1. What Is Revelation?

1.1. Introduction

Many Abrahamic religions argue that Divine gifts such as prophecy and new revelation are relics of the past that ceased with the apostles. This perspective is known as “Cessationism”. Some famous cessationists are Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Charles Hodge. In contrast, there are those who believe that these gifts continue into our day, which is a perspective called “Continuationism”. Some famous continuationists are John Wesley, George Fox, and Joseph Smith Jr.

However Mormonism, which was largely started by Joseph Smith Jr., is unique among the continuationists, because these communications are not held merely as appendices to ancient scripture, but are often considered or even canonized as modern scripture.

Yet, despite its centrality to our tradition, revelation remains a concept that eludes easy definition. What exactly is revelation? Is it the very words of God dictated to a prophet? Is it a profound impression upon the soul? Is it reserved only for those in authority, or does it belong to all who seek it? These questions are not new—they have shaped our history, our doctrine, and our identity as a revelatory people. In light of these questions, it is wise to take time to define what we mean by “revelation” today. Furthermore, as a people who seek divine guidance, we must also be vigilant against the misuse of the gift of revelation, because while our history has shown that revelation can inspire and uplift, it has and still is also been invoked to justify oppression and division.

As we explore revelation, we must do so with humility, recognizing that the sacred has always been mediated through human experience. Whether plenary or conceptual, general or special, revelation is ultimately an invitation—not merely to receive, but to discern, to wrestle, and to grow. Our task is not merely to ask, “What is revelation?” but to seek, as Joseph did, the wisdom to interpret and apply it in our lives today.

1.2. Plenary VS Conceptual Revelation

With this understanding in place, we turn to an essential question: how does revelation function? Throughout our history, revelation has been understood in different ways—sometimes as a word-for-word dictation from God (plenary revelation), and at other times as a divinely inspired concept that someone expresses in human language (conceptual revelation). 

It would be wise to examine both of these perspectives as they pertain to our past and present and how we want to understand revelation as we move into the future.

1.2.1. Plenary

“Plenary” means “complete” or “full.” In the context of revelation, plenary revelation typically refers to the belief that the Divine directly dictated the words which are recorded in scripture. Under this view, the written document is comprehensive, all-encompassing, and a perfect disclosure of Divine knowledge and truth.

One of the most well-known instances of revelation that is considered plenary would be the 10 Commandments, which scripture states were inscribed by the very finger of God upon stone tablets (Exodus 31:18). However, even within Mormonism we have had our own instances of belief in plenary revelation. For example, Joseph Smith Jr.’s September 1830 revelation says:

“thou shalt give heed unto all [of Joseph Smith Jr.’s] words, and commandments, which he shall give unto you… for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth”

This passage suggests that Joseph Smith Jr. intended his revelations, and consequently the Doctrine and Covenants, to be regarded as plenary in nature.

Within the Reorganization there continued to be a persistent belief in a plenary understanding. For example, many defenders of the Book of Mormon voiced a fair amount of opposition among conservatives when the 1966 Reader’s Edition (Revised Authorized Version) was announced, as it made some minor grammatical and linguistic changes to make it more understandable. The reason for this opposition was that they believed that the 1908 Authorized Version was a plenary translation of the Golden Plates, and to modify the text, even to make it grammatically correct or more accessible to a modern audience, would be to corrupt the word of God.

1.2.2. Conceptual

“Conceptual” pertains to ideas, concepts, or mental constructs. Conceptual revelation, therefore, is the process by which Divine knowledge and truth is revealed as general concepts, leaving writers to articulate these insights in human language. Such writings may or may not be canonized as scripture.

While Joseph Smith Jr. asserted a plenary view of revelation, there are notable passages of scripture that call this into question. One of the strongest arguments for a conceptual understanding is the evolution of Smith’s revelations over time, with significant alterations in meaning. For example, Joseph’s April 1829 revelation underwent substantial changes that reflect a shift in interpretation:

Earliest Extent	Book of Commandments	Doctrine and Covenants
now this is not all for thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the sprout Behold it hath told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands for it is the work of God	Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it is the work of God	Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron: behold it has told you many things: behold there is no other power save the power of God that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you; therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God, and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands; for it is the work of God

Early versions of this revelation affirmed Oliver Cowdery’s gift in the use of dowsing rods, a practice associated with folk magic and divination. Later revisions altered the meaning, distancing the text from its original implication. Such modifications indicate a move away from plenary revelation toward an implicit acceptance of conceptual revelation.

The Josephites in particular have had an overt transition to a conceptual understanding of revelation. The Reorganization’s first major engagement with conceptual revelation came during the 1880s Gurley Reformation, led by Jason W. Briggs and Zenas H. Gurley Jr.. These reformers opposed a plenary view and saw the RLDS First Presidency as attempting to seize more ecclesiastical power through World Conference Resolution #215. While Resolution #222 introduced ambiguity just the next year, it ultimately was not persuasive enough and the reformers resigned in 1886, citing the church’s stance on scripture. In response, the RLDS passed Resolution #308 which explicitly rejected a plenary view and solidifying its commitment to conceptual revelation—a stance still in effect today.

This choice would go on to be expounded upon by later theologians. For example, in 1967 F. Henry Edwards said:

“The idea of plenary inspiration… no longer stands the test of careful scrutiny”

In 1969 the Basic Beliefs committee for the church all but eliminated any doubt that a conceptual understanding of revelation reigned supreme in the church when they said:

“Such [Divine] disclosure is experienced in the hearts of men rather than in the words by which the revelation is interpreted and communicated.”

Several RLDS presidents have attempted to articulate what their revelatory process was like. Wallace B. Smith explained his perspective Herald article “The Prophetic Experience” and prefaces of the last 20 or so CoC Doctrine and Covenants sections speak of this process. However, perhaps the most thorough exposé on the modern Josephite revelatory process comes from Steve Veazey’s article in Restoration Studies XI entitled “Stepping into the River of Revelation in the Restoration Tradition”. In this article Veazey explores the collaborative development of CoC Doctrine and Covenants 163, thus illustrating a conceptual model of revelation.Perhaps the most tangible ways that the Josephites interact with conceptual revelation today is through the evolution of the sacrament prayers:

Moroni 4 (1830 BoM)	D&C	D&C (Combined)	Contemporary	Contemporary (Combined)
O God, the Eternal Father,	O God, the eternal Father,	O God, the eternal Father,	Eternal God,	Eternal God,
we ask thee in the name of	we ask thee in the name of	we ask thee in the name of	we ask you in the name of	we ask you in the name of
thy Son Jesus Christ,	thy Son Jesus Christ,	thy Son Jesus Christ,	your Son Jesus Christ,	your Son Jesus Christ,
to bless and sanctify this bread	to bless and sanctify this bread	to bless and sanctify this bread and wine	to bless and sanctify this bread	to bless and sanctify this bread and wine
to the souls of all those	to the souls of all those	to the souls of all those	to the souls of all those	to the souls of all those
who partake of it, that they	who partake of it, that they	who partake of them, that they	who receive it, that they	who receive them, that they
may eat in remembrance of	may eat in remembrance of	may eat and drink in remembrance of	may eat in remembrance of	may eat and drink in remembrance of
the body of thy Son,	the body of thy Son,	the body and blood of thy Son,	the body of your Son,	the body and blood of your Son,
and witness unto thee,	and witness unto thee,	and witness unto thee,	and witness to you,	and witness to you,
O God the Eternal Father,	O God, the eternal Father,	O God, the eternal Father,	O God,	O God,
that they are willing to	that they are willing to	that they are willing to	that they are willing to	that they are willing to
take upon them the name of thy Son,	take upon them the name of thy Son,	take upon them the name of thy Son,	take upon them the name of your Son,	take upon them the name of your Son,
and always remember him,	and always remember him	and always remember him	and always remember him,	and always remember him
and keep his commandments	and keep his commandments	and keep his commandments	and keep the commandments	and keep the commandments
which he hath given them,	which he has given them,	which he has given them,	which he has given them,	which he has given them,
that they may always have	that they may always have	that they may always have	that they may always have	that they may always have
his spirit to be with them. Amen.	his Spirit to be with them. Amen.	his Spirit to be with them. Amen.	his Spirit to be with them. Amen.	his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

1.2.3. Conclusion

The tension between plenary and conceptual revelation has shaped the way we understand Divine communication throughout our history. While plenary revelation asserts a fixed, word-for-word transmission from God, conceptual revelation allows for divine truths to be interpreted, adapted, and expressed in human language, and even be seen as products of their time and culture.

Although Joseph Smith Jr. initially framed his revelations in a plenary manner, the historical record suggests an approval of a conceptual understanding—both in the modifications of Smith’s revelations and in the broader trajectory of some Mormons such as the Josephites. The shift to conceptual has allowed for greater theological flexibility and adaptation, as seen in the ongoing evolution of scripture, doctrine, and sacramental language.

As we move forward, this broader understanding of revelation leads us naturally to another important distinction: the difference between general and special revelation. While plenary and conceptual frameworks describe the mechanism of revelation, general and special revelation describe its scope. This next section will explore how revelation is experienced on both a universal and a personal level, helping us better understand how God communicates across different contexts.

1.3. General VS Special Revelation

When exploring what revelation is, the teachings of the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas stand as a cornerstone. Within his framework, he defined two distinct modes of Divine communication: “General revelation” and “Special revelation.” These two modes both bring insight and meaning to our understanding of God, and so it is wise to explore these in more depth.

1.3.1. General

In Genesis 6:66 of the Inspired Version/Joseph Smith Translation of the bible, we are taught that:

“…all things are created and made to bear record of [God]; both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath, all things bear record of [God].”

The natural world is a glorious creation of God, and like all art, it serves as a teacher regarding the nature of its Creator. We study and learn from the Divine by using our senses, instruments, and reason, and in doing so we are able to make observations and discoveries. These revelations are consistent and universally accessible and self-evident regardless of location or religious beliefs.

Those who seek these general revelations are called scientists. They specialize in countless ways, such as medicine, biology, cosmology, and physics. The writings of these wise teachers benefit the whole of humanity, and the goodness that they brought should be held in esteem. Apostle Orson Pratt one taught that:

“The study of science is the study of something eternal. If we study astronomy, we study the works of God. If we study chemistry, geology, optics, or any other branch of science, every new truth we come to the understanding of is eternal; it is a part of the great system of universal truth. It is truth that exists throughout universal nature; and God is the dispenser of all truth—scientific, religious, and political. Therefore let all classes of citizens and people endeavor to improve their time more than heretofore—to train their minds to that which is best calculated for their good and the good of the society which surrounds them.”

Joseph Smith Jr.’s 1833 revelation commands us to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith,” urging us to embrace all sources of wisdom that lead to greater understanding. To neglect the discoveries of science is to turn away from a vast, unfolding testament of God’s handiwork. Therefore, scientific writings should be regarded with the same reverence as canonized scripture, for both are revelations of divine truth—one written by prophets, the other inscribed into the fabric of creation itself.

1.3.2. Special

While general revelation unfolds through the observable world, special revelation manifests through direct and personal experiences. These experiences can take many forms, including visions, dreams, trances, angelic visitations, entheogenic encounters, and moments of profound inspiration. Our tradition is filled with such accounts, such as Joseph Smith’s First Vision in the Sacred Grove.

Unlike general revelation, which is accessible to all through reason and observation, special revelation is deeply personal and subjective. Since special revelation is personal and not universally verifiable, it carries a different weight than general revelation. It is often received within the context of faith communities and interpreted through theological and cultural lenses. While one person’s vision may serve as a guiding light for many, others may see little value in it. Even within shared religious traditions, interpretations of divine experiences can vary widely, leading to diverse expressions of faith and belief.

The power of special revelation lies not just in the experience itself but in how it is communicated and received. Throughout history people have shared their revelations in ways that inspire and uplift, but also in ways that invite ethical reflection. As we explore revelation further, it is crucial to consider the responsibility that comes with claiming Divine insight. In the final section of this series we will discuss the ethics of revelation—how to discern, share, and interpret these experiences in ways that are constructive, compassionate, and spiritually enriching.