Some Random Thoughts On Joseph Smith and Text
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:16 pm
One of the most basic beliefs of fundamentalist Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. I quite like this description of the position from a fundamentalist pastor: "The Bible is the Word of God; the inerrant revelation from above. It is the Word of God indeed, but not because it says so. Rather, it says so because it is" (emphasis mine). In short, the text is fixed and in no need of repair or reinterpretation. It is what it is. If the text is fixed, the meaning is also "copperfastened" as critic Terry Eagleton describes it. Obviously this is a rather reductive summary of fundamentalism, but it serves my purpose. Prooftexting, which happens often enough, wouldn't make much sense if fundamentalists didn't believe first in the accuracy of the text and second in the clarity of its meaning.
Not surprisingly, one of the great fundamentalist criticisms of the Book of Mormon is the mantra of "3,913 changes and counting." Unlike the Bible, fundamentalists say, the Book of Mormon is fluid and malleable, and presumably untrustworthy. If it is God's word, the "most perfect book" on earth, they say, why on earth would it need revision and clarification?
Joseph Smith appears not to have viewed scriptural text in the same way that the fundamentalists do. We often suppose that Joseph wasn't so much translating as he was simply repeating the words that God gave him. But he seems to have taken a less rigid approach to the scriptures. In 1837 he prepared a new edition in which, as Royal Skousen describes it, he made "hundreds of grammatical changes and a few emendations." Among these changes was the well-known change from "white" to "pure" that some people mistakenly point to as a modern church's effort to erase an embarrassing doctrine. And again in 1840, Joseph undertook another revision, this time to reconcile the text with the original manuscript. Clearly Joseph's definition of "most perfect" is not at all what fundamentalists have in mind.
Similarly, Joseph had no problem revising--and even rewriting--the revelations he received. We are all probably familiar with the radical changes to some of the revisions in the Book of Commandments when they were recompiled into the Doctrine and Covenants. And yet Joseph was able to say with confidence, "I never told you I was perfect – but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."
We can also point to the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, both of which are often described as unfinished, explaining why they were not canonized in Joseph's lifetime.
But LDS scripture is only problematic in this way when one approaches it from a fundamentalist point of view. The fundamentalist privileges text over all else, at least in theory. Joseph Smith turned that idea on its head in that the Word comes not just through scripture but through prophets and the witness of the Holy Ghost. A good example of this is the description of Nephi being "led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do" (1 Nephi 4:6), to the point where he goes against what he believes the scriptures tell him because the spirit "constrained" him to do so.
Even the counsel of the prophets is hedged by the primacy of the spirit. Fundamentalists make much of Brigham Young's statement that "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture." (Journal of Discourses 13:95). Yet we all understand that church members have the right (and some say obligation) to receive spiritual confirmation of what church leaders say. Lorenzo Snow taught, "There may be some things that the First Presidency do; that the Apostles do, that cannot for the moment be explained; yet the spirit, the motives that inspire the action can be understood, because each member of the Church has a right to have that measure of the Spirit of God that they can judge as to those who are acting in their interests or otherwise."
Ironically, quasi-canonical attempts to provide official interpretations to the scriptures, such as the Bible Dictionary and Guide to the Scriptures, seem almost counter to Joseph's approach. Similarly, it could be said that the correlation process, in place since 1970, is an attempt to fix boundaries on a canon that really has no boundaries.
Some have claimed that Joseph Smith was a postmodern at heart. While I wouldn't go quite there, it's obvious that his approach to the "Word" is a radical departure from orthodoxy. If I were a believing member of the church, and someone brought up the 3913 changes, I would simply say, "So what?"
Not surprisingly, one of the great fundamentalist criticisms of the Book of Mormon is the mantra of "3,913 changes and counting." Unlike the Bible, fundamentalists say, the Book of Mormon is fluid and malleable, and presumably untrustworthy. If it is God's word, the "most perfect book" on earth, they say, why on earth would it need revision and clarification?
Joseph Smith appears not to have viewed scriptural text in the same way that the fundamentalists do. We often suppose that Joseph wasn't so much translating as he was simply repeating the words that God gave him. But he seems to have taken a less rigid approach to the scriptures. In 1837 he prepared a new edition in which, as Royal Skousen describes it, he made "hundreds of grammatical changes and a few emendations." Among these changes was the well-known change from "white" to "pure" that some people mistakenly point to as a modern church's effort to erase an embarrassing doctrine. And again in 1840, Joseph undertook another revision, this time to reconcile the text with the original manuscript. Clearly Joseph's definition of "most perfect" is not at all what fundamentalists have in mind.
Similarly, Joseph had no problem revising--and even rewriting--the revelations he received. We are all probably familiar with the radical changes to some of the revisions in the Book of Commandments when they were recompiled into the Doctrine and Covenants. And yet Joseph was able to say with confidence, "I never told you I was perfect – but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."
We can also point to the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, both of which are often described as unfinished, explaining why they were not canonized in Joseph's lifetime.
But LDS scripture is only problematic in this way when one approaches it from a fundamentalist point of view. The fundamentalist privileges text over all else, at least in theory. Joseph Smith turned that idea on its head in that the Word comes not just through scripture but through prophets and the witness of the Holy Ghost. A good example of this is the description of Nephi being "led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do" (1 Nephi 4:6), to the point where he goes against what he believes the scriptures tell him because the spirit "constrained" him to do so.
Even the counsel of the prophets is hedged by the primacy of the spirit. Fundamentalists make much of Brigham Young's statement that "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture." (Journal of Discourses 13:95). Yet we all understand that church members have the right (and some say obligation) to receive spiritual confirmation of what church leaders say. Lorenzo Snow taught, "There may be some things that the First Presidency do; that the Apostles do, that cannot for the moment be explained; yet the spirit, the motives that inspire the action can be understood, because each member of the Church has a right to have that measure of the Spirit of God that they can judge as to those who are acting in their interests or otherwise."
Ironically, quasi-canonical attempts to provide official interpretations to the scriptures, such as the Bible Dictionary and Guide to the Scriptures, seem almost counter to Joseph's approach. Similarly, it could be said that the correlation process, in place since 1970, is an attempt to fix boundaries on a canon that really has no boundaries.
Some have claimed that Joseph Smith was a postmodern at heart. While I wouldn't go quite there, it's obvious that his approach to the "Word" is a radical departure from orthodoxy. If I were a believing member of the church, and someone brought up the 3913 changes, I would simply say, "So what?"