Tweet
A few years ago Terryl Givens wrote an article where he argued that the Book of Mormon and Mormonism more generally advocates a rather unique form of revelation (Givens, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, (2001)),. Givens refers to the concept as revelation as dialogue -- or dialogic revelation. Dialogic revelation is not really found in mainstream christianity. Yes, other christian theologies certainly believe in personalized revelation bit that is probably best understood as "revelation as inner experience" rather than dialogic revelation. While this sounds quite similar to Mormon revelatory models it is usually quite different: "the experience of God ... may be called grace, and grace, insofar as it brings new awareness of the divine, is revelation." Also typically a prayer is a call or plea for divine activity or intervention but prayers do not usually involve a dialogue. So a prayer is answered in the same way that falling rain answers the query of "is it going to rain today?"
So what is meant by Dialogic revelation in Mormonism? Essentially, we as Mormons have a literalized understanding of divine discourse. It is actually dialogue or really can be dialogue (it isn't always). Givens explains it this way:
Mormonism pushes the boundaries of dialogic revelation pretty far since we democratize it ... Even the revelatory dialogue in the Old Testament doesn't go this far. Certainly diagolic revelation is not entirely unique to Mormonism: the seekers come to mind. But as Givens' summarizes:
So what what does this have to do with the typical Mormon expresssion of faith: I know that Jesus is the Christ, I know the church is true, or I know the Book of Mormon is true. To me these expressions are a short hand way for a member to express that they are confident they have experienced a dialogic revelation. If a non-mormon asked a member to explain how they knew the above things that member would almost certainly describe a dialogic encounter with God. Thus when a Mormon expresses their faith it has a very different context than other faiths usually . More importantly the Mormon usually also believes the context is quite different.
Given the preceeding it is hardly a surprise that we use a different language to declare and talk about our faith. It is also a mode of delivery that emphasizes the confidence that a perceived dialogic encounter with God engenders. Implicit in the "I know" I think is the notion that part of being Mormon is believing that dialogic revelation can produce maximum confidence relative to other revelatory models.
So is the use of "true" an abuse of language? My Bayesian side wants to scream that it is ... that we really just mean that dialogic revelation produces a higher posterior odds ratio than other methods ... Why can't we just say that? On the other hand, saying I know in this context is probably a bit like using a first order Taylor series approximation ... sure it is sometimes misleading but really it is pretty good if you keep the context in mind.
So what is meant by Dialogic revelation in Mormonism? Essentially, we as Mormons have a literalized understanding of divine discourse. It is actually dialogue or really can be dialogue (it isn't always). Givens explains it this way:
One finds in the Book of Mormon a version of revelation that falls well outside the parameters Dulles charted, and something far beyond a forceful spiritual intimation or the abrupt insight mentioned by Sanday. In the Book of Mormon, prayer frequently—and dramatically—evokes an answer that is impossible to mistake as anything other than an individualized, dialogic response to a highly particularized question.
...
[I]n the world of the Book of Mormon, concepts like revelation, prayer, inspiration, and mystery will find powerful and substantive redefinition. That may well be the Book of Mormon's most significant and revolutionary—as well as controversial—contribution to religious thinking. The particularity and specificity, the vividness, the concreteness, and the accessibility of revelatory experience—those realities both underlie and overshadow the narrated history and doctrine that constitute the record. The "knowability" of all truth, the openness of mystery, the reality of personal revelation, find vivid illustration within the record and invite reenactment outside it.
...
[I]n the world of the Book of Mormon, concepts like revelation, prayer, inspiration, and mystery will find powerful and substantive redefinition. That may well be the Book of Mormon's most significant and revolutionary—as well as controversial—contribution to religious thinking. The particularity and specificity, the vividness, the concreteness, and the accessibility of revelatory experience—those realities both underlie and overshadow the narrated history and doctrine that constitute the record. The "knowability" of all truth, the openness of mystery, the reality of personal revelation, find vivid illustration within the record and invite reenactment outside it.
Whether or not Mormonism's model was the first to appeal to radically individualistic cravings for spiritual experience by means of a literalized understanding of divine discourse, the Book of Mormon was apparently the most effective vehicle of the age for eliciting, condoning, and affirming such personal encounters with divine powers.
Given the preceeding it is hardly a surprise that we use a different language to declare and talk about our faith. It is also a mode of delivery that emphasizes the confidence that a perceived dialogic encounter with God engenders. Implicit in the "I know" I think is the notion that part of being Mormon is believing that dialogic revelation can produce maximum confidence relative to other revelatory models.
So is the use of "true" an abuse of language? My Bayesian side wants to scream that it is ... that we really just mean that dialogic revelation produces a higher posterior odds ratio than other methods ... Why can't we just say that? On the other hand, saying I know in this context is probably a bit like using a first order Taylor series approximation ... sure it is sometimes misleading but really it is pretty good if you keep the context in mind.
Comment