the opportunity, the other names a qualification for it. T follows the temporal form. Woodruff states the knowledge condition again at S28, where V025 records the fuller sequence.

independent pass (Codex Sol) S26.6; upheld in the second pass (cursor-grok-4.6-high, data/REJECTIONS.md); adjudicated by the principal 2026-09-15

J. contended. that there wod. be certn. souls that wod. be condemnd & the devil sd. he cod. save them all

Bullock has souls condemned, Clayton men not saved; the first asserts a positive sentence, the second only a failure to be saved. Woodruff alone puts the devil's offer in the first person and has him claim the title savior outright, which makes the council a contest between two claimants rather than a proposal and a refusal. T follows Clayton's 'would not be saved' and Bullock's 'all'.

Smith, p. 39; Smith, p. 66; Smith, p. 296 n. 75

for he has the same Sp. that they had who crucified. the Lord of life—

Bullock and Clayton trace the apostate's spirit to the crucifiers, human agents in a historical act; Woodruff traces it to the devil. The first makes apostasy a repetition of a crime, the second a possession. Clayton alone adds the Hebrews 6:6 consequence, 'You cant renew them to repentance'. T follows Bullock.

Smith, p. 40; Smith, p. 296 n. 76

You cant renew them to repentance— awful is the consequence

Woodruff and Clayton both put apostates beyond recovery but name different impossibilities: Woodruff that they cannot be saved, Clayton that they cannot be renewed to repentance, which is the language of Hebrews 6:6 and closes the means rather than reporting the outcome. T follows Clayton, so the received text states the stronger form. V091 records Clayton's separate mechanism, that the spirit leaves them.

independent pass (Codex Sol) S29.3; recorded there as matched to V091, which is a different locus; added on the principal's audit of the 93 matches, 2026-09-15

while their murderers shall welter for years——

Woodruff's 'until they pay the utmost farthing' (Matthew 5:26) makes the murderers' punishment terminable; Bullock's 'for years' leaves its length unstated; T prints 'for ages', which is longer than Bullock and unsupported by any report. Richards's sentence has a different subject altogether — worlds waiting for blessings, not murderers suffering — so his clause is not strictly a variant of the same words but the nearest thing his report has.

Smith, p. 40; Smith, p. 285; Smith, p. 297 n. 79

for their debt is paid there is no damnation awaits them for they are in the Spirits—

Richards alone says that the child possesses 'all the intelligence of a god'. It is the strongest claim made about deceased infants anywhere in the reports, and it answers a question Bullock's 'their debt is paid' leaves open: not merely that they are safe but what they are. Smith discusses the resurrection of children at length and does not treat this phrase. Clayton's section here is a clerk's summary, not a report of words, and Woodruff's parallel is the no-growth claim recorded at the next entry.

Smith, p. 41; Smith, p. 156; Smith, p. 285; Smith, p. 297 n. 80

when J comes who has the power

Richards grounds the authority to baptize with fire and the Holy Ghost in keys, Bullock in power, and Woodruff names no ground at all. Keys name a conferred office in this speaker's usage where power need not, so the reports differ on what kind of claim is being made. T follows Bullock, and the received text has power.

independent pass (Codex Sol) S34.2; upheld in the second pass (cursor-grok-4.6-high, data/REJECTIONS.md); adjudicated by the principal 2026-09-15

but they shall die the 2nd. death—

Three terms for the final state: the second death of Revelation 21:8 (B), hell worlds without end (W), and Richards's transliterated Hebrew 'Gnolom'. Richards is the only witness anywhere in the reports to record the Hebrew term at this point, and it matters because *olam* denotes an age or a hidden duration rather than infinity, which is not what 'without end' says. T follows Bullock.

Smith, p. 42; Smith, p. 286

some shall rise to the everlasting burning of God & some shall rise to the dn. of their own filthiness— same as the lake of fire & brimstone—

Bullock alone sets the two senses of burning side by side: the righteous rise to God's everlasting burning, the wicked to a damnation that is their own filthiness. Richards has only the positive half, which is the Isaiah 33:14 doctrine stated flatly. The pairing is what makes the fire a single thing experienced two ways rather than two different fires, and it is in one report. T keeps it and makes the lake a simile of exquisiteness rather than an identity.

Smith, p. 42; Smith, p. 286