Joshua Wheatley and Dr. Grant Underwood, History Department
I focused my research on an effort to better understand Joseph Smith’s process of revelation, in light of the many revisions that he later made to his own revelations. I decided that my primary source material would be the revelations that Joseph recorded between 1828 and 1831. The goal of my research was to compare variant texts of each revelation, tracking the revisions that were made to each text. My hypothesis was that, by using historical context and by critically analyzing patterns of revision that reoccurred in many revelations, it would be possible to classify the revisions into categories. I found that while such a classification proved to be difficult, it was possible. I concluded that each of Joseph’s revisions either clarifies meaning or changes it. I further subdivided revisions that clarify a revelation into three subcategories: grammatical corrections, changes of wording for aesthetic purposes, and clarification of ambiguous points. I also subdivided revisions that change meaning: some were additions of new subject matter, others were updates of Church policy, and a few removed subject matter.
My work in categorizing hundreds of specific revisions also led me to come to some more general conclusions about what the revisions mean in relation to how revelation worked for Joseph Smith. As worded by the minutes of the church council that initiated the editing process, he appears to have felt free to “discover by the holy Spirit” how to better express the divine will that he had recorded in his earlier revelations.1 His ability of expression in the English language had improved considerably and his religious insight had expanded considerably by in the intervening years. Revisions, relatively sparse during the editing of the Book of Commandments, but much more extensive four years later at the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants, reflected the in-progress nature of his academic and spiritual educations. The idea that Joseph could only express divine revelation according to his own limitations is expressly referred to in a revelation: “Your eyes have been upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and his language you have known, and his imperfections you have known; and you have sought in your hearts knowledge, that you might express beyond his language.”2 My conclusion regarding Joseph Smith’s revelatory process is that he required no doctrinal leap or special permission to revise his own revelations.
In the course of my research, I learned important methodological aspects of historical research and gained personal insights into how my academic life relates to my faith-based life. The high points of my research were the several opportunities that I had to present and publish my findings at a religion symposium, a history conference, and an academic journal of religious studies. As I researched, wrote and presented, I strengthened my grasp of how to use historical methods and deepened my understanding of how to be a “believing scholar.”
Through in-depth research of several revelations, I improved my ability to thoroughly understand a primary source text. The first thing I learned was the importance of understanding a text within the historical context of when and where it was written. For instance, during the four intervening years between when Joseph revealed what was then known as “the Law of the Church” (now section 42) and when he revised it, the Church was subject to several lawsuits over consecration of personal property. Also, the law of the United States at this time protected an organization from the refund requests of disgruntled donors only if the charitable contributions were given for the benefit of the poor. This knowledge of historical context helped me to theorize the practical impact of a new clause that specified that consecrated properties would go to help the poor, which Joseph felt prompted to add to the “Law of the Church.” Using historical context helped me ensure that my analysis of the revisions was based on how they impacted the revelation’s meaning for the Church at the time they were revised.
In the course of my research, I also learned the importance of narrowing the scope of my research. Painstaking analysis of every revision to each of over 100 revelations will take years; I realized that, once I had taken a brief look at all of the revelations, I had to narrow the focus of my in-depth research to one or two of the longer texts. I decided to select the revelations now known as sections 20 and 42, because I felt that they contained a variety of revisions that were fairly representative of the variety of revisions contained in the rest of the texts.
As my research progressed, I applied and was accepted to present my findings. In so doing, I learned about what makes a scholarly presentation effective. As I refined my ideas to promulgate them effectively, I continued to seek out my mentor, Grant Underwood, for his advice and his reactions to my research. This interaction taught me the value of in-depth engagement with another scholar, because it forced me to talk about and defend my research in a way that I had not hitherto experienced. Presenting at the Religion Department’s Sperry Symposium taught me to summarize my findings so that they made sense to a general audience. At the Phi Alpha Theta Regional History conference, I learned how to respond to challenging questions. And, while working with the editors of the Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies, I learned a little about the world of academic publishing.
In addition to becoming a better historian by learning academic methods, I became a better “believing scholar” by engaging in the academic study of material that is so central to my personal faith. First of all, I increased my familiarity with and understanding of the Doctrine and Covenants. Second, I saw that, because I already know the true source of the texts I’ve been studying, I wasn’t caught up (as many historians of religion are) in an endless search for the earthly origins of divine revelation. Instead, I was free to dig for a deeper understanding of the process of revelation. 3
References
- Far West Record: Minutes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. Donald Q. Cannon
and Lyndon W. Cook (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1983); 29. - Doctrine and Covenants 67:5.
- I would like to acknowledge and thank my mentor, Dr. Underwood, for discussing my project with me on a near-weekly basis. His insights were invaluable to me as I conducted my research and formulated my conclusions.