D&C revelations in the voice of God

[MrShorty]

As we've been going through the D&C this year, one thing I keep coming back to is how Joseph Smith wrote most of the revelations in the D&C in the voice of God (or God in first person, or whatever the proper way to phrase the concept is). What do we make of this practice?

In most LDS commentaries (in the classroom or in other publications), we almost exclusively comment as if God really did speak the exact words Joseph wrote down. As I become more aware of the idea of scriptural errancy, I find myself often wondering if God really said the things that have been attributed to Him. In this respect, this isn't really any different than when I ask myself about things attributed to God in the Old or New Testament. It often feels similar to what happens when I read the gospels where each author attributes words and actions to Christ and then we are left to grapple with what is historical and what is propaganda (for lack of a better word).

In another direction, as I spot check Community of Christ's D&C, I see that they perpetuated the tradition of writing revelations in the voice of God until nearly the 21st century. It quickly becomes apparent that writing something down in the voice of God does not automatically mean that God spoke those words or gave that revelation.

Any thoughts on the prophet's practice of writing his revelations in the voice of God? Any 19th century historical context that might contextualize the practice? Other thoughts?

[Pyreaux]

Scholars call it the “divine first-person” or ipse dixit voice is deeply significant and not unique, there’s a lot of historical, literary, and theological context that helps make sense of the practice.

19th-Century

Methodist and revivalist language, ministers sometimes “spoke as the Lord directed,” even adopting first-person divine phrasing during sermons or revival "exhortations." So the cadence of "Hearken, O ye people…" would have felt familiar and authoritative.

Shakers and others also produced texts written in God’s voice, in a frontier setting where literacy, competing sects, and uncertainty were rampant, speaking in God’s own voice carried weight. It bypassed debate: these weren’t just opinions, they were God’s will.

Joseph Smith’s Theology of Revelation

Joseph did not always claim "word-for-word dictation." Sometimes he spoke of revelations as ideas impressed upon the mind and will, then clothed in language. Other times, he used direct dictation language. This is why some sections of the D&C read differently in tone and vocabulary. Joseph frequently edited D&C revelations before publication (compare the Book of Commandments with later D&C sections). This suggests he didn’t see the words themselves as untouchable, but just the revelatory encounter was authoritative.

Community of Christ

The RLDS/Community of Christ maintained the “God-voice” style well into the modern period. By the late 20th century, however, they shifted to more pastoral, reflective styles of revelation, partly because members realized the problem you’re describing; that writing in God’s voice creates an expectation of inerrancy and certainty that the human element doesn’t always sustain.

The Deuteronomic Scribes speak for Moses who Speaks for God

There is scholarly consensus that the “Deuteronomists” (or group of scribes) compiled, edited, and framed many of Israel’s traditions in the 7th–6th century BCE. When Deuteronomy says “These are the words which Moses spake…” modern scholarship generally holds that these speeches were not stenographic transcripts of Moses’ sermons but traditions shaped centuries later. 

In that culture, the priestly scribes of Mosaic documents, writing in the “voice of Moses” wasn’t considered forgery but a way of giving theological legitimacy and covenantal authority. It was about the continuity of their tradition via Moses as the covenant mediator, so later writers used his persona as the authoritative voice for God’s will instead of their own.

The Gospels preserve Jesus’ Voice

Not in the sense of stenographic accuracy. Instead, they are honest attempts to capture the meaning and impact of his life and teaching, even when no one could have literally been present to take notes. 

Temptation in the wilderness (Matt 4, Luke 4): No disciples were present. The only way we “hear” the dialogue between Jesus and the devil is through a narrative shaped by later reflection.

Gethsemane prayer (Mark 14:32–42): The disciples are asleep yet we get detailed prayers. This is more likely a reconstruction of Jesus’ anguish than a word-for-word report.

Private conversations (John 3 with Nicodemus; John 4 with the Samaritan woman): In some cases, the narrative is so intricate it reads more like literary theology than eyewitness transcript.

Oral Tradition and "Voice"

Ancient cultures transmitted sayings and stories orally. Jesus’ disciples remembered themes, teachings, and style, then retold them in ways that fit their community’s needs.

By the time the Gospels were written (40–70+ years later), these sayings had been shaped into narrative form, with the evangelists giving them structure, framing, and sometimes expanding them. The result is not dishonest fabrication but what scholars call "faithful memory" or "interpretive tradition."

Hearing a Voice ≠ Hearing Words

The heart of the question, ancient prophets themselves often experienced revelation in non-verbal visions, impressions, or an overwhelming sense of God’s will. Translating that into words may require contributing their own language, imagery, and culture. That’s why Isaiah sounds different from Jeremiah, or why Joseph’s revelations are in King James English.

To say prophets could "make up" the words isn’t to accuse them of invention, but to recognize that human language is the necessary vehicle for ineffable divine encounter. God’s "voice" in this sense is real, but non-verbal - more like understanding, imagery, or directive force that must be dressed in words.

Theology of Mediation

This leads to a theory held by some LDS and non-LDS scholars alike: God doesn’t necessarily give prophets sentences, He gives encounters, impressions, truths, or visions.

The prophet then gives God’s voice words. Those words are inspired but also culturally and personally inflected.

This makes scripture both divine (in origin) and human (in form). The power is in the covenantal relationship and the inspired witness, not in the perfect transcription of God’s speech.

Joseph himself wrote (1831, in the preface to the Book of Commandments):

“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.” (now D&C 1:24)

That’s one of the clearest scriptural statements in LDS tradition that revelation comes through the prophet’s own mind, weakness, and language.

Joseph’s dictated revelation to Oliver in April 1829, when Oliver wanted to translate:

"Behold, you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you…" (D&C 9:8)

Even translation-revelation is the process of thinking, testing, and feeling, rather than a simple word-for-word dictation.

Edited August 17, 2025 by Pyreaux

[CV75]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As we've been going through the D&C this year, one thing I keep coming back to is how Joseph Smith wrote most of the revelations in the D&C in the voice of God (or God in first person, or whatever the proper way to phrase the concept is). What do we make of this practice?

In most LDS commentaries (in the classroom or in other publications), we almost exclusively comment as if God really did speak the exact words Joseph wrote down. As I become more aware of the idea of scriptural errancy, I find myself often wondering if God really said the things that have been attributed to Him. In this respect, this isn't really any different than when I ask myself about things attributed to God in the Old or New Testament. It often feels similar to what happens when I read the gospels where each author attributes words and actions to Christ and then we are left to grapple with what is historical and what is propaganda (for lack of a better word).

In another direction, as I spot check Community of Christ's D&C, I see that they perpetuated the tradition of writing revelations in the voice of God until nearly the 21st century. It quickly becomes apparent that writing something down in the voice of God does not automatically mean that God spoke those words or gave that revelation.

Any thoughts on the prophet's practice of writing his revelations in the voice of God? Any 19th century historical context that might contextualize the practice? Other thoughts?

I agree that writing something down in the voice of God does not automatically mean that God spoke those words or gave that revelation.

Fortunately, we learn the doctrine of Christ from a variety of sources along life’s path and can freely try it out when haply we find it.

I see that Pyreaux provided a context for Joseph Smith's practice. With regards to the theology of meditation, if you were to edit Joseph Smith’s revelations (or the Book of Mormon) removing “voice of God” text, would their meaning change; would they convey any other than the voice, will, mind, word or power of God for abiding in the doctrine of Christ (potential questions over points of doctrine aside)?

Regarding oral tradition and "voice", I think it quite possible that Jesus’ disciples remembered themes, teachings, and style that Jesus gave them after His resurrection (much like He did with the Nephites) and by revelation many decades later. I would go so far as to say that He originally wrote down many of His teachings and sermons.

[the narrator]

19 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Hearing a Voice ≠ Hearing Words

The heart of the question, ancient prophets themselves often experienced revelation in non-verbal visions, impressions, or an overwhelming sense of God’s will. Translating that into words may require contributing their own language, imagery, and culture. That’s why Isaiah sounds different from Jeremiah, or why Joseph’s revelations are in King James English.

To say prophets could "make up" the words isn’t to accuse them of invention, but to recognize that human language is the necessary vehicle for ineffable divine encounter. God’s "voice" in this sense is real, but non-verbal - more like understanding, imagery, or directive force that must be dressed in words.

 

As Grant Underwood (JSPP editor) would say, Joseph Smith was not God's fax machine. And I think the same rational of what Joseph "heard" should be applied to what he "saw"--which I think best explains the various First Vision accounts.