Is God'S Dictaphone Broken?

[Craig Paxton]

In the days of Joseph Smith, God supposedly dictated word for word what Joseph was to dictate to his scribe. There are many examples of this process throughout the Doctrine and Covenants. A good example however can be seen in D&C 1 From God’s mouth to Joseph’s ear…written word for word as Joseph supposedly heard the exact words from God then spoke the words of God to his scribe.

1 ^aHearken, O ye people of my ^bchurch, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose ^ceyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen together.

2 For verily the ^avoice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to ^bescape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ^cear that shall not hear, neither ^dheart that shall not be penetrated.

3 And the ^arebellious shall be ^bpierced with much ^csorrow; for their iniquities shall be ^dspoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed.

So what happened? Why did God stop dictating revelations to his prophets? All we ever get now are feelings, emotions or as President hinkley put it…the wisperings of the still small voice...which is a nice way of saying...we don't hear God speaking word for word any longer. A far cry from what Joseph supposedly experienced.

In his now imfamious interview with the Australian News Corporation, President Hinkley was quite revelaing when he let the cat out of the bag and lifted the curtain just a bit on how he supposedly receives revelation.

Here is the transcript of that 1997 interview:

DR: As the world leader of the Church, how are you in touch with God? Can you explain that for me?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I pray. I pray to Him. Night and morning. I speak with Him. I think He hears my prayers. As He hears the prayers of others. I think He answers them.

DR: But more than that, because you’re leader of the Church. Do you have a special connection?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have a special relationship in terms of the Church as an institution. Yes.

DR: And you receive........

Gordon B. Hinckley: For the entire Church.

DR: You receive?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Now we don't need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.

DR: And this is a Revelation?

This is a far cry different than what Joseph experienced…So what happened? Why doesn't God dictate word for word his desires any more?

[cinepro]

While I understand the allowance that must be made for the abilities of each individual man who stands as the Prophet of the Church, I have to admit that Joseph really seemed to have something when it came to receiving revelation and translating ancient artifacts that abruptly stopped when he died and Brigham Young assumed the role of "Prophet".

I may be proven wrong, but I suspect the odds of us ever seeing the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon or any other scripture from an ancient document translated by the LDS Prophet via "the gift and power of God" are close to zero.

Years ago, our Gospel Doctrine teacher rhetorically asked where the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon was, and I whispered to my wife "It's buried on a hillside in Nauvoo overlooking the Mississippi river". Whether because the gift was Joseph's alone, or the ability to create it was his alone, I don't know. But either way, I think time will prove me right.

[David T]

I (and you'll find that editors of the Joseph Smith Papers have gone on record as noting as much) that the First Person From God revelations are presented as such more in a rhetorical device than as a form of Prophet-as-fax-machine.

The inspired content was presented to Joseph's understanding, and he represented and expanded on what he clearly understood to be God's will and direction on, for all intents and purposes, "God's stationary".

Clearly Joseph viewed this as such, or he wouldn't have felt as free to substantially alter, edit, remove, and add to many of the early "First Person" revelations, as can be fully documented in the Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations series.

If it was divine dictation, he wouldn't have felt as free to alter the Almighty's Words (let alone assign scribes to do so!). Yet if it was his understanding of the communication -- well, as his understanding improved/changed, he could correct and refine his presentation of the message.

In other words, there is a difference between "the Word of God", and "God's words".

Edited October 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[KevinG]

Joseph's role was to establish the Church in this dispensation including the basic laws and covenants to be laid out as doctrines for the Chuch. As President Hinkley said there is a resevoir of revelation that we can access.

Brighams role was to preserve the Saints and get them established in the West. His revelations had more to do with preserving his people and establishing the Lords House in the tops of the Mountains.

Gordon B Hinkleys role (IMO) was to build up Temples around the world and to spread the Gospel through modern media. He was uniquely prepared and skilled to do just that.

Regarding revelation sometimes it comes as a still small voice, or a prompting. Other times on a personal level it comes as specific counsel. I've experienced both when giving blessings or asking for answers to prayers. Just because President Hinkley chose not to talk about it in a spectacular way doens't mean it isn't happening. I don't doubt for a moment if the Lord wants to add to the Doctrine and Covenants He can't declare "Hearken O my people..." just as plainly as He did for Joseph.

Regarding your OP... I detect a snide undertone. You could start by being respectful, suspending doubt and asking God yourself genuinly if Joseph Smith was and Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God.

Edited October 27, 2011 by DaddyG

[cinepro]

I (and you'll find that editors of the Joseph Smith Papers have gone on record as noting as much) that the First Person From God revelations are presented as such more in a rhetorical device than as a form of Prophet-as-fax-machine.

The inspired content was presented to Joseph's understanding, and he represented and expanded on what he clearly understood to be God's will and direction on, for all intents and purposes, "God's stationary".

Clearly Joseph viewed this as such, or he wouldn't have felt as free to substantially alter, edit, remove, and add to many of the early "First Person" revelations, as can be fully documented in the Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations series.

If it was divine dictation, he wouldn't have felt as free to alter the Almighty's Words. Yet if it was his understanding of the communication -- well, as his understanding improved/changed, he could correct and refine his presentation of the message.

In other words, there is a difference between "the Word of God", and "God's words".

So, the more something gets changed, the less we need to believe it was from God?

[KevinG]

So, the more something gets changed, the less we need to believe it was from God?

Unless of course the changes more closely reflect what God was trying to tell us mortal and fallible humans.

I've gone back and transcribed blessings for my children more than once and felt prompted to clarify or correct the words I used when I gave the blessing because I didn't quite get it perfect during the "live" take.

For the gazillionth time the Saints don't believe in inerrancy and even with revelation we go through a process of continuous learning.

D&C 93:23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is ^aSpirit, even the Spirit of truth;

24 And ^atruth is ^bknowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is ^amore or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a ^bliar from the beginning.

26 The Spirit of ^atruth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He ^breceived a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

27 And no man receiveth a ^afulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

28 He that ^akeepeth his commandments receiveth ^btruth and ^clight, until he is glorified in truth and ^dknoweth all things.

D&C 9:7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must ^astudy it out in your ^bmind; then you must ^cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your ^dbosom shall ^eburn within you; therefore, you shall ^ffeel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a ^astupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is ^bsacred save it be given you from me.

Edited October 27, 2011 by DaddyG

[David T]

Unless of course the changes more closely reflect what God was trying to tell us mortal and fallible humans.

I've gone back and transcribed blessings for my children more than once and felt prompted to clarify or correct the words I used when I gave the blessing because I didn't quite get it perfect during the "live" take.

For the gazillionth time the Saints don't believe in inerrancy and even with revelation we go through a process of continuous learning.

Exactly!. I did the same exact thing for the Naming Blessing I gave my daughter. The version I sat down and wrote later was exact as initially presented in many ways, but in others, there was more clarity. And there was definitely additional information. That was actually a very powerful experience, and highly educational.

[David T]

also, in some cases, the original expression of the revelation accurately served a specific temporary purpose, and when new direction was needed, instead of crafting a new document, the form of the earlier was used as a template.

See the revelation calling of Jesse Gause Frederick G Williams as a counselor in the First Presidency.

Edited October 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Zakuska]

Dictaphone? So Joseph Smith and Scribe were God's divine typewriter?

Some how I fail to see how the evidence points this direction.

[stemelbow]

I (and you'll find that editors of the Joseph Smith Papers have gone on record as noting as much) that the First Person From God revelations are presented as such more in a rhetorical device than as a form of Prophet-as-fax-machine.

The inspired content was presented to Joseph's understanding, and he represented and expanded on what he clearly understood to be God's will and direction on, for all intents and purposes, "God's stationary".

Clearly Joseph viewed this as such, or he wouldn't have felt as free to substantially alter, edit, remove, and add to many of the early "First Person" revelations, as can be fully documented in the Joseph Smith Papers: Revelations and Translations series.

If it was divine dictation, he wouldn't have felt as free to alter the Almighty's Words (let alone assign scribes to do so!). Yet if it was his understanding of the communication -- well, as his understanding improved/changed, he could correct and refine his presentation of the message.

In other words, there is a difference between "the Word of God", and "God's words".

This thought sends me all the way back to the first vision. Joseph records some wordings of the first vision in 1832? Well, how did he remember the precise wording offered him via Jesus? We often quote the words regarding the corruption and abomination, but were those really the exact words?

[LeSellers]

This thought sends me all the way back to the first vision. Joseph records some wordings of the first vision in 1832? Well, how did he remember the precise wording offered him via Jesus? We often quote the words regarding the corruption and abomination, but were those really the exact words?

Yes, assuming they were words at all, as I believe them to have been.

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Lehi

[ERayR]

While I understand the allowance that must be made for the abilities of each individual man who stands as the Prophet of the Church, I have to admit that Joseph really seemed to have something when it came to receiving revelation and translating ancient artifacts that abruptly stopped when he died and Brigham Young assumed the role of "Prophet".

I may be proven wrong, but I suspect the odds of us ever seeing the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon or any other scripture from an ancient document translated by the LDS Prophet via "the gift and power of God" are close to zero.

Years ago, our Gospel Doctrine teacher rhetorically asked where the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon was, and I whispered to my wife "It's buried on a hillside in Nauvoo overlooking the Mississippi river". Whether because the gift was Joseph's alone, or the ability to create it was his alone, I don't know. But either way, I think time will prove me right.

Joseph truly was a unique individual but if the time comes for the sealed portion to be revealed I have no doubt God will raise up another to do the job.

[Rivers]

I think it is interesting to note that revelations dictated as God's words become more and more infrequent over the course of Joseph's life. Over half of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants were given before 1832. IIRC, the only dictated revelation given in the Nauvoo period was section 132. And even that one was supposedly first given much earlier.

I think that later on Joseph felt it was unnecessary to put every revelation into dictated form, especially since so many of the revelations are about mundane things.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Dictaphone? So Joseph Smith and Scribe were God's divine typewriter?

Some how I fail to see how the evidence points this direction.

I agree. The OP's premise is faulty.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In the days of Joseph Smith, God supposedly dictated word for word what Joseph was to dictate to his scribe. There are many examples of this process throughout the Doctrine and Covenants. A good example however can be seen in D&C 1 From God’s mouth to Joseph’s ear…written word for word as Joseph supposedly heard the exact words from God then spoke the words of God to his scribe.

1 ^aHearken, O ye people of my ^bchurch, saith the voice of him who dwells on high, and whose ^ceyes are upon all men; yea, verily I say: Hearken ye people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea, listen together.

2 For verily the ^avoice of the Lord is unto all men, and there is none to ^bescape; and there is no eye that shall not see, neither ^cear that shall not hear, neither ^dheart that shall not be penetrated.

3 And the ^arebellious shall be ^bpierced with much ^csorrow; for their iniquities shall be ^dspoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed.

So what happened? Why did God stop dictating revelations to his prophets? All we ever get now are feelings, emotions or as President hinkley put it…the wisperings of the still small voice...which is a nice way of saying...we don't hear God speaking word for word any longer. A far cry from what Joseph supposedly experienced.

In his now imfamious interview with the Australian News Corporation, President Hinkley was quite revelaing when he let the cat out of the bag and lifted the curtain just a bit on how he supposedly receives revelation.

Here is the transcript of that 1997 interview:

DR: As the world leader of the Church, how are you in touch with God? Can you explain that for me?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I pray. I pray to Him. Night and morning. I speak with Him. I think He hears my prayers. As He hears the prayers of others. I think He answers them.

DR: But more than that, because you’re leader of the Church. Do you have a special connection?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have a special relationship in terms of the Church as an institution. Yes.

DR: And you receive........

Gordon B. Hinckley: For the entire Church.

DR: You receive?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Now we don't need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.

DR: And this is a Revelation?

This is a far cry different than what Joseph experienced…So what happened? Why doesn't God dictate word for word his desires any more?

Again...are you trying to win converts or destroy the faith of others? When he (God) has something to say that is new...HE will.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Sky]

Who’s to say that God doesn’t dictate His desires word for word anymore? The Heavens are not closed.

There is General Conference. There is our Patriarchal Blessings. There is the Gift of the Holy Ghost. I’m sure there’s more.

If the leaders of the Church recorded every revelation they’ve ever received, we’d have one large Doctrine & Covenants. It wouldn’t be able to fit all in one book. We wouldn’t be able to carry it around with us as part of our Triple Combinations.

Joseph Smith’s role was to build the foundation of Christ’s church on the earth in the latter-days. I see Thomas S. Monson’s role as maintaining and building upon that foundation.

[jo1952]

Exactly!. I did the same exact thing for the Naming Blessing I gave my daughter. The version I sat down and wrote later was exact as initially presented in many ways, but in others, there was more clarity. And there was definitely additional information. That was actually a very powerful experience, and highly educational.

I absolutely agree! In fact, BECAUSE we are learning line-upon-line, precept-upon-precept, at any given point in time in our journey, WE have (hopefully) grown. Thus, our understanding increases which unavoidably, and expectedly, allows us to see things we have experienced earlier in our lives with a new and improved perspective. Franktalk and I were discussing this very thing just a few nights ago. Anyway, the Truth that is revealed to us at one point in time, is expanded and expounded upon through on-going revelation we receive. This helps explain the comment which is always made wherein we claim we have read and studied scripture, and every time we read and study them, we glean something we never saw before. Indeed, we are able to uncover layers of understanding!

Unfortunately, this is an extremely difficult concept to try to explain to our antagonists. It seems as though they themselves are not experiencing continuing growth and understanding, which is why they cannot relate to it.

Regards,

jo

[Senator]

While I understand the allowance that must be made for the abilities of each individual man who stands as the Prophet of the Church, I have to admit that Joseph really seemed to have something when it came to receiving revelation and translating ancient artifacts that abruptly stopped when he died and Brigham Young assumed the role of "Prophet".

Yes

I may be proven wrong, but I suspect the odds of us ever seeing the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon or any other scripture from an ancient document translated by the LDS Prophet via "the gift and power of God" are close to zero.

I hope you're wrong.

..or else there's going to be a lot of disenchanted people.

[altersteve]

Why doesn't God dictate word for word his desires any more?

He does. He simply does it in many different ways.

[Maidservant]

No one should be following a prophet without first going directly to God (Heavenly Father), to ask Him (between that individual and God) if he (that individual) should be following a (particular) prophet (or for the LDS Church it may be sufficient to gain a testimony of Joseph Smith that would work as the same testimony for the other prophets--but not necessarily if we seek, need or desire further testimony on a new prophet). The Latter-day Saints do not ask a person to follow a prophet without that person having a personal confirmation on such.

In that sense, the only person God is talking to with his dictaphone (or not) is you. You're the prophet.

Then you can continue to ask questions straight to God, if you are curious on mechanisms of God's voice to his prophets. He'll show you the answers to your questions.

Once you have a witness (or otherwise believe or know) that a prophet is one you can follow, then it is a blessing to "follow the prophet" because it is simple and efficient and we can hear the Lord's words "audible" in our ears (like in General Conference). I have thought this is a great blessing. Ideally, all of us have the opportunity to be "taught of the Lord", and indeed this should be the case. This is what God wants for us, is for us and Him to be having direct, spiritual communication. However, in his grace, God has provided us a living man (a prophet) who can talk out loud, so we can hear in our audible, physical ears, the word of the Lord, even if we are weak in, say, following the Spirit. We can still be within the sounds of God' voice! We are not condemned for our weakness in following the Spirit, as we are developing; rather we are blessed by having the sound of the prophet's voice, until we can hear on our own.

Joseph Smith was and is a unique individual on all matters spiritual and human. I love him, and what he did perhaps ought to be taken as simply amazing and leave it at that. But that's me.

[Craig Paxton]

Again...are you trying to win converts or destroy the faith of others. When he (God) has something to say that is new...HE will.

I assure you I have no agenda nor a desire to destroy anyone’s faith...However if what I post causes someone to think or test their faith...I have no problem with that...nor should anyone… for the only way someone should ever feel threatened by what I post is if what I have to say is shown to be true.

On another point...I wonder if God still talks in Olde English...or if He has become more modern with time...but since he hasn't dictated any word for word revelation since Joseph...I guess we'll never know...

Edited October 27, 2011 by Craig Paxton

[Zakuska]

I agree. The OP's premise is faulty.

It may be true for 116 pages which Martin Harris scribed and we no longer have. But for the rest of the translation the means by which the translation was done is not described that way at all.

[Maidservant]

As far as mechanisms, I have not made a study on that in terms of prophets. But for myself, I hear God's voice in a variety of ways: including but not limited to: out of the mouths of other people, through nature, through texts, through the emotional and other mechanisms of my body (listening to Elder Uchtdorf's talk at General Relief Society literally drained [without any effort on my part] my spirit/body of some negative emotional charges I was carrying), AND last but not least, a lot of concrete language within my thoughts (not vague impressions, but actual conversation, discussion, instruction by the use of the English language . . . unless of course another language is clearer, as in the case of some Arabic words and meanings I was introduced to the other day, but that wasn't in my head, it was on the internet, but it had the voice of God in it; I guess that would be an instance of text).

For myself, I've never heard an audible voice of God talking to me (yet). Life isn't over yet .

Edited October 27, 2011 by Maidservant

[Craig Paxton]

As far as mechanisms, I have not made a study on that in terms of prophets. But for myself, I hear God's voice in a variety of ways: including but not limited to: out of the mouths of other people, through nature, through texts, through the emotional and other mechanisms of my body (listening to Elder Uchtdorf's talk at General Relief Society literally drained [without any effort on my part] my spirit/body of some negative emotional charges I was carrying), AND last but not least, a lot of concrete language within my thoughts (not vague impressions, but actual conversation, discussion, instruction by the use of the English language . . . unless of course another language is clearer, as in the case of some Arabic words and meanings I was introduced to the other day, but that wasn't in my head, it was on the internet, but it had the voice of God in it; I guess that would be an instance of text).

For myself, I've never heard an audible voice of God talking to me (yet). Life isn't over yet .

I've heard that there are a lot of people on Provo's south-east side that hear the voice of God on a daily basis

[jo1952]

As far as mechanisms, I have not made a study on that in terms of prophets. But for myself, I hear God's voice in a variety of ways: including but not limited to: out of the mouths of other people, through nature, through texts, through the emotional and other mechanisms of my body (listening to Elder Uchtdorf's talk at General Relief Society literally drained [without any effort on my part] my spirit/body of some negative emotional charges I was carrying), AND last but not least, a lot of concrete language within my thoughts (not vague impressions, but actual conversation, discussion, instruction by the use of the English language . . . unless of course another language is clearer, as in the case of some Arabic words and meanings I was introduced to the other day, but that wasn't in my head, it was on the internet, but it had the voice of God in it; I guess that would be an instance of text).

For myself, I've never heard an audible voice of God talking to me (yet). Life isn't over yet .

Hi Maidservant,

FYI, similar aspects to your comments are being discussed on the thread "John 5:19".

Love,

jo