churchistrue Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I'm trying again because I think this is important enough to stick my neck out. I got it chopped off once. Hopefully that won't happen again. A non-LDS attorney based in Chicago and self-titled "LDS history buff" wrote an extremely interesting description of Joseph Smith. I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the posters here. I'll post a link to a different site rather than my own: https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/3pqrgr/towards_a_better_mormon_apologetics/ Additionally, I got accused of posting just for the purpose of advertising my site and given a final warning for such. You have a right to do whatever you want on this site, but ftr, my intention was not to advertise my site. My intention was exactly what I stated. I respect the opinions of many on this site and am curious what the thoughts are here. I would have posted the entire original post here, but I didn't have permission to do that. I did have permission to post it on my site, which I did and linked to here. I'm a member of half a dozen forums like this and have never been accused of that before or threatened with warnings. I'll do my best to comply to the rules, but this might be good feedback for you. Is it wrong to ask for opinions before one gives their own opinion? A strong opinion in the first post of a thread tends to manipulate the discussion in one direction. A better practice I've observed is to ask for opinions in the opening thread and then follow it up later with your own, after a few posts have been made.
Gray Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 From the reddit link: Friends, I am a non-Mormon LDS history buff, and an enthusiastic reader of early Mormon theological materials; I am getting really tired by the dubious quality of much of Mormon apologetics. It may be impertinent of me to offer any opinion, since I do not profess the Mormon religion, but I think it is strange and somewhat sad to see this tremendously inventive and colorful religion hide behind a mask of cramped, suburban, conservative Protestantism. If I were a Mormon apologist, I would frame my project around the following 6 points: Mormonism is a frontier religion created by Joseph Smith, who was an autodidact genius known to work as a rural conjurer, whose genuine supernatural abilities were attested to by allies like Martin Harris, and were also believed in by rival practitioners, such as Sally Chase. Smith's gifts placed him in a privileged position to mediate between the mundane plane and supernatural realities. The belief in scrying, divining, and communing with spirits of the dead (angels, in the Mormon understanding), is nothing shameful, but is, instead central to the Mormon worldview. Magic is real, although it has no place in the disenchanted cosmos of the secular, dry, modern mind. This is a loss for the modern mind, but not a loss for magic. The theophanies (visions of divine beings) and supernatural visitations experienced by Smith are not recorded in any single, consistent form, because they defy the characteristics of ordinary day-to-day experiences -- and because they were mediated through the mind of Joseph, a human being, for whom the significance of these experiences evolved over the course of his lifetime. Scriptures revealed by Joseph Smith were not based on his literal reading or translation of any text, but are narratives drawn from his interactions with a series of supernatural objects; they constitute accounts of deep human history -- which liberate Christ from the confines of historical Palestine and make Him available to diverse human populations. Joseph believed that he was gifted in languages, but the evidence suggests that his purported translations were instead the products of visionary experiences which were triggered by his proximity to angelic oracular instruments, or to his handling of ancient stones, texts, archaeological artifacts, etc. Joseph, like Anansi, the young Krishna, and heroic figures in other traditions was a trickster who sometimes employed deception in order to navigate through a hostile world. Like the prophets of old, Joseph was also a human who succumbed to temptation and committed heinous sins, including sexual transgressions. Subsequent prophets have also been guilty of social and personal sins, such as racism, violence, pride, etc. These facts are not dirty laundry, but are, instead, deeply concordant with our understanding of human beings and human nature. The practice of plural marriage was a morally problematic development which arose from Joseph's preoccupation with binding large populations into supernatural tribes and clans that would survive mortality and remain imperishable in the eternities. In general, the rituals and theology developed in Nauvoo were assembled from pre-existing cultural materials, hermetic, masonic, etc., through the inspired mind of the Prophet. Mormonism is the only branch of the Christian tradition which theologically addresses the vastness of the cosmos, the plurality of worlds, and possibly, the plurality of universes. It is Christian in that it is centered on the atonement of the suffering Christ; it is also an heir to the paganisms of Antiquity in that is conceives of embodied gods, male and female, with specific dwelling places, who operate in time and who change and evolve as humans do. In this sense, Mormonism, while articulated and defined in 19th-century language in terms of its specifics, is ancient in spirit. Interesting ideas, but I can't get behind the insistence on "magic" being real, at least not the kind of magic he means. His take on the first vision and LDS scripture is interesting.
Avatar4321 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Still think it's nonsense. Seems just like most others who criticize Joseph.
Avatar4321 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Also completely ignores the other leaders who had theophanies with joseph
ksfisher Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 You have a right to do whatever you want on this site That would seem to be a false assumption. You'd better read the board rules.
churchistrue Posted October 23, 2015 Author Posted October 23, 2015 That would seem to be a false assumption. You'd better read the board rules.You misread that.
Zakuska Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 "...who was an autodidact genius..." I wish the critics would make up their minds. The people of JS day made fun of how dumb he was (People of Jesus day did the same thing to him.)
oremites Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 I get the impression that a big part of his problem with Mormon apologetics is not what we say, but how we say it ("cramped, suburban, conservative Protestantism"). For example, "The theophanies (visions of divine beings) and supernatural visitations experienced by Smith are not recorded in any single, consistent form, because they defy the characteristics of ordinary day-to-day experiences -- and because they were mediated through the mind of Joseph, a human being, for whom the significance of these experiences evolved over the course of his lifetime." Other than changing it to "... in part because...", this isn't anything I haven't heard in discussions with faithful LDS. It's just that we would have phrased the same ideas in "Mormon-speak". Or,"binding large populations into supernatural tribes and clans that would survive mortality and remain imperishable in the eternities" That's not how I'd put it, but, yes, that's the plan. So basically, he just wants us to say things differently. The big problem I have with his suggestions is that they almost completely ignore the foundation on which all understanding of Mormonism and all apologetic efforts must be built: Jesus Christ. But that's just my cramped, suburban, conservative Protestantism speaking.
Glenn101 Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Too much stuff conflated together. Too vague to even discuss.
JLHPROF Posted October 23, 2015 Posted October 23, 2015 Still think it's nonsense. Seems just like most others who criticize Joseph. Agreed.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 I'm trying again because I think this is important enough to stick my neck out. I got it chopped off once. Hopefully that won't happen again. A non-LDS attorney based in Chicago and self-titled "LDS history buff" wrote an extremely interesting description of Joseph Smith. I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the posters here. I'll post a link to a different site rather than my own: https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/3pqrgr/towards_a_better_mormon_apologetics/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Please don't waste time and space explaining yourself, lest you begin to sound like Jules Feiffer's "The Explainers." The material above is adequate, and interesting. So, the guy thinks that Joseph Smith was a Renaissance Magus? Nothing new in his suggestions, even though they are succinctly stated. And, indeed, Joseph probably was a Renaissance and Hermetic Magus. Where this Chicago attorney goes off the beam is in suggesting that polygyny and the rest was evidence of ancient paganism. Well, maybe he thinks the Bible an ancient pagan document . . . 1
mfbukowski Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Please don't waste time and space explaining yourself, lest you begin to sound like Jules Feiffer's "The Explainers." The material above is adequate, and interesting. So, the guy thinks that Joseph Smith was a Renaissance Magus? Nothing new in his suggestions, even though they are succinctly stated. And, indeed, Joseph probably was a Renaissance and Hermetic Magus. Where this Chicago attorney goes off the beam is in suggesting that polygyny and the rest was evidence of ancient paganism. Well, maybe he thinks the Bible an ancient pagan document . . .Yes my take also, exactly. I really liked the first part and hated the last part.
RevTestament Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 From the reddit link: Interesting ideas, but I can't get behind the insistence on "magic" being real, at least not the kind of magic he means. His take on the first vision and LDS scripture is interesting. I'm with you here. Joseph Smith was not "into magic," and was not a conduit for evil spirits, etc. He was really a fairly simple farm boy. He may have done a little gold digging, but so what? Once the "rumors" of a "gold Bible" got out, his alleged history of hunting for treasure got blown totally out of proportion by his detractors. The alleged case file against him for "glasslooking" has dozens of holes - not the least of which those who allegedly found the case removed it from the records of the Clerk of the Court rather than have the clerk copy it, thus forever tainting the record as a probable forgery, which I believe a close analysis of the record itself also reveals. Further, I don't really believe Joseph Smith was a "genius." He was intelligent, and learned quickly. If anyone was a genius, it was probably Sidney Rigdon. But after he got attacked, he was never quite the same. The plain truth of the matter is that Joseph Smith saw just plain too much to have come up with all the principles of the restoration on his own. I feel certain I could not come up with all the points addressed in the BoM and the D&C - esp as an unlearned 20 year old.
volgadon Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 See, I would probably class Rigdon as brilliant, but not a genius. I consider Joseph a genius because of his creative ability. As Lowell Bennion said in 1948, "Everything [Joseph] touched became a new thing. In him was something of the curiosity of a child, the imagination of an artist, the practical zeal of a reformer, the idealism of an utopian, and the fire of a prophet. His theology is dynamic. He used religion to remake life. He also assigned to each of us a tremendously creative role to play in religion." 3
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) I do think rumors of Joseph's ignorance are largely exaggerated, on both sides of the believer/non-believer divide - it helps misguided apologetic efforts to claim Joseph was an ignorant yokel and the only reason he was worth anything was because God spoke through him, and it helps non-believers discount him as a typical schmoe. I think both sides are missing the point - you can be deeply intelligent and still be wrong or deceived, so whether or not Smith was a Smart Guy is beside the point. And I think he was brilliant, though of course far from infallible. You read transcripts of his speech, and it is immediately obvious that he has a tremendous intellect. Frankly, some of his contemporary critics just weren't bright enough to see how bright he was. That said, while I'm definitely not offended at the view of history that LDS History Buff has (and I have said for years that we should escape the cramped, suburban, conservative Protestantism we try to emulate and learn from the [admittedly only semi-historical] Pagans and Wiccans instead), I just don't think it's accurate. If the Book of Mormon is not, in some core kernel-of-truth sense at least, "literally" historical (while still allowing for the mistakes and interpolations of scribes and translators), then I don't really know what we're doing here, and some sort of metaphorical "deep human history" (am I correct in reading this as some sort of Jungian Archetypes thing?) holds no particular appeal for me personally, except in the way that all psychological theories do; screw Socrates, I'm terrified of dying, and I'm really hoping there's some sort of Ancient Astronaut Godhead out at Starbase Kolob who're looking out for us. The traditional Christian God with all His precious contradictory Omni-attributes is pretty clearly a philosophical fantasy, and I can't get excited about dissolving even the illusion of my Self into the All, so a Council of materialist Deities are pretty much all I've got left, though I totally get why others might see it as a long shot. I don't even think "magic" is "real" in an Alan Moore sort of way (though From Hell is definitely a good read), but the Western Esoteric tradition is extremely fascinating and relevant, and I think there's a bit of truth to the Refiner's Fire paradigm. And I agree whole-heartedly with point 6. I just don't read Joseph as being deliberately deceptive (except for polygamy, which is obviously, um, a concern). If he was wrong, I think he was honestly wrong; he wasn't trying to be an Anansi-esque trickster. TLDR: King Follett FTW. ... oh, wait, PS: Bob, I can't remember if I've asked you before, but is your paper on JS as a Renaissance Magus online anywhere? I've been dying to read it for ages, but I haven't had any luck ferreting out a copy. Edited October 24, 2015 by JeremyOrbe-Smith 4
theplains Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 Maybe "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling" would be a better read. Regards,Jim
volgadon Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 I liked most of the points, except for the Anansi comparison. The trickster (as a positive role) is not found in all religious traditions. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 See, I would probably class Rigdon as brilliant, but not a genius. I consider Joseph a genius because of his creative ability. As Lowell Bennion said in 1948, "Everything [Joseph] touched became a new thing. In him was something of the curiosity of a child, the imagination of an artist, the practical zeal of a reformer, the idealism of an utopian, and the fire of a prophet. His theology is dynamic. He used religion to remake life. He also assigned to each of us a tremendously creative role to play in religion."Yes, and education has nothing to do with genius. By the way, sorry I missed you at SMPT. At least I got to meet and converse with your wonderful mother.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 24, 2015 Posted October 24, 2015 ...................................................................... Interesting ideas, but I can't get behind the insistence on "magic" being real, at least not the kind of magic he means. His take on the first vision and LDS scripture is interesting. Of course, it is not possible to distinguish magic from religion, even though people often make the attempt. Otherwise, we would have to accept that Jesus and the OT prophets were a bunch of magicians, and not part of authentic religion at all -- the way Morton Smith does in his Jesus the Magician (Ulysses Press, 1998). 1
strappinglad Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Genius or no, Joseph had to be the most well read young man in all of New York. Apparently he was influenced by any and all writers and scholars within 200 miles of Palmyra and 200 years of his birth. No matter how notable or obscure, Joseph had access to these tomes and manuscripts. His supposed 4th grade education was obviously light years ahead of what passes for schooling now. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Genius or no, Joseph had to be the most well read young man in all of New York. Apparently he was influenced by any and all writers and scholars within 200 miles of Palmyra and 200 years of his birth. No matter how notable or obscure, Joseph had access to these tomes and manuscripts. His supposed 4th grade education was obviously light years ahead of what passes for schooling now.Not to mention his Harvard PhD, garnered while on vacation at his uncle's place in Salem, Mass.
Recommended Posts