The Book Of Moses Bullseye

[zerinus]

Why would God have?

Why shouldn't He have?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

As a city dweller who only occasionally gets away from city lights at night, I can only imagine what the night sky must have looked like in Joseph Smith's time.

Color photo's and all.

[Mike Reed]

I would hazard to guess that far more people are at least familiar with the name of Joseph Smith than Swedenborg, and that far more people have changed their lives due to the teachings of Joseph Smith than of Emerson. More people may have heard of Emerson, but as far as truly studying his works and the degree to which he influenced their lives, he would not hold a candle to the Prophet.

Nonsense. People don't need to know the name of a person in order to be influenced by their ideas. Swedenborg and Emerson's thought crossed institutional boundaries, inspiring not only religion, but also literature, art, freemasonry, esotericism, philosophy, metaphysics, poetry, government, etc. You can't say that with Joseph. At least, not with a straight face.

[Mike Reed]

Why shouldn't He have?

Why shouldn't Joseph Smith have?

(Are you keeping track of the discussion?)

Edited December 20, 2011 by Mike Reed

[altersteve]

Nonsense. People don't need to know the name of a person in order to be influenced by their ideas. Swedenborg and Emerson's thought crossed institutional boundaries, inspiring not only religion, but also literature, art, freemasonry, esotericism, philosophy, metaphysics, poetry, government, etc. You can't say that with Joseph. At least, not with a straight face.

I just did.

Joseph Smith's teachings were far more influential than you seem to think. He influenced everything, directly or indirectly, within the Church, and thus everything that the Church influences. And the Church, and what the Church teaches, does in fact influence literature, art, philosophy, and poetry, and many of the others to an extent as well. Joseph Smith, therefore, influenced all of these things, albeit indirectly. I'd go as far as to say that he was probably one of the most influential religious (and political) leaders in American history.

Why are we even doing this anyway? Who cares how influential he was? He was a prophet, wasn't he? That's pretty cool by itself.

Edited December 20, 2011 by altersteve

[why me]

Neither Swedenborg nor Emerson desired to form a religious institution. They were interested in sharing ideas and enlightening minds. Would you say that Joseph Smith's ideas were more influential than Swedenborg's or Emerson’s? I sure wouldn't

Technically, yes. JS's ideas were more influential than Swedenborg's or Emerson's. Now it is true that Emerson was a great essayist for his time. And he was a great thinker. But he hasn't made much of an impact on the world stage. His essays may be assigned for an university assignment but outside of that, his influence has faded. And Swedenborg hasn't made much of an impact in the world. His church is rather small. But Joseph created a church, introduced a rather revolutionary doctrine into christianity and built cities that still exist today.

[why me]

Nonsense. People don't need to know the name of a person in order to be influenced by their ideas. Swedenborg and Emerson's thought crossed institutional boundaries, inspiring not only religion, but also literature, art, freemasonry, esotericism, philosophy, metaphysics, poetry, government, etc. You can't say that with Joseph. At least, not with a straight face.

I think that Emerson has seen his day. He has faded from the mindset of people. He did make an impact on american essay writing as did his friend Theoreu. But emerson has faded while David's book Walden and his essay on civil disobedience is still a hit.

[why me]

More people may have heard of Emerson, but as far as truly studying his works and the degree to which he influenced their lives, he would not hold a candle to the Prophet.

Not many people are studying emerson these days. And not many people have heard of him. Now those studying literature may have come across emerson and read his essay on Nature etc. But emerson has lost his impact in american society. And outside of america, he is not that well known.

Joseph Smith is actually america's greatest religious thinker and innovator. Unfortunately, because the mormon church still continues and competes for converts, JS does not get recognized for his innovative chistian gospel.

[stemelbow]

Is it just me or does anyone else think that the comparison here hasn't really been thought through much? it seems a bit, well, shall we say contrived? To what end? What is even meant by "influential"? ahh who cares. we may not understand whose influence caused great significance at all. We simply attribute influence to our faves, on a individual level.

Worlds without number carries some signficance, i'd say. Just because some felt there were many worlds out there doesn't necessarily suggest reporting that God created worlds without number--meaning something akin to infinite--is insignificant. Many worlds could mean 30 to some people and perhaps 300 to others. As far as infinite--that's unfathomable. Isn't that where we are in terms of how many planets are out there?

Edited December 20, 2011 by stemelbow

[Peppermint Patty]

Edwin Hubble was responsible for us discovering galaxies I think in the 1920's or so. It was after Einstein's theory of relativity. Although nobody considered the concept of galaxies, they did feel there were countless stars out there. It was just assumed that it was just one large splattering of stars throughout the universe, rather than groupings of galaxies. So I am not sure how much of a bulls eye it was for Joseph to come up with the idea of countless stars. A guy named Messier in the 1700's started classifying objects in the sky but I am not certain what the common thought was about how many stars there were in the sky or if anybody considered that there would be more planets out there.

Of course it would have been easy for Joseph Smith to look up at the night sky and come to the conclusion that there were numerous stars, but Moses 1:33 states that "worlds without number have I created", not stars.

This was an idea, until very recently, was completely uncomfirmed by science. Science has now shown and discovered that extra-solar (outside of our solar system) planets/worlds are very common.

IMO, this is a bullseye for someone in the 1830's to have revealed.

[zerinus]

Why would Joseph Smith have waited to put this in the Book of Moses or the D&C rather then in the Book of Mormon?

Why would God have?

Why shouldn't He have?

Why shouldn't Joseph Smith have?

Because He wrote neither book.

(Are you keeping track of the discussion?)

I am. Not sure about you.

[zerinus]

Nonsense. People don't need to know the name of a person in order to be influenced by their ideas. Swedenborg and Emerson's thought crossed institutional boundaries, inspiring not only religion, but also literature, art, freemasonry, esotericism, philosophy, metaphysics, poetry, government, etc. You can't say that with Joseph. At least, not with a straight face.

Mormonism has influenced American society enough that two Mormons are now credible candidates for US Presidency. I fear we may have to wait for a long time before we find a Swedenborgian or a JW reach that stage.

Edited December 20, 2011 by zerinus

[LeSellers]

Mormonism has influenced American society enough that two Mormons are now credible candidates for US Presidency. I fear we may have to wait for a long time before we find a Swedenborgian or a JW reach that stage.

Dwight Eisenhower was raised by Jehovah's Witnesses, although his father left after the mother died. When the Eisenhower boys grew up, however, they all left that faith. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that he, Ike, included the values of his early faith for the whole of his life.

Lehi

Edited December 20, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mike Reed]

Because He wrote neither book.

I am. Not sure about you.

Which brings us back full circle to Cinepro's question: "Why would God have?" Nicely done. We have completed the loop. Are you or Duncan prepared to answer Cinepro's question now?

[zerinus]

Which brings us back full circle to Cinepro's question: "Why would God have?" Nicely done. We have completed the loop. Are you or Duncan prepared to answer Cinepro's question now?

I don't believe in answering a question more than once. The answer was already given. Why shouldn't He have?

[Mike Reed]

Mormonism has influenced American society enough that two Mormons are now credible candidates for US Presidency. I fear we may have to wait for a long time before we find a Swedenborgian or a JW reach that stage.

Swedenborg didn't start a church. The Churches that identify themselves with him were established after his death. I've been talking about ideas that cross institutional/denomination boundaries. One does not need be a member of a swedenborgian Church in order to be influenced by Swedenborg. Ralph Waldo Emerson wasn't a member of a Swedenborgian Church, and yet he was heavily influenced by him. And yes... there were Presidents of the United States who were interested in Swedenborgian thought. Thomas Jefferson, for example, invited Robert Hargrove to preach a Swedenborgian sermon before the US Congress. Is that presidential enough for you? Or should we also talk about Abraham Lincoln's interest in Swedenborgian literature? Or Lincoln's funeral address delivered by Emerson?

About Huntsman and Romney... Do you think they'd appreciate you connecting their religious beliefs to their candicacy?

Edited December 20, 2011 by Mike Reed

[zerinus]

About Huntsman and Romney... Do you think they'd appreciate you connecting their religious beliefs to their candicacy?

I am not "connecting their religious beliefs to their candidacy". I am connecting their credibility in the eyes of the American public (in part) to their religious tradition and upbringing. In other words, what I am saying is that if they hadn't been Mormons, it is unlikely that they would have gotten as far as they are now.

[Mike Reed]

I am not "connecting their religious beliefs to their candidacy". I am connecting their credibility in the eyes of the American public (in part) to their religious tradition and upbringing. In other words, what I am saying is that if they hadn't been Mormons, it is unlikely that they would have gotten as far as they are now.

It seems obvious that during his quest for presidency, his "Mormonism" is more of a liability than an asset. If Romney wasn't a Mormon, he would almost certainly be a shoo-in for the republican ticket. Since his Mormonism is more of a liability than an asset, then (in sum) it has a negative influence upon his candidacy--not a positive one, as you propose.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Cobalt-70]

Why would Joseph Smith have waited to put this in the Book of Moses or the D&C rather then in the Book of Mormon?

Because Thomas D1ck's The Philosophy of a Future State was published in 1829. We know that Smith had access to this book at least by the mid-1830s, because Sidney Rigdon quoted it in a church publication in 1836, and Smith donated his personal copy of it to a Nauvoo library in 1844. This book is possibly where Smith's plurality of worlds idea came from (although he may have already heard about the idea, from other sources, prior to reading the book). But this book is also very likely where other scriptural material such as D&C 88 and almost certainly the astronomical ideas in the Book of Abraham came from. But Smith would not have had access to this book while translating the Book of Mormon. So if the book was where Smith first heard about the plural worlds idea, then its absence from the Book of Mormon is not surprising.

The 1829 book has some fantastic proto-Mormon quotes about plural worlds:

• "what intelligence of [Christ's] achievements he conveyed to other worlds; what portion of the immensity of space, or what globe or material fabric, is the scene of his immediate residence; what are the external splendours and peculiarities of that glorious world; what intercourse he has with the spirits of just men made perfect with Enoch and Elijah, who are already furnished with bodies, and with other orders of celestial intelligence...." (p. 207) http://books.google....AAYAAJ&pg=PA199
  
• "Since most of these bodies are of a size equal, if not superior, to our sun, and shine by their own native light, we are led by analogy to conclude, that they are destined to subserve a similar purpose in the system of nature; to pour a flood of radiance on surrounding worlds, and to regulate their motions by their attractive influence. So that each of these luminaries may be considered, not merely as a world, but as the centre of thirty, sixty, or a hundred worlds, among which they distribute light, and heat, and comfort. If, now, we attend to the vast number of those stupendous globes, we shall perceive what an extensive field of sublime investigation lies open to all the holy intelligence that exist in creation." (p. 212-13)
  
• "Can we believe, that puny man, who occupies so diminutive a speck among the works of God has penetrated to the utmost limits of the empire of Him who fills the immensity of space with his presence? As soon might we suppose, that a snail could penetrate to the utmost extremity of the ocean..." (p. 245)
  
• "It is now considered by astronomers as highly probable, if not certain, from late observations, from the nature of gravitation, and other circumstances, that all the systems of the universe revolve round one common centre; and that this centre may bear as great a proportion, in point of magnitude, to the universal assemblage of systems, as the sun does to its surrounding planets....If this is in reality the case, it may, with the most emphatic propriety, be termed the throne of God.... Here, the glorified body of the Redeemer may have taken its principal station...." (pp. 249, 50)
  
• "Within the limits of the last 150 years, it has been found, that the principal fixed stars have a certain apparent motion, which is nearly uniform and regular....This progressive movement which our system makes in absolute space, is justly supposed to be a portion of that curve, which the sun describes around the centre of that nebula to which he belongs; and, that all the other stars belonging to the same nebula, describe similar curves. And since the universe appears to be composed of thousands of nebulae, or starry systems, detached from each other, it is reasonable to conclude, that all the starry systems of the universe revolve round one common centre, whose bulk and attractive influence are proportionable to the size and the number of the bodies which perform their revolutions around it....We are mechanically connected with the most distant stars visible through our telescopes, by means of light, which radiates from those distant luminaries, mingles with the solar rays, penetrates our atmosphere, and affects our optic nerves..." (p. 251).
  
• "why should we be reluctant to admit the idea [that]... the whole of this vast assemblage of suns and worlds revolves around the grand centre of the universe; and that this centre, where the throne of God is placed, is superior to all the other provinces of creation in magnitude, beauty, and magnificence?" (pp. 252-53)
  
• "The vehicles or bodies of angels are doubtless of a much finer mould than the bodies of men; but, although they were at all times invisible through such organs of vision as we possess, it would form no proof that they were destitute of such corporeal frames. The air we breath is a material substance, yet it is invisible." (p. 224)
  

Edited December 21, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Duncan]

Because Thomas D1ck's The Philosophy of a Future State was published in 1829. This book is almost certainly where Smith's plurality of worlds idea came from, as well as other scriptural material such as D&C 88 and the astronomical ideas in the Book of Abraham. But Smith would not have had access to it while translating the Book of Mormon. We know that Smith had this book at least by the mid-1830s, because Smith donated his personal copy of it to a Nauvoo library in 1844, and Sidney Rigdon quoted it in a church publication in 1836. The book has some fantastic proto-Mormon quotes:

• "what intelligence of [Christ's] achievements he conveyed to other worlds; what portion of the immensity of space, or what globe or material fabric, is the scene of his immediate residence; what are the external splendours and peculiarities of that glorious world; what intercourse he has with the spirits of just men made perfect with Enoch and Elijah, who are already furnished with bodies, and with other orders of celestial intelligence...." (p. 199-200) http://www.archive.o...e/n203/mode/2up
  
• "Since most of these bodies are of a size equal, if not superior, to our sun, and shine by their own native light, we are led by analogy to conclude, that they are destined to subserve a similar purpose in the system of nature; to pour a flood of radiance on surrounding worlds, and to regulate their motions by their attractive influence. So that each of these luminaries may be considered, not merely as a world, but as the centre of thirty, sixty, or a hundred worlds, among which they distribute light, and heat, and comfort. If, now, we attend to the vast number of those stupendous globes, we shall perceive what an extensive field of sublime investigation lies open to all the holy intelligence that exist in creation." (p. 205)
  
• "Can we believe, that puny man, who occupies so diminutive a speck among the works of God has penetrated to the utmost limits of the empire of Him who fills the immensity of space with his presence? As soon might we suppose, that a snail could penetrate to the utmost extremity of the ocean..." (pp. 237-39)
  
• "It is now considered by astronomers as highly probable, if not certain, from late observations, from the nature of gravitation, and other circumstances, that all the systems of the universe revolve round one common centre; and that this centre may bear as great a proportion, in point of magnitude, to the universal assemblage of systems, as the sun does to its surrounding planets....If this is in reality the case, it may, with the most emphatic propriety, be termed the throne of God.... Here, the glorified body of the Redeemer may have taken its principal station...." (pp. 242-43)
  
• "Within the limits of the last 150 years, it has been found, that the principal fixed stars have a certain apparent motion, which is nearly uniform and regular....This progressive movement which our system makes in absolute space, is justly supposed to be a portion of that curve, which the sun describes around the centre of that nebula to which he belongs; and, that all the other stars belonging to the same nebula, describe similar curves. And since the universe appears to be composed of thousands of nebulae, or starry systems, detached from each other, it is reasonable to conclude, that all the starry systems of the universe revolve round one common centre, whose bulk and attractive influence are proportionable to the size and the number of the bodies which perform their revolutions around it....We are mechanically connected with the most distant stars visible through our telescopes, by means of light, which radiates from those distant luminaries, mingles with the solar rays, penetrates our atmosphere, and affects our optic nerves..." (pp. 243-44).
  
• "why should we be reluctant to admit the idea [that]... the whole of this vast assemblage of suns and worlds revolves around the grand centre of the universe; and that this centre, where the throne of God is placed, is superior to all the other provinces of creation in magnitude, beauty, and magnificance?" (pp. 245-46)
  
• "The vehicles or bodies of angels are doubtless of a much finer mould than the bodies of men; but, although they were at all times invisible through such organs of vision as we possess, it would form no proof that they were destitute of such corporeal frames. The air we breath is a material substance, yet it is invisible." (pp. 217-18)
  

http://fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Plagiarism_accusations/Thomas_****

[zerinus]

Which part? It seems to me that if Romney wasn't a Mormon, he would be a shoo-in for the republican ticket.

That is right. Mormonism also has enemies who try to undermine him because they think that a win for a Mormon President would give Mormonism a bigger profile, which they try to defeat if they possibly can. They succeeded the last round; but this time conditions have changed, and Romney may not be nominated for other reasons. But all of this is a digression, and is irrelevant to the important consideration that whether he wins or loses, it proves that Mormonism has gained enough traction in American society that a Mormon President of the United States can even be contemplated.

Personally I have been a bit disappointed by some of the things that Romney has said lately, and I am not all that in favor of his candidacy. I will put my money on Romney losing to Newt Gingrich winning the Republican nomination, and finally losing the general election to Obama. I think that Obama deserves a second term; and he will be a better President of the United States than Romney would be.

[Cobalt-70]

http://fairmormon.or...ons/Thomas_****

Apparently, for some reason, it is impossible on this board to link to a website that contains the word "D1ck". But don't worry, the FAIR defense is a pretty weak one anyway. It notes, correctly, that D1ck believed that God was an immaterial spirit. However, Joseph Smith also believed that in 1835. FAIR notes some differences, but ignores the profound similarities between D1ck's ideas and the astronomical ideas of the Book of Abraham, the similarity to D&C 88, and the uncanny coincidences of terminology.

[altersteve]

Of course it would have been easy for Joseph Smith to look up at the night sky and come to the conclusion that there were numerous stars, but Moses 1:33 states that "worlds without number have I created", not stars.

This was an idea, until very recently, was completely uncomfirmed by science. Science has now shown and discovered that extra-solar (outside of our solar system) planets/worlds are very common.

IMO, this is a bullseye for someone in the 1830's to have revealed.

It wasn't a new idea, though, so it was nothing revolutionary. It was an idea that had been going around for quite some time, long before Christ even. This cannot fairly be called a "bullseye."

[Mike Reed]

That is right. Mormonism also has enemies who try to undermine him because they think that a win for a Mormon President would give Mormonism a bigger profile, which they try to defeat if they possibly can. They succeeded the last round; but this time conditions have changed, and Romney may not be nominated for other reasons. But all of this is a digression, and is irrelevant to the important consideration that whether he wins or loses, it proves that Mormonism has gained enough traction in American society that a Mormon President of the United States can even be contemplated.

Gained "traction"? He's not using his Mormonism as "traction." You should instead say that he has minimized the "DRAG". Again... his Mormonism doesn't help his candicacy. It hinders it.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Mike Reed

[altersteve]

It notes, correctly, that D1ck believed that God was an immaterial spirit. However, Joseph Smith also believed that in 1835.

CFR.

This is a common claim that people make, but I've never seen anyone provide a reference to back that up. Joseph's revision of Genesis 1:26 and 5:1-2 (which, you recall, he made in 1830) seem to show that he believed that God had a body of some sort. Whether or not he believed God was a spirit, he never believed God was "immaterial."

Other examples are listed here:

http://en.fairmormon...ge_of_spirit%22

Edited December 21, 2011 by altersteve