Did Joseph Smith Borrow from Thomas Dick?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Did Joseph Smith Borrow from Thomas Dick?

Post by _dartagnan »

This is a take off from the Divine Council thread. This peripheral issue about Dick and Smith was taking on a life of its own so I wanted to organize them in two different thread; I plan to add more later to that thread regarding the Divine Council. Anyway, I thought it would be useful to cite what Joseph Smith had said about divine intelligences. This comes from his June 1844 sermon:

Joseph Smith:

“Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them.”

“The intelligence of spirits had no beginning; neither will it have an end.”

“The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself.”

“Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.”

I think Dick's book provides striking similarities with Joseph Smith theology. I divided up six different areas I thought worthy to note. Unlike Smith, Dick provides an enormous amount of commentary on this subject. I jotted down about 45 references and I doubt I covered even a third of what was in his book.

Thomas Dick:

1. The fundamental infinite aspect of our spiritual makeup is defined as intelligence. Life on other planets: Intelligences will become people on some world or another:

delightful association with all the holy intelligences that people his immense empire. –p.132

And in other systems, in the distant regions of space, we perceive, that it is one great end of the Creator, to diffuse light and splendour throughout all the provinces of his immense empire, in order to unvail his glorious works to the eyes of unnumbered intelligences. – p.65

intelligences which occupy those distant provinces of the Creators empire. –p.154


2. God’s moral law is universal throughout the Universe and it is our actions of kindness and affection that bring us joy:

angels and other superior intelligences proceed on the same general principles. - p.161

Now, we have every reason to conclude, that moral action extends over the whole empire of God, that Benevolence exerts its noblest energies among the inhabitants of distant worlds, and that it is chiefly through the medium of reciprocal kindness and affection that ecstatic joy pervades the hearts of celestial intelligences. - p.66

he who is devoted to the practice of holiness, who loves his Creator with supreme affection, and his neighbour as himself, who adds to his faith "virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly-kindness, and charity," is, by such graces, rendered fit for everlasting communion with the Father of spirits, and for delightful association with all the holy intelligences that people his immense empire. –p.132


3. Those who have moved on from mortal life progress in knowledge and virtue:

there are moral intelligences who are insensible to the displays of the Divine glory, and altogether indifferent, whether or not they make progress in the knowledge of their Creator. – p.139-140

the grand aim of celestial intelligences will be, to increase in the knowledge and the love of God; and in proportion as their views of the glories of his empire are enlarged, in a similar proportion will their conceptions of his boundless attributes be expanded, and their praises and adorations ascend in sublimer strains to Him who sits upon the throne of the universe, who alone is " worthy to receive glory, honour, and power," from every order of his creatures. – p.169

intelligences of the highest order who have attained the most sublime heights of knowledge and virtue. –p.243

The indispensable necessity of love to mankind, to every class of holy intelligences, as a preparation for heaven, will appear when we consider, that we shall mingle in their society, and hold intimate fellowship with them in the eternal world. –p.267


4. Some will progress more than others:

in the various orders of intelligences. –p.202

superior intelligences, such as angels, and redeemed men, in a future state, must have their attention directed to the science of numbers, unless we suppose, what is contrary to Scripture, that their knowledge and capacities of intellect will be more limited than ours are in the present state. – p.157-158


5. Intelligences are infinite and eternal:

his perfections are recognized by infinite intelligences… -p.147

his glory contemplated by unnumbered intelligences.- p.165

the minds of redeemed intelligences from this world will find ample scope for the exercise of all their powers, and will derive from their investigations of them perpetual and uninterrupted enjoyment, throughout an endless existence. –p.250


6. Intelligences come to their assigned worlds to receive physical bodies but the anthropomorphic form is their natural eternal state:

what intercourse he has with the spirits of just men made perfect, with Enoch and Elijah, who are already furnished with bodies, and with other orders of celestial intelligences – p.200

When any of the angelic tribes were sent on embassies to our world, we find that, though they generally appeared in a shape some what resembling a beautiful human form. – p.215

To what is here stated respecting angels, it will doubtless be objected, "that these intelligences are pure spirits, and assume corporeal forms only on particular occasions." This is an opinion almost universally prevalent; but it is a mere assumption, destitute of any rational or Scriptural argument to substantiate its truth. - p.216


The fact is we know Joseph Smith owned a copy of this book and we know he felt it was important enough to cite in an 1836 issue of Messenger and advocate. Joseph Smith's "intelligences" doctrine would later appear in 1842. LifeonaPlate has insisted that the two men used the same word but had two entirely different concepts of it.

So what do you think?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Did Joseph Smith Borrow from Thomas Dick?

Post by _Runtu »

dartagnan wrote:
The fact is we know Joseph Smith owned a copy of this book and we know he felt it was important enough to cite in an 1836 issue of Messenger and advocate. Joseph Smith's "intelligences" doctrine would later appear in 1842. LifeonaPlate has insisted that the two men used the same word but had two entirely different concepts of it.

So what do you think?


I just finished reading Dick's book last night, and I agree with you completely: there are striking and obvious similarities. I asked LOAP to explain how Joseph's definitions differ from Dick's, but so far he hasn't responded. I get the feeling that he may not have read Dick's book.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Well, I just hope he doesn’t pull a Lachoneous on us. Over at MAD last week this guy kept telling me that Joseph Smith didn’t really believe Rev 1:6 referred to God the Father’s Father. He never demonstrated it but kept giving me reading assignments to do and then said I’d find the answer therein.

It turned out his entire argument was based on his own erroneous premise that Paul wrote Revelation. I showed him a citation in the sermon where Joseph Smith explicitly says John the Revelator believed God the Father has a Father. Then he slowly crawled away from the discussion.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

LifeonaPlate, are you bailing out?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

In agreement with the idea

Post by _Trevor »

It seems to me to be highly likely that Smith read Dick and incorporated some of his ideas in the Book of Abraham. It kind of reminds me of reading the Corpus Hermeticum, which is an interesting mix of religion, philosophy, and other interesting ideas floating around during the Roman Empire. It was very much of its times, but was claimed to have the greatest antiquity. Quite a bit like the Book of Abraham, really.

I have also wondered whether Sibley's book on magic was an influence on Smith. Sibley contains interesting summaries of Swedenborgian doctrine and other ideas about spirits. Perhaps Luman Walter let Joseph borrow it and peruse it. Maybe he just shared the ideas contained therein with a fascinated young Joseph. I think it is worth looking into.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: In agreement with the idea

Post by _Runtu »

Trevor wrote:It seems to me to be highly likely that Smith read Dick and incorporated some of his ideas in the Book of Abraham. It kind of reminds me of reading the Corpus Hermeticum, which is an interesting mix of religion, philosophy, and other interesting ideas floating around during the Roman Empire. It was very much of its times, but was claimed to have the greatest antiquity. Quite a bit like the Book of Abraham, really.

I have also wondered whether Sibley's book on magic was an influence on Smith. Sibley contains interesting summaries of Swedenborgian doctrine and other ideas about spirits. Perhaps Luman Walter let Joseph borrow it and peruse it. Maybe he just shared the ideas contained therein with a fascinated young Joseph. I think it is worth looking into.


My impression is that Joseph Smith had very few original ideas, but his "genius" was in borrowing from disparate sources and synthesizing them into a more or less coherent system. Thus we see his constant reinvention of Mormonism as he went along. It takes creativity to be a borrower, after all.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_karl61
_Emeritus
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:29 pm

Post by _karl61 »

Great post! Thank you!
I want to fly!
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Post by _Sethbag »

dartagnan wrote:LifeonaPlate, are you bailing out?

Don't be too surprised. LifeOnAPlate is a lightweight. He "knows" it's true because he has a testimonkey, and that's about all he offers to any given discussion on these boards.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Sorry for the delay, Dart, It's not particularly fair of me to post drive-by style without fully engaging, but I tend to do that on this site, only checking in once in a while. I was reading on the topic of Dick and Joseph Smith/Orson Pratt about a week ago, which underscored not only the striking similarities, but some of what I see as striking differences. When I get a minute this week when I'm home I'll get my books out and throw a few points your way.

ps- Haven't seen you around MAD recently, sethbag.

(Mentioning MAD ought to give you a few things to poke fun at while I am gone.)
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:Sorry for the delay, Dart, It's not particularly fair of me to post drive-by style without fully engaging, but I tend to do that on this site, only checking in once in a while. I was reading on the topic of Dick and Joseph Smith/Orson Pratt about a week ago, which underscored not only the striking similarities, but some of what I see as striking differences. When I get a minute this week when I'm home I'll get my books out and throw a few points your way.

ps- Haven't seen you around MAD recently, sethbag.

(Mentioning MAD ought to give you a few things to poke fun at while I am gone.)


Here's the problem, LOAP. You can look at it three ways:

1. There are striking similarities between Dick's ideas and Joseph's.

2. There are differences between Dick's ideas and Joseph's.

3. There are both similarities and differences.

The problem comes when you say, "Since there are differences, Joseph couldn't have borrowed anything from Dick. Why not just admit the similarities and differences and discuss whether the similarities are evidence of borrowing. But the apologetics I've seen simply say, "Nope, there are differences, so obviously Joseph didn't get his ideas here. Nothing to see. Move along."
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
Post Reply