“Ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally … doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.” (DC 46:7).

Years later, David Whitmer recounted a story about a failed attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada in 1829 after Smith received a revelation for them to do so. Afterwards, they “asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord … and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: ‘Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.’”[1]

DC 46 doesn’t give a way of knowing the difference like DC 129 does, but simply encourages faithfulness. We’re all trying, but the Whitmer recollection suggests that even JS was susceptible to deception of men and devils like DC 46:7 said. Plus, I’ve never seen any angels to shake hands with, but have had many experiences that feel spiritual including some confusing ones. How do we tell the difference?

I’ve always found it interesting that DC 46:7 said that some of experiences “are of men” and took that to mean our own thoughts (like the question I noted in my first post on this topic). I dabbled a little in debates over brain science and spiritual experience because that was what my dissertation adviser was into along with some friends in grad school.

I particularly liked the book by Edward Bever, The Realities of Witchcraft and Popular Magic in Early Modern Europe: Culture, Cognition, and Everyday Life that my adviser recommended. A whole lot goes on with human intuition, and Bever asserts, “The brain knows more than the mind reveals” (223). We have impulses and intuitive feelings that is our brain sorting information, which often is pretty valuable for decision making. “If there is any resolution here, any moral,” Bever concludes his book, “it is that we should not, and in fact, cannot, choose between rationality and inspiration, for we are hard-wired for both. The question is not whether we will get input from both, just what we make of it and therefore choose to do with it” (439).

My understanding is that Malcolm Gladwell goes over this topic in his book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, which I haven’t read but heard about and looked up on Wikipedia. Like Bever, Gladwell notes that intuition can be very valuable way of knowing. But what is of God and what is “of men” in that intuitive process?

I thought this conversation between Jordan Peterson with Konstantin Kisin on this topic was interesting (especially minutes 50 to 56). I know Peterson can be polarizing, perhaps Kisin too, and I don’t want to get off on other topics, but instead focus on this one. Here Peterson talks to Kisin about the value of belief in God with Kisin pushing back, stating his agnosticism. “I’m an intuitive person,” Kisin states, noting he’s had a lot of such experiences, while stating he doesn’t view such experiences as proof of God but believes that such experiences come from himself.

Like Kisin, I have a lot of these and have thought a lot about it. Though I believe in God, I don’t believe all the intuitive experiences are the Spirit, though at the same time, trying to differentiate between the Spirit and intuition is tricky and not something I have any hard and fast rules about. I’ve had a number of powerful experiences that I take to be the Spirit, lots of intuitive ones that might not be. Some of the powerful experiences I’ve have a hard time sorting out.

Another possible impulse is simple imagination, and I’m quite an imaginative person. Also I’ve had depression since I was a teen, and when early modern Protestants sought to suppress belief in continuing revelation, one of their methods was to link belief in personal revelation to what was then called “melancholy.” “Melancholic” women claiming to have visions were especially not to be trusted, these authorities claimed. Finally there’s the possibility of being tricked by Satan or demons, which I don’t know much about.

All of these aspects are things to think about in attempting to make sense of one’s experiences particularly if they at times vary from one’s religious community. I, like others I suppose, do want to know when/if I’m getting things wrong.

At the same time, I was struck by a line I saw on the Wikipedia page for Blink: the book “considers both the strengths of the adaptive unconscious, for example in expert judgment, and its pitfalls, such as prejudice and stereotypes.”

Such is likely an important point on number of levels, but the claim had me particularly thinking about our church’s own policies and revelatory claims. We all know about our issues with race (racism as a prejudice). If intuition is a valuable but not infallible tool that can feel like a spiritual prompting, can our leaders be affected by intuition’s shortcomings?

This is not to suggest rejecting or criticizing our leaders, but could we use such a framework for making sense not only of some of our own confusing spiritual experiences, but also some confusing things about our church’s history? Whitmer recalled Joseph Smith claiming even he could be mistaken about revelation.

---

[1] David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, Missouri, 1887), 31.