[Melvin Jones]

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

[Melvin Jones]

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.

[Melvin Jones]

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.

[Melvin Jones]

Do I have to have a point when I link an article?

[Melvin Jones]

Here’s a great panel discussion on the subject.

https://youtu.be/r4t43Uo2BLs

The fine the SEC gave the church and EPA was nominal (as a % of its size) because it didn’t violate the spirit of the law, which was to prevent a fund of that size to manipulate markets and take over boards.

[Melvin Jones]

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]

Controversy because people thought Jesus in the Chosen was quoting 3 Nephi, “I am the Law and the Light.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbG400LvCcU

It’s nice to see the theology of the Book of Mormon get airtime instead of just “Hehe Native Americans are descended from Jews hehe.”

[Melvin Jones]

Roy wrote:

I actually feel that this response is pretty genius. If he says that Mormons are Christians then he ticks off the evangelical crowd. If he says that Mormons are not Christian then he ticks off the Mormon crowd. Instead he claims not to be able to tell Christianity by membership in a church or faith tradition. Instead that some individuals of any faith may not be true Christians and also that some true Christians may be found in almost any faith.

Masterful response.

He’s actually not alone in saying that. There are evangelicals who believe people in any denomination (including us) can be saved as long as they trust only Jesus.

[Melvin Jones]

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.

[Melvin Jones]

My mission presidents were a Fortune 500 CEO and the founder of Canada’s largest oil company. I emulated them at every point possible, because I wanted to be successful, faults be damned.

[Melvin Jones]

DarkJedi wrote:

I had also read Leonard Arrington’s The Mormon Experience and 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]

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 the path/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.

[Melvin Jones]

nibbler wrote:

Now I’m curious about how being more open to a magic worldview translates to being more comfortable with authority. Which authority? The authority of the rules or natural laws that govern magic?

Sorry, I misspoke. Those two aren’t causally related to each otherm I should’ve said “the former.” Being born outside the modern West means I’m more open to the magic worldview, and being from a Confucian background means I’m more comfortable with authority.

[Melvin Jones]

nibbler wrote:

Welcome. I had a question…

Melvin Jones wrote:

Also, that means I’m comfortable with the “magical” worldview, although I have no direct experience with it myself. So things like sticking your face in a hat don’t seem bothersome. It also means I’m a more comfortable with authority.

Do you mean you’re more comfortable with authority as another aspect that is a part of the Asian culture or did you mean you’re more comfortable with authority because you’re more comfortable with a magic worldview? I could read it either way.

The former. Being Asian made me more comfortable with both. I have a slight Confucian loyalty streak

[Melvin Jones]

nibbler wrote:

Melvin Jones wrote:

Bushman also said that the closer you get to original sources, the stronger Joseph Smith becomes.

That’s certainly one outcome. For me, reading Rough Stone Rolling had the effect of humanizing Joseph Smith. So much of the official church narratives have the aim of mythologizing him, so it was refreshing to see a Smith that was more grounded in reality.

My lasting impression of Smith after reading RSR was that he was a lot like a little kid with a vivid imagination that was trying to build a clubhouse but then got in way over his head.

I had even more original sources in mind when I read that quote.

For example, for afar, Joseph Smith looks like a sex maniac. Read the accounts of his wives, and it appears less so.

I first learned of Joseph Smith’s polygamy as a teenager when I read it in a book in the local library called The Mormon Experience. I thought it was an anti-Mormon book so I didn’t keep reading. Then one day, I saw the ward librarian with the book, and when I asked her about it, she said it was actually commissioned by the Church.

Anyway, I knew of JS’s faults before reading RSR, but it still had an impact reading about the gorey details. On the other hand, I had read a lot of apologetic material about the Book of Mormon, ancient studies, etc. and learning more about JS’s origins made it seem even more implausible that he made it all up.

[Author]

Posts