Authentic Religious Genius

[Deborah]

I just listened to an Education Week talk from 2008 by our own DCP. He quoted Harold Bloom who said that Joseph Smith was an authentic religious genius. From this and other things I

[mercyngrace]

http://www.byub.org/talks/Talk.aspx?id=2937

[mfbukowski]

There is no question he was either the prophet he claimed to be or a genius. Philosophically the principles he generated resolve many religious issues which had persisted for centuries.

When I joined the church I got "wonked over the head" by the spirit and I had no possibility but surrender to what I knew to be a message from God, but I never could get an intellectual testimony of the BOM. Oddly, I took the BOA as pure inspiration from day 1 so I have never had any problems with the "translation" issue. It was clear to me from the fact that Joseph published the facsimiles along with the book that it was not a literal translation- from the date and what was known of Egyptian at the time, it could not have been- or at least that is what I thought

But now I am continually amazed at the "bullseyes" found in the BOM and the parallels with Hebrew writings and I have intellectually decided that there is no possibility Joseph could have put this all together.

Temple symbolism, the BOM, the BOA, D&C- there is no way that one individual could possibly put together all this and make it coherent with ancient symbolism and writings. Even without a testimony, if I had to base an opinion strictly on intellectual factors, I don't think I would be able to explain it

[Deborah]

When I joined the church I got "wonked over the head" by the spirit and I had no possibility but surrender to what I knew to be a message from God, but I never could get an intellectual testimony of the BOM.

That was my experience. I don't think I even read the BOM until I got into seminary a year later. The D&C was of more value to me in supporting my testimony. My testimony of the BOM came gradually and I am so excited over the new scholarship which continually supports its authenticity. Of course now I love the BOM and make a point of reading it once a year.

The Joseph Smith Papers project is also bringing a lot of new information to light and the scholars working on this are finding their testimonies increased as they discover Joseph was who he said he was and that the critics really do have a lot of the details wrong.

[mfbukowski]

That was my experience. I don't think I even read the BOM until I got into seminary a year later. The D&C was of more value to me in supporting my testimony. My testimony of the BOM came gradually and I am so excited over the new scholarship which continually supports its authenticity. Of course now I love the BOM and make a point of reading it once a year.

The Joseph Smith Papers project is also bringing a lot of new information to light and the scholars working on this are finding their testimonies increased as they discover Joseph was who he said he was and that the critics really do have a lot of the details wrong.

Totally agree!

[Honorentheos]

Thoughts anyone?

In a sense I agree completely. I think it is difficult to take most posters on these boards seriously who can not see the good among the bad, or vice-versa, within the LDS faith or it's history.

In this case, I think it is important to consider what Harold Bloom was saying in whole and not just those points that one found favorable to Joseph Smith. I suspect that Harold Bloom is very good at roasts given his ability to say so much in such small spaces. Just as it is one-sided to see all "bad" in Harold Bloom's characterization of Joseph Smith, it is equally misguided to see all good in his report. A lengthy excerpt that covers both good and bad for your consideration -

"The first visions, in the Wentworth letter, came to a boy of fourteen whose family already had repudiated the Puritan religious heritage of most people in New England. Joseph Smith, Sr., joined no church until his son grew up to found a new faith for the family. By then, they lived in the notorious "spiritual hothouse" of western New York, where visions were not uncommon. Though the Prophet Joseph's several accounts of his First Vision vary widely, they all emphasize what the Wentworth letter shows was unique:

I retired to a secret place in a grove and began to call upon the Lord. While fervently engaged in supplication my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noonday. They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to "go not after them," at the same time receiving a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me.

It does not matter how retrospective and revised a First Vision this is; all religion necessarily is revisionary in regard to its own sacred origins. What moves me, here and elsewhere in Smith, is the sureness of his instincts, his uncanny knowing precisely what is needful for the inauguration of a new faith. Like Saint Paul (whose theology is almost totally cast out by the Mormons), Smith implicitly understood not only his own aims but the pragmatics of religion making, or what would work in matters of the spirit. For that remains the center of his achievement: the Mormons have continued for over a hundred and sixty years; they change, but they do not die. There are now about as many Mormons in our nation and the world as there are Jews, and as I remarked earlier, the Mormons, like the Jews before them, are a religion that became a people. That, I have come to understand, always was Joseph Smith's pragmatic goal, for he had the genius to see that only by becoming a people could the Mormons survive. The Wentworth letter is a religious document that celebrates the organization of a people on the basis of a spiritual idea. Smith's insight could have come only from a remarkably apt reading of the Bible, and there I would locate the secret of his religious genius. He was anything but a great writer, but he was a great reader, or creative misreader, of the Bible. Mormonism is a wonderfully strong misprision, or creative misreading, of the early history of the Jews. So strong was this act of reading that it broke through all the orthodoxies

[mfbukowski]

The more I study "American Philosophy"- ie: Pragmatism, the more it is totally clear to me that Joseph had to be an American, as quoted above.

The outlook of the "raw frontier" to be conquered is mirrored in "matter unorganized" waiting to be organized, and the view that Man is God and creator of the universe all fit together perfectly. And of course there are obvious parallels in all of humanism.

In fact, this may be a good time to post something I have been meaning to get to for awhile. Recently on another thread, there was some talk of Humanism and the Humanistic Manifesto, written in 1933.

A hundred years before that manifesto, another "philosopher" named Joseph, not only saw the importance of the same principles, but also carried the position further by harmonizing the yet-to-be-written manifesto with, of all things, Christianity. On this basis alone Joseph can be seen even in a secular sense to be a "prophet", forseeing ideas yet to be written.

I will post a section of that Manifesto and insert into it the parallels with Mormonism. The entire Manifesto can be found here:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

The Mormon position is a hybrid of this view and the traditional Christian view- the universe is "organized" out of unorganized matter.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

Adam was created out of the dust of this world, and God works according to natural processes. The King Follette Discourse can also be seen here- the notion that Gods and matter has always existed and that man and God both are perpetuated according to natural, continuous, processes.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

There is no such thing as immaterial matter, and spirit is indeed "matter" but more refined.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

It's hard to find parallels here, perhaps this is an area of departure from secular humanism. Though certainly the Book of Mormon is heavily laden with what happens in the interaction between individuals and their culture and how cultural swings - from pride to humility for example- affect the religiosity of people in the culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

At first glance, this appears to deny the tenets of Mormonism, but I suggest there is another way to see this. Mormonism is indeed highly "empirical" in the sense that it requires personal spiritual experience to verify its truth claims, and certainly the "method of verification" found in Alma 32 suggests a type of "scientific method" applied to morality and happiness. One is to test claims through experience and determine for themselves if they are true or not. So though the results may not be "scientific" certainly the methodology suggested is definitely a parallel to the scientific method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

"All creeds are abominable"

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation--all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

A very Mormon notion- seeking out of the best books- study everything, all of truth is one whole.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.

Mormons would agree with this, but certainly deny any implications contained of no after-life. We are here to do our best during this life, but also do better in the next

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

Pretty clear disagreement here I think.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

Total disagreement here.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

The pragmatic common sense of Brigham Young comes to mind, but of course the attitude here seems to be anti-religous

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

Couldn't get more "Mormon" than this. Alma 24 completely.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.

Mormonism restores the truth, all other creeds should be "reconstituted" or "reconstructed" through converting the world. More Alma 32 implied.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

This certainly fits with what Mormons believe about the Millenium and living the law of consecration.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and © endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

One could substitute "Mormonism" for "humanism" in most of this document and have it all fit perfectly

[RadioFreeDeath]

Its interesting that you find the pragmatism and mormonism to be very close. i recently finished a semester of american pragmatism while working on my degree and I was amazed at how well it seemed to me to blend with the way i see the church and how it is practiced. Pluralism seems to be very much in line with what Joseph Smith was always saying and it just seems a very much in line with its thinking. Granted pragmatism is in many ways a result of the civil war and the development of evolution. Joseph Smith is sort of a pre pragmatist that comes before Pierce and James and Dewey.

[ERayR]

There is no question he was either the prophet he claimed to be or a genius. Philosophically the principles he generated resolve many religious issues which had persisted for centuries.

When I joined the church I got "wonked over the head" by the spirit and I had no possibility but surrender to what I knew to be a message from God, but I never could get an intellectual testimony of the BOM. Oddly, I took the BOA as pure inspiration from day 1 so I have never had any problems with the "translation" issue. It was clear to me from the fact that Joseph published the facsimiles along with the book that it was not a literal translation- from the date and what was known of Egyptian at the time, it could not have been- or at least that is what I thought

But now I am continually amazed at the "bullseyes" found in the BOM and the parallels with Hebrew writings and I have intellectually decided that there is no possibility Joseph could have put this all together.Temple symbolism, the BOM, the BOA, D&C- there is no way that one individual could possibly put together all this and make it coherent with ancient symbolism and writings. Even without a testimony, if I had to base an opinion strictly on intellectual factors, I don't think I would be able to explain it

I agree totally. I have more than once pointed out to those that say "you can't point to a single thing that proves the Book of Mormon". The are correct not one single thing but I can point to evidence one point piled on another untill the prepoderence of evidence piles up to irrefutable IMNSHO.

[ERayR]

Oops double post

[mfbukowski]

Its interesting that you find the pragmatism and mormonism to be very close. i recently finished a semester of american pragmatism while working on my degree and I was amazed at how well it seemed to me to blend with the way i see the church and how it is practiced. Pluralism seems to be very much in line with what Joseph Smith was always saying and it just seems a very much in line with its thinking. Granted pragmatism is in many ways a result of the civil war and the development of evolution. Joseph Smith is sort of a pre pragmatist that comes before Pierce and James and Dewey.

I agree. I think it just fits with the American spirit.

[mfbukowski]

I agree totally. I have more than once pointed out to those that say "you can't point to a single thing that proves the Book of Mormon". The are correct not one single thing but I can point to evidence one point piled on another untill the prepoderence of evidence piles up to irrefutable IMNSHO.

I agree.

[noel00]

Is there a trandscript of this talk anywhere?

[Deborah]

Is there a trandscript of this talk anywhere?

I couldn't find one.

[mfbukowski]

http://www.byub.org/talks/Talk.aspx?id=2937

It's a shame they can't spell "Parallels".