Don Bradley's Book on the 116 Pages

[Robert F. Smith]

Don Bradley, “American Proto-Zionism and the ‘Book of Lehi’: Recontextualizing the Rise of Mormonism,” (M.A. Thesis, Utah State University, 2018).

[USU78]

I'm about 70 pages in.  Fun!  Fun!  Fun!

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/8/2018 at 5:55 AM, mfbukowski said:

Do you need repetition? 😁

I’m sorry. What was that again?

Edited July 25, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/24/2018 at 9:04 AM, USU78 said:

I'm about 70 pages in.  Fun!  Fun!  Fun!.............................

When you have finished it, I'd like to hear how you deal with the 19th century thesis of Bradley on the one hand, and the 16th century EModE thesis of Stanford Carmack on the other.  Can such disparate views be reconciled?

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/24/2018 at 9:04 AM, USU78 said:

I'm about 70 pages in.  Fun!  Fun!  Fun! 

It's always "Fun, fun, fun!" ... 'til your daddy takes the T-Bird away!  

 

[USU78]

A pearl from the thesis:

Quote

According to Joseph Smith’s account, he and Martin Harris completed the transcription of the Book of Lehi manuscript on June 14, 1828. Smith’s firstborn son was born—and died—the following day. Within two or three weeks, the manuscript was gone as well.

Id at 177.

How can we not see the parallel with David here, the moment at which both his child and his hope die.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/25/2018 at 10:47 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

When you have finished it, I'd like to hear how you deal with the 19th century thesis of Bradley on the one hand, and the 16th century EModE thesis of Stanford Carmack on the other.  Can such disparate views be reconciled?

Finished it

At first blush I do not see how they can be reconciled.

Don's view makes much of how Joseph's recitation of the text correlates with Joseph's personal history just at the time when it needed to become a more "Christian" document than one about the gathering of Israel "just in time" when historical conditions changed with Jackson's presidency, and made the earlier plan of a gathering of Israel including Indians, a practical impossibility

Though Don I think correctly points out that we cannot second guess Providential direction in the timing of the revelation in its correlation with historic events in Joseph's eventual desire to form a church, I think his view represents a document which is VERY much a 19th Century revelation to Joseph implying a restoration of Christianity just when it become historically expedient to do so, rather than the earlier planned strategy of a gathering of Israel consisting of Jews and Indians.

It can still be seen as a revelation and guided by Providence but I think on his view it is very much a 19th century document.

I loved the notion of the Temple of Nephi and the information about Cumorah and the relation of the "ark" to the temple.

I had never imagined that! 

I really enjoyed it- but as far as reconcilable with Carmack?  I am not seeing it at the moment.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, USU78 said:

A pearl from the thesis:

Id at 177.

How can we not see the parallel with David here, the moment at which both his child and his hope die.

 

Not to mention Don himself

VERY eerie!

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Finished it

At first blush I do not see how they can be reconciled.

Don's view makes much of how Joseph's recitation of the text correlates with Joseph's personal history just at the time when it needed to become a more "Christian" document than one about the gathering of Israel "just in time" when historical conditions changed with Jackson's presidency, and made the earlier plan of a gathering of Israel including Indians, a practical impossibility

Though Don I think correctly points out that we cannot second guess Providential direction in the timing of the revelation in its correlation with historic events in Joseph's eventual desire to form a church, I think his view represents a document which is VERY much a 19th Century revelation to Joseph implying a restoration of Christianity just when it become historically expedient to do so, rather than the earlier planned strategy of a gathering of Israel consisting of Jews and Indians.

It can still be seen as a revelation and guided by Providence but I think on his view it is very much a 19th century document.

I loved the notion of the Temple of Nephi and the information about Cumorah and the relation of the "ark" to the temple.

I had never imagined that! 

I really enjoyed it- but as far as reconcilable with Carmack?  I am not seeing it at the moment.

Now let me contradict myself after a few moments of thought....

On the other hand if Carmack is right it could strengthen the BOM's ancient origins to think that Joseph was receiving a genuine ancient text which was translated in the 16th century but providentially provided with EXACT TIMING for the translation to give direction to Joseph precisely when he needed it most.!!

There you go!

I think that would be a reconciliation.  Ancient record> 16th century angelic translation > delivered with precise timing to Joseph as a direction to restore Christianity

Wow.  Talk about providence!!  But we are talking GOD here... 

If that is what "actually happened" that would be VERY amazing.   I kind of like it .

Maybe a little imaginative for most but then again....  hey,  gold plates and angels don't happen every day, not to mention God appearing to a 14 year old boy....  

[clarkgoble]

I'm only halfway through the thesis. So I suspect I've not come to the be controversial parts. To me the 16th century English (on which I've gone from skeptic to being persuaded) are hard to figure out. They don't make sense in nearly any model. The idea that there were pockets of this English in Joseph's environment just can't be excluded. 

The thesis which inverts some of Jan Shipps model is pretty interesting. I'm obviously a believer in a historic Nephite culture but simultaneously think there are 19th century expansions to the underlying text with a very loose translation method that makes heavy use of the KJV. So either element doesn't bother me too much, depending upon what's claimed with it. 

As I can see, the main argument for 16th century language is to dismiss Joseph as author. I admit I have trouble with Joseph as author for a variety of reasons. Don's treatment of the losing of the 116 pages doesn't really address those (nor would I expect it to). To me the easiest explanation for the appearance of translation using the Urim & Thummim is that he had the texts pre-prepared. That runs up against material issues (how much paper did he have?) However if that is what he had, then the whole 116 pages makes less sense as he'd have two copies of the text. The Taves unconscious spiritual writing model also has (to my mind) problems even if Joseph had a physical copy of the KJV he was copying from in front of the scribes. (Which seems a bit problematic but not unthinkable)

I'll try and write down places in the thesis that hinge upon those elements. I did a quick search and he doesn't mention Taves or her model. I obviously have problems with Taves approach although I understand why some are attracted to it.

Edited July 27, 2018 by clarkgoble

[USU78]

On 7/25/2018 at 11:47 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

When you have finished it, I'd like to hear how you deal with the 19th century thesis of Bradley on the one hand, and the 16th century EModE thesis of Stanford Carmack on the other.  Can such disparate views be reconciled?

Just finished it, so I'll just let my stream of consciousness address your question, to the extent it can be addressed.  Here are my thoughts, in no particular order:

1.  It feels incomplete, and that may be accounted for by what I perceive to be a sizable leap to conclusion on what is being sold here:  a narrative, not so much of the "missing bits" caused by the loss of the Book of Lehi, but rather an organic composition of the entire BoM, including the BoL, informed by events in JSJr's life.  While Don takes pains in the early section to describe how he will take no position on who wrote the BoM and BoL, when, and why, the actual production appears to me to veer positively in the direction of JSJr as author, during his lifetime, for the purpose of accomplishing JSJr's goal of being recognized as the prophet of the Gathering of Jews and protoLamanites into a religious community in the Finger Lakes region, with a temple at "Cumorah" with a Holy of Holies buried in the hill in Manchester.

2.  The theory that the earliest layer of Mormonism is a Jewish Restorationist one, with its heart in the stone box on the side of the New York Cumorah certainly would account for the persistence of the continent-wide Lehite theories and other pesky vestiges of the earliest days of the Restoration:  Sure, you can take away our New York Cumorah Temple site, but you'll never take away our Meldrum!

3.  The EME elements in the earliest holographs of the BoM, so much of which has not survived the publication process, are wholly unaccounted-for in Don's work.  This is not a criticism of him.  He was frying far different fish.

4.  The notion of G-d's will being revealed both to the prophet in visitations, visions, and dreams as well as through His Hand as revealed in events is a lovely one, and one I am going to be thinking about for some time to come.

5.  Don makes a whole lot of bricks of very scant straw.  A lot of what he has gleaned from the scant extants makes good sense.  Some of it, though, I just can't quite follow.  Yes, I buy the likelihood of some kind of recreation of the Exodus by the Lehites upon abandoning their camp three days from Jerusalem, and that Mosiah I would recreate again the Moses and Lehi Exoduses upon fleeing Nephi.  Yes, I buy the very ritualistic language of [presumeably] Mosiah I's ritual theophany in his Tabernacle with the interpreters.  What I can't quite buy is the assumption that the interpreters would appear just at the time they were needed by Mosiah I and his exiles, or that these interpreters are the very Jaredite stones.  We are arguing too much from ignorance here, since there just doesn't seem to be enough evidence to support that theory.  It's a nice theory, and I like it a whole lot.  Perhaps somebody else down the road, or Don himself, will flesh this out.  Who knows that might be out there in newspaper stories or journals or family bibles?

What were your thoughts?

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The theory that the earliest layer of Mormonism is a Jewish Restorationist one, with its heart in the stone box on the side of the New York Cumorah certainly would account for the persistence of the continent-wide Lehite theories and other pesky vestiges of the earliest days of the Restoration:

One problem with the hemispheric model is actually attested to in the thesis. That is the big problem of travel in the United States prior to the canal systems and then maintained roads. “Before the canal Clinton’s well-documented 1810 trip from Albany (where the canal would meet the river) to Buffalo took thirty-two days. After the canal’s completion, traversing the same distance took less than five days.” (46) It would be hard to believe Joseph Smith wasn't aware of these issues of distance as it relates to the hemispheric model. So I think the hemispheric model might be ideal or typological but I can't see Joseph taking it seriously if he was the author given the relative consistency of travel and so forth in the text.

 

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

One problem with the hemispheric model is actually attested to in the thesis. That is the big problem of travel in the United States prior to the canal systems and then maintained roads. “Before the canal Clinton’s well-documented 1810 trip from Albany (where the canal would meet the river) to Buffalo took thirty-two days. After the canal’s completion, traversing the same distance took less than five days.” (46) It would be hard to believe Joseph Smith wasn't aware of these issues of distance as it relates to the hemispheric model. So I think the hemispheric model might be ideal or typological but I can't see Joseph taking it seriously if he was the author given the relative consistency of travel and so forth in the text.

I'm with you on this one:  It's as if JSJr's development as prophet and the movement's development as a Church keeps coming back to this question of what we thought we knew and what G-d truly has in mind.  A series of unlearnings of what we thought we knew.

I don't think anybody on the Meldrumite side of things even thinks about such things as distances in the text.  I doubt JSJr thought about it, and his ignorance of the text generally has been covered again and again.

[clarkgoble]

24 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I don't think anybody on the Meldrumite side of things even thinks about such things as distances in the text.  I doubt JSJr thought about it, and his ignorance of the text generally has been covered again and again.

Yes. I've probably not reached the part where Mark saw things as problematic. Thus far he's just giving shape to how Joseph would have interpreted but trying to take a methodological tact that would please non-believers and believers alike. If anything, at least by page 100, it seems like he treats it as more in terms of how Joseph would interpret the text than as author. I'm curious if, by the end, I agree with Mark that there's more of a Joseph as author vibe to it.

An example of this, to my mind, is the following:

• Smith’s program, at least as he understood it at the time, was like Noah’s in purpose, but, unlike Noah’s, could lay claim to religious authority via precedent, prophecy, and sign. This is not to say that Smith’s claim to have found the golden plates was inspired by Noah’s proclamation and the Grand Rabbi’s response—it could not have been, since it preceded these developments by two years. Yet as Joseph Smith approached the task of presenting the world with the book that was to gather Israel to a New Jerusalem, these recent events provided a readily available lens that could focus and shape his understanding of both the text and the consequent gathering.

Those are some significant caveats but more importantly the phrase "shape his understanding of both the text and the consequent gathering" seems to bely some skepticism of the Joseph as author thesis.

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes. I've probably not reached the part where Mark saw things as problematic. Thus far he's just giving shape to how Joseph would have interpreted but trying to take a methodological tact that would please non-believers and believers alike. If anything, at least by page 100, it seems like he treats it as more in terms of how Joseph would interpret the text than as author. I'm curious if, by the end, I agree with Mark that there's more of a Joseph as author vibe to it.

An example of this, to my mind, is the following:

• Smith’s program, at least as he understood it at the time, was like Noah’s in purpose, but, unlike Noah’s, could lay claim to religious authority via precedent, prophecy, and sign. This is not to say that Smith’s claim to have found the golden plates was inspired by Noah’s proclamation and the Grand Rabbi’s response—it could not have been, since it preceded these developments by two years. Yet as Joseph Smith approached the task of presenting the world with the book that was to gather Israel to a New Jerusalem, these recent events provided a readily available lens that could focus and shape his understanding of both the text and the consequent gathering.

Those are some significant caveats but more importantly the phrase "shape his understanding of both the text and the consequent gathering" seems to bely some skepticism of the Joseph as author thesis.

After you finish up, let me know what you think on that score.  You know my impressions upon a single read-through over several days [dang real life anyway!].

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

After you finish up, let me know what you think on that score.  You know my impressions upon a single read-through over several days [dang real life anyway!].

You've got me curious. I wonder if this reflects changes in Don's view as he worked on the thesis. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

2.  The theory that the earliest layer of Mormonism is a Jewish Restorationist one, with its heart in the stone box on the side of the New York Cumorah certainly would account for the persistence of the continent-wide Lehite theories and other pesky vestiges of the earliest days of the Restoration:  Sure, you can take away our New York Cumorah Temple site, but you'll never take away our Meldrum!

I found this quite revealing- I am a big picture guy and mind works in odd ways, and I tend to see a philosophical position as a kind of flow chart or "tree" of arguments- one branch leading to the other, presenting the bigger tree at the end.

In looking at Mormonism philosophically, It seems it all fits together pretty well as a cohesive world view, but when in my mind's eye I look at the "Tree" I tend to see this dead branch sticking out with no support, and that branch is the "gathering of Israel" branch which seems so prominent in certain scriptural passages and yet theologically it leads almost nowhere.  It's just kind of sticking up there serving no theological function which connects well to the other portions of a fairly cohesive world view, especially when later interpretation urged us to "gather" to exactly where we are geographically now.  That's a pretty strange "gathering"!

Theologically that was like cutting that limb of doctrine right off the tree making it pretty irrelevant.  And yet so much time was spent on it!

I think Don has given us a good explanation for the attention it received in the early church and it's later.... de-emphasis, if not downright abandonment.

And that alone I think gives his view of the evolution of Mormonism a big chunk of credibility to me- definitely making it definitely a "recontextualization" of that era.

Honestly I think the tree looks much cleaner and streamlined with that branch gone. 

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes. I've probably not reached the part where Mark saw things as problematic. Thus far he's just giving shape to how Joseph would have interpreted but trying to take a methodological tact that would please non-believers and believers alike. If anything, at least by page 100, it seems like he treats it as more in terms of how Joseph would interpret the text than as author. I'm curious if, by the end, I agree with Mark that there's more of a Joseph as author vibe to it.

An example of this, to my mind, is the following:

• Smith’s program, at least as he understood it at the time, was like Noah’s in purpose, but, unlike Noah’s, could lay claim to religious authority via precedent, prophecy, and sign. This is not to say that Smith’s claim to have found the golden plates was inspired by Noah’s proclamation and the Grand Rabbi’s response—it could not have been, since it preceded these developments by two years. Yet as Joseph Smith approached the task of presenting the world with the book that was to gather Israel to a New Jerusalem, these recent events provided a readily available lens that could focus and shape his understanding of both the text and the consequent gathering.

Those are some significant caveats but more importantly the phrase "shape his understanding of both the text and the consequent gathering" seems to bely some skepticism of the Joseph as author thesis.

Yeah, the fun starts right around page 100 as I recall. 

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I found this quite revealing- I am a big picture guy and mind works in odd ways, and I tend to see a philosophical position as a kind of flow chart or "tree" of arguments- one branch leading to the other, presenting the bigger tree at the end.

In looking at Mormonism philosophically, It seems it all fits together pretty well as a cohesive world view, but when in my mind's eye I look at the "Tree" I tend to see this dead branch sticking out with no support, and that branch is the "gathering of Israel" branch which seems so prominent in certain scriptural passages and yet theologically it leads almost nowhere.  It's just kind of sticking up there serving no theological function which connects well to the other portions of a fairly cohesive world view, especially when later interpretation urged us to "gather" to exactly where we are geographically now.  That's a pretty strange "gathering"!

Theologically that was like cutting that limb of doctrine right off the tree making it pretty irrelevant.  And yet so much time was spent on it!

I think Don has given us a good explanation for the attention it received in the early church and it's later.... de-emphasis, if not downright abandonment.

And that alone I think gives his view of the evolution of Mormonism a big chunk of credibility to me- definitely making it definitely a "recontextualization" of that era.

Honestly I think the tree looks much cleaner and streamlined with that branch gone. 

Well  ...  you know the LDS response (and maybe Don's response) would be that the "gathering" morphed as events on the ground pointed us towards achievable goals, which were what G-d wanted all along:  temple work for the dead; missionarying; and stakes and temples where you live rather than where we live; whereupon Israel fills the whole of creation, past present and future.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You've got me curious. I wonder if this reflects changes in Don's view as he worked on the thesis. 

It would not change mine.

I have always kind of seen Joseph as the inspired author, but don't tell anyone. 

Of course I have no problem seeing "inspired" philosophers and think many philosophical writings are directly from God anyway. 

I mean there are parts of Schiller.... and Wittgenstein..... but I suppose that is for another time

I don't want to put limits on God, and I can easily fit a paradigm in there where the BOM is completely "historical" anyway since "what really happened" is unknowable.

For all I know a 16th century space alien could have written it and telepathically put it into Joseph's brain.   I mean if we are looking for non-falsifiable story/paradigms and actually need such things to believe philosophical principles- I can come up with them all day!

[jkwilliams]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I found this quite revealing- I am a big picture guy and mind works in odd ways, and I tend to see a philosophical position as a kind of flow chart or "tree" of arguments- one branch leading to the other, presenting the bigger tree at the end.

In looking at Mormonism philosophically, It seems it all fits together pretty well as a cohesive world view, but when in my mind's eye I look at the "Tree" I tend to see this dead branch sticking out with no support, and that branch is the "gathering of Israel" branch which seems so prominent in certain scriptural passages and yet theologically it leads almost nowhere.  It's just kind of sticking up there serving no theological function which connects well to the other portions of a fairly cohesive world view, especially when later interpretation urged us to "gather" to exactly where we are geographically now.  That's a pretty strange "gathering"!

Theologically that was like cutting that limb of doctrine right off the tree making it pretty irrelevant.  And yet so much time was spent on it!

I think Don has given us a good explanation for the attention it received in the early church and it's later.... de-emphasis, if not downright abandonment.

And that alone I think gives his view of the evolution of Mormonism a big chunk of credibility to me- definitely making it definitely a "recontextualization" of that era.

Honestly I think the tree looks much cleaner and streamlined with that branch gone. 

I know, this is a derail (you started it, though  ), but are you saying you think the church's teachings about the events at Adam-Ondi-Ahman and the gathering to the New Jerusalem have been jettisoned?

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Well  ...  you know the LDS response (and maybe Don's response) would be that the "gathering" morphed as events on the ground pointed us towards achievable goals, which were what G-d wanted all along:  temple work for the dead; missionarying; and stakes and temples where you live rather than where we live; whereupon Israel fills the whole of creation, past present and future.

Yes one could see it that way too- I just put that more on the whole idea of turning the hearts of the children to the fathers- which has nothing to do with the physical gathering-  and solving the old protestant model of "No learn, then burn"- the idea that if you never knew Christ you get hell forever.

The purpose of the earth would be "wasted at his coming" if there was no provision for salvation of the dead- and that was repeated 3 times we are told at the opening of the dispensation- the very FIRST message.  So I see that as kind of the "trunk" and not a "branch"

"Fill the measure of your creation and have joy therein "- what about those who have not been able to do that?!

I can't think of a more absurd doctrine that a loving God would make his children burn for not hearing the message!

That whole line of thinking - really an extension as I see it of the Catholic unbaptized babies/ Limbo compromise- has been a huge hole in Christianity as a faith of Love, at least since Augustine, in my opinion.

I am in a different situation than you, not being overtly of the blood of Israel- which I presume you are- (yes I know genetics and that we probably all are anyway) so perhaps I am less likely to see it your way.

I guess it just depends on where we want to paste that branch on our "paint by numbers" tree!

I see tremendous strength in just knowing who you are and where you come from and where you are going.. (sounds familiar!) regardless of if it's about Israel anyway.

Plus to me it is about charity- if you want to bring the gospel to "these the least of my brethren" who is "less" among the brethren than someone who has heard his name pronounced in a few hundred years?!!

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

...............................

What were your thoughts?

I agree with most of your comments.  It could be that Bradley was too far along in his master's research to take account of the Carmack analysis. Perhaps he will produce a book which will include a more well developed theory.

I did note that Bradley wants Lehi to be a Jew, and not a member of the House of Joseph or Manasseh.  Thus, he argues for close Davidic monarchical connections, while the text seems to take the opposite position (anti-Davidic).  John Sorenson and I take the text to be Elohistic and Northern, rather than Jahwistic and Southern Judahite.

It could be that Bradley would also not be able to distinguish between St Paul declaring himself to be a Jew (and a Pharisaic one at that), and at the same time declaring himself to be of the tribe of Benjamin.  One is cultural, the other is tribal.  Nephi and Lehi see things in much the same way, with Laban being of the House of Joseph as well.  That is a group which hails ultimately from the Northern Kingdom -- as refugees ca 721 BC.  Only Mulek/Muloch (Zarahemla) can be defined as truly Judahite.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

....................................

I guess it just depends on where we want to paste that branch on our "paint by numbers" tree!

...............................

"Paint your wagon!"

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree with most of your comments.  It could be that Bradley was too far along in his master's research to take account of the Carmack analysis. Perhaps he will produce a book which will include a more well developed theory.

I did note that Bradley wants Lehi to be a Jew, and not a member of the House of Joseph or Manasseh.  Thus, he argues for close Davidic monarchical connections, while the text seems to take the opposite position (anti-Davidic).  John Sorenson and I take the text to be Elohistic and Northern, rather than Jahwistic and Southern Judahite.

It could be that Bradley would also not be able to distinguish between St Paul declaring himself to be a Jew (and a Pharisaic one at that), and at the same time declaring himself to be of the tribe of Benjamin.  One is cultural, the other is tribal.  Nephi and Lehi see things in much the same way, with Laban being of the House of Joseph as well.  That is a group which hails ultimately from the Northern Kingdom -- as refugees ca 721 BC.  Only Mulek/Muloch (Zarahemla) can be defined as truly Judahite.

For the secular purposes of getting that dang MA out of the way, distinctions between Judahite and Josephite, so important to Mormons and the BoM, are distinctions without a difference, I expect.  One thing I remember from my masters:  it was about getting it done to the satisfaction of the committee, not solving every question that needs solving.

And, who knows?  Maybe Don takes the position that as citizen of Judah, Lehi's a Jew for all intents and purposes.  I mean, the man didn't know he was a Josephite until he got his Book of Remembrance.