- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Reading another book and about half-way through. Grant Palmer “Insiders view of Mormon Origins”…. It is not quite what I expected, but interesting. I’ve gotten through the part where he quotes B H Roberts about some of the misgivings of that scholar toward the books’ origins. That was surprising to me in the extreme–I’ve heard rumors of BH Roberts having reservations, but this was the first I’ve read about it at a deeper level.
The stories of Cumorah opening up and having a cavern in there with plates and things is interesting–I heard rumors of this when I was younger, but this is the first time I’ve seen documented sources telling more of the story.
Something that Bill Reel mentioned in a personal conversation I had with him, (and I’m not picking on you Bill,…) was that he was still somewhat of a believer because in order for the thing to be true, those other people (like Oliver and Sidney) would have to be “duped”. They would have all had to of been in on it.
What is everyone’s take on that? Do you see all of these others being all in on a fraud? And in a more specific train, how could Joseph have dictated the entire BofM in a cohesive manner like he did had there not been something else going on? Whether you think the BofM is true or not, plagiarized or not, or whatever,….it is a long book and there is structure. It would not have been an easy task to dictate at that level.
Of course, he had a curtain between him and them on occasion–which doesn’t make a lot of sense since his head was supposedly in a hat. Was he reading source material or had reference material there while the curtain was in place?
Thoughts?
There are some things in Palmer’s book that I found compelling, and other things I did not. It’s an interesting read, but not IMO the definitive word on the BOM. Personally, I think the structure of the BOM is very complex (all the narrators), and that it’s largely misunderstood by those who read it in the church. It’s a depressing book about some fairly terrible people who are sexist and bloodthirsty, and the so-called heroes of the book are defensive and not very heroic. While I don’t enjoy it much, I do see it as complex. Some elements do seem to be 19th century, but others are just very complicated. It’s possible he wrote it, but I don’t see Cowdery being in on it. I like Cowdery more than Joseph Smith, probably because I think he’s the only one who was honest about polygamy and consistently rejected it. Sidney Rigdon wouldn’t have had to be complicit except if it was related to the completely discredited Spaulding manuscript. hawkgrrrl wrote:There are some things in Palmer’s book that I found compelling, and other things I did not. It’s an interesting read, but not IMO the definitive word on the BOM. Personally, I think the structure of the BOM is very complex (all the narrators), and that it’s largely misunderstood by those who read it in the church. It’s a depressing book about some fairly terrible people who are sexist and bloodthirsty, and the so-called heroes of the book are defensive and not very heroic. While I don’t enjoy it much, I do see it as complex. Some elements do seem to be 19th century, but others are just very complicated. It’s possible he wrote it, but I don’t see Cowdery being in on it. I like Cowdery more than Joseph Smith, probably because I think he’s the only one who was honest about polygamy and consistently rejected it. Sidney Rigdon wouldn’t have had to be complicit except if it was related to the completely discredited Spaulding manuscript.
I really like that Cowdery held to his guns despite loosing his membership over it, refusing to back down about the Fanny Alger thing. My whole life I was taught different things about that whole story, and not until the Bushman book did I get more info. I like Oliver as well.
I will post more as time passes. There are some things in this Palmer book I find compelling as well, but not all–some of it feels like a stretch, like he is grasping at creating a plausible scenario for specific situations or circumstances. The “Golden Pot” narrative seems stretched–but it is interesting.
Did the Smith family read aloud to their children? How can I reconcile that JS had such a rudimentary education, and yet be versed in these other books–especially when his mother said he wasn’t pulled into books that much? They must have had books read, or stories told..something. This is a hole I see in Palmer’s material.
Thoughts?
Rob4 said: Quote:I really like that Cowdery held to his guns despite loosing his membership over it, refusing to back down about the Fanny Alger thing. My whole life I was taught different things about that whole story, and not until the Bushman book did I get more info. I like Oliver as well.
I like Oliver too. To be fair, he did come back into the church in SLC. I wonder what that reception was like?
If I read about it, I don’t remember.
I’ve always thought the title was a bit snooty – kind of like McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”. Otherwise, what Hawk said, especially that the Book of Mormon is significantly more complex than most people (especially members) realize.
Minyan Man wrote:Rob4 said:
Quote:I really like that Cowdery held to his guns despite loosing his membership over it, refusing to back down about the Fanny Alger thing. My whole life I was taught different things about that whole story, and not until the Bushman book did I get more info. I like Oliver as well.
I like Oliver too. To be fair, he did come back into the church in SLC. I wonder what that reception was like?
If I read about it, I don’t remember.
I also like Oliver and believe him to be a good man. For the record, he did rejoin the church after Joseph’s death but because of poor health never made it Utah. He had married a Whitmer and died at his brother-in-law’s home in Missouri in 1850. However, Young apparently respected him and corresponded with him. I wonder if the respect was mutual considering Young’s adherence to polygamy.
From Adam Miller’s “Future Mormon” (p. 111): Quote:Don’t assume that the Book of Mormon is or isn’t historically true. History is not one thing.
Makethe Book of Mormon historically true in as many times and as many places and to whatever degree you’re able. Shop it around the world… Quote:What other kinds of truths can you make with the Book of Mormon? Can you make a ward with it? Songs? Chapels? Psychiatric treatments? Movies? Paintings? Pharmaceutical advances? Poetry? Political campaigns? Can you make a life with it? Can you step out of the zombie-like haze of anxiety and distraction you tend to live it by way of it? Can you make joy with it? Can you assemble the body of Christ? Circulate Spirit? Can you, as the Book of Mormon demands, make a family with it? Can you use to to keep the children from being cast off forever? Can you adapt and extend and strengthen the promises made to the fathers? Will you allow the book to claim you and counter-claim it in return?
The question isn’t: is the Book of Mormon accurate? Does it harmonize with some simple, pristine, ready-made, pre-established real? The question is: given the claim and counter-claim of the covenant that mutually composes us, what kind of worlds can the book and I make and how many can those worlds gather in?”
I quote this not because I feel the same way – I’m sorting things out – but more out of curiosity and admiration for the way he approaches it.
Ann wrote:From Adam Miller’s “Future Mormon” (p. 111):
Quote:Don’t assume that the Book of Mormon is or isn’t historically true. History is not one thing.
Makethe Book of Mormon historically true in as many times and as many places and to whatever degree you’re able. Shop it around the world… Quote:What other kinds of truths can you make with the Book of Mormon? Can you make a ward with it? Songs? Chapels? Psychiatric treatments? Movies? Paintings? Pharmaceutical advances? Poetry? Political campaigns? Can you make a life with it? Can you step out of the zombie-like haze of anxiety and distraction you tend to live it by way of it? Can you make joy with it? Can you assemble the body of Christ? Circulate Spirit? Can you, as the Book of Mormon demands, make a family with it? Can you use to to keep the children from being cast off forever? Can you adapt and extend and strengthen the promises made to the fathers? Will you allow the book to claim you and counter-claim it in return?
The question isn’t: is the Book of Mormon accurate? Does it harmonize with some simple, pristine, ready-made, pre-established real? The question is: given the claim and counter-claim of the covenant that mutually composes us, what kind of worlds can the book and I make and how many can those worlds gather in?”
I quote this not because I feel the same way – I’m sorting things out – but more out of curiosity and admiration for the way he approaches it.
Ann,…I appreciate the quote. Can I carefully say this quote sounds very apologetic to me? I think you can take this perspective on
manybooks and gather people through them. The book “Tenant of Wildfell Hall” is, in my opinion, a wonderful book about morality and the good guys win in the end. I think you can teach massive amounts of moral goodness from it. But, we don’t claim it is the “most correct of any book on the earth” like the BofM does… From a post done by Johnathan Ellis on BOM historicity: https://medium.com/@jellistx/fact-checking-mormon-history-could-joseph-smith-have-authored-the-book-of-mormon-8b5a29a6f519#.9okktef3u
Quote:In the twenty-first century, it’s almost tautological that one learns at school, and school is where one learns. But in the nineteenth century it was more common than not to take advantage of informal tutoring as well as school attendance in the way we think of it today.
Joseph had ample opportunity for such informal tutoring. Joseph’s father worked as a schoolteacher for a time. So did Joseph’s first wife, Emma. And Joseph’s distant cousin Oliver Cowdery, who served as Joseph’s scribe for the majority of the Book of Mormon, also taught school.
Even if we take Joseph’s formal schooling as the only educational experience available to him, lack of education was not an insurmountable obstacle for talented authors. Mark Twain left school for good at the age of twelve. Abraham Lincoln’s total formal education may have consisted of as few as twelve months. Both of these contemporaries of Joseph Smith authored works of comparable complexity and profundity as the Book of Mormon.
Now, having quoted that, I thought some of his essay was stronger than other aspects, but since you asked about the lack of education, I thought this was a valuable perspective. However, I still think it’s a complex book from the number and perspectives of the various narrators. I’m in the jury’s out category.
Actually that Miller quote from Future Mormon struck me as both apologetic and kind of a smoke screen, which is hard for me to say since I adore 90% of what he writes. That was my least favorite passage in the book. It doesn’t seem like the way I would approach the BOM.
I have learned not to read Adam Miller’s books just before going to bed. I am a morning person and by late in the evening I can read all the words, but I immediatly think “now what did I just read?” as my comprehension nears zero with his complicated sentences. But then again Adam joked in one podcast that as a philosopher it was his job to take simple concepts and make them complex (at least he has a sense of humor). I’ll be done with this book in another day or 2 tops,…and on to the next. James Strang…..BIG RED FLAG…
And all of JS living family joined that church and “testified” that Strang was the successor of JS?
If that is factual, WOW! ….
Rob4Hope wrote:I’ll be done with this book in another day or 2 tops,…and on to the next.
James Strang…..BIG RED FLAG…
And all of JS living family joined that church and “testified” that Strang was the successor of JS?
If that is factual, WOW! ….
The apologetic answer to that is that it supports the idea that JS was genuine. Else, if they thought or knew that JS was a fraud, why would they eagerly join Strang’s movement? It’s a good answer, actually.
That being said, the premise of JS and the BoM being fraudulent has grown a lot for me recently, for a number of reasons. A fascinating work, regardless, for the sheer audacity of it, but I’m seeing a lot of smoke emanating from the BoM, and that is increasingly indicating fire.
I don’t think that everyone needed to be in on it with JS, or anyone, necessarily. One person with a gift for story telling and deception could do it, with the others oblivious. Or, potentially, some others were complicit at certain times and in certain ways. It doesn’t answer everything perfectly, but it fits in the realm of possibility.
Rob4Hope wrote:Ann wrote:From Adam Miller’s “Future Mormon” (p. 111):
Quote:Don’t assume that the Book of Mormon is or isn’t historically true. History is not one thing.
Makethe Book of Mormon historically true in as many times and as many places and to whatever degree you’re able. Shop it around the world… Quote:What other kinds of truths can you make with the Book of Mormon? Can you make a ward with it? Songs? Chapels? Psychiatric treatments? Movies? Paintings? Pharmaceutical advances? Poetry? Political campaigns? Can you make a life with it? Can you step out of the zombie-like haze of anxiety and distraction you tend to live it by way of it? Can you make joy with it? Can you assemble the body of Christ? Circulate Spirit? Can you, as the Book of Mormon demands, make a family with it? Can you use to to keep the children from being cast off forever? Can you adapt and extend and strengthen the promises made to the fathers? Will you allow the book to claim you and counter-claim it in return?
The question isn’t: is the Book of Mormon accurate? Does it harmonize with some simple, pristine, ready-made, pre-established real? The question is: given the claim and counter-claim of the covenant that mutually composes us, what kind of worlds can the book and I make and how many can those worlds gather in?”
I quote this not because I feel the same way – I’m sorting things out – but more out of curiosity and admiration for the way he approaches it.
Ann,…I appreciate the quote. Can I carefully say this quote sounds very apologetic to me? I think you can take this perspective on
manybooks and gather people through them. The book “Tenant of Wildfell Hall” is, in my opinion, a wonderful book about morality and the good guys win in the end. I think you can teach massive amounts of moral goodness from it. But, we don’t claim it is the “most correct of any book on the earth” like the BofM does… To me, it does’t sound apologetic at all. The author is outright saying not to bother trying to establish the book’s truth. Instead, focus on whether it can create a better world where people believe in it. That is the power of the book –in its ability to attract people’s hearts and change the world for the better. It doesn’t have to be true to do that — it just was to be accepted by people.
I still remember when I started my career as a teacher, I was talking with a group of professors about getting a class to buy-in to some of the concepts I was teaching. I blurted this out in front of a group of teachers “The students don’t have to understand it, they just have to ACCEPT IT”. They thought that was insightful.
I think the BoM is like that to be powerful — it doesn’t have to be true to be powerful or useful — people just need to believe it is and see it as a book of guidance in which they can believe. Perception, not truth is everything in influencing behavior.
And I think JS made a religious career out of that distinction.
Quote:To me, it does’t sound apologetic at all. The author is outright saying not to bother trying to establish the book’s truth. Instead, focus on whether it can create a better world where people believe in it. That is the power of the book –in its ability to attract people’s hearts and change the world for the better. It doesn’t have to be true to do that — it just was to be accepted by people.
Maybe it’ll just turn out that I was born at the wrong time. It’s hard to even care about its “Truth” while everyone is haggling and creating cultural litmas tests regarding its “truth.” (I’m not sure I have the T’s right, but you know what I mean?) And because there’s so much Truth out there. I’ve been doing what the Givenses recommended: finding my own watering holes. I enjoy reading the New Testament more than the Book of Mormon, not because thousands of NT scholars have settled all their debates, but because it isn’t much of a discussion within Mormonism, and I’m not confronted every week with the realization that I don’t believe like 90% (?) of my fellow ward members, and that they’d consider me a danger to their kids in a classroom.But I need to try harder to clear all that away. So his take on it in that quote amazes me, how he really doesn’t seem to care.
Rob, do you do anything other than read? 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.