Revelation, what is it?

[_stemelbow]

After Joseph Smith had his claimed First Vision he reported (yes, many years later) " When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home." (JSH 20).

What is revelation? Joseph Smith had a vision, or so he claims say the skeptics, and afterward his whole body seemed to be affected. How does that work? Was this the same type of thing that happened when, say, Moroni supposedly came to him? The next day he was so tired he couldn't do his daily labors, which I guess could be because he didn't really sleep the night before. But I've had numerous sleepless nights that don't stop me from being able to work the next day--that is when manual labor was more a part of my life. How would vision of heavenly messengers physically drain someone? How would that work?

The claimed first recorded revelation, correct if I'm wrong, for Joseph was D&C section 2. Was it recorded word for word as Moroni offered it? It seems, judging by Joseph Smith' JSH account, that Moroni had to have spoken--used his mouth. But its also true that someone else was in the same room when Moroni appeared. It was a vision. It was unseen to others. Were they just words put into Joseph Smith' head if no one else saw or heard? Do we really get how that would work?

These thoughts come as I think of Joseph Smith' "translations". How can we ever piece together the process of translation for the Book of Mormon? It seems impossible, yet its easily criticized. How well do Joseph Smith' translated words represent what Nephi actually wrote, that is if Nephi actually wrote words? In addition, how woudl Mormon's editing hundreds of years later affect what was written by Alma? There just seems to be a great deal of complexity, and even a greater deal of unknowables. What exactly are we complaining about when it comes to revelation?

[_Some Schmo]

After Joseph Smith had his claimed First Vision he reported (yes, many years later) " When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home." (JSH 20).

What is revelation? Joseph Smith had a vision, or so he claims say the skeptics, and afterward his whole body seemed to be affected. How does that work? Was this the same type of thing that happened when, say, Moroni supposedly came to him? The next day he was so tired he couldn't do his daily labors, which I guess could be because he didn't really sleep the night before. But I've had numerous sleepless nights that don't stop me from being able to work the next day--that is when manual labor was more a part of my life. How would vision of heavenly messengers physically drain someone? How would that work?

The claimed first recorded revelation, correct if I'm wrong, for Joseph was D&C section 2. Was it recorded word for word as Moroni offered it? It seems, judging by Joseph Smith' JSH account, that Moroni had to have spoken--used his mouth. But its also true that someone else was in the same room when Moroni appeared. It was a vision. It was unseen to others. Were they just words put into Joseph Smith' head if no one else saw or heard? Do we really get how that would work?

These thoughts come as I think of Joseph Smith' "translations". How can we ever piece together the process of translation for the Book of Mormon? It seems impossible, yet its easily criticized. How well do Joseph Smith' translated words represent what Nephi actually wrote, that is if Nephi actually wrote words? In addition, how woudl Mormon's editing hundreds of years later affect what was written by Alma? There just seems to be a great deal of complexity, and even a greater deal of unknowables. What exactly are we complaining about when it comes to revelation?

Well, I'd call Smith a liar since it's the most reasonable explanation, but that means nothing to you, so I'll just say that it seems probable that he was a habitual untruth teller/inaccurate excuse maker. Is that better (which is to say, does it have a meaning for you)?

That reminds me... I think I'll tell everyone at work that I had a revelation last night and I'm just too exhausted to work today. That ought to go over like an F-15.

[_Buffalo]

I've come up with the following formula: Talking to yourself + confirmation bias = revelation.

[_NorthboundZax]

What exactly are we complaining about when it comes to revelation?

You ask a lot of great questions in your post. But if it is to set up revelation as too complex to understand (and hence criticize), it is missing the mark. I would define revelation as a new, rapidly acquired, (possibly) previously unknown bit of knowledge that sheds light on something one wants to understand more fully. By wrapping Joseph Smith's revelations in such complexity there really isn't much illumination anymore. It's as if the event was more important than the content. That seems worth criticizing to me.

[_stemelbow]

You ask a lot of great questions in your post.

Thanks.

But if it is to set up revelation as too complex to understand (and hence criticize), it is missing the mark.

Damdng. I just can't quite spell out a swear word even if I mean it. But, no, I'm not really trying to suggest its too complex to understand or criticize. I would say it is too complex for me.

I would define revelation as a new, rapidly acquired, (possibly) previously unknown bit of knowledge that sheds light on something one wants to understand more fully.

Interesting. Epiphany seems to match that definition too.

By wrapping Joseph Smith's revelations in such complexity there really isn't much illumination anymore. It's as if the event was more important than the content. That seems worth criticizing to me.

You mean the revelations themselves or the claimed mode of revelation (as far as we can piece it together)?

[_stemelbow]

Well, I'd call Smith a liar since it's the most reasonable explanation, but that means nothing to you, so I'll just say that it seems probable that he was a habitual untruth teller/inaccurate excuse maker. Is that better (which is to say, does it have a meaning for you)?

Oh cool. Kinda like me, huh?

That reminds me... I think I'll tell everyone at work that I had a revelation last night and I'm just too exhausted to work today. That ought to go over like an F-15.

Good luck.

[_stemelbow]

I've come up with the following formula: Talking to yourself + confirmation bias = revelation.

if this formula is able to be considered information then perhaps this little piece is revelation? See it here folks, Buffalo has just claimed to ahve received revelation.

[_NorthboundZax]

I'm not really trying to suggest its too complex to understand or criticize. I would say it is too complex for me.

So, is it the definition or the specific revelations that are too complex? Most of your OP show the revelations themselves often being too complex for understanding, but your question is definitional.

I would define revelation as a new, rapidly acquired, (possibly) previously unknown bit of knowledge that sheds light on something one wants to understand more fully.

Interesting. Epiphany seems to match that definition too.

You're right, it would. I suppose I distinguish between them as revelation suggesting more objective truths whereas an epiphany suggests a new, helpful, but subjective way of looking looking at things.

By wrapping Joseph Smith's revelations in such complexity there really isn't much illumination anymore. It's as if the event was more important than the content. That seems worth criticizing to me.

You mean the revelations themselves or the claimed mode of revelation (as far as we can piece it together)?

Both are worthy of criticism given what a revelation purports to be. We like to present boldness to the outside world (and ourselves) with "Joseph Smith received revelation from God to start the restoration". However, when a little probing shows Joseph writing Mormon writing Nephi who may or may not have written anything it isn't just confusing for a few naïve or humble souls. It points to a distinct lack of information and clarity in a process that was supposed to bring forth the fulness of the gospel. To compensate, it seems that we have taken to placing the value on the events themselves rather than the messages they were supposed to convey. When the value of the content is obscured by the process, both the revelation and the process deserve a heavy dose of criticism.

[_Buffalo]

I've come up with the following formula: Talking to yourself + confirmation bias = revelation.

if this formula is able to be considered information then perhaps this little piece is revelation? See it here folks, Buffalo has just claimed to have received revelation.

If you want to define revelation narrowly as any idea that occurs to you, then yes.

[_Hades]

Revelations somehow become more believable with time. No one will believe my revelations now. They just pass me off as a crazy kook. I think Nightlion is having some of the same problems.

Maybe if I write down all my revelations and get a few gullible people to join my church, then in 50 to 100 years I will be a real prophet.