By my count Joseph Smith has added 868 pages to the LDS canon by means of the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. All other prophets since Joseph have accumulated a grand total of 13 pages by means of the Doctrine and Covenants and Official Declarations.
Perhaps the drought of canonized revelations since Joseph Smith is not a result of a wayward church, the membership not respecting the current revelations, or God not having more to reveal, but simply that we are missing Joseph. Joseph Smith, from what I can tell, was an anomaly. His unique personality, character, and logic allowed him to speak in the voice of God with confidence and authority. Joseph was and is different from every other President of the Church that has succeeded him. And I propose that Joseph, himself, may be the key to why we have seen the screeching halt to the expansion of our scriptural canon.
A Difference of Process
In order to support my hypothesis the process of revelation must be clarified.
Common understanding of revelation THROUGH Joseph:
- God wants to tell his people something.
- God literally speaks to Joseph (there are words involved).
- Joseph repeats those words to the scribe.
- Members of the Church accept and canonize God’s word.
In my mind Joseph’s creation of canonizable revelation may have been something like this:
- Joseph has a question or his mind is aroused due to his environment.
- In his searching he received inspiration, feelings, impressions, visions etc.
- Joseph was convinced that the enlightenment was from God.
- Joseph chose to record and give voice to the communication from God in written form. The pattern he followed was that of the Biblical language, the word of God given to those that predated him. He would have to “translate” his impressions and concepts into language.
- Members of the Church would resonate with the new revelation, accept it, and vote it in as scripture.
The process I propose above is in contrast with the common understanding. The above process depends heavily on the revelator in the process and final outcome of the revelation. The common understanding treats the revelator as purely a vehicle, implying that anyone could fill this roll since the prophet is simply being told what to say.
Scholarly Quotes Supporting this Modified View of Revelation
Blake Ostler
Blake Ostler is known for his books on Mormon Theology. In a book review for FARMS, he outlines how the inspiration of scripture is experienced by prophets calling it “human coparticipation with God.”
…the inspiration of scripture is not experienced by the prophet/writer free of human interpretation, cultural biases, and conceptual limitations. In Latter-day Saint scripture, revelation is experienced from within a divine-human relationship that respects the personhood and free agency of the prophet/writer. The human cognitive categories that the prophet/writer uses to organize reality and make sense of his experience are not obliterated by the revelation, and thus the revelation expresses both God’s inspiration and the prophet’s personality and limited understanding. The ultimate reality in Mormon thought is not an omnipotent God who causally determines passive and powerless prophets to regurgitate his words as dictated. God acts on the prophet/writer and imparts his will and message, but receiving the message and expressing it are, at least partly, up to the individual, who is also free to act for himself. In this view, scriptural inspiration is not an intrusion of the supernatural into the natural order. It is human coparticipation with God in creating the scripture.
– Blake T. Ostler, Bridging the Gulf, Farms Review of Books, November 1999 p. 125-126
Takeaway: Prophets work with God in the creation of scripture.
Richard Bushman
In Rough Stone Rolling, when discussing the editing of the Book of Commandments, Bushman explains Joseph’s relationship with the words of scripture calling them “both his [Joseph’s] and God’s.”
The editing process uncovered Joseph’s anomalous assumptions about the nature of revealed words. He never considered the wording infallible. God’s language stood in an indefinite relationship to the human language coming through the Prophet. The revealed preface to the Book of Commandments specified the language of the revelations was Joseph Smith’s: “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.” The revelations were not God’s diction, dialect, or native language. They were couched in the language suitable to Joseph’s time. The idioms, the grammar, even the tone had to be comprehensible to 1830s Americans. Recognizing the pliability of the revealed words, Joseph freely edited the revelation “by the Holy Spirit,” making emendations with each new edition. He thought of his revelations as imprinted on his mind, not graven in stone. With each edition, he patched pieces together and altered the wording to clarify meaning. The words were both his and God’s.
– Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling, p. 174
Takeaway: Revelations are of God, but influenced by the prophet’s ability to communicate through language.
Brant Gardner/Steven Pinker
Brant Gardner, the author of The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon, explained his hypothesis for how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. Gardner explains that his hypothesis revolves around a concept called “mentalese”, a word created by Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist. I am assuming that Gardner expects Joseph’s revelations outside the Book of Mormon were received in similar, if not the same fashion, due to the way that the Book of Mormon was translated— sans plates.
Steven Pinker, explains the relationship of the mind to language: “We have all had the experience of uttering or writing a sentence, then stopping and realizing that it wasn’t exactly what we meant to say. To have that feeling, there has to be a ‘what we meant to say’ that is different from what we said” Pinker coined the term mentalese to describe the process:
“Mentalese [is] the language of thought in which our conceptual knowledge is couched. When you put down a book, you forget almost everything about the wording and typeface of the sentences and where they sat on the page. What you take away is their content or gist. (In memory tests, people confidently “recognize” sentences they never saw if they are paraphrases of the sentences they did see.) Mentalese is the medium in which content or gist is captured….Mentalese is also the mind’s lingua franca, the traffic of information among mental modules that allows us to describe what we see, imagine what is described to us, carry out instructions, and so on.”
I hypothesize that mentalese, or the prelanguage of the brain, holds the answer to how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. According to this hypotheses, divine intervention implanted the plate text in Joseph’s brain in the brain’s native prelanguage.
– Brant Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon, pp.274-276
Takeaway: Joseph seemed to be verbalizing metalese, or the prelanguage of the brain.
Joseph’s Unique Attributes
I believe that the Presidents of the church since Joseph have probably not had the same attributes as Joseph and have struggled, or simply not attempted, to create canonizable revelations as Joseph was so consistently able to do. It takes something special to say “this is what God is saying.” If you want a powerful speech on why Joseph Smith was a prophet in every sense of the word look no further than Profile of a Prophet by Hugh B. Brown. Those special attributes that Joseph possessed are rare and probably not likely to be seen in subsequent prophets and apostles.
Here is a brief list of some attributes and my assessment of the strength of Joseph and subsequent prophets and apostles.
| Attributes | Joseph Smith | Subsequent Prophets and Apostles |
| Dedication to the Church | Strong | Strong |
| Open to Change | Strong | Weak |
| Assimilation of Outside Ideas | Strong | Weak |
| Compassion | Strong | Strong |
| Adherence to Policy or Structure | Medium to Weak | Strong |
| Business Skills | Weak | Strong |
| Learning | Medium | Strong |
| Imagination/Creativity | Strong | NA (No idea) |
| Ability/Willingness to Speak with Absolute Authority “Thus saith the Lord” | Strong | Medium to Weak |
One way to describe Joseph would be to call him a maverick. He truly was “an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party” as Merriam-Webster defined the term. He cut his own path and was not beholden to any prior modern prophet. Can you imagine someone like Joseph rising through the ranks of LDS leadership today? I want to say yes, but I am inclined to say no. Attributes such as conservatism, dedication, sacrifice, adherence to policies etc. are what qualify you for a position in the Church today. Today we have great maintainers, but potentially weak expanders.
Conclusion
Joseph, was in a sense, truly born to be a prophet. He had or gained all the attributes needed to speak the words of God. That voice resonated with his followers to the point of making his words canonized and Mormonism legitimized. I believe that it unlikely we will see a modern-day prophet that will add to the scriptural canon as Joseph did.
*Caveats
I understand that there are other influences or concepts not covered in the post that would hamper the reception of new revelations as canon today. Some potential examples are size of the church, increase in policies and regulations, culture, etc. Just too much to cover.
Matthew Kern
Matt Kern was born in Provo, grew up in Orem, and moved way out to American Fork, Utah. He is a new father and has been married and sealed for over 5 years. He served a mission in McAllen, Texas, 2005-2007, on the frontera with Mexico where he gained an addiction to gospel study and theological reasoning. Thanks to awesome resources like Rational Faiths, Matt went through Fowler's stages of faith 3-5 in right around 6 months. He is currently serving as 2nd counselor in his ward's bishopric.
All posts by Matthew Kern
Your view has similarities to mine, as I explained here.
Well written post. Thanks for the reference.
I agree with your overall premise here and it solidifies things in my mind as I try to understand the differences between Joseph’s time and ours. You’ve more clearly described how I have grown to understand and believe that prophets work.
One thing I’ve often thought of is that there is much in the structure and practice and language of the church that is really just a product of where the church came from. I think many might believe that God gave it all to us exactly. But I don’t. There are certain doctrines that have been given exactly, such as the reality of the Father and the Son, the need for baptism and other ordinances, etc. But I believe so much else is a product of 19th Century Protestant America. No more, no less. Nothing wrong with it. I sometimes try to imagine what the church would have been like if it had been revealed in India or Africa. Probably a lot different, except in the core, revealed doctrines. I imagine our rituals and our meetings would have a different character to them. Still striving to be worshipful of the Savior. But different.
I hope my words are not misconstrued. I am grateful for the language the Joseph Smith used. The language of the scriptural canon that was revealed through him has become the language of my understanding of spiritual things. There is authority and confidence in his words. They bring me comfort. They lead me to God.
Travis,
I appreciate the feedback. Good thoughts.
I also enjoyed your thought experiment
May I propose a theory to this question related to this post? I wonder if “the church” would appear like Islam (Middle East) or Buddhism (Asia). I think that the teachings of the Church support the concept that God is working through others, including other religions and regions of the world. Just as Muhammad was inspired by God in his culture and world view the result was Islam and the Quaran, Joseph Smith was inspired of God in his culture and world view the result being Mormonism and the Book of Mormon/Doctrine and Covenants/Pearl of Great Price. Perhaps there is more truth to the claim that Joseph Smith was “the modern Mahomet” as the New York Herald called him.
So how can the church get back into a place where it can receive revelation again?
Lemuel,
I see where you are coming from, but the intent of the post was not to state that revelation has ceased for the church. My intent was to make a hypothesis for why the LDS Scriptural Canon has stopped expanding. We, as members of the Church, often love to claim that we have this marvelous “open canon”. But as you can see it is not as simple as that.
I think revelation is still open to the leaders of the church, however, for a multitude of reasons (some I am aware of and others that I am not) the canon seems all but shut.
I think Joseph is a main element as the post describes, but there are other influences/barriers as well.
Thanks for the post – I have thought often about this subject this past year and have come to largely the same conclusions as you have. It seems that Joseph’s revelations, rather than being almost inerrant and directly expressive of God’s uttered words, is rather some kind of hybrid combination of the “word of God” and the “word of Joseph Smith”, so to speak.
If you are aware of any further articles or posts on this subject I would be very interested. With most members going with the common understanding of revelation, I have been unable to find any Mormon journal articles that explore the uncommon view at length – aside from some ruminations on the United Order revelations and the use of nicknames from the Book of Moses.
When did Joseph Smith begin expressing himself with “thus saith the Lord”? Is there historical evidence that he and other early church leaders would have viewed your understanding of these revelations as more correct than the currently commonly accepted one? What about the rest of the history of Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff et al. expressing written revelations and how do these clarify their nature? I would love to see a deeper historical and theological exploration of these issues, but aside from some incomplete and polemical fundamentalist treatments I am not aware of any real work on the topic.
I do think this view of revelation is an important and expansive one. It allows me to have a more fluid approach toward the scriptures that recognizes that where modern science and Biblical scholarship might conflict with scripture, I do not have to consider scripture as necessarily the final word in a fixed sense. It makes revelation more of a process than an event – and invites us to engage in, even continue, that process in our own studying of the scriptures.
It also allows us to more fully grasp the meaning of 2 Nephi 29:12 that “I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it.” If God speaks to “all nations” in the same way that He speaks to the Jews, Nephites and lost tribes of Israel (and to Joseph Smith) – then it may be possible to view, for example, the Qur’an and other religious scripture as inspired of God – the Qur’an being a combination of the word of God and the word of Muhammed in a similar sense as the D&C is largely a combination of the word of God and the word of Joseph Smith. This opens up a lot of opportunities to see God as the universal (rather than exclusivist) revealer – all people and religions receiving a part of His “word”.
A few followup quotes that may be of interest:
Brigham Young said, “I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church that is perfect in its fullness…it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, groveling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities…we are not capacitated to throw off in one day all our traditions, and our prepossessed feelings and notions, but have to do it little by little… and if we continue so to grow we shall be prepared eventually to receive the Son of Man, and that is what we are after.” (Journal of Discourses 2:309-317)
As early as November 1831, a Church conference resolved that “Joseph Smith Jr. correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the Holy Spirit while reviewing the revelations and commandments and also the fullness of the scriptures.” (Far West Record, LR 7874, 16, Church History Library.)
As Joseph Smith once put it, “Oh Lord God, deliver us from this prison, almost as it were, of paper, pen and ink, and of a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language” (letter to William W. Phelps, Nov. 27, 1832).
I wish to make some remarks upon the principle of revelation. Some have thought that revelation had ceased. But this is not the case. The Lord is with us, and gives us revelation. But I will say for myself that I wish to avoid saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” as far as I can, when I give the will of the Lord to the people. In the days of Joseph Smith it was “Thus saith the Lord” almost daily, until the revelations now embodied in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants had been given. Since that day Presidents Brigham Young and John Taylor and myself have seldom used the words “Thus saith the Lord” when giving the word of the Lord to the people. In the 68th section of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants we are informed that when men speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost it is the word of the Lord and revelation… And the Latter-day Saints throughout Israel should understand that the First Presidency of the Church and the Twelve Apostles are led and guided by the inspiration of the Lord, and the Lord will not permit me, nor any other man, to lead the people astray. (Wilford Woodruff, Collected Discourses 2:281-282.)
Erik,
Great quotes. Added a few to my stash.
Thanks,
Erik:
It isn’t one bit surprising Brigham didn’t quote the Lord. He himself said he is not a prophet. I’m not sure why we members keep insisting to ourselves Brigham was a prophet despite the fact he specifically said he wasn’t.
The quote from him, though.
Interesting post, Joseph Smith was certainly more important and powerful as a prophet than succeeding one’s(although all since have been important and powerful in their own way’s). Joseph being the head of a dispensation (the most important one at that) would naturally be more important and have more responsibility than non-head of dispensation prophets.
I understand what you are getting at with the notion that Joseph had a large role in setting up the modern church today, however, I am not so sure that being the head of a dispensation means that you necessarily have to receive more revelations.
In the Book of Mormon you see patterns of ebb and flow of scripture. Little from Lehi (we lost a bunch), lots from Nephi, some from Jacob, in the book of Omni you see leader after leader passing the scriptures on without adding much, then a lot from Mormon, Alma, and Moroni.
Could this still happen today?
Ben,
I thought this BCC post did a good job of discussing Brigham Youngs tenuous relationship with the title of prophet:http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/01/14/prophet-seer-and-revelator/
I do agree with you that Brigham definitely did not see himself as an equal to Joseph in many ways.
I appreciate Ben’s comment as well as Matthew’s answer and the link to the BCC article. I think the article does a good job of providing context to/explanation for what Brigham Young meant. I would also point to the quote used in one of the comments from Brigham that “every man and woman may be a Revelator, and have the testimony of Jesus, which is the spirit of prophecy”. Finally, Brigham Young is known for contradicting himself, so I think the kind of context the BCC article provides is vital!
I think the problem is when members assume near-infallibility of prophets. I find it much truer to history AND to the scriptures to view church leaders as fellow stewards rather than such infallible mouthpieces.