by Michael R. Ash
Inspiration and Intellect are two sides of the same coin in how Latter-day Saints believe that God communicates with His children. We know that the Spirit testifies to eternal truths, but we often forget (or neglect) the role that intellect plays in uncovering truth. The late Apostle Hugh B. Brown said, “revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration.”[i] Likewise, the Lord instructed the Saints to “seek learning… by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). This counsel was repeated several more times in modern revelations (see D&C 11:22, 90:15, 93:53; and 109: 7, 14), and the admonition led Joseph to establish the “School of the Prophets” (D&C 88:127).
The dual-nature or dual-sources for discovering truth presents some challenges, however. The first challenge is that neither source—neither inspiration nor intellect—can provide infallible and inerrant data.
The Challenge of Inspiration
In my book Shaken Faith Syndrome, I wrote many pages demonstrating that prophets are divinely called men who have special responsibilities but not special brains. Therefore, their callings do not prevent them from making human-laden assumptions or errors in thought, word, or action. As Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf said in the October 2013 General Conference:
…to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes…. This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.[ii]
Since we do not believe that prophets are inerrant or infallible, we should recognize the obvious: what they have written, even if canonized as scripture, cannot be inerrant either. The early American prophet Mormon recognized this problem when he said of his collection of records: “And now if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God….” (Book of Mormon Title Page). Sometimes we forget that continuing revelation implies not only that we will receive new revelation, but that future revelations may correct current errors in our gospel understanding.
The Challenge of Intellect
The fact that our religious understanding is not infallible is balanced by the fact that scientific and scholarly conclusions are also not complete or inerrant either. Scientists understand (and typically appreciate) that ongoing research updates our scientific knowledge and corrects previous inaccuracies. The secular world of scientific studies is forever searching for more accurate truths.
“The history of science,” observes philosopher Dr. James Ladyman, “is full of mistakes and falsehoods, even if we count it as not starting until the Scientific Revolution. For example, light is not composed of corpuscles as Isaac Newton believed, flammable substances do not contain phlogiston, and the rate of the expansion of the universe is not decreasing as was orthodoxy in cosmology until the 1990s.”[iii]
I have the utmost respect for science and have faith (no pun intended) that science, as a conglomerate of self-correcting disciplines, will eventually arrive at new temporal truths. For the foreseeable future, however, there are many unanswered questions as well as scientific theories that reside in a state of flux. We will yet see more scientific revolutions or paradigm shifts. And that’s ok because most scientists are not afraid to admit that science is ever-evolving, growing, and expanding with new light and discoveries.
As long as we are mortal, neither science nor religion will have a monopoly on truth, and neither approach provides all the answers to the questions we pose. Lastly, both pursuits have been wrong at times and will continue to espouse inaccuracies. The fact is, all human knowledge is weak, incomplete, and is, at times, potentially flawed. At times, we have been wrong on gospel issues, our understanding of the cosmos, the nature of humans, and on some aspects of history.
Clash of the Titans
The second problem with dual sources of truth is that we sometimes run into conflicts (or what appear to be conflicts) between what truths we have discovered through inspiration and those discovered through intellect. The worlds of religion and science sometimes seem to clash. It is my belief, however, that these conflicts in worldviews are not based on reality but are based on our misperceptions and false assumptions.
Former LDS General Authority John A. Widtsoe, an academically trained chemist, said, “Truth is truth forever. Scientific truth cannot be theological lie. To the sane mind, theology and philosophy must harmonize.”[iv] “True religion and true science,” Apostle Harold B. Lee similarly argued, “are in harmony.”
“I have always thought it to be a dangerous assumption that there was a clash or warfare between the fundamental teachings of the truths of science and the teachings of true religion. If there is a disagreement, it is because one or the other has not attained to the truth.”[v]
Death is the separation of body and spirit (James 2:26). In contrast, resurrection is the reunification of the body and spirit, never to be separated again. Joined eternally, they are whole and necessary to “receive a fulness of joy” (D&C 138:17). Unfortunately, these two essential parts of humanity are often in conflict with each other. Sometimes we are led by the spirit, and sometimes we are driven by the body. Sometimes those two paths clash. When our bodies and souls reunite in the resurrection, however, we become conjoined into a unified one—both body and spirit united in perfect harmony one with another (see Alma 11: 45).
So, likewise, I believe that the true teachings of science and religion are part of an eternal whole. As mortals, we can be led by the Spirit or by science. At times, inspiration and intellect seem to conflict because of our own cognitive limitations and misunderstandings. In the eternal scheme of things, however, the truths discovered through revealed religion and accurate science are both parts of one truth. In our post-mortal lives, as we enter God’s realm, we will find that these truths are in perfect harmony with one another.
Searching for Resolution
Nearly a decade ago, I began examining some of the supposed conflicts between science and religion—conflicts such as evolution, the Documentary Hypothesis (how the books of Moses were formed), the age of the Earth, Noah’s flood, the existence of Lehites in Ancient America, and the belief that Joseph translated not only an ancient American record, but ancient lore from Egyptian scrolls.
In all these instances (and more), some LDS beliefs appear to clash with the teachings of science and scholarship. Because I believe that truth cannot conflict with truth, I knew there must be a way to resolve such conflicts. While some Latter-day Saints might be prone to reject any scientific and scholarly conclusions that appear to conflict with what we “believe,” many scientists and scholars are quick to reject any LDS claims that appear to conflict with secular conclusions. It is my belief, however, that the resolution to the science vs. religion dilemma is to recognize that both can be right, both can be wrong, and that the truth may lay in reassessing what we “believe” (what things have actually been “revealed”) as well as recognizing what types of things science can and can’t answer.
How Does God Speak?
As my ongoing research examined these supposed conflicts, I became more aware of how God communicates to His children (including the prophets) and how God uses both inspiration and intellect to inspire His children and to reveal those principles that will bring us back to His presence. Unfortunately, because our human cognitive challenges limit our understanding of truth (both spiritual and secular), we only get glimpses of truth—and we typically express those truths in weak, incomplete, and sometimes erroneous language and interpretations. That weak understanding, however, doesn’t impede our ability to draw upon the spiritual power that can unite us with the Father.
After nearly a decade of research, I finished my work in a book entitled, Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture: The Prophet’s Role as Creative Co-Author (available in the FAIR bookstore, as well as on Amazon in both print and Kindle formats). My book acknowledges what should be obvious—when we or prophets receive revelation, that communication is processed through our human brains, thoughts, biases, worldviews, and other weaknesses. There is no such thing as a purely divine communication. Even if God could communicate that way to a prophet, the prophet would have to process that input through his mortal brain and all the cognitive problems that come with this process.
My book attempts to show that, not only can a blending of inspiration and intellect harmonize supposed conflicts between religion and science (or scholarship), but that both inspiration and intellect are necessary to really understand humanity, the world, the cosmos, revelation, and perhaps even what’s to come after death. This is because God wants us and expects us to use both our brains and our hearts in determining all truths.
Once we recognize how humans participate in the revelatory process, we can better comprehend how some revelations can be both divinely inspired as well as humanly deficient, and how prophets may act as co-authors to the scriptures they give to the world. To fully grasp this concept, however, requires that we “reconstruct” some of our narratives about the scriptures, history, the restoration, and how God communicates with His children.
My book addresses all the original conflicts for which I sought understanding—evolution, the creation, the formulation of the Bible, the existence of Adam and Eve, the flood, the presence of 19th-century elements in the Book of Mormon, and the apparent difficulties that surround the “translation” of Egyptian papyri into the Book of Abraham (and the fact that the Abrahamic narrative appears to have no connection to the surviving papyri).
More importantly, however, my book also explores the bigger picture. A key element I discovered in my research was a greater awareness of how God speaks to humans. For example, supposed conflicts between science and religion should be assessed according to a greater understanding of how God communicates to His prophets and how a prophet’s intellect and worldview can become part of the revelation he receives from God.
Increased clarity on how God “speaks,” sheds additional insight (I believe) into how Joseph translated the Book of Mormon. These insights illuminate the fact that the Urim and Thummim (the Nephite Interpreters) was a cultural artifact that not only connected Joseph to his environment, but also connected the Book of Mormon prophets to their New World environment. I found, for instance, some fascinating elements in Mesoamerican traditions that dovetail amazingly well with what we know about the Interpreters.
Lastly, and most importantly, I discovered that the scriptures (mistakes and all) are Covenant Narratives that are endowed with the power to potentially bind humanity to each other, as well as to the Father. This is especially true of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, I argue that the Book of Mormon translation (and even translation process) was a critical element in unsealing the power of Elijah to unite past, present, and future generations of God’s Covenant People.
My research, therefore, concludes that a marriage of inspiration and intellect offers new models for understanding personal revelation, scripture, the production of the Bible, our cosmos, the translation of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, and why the Book of Mormon is the “new covenant” as described in D&C 84:56.
Michael R. Ash
Author
[i] Hugh B. Brown, quoted in David H. Bailey and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, “Science and Mormonism,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture (2016), 19: 23.
[ii] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join With Us,” Ensign (November 2013), 22-23.
[iii] James Ladyman, “Toward a Demarcation of Science from Pseudoscience,” Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013), Kindle Edition, 46.
[iv] John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith as Scientist: A Contribution to Mormon Philosophy (Salt Lake City: The General Board Young Men’s Mutual Improvement Association, 1908), 156.
[v] Harold B. Lee, “I Dare You to Believe,” USAC Baccalaureate Address, 31 May 1953, Church News, 6 June 1953, 4-5, 19; quoted in Kirk D. Hagen, “Eternal Progression in a Multiverse: An Exploration in Mormon Cosmology,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Summer 2006), 39:2, 16.
Michael R. Ash, a member of FAIR for more than twenty years, has been featured in nearly 90 podcasts and 30 videos. In more than two decades of writing LDS-themed material, and as a former weekly columnist for Mormon Times (owned by the Deseret News), his works include over 160 on-line articles, as well as articles in periodicals such as the Ensign, Sunstone, Neal A. Maxwell Institute’s FARMS Review, and Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought.
Michael is also the author of four LDS books. In 2008 FAIR published his book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt (which is available in English, German, and Italian). Mike quickly followed this publication with his second book, Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. In 2015 Michael published Bamboozled by the CES Letter: An honest response to the .pdf pamphlet entitled “Letter to a CES Director”, and this year he has introduced his newest book, Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture: The Prophet’s Role as Creative Co-Author.
Wrote President Joseph Fielding Smith:
“There is one place, however, where I feel that men are infallible. That is when they, as prophets, reveal to us the word of the Lord. We have four published works which have been accepted by the members of the Church as standard in doctrine, revelation and government. These are: The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.” I agree with him and believe this doctrine.
Media accounts originating with Sister Wendy Nelson have described how President Nelson receives and writes revelation. I personally refuse to be the person that would tell him he is coauthor with the Lord as he writes what is given to him by the Spirit or perhaps even In Person:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/sister-wendy-nelson-shares-her-personal-witness-of-president-nelsons-prophetic-calling-and-ministry?lang=eng
Some examples of descriptions of precise revelation being received:
Pres. J. R. Clark: “There came into my mind a voice, saying as distinctly as though it spoke in my ear, . . .”
Elder Goberg: “I leaned back and was thinking deeply when suddenly, as clear as anything, these words came into my mind: ‘You will go to Tonga and there preside over a fiftieth anniversary celebration. You will receive further instructions.’”
Pres. Hinckley: “There came into my mind the words, ‘Be still and know that I am God.’”
Elder McConkie: “The voice of the Lord came into my mind as certainly, I am sure, as the voice of the Lord came into the mind of Enos, and the very words were formed, and it said: ‘These are they whom I have chosen as the First Presidency of my Church. Follow them’—those few words.”
Elder Bushe: “I heard a voice speaking loud and clear, in German,”
Elder Scott: “He answers prayer so clearly and concisely that we can write his counsel down as though it were dictated to our mind and heart, for I have done that.”
Pres. Romney: “I have had answers revealed to my mind in finished sentences. I have heard the voice of God in my mind, and I know his words.”
Also:
“I know, for example, what Enos was talking about when he said, ‘the voice of the Lord came into my mind again, . . .’ He did not say it came into his ear, but that it ‘came into my mind again, saying. . . .’ I know what that voice is like, because I have had it come into my mind and give me names when I have had to select stake presidents. There is nothing mysterious about it to people who learn to be guided by the Spirit. The voice of the Lord has come into my mind, in sentences, in answer to prayer.”
Also:
“I have had that experience; sentences, names, have been given to me. I know this is true and in my soul is an absolute certain witness. I know if it were necessary for us to do it, we could go into our secret chambers or on the mountaintop and hear the voice of God as plainly as the Prophet Joseph did.”
Also:
“I was once concluding a talk I had given at the funeral of a fine Latter-day Saint mother and was almost ready to say amen and sit down. There came into my mind the words, ‘Turn around and bear your testimony.’”
Elder Cook summarized: “How the Spirit influences our minds, including speaking peace to our minds, occupying our minds, enlightening our minds, and even sending a voice to our minds.”
I have myself had pure intelligence flow into my mind with such clarity that I was able to cloth that personal revelation with words without even trying to think about it. I don’t see that as being a coauthor with God. And there was no error in it.
D&C 11:11 “For, behold, it is I that speak; . . . and by my power I give these words unto thee.”
What do you mean when you say “There is no such thing as a purely divine communication?” What about the visit of the Father and Son to Joseph Smith, Moroni’s visit to him, Peter James and John visiting him, the Savior appearing to him in the Temple, etc. In my understanding, these were instances of purely divine communication as I understand that statement to mean. What is your meaning when you say it? Am I missing something?
Hi Luana,
What I mean (as I explain in more detail in my book), is that _all_ communication to humans, divine or otherwise, must be processed through the human’s mind who receives the communication. Nobody was there with Joseph during the First Vision. He had to explain (and even to some degree _understand_) what happened according to human cognition. The divine is greater than human understanding but God accomodates the divine to human understanding. The human must then convey those experiences (as well as impressions and revelations) according to his (or her) human cogntive abilites and imperfect human language.
Hi Dennis Horne,
I’m certainly not claiming that prophets don’t receive God-given revelation, because I believe they (and we do).
Your post included the quote: “There is one place, however, where I feel that men are infallible. That is when they, as prophets, reveal to us the word of the Lord. We have four published works which have been accepted by the members of the Church as standard in doctrine, revelation and government. These are: The Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.” I agree with him and believe this doctrine.
Me: While I agree that the scriptures are the Word of God, it is not “doctrine” that they are in infallible Word of God. When Pres. Smith (who was president of the Q of 12 at the time) said that he believed that the men are “infallible” when giving scripture, he also notes (almost ironically) that he, himself, is “a fallible man” (included in the same letter from which you quote). Which means that he can be mistaken– including the fact that he might be mistaken to call the scriptures “infallible.”
As I wrote in Shaken Faith Syndrome:
““I make no claim of infallibility,” said President Spencer
W. Kimball.2 “We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators,” said Elder James E. Faust.3 Elder George Q. Cannon taught, “the First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility.”4 “We respect and venerate” the prophet, said Elder Charles W. Penrose, but “we do not believe that his personal views or utterances are revelations from God.”5 President Harold B. Lee indicated that not every word spoken or written by a General Authority need be considered as inspired6 and Elder J. Reuben Clark said that “‘even the President of the Church has not always spoken under the direction of the Holy Ghost.’” (see pg. 29)
It’s an indisputable fact that scriptures contain errors (which is why wrote, “And now if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God….” (Book of Mormon Title Page).
God doesn’t make mistakes, but humans do, and God must work through fallible and imperfect humans (all in imperfect and ambiguous human language with expressions that are culturally dependent and often weak in explaining much grander things). Please remember that this blog posts scratches the surface of arguments I illucidate over many hundreds of pages in my book.
You: “I personally refuse to be the person that would tell him [Pres. Nelson] he is coauthor with the Lord as he writes what is given to him by the Spirit or perhaps even In Person.”
But the very fact that Nelson convey’s the Word of God in 21st century English that is dependant on the words, grammar, idioms, etc. that are part of Pres. Nelson’s worldview, is precisely what makes him a “co-author” (again, explained in much greater detail in my book). We are likewise all co-authors to the personal revelations God gives us. He speaks to us (accommodates us) according to _our_ language, cultural idioms, etc.
Hi Mike,
With the President Joseph Fielding Smith quote and with the term “coauthor” I think the subject is being changed from prophets acting as normal regular fallible men (which they are)–to when they are acting as prophets under the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, when they are not fallible (as Pres. Smith believed and I agree with).
The quotes you share are accurate in context for when these men are not acting as prophets receiving revelation, but not when they are.
So the question remains; is a prophet a fallible “coauthor” when writing revelations by the power of the Holy Ghost?
“These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language” (D&C 1:24) said the Lord–and Joseph had only his grasp of English language to use as directed/inspired; same with his successors.
But when the Prophet (Joseph or a successor) is hearing words dictated to him as Enos did, then “coauthor” becomes to me far too strong and inapplicable of a word. Conduit or instrument or revelator seem much more precise as descriptors.
Was Enos a “coauthor” or did he write exactly what was said to him?
When the very words are formed in the mind or seen in a sacred interpreting instrument, human mind that it is, does that make the person receiving the precise words from the Spirit a coauthor? They could never have come up with them on their own–just ask poor William McClellan.
Mormon abridged a pile of sets of plates into one set, as did Moroni. Was the fallibility/supposed mistakes in the abridgment work or was it in the translation process done by the gift and power of God (Mosiah’s or Moroni’s or Joseph’s)? (Not worrying about perfect grammar or punctuation which was not an issue for Joseph or the Lord.)
“And he has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true.” (D&C 17:6)
“gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared [Nephite interpreters], to translate the Book of Mormon;”…
“the revelations of God which shall come hereafter by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, the voice of God,” (D&C 20)
Doesn’t sound like a lot of room for being a “coauthor” or making many errors.
Can God overcome/improve/perfect a mortal prophet’s fallible mind using His power? Are God’s revelations in the D&C far greater than anything Joseph could have come up with on his own?
I am not qualified to determine what a “perfect” revelation is but no one else is either.
That is, unless they are, “being in the Spirit” or “By the power of the Spirit our eyes were opened and our understandings were enlightened,” or “the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me,” or “there came a voice unto me, saying:” or “I give unto you these words” or “my power which speaketh unto thee; For, behold, it is I that speak; … and by my power I give these words unto thee.” Etc.
It is during these times that I would never tell a prophet he was acting as a fallible coauthor; the words are not his nor from his mind or heart, though they are expressed in either his language or the Lord’s, depending on the type of revelation.
Calling this infallible process two sides of the same coin with scientific discovery (by the light of Christ), emphasizing an alleged human element or contaminant, and coauthor, just doesn’t work for me at least.
And on a side note (not speaking to Mike), I have a pet peeve when people (like Givens) call the revelations in the D&C and PofGP “Joseph’s revelations”. They are in truth the Lord’s revelations, given to or thru Joseph. Further, Joseph actually did “translate” the Book of Mormon (as that word is understood by regular church members today), he didn’t simply dictate by revelation to Oliver a text some alleged previous unknown heavenly being already translated. I hope that mistaken theory gains no traction in the church. Let’s not limit what the God of the Universe did using one of the dozen greatest seers to ever walk planet earth.
Dennis, your quote of D&C 1:24 answers your question:
“These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language” (D&C 1:24)
All human language is weak and ambiguous. God gives all of us (including prophets) revelation in the “weakness” and “manner” of _our_ language. Our language also includes more than words—it includes cultural ideas (ways in which we _express_ ourselves).
It is an inescapable fact that scriptures contain “mistakes” (often, errors of science). They typically include some of the erroneous scientific thinking of the day in which the scriptures were revealed (the “manner” of the prophet’s language). _That_ is the co-author influence of the prophet on the Word of God. As I mentioned in my last post, I lay out the arguments and evidence in greater detail over many hundreds of pages in my book, so you are only getting brief summaries of my arguments here.
You: Was Enos a “coauthor” or did he write exactly what was said to him?
Me: Your view would suggest that a prophet hears (directly from God) every single word he writes/dictates came. “…exactly what was said to him” (your words). What then do you do when Joseph changes what he was told (“said to him”) by God? And Joseph most certainly did make changes. Why would he change God’s words? This is precisely one of the contra-LDS arguments made by those who also think that God speaks precise words to a prophet. The problem with such an approach, however, is it doesn’t sustain scrutiny and is not supported by evidence or logic once we dig a bit deeper. There is no reason logically, or doctrinally, to accept the infallible view of scripture.
Mike,
You changed the subject again, from Enos, who heard the exact words spoken to him and wrote them, to Joseph, who received many different kinds of revelations.
He received some like Enos’ (D&C 130:14-15), and others that were descriptions of visions, etc. or angelic visitations.
Different kinds of revelations might necessitate various levels of thought and description from the prophet involved but that does not get close to amounting to coauthorship. When a voice is heard and written down, as in these cases, I will trust there was no coauthoring going on, but that we get the original word of God for the original written revelation. Minor revisions do not equate to coauthoring or the other human interferences you describe.
From your comments, I think you give far too much room for prophets to (supposedly) muddy the pure water. Even when Joseph changed some of the revelations he received, they were correct both before and after the change; they were just slightly doctrinally improved.
I don’t believe the Lord lets His prophets become coauthors to the extent of diminishing what He tells them because of mortal imperfections.
“And we know that these things are true and according to the revelations of John, neither adding to, nor diminishing from the prophecy of his book, the holy scriptures, or the revelations of God which shall come hereafter by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, the voice of God, or the ministering of angels.” (D&C 20:35)
So we seem to disagree on this general subject. I have studied the teachings of the prophets and apostles about how revelation works too much to go anywhere near what you are promoting.
Dennis, it’s ok that we disagree. I lay out my arguments in detail in my latest book. You really can’t address more than a summary of my position until you’ve dealt with all my evidence and logic. You might still not be persuaded, but until then, you arguments in this post don’t address the full extent of why I argue for “co-authorship.”