The Manuscript Revelation Books of the Joseph Smith Papers series.
Human beings stereotype categories, and I suspect that we Latter-day Saints stereotype the category of "revelation" as well. As we read about prophetic revelations from God in scripture, our vivid imaginations run wild. Thus, sometimes prophets are viewed as mere receptionists or even human tape recorders whose work is done upon hearing God's last dictated word. This is a misperception, but given how God overcomes the language struggles of prophets, perhaps it is understandable how this misperception is perpetuated. Actually, God inspires prophets during their preparation, delivery, and revision – before, during, and after – literally a continuous revelatory process.
Humans struggle to hear, understand, record, and disseminate language. God overcomes the enduring human struggle with language:
For example, Moses complained to the Lord: "I am not eloquent … but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue" (Exodus 4:10). The Lord agreed to use Aaron as an assistant to Moses because, " I know that he can speak well" (Exodus 4: 14). Even so, the Lord stated, "I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say" (Exodus 4:12). The New Century Version of the Bible translated the first phrase as, "I will help you speak." In any case, God overcame the deficiencies of speech and theological education in Moses.
Jeremiah had similar drawbacks. He protested to the Lord, "I cannot speak: for I am a child" (Jeremiah 1:6). But, the Lord responded, "Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak" (v. 7).
King David, as author of Psalms, explained his lofty abilities this way: "The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue" (2 Samuel 23:2).
In an 1832 letter to William W. Phelps, the prophet Joseph Smith prayed to God that he be delivered from, "the little narrow prison … of paper pen and ink and crooked, broken, scattered, and imperfect language." Joseph clearly struggled with language, but he was both highly productive and eloquent.
Oliver Cowdery, who had directly witnessed Joseph Smith use revelatory methods to translate the Book of Mormon, still needed to learn for himself that prophetic work required intense effort and preparation (D&C 9: 1-10). He found quickly that he was not up to the task.
In this fallen world, the Lord has no options but to work through flawed men. The Doctrine & Covenants states:
D&C 1:24
24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these 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.
Understanding comes through plainness of language:
2 Nephi 31:3
3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.
Brigham Young said , “When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities” (Journal of Discourses, 1862, Vol. 9, p. 311).
Revelation, despite all the flaws of a fallen world, is still revelation:
George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, 1879, Vol. 21, p. 76
The revelation we may get, imperfect at times because of our fallen condition and because of our failure to comprehend the nature of it, comes from God.
Why is revelation such a struggle? In large part it is because we are unprepared to hear, even when we are in a spiritual frame of mind. In 2nd Nephi chapter 11 the people of Nephi were gathered around the temple of Bountiful. They were conversing about Christ. Then a surprising voice, small but piercing, came out of heaven. They did not understand. The voice came a second time, but they still did not understand. A third time the voice came, but now the people "did open their ears to hear it" (v. 5), and they did "cast their eyes" (v. 8) toward heaven. They comprehended the words of God. Sometimes how we respond to spiritual prompts makes all the difference.
*****
Revelation comes in many forms and in many ways. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.3, REVELATION) describes eleven different forms [bold emphasis is mine].
1. theophanies (seeing God face-to-face), as in the first vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith, which came at the beginning of the present dispensation (JS--H 1:15-20)
2. revealed knowledge from the Father that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:13-17)
3. visitations of angelic persons, such as the appearance of the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith (JS--H 1:30-32)
4. revelations through the Urim and Thummim, by which means Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon
5. open visions, as when Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were shown the kingdoms of the hereafter (see Doctrine and Covenants: Section 76)
6. physically hearing the voice of God, as is recorded in 3 Nephi 11
7. receiving the still, small voice of the Holy Spirit, as in the experience of Elijah (1 Kgs. 19);
8. receiving the gifts of the spirit (D&C 46)
9. having a burning in the bosom as an indication of the will of God, as in the explanation given to Oliver Cowdery (D&C 9:8)
10. dreams (1 Ne. 8:2-32)
11. manifestations of the Light of Christ, by which all men know good from evil (Alma 12:31-32; D&C 84:46-48).
Of the eleven types of revelation cited above, the first six would be reserved for very special circumstances (e.g., Saul’s vision on the road to Damascus). By contrast, the last five would be quite common, perhaps excepting #10. In all cases, revelation affecting church affairs is given through appropriate lines of authority.
Most scripture comes from the “whisperings of the spirit” and is like the analog compass with a needle that slightly jiggles (perhaps, e.g., D&C 130). Occasionally, some scripture may come nearly verbatim, like a digital compass that points true north (perhaps, e.g., Sec. 76, see verse 113). Regardless, with either type of compass, we can get to where we need to go. Revelation is revelation.
*****
Revelation is also subject to revision. A case in point is contained in the new book sitting on my lap as I type on my keyboard: The Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations & Translations: Manuscript Revelation Books (MRB), The Church Historian's Press, 2009.
If one has ever wished to get a peek at the First Presidency's vault, then the opportunity has come in print. The MRB contains superior photographs of every page of Manuscript Revelation Books #1 and #2. The MRB preface (p. xxiv) indicates that Revelation Book #1 likely dates from 1831, and Revelation Book #2 dates to early 1832. Both Revelation Books contain Joseph Smith revelations from 1828 to 1834.
The Preface further indicates: "In most cases, the two manuscript books featured in this volume contain the earliest extant revelation texts" (The Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations & Translations: Manuscript Revelation Books, p. xxvi).
Continuing, the Preface pages explain that:
The Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations & Translations: Manuscript Revelation Books, p. xxviii – xxix
Preparing the revelation texts for publication was no simple matter. Joseph Smith dictated the words of these texts to a scribe, who committed them to paper. A scribe then copied them into the manuscript books, portions of which were eventually typeset and published as scripture. Sometimes the process was more complicated. For example, Joseph Smith dictated a revelation on 6 December 1832 as Sidney Rigdon wrote it. Frederick G. Williams then made a copy of the text. Orson Hyde copied that copy, and John Whitmer then recorded Hyde's copy into Revelation Book 1, from which it was edited for publication. It is unknown how many of the revelations in Revelation Books 1 and 2 made such an arduous textual journey, but it appears that few, if any, of the revelations is an original in pristine form. Changes both intentional and inadvertent were made throughout the process.
As I thumb through the MRB, it is clear that most revelations have many editorial changes, mostly designed to enhance readability, but not always. Some pages show editorial changes that slightly alter meaning, such as phrase insertions or phrase deletions. Preparing the revelations for publication required extensive copy work and editing by Oliver Cowdery, W.W. Phelps, Sidney Rigdon, John Whitmer, and perhaps some other anonymous individuals.
I am not sure how all the technical editorial issues were resolved. For example, Revelation Books #1 and #2 contain many of the same revelations, and they are not in complete agreement on wording. Most issues are minor.
For example, the final words of the revelation dated 1 June 1833 in Revelation Book #1 (MRB, p. 341; now called D&C 95) reads:
And let the higher part of the inner court be dedicated unto me for the school of mine apostles, saith Son awman [or possibly "awmon"], or in other words, Alpha, or in other words Omegas, even Jesus Christ your Lord: Amen.
The final portion of the same revelation in Revelation Book #2 reads:
…, and let the higher part of the inner court be dedicated unto me for the school of mine Apostles saith Son Ah Man, or in otherwords, Alphas, or in other words Omegas even Jesus Christ your Lord Amen.
In the modern D&C 95:17, this resolution was reached:
17 And let the higher part of the inner court be dedicated unto me for the school of mine apostles, saith Son Ahman; or, in other words, Alphus; or, in other words, Omegus; even Jesus Christ your Lord. Amen.
We take for granted the final product of the D&C, but many issues had to be resolved, taking the efforts of many people, and requiring untold hours of work.
Elder Jensen in a recent Ensign article gave a flavor of the issues involved:
Marlin K. Jensen, “The Joseph Smith Papers: The Manuscript Revelation Books,” Ensign, July 2009, p. 51.
The editing and updating of revelation texts in the early years of the Church demonstrate the process of continuing revelation to Joseph Smith. The revelation manuscripts reveal how men grappled in trying to make certain that the ideas and doctrines Joseph received were transcribed and printed accurately, a process that for the publication of any work risks the introduction of error. In some instances, when a new revelation changed or updated what had previously been received, the Prophet edited the earlier written revelation to reflect the new understanding. Thus, as his doctrinal knowledge clarified and expanded, so did the recorded revelations. They were characterized by the changing nature of his understanding of the sacred subject matter. The Prophet did not believe that revelations, once recorded, could not be changed by further revelation.
If we LDS truly believe in continuous revelation, then we should NOT be surprised that as Joseph Smith's knowledge expanded (which would inevitably occur in the preparation of the revelations for publication) he amended, clarified, and corrected revelation texts.
LDS historian Grant Underwood explained these issues at a recent talk at BYU-Hawaii:
Grant Underwood, "Relishing the Revisions," address given to BYU-Hawaii, October 13, 2009.
But my point this morning is not to privilege the original. Rather, it is to relish the revisions! Let us look at a few examples. This slide shows a portion of the first revelation for which Joseph dictated text—D&C 3. Look at the phrase from what is now D&C 3:12 that in its revised form reads "God had given thee sight and power to Translate." Close examination reveals that beneath the overwritten "s" in "sight" lies an "r". Thus, prior to revision, the revelation text read "God had given thee right to Translate," and it was then changed to "God had given thee sight and power to Translate." The initial wording "right to translate" focused on the divine authorization given the Prophet to do the work of translating the Book of Mormon. Later, however, the impression came to restate the sentence so as to highlight the miraculous gift—the spiritual sight and divine power—Joseph had been given to enable him to translate. While the initial expression was fine and true, the rewording may be even better in that it prevents potential misunderstanding. How so? Conceivably, those unfamiliar with Joseph Smith may have read the statement and assumed that he was an accomplished linguist whom God simply authorized to use his skills to translate this ancient text. The phrase "sight and power to translate," however, makes clear that something extraordinary, something divine, was needed (and given) to facilitate the translation. That seems to me an even more desirable point to make when one only has a single line in which to summarize the experience.
Grant Underwood came to these conclusions based on study of the MRB:
Grant Underwood, "Relishing the Revisions," address given to BYU-Hawaii, October 13, 2009.
So what does all this suggest about the revelatory process that eventually produced the final edited version of the revelation texts? Perhaps most significantly, it seems to encourage a view of those texts as the "word of God" (AoF 8) rather than the very words of God, or, as expressed in the title of a book dealing with the Bible, the Word of God in Words of Men. Some Latter-day Saints may assume that the Prophet was not involved in any way whatsoever with the wording of the revelation texts, that he simply repeated word-for-word to his scribe what he heard God say to him, but our investigation has suggested otherwise. Examination of the BCR [Revelation Book 1: Book of Commandments & Revelations] and the history of the D&C revelation texts from dictation to final form lead us to a richer, more nuanced view, one that see Joseph as more than a mere human fax machine through whom God communicated finished revelation texts composed in heaven. Joseph had a role to play in the revelatory process.
These conclusions are not new to LDS historians, even though they have been reaffirmed by the publication of the MRB.
Years ago, for example, Phillip L. Barlow, noted LDS scholar, wrote:
Philip L. Barlow, The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Metzger and Coogan, Editors), 1993, Oxford: OUP – "Mormonism and the Bible," p. 527-528.
The Mormon prophet [Joseph Smith] considered scripture to be sacred yet provisional, subject to refinement and addition, as both the evolving texts of his own revelations and the progressive stages of his inspired revision of the Bible … demonstrate.
To Joseph Smith, scripture was sacred but provisional, subject to future revelation and insight. Thus, all scriptures were seen as evolving texts, subject to change from any gained knowledge. This is certainly true in the Doctrine & Covenants, which contains the many extensive elaborations made in the MRB, which preceded it.
*****
This view of revelation perhaps takes some of the magic out of it. Fine with me. This is my conception of God: He works through nature and needs no magic to communicate with humans.
A belief in continuing revelation ultimately implies that sacred scripture is subject to refinement. While our job is to regard scripture as the standard, it is the Prophet’s job to provide renewed clarity and to find error and correct it. To me, such notions increase the value of scripture, not lessen it. I know that as I hold the scriptures that they contain what the Lord wants me to know now, not hundreds of years in the past.
Ultimate message of this missive: Continuous revelation is truly continuous. As we are taught line upon line and precept upon precept, then greater clarity will be reached, even in scripture of the past, present, or future.
*****
Copyright 2008 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by
clicking here.
*****
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
