1 Nephi and the First Vision -- Some interesting parallels

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_ozemc
_Emeritus
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by _ozemc »

Ray A wrote:
Runtu wrote:I respectfully disagree. No genius was required.


Everyone is entitled to an opinion. One of the things that swayed my opinion (when in the early '90s I was considering Smith authorship) was talking to an Australian LDS historian (who has a doctorate in history) and her describing to me the time, enormous research, writing, and re-writing that it takes to produce one book. Most authors will realise this (even those who believe in Smith authorship). She said that this convinced her that it was impossible for someone to write the Book of Mormon under the conditions Joseph did.

Again, that was her opinion.


Well, just for an alternate view (somewhat), I did read this review of Stephen King's book 'On Writing', in which he writes "Want to be a good writer? Read! A lot! And then write! A lot! And write fast: The first draft of a novel should take no longer than three months."

Of course, not everyone is a Stephen King!
"What does God need with a starship?" - Captain James T. Kirk

Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch. - Robert Orben
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

Runtu wrote:Where I differ from your expert is that I don't believe he wrote it in the 60-day window LDS believers posit. I think he had at the very least the outline and major sections done before the scribes ever put pen to paper. That would explain the panic when Harris lost the 116 pages. He knew he had to rewrite it from memory, and it wasn't until he came up with the idea of the small plates that he could pick up where he left off.

If he wrote it, as people assert, in 60 days, without notes, while peering into a hat, that would indeed require genius.


I have considered this too, as did the historian I referred to. Even allowing for that it would still have been a mammoth task. Where are the note outlines? They weren't present at the translation. This would mean he would have had to memorise everything he wrote in outline, word for word, then dictate it. If we can believe Emma's comment that he didn't know Jerusalem had walls, that would be kind of odd if it was previously written in outline. Then, how large were the outlines? Where and when did he do all this writing and re-writing, and where did he hide the notes (which have never been found). A serious reading of Emma's comments, and her firsthand observations, should dispel any idea like this. But again, that's your perogative to believe what you do, but I see little evidence supporting this idea.
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: which came first?

Post by _wenglund »

moksha wrote:
wenglund wrote: There are also some striking parallels between Lehi/Nephi's vision of the tree of life and several dreams had by Joseph Smith Sr. (as described in Lucy's book on the History of Joseph Smith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Wade, could you give us the details?


From pages 43 - 45, of Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith:

I thought that I stood in a large and beautiful meadow, which lay a short distance from the house in which we lived, and that everything around me wore an aspect of peculiar pleasantness. The first thing that attracted my special attention in this magnificent meadow, was a very pure and clear stream of water, which ran through the midst of it; and as I traced this stream, I discovered two trees standing upon its margin, both of which were on the same side of the stream. These trees were very beautiful, they were well proportioned, and towered with majestic beauty to a great height. Their branches, which added to their symmetry and glory, commenced near the top, and spread themselves in luxurious grandeur around. I gazed upon them with wonder and admiration; and after beholding them a short time, I saw one of them was surrounded with a bright belt, that shone like burnished gold, but far more brilliantly. Presently, a gentle breeze passed by, and the tree encircled with this golden zone, bent gracefully before the wind, and waved its beautiful branches in the light air. As the wind increased, this tree assumed the most lively and animated appearance, and seemed to express in its motions the utmost joy and happiness. If it had been an intelligent creature, it could not have conveyed, by the power of language, the idea of joy and gratitude so perfectly as it did; and even the stream that rolled beneath it, shared, apparently, every sensation felt by the tree, for, as the branches danced over the stream, it would swell gently, then recede again with a motion as soft as the breathing of an infant, but as lively as the dancing of a sunbeam. The belt also partook of the same influence, and, as it moved in unison with the motion of the stream and of the tree, it increased continually in refulgence and magnitude, until it became exceedingly glorious.

"I turned my eyes upon its fellow, which stood opposite; but it was not surrounded with the belt of light as the former, and it stood erect and fixed as a pillar of marble. No matter how strong the wind blew over it, not a leaf was stirred, not a bough was bent; but obstinately stiff it stood, scorning alike the zephyr's breath, or the power of the mighty storm.

"I wondered at what I saw, and said in my heart, What can be the meaning of all this? And the interpretation given me was, that these personated my husband and his oldest brother, Jesse Smith; that the stubborn and unyielding tree was like Jesse; that the other, more pliant and flexible, was like Joseph, my husband; that the breath of heaven, which passed over them, was the pure and undefiled gospel of the Son of God, which gospel Jesse would always resist, but which Joseph, when he was more advanced in life, would hear and receive with his whole heart, and rejoice therein; and unto him would be added intelligence, happiness, glory, and everlasting life."

Here is another dream, (see page 65):

"I dreamed," said he, "that I was traveling on foot, and I was very sick, and so lame I could hardly walk. My guide, as usual, attended me. Traveling some time together, I became so lame that I thought I could go no farther. I informed my guide of this and asked him what I should do. He told me to travel on till I came to a certain garden. So I arose and started for this garden. While on my way thither, I asked my guide how I should know the place. He said, 'Proceed until you come to a very large gate; open this and you will see a garden, blooming with the most beautiful flowers that your eyes ever beheld, and there you shall be healed.' By limping along with great difficulty, I finally reached the gate; and, on entering it, I saw the before-mentioned garden, which was beautiful beyond description, being filled with the most delicate flowers of every kind and color. In the garden were walks about three and a half feet wide, which were set on both sides with marble stones. One of the walks ran from the gate through the centre of the garden; and on each side of this was a very richly carved seat, and on each seat were placed six wooden images, each of which was the size of a very large man. When I came to the first image on the right side, it arose and bowed to me with much deference. I then turned to the one which sat opposite me, on the left side, and it arose and bowed to me in the same manner as the first. I continued turning, first to the right and then to the left, until the whole twelve had made their obeisance, after which I was entirely healed. I then asked my guide the meaning of all this, but I awoke before I received an answer."

Here is yet another (from page 66):

"I thought I was walking alone; I was much fatigued, nevertheless I continued traveling. It seemed to me that I was going to meeting, that it was the day of judgment, and that I was going to be judged.

"When I came in sight of the meeting-house, I saw multitudes of people coming from every direction, and pressing with great anxiety towards the door of this great building; but I thought I should get there in time, hence there was no need of being in a hurry. But, on arriving at the door, I found it shut; I knocked for admission and was informed by the porter that I had come too late. I felt exceedingly troubled and prayed earnestly for admittance. Presently I found that my flesh was perishing. I continued to pray, still my flesh withered upon my bones. I was in a state of almost total despair, when the porter asked me if I had done all that was necessary in order to receive admission. I replied that I had done all that was in my power to do. 'Then,' observed the porter, 'justice must be satisfied; after this, mercy hath her claims.'

"It then occurred to me to call upon God, in the name of his Son Jesus; and I cried out, in the agony of my soul, 'Oh, Lord God, I beseech thee, in the name of Jesus Christ, to forgive my sins.' After which I felt considerably strengthened and I began to mend. The porter or angel then remarked that it was necessary to plead the merits of Jesus, for he was the advocate with the Father, and a Mediator between God and man.

"I was now made quite whole and the door was opened, but on entering, I awoke."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

ozemc wrote:Well, just for an alternate view (somewhat), I did read this review of Stephen King's book 'On Writing', in which he writes "Want to be a good writer? Read! A lot! And then write! A lot! And write fast: The first draft of a novel should take no longer than three months."

Of course, not everyone is a Stephen King!


Yes, the first draft should take three months. I doubt that Stephen King dictated his novels to an amanuesis.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Ray A wrote:I have considered this too, as did the historian I referred to. Even allowing for that it would still have been a mammoth task. Where are the note outlines? They weren't present at the translation. This would mean he would have had to memorise everything he wrote in outline, word for word, then dictate it. If we can believe Emma's comment that he didn't know Jerusalem had walls, that would be kind of odd if it was previously written in outline. Then, how large were the outlines? Where and when did he do all this writing and re-writing, and where did he hide the notes (which have never been found). A serious reading of Emma's comments, and her firsthand observations, should dispel any idea like this. But again, that's your perogative to believe what you do, but I see little evidence supporting this idea.


It's your prerogative to accept the "witness" testimony at face value. I don't, but that's neither here nor there.

Sure, the book is impressive in its own sort of way, but nothing miraculous.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_jhammel
_Emeritus
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:49 pm

as one who does favor a Spalding/Rigdon explanation...

Post by _jhammel »

charity wrote:
DonBradley wrote:Ray,

By comparing the Nephi-Joseph Smith parallels to the Lincoln-Kennedy parallels, you seem to be implying that they're on the same footing--that the Nephi-JS parallels aren't meaningful because we find similarly strong, but meaningless, parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy. This strikes me as quite odd.

Whether such parallels are meaningful depends in part on whether there is a plausible causal connection between them. Outside of very arcane conjectures, there is no causal pathway from the details of Lincoln's life to the details of Kennedy's. Is the case the same with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? Smith is the one who dictated the book, which would have allowed him to consciously or unconsciously place himself within its narrative. The baseline probability of an author (or even unconventional translator) sneaking bits of himself into a text is quite high, while the baseline probability of one person's life being magically duplicated in another's much later life seems quite low. You're comparing very different things.

Don


It only works if Joseph was writing the book, not if he was translating it.

If you are saying that Joseph Smith wrote it because of parallels that are seen, this must mean that you reject the Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding theories? What would be their motivation to write in elements of Joseph's life?


I'll answer that.

Spalding never knew Joseph Smith and died when Joseph was only 10, hundreds of miles away. I'm sure anything he may have written that seemingly parellels Joseph's life is either 1) coincidental, or 2) exists because some elements of the Smith life stories are influenced by Spalding's writings.

I suspect Rigdon knew Joseph Smith as early as 1826, and much of the Book of Mormon was written after their meeting. I think the more specific mentions of Smith in the Book of Mormon were produced after they met, with the intent of convincing readers of Joseph's divine calling.

Although I believe Rigdon and Spalding were key contributors to the Book of Mormon, that doesn't exclude the possibility that Joseph could have had a great deal of influence on the Book of Mormon text, and perhaps molded the Book of Mormon to be somewhat autobiographical.

So, I think Rigdon and/or Smith could have been responsible for inserting references to Joseph or elements of his life into the Book of Mormon. But as I stated above, elements of the Smith life stories may have also been influenced by the Book of Mormon, and I tend to not see the Book of Mormon as Smith autobiography.

If the more subtle parallels between the Book of Mormon and Smith's life are autobiographical as they appear in the Book of Mormon, then I think that would have likely been Smith's doing. Rigdon would have had a use for the more direct references, and Spalding would have had to have been a prophet himself.

Jeff
_Abinadi's Fire
_Emeritus
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:49 pm

Post by _Abinadi's Fire »

Ray A wrote:Yes, the first draft should take three months. I doubt that Stephen King dictated his novels to an amanuesis.


If he was recounting and embellishing events from his own life, there wouldn't even be a need for a draft.
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

Abinadi's Fire wrote:
Ray A wrote:Yes, the first draft should take three months. I doubt that Stephen King dictated his novels to an amanuesis.


If he was recounting and embellishing events from his own life, there wouldn't even be a need for a draft.


Abinadi, respectfully, I would suggest that your knowledge of "novel writing" (it appears you believe the Book of Mormon is only a novel) is sadly lacking. I have written 5. You can't just dictate out of your memory without a draft.

Have you studied the Book of Mormon? If you have you will notice the complexity of the "plot." It isn't a boy meets girl, boys loses girl, boy gets girl back kind of story.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

Abinadi's Fire wrote:If he was recounting and embellishing events from his own life, there wouldn't even be a need for a draft.


You missed the points I made to Don. Or maybe you didn't read them. The Book of Mormon is not an autobiography, regardless of some similarities to some aspects of Joseph Smith. These are some of the characters in the Book of Mormon:

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Category:Book ... Characters

Do they all follow the pattern of Joseph Smith's life?
_Abinadi's Fire
_Emeritus
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:49 pm

Post by _Abinadi's Fire »

Ray A wrote:You missed the points I made to Don. Or maybe you didn't read them. The Book of Mormon is not an autobiography, regardless of some similarities to some aspects of Joseph Smith. These are some of the characters in the Book of Mormon:

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Category:Book ... Characters

Do they all follow the pattern of Joseph Smith's life?


I read your points, I just disagree.

It is identifying the other characters that has been the most fun for me, actually.

Compare Alma's baptismal account with Oliver Cowdery's retelling of his baptism, for instance.

The book isn't limited to just Joseph Smith's life, it also contains accountings of those who were closest to him during its development.
Post Reply