- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
nibbler wrote:
For all its details on other subjects, RSR treats the subject of polygamy very lightly.Like I said earlier, it’s one path/outcome, not
thepath/outcome. It almost feels as though the argument being put forward is that if one were to study things more then they’d reach a specific conclusion.
Right, people come to a range of conclusions. But my point in the OP was, I just saw a Mormon Stories episode that showed when the most rabid anti-Mormon examines primary sources (like the Joseph Smith Papers, earliest text of the BOM), they started to find JS relatable and likeable. They’re also saying the First Vision is historically plausible, as the details match those of other visions of the era.So there is some convergence when people read the same thing.
DarkJedi wrote:
I had also read Leonard Arrington’sThe Mormon Experienceand still have my copy 40-odd years later. Arrington was a pioneer of sorts when he started to shine some light on long hidden truths well before they were more commonly known and long before the internet forced the church’s hand. He’s actually a hero of mine.
History textbooks in Asian countries are often used to promote nationalism, even in liberal democracies. That’s why Japan is always in hot water for glossing over WWII atrocities.The gospels were written in the same propagandistic way.
For me, I mean, why wouldn’t we expect hagiography over academic history from a church?
Melvin Jones wrote:
Right, people come to a range of conclusions. But my point in the OP was, I just saw a Mormon Stories episode that showed when the most rabid anti-Mormon examines primary sources (like the Joseph Smith Papers, earliest text of the BOM), they started to find JS relatable and likeable. They’re also saying the First Vision is historically plausible, as the details match those of other visions of the era.So there is some convergence when people read the same thing.
I have been listening to a lot a Hamilton the musical lately. Hamilton is the protagonist and we want to cheer for him. He also seems to be driven, unbending, pedantic, verbose, and difficult without apology. He was amazing and did important things for the country. His great strengths were also so pronounced as to be his greatest weaknesses (and led directly to his death).
I see JS the historical figure in much the same way. I’ve allowed myself to look for understanding. I have discarded the litmus test of JS is a prophet therefore the BoM is true and the church that JS founded is the only one on the earth with the true authority. I see JS as a contemporary to Hamilton – both great men that dreamed big and made something happen and also had great flaws.
Quote:Negative facts are not necessarily as damning as they appear at first sight. Put in another context along side other facts, they do not necessarily destroy Joseph Smith’s reputation.
Yes, negative facts destroy the whitewashed picture that we have come to venerate. But that was never the true JS and the whitewashed picture is not being fair to the historical JS in the same way that the demonized picture is not being fair, it denies him his humanity.
Quote:They often say they learned the Prophet was human. They don’t expect him to be a model of perfect deportment as they once thought. He may have taken a glass of wine from time to time, or scolded his associates, or even have made business errors.
This quote stands out to me as gaslighting. Specifically the last sentence where it says “or even have made business errors” as if that was the biggest example of the JS’s imperfections. I suppose it would be too much to expect Richard Bushman to say “He may have taken a glass of wine from time to time, or spoken his own opinion (that turned out to be spectacularly wrong) in the name of the Lord, or even manipulated women he had significant authority over to become his plural wives.”
But alas, I guess I am more comfortable with those examples of the humanity of JS than are most members.
This isn’t exactly what I had in mind, but tangentially related:
Quote:Mormon writers are more inclined to put the reports from people close to Joseph Smith into the story. Because the recovery of the Book of Mormon is a sacred story, every detail is relished…Most of the detailed sources were written by believers, and to follow them too closely infuses a narrative with their faith. Secular historians are, therefore, more inclined than Mormons to suppress source material from Joseph’s closest associates.
From Bushman’s chapter “the recovery of the Book of Mormon” in Noel Reynolds’s volume.He also said in RSR apologists are better qualified than critics.
Yes, I think I agree with RB that you can craft the narrative by cherry picking favorable and faithful witness testimony and ignoring or disparaging non-favorable testimony. I am reminded of the “transformation” of BY during the succession crisis. Some may have observed this transformation but it appears to have been a minority. Yet, we highlight the more miraculous tellings and present it as something that was universally discernable.
Roy wrote:I am reminded of the “transformation” of BY during the succession crisis. Some may have observed this transformation but it appears to have been a minority. Yet, we highlight the more miraculous tellings and present it as something that was universally discernable.
You got me curious. How many people were there total? There were 57 first-hand accounts.
Melvin Jones wrote:
Roy wrote:I am reminded of the “transformation” of BY during the succession crisis. Some may have observed this transformation but it appears to have been a minority. Yet, we highlight the more miraculous tellings and present it as something that was universally discernable.
You got me curious. How many people were there total? There were 57 first-hand accounts.
I am understanding you to say that there were 57 first hand accounts that reported the “transformation.”
Unfortunately, I would not give those accounts much weight based on when they were given and by whom.
This seems very relevant to what Bro. RB wrote:
Melvin Jones wrote:
Secular historians are, therefore, more inclined than Mormons to suppress source material from Joseph’s closest associates.
If the accounts were gathered by individuals in Utah that had followed BY then they would be highly motivated to report seeing the transformation out of loyalty to BY and the church and to reassure themselves (and others) that everyone had made the right choice to follow BY and go to Utah.I would place much greater weight on any journal entries from that night. My theory goes that journal entries from that night would be the most accurate and be written before word got around about what some others saw and what you too should have seen if only you had enough spirit/light of Christ in you.
I believe the account of Emma pushing the pregnant Eliza Snow down a flight of stairs is similar. As Bro. RB reports in RSR, the account was given during the Utah period by someone that had motivation to make Emma look bad (because she had set up her sons in opposition to the “Brighamite” movement) but it simply could not have happened as reported based on other records.
Roy wrote:
Melvin Jones wrote:
Roy wrote:I am reminded of the “transformation” of BY during the succession crisis. Some may have observed this transformation but it appears to have been a minority. Yet, we highlight the more miraculous tellings and present it as something that was universally discernable.
You got me curious. How many people were there total? There were 57 first-hand accounts.
I am understanding you to say that there were 57 first hand accounts that reported the “transformation.”
Unfortunately, I would not give those accounts much weight based on when they were given and by whom.
This seems very relevant to what Bro. RB wrote:
Melvin Jones wrote:
Secular historians are, therefore, more inclined than Mormons to suppress source material from Joseph’s closest associates.
If the accounts were gathered by individuals in Utah that had followed BY then they would be highly motivated to report seeing the transformation out of loyalty to BY and the church and to reassure themselves (and others) that everyone had made the right choice to follow BY and go to Utah.I would place much greater weight on any journal entries from that night. My theory goes that journal entries from that night would be the most accurate and be written before word got around about what some others saw and what you too should have seen if only you had enough spirit/light of Christ in you.
I believe the account of Emma pushing the pregnant Eliza Snow down a flight of stairs is similar. As Bro. RB reports in RSR, the account was given during the Utah period by someone that had motivation to make Emma look bad (because she had set up her sons in opposition to the “Brighamite” movement) but it simply could not have happened as reported based on other records.
Ok I agree that with public miracles, only people who are spiritually transformed see things. Others see nothing.
What do you make of my statement in the OP, that exmos cand members come to some convergence when examining primary sources, i.e., Joseph Smith is likeable and the First Vision was historically plausible.
I know far too many ex-Mormons that have not reached that conclusion but I suppose the comeback will be that they didn’t study hard enough or study the right things. Why is finding Joseph Smith likeable important?
Melvin Jones wrote:
Ok I agree that with public miracles, only people who are spiritually transformed see things. Others see nothing.
I think that this is problematic and creates a strong incentive for people to say that they saw the miracle – even if they have to convince themselves after the fact. This is also what RB was talking about when he said “Secular historians are, therefore, more inclined than Mormons to suppress source material from Joseph’s closest associates.” As a secular historian, you can paint a picture of a world where people are generally more comfortable with miraculous explanations for things and provide context for their beliefs and motivations.How should a secular historian proceed when the mythos or legend of a particular event differs from some 1st person accounts recorded right after the events took place. What matters more – What actually happened or how contemporary individuals interpreted what happened in order to motivate themselves and later generations to action?
(as a side note, I am trying to imagine different 1st person accounts of the parting of the red sea. Some saying that the water miraculously parted and others describing a long but relatively uneventful journey along the banks of the red sea.)
Melvin Jones wrote:
What do you make of my statement in the OP, that exmos cand members come to some convergence when examining primary sources, i.e., Joseph Smith is likeable and the First Vision was historically plausible.
I think that the historical JS was quite charismatic, charming, engaging, and persuasive. I also believe that the description of the First Vision was not terribly uncommon for this area and time period (second great awakening).
nibbler wrote:
I know far too many ex-Mormons that have not reached that conclusion but I suppose the comeback will be that they didn’t study hard enough or study the right things.Why is finding Joseph Smith likeable important?
I wasn’t planning a comeback.
Good to know. Well I can definitively say that the theory that the closer you get to primary sources the more likable Joseph Smith becomes is not universally true. I suppose “likeable” as a descriptor is pretty subjective. nibbler wrote:
Good to know. Well I can say definitively say that the theory that the closer you get to primary sources the more likable Joseph Smith becomes is not universally true.
How “primary” are we talking? RSR?
I, for one, have never read a significant chunk of the JSP or the Book of Mormon easiest text
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.