Scottish Common Sense Realism and Joseph Smith

[Gray]

So I heard someone mention that they thought Joseph Smith subscribed to Scottish Common Sense Realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Common_Sense_Realism

That conclusion was based on Joseph Smith's stated hermeneutical approach:

 

Quote

Affirming Its Literal Meaning

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/08/the-prophet-joseph-smiths-use-of-the-old-testament?lang=eng

The Prophet Joseph Smith believed in a rigorous adherence to the literal meaning of the biblical text. “What is the rule of interpretation?” he asked. “Just no interpretation at all.” It should be “understood precisely as it reads.

 

Of course it's impossible to avoid interpreting - even literalism is an interpretation.

But what do you think - does Scottish Common Sense Realism describe Joseph Smith's way of looking at the world? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Common_Sense_Realism#Fundamentalism

Edited April 6, 2016 by Gray

[halconero]

I'm not sure that Joseph was against the interpretation of text. The man was a huge fan of studying alternative languages for the purpose of scripture study.

What I think he was against was the common scholastic interpretations present in the Theological Schools of the day. I'm most definitely biased with my own educational background in the area, but I actually believe he would be a big fan of the Religious Studies school which seeks to breakdown scripture to its original linguistic, sociocultural, political, and geographical context. Joseph put the onus of symbolic interpretation of text not on man, but on God. I believe that what he's trying to say here is to take scriptural texts at their base, original meaning, and God will give an alternative interpretation should it be called for. Otherwise, don't feel obligated or compelled to wrangle an alternative meaning from the text.

I'll give you an example. I meet a Russian Orthodox family once who believed that the Burning Bush in Exodus was representative of Mary (the Bush) being filled with God Incarnate (the fire) and not being consumed (I have no clue if this represents anything close to a mainstream interpretation of the text in Russian Orthodoxy). Interesting? Sure. Kind of a cool thought? Definitely. The likely interpretation of the event? Nope. What is the likely interpretation of the event? Moses saw a Burning Bush from which God spoke.

It isn't difficult to conclude that Joseph wasn't a fan of the learned theologians of his day. It was the cause of his original confusion, and a source of contention and persecution throughout his life.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that when Joseph advocated a literal meaning, he did so with a couple caveats:

- That the literal meaning stem from either the best translation, or a language (preferably the original Greek or Hebrew, though Joseph really liked the German translations as well) which expressed the original meaning the best. Anecdotally, I also consider this the best way to understand scripture and the intent of the authors

- God could and would give symbolic interpretations of scripture from time to time. Unless he did so, the reader of scripture shouldn't try to puzzle out a meaning beyond a plain reading of the text.

Edited April 6, 2016 by halconero

[halconero]

I don't want to keep editing, but what I'll say is that Joseph's approach should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Sola Scriptura/Unchanging Word paradigm of some Christian denominations. He was more than happy to include revelation and an acknowledge of Biblical corruption in his paradigm. Here's a quote in which both of these are combined:

"I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible. I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible- Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith–in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh–the head. Sheit–grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the Baith there. An old Jew, without any authority, added the word. He thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.” That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you."
 

I won't comment on whether or not Joseph was on the ball with this one, but what I do want to point out that in striving to understand the literal meaning of text he was more than willing to dive deeper than face value. Scriptural literalism today is often associated with just that: face value. Nope. Joseph wanted to go back further. In the same discourse, Joseph also said:

"Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text."

Joseph loved to wrangle with scripture. He was just careful to try to get to as close to the original as possible, and use God's revelations as his guiding light for understanding them.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

So I heard someone mention that they thought Joseph Smith subscribed to Scottish Common Sense Realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Common_Sense_Realism

That conclusion was based on Joseph Smith's stated hermeneutical approach:

 

 

Of course it's impossible to avoid interpreting - even literalism is an interpretation.

But what do you think - does Scottish Common Sense Realism describe Joseph Smith's way of looking at the world? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Common_Sense_Realism#Fundamentalism

I can't say, when it comes to Joseph there are so many theories about his view of scripture, the scripture that translated, and the scripture dictated. In fact there are so many ideas in an effort to debunked his work, it is like throwing spaghetti at the wall, until one sticks. 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, halconero said:

I don't want to keep editing, but what I'll say is that Joseph's approach should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Sola Scriptura/Unchanging Word paradigm of some Christian denominations. He was more than happy to include revelation and an acknowledge of Biblical corruption in his paradigm. Here's a quote in which both of these are combined:

"I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible. I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible- Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith–in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh–the head. Sheit–grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the Baith there. An old Jew, without any authority, added the word. He thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.” That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you."
 

I won't comment on whether or not Joseph was on the ball with this one, but what I do want to point out that in striving to understand the literal meaning of text he was more than willing to dive deeper than face value. Scriptural literalism today is often associated with just that: face value. Nope. Joseph wanted to go back further. In the same discourse, Joseph also said:

"Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text."

Joseph loved to wrangle with scripture. He was just careful to try to get to as close to the original as possible, and use God's revelations as his guiding light for understanding them.

Joseph Smith was definitely different from typical Christian fundamentalists in that he would expand or make changes to the canon where he thought it needed it. His interpretations of the text seem to be pretty predictably literalistic most of the time, but sometimes he would use a somewhat legalistic approach to the exact language to come to different conclusions than the most obvious reading of the text. I'm thinking of his interpretation of "eternal punishment" meaning "God's punishment." God is eternal, not the punishment. That's a good example of, as you put it, wrangling with scripture. Still, while positing alternative versions of the text that purported to restore the original intent, he does still seem to prefer to stick with a literal reading of the text rather than a symbolic reading of the text. But I'm no expert - maybe he did both? 

I think I've mostly just restated some of your points here - thank you for your thoughts. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, Gray said:

So I heard someone mention that they thought Joseph Smith subscribed to Scottish Common Sense Realism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Common_Sense_Realism

That conclusion was based on Joseph Smith's stated hermeneutical approach:

 

Quote

\Affirming Its Literal Meaning

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/08/the-prophet-joseph-smiths-use-of-the-old-testament?lang=eng

The Prophet Joseph Smith believed in a rigorous adherence to the literal meaning of the biblical text. “What is the rule of interpretation?” he asked. “Just no interpretation at all.” It should be “understood precisely as it reads.

Of course it's impossible to avoid interpreting - even literalism is an interpretation.

But what do you think - does Scottish Common Sense Realism describe Joseph Smith's way of looking at the world? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Common_Sense_Realism#Fundamentalism 

Sounds like Joseph imbibed a bit of sola scriptura at the local revivals as he was growing up.

I even heard Stanford Carmack lecturing last night at BYU about the frequent Scottish phrases or expressions in the Book of Mormon.  Maybe we could call this the Scotch connection.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[toon]

I don't think any true Scot would ever say that.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like Joseph imbibed a bit of sola scriptura at the local revivals as he was growing up.

I even heard Stanford Carmack lecturing last night at BYU about the frequent Scottish phrases or expressions in the Book of Mormon.  Maybe we could call this the Scotch connection.

Time to break out the bagpipes and play "Scotland the Brave/Praise to the Man"

Edited April 7, 2016 by Gray