God Doesn’t Speak Jacobean: A Linguistic and Theological
Examination of an 1830s American Scripture
— ✦ —
Introduction: A Strange Echo from Upstate New York
In the spring of 1830, in the burned-over district of western New York, a young man not yet twenty-five stood at the head of a newly organized church and began publishing what he claimed were revelations directly from Jesus Christ. The words came rapidly, often dictated to scribes, and they would eventually fill a book that the Latter-day Saint tradition would canonize as the Doctrine and Covenants. To anyone reading those revelations today, one feature strikes the ear before any doctrine does: they do not sound like 1830. They sound like 1611.
The Doctrine and Covenants speaks in thees and thous. It saith and cometh and verily verily. It addresses its hearers as though they had been pulled from a Jacobean pulpit and dropped into the log cabins of Kirtland and the Missouri prairie. It is, in the literal sense, an antique voice — except that the voice was issuing forth in the very decade when Andrew Jackson was president, when steamboats churned up the Mississippi, when Noah Webster had just put the finishing touches on the first American dictionary written specifically to standardize a new and distinctly American English. The temporal dissonance is not subtle. It is, on its face, a problem.
This essay takes that problem seriously. It does not approach the question as a polemic against the Latter-day Saint faith, nor as an attempt to ridicule a sacred text held dear by millions. It approaches the question as any responsible student of religion, linguistics, and history would: by asking why a body of revelation purportedly given in nineteenth-century America to nineteenth-century Americans, for the establishment of a nineteenth-century church, would clothe itself almost entirely in the diction of a translation produced in seventeenth-century England for the court of James I.
The official Latter-day Saint answer is that God adapts His revelation to the language of those who receive it. It is a thoughtful answer, and it deserves a careful hearing. But the text of LDS scripture itself, the historical record of the revelations’ editing, the parallel evidence of 1830s American speech, and the modern Church’s own ongoing efforts to update and modernize the text all combine to raise an honest question: was the King James cadence of the Doctrine and Covenants the voice of God, or the studied voice of a young prophet doing what nearly every American religious innovator of his generation did — reaching for the sound of Scripture by reaching for the only sound of Scripture his audience knew?
The pages that follow walk that question carefully through eight movements: the textual evidence, the historical and linguistic context of 1830s America, the official Latter-day Saint apologetic, the text’s self-undermining concession in 2 Nephi 31:3 and Doctrine and Covenants 1:24, the long history of editorial revision, the modern paradox of simplifying revelations that were supposedly given in language people could understand, the fractured canon among Latter Day Saint offshoots, and, finally, a traditional Christian theological assessment. The aim is not to wound. The aim is to think clearly about an artifact of American religious history that deserves clear thinking.
— ✦ —
I. The Book That Speaks in a Borrowed Tongue
Before assessing why the Doctrine and Covenants sounds the way it does, it is worth taking a moment to confirm that it does, in fact, sound the way critics and defenders alike say it does. The book opens with the unmistakable cadence of the King James Bible. Section 1, the so-called Preface, declares: “Hearken, O ye people of my church, saith the voice of him who dwells on high.” The vocabulary, the syntax, the inverted word order — every marker is Jacobean.
Latter-day Saint scholars themselves have studied this in detail. Eric D. Huntsman, an associate professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, surveyed the influence of the King James Version on the revelations and noted that earlier studies by Ellis Rasmussen and Lois Jean Smutz found a median of roughly 1.3 biblical parallels or allusions per verse across the Doctrine and Covenants — a remarkable density of scriptural echo for a book that, unlike the Book of Mormon, makes no claim to be a translation of an ancient document.
The idiom of the King James Bible was for Joseph Smith and his contemporaries the accepted and expected language of scripture.
— Eric D. Huntsman, Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University
The text is saturated with archaic features: second-person singular pronouns thee, thou, thy, thine, used as if no one had told these revelations that thou had quietly retired from American speech a century earlier; third-person verb endings such as saith, speaketh, cometh, which had likewise vanished from ordinary nineteenth-century usage; auxiliary verbs and inverted constructions lifted bodily from the 1611 Authorized Version; and a steady drumbeat of pulpit formulae — verily, behold, hearken, lo — that were already markers of religious affectation when the revelations were given.
This is not the language of a Kentucky farmer in 1831. It is not the language of an Ohio printer. It is not the language Joseph Smith himself spoke in his personal correspondence, which is preserved in the Joseph Smith Papers and shows him writing, on plenty of occasions, in unremarkable American English of the period — sometimes ungrammatical, sometimes folksy, but never Jacobean. When the prophetic voice descends, however, the diction shifts. The Lord, it seems, has read His King James Bible.
Roy W. Doxey, in his summary essay for the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, described the Doctrine and Covenants in these terms: a compilation of revelations received largely through Joseph Smith for the establishment and governance of the kingdom of God in the latter days. Its main purpose, Doxey wrote, was to build up the Church of Jesus Christ and to bring people into harmony with Christ’s kingdom. The Doctrine and Covenants is described as functioning as the Church’s open and ever-expanding ecclesiastical constitution. The relevant phrase is “latter days.” Not the 1600s. Not Tyndale. Not the Geneva translators. The latter days, in this context, are the 1820s and 1830s. The question presents itself: why would a constitution for nineteenth-century America be drafted in seventeenth-century English?
— ✦ —
II. The Vernacular That Wasn’t: How 1830s Americans Actually Spoke
To weigh the linguistic peculiarity of the Doctrine and Covenants, one must know what 1830s American speech actually sounded like. The popular impression — fed by costume dramas and the lingering shadow of the King James Bible — is that nineteenth-century Americans walked around speaking in a stately, semi-Shakespearean idiom. They did not. The historical record is unambiguous on this point.
By 1830, the English of ordinary American conversation had already shed the second-person singular pronouns thee and thou for everyday use. The transition had been underway since the seventeenth century in England, and by the time the first generation of American-born settlers had grown to maturity, you served as both singular and plural in everyday speech across virtually every social class. Where thee and thou survived, they did so in three narrow contexts: among the Quakers, who used them as a deliberate testimony to spiritual equality; in poetry and elevated rhetoric, where they functioned as a marker of literary register; and in prayer and Bible reading, where they were preserved as a sacred archaism. They had ceased to be the common pronouns of common life.
The verb endings -eth and -est had likewise faded. The 1830s American who heard another American say cometh and goeth in ordinary conversation would have found it ridiculous — the speech of someone putting on airs or quoting Scripture. American newspapers of the 1820s and 1830s, of which several thousand survive, are a witness to this. They are written in a brisk, plain English that any modern reader can follow without difficulty. The diaries of farmers, the letters of soldiers, the records of town councils, the proceedings of state legislatures — none of these are written in King James English. They are written in the recognizable ancestor of the English spoken today.
This was the very decade, in fact, when American English was being deliberately catalogued and codified as a distinct dialect. The OK abbreviation, that quintessentially American verbal coinage, entered the national vernacular in 1839, growing out of a faddish 1830s game of comic misspellings among educated young men in Boston. The Biglow Papers of James Russell Lowell, published in 1848, attempted to capture the actual speech of mid-century New Englanders, and the result is recognizably modern American — full of contractions, regional slang, and conversational rhythm, with not a thee or thou to be found. The vernacular of the period was lively, idiomatic, and emphatically not biblical.
When educated nineteenth-century Americans wanted to sound elevated, they did sometimes adopt a more formal register — longer sentences, classical allusion, Latinate vocabulary. But sounding elevated and sounding like the King James Bible are not the same thing. Daniel Webster, John Calhoun, and Henry Clay gave speeches in the same decades that the Doctrine and Covenants was being assembled. Their oratory was magnificent. None of it sounds like the Doctrine and Covenants. None of it uses thou. None of it uses saith. They were speaking the elevated American English of their day. The revelations were spoken in the borrowed English of 1611.
— ✦ —
III. Noah Webster and the American Tongue
The temporal overlap between the production of the Doctrine and Covenants and the rise of a formally codified American English is striking enough to deserve its own consideration. The two projects ran almost exactly in parallel.
Noah Webster, the Yale-educated lawyer who had served as an editor of the Federalist Papers and as an owner-editor of the first American daily newspaper, began compiling his American Dictionary of the English Language in 1807. He completed the compilation during a research trip through Europe in 1824 and 1825, and the first edition was printed on April 14, 1828. The dictionary contained roughly 70,000 entries, 12,000 of them appearing in dictionary form for the first time, and was the largest English-language reference work yet assembled. Webster’s explicit purpose was to give the United States a standard of its own vernacular tongue, distinct from British usage. He introduced the spellings color for colour, center for centre, wagon for waggon. He inserted distinctively American words: skunk, squash. He wanted American English to be itself.
Webster did all this in an effort to standardize the American language.
— Noah Webster reference site, websterdictionary1828.com
The first edition of Webster’s dictionary appeared in April 1828, the same year Joseph Smith would later describe as the year in which he was actively translating the Book of Mormon and receiving the earliest revelations now canonized as the Doctrine and Covenants. The Book of Commandments — the first attempted compilation of those revelations — was being typeset in Independence, Missouri, in 1833, the year Webster’s dictionary was sweeping through American schools, parsonages, and publishing houses. The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants was issued in Kirtland, Ohio, the very moment a definitive American English reference work was becoming the standard on every literate American desk.
The point of this parallel timeline is not that Joseph Smith should have consulted Webster’s dictionary when receiving his revelations. The point is that the cultural moment in which the Doctrine and Covenants was produced was one of conscious linguistic self-definition for the new nation. American writers were stepping deliberately out of the shadow of English usage. American spelling was being standardized in a recognizably modern direction. American vocabulary was being expanded with new words drawn from the frontier, from commerce, from democratic life. A young prophet who wished to address Americans in their own latter-day tongue had, in 1830, the most thoroughly documented and self-consciously American English in the history of the language at his disposal.
He did not use it. The voice of the Lord, in the Doctrine and Covenants, speaks in Jacobean English. The voice of Noah Webster, dictionary in hand, was speaking American.
— ✦ —
IV. The Official Explanations Considered Fairly
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its scholars have not been silent on this question. Over the past century, and especially over the past several decades, Latter-day Saint apologists and academics have offered a coherent series of explanations for why the Doctrine and Covenants speaks the way it does. These explanations deserve a careful and charitable hearing before any critical evaluation is offered. There are essentially three principal lines of argument.
Argument One: Cultural Reverence
The first and most common explanation is cultural. The King James Bible, the argument goes, was simply the accepted dialect of holy writ in early nineteenth-century America. To speak in the language of revelation was, for any English-speaking Protestant audience of the period, to speak in the language of the King James Bible. Joseph Smith and his contemporaries did not consciously choose King James English over modern American English; they reached, naturally and unreflectively, for the only register their culture associated with the sacred.
This argument has real force. Indeed, virtually every revivalist preacher of the Second Great Awakening, from the camp-meeting exhorters of Cane Ridge to the polished pulpit orators of New England, freely adopted King James cadences when invoking divine authority. It is true that hymnody of the period — Watts, Wesley, the Olney Hymns — was steeped in the same idiom. It is true that the patent religious literature of the early republic, from the tracts of the American Tract Society to the devotional manuals of the era, generally addressed God and quoted Scripture in the same Jacobean voice. To say that Joseph Smith reached for King James English when receiving divine revelation is, in this sense, to say only that he was a man of his time.
Argument Two: After the Manner of Their Language
The second explanation appeals to the text itself. Doctrine and Covenants 1:24 records the Lord saying that His revelations are given to His servants “in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.” The argument, developed most thoroughly by Mark Alan Wright and others associated with the BYU Religious Studies Center and Doctrine and Covenants Central, is that this verse provides the interpretive key. God adapts His communication to the cultural and linguistic frame of His hearers. For Joseph Smith and his contemporaries, the King James idiom was the very language they associated with divine speech. To address them in any other register would have been, on this view, to fail to meet them where they were.
The Lord spoke to him in his weakness, after the manner of his language, that he might come to understanding.
— Paraphrase of Doctrine and Covenants 1:24, with discussion at scripturecentral.org
Argument Three: Joseph Smith’s Best Words
The third and most candid explanation is offered by some Latter-day Saint historians and theologians themselves. Elder John A. Widtsoe, an apostle of the LDS Church, observed that the language of the Doctrine and Covenants, except for words actually spoken by heavenly beings, was the language of the Prophet. The ideas were given to Joseph Smith; the words were his. This is sometimes called the divine-investiture or dictation-then-clothing model: God communicates concepts; the prophet clothes those concepts in the language he has at hand.
Orson Pratt, an early apostle, put the same idea more bluntly in 1872: Joseph received the ideas from God but clothed those ideas with such words as came to his mind. Steven C. Harper, a more recent BYU historian, has carried the same argument forward in his work on the Doctrine and Covenants and modern revelation, arguing that revelation is a process — a collaboration between divine inspiration and human language.
These three explanations are not contradictory. They reinforce one another. Together they amount to this: God revealed His will to Joseph Smith in concept; Joseph Smith rendered those concepts into the most reverent, scriptural-sounding English he knew; the King James Bible was the only such English available to him and his audience; therefore, the Doctrine and Covenants sounds the way it sounds. It is a coherent position, internally consistent, and entirely respectful of the Latter-day Saint conviction that the revelations are genuinely from God.
And yet, as we shall see, the position carries within itself the seeds of a serious difficulty.
— ✦ —
V. The Text That Undermines Its Own Defense
If the official Latter-day Saint explanation is correct — that God adapted His revelation to the manner of His hearers’ language so that they might come to understanding — then the Doctrine and Covenants ought to read in the language of nineteenth-century Americans. It does not. And the Latter-day Saint canon itself appears to know this.
Consider 2 Nephi 31:3, a passage in the Book of Mormon attributed to the prophet Nephi but, on Latter-day Saint chronology, translated by Joseph Smith in 1829, just before the revelations now in the Doctrine and Covenants were dictated:
For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.
— Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 31:3
The principle is stated with admirable clarity: God speaks to men according to their language, unto their understanding. He gives light to understanding. He delights in plainness. The Doctrine and Covenants echoes the same principle at 1:24, as already noted. Both passages establish the same theological claim: divine revelation, when it occurs, comes wrapped in the everyday language of its recipients so that those recipients can grasp it.
On the Latter-day Saint reading, this is precisely why the Doctrine and Covenants sounds the way it does. The everyday language of Joseph Smith’s hearers, the argument goes, was King James English. But this is the move that simply will not bear historical scrutiny. The everyday language of Joseph Smith’s hearers was not King James English. It was the brisk, idiomatic American English documented in countless letters, diaries, newspapers, and court records of the period. King James English was the language of the lectern, the pulpit, and the family Bible. It was the dialect of formal Scripture reading. It was not the dialect of understanding.
This produces an awkward inversion. If God’s practice — articulated within the LDS canon itself — is to speak to men in their everyday language so that they might understand Him, then the very Jacobean register of the Doctrine and Covenants is evidence against the proposition that God dictated it. The plain reading of 2 Nephi 31:3 would predict revelations in 1830 to sound like 1830. They sound like 1611. The discrepancy is not minor. It is precisely the discrepancy that the doctrine of accommodative revelation was supposed to prevent.
A second observation deepens the difficulty. If the King James idiom was chosen because it sounded authoritative to nineteenth-century hearers, this is no longer an account of divine accommodation. It is an account of rhetorical strategy. The diction has been selected not because it aids understanding but because it confers an appearance of scriptural weight. That is a perfectly intelligible move — preachers and prophets across many traditions have done the same — but it is, by its own description, a human choice for stylistic effect rather than a divine adaptation for clarity. The two claims are not the same claim. The text cannot simultaneously be in King James English because that’s how God speaks to people in their understanding, and in King James English because that’s how religious texts were expected to sound to early Americans. Those are different reasons, pointing in different directions, and one of them excludes the other.
— ✦ —
VI. The Editor’s Hand: A Long History of Revision
The Doctrine and Covenants did not arrive in the form modern readers encounter it. From the first attempt at compilation in 1833 through the most recent set of adjustments approved in 2025, the text has been edited, expanded, contracted, renumbered, and rewritten through a continuous editorial process spanning nearly two centuries. The history of these revisions is well documented in official Latter-day Saint sources, and the cumulative implications of that history are striking when set alongside the question of language.
The Book of Commandments, 1833
The first effort to publish Joseph Smith’s revelations in book form began in 1831 with a conference at Hiram, Ohio, that approved the project. Typesetting commenced in Independence, Missouri, in 1833 under the title A Book of Commandments. Before the printing could be completed, a mob destroyed the press on July 20, 1833. A handful of partial copies survived, rescued by Mary Elizabeth and Caroline Rollins from the pile of unbound sheets. Those surviving copies preserve the earliest published text of many revelations now in the Doctrine and Covenants, and comparison with later editions shows that even at this initial stage, Joseph Smith and his scribes were actively editing, smoothing grammar, correcting wording, and modifying details.
The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants
The first widely circulated edition appeared in Kirtland in August 1835 under the title Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, prepared by a committee consisting of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. The 1835 edition introduced substantial revisions. In some cases — notably Section 20 — substantial blocks of new material on priesthood offices were added to revelations originally given in 1830, before those offices had been organized. The FAIR Latter-day Saints reference site openly acknowledges that whole verses of the current Section 20 on ordaining men to priesthood offices were added during the 1835 revision, after the underlying revelation had been published in the Book of Commandments.
It does not seem that Joseph considered the words which he wrote to be, generally, direct quotations.
— FAIR Latter-day Saints, on Doctrine and Covenants textual changes
Oliver Cowdery himself, on the publication of the revised revelations, noted publicly that the earlier printing had been so different from the original that the editorial committee’s work had been required to bring them into accord. Brigham Young, in 1855, would later remark that he did not believe a single revelation among those God had given the Church was perfect in its fullness. The Saints, in other words, never claimed inerrancy for the text. The revelations were understood, openly and from the beginning, as a body of material subject to ongoing revision.
Subsequent Editions: 1844, 1876, 1921, 1981, 2013, 2025
Subsequent editions deepened the pattern. The 1844 Nauvoo edition, prepared just after Joseph Smith’s death, added Section 135, the tribute to Joseph and Hyrum Smith, set in smaller type to fit the final page. The 1876 edition, prepared by Orson Pratt under Brigham Young’s direction, divided the sections into verses for the first time, reordered them in roughly chronological sequence, removed the 1835 “Statement on Marriage” that had explicitly disavowed polygamy, and added twenty-six new sections, including the polygamy revelation now known as Section 132. The 1921 edition dropped the Lectures on Faith, which had occupied the doctrinal half of the 1835 book. The 1981 edition standardized section headings, added cross-references to a new LDS edition of the King James Bible, and incorporated Joseph Smith’s vision of the Celestial Kingdom and Joseph F. Smith’s 1918 vision of the redemption of the dead as Sections 137 and 138, along with the 1978 priesthood revelation as Official Declaration 2. The 2013 edition modernized punctuation, standardized spelling, and updated chapter headings. In October 2025, the Church announced further minor adjustments to twenty-five section introductions, drawing on the research of the Joseph Smith Papers Project to correct dates, locations, and contextual details.
Every one of these editorial steps was undertaken openly, documented in Church publications, and justified to the membership. The Latter-day Saint position — that revelation is an ongoing process and that the recording, editing, and re-editing of revelations is part of the way God works through prophets — is at least internally consistent. But the cumulative weight of the editorial history poses an obvious question for the language of the text. If the wording was, in Widtsoe’s words, the language of the Prophet, and if subsequent editors have felt free to modernize spelling, modernize punctuation, modernize chapter headings, and modernize the historical apparatus, why has the Jacobean diction of the body text itself remained essentially untouched? The answer cannot be that the King James English is sacred and inviolate, because the wording around it has been altered repeatedly. The answer appears to be that the King James English is what makes the text feel scriptural. Strip it out, and the revelations would read as what they manifestly are: a body of religious-style instructions, exhortations, and counsel directed to particular nineteenth-century people in particular nineteenth-century circumstances.
— ✦ —
VII. The Modernization Paradox
The argument that the Doctrine and Covenants is written in King James English so that nineteenth-century readers could understand it runs aground on a phenomenon that has only become more visible in recent decades. If the language was designed for comprehension, why does modern Latter-day Saint culture itself find the language increasingly difficult and require ongoing simplification?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself acknowledges the problem, though it frames the response as ongoing accessibility work. The 2013 official edition focused heavily on standardizing spelling, modernizing punctuation, and updating chapter headings to help modern readers more easily digest the historical context. The October 2025 adjustments continued this work. Each round of revision tacitly concedes that the language of the text, as originally given, has become a barrier to the very understanding the revelations were supposedly framed to produce.
Beyond the official Church efforts, an entire cottage industry has grown up around making the Doctrine and Covenants accessible to modern readers. The Modern Language Abridged Edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, published independently, presents itself as a contemporary retelling of the earliest revelations of Joseph Smith, inspired by the original editions but simplified and rephrased for modern readers in the manner of The Message paraphrase of the Bible. Its publishers describe the project as an attempt to capture the spirit and intent of the revelations while presenting them in clear, accessible language. The very existence of such an edition — and others like the Structured Edition with its color-coded dialogue and minimized verse numbers — testifies to a striking fact: the Doctrine and Covenants, in its standard form, is not in fact clear and accessible to its own readership.
Simplified and rephrased for modern readers, it seeks to capture the spirit and intent of the revelations.
— Description of the Modern Language Abridged Edition, doctrineandcovenants.com
This is the modernization paradox. If the King James idiom was originally chosen because it sat comfortably in the ear of nineteenth-century Americans, the explanation can no longer apply two centuries later. The original audience is gone. The cultural memory of King James English as the default voice of Scripture is fading even within the Church. Yet the text persists in its archaic register, and the response of both the official Church and independent publishers has been to produce simplified, modernized, paraphrased editions — that is, to produce in 2026 the kind of accessible American English that, according to the principle of 2 Nephi 31:3, ought to have been produced in 1830 in the first place.
If God speaks to men in their language unto their understanding, then the felt need to translate the revelations into a more accessible English nearly two hundred years after they were given is itself evidence that they were not originally given in the language of their hearers’ understanding. They were given in the language of their hearers’ reverence, which is a different and more troubling category. Reverence-language signals authority; it does not necessarily transmit content. The whole project of simplification undertaken in the modern Church and by independent publishers is, in effect, a long-running editorial admission that the original was a religious-style document — a text designed to sound like Scripture — whose content has had to be excavated from beneath its style ever since.
— ✦ —
VIII. The Fractured Canon
A further difficulty for the simple claim that the Doctrine and Covenants speaks with one divine voice in one revealed language is the fact that the canon itself fractured very early in the movement’s history, and the fragments continue to disagree with one another about what belongs in the book.
The succession crisis following Joseph Smith’s death in 1844 splintered the Latter Day Saint movement into multiple bodies, each preserving a distinct version of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City, has continued to develop its edition through the additions of 1876, 1921, 1981, and 2013, and now contains 138 sections plus two Official Declarations. The Community of Christ, formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has likewise continued to expand its edition through revelations attributed to its successive prophet-presidents, and now contains roughly 165 sections, the most recent additions reflecting contemporary concerns of peace, justice, the ordination of women, and the inclusion of LGBTQ+ persons. The two editions overlap in their early material but diverge sharply thereafter.
The 1876 LDS edition removed the original 1835 “Statement on Marriage,” which had declared that the Church believed one man should have one wife. The 1876 edition replaced it, in effect, with the new Section 132, recording the revelation on plural marriage. The Community of Christ tradition has historically rejected the authenticity of Section 132 altogether. Other smaller denominations — the Strangites, the Cutlerites, the Temple Lot Church of Christ, the various Restoration branches and Remnant fellowships — preserve still further variants, in some cases rejecting whole sections accepted by the larger bodies, in others adding revelations the larger bodies do not accept.
There is, in short, no single Doctrine and Covenants. There is an LDS Doctrine and Covenants, a Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants, a Strangite Doctrine and Covenants, and so on, each containing material the others reject, each shaped by the editorial decisions of its tradition’s leadership. If the King James English of the body text was God’s chosen idiom for revealing His will to the latter-day Church, one would expect the boundaries of that revelation to be more stable across the heirs of Joseph Smith. Instead, the boundaries are contested, the texts diverge, and the disagreements over which revelations are canonical are precisely the kinds of disagreements one finds among rival editorial committees, not the kinds of disagreements one would expect among communities that had each received an unambiguous divine deposit.
The fractured canon, like the modernization paradox and the editorial history, points in the same direction: the Doctrine and Covenants behaves like a religious document of human composition undergoing continuous community refinement, not like a fixed body of dictation from the Almighty in the language of His own choosing.
— ✦ —
IX. The Contextual Apologetic: Harper’s Cultural Diagnosis
The most sophisticated contemporary defense of the Doctrine and Covenants does not address its language at all. It addresses, instead, the deeper question that underlies the language question: why was the book given in the first place? If the King James idiom of the revelations can be set aside as a matter of stylistic register, what about the content? Why, the apologist asks, did God need to speak again in 1830 at all? And the most thoughtful answer offered in recent Latter-day Saint scholarship comes from Steven C. Harper, a historian deeply embedded in the Joseph Smith Papers Project and the author of Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants, in his contribution to the From the Desk publication run by Kurt Manwaring.
Harper’s argument is contextual rather than linguistic, but it bears directly on the question this essay has been working through. His thesis, stated plainly, is that the Doctrine and Covenants was given as a divine response to a specific cultural disease taking hold of 1830s America, and that the revelations cannot be understood without first understanding the moral and spiritual pathology they were addressing. It is an argument that deserves a careful and charitable hearing before any response is offered, because Harper is a serious historian and the argument is well constructed.
The Three Witnesses for Selfishness
Harper builds his case from three witnesses to the spiritual condition of America in the very decade Joseph Smith’s revelations were being received. The first is Alexis de Tocqueville, the young French aristocrat whose nine-month tour of the United States in 1831 produced Democracy in America, the most penetrating analysis of the new nation’s character ever written by a foreign observer. Tocqueville identified at the heart of American democratic culture a habit of mind he called individualism — a calm and considered tendency of citizens to withdraw from the larger community, to attend only to themselves and their immediate families, and to conclude that the broader fabric of social obligation could be safely abandoned. Tocqueville did not mean simple selfishness, which he treated as a perennial human vice. He meant something newer and more troubling: a calm, principled detachment from one’s neighbor, dressed up as a virtue and produced by the very democratic conditions that had liberated Americans from old-world hierarchies.
The second witness Harper calls is Ralph Waldo Emerson, whose essay Self-Reliance, published in 1841 but built from sermons and lectures of the preceding decade, gave the Tocquevillian observation a philosophical voice. Emerson wrote that no law could be sacred to him but the law of his own nature, and that good and bad were merely names readily transferable to whatever was for or against his constitution. The famous question Emerson posed about the poor was the moral hinge of the essay:
Are they my poor?
— Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance (1841)
The question is chilling precisely because it is not a sneer. Emerson is not mocking the poor. He is reasoning his way to a position in which his obligation toward them is genuinely uncertain — not because they are unworthy, but because the moral universe he proposes recognizes no claim upon him that he has not first ratified in his own conscience. Harper draws the line through Emerson directly into the moral atmosphere of the Doctrine and Covenants, where the Lord declares that the wicked of the earth walk every one in his own way, after the image of his own god. The diction of D&C 1:16 and the diction of Self-Reliance, on Harper’s reading, describe the same spiritual phenomenon from opposite sides of the pulpit.
The third witness is more obscure but historically pointed. In 1836 there appeared in the American religious press a tract bearing the title The Book of Wealth, in Which It Is Proved from the Bible That It Is the Duty of Every Man to Become Rich. The title is the argument. The pamphlet undertook to demonstrate, with scriptural proof texts marshalled in support, that the deliberate pursuit of personal wealth was not merely a permissible activity for the Christian but a divinely commanded one. Harper invokes The Book of Wealth as the third leg of the diagnosis: not just the secular individualism of Tocqueville, not just the philosophical self-reliance of Emerson, but the theological corruption of Christianity itself into a proto-prosperity gospel, in which the Bible was made to bless the very acquisitive ambition that the older prophetic tradition had named as idolatry.
Taken together, Harper argues, Tocqueville, Emerson, and The Book of Wealth describe a single cultural pathology spreading across America in the precise decade the Doctrine and Covenants was being received. The pathology had three layers: a sociological withdrawal from community obligation, a philosophical apotheosis of the autonomous self, and a theological rebranding of acquisitiveness as Christian virtue. And against this pathology, Harper argues, the Doctrine and Covenants stands as a deliberate counter-cultural document, allegedly received by revelation from God. The Law of Consecration in D&C 42 and 51, the warnings against pride and self-seeking that run through D&C 38 and 49, the call to care for the poor that appears throughout the early sections, the establishment of Zion as a communal economic order — all of these, Harper argues, are the prescription written against the disease that Tocqueville observed and Emerson celebrated and The Book of Wealth sanctified.
It is, as historical analysis, well-constructed. It places the revelations in a documented cultural moment and lets the contrast between the texts and their cultural surround speak for itself. And there is a barbed irony embedded in the argument that Harper leaves carefully unspoken: the self-reliance and prosperity gospel he describes as the disease of 1830s America bear a striking resemblance to the spiritual atmosphere of significant strands of contemporary American evangelicalism — the very traditions that today most loudly oppose the LDS Church. Harper does not press the point, but it is plainly there. The implication, gently extended, is that mainstream American Christianity eventually succumbed to the very pathology the Doctrine and Covenants was given to cure.
The Structural Move Beneath the Argument
Before evaluating the argument, it is worth identifying precisely what kind of argument it is. Harper is not making a metaphysical case for the Doctrine and Covenants. He is not arguing that the existence of cultural sin in 1830s America logically proves that God gave revelations to Joseph Smith. He is making a softer and rhetorically more effective argument: the revelations make sense in their context. They address what needed to be addressed. They speak into the actual problems of their actual moment. The implicit conclusion the reader is invited to draw is that the fit between the prescription and the disease is itself evidence that the prescription is genuine — that no mere imposter would have known to address these particular pathologies in this particular way.
This is an argument from coherence, and arguments from coherence have real persuasive force. When a body of texts is found to engage thoughtfully with the documented spiritual problems of its time, that fit is a point in the texts’ favor. The question is what kind of point. The fit between the Doctrine and Covenants and the spiritual atmosphere of 1830s America is not nothing. But, as we shall see, it is also not what Harper’s rhetoric quietly suggests it is.
Every Age in Rebellion: The Universal Cultural Dissent
The chief difficulty with Harper’s argument, when it is pressed beyond the modest claim of contextual coherence, is that it proves far too much. If the appearance of cultural pathology in any given era is evidence that new revelation has been given to address it, then the history of Western Christendom should be punctuated by a regular stream of new canonical scripture. It is not. The biblical witness, both Old and New Testament, takes precisely the opposite view: every generation finds the world in rebellion against the living God, and no generation has yet required, or received, a new canon of Scripture to address its particular form of that rebellion.
The cultural pathology Harper diagnoses in 1830s America is not historically exceptional. It is, on any careful survey, the universal human condition presenting itself in another costume. The Roman Empire of the first century, into which the apostolic gospel was delivered, was a culture organized around the cult of imperial power, the apotheosis of military ambition, and the systematic exploitation of slave labor on a scale Tocqueville could scarcely have imagined. The apostle Paul addressed that empire in his epistles, and the New Testament canon that emerged from that confrontation was complete by the close of the first century. No subsequent generation has produced a comparable body of canonical scripture, however severe the cultural disease.
The late antique period from roughly 350 to 450 AD saw doctrinal fragmentation so severe that successive Roman emperors issued legislation attempting to suppress heretical movements by force of imperial law. The medieval Christian church, by the high middle ages, had become so thoroughly enmeshed in the apparatus of property, power, and ambition that the sale of indulgences would, by 1517, drive Martin Luther to his ninety-five theses and inaugurate the Reformation. The Reformation itself, while recovering much, also produced the European wars of religion across the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with confessional partisanship harnessed to dynastic ambition in ways that produced casualties measured in millions. The eighteenth-century Enlightenment offered its own rationalist dismissal of revealed religion altogether. The nineteenth century saw industrial capitalism, scientific racism, the rise of mass political ideologies, and the global expansion of European imperial domination. Each of these eras presented spiritual pathologies that were at least as urgent as anything Tocqueville observed in Andrew Jackson’s America, and several of them were demonstrably worse.
None of these crises produced new canonical scripture. The traditional Christian conviction — articulated by the Reformers, codified in the great confessions, and held in common across the historic Protestant traditions — has consistently been that the biblical canon is sufficient for every age. The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it succinctly: the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory and man’s salvation is either expressly set down in Scripture or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, to which nothing at any time is to be added. The principle does not deny that every age presents fresh corruptions. It denies that fresh corruptions require fresh canon. The diagnosis of the times is the work of preachers, teachers, theologians, and reformers laboring with the Scripture already given. It is not the work of new prophets producing new books.
The Reformers Who Claimed No New Canon
The point becomes sharper when one considers the figures who were doing, in Joseph Smith’s own era and the eras adjacent to it, precisely what Harper credits the Doctrine and Covenants with doing — diagnosing the cultural disease and calling the church to repentance — without claiming any new revelation whatsoever.
John Wesley, half a century earlier in England, had taken aim at the same cultural materialism that Harper identifies in 1830s America. Wesley’s sermon The Use of Money and his later sermon The Danger of Riches confront the very pathology The Book of Wealth would later try to baptize. Wesley’s famous summary — earn all you can, save all you can, give all you can — was a deliberate moral riposte to the acquisitive individualism of the early industrial age. Wesley produced no new scripture. He produced sermons, hymns, class meetings, and the Methodist movement, all of which drew their authority entirely from the existing biblical canon.
William Wilberforce, in the same general period, attacked ambition and the false god of property in his book A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes in This Country, Contrasted with Real Christianity, published in 1797. Wilberforce’s diagnosis of his own English Protestant culture is in some respects sharper than anything Harper extracts from Tocqueville. The book sold widely, helped to reshape British evangelicalism, and was instrumental in the long campaign for the abolition of the slave trade. Wilberforce, like Wesley, produced no new scripture. He worked from the canon already given.
And, perhaps most damaging to the contextual apologetic, Charles Grandison Finney was preaching revival across upstate New York in the very years and across the very landscape in which Joseph Smith was receiving his early revelations. Finney’s thunderous sermons on the same hill country that produced the Latter-day Saint movement attacked the love of money, the cult of self-reliance, the cold formalism of polite Protestantism, the moral apathy of educated New Englanders, and the structural sin of American chattel slavery. Finney named the disease in the same decade and on the same ground. He did so without claiming any new revelation. His authority was the open Bible in his hand. His tools were preaching, prayer, the anxious bench, and the slow moral conversion of communities. The same upstate New York that listened to Joseph Smith’s revelations was simultaneously listening to Finney’s revivals, and the diagnosis was not in fundamental tension. The treatment was.
The mere fact that the Doctrine and Covenants addresses the spiritual diseases of 1830s America does not, therefore, distinguish it from a great deal of other religious literature of the same period that was doing the same diagnostic work without claiming new canonical scripture. To establish that the Doctrine and Covenants is what it claims to be, the apologist must show not merely that it engages the spiritual problems of its time, but that engaging those problems required new revelation rather than faithful exposition of the revelation already given.
The Circularity at the Heart of the Argument
This brings the argument to its central structural difficulty. Harper’s contextual apologetic functions as evidence for the Doctrine and Covenants only if the reader already accepts that the Doctrine and Covenants is what it claims to be. Stripped of that prior commitment, the argument reduces to this: a religious leader in 1830s America produced documents that addressed the spiritual problems of 1830s America. That description is true. It is also true of John Wesley, William Wilberforce, Charles Finney, Lyman Beecher, Theodore Dwight Weld, and a great many other religious figures of the period, none of whom Latter-day Saint theology treats as having produced new canonical scripture.
The argument is structurally circular because its persuasive force depends on a premise it cannot itself supply. To say that God responded uniquely to 1830s American culture through Joseph Smith is to presuppose that He responded to it through Joseph Smith at all. Once the question is opened, the contextual fit between the revelations and the cultural moment becomes a piece of supporting evidence rather than a proof. It is consistent with the proposition that Joseph Smith was a prophet. It is equally consistent with the proposition that Joseph Smith was a thoughtful religious entrepreneur addressing the genuine spiritual problems of his neighbors with great rhetorical and pastoral skill. The contextual data alone does not adjudicate between those two readings.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
— Isaiah 8:20, King James Version
Isaiah’s standard is the standard the Christian tradition has consistently applied: a religious teacher’s engagement with the moral problems of his day is evaluated, not by the urgency of the problems addressed, but by the conformity of the teaching to the revelation already given. The cultural urgency of 1830s American individualism does not, by itself, license the introduction of new scripture. What licenses new scripture, if anything does, is something more than a cultural fit. It is a divine warrant, demonstrable by signs the canon itself prescribes — prophetic fulfillment, miraculous attestation, doctrinal consistency with prior revelation, and the witness of God’s people across time. Cultural relevance is not on the biblical list.
Granting Harper His Modest Claim
In fairness to Harper, his argument can be read in a more modest register, and in that register it is largely unobjectionable. He is, by training and by self-presentation, a historian working in the tradition of Robert Woodford and Richard Bushman — a contextual scholar rather than a systematic theologian. If his claim is the smaller one — that the Doctrine and Covenants, whatever its ultimate origin, addressed the actual spiritual problems of its actual moment, and that modern readers will understand the text better by understanding the culture into which it was given — then the claim is essentially uncontroversial. Of course the revelations addressed their cultural moment. Of course context illuminates content. No serious student of any text from any period would dispute the methodology.
The trouble appears only when the contextual observation is asked to carry an apologetic weight it cannot bear. Saying that the Doctrine and Covenants makes sense in its context is not the same as saying that the Doctrine and Covenants is therefore the voice of God. The fit between text and context establishes only that Joseph Smith was paying attention to his cultural moment. It does not establish that he was being given anything by Jesus Christ that the existing canon of Scripture had not already given. To move from the first claim to the second requires a step Harper does not, and as a careful historian probably cannot, take in his contextual essay. He simply implies it. The reader is invited to feel the fit as evidence. The feeling is real. The evidentiary force of the feeling is the question.
The Voice of Every Age, Not the Voice of One
There is, in the end, a more straightforward reading of the cultural fit Harper documents. The Doctrine and Covenants reads as a thoughtful, pastorally motivated religious response to the spiritual conditions of 1830s American culture because that is what it is. Its author or authors were paying close attention to their neighbors. They saw the spread of acquisitive individualism, the philosophical celebration of the autonomous self, and the theological corruption of Christianity into a prosperity religion. They responded with calls to communal economic discipline, mutual obligation, and the subordination of personal ambition to a covenanting community. These are admirable concerns. They are concerns the Bible itself addresses, in passages from Deuteronomy 15 on debt release to Acts 2 and 4 on the early church’s communal life to James 5 on the misery of hoarded wealth. The traditional Christian response to the cultural pathology of 1830s America was to preach those existing passages with renewed force. That is precisely what Finney and Wesley’s American successors and a host of others did, in the same decade and on the same ground, without claiming new revelation.
Harper’s essay invites the reader to see the Doctrine and Covenants as the singular prophetic answer to a uniquely American cultural disease. The historical record invites a more sober reading: the disease was not uniquely American, was not uniquely urgent, and was not without a comparable diagnostic and pastoral response from contemporary religious figures who claimed no new canon. The Doctrine and Covenants joined a chorus of nineteenth-century Christian voices addressing the same problems. It distinguished itself from those other voices not by the quality of its cultural diagnosis but by the unusual claim of its self-presentation — a young farmer in upstate New York speaking, in the borrowed cadence of the King James Bible, as if he were the Lord himself.
And so, even when the question of the book’s language is set aside, the question of its origin remains. Harper’s contextual argument tells us why the Doctrine and Covenants sounded the alarms it sounded. It does not tell us, because it cannot tell us, why the alarm was sounded in the voice of new scripture rather than in the voice of faithful exposition of the scripture already given. The traditional Christian answer is that the alarm did not need to be, and on every biblical precedent should not have been, sounded in the voice of new scripture at all. The Bible was sufficient for Wesley and Wilberforce and Finney. It was sufficient for Augustine confronting the late Roman empire and Luther confronting the medieval indulgence trade. By the same standard that has guided the church across two millennia, it was sufficient for 1830s America. The introduction of a new canon, dressed in the linguistic costume of an old one, addresses no spiritual need that the existing canon left unmet — and bears, on close examination, exactly the marks the Bereans of Acts 17 were commended for noticing.
X. A Traditional Christian Theological Assessment
Up to this point, the analysis has been primarily historical and linguistic. It has tried to lay out the textual evidence, the cultural context of 1830s America, the official Latter-day Saint apologetic, and the internal tensions in that apologetic, all without invoking theological commitments beyond those granted by the Latter-day Saint position itself. A traditional Christian assessment, however, ought to be offered openly, because for the Christian reader the question is not merely one of linguistic curiosity. It is a question about the nature and recognition of authentic divine revelation.
The traditional Christian doctrine of Scripture, articulated by the Reformers and refined through centuries of careful confessional formulation, holds that God’s special revelation to humanity has been given through the prophets and the apostles in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments. That revelation was given progressively, culminating in the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ, and in the apostolic witness to His person and work. The canon of that revelation was closed with the apostolic generation. The text of Scripture is sufficient — sufficient for salvation, sufficient for doctrine, sufficient for reproof and correction, sufficient to make the man of God complete unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Hebrews 1:1-2 frames the entire trajectory: God, who spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son. The implication is not that revelation continues open-endedly through new prophets producing new books of scripture. The implication is that the speaking of God in His Son is the consummation, the fulfillment, the period at the end of the sentence.
From within that framework, the Christian reader approaches a nineteenth-century book of new scripture with a built-in question: Does this material come from the same God who has already spoken? The Bereans of Acts 17:11 are commended for searching the Scriptures daily to see whether the apostolic preaching aligned with what God had already revealed. The apostle Paul, in Galatians 1:8, pronounces even an angel from heaven accursed if he should preach another gospel. The principle is consistent across the New Testament: new claims to divine speech are to be tested against the deposit already given.
Tested by that standard, the language of the Doctrine and Covenants becomes a genuine theological signal, not merely a stylistic curiosity. The Bible, in its original languages, did not sound like the Bible in seventeenth-century English. It sounded like the various dialects and registers of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in which it was given. Hosea sounds like a passionate eighth-century prophet writing in classical Hebrew. Mark sounds like a hurried Greek narrative in a workman’s Koine. Luke sounds like an educated Greek-speaking Gentile crafting an orderly account for a Roman patron. Paul sounds like Paul. Each voice was given in its own native idiom, in the working language of its day, addressed to the actual people of its time. The translation of those voices into King James English was a sixteenth- and seventeenth-century achievement of English-speaking Christendom — magnificent and beloved, but a translation, an English garment laid over a Hebrew and Greek body.
When a nineteenth-century American text claims to be a new revelation but speaks not in the language of nineteenth-century Americans but in the language of a seventeenth-century English translation, the Christian reader has cause for theological pause. The pattern is exactly backward. Authentic divine revelation, when given, has historically come in the native voice of its hearers — Hebrew to Hebrews, Greek to Greeks. A revelation given to Americans in 1830 ought, on every biblical precedent, to sound like 1830. That it sounds like 1611 strongly suggests that what is happening is not the giving of a new revelation in the native voice of its hearers but the donning of an inherited religious costume. The voice is the voice of Joseph reaching for Jacob. The English is the English of King James, reaching for King James.
This is not an accusation of fraud. It does not require imputing dishonesty to Joseph Smith. He may have been entirely sincere; nineteenth-century revivalism produced many sincere figures who reached for the King James idiom because it was the only sound of holiness their culture afforded them. But sincerity is not the question. The question is whether the linguistic profile of the Doctrine and Covenants fits the pattern of divine revelation as Scripture itself describes that pattern. On a traditional Christian reading, it does not. The marks are wrong. The voice is wrong. The era is wrong. The translation-of-a-translation register reads not as the Lord speaking in His servants’ weakness after the manner of their language, but as a young prophet, deeply formed by King James cadences from his earliest religious instruction, naturally producing a text that sounded sacred to him because it sounded scriptural to him.
Be not deceived: God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
— Galatians 6:7, King James Version
The traditional Christian conclusion is not delivered with hostility. It is delivered with the care that 1 Peter 3:15 commands: with meekness and fear, ready always to give a reason for the hope that is in us. The hope of the Christian is in the Christ presented in the canonical Scriptures, sufficient and complete. New claims to revelation that arrive in borrowed dress, addressed in a language that pre-dates their hearers by two centuries, do not match the pattern by which God has been pleased to speak to His people across redemptive history. The Doctrine and Covenants, however reverently it is read in the LDS tradition, bears the linguistic fingerprints not of fresh divine speech to 1830s Americans but of a 1611 English book of Scripture being affectionately impersonated by a 1830s American revelator.
— ✦ —
XI. Conclusion: The Religious-Sounding Diary
After working through the textual data, the historical context, the official explanations, the internal tensions in those explanations, the long editorial history, the modernization paradox, the fractured canon, and a traditional Christian theological assessment, the question with which this essay began admits of a more settled answer.
Why does the Doctrine and Covenants speak in King James English? Not, in the end, because that was the language of its hearers’ understanding. The historical record of 1830s American speech is too unambiguous to support that claim. Not because King James English was sacred and inviolable in the text itself, since the wording around it has been edited and re-edited for nearly two centuries. Not because divine revelation must necessarily clothe itself in archaic English, since the very canonical witness — the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek of the Bible — testifies that authentic divine speech meets its hearers in their own native idiom. The King James English of the Doctrine and Covenants is best understood, on the evidence assembled here, as a deliberate stylistic choice that gave the text the appearance of scriptural authority by borrowing the only register of scriptural sound the young Republic recognized as such.
Browsing the section headings of the modern Doctrine and Covenants confirms the impression. Section 25 is counsel to Joseph’s wife, Emma. Section 89 is advice on diet and tobacco use. Section 119 establishes the law of tithing. Sections 121 to 123 are extracts from a letter Joseph wrote from Liberty Jail. Sections 102 to 107 deal with the organizational structure of the Church. Section 132 introduces plural marriage. Section 136 records Brigham Young’s instructions for organizing the Saints’ westward journey. The contents are, in substantial measure, what one would expect from a religious leader of the period responding to the immediate practical, theological, and organizational questions of a growing movement. They are, in honest description, a religious-style diary of decisions, exhortations, and policies wrapped in the diction of the King James Bible to give them the weight of Scripture.
That description is not delivered as ridicule. It is delivered as a historical and linguistic observation. Religious leaders across history have produced such bodies of authoritative counsel. The traditional Christian tradition itself has its conciliar canons, its papal encyclicals, its denominational confessions, its great works of pastoral exhortation. None of these claims to be Scripture in the sense that the biblical canon is Scripture, but each addresses the practical and doctrinal needs of its community with seriousness and care. What sets the Doctrine and Covenants apart from such material is not its function — which is largely the same — but its dress. It claims the dress of revelation. And the dress, on close inspection, is a borrowed English garment from two centuries earlier.
For the Latter-day Saint reader who has been formed in the cadences of the Doctrine and Covenants from childhood, the observations of this essay will perhaps register as an attack on the familiar. They are not intended as such. They are intended as an invitation: to set the text alongside the historical record of its time, to compare its language to the language of the Americans to whom it was supposedly given, to weigh its linguistic profile against the biblical pattern of divine speech, and to consider, soberly and without animus, whether what one has been reading is the voice of God or the studied voice of a man who very much wished, and perhaps very much believed, that he was speaking for God.
For the Christian reader, the takeaway is simpler and gentler. The God of the Bible has spoken — in the prophets, and in His Son. The Scriptures are sufficient. New claims to revelation that arrive in borrowed dress two centuries after their hearers’ native idiom has moved on are not the way God has historically spoken to His people. The 1 Peter 3:15 stance of answering the hope within us, with meekness and fear, does not require us to mock those for whom the Doctrine and Covenants is sacred. It requires us to love them enough to point out, carefully and clearly, that the voice that calls to them in Jacobean English is not, on any of the criteria by which Scripture has historically been recognized, the voice that called to Hebrews in Hebrew and to Greeks in Greek. It is, much more plausibly, the voice of an earnest American who reached for the only sound of sacredness his world afforded him — the King James Bible — and clothed his religious-sounding counsel in its borrowed sentences.
The voice that time forgot was not the voice of God. It was the voice of 1611 echoing through an 1830s upstate New York farmhouse, in the mouth of a man who wished, perhaps more than anything else, to speak as the prophets had spoken. The wish, however sincere, is not the same thing as the gift.
— ✦ —
Sources and References
• Huntsman, Eric D. — “The King James Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants”, Religious Studies Center, BYU.
https://rsc.byu.edu/king-james-bible-restoration/king-james-bible-doctrine-covenants
• Doxey, Roy W. — “Doctrine and Covenants: Overview,” Latter-day Saint Essentials, RSC.
https://rsc.byu.edu/latter-day-saint-essentials/doctrine-covenants-overview
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — Introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/introduction?lang=eng
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — Doctrine and Covenants 1.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1?lang=eng
• Church History Topics — “Doctrine and Covenants”.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/doctrine-covenants?lang=eng
• FAIR Latter-day Saints — “Why did Joseph Smith edit revelations?”
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Doctrine_and_Covenants/Textual_changes/Why_did_Joseph_Smith_edit_revelations
• FAIR Latter-day Saints — “Examples of changes to the Doctrine and Covenants”.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Examples_of_changes_to_the_Doctrine_and_Covenants
• Saints Unscripted — “Why did Joseph Smith make changes to the Doctrine and Covenants?”
https://saintsunscripted.com/faith-and-beliefs/the-restoration-of-christs-church/why-did-joseph-smith-make-changes-to-the-doctrine-and-covenants/
• Church News — “How the Doctrine and Covenants has changed over the years.”
https://www.thechurchnews.com/2021/7/11/23218143/doctrine-and-covenants-editions-changes-book-of-commandments-curtis/
• Joseph Smith Papers — “Corresponding Section Numbers in Editions of the D&C.”
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/back/corresponding-section-numbers-in-editions-of-the-doctrine-and-covenants
• Wikipedia — Doctrine and Covenants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_and_Covenants
• Wikipedia — Comparison of Community of Christ and LDS Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Community_of_Christ_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
• Centerplace — “Differences between the RLDS and LDS Doctrine and Covenants,” Jon Tandy.
https://centerplace.org/library/study/dc/ldc-diff.htm
• Doctrine and Covenants editions catalogue, including Modern Language Abridged Edition.
• Doctrine and Covenants central — Section 1 study helps.
• Webster’s Dictionary 1828 reference site (Noah Webster background).
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/NoahWebster
• JSTOR Daily — “Webster’s Dictionary 1828: Annotated.”
• History.com — Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language is printed, April 14, 1828.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/april-14/websters-american-dictionary-of-the-english-language-is-printed
• Wikipedia — Webster’s Dictionary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster’s_Dictionary
• Religious Studies Center — “Uncovering the Voice of the Lord,” Jardine and Hord.
https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-22-no-2-2021/uncovering-voice-lord
• Religious Studies Center — “The King James Bible and the Joseph Smith Translation.”
https://rsc.byu.edu/king-james-bible-restoration/king-james-bible-joseph-smith-translation
• History.com — “OK enters national vernacular,” March 23, 1839.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/March-23/ok-enters-national-vernacular
• Shannon Selin — “How to Make Small Talk in the 19th Century.”
https://shannonselin.com/2021/11/small-talk-19th-century/
• TV Tropes — Literature/Doctrine and Covenants entry.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/DoctrineAndCovenants
• Harper, Steven C. — “A Brief History of the Doctrine & Covenants,” From the Desk (Kurt Manwaring).
• Emerson, Ralph Waldo — “Self-Reliance” (1841), Essays: First Series.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/16643/16643-h/16643-h.htm
• Tocqueville, Alexis de — Democracy in America, Volume II (1840).
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/816/pg816.txt
• Wesley, John — Sermon 50, “The Use of Money” (1760).
https://www.umcmission.org/learn/global-mission-resources/wesleyan-style/the-use-of-money/
• Wilberforce, William — A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System (1797).
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/wilberforce/real_christianity.html
• Finney, Charles G. — Lectures on Revivals of Religion (1835).
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27940/27940-h/27940-h.htm
• Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter I, Section VI (1647).
https://www.ccel.org/creeds/westminster-conf/index.html
• Doctrine and Covenants Central — “Why Does the Lord Speak to Men ‘According to Their Language’?”
https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/knowhy/why-does-the-lord-speak-to-men-according-to-their-language/
— ✦ —
A Note on Research Methods and Accuracy
In recent years, some have voiced concern that artificial intelligence may distort facts or introduce inaccuracies into serious research. That criticism deserves acknowledgment. However, AI has now evolved into the most powerful research instrument available to any dedicated scholar—capable of analyzing vast datasets, cross‑referencing historical records, and surfacing overlooked connections across sources. This work represents a collaboration between the author’s investigative inquiry, verified primary documentation, and the advanced analytic capabilities of AI research tools. Here, AI was not used as a ghostwriter or a shortcut for scholarship, but as a disciplined research partner devoted to rigor, accuracy, and transparency.
Every factual claim in this work has been subjected to active verification. Where AI‑generated content was used as a starting point, it was tested against primary sources, peer‑reviewed scholarship, official institutional documentation, and established historical records. Where discrepancies were found—and they were found—corrections were made. The author has made every reasonable effort to ensure that quotations are accurately attributed, historical details are precisely rendered, and theological claims fairly represent the positions they describe or critique.
That said, no work of this scope is immune to error, and the author has no interest in perpetuating inaccuracies in the service of an argument. If you are a reader—whether sympathetic, skeptical, or hostile to the conclusions drawn here—and you identify a factual error, a misattributed source, a misrepresented teaching, or a claim that cannot be substantiated, you are warmly and genuinely invited to say so. Reach out. The goal of this work is not to win a debate but to get the history right. Corrections offered in good faith will be received in the same spirit, and verified corrections will be incorporated into future editions without hesitation.
Truth, after all, has nothing to fear from scrutiny—and neither does this work.