I\u2019ve been thinking lately about the question of revelation; not necessarily in a definitional sense (in terms of this post we can talk about revelation as knowledge revealed from God to his prophet(s)), but in a material sense\u2013is revelation an idea interpreted into a particular language, recorded on paper, edited, and reproduced for others to read? Or is the reproduction the revelation itself? (And if so, then how materially should we take it\u2013is the reproduced paper and ink sacred? Or if we download it, does our computer become sanctified? I remember a visiting GA on my mission talking about the power of having the BoM open when teaching, even when not using it.)\u00a0<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t believe there\u2019s a clear cut answer (and it may vary from situation to situation); but I do believe that our response to this question, perhaps tells us a lot about the way we view the authority of prophets.\u00a0<\/p>\n
If one\u2019s response is the former\u2013that revelation in fact transcends materiality and language\u2013then prophets are involved in \u201cinterpreting\u201d the revelation that they received. This first of all means that what is in fact recorded in our texts or spoken by our prophets is in effect one degree removed from the revelation itself\u2013it is an \u201cinterpretation\u201d of the revelation. This then raises the question of \u201cright to interpretation\u201d. Is there something, for instance, that makes a prophet\u2019s interpretation better than anyone else\u2019s?\u00a0<\/p>\n
In the latter position, the prophet acts as a pure filter for the revelation\u2013there is no \u201cinterpretation\u201d, because what is passed on is the same thing that was revealed to the prophet.\u00a0<\/p>\n