DiscussMormonism.com

Amazon have recently sent me an email suggesting that I might like to buy this book:

Joseph Smith, Jr.: Reappraisals After Two Centuries

edited by Reid L. Neilson, Assistant Professor Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University , and Terryl L. Givens, Professor of Religion and Literature Department of English, University of Richmond

This is one of those books you are allowed to look inside to see if you want to buy it. In the introduction, I found this passage:

One challenge in assessing the historical importance and relevance of Joseph Smith's though has been related to the difficulty of moving beyond the question that arrests all conversation - the question that asks whether Smith was a prophet or a fraud. These essays are rich evidence that a variety of interpretative strategies can bypass this question in order to explore Smith's influence, historical impact, parallels with literary figures, and situatedness in new religious contexts.

The question that occurs to me is simply this: why on earth, in making a collection of scholarly studies about Joseph Smith, would one want to "bypass" "the question that asks whether Smith was a prophet or a fraud"?

Does that have no relevance to the study of the early history of the CoJCoLDS? Is it irrelevant to consideration of Smith's life and work, and of his influence on 19th century American religious life? Is not the question of how far the origins of new religions may depend on fraud or self-deception an interesting one, one which the quite recent and well-documented origins of the CoJCoLDS give us an excellent opportunity to investigate?

Other things seem to be missing in this book too, at least to judge from the index: "plural marriage" is mentioned once in the introduction, and gets just one page reference elsewhere: "polygamy" is absent. But have a look for yourself.

Again. why would one want to "bypass" that particular question?

That is the single most important question one can ask about Smith.

The answer affects how one should judge his historical impact, the way he should be viewed in a religious context, and to what literary or historical figures he should be compared.

That question should not, indeed cannot, be bypassed. Why would Neilson and Givens suggest it should be? Hmmm...

KA

KimberlyAnn wrote:That is the single most important question one can ask about Smith.

I agree.

But it's not the only question.

KimberlyAnn wrote:That question should not, indeed cannot, be bypassed.

It can be, and, in certain circumstances, should be.

KimberlyAnn wrote:Why would Neilson and Givens suggest it should be?

Because that's not the focus of their book, and because they want to bring together a group of believers and unbelievers to concentrate on other questions.

KimberlyAnn wrote:Hmmm...

If you're hoping to suggest that Reid and Terryl (friends of mine) are closet unbelievers, I have to say that, if that's so, they've certainly deceived me.

Incidentally, it's a very good book. Oxford is publishing some excellent things in Mormon studies these days.

The question that occurs to me is simply this: why on earth, in making a collection of scholarly studies about Joseph Smith, would one want to "bypass" "the question that asks whether Smith was a prophet or a fraud"?

Because it can't be scientifically tested. Prophecies come true or not depending on the Jeremiah 18:1-10 principle but God will not print in your microscope viewfinder the words "I exist".

Chap wrote:The question that occurs to me is simply this: why on earth, in making a collection of scholarly studies about Joseph Smith, would one want to "bypass" "the question that asks whether Smith was a prophet or a fraud"?

Perhaps it's the newest strategy of Internet Mormonism: Convince everyone that the question of whether or not Smith was a genuine prophet doesn't really matter.

I just thought they didn't include that question because they knew it would suck all the air out of the book.

What I want to know is, how can anyone write about Joseph's influence, and not mention polygamy a lot? I mean.. really, when it comes right down to it, polygamy is the single most important factor of today's LDS church.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
But it's not the only question.

No, it's not.

It can be, and, in certain circumstances, should be.

I agree, actually. In certain circumstances, it could be, and possibly should be. But it shouldn't be bypassed "...in order to explore Smith's influence, historical impact, parallels with literary figures, and situatedness in new religious contexts" if one hopes to arrive at reasonably legitimate conclusions.

If, from judging by Smith's involvement in occult activities, his various First Vision accounts, his excessive personal behavior, his failed prophesies, and his grand (and unverifiable) spiritual experiences and visions, one concludes Smith is likely not a prophet, as he claimed, then one might equate him in legitimacy and context to, say, Ann Lee, rather than Martin Luther.

It would be possible, I think, to bypass the question if one were discussing Smith's ability to amass a strong military unit in Navoo, or his political strategies and aspirations. In such assessments of purely historical impact, then I may be able to agree with Neilson and Givens.

If you're hoping to suggest that Reid and Terryl (friends of mine) are closet unbelievers, I have to say that, if that's so, they've certainly deceived me.

No, I wasn't suggesting or hoping to suggest that at all.

KA

Dr. Shades wrote:Perhaps it's the newest strategy of Internet Mormonism: Convince everyone that the question of whether or not Smith was a genuine prophet doesn't really matter.

Except that (even if one were to accept the silly "internet"/"chapel" dichotomy) there's no particular reason to brand either Terryl or Reid an "internet Mormon" and neither Terryl nor Reid has suggested that "the question of whether or not Smith was a genuine prophet doesn't really matter."

Two parts to the statement above. Both false and irrelevant.

If Paris were in Germany and if the Germans spoke Chinese, Paris would be a Chinese-speaking German city. But Paris isn't in Germany and the Germans don't speak Chinese, so there's little point in such talk.

If I were to play devil's advocate, I would ask, how can a historian assess whether someone is a "prophet"?

Gadianton wrote:If I were to play devil's advocate, I would ask, how can a historian assess whether someone is a "prophet"?

I don't believe that a historian, qua historian, can do so.