{"id":12852,"date":"2010-07-01T10:01:46","date_gmt":"2010-07-01T15:01:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=12852"},"modified":"2010-07-01T10:15:34","modified_gmt":"2010-07-01T15:15:34","slug":"how-to-write-a-revelation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2010\/07\/how-to-write-a-revelation\/","title":{"rendered":"How to write a revelation"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Documents_Large\"I have been working on a paper looking at the Doctrine and Covenants, and my research has me thinking about how the texts of modern revelation were produced. \u00a0I think that there are a lot of Mormons who assume that the words of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were dictated word for word to Joseph. \u00a0On this model, the Doctrine and Covenants is rather like the Qua’ran, which also consists of a series of revelations given to a prophet over a period of years in response to concrete historial circumstances. \u00a0Pious Muslims affirm that the Qua’ran was dictated word for word in classical Arabic to the Prophet Muhammed and transmitted without error to the present. \u00a0Some Islamic theologians have gone farther, declaring that the Qua’ran is uncreated in time. \u00a0Rather, it is an eternal\u00a0emanation\u00a0of the Divine mind, the Word that was in the beginning with God incarnate in the world. \u00a0(There are problems with this story of the Qua’ran’s text of course. \u00a0The verses inscribed in the Dome of the Rock, for example, which represent one of the earliest extant Islamic texts vary slightly from the current version of the Qua’ran.) \u00a0Despite flirting with it in a couple of places in our scriptures, Mormon metaphysics isn’t especially congenial to such a super-charged version of textual inerrancy, but I don’t think that it is a stretch for many Mormons to see the texts of the Doctrine and Covenants as being inspired word for word. \u00a0I don’t think, however, that this is going to work.<\/p>\n

According to Orson Pratt, who\u00a0presumably\u00a0talked with Joseph about it, the Prophet did not receive revelations word for word. \u00a0Rather, he received impressions and ideas which he then clothed with words. \u00a0Even this model, I think, is too simple. \u00a0It still assumes a simple linear process where God implants an idea in Joseph’s mind and Joseph then writes it down. \u00a0I think that the process of composition was quite a bit messier and heterogenous than that. \u00a0Consider a couple of revealing incidents. \u00a0In 1829, for example, as Joseph and Oliver made their plans for the founding of a new church Oliver produced a text that was to serve as a kind of constitution for the church. \u00a0In the end, the text was not used, the forerunner of section 20 taking its place. \u00a0The text is written in the first person with the Lord speaking. \u00a0On the other hand, large portions of the text are copied from the ecclesialogical materials in Moroni in the Book of Mormon. \u00a0I think that the best way of seeing this revelation is as a text that Oliver composed in the first person in the Lord’s voice using previous scriptural texts. \u00a0The text was never used, but there isn’t evidence that Joseph objected to the way it was produced or regarded Oliver as doing something different than what he was doing.<\/p>\n

Another revealing incident involves the compiling of the revelations for the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. \u00a0A committee was formed to review the revelations and decide which were to be included and which were not. \u00a0Although I can’t cite particulars because my books are in my office, the committee seems to have been passing on whether or not the revelation texts produced by Joseph Smith were in fact inspired. \u00a0Interestingly, this was not seen as an all or nothing proposition. \u00a0Some were, some less so. \u00a0During this process one of the Twelve — William McLellin, if memory serves — insisted that he could write better revelations. \u00a0Joseph challenged him to do so, and everyone agreed that he failed. \u00a0What is interesting about the event is that the competition between McLellin and Joseph seems to have been in part a literary pissing match, McLellin objecting to some of the awkwardness of the language. \u00a0Joseph’s reaction suggests, I think, that he felt his literary acumen as much as his prophetic gifts were being challenged. \u00a0In other words, he saw himself as in some way the author of the revelations and saw McLellin’s challenge a s personal sleight. \u00a0The presence of the committee, sifting and judging the texts that Joseph produced, suggests that they also understood the revelations as in some sense being authored by Joseph, with their purpose being to judge by the spirit which of these texts was sufficiently inspired to acquire authoritative status.<\/p>\n

In terms of genre the Doctrine and Covenants is extremely heterogenous. \u00a0Sometimes we have texts where God speaks in the first person. \u00a0Sometimes we have texts in which Joseph speaks in the first person describing some theophany or other event. \u00a0Sometimes we have snippets of Joseph’s sermons. \u00a0Sometimes we have press releases. \u00a0There is even variation in how the texts where God speaks in the first person were produced.<\/p>\n

For example, section 121, 122, and 123 are all taken from a much longer letter written by Joseph in Liberty Jail to the saints scatter across Missouri and Illinois. \u00a0Section 122 is entirely in the first person with the Lord speaking. \u00a0Section 123 is entirely in the first person with Joseph and his associates speaking to the church. \u00a0Section 121 consists of a dialogue between Joseph and the Lord, with verses 1-6 being Joseph’s question to the Lord and the remainder of the section being Joseph’s answer. \u00a0When the original letter is read in its entirety, it is far from clear that Joseph is presenting its contents as a revelation — a “commandment” in the terminology of early Mormonism. \u00a0That is, he is not saying, “Here is the text of a new revelation.” \u00a0Rather it is a public letter. \u00a0The dialogue between Joseph and the Lord in section 121 (and continued in section 122) can be read, I think, as a literary conceit. \u00a0That is, Joseph is apostrophizing the Lord in his letter and then recording what he thinks would be the Lord’s answer. \u00a0After the fact, this literary aria is then recast as revelation and scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n

I don’t think that there is anything wrong with any of this. \u00a0I don’t think that it undermines the Doctrine and Covenants’ claim to be scripture. \u00a0It does, I think, raise a couple of issues. \u00a0First, I think that it narrows the gap between both personal revelation and prophetic revelation as well as between inspired literary composition and revelatory composition. \u00a0Mind you, I don’t think that it collapses these distinctions. \u00a0It just narrows them. \u00a0As a historical matter, the it seems that at best only some of the texts in the Doctrine and Covenants acquired their scriptural status based on some unique “revelatory” means of production. \u00a0Others seem to have been judged after the fact as sufficiently inspired or inspiring to be included in the canon. <\/span><\/p>\n

Second, it potentially raises questions about how to read the texts. \u00a0I am partial to extremely close reading of scriptural texts. \u00a0I like to puzzle through the\u00a0significance\u00a0of word order, phrases, sentence structure, and the like. \u00a0I think, however, that a dictation model of revelation cannot ultimately be defended. \u00a0This means that the justification for such close readings must rest on something other than a kind of Qua’ranic awe before the unmediated word of God. <\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, it raises questions of authority. \u00a0This cuts in two directions. \u00a0On one hand, this may be troubling for some, as the strong presence of a Joseph as author within the texts seems to make them less divine and less trustworthy. \u00a0On the other hand, for those who are genuinely troubled by certain passages of the Doctrine and Covenants, being able to distance God from the troubling texts may be a relief. \u00a0Trying to figure out how to negotiate the authority of the text without falling into disappointed fundamentalism on one hand, and on the other a kind of facile religious liberalism that re-interprets the texts into nothing more than a recapitulation of contemporary mores is tricky to say the least.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I have been working on a paper looking at the Doctrine and Covenants, and my research has me thinking about how the texts of modern revelation were produced. \u00a0I think that there are a lot of Mormons who assume that the words of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were dictated word for word to Joseph. \u00a0On this model, the Doctrine and Covenants is rather like the Qua’ran, which also consists of a series of revelations given to a prophet over a period of years in response to concrete historial circumstances. \u00a0Pious Muslims affirm that the Qua’ran was dictated word for word in classical Arabic to the Prophet Muhammed and transmitted without error to the present. \u00a0Some Islamic theologians have gone farther, declaring that the Qua’ran is uncreated in time. \u00a0Rather, it is an eternal\u00a0emanation\u00a0of the Divine mind, the Word that was in the beginning with God incarnate in the world. \u00a0(There are problems with this story of the Qua’ran’s text of course. \u00a0The verses inscribed in the Dome of the Rock, for example, which represent one of the earliest extant Islamic texts vary slightly from the current version of the Qua’ran.) \u00a0Despite flirting with it in a couple […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":12855,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[17,18,20,13,50],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12852","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-church-history","category-general-doctrine","category-philosophy-and-theology","category-scriptures","category-sunday-school-lesson-doctrine-and-covenants"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/07\/Documents_Large.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12852","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12852"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12852\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12862,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12852\/revisions\/12862"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12855"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}