DiscussMormonism.com

Ok. So, if we accept the idea that the KEPA do represent dictation of the translation of the Book of Abraham, and we conclude that Joseph Smith surely had no idea what it meant to translate ancient Egyptian, does it then follow that Joseph Smith was a fraud?

When I look at the various Egyptian language and translation documents, and work from the premise that Joseph Smith was indeed directly involved in all of this, I have a difficult time arriving at the conclusion that all of this was simply smoke and mirrors to put one over on the rubes. Particularly when one looks at the work of Samuel Brown about Joseph Smith's ideas of Egyptian and the search for a Pure Language, one gets the sense that, no matter how ill-conceived or dubious in veracity, Joseph Smith was actually serious in his beliefs about these things, and thus was likely serious when he went about composing the Book of Abraham.

The problem we run into, if we take Smith seriously, is that statements to the effect that he literally translated something written by the hand of Abraham (to conflate various statements) amount to a claim that does not withstand scrutiny. Thus, certain apologists, understanding this problem, cling to arguments designed to leave open the possibility that there really was a longer scroll, etc. There seems to be no clean way out of the problem for either side, if we all cling to the idea that Joseph must have been self-consciously aware that his scriptural productions were either the precise equivalent of the usual, academic translation process, or that he was lying about this.

And, to put my cards on the table, I have real problems with the notion of the "pious fraud." Is there a way out of this dichotomy? Is this in fact a false dichotomy enforced by an intellectual apparatus that is foreign to Smith's practices? Was Joseph in "translating" doing something more akin to the practices in cargo cults? In other words, appropriating (superficially) the trappings of a prestigious technology but viewing it in magical or supernatural terms?
.
.
.
.
.

Ok. So, if we accept the idea that the KEPA do represent dictation of the translation of the Book of Abraham, and we conclude that Joseph Smith surely had no idea what it meant to translate ancient Egyptian, does it then follow that Joseph Smith was a fraud?

Pretty much.

When I look at the various Egyptian language and translation documents, and work from the premise that Joseph Smith was indeed directly involved in all of this, I have a difficult time arriving at the conclusion that all of this was simply smoke and mirrors to put one over on the rubes. Particularly when one looks at the work of Samuel Brown about Joseph Smith's ideas of Egyptian and the search for a Pure Language, one gets the sense that, no matter how ill-conceived or dubious in veracity, Joseph Smith was actually serious in his beliefs about these things, and thus was likely serious when he went about composing the Book of Abraham.

Oh I'm sure he was. But I don't think this changes the fact that he was not what he claimed, despite his own delusions. How many Kings managed to convince themselves they were truly divine?

The problem we run into, if we take Smith seriously, is that statements to the effect that he literally translated something written by the hand of Abraham (to conflate various statements) amount to a claim that does not withstand scrutiny.

Yep.

Thus, certain apologists, understanding this problem, cling to arguments designed to leave open the possibility that there really was a longer scroll, etc.

Yep.

There seems to be no clean way out of the problem for either side, if we all cling to the idea that Joseph must have been self-consciously aware that his scriptural productions were either the precise equivalent of the usual, academic translation process, or that he was lying about this.

I'm not interested in psychoanalyzing Joseph Smith and ascertaining his mindset, so much as I am interested in knowing if what he said was true.

And, to put my cards on the table, I have real problems with the notion of the "pious fraud." Is there a way out of this dichotomy?

Does being a fraud require consciousness of the fact?

Is this in fact a false dichotomy enforced by an intellectual apparatus that is foreign to Smith's practices? Was Joseph in "translating" doing something more akin to the practices in cargo cults? In other words, appropriating (superficially) the trappings of a prestigious technology but viewing it in magical or supernatural terms?

Possibly.

I have always viewed the search for the lost length of scroll as a tacit admission that the story as currently assembled is absurd. If they were really confident, as Don implied, they wouldn't go looking for the missing document.

I don't agree with Kevin or Trevor about whether Joseph Smith actually believed he was "translating" anything at all, for whatever definition of translation you choose.

Trevor, would you mind explaining your thoughts on this? Why do you believe that Joseph Smith had to have believed, even if delusionally, that he was actually producing a translation of something Abraham really wrote?

I have no problem at all believing that Joseph Smith leveraged the magical beliefs of his day, and thoughts on "pure language" or whatever, and that in some contexts, he actually believed in these things himself. I don't see any reason, however, to suppose that he actually believed in his own translation of the Book of Abraham.

I'm going on the the theory that Joseph Smith knew he was inventing the Book of Abraham, and went through all of the KEP stuff in order to basically snow job his followers. The KEP constitute, per this theory, the sleight of hand that masked what he was really doing, just like a good conjurer. And what he was really doing was bolstering his prophetic and seerific credentials with his followers at a time of increasing vulnerability and dissent. He invented the Book of Abraham, with ideas borrowed from other contemporary ideas and books, plus possibly some of his own speculations and musings. He connected this work explicitly with the Egyptian papyrus, and used the KEP documents and the alphabet and grammar and whatnot to impress his closest followers and assistants.

I will be very interested in reading why you disagree with this hypothesis Trevor. And Kevin.

Kevin Graham wrote:Oh I'm sure he was. But I don't think this changes the fact that he was not what he claimed, despite his own delusions. How many Kings managed to convince themselves they were truly divine?

Which we may both find to be important, but I am not certain that all Mormons would have to join us there. As for kings convincing themselves of their divinity, if there is no such thing as divinity in the common sense of the term, what does it matter to us that they were wrong? The important thing for us is that we understand that their contentions have little inherent value or hold on us.

Kevin Graham wrote:I'm not interested in psychoanalyzing Joseph Smith and ascertaining his mindset, so much as I am interested in knowing if what he said was true.

Gotcha. I think what I am grappling with here is the notion of the pious fraud. I don't claim that you are a proponent of that view. At the same time, I think it is important to distinguish between your personal dismissal of Joseph Smith for your own reasons and a dismissal of Joseph Smith as someone to take seriously at all. In other words, the fact that Mormonism is "false" to you makes it no less significant academically, and no less potentially true to others who choose to think differently.

Having said that, I think that there is nothing wrong with criticizing apologetic arguments, and we are all entitled to our own opinions, naturally.

Kevin Graham wrote:Does being a fraud require consciousness of the fact?

An arguable point. Depends on how one defines the term.

After all of my studies of Joseph Smith, I feel pretty strongly that "pious fraud" is the only really viable explanation. Namely, Joseph Smith believed-- perhaps due to a sort of megalomania or narcissism-- that he was in touch with the supernatural or perhaps could even shape and mold the supernatural to his will. But he used deliberately fraudulent, knowingly deceptive tactics to get his followers to go along for the ride. On more than one occasion he provided theological justifications for lying for the Lord: the Nancy Rigdon letter, D&C 19, and the Book of Abraham.

It may be hard for us to understand how "pious fraud" might work because of the time we live in, and because every one of us in this thread has a 20th Century (or 21st for CK ) education.

If we try to put ourselves back into the times, into the 1820s-40s, and imagine what it must have been like to live in a world where Darwin's theory hadn't yet come out, where "God did it" was still almost universally the answer given to questions of the universe and Creation, where the very existence of God was simply assumed by most people, and the supernatural and the superstitious were an intrinsic part of the worldviews of probably most people, it becomes a little easier to understand.

I don't doubt that Joseph Smith believed in God. I don't doubt that Joseph believed in the supernatural, the existence of spirits, etc. I do believe that Joseph knowingly used deceptive measures, and almost surely fooled people in major, major ways into believing his claims.

But did he believe his own claims? I don't know. If he believed in the supernatural, in God, in spirits, etc. it's possible that he concocted stories that fit with his belief, and therefore were plausible to him. He might then have become convinced that he was actually on to something when he found success in gaining believers. His very success may have convinced him that God really was on his side.

Power can really go to a person's head. Joseph accumulated a lot of followers, and a lot of power, and a lot of sexual access, and went from a poor farmboy earning a meager living scamming others, but at the end of his life was a magistrate, a mayor, a Lt. General of his own private militia, lived in what passed for a mansion in his context, and had many thousands of followers. That type of success may very well have convinced him that God really was on his side. Success breeds confidence, and success in gaining a following may very well convince religious leaders that they must enjoy the blessings of Deity, because otherwise, how to explain the success if not through the hand of God?

Anyhow, as I try to take these factors into account, and try to imagine the mindset of the early to mid 1800s, I'm finding it more possible to accept a sort of pious fraud theory. Joseph was a fraud, but he may have seen reasons in his success to believe he had the aid and blessing of the Divine.

CaliforniaKid wrote:After all of my studies of Joseph Smith, I feel pretty strongly that "pious fraud" is the only really viable explanation. Namely, Joseph Smith believed-- perhaps due to a sort of megalomania or narcissism-- that he was in touch with the supernatural or perhaps could even shape and mold the supernatural to his will. But he used deliberately fraudulent, knowingly deceptive tactics to get his followers to go along for the ride. On more than one occasion he provided theological justifications for lying for the Lord: the Nancy Rigdon letter, D&C 19, and the Book of Abraham.

I can see exactly why you would characterize him this way, and what the clear advantages of doing this are, but, frankly, this terminology carries too much intellectual baggage with it. I think we can do much better than this. For one thing, to counter your characterization of these various documents, I would offer the description of Nephi receiving the sealing power in the Book of Mormon. That passage has powerful implications for how much leeway the author conceived of for those who were given God's authorization. Also, I would point to the predominant, skeptical, western view of shamanism, which views it as con artistry and legerdemain. By adopting this view, one easily reaches the conclusion that "fraud" is involved. My preference is to think in terms of performance instead of fraud.

Maybe in the end what I am reaching for is untenable, but I think it is worth trying out a different view. Mind you, this view doesn't entail me believing in what Joseph Smith was doing so much as re-contextualizing it in a way I think could be far more productive than "fraud."

Trevor,

I think I get what you mean now. Rather like where Joseph talks about being "Crafty" by sealing as much to yourself as you can, right? The prophet shapes reality, ergo the prophet can do essentially whatever he wants? This is rather like the megalomania I mentioned.

Still, did Joseph Smith have golden plates or didn't he? Seems to me like a pretty binary test case.

-Chris

CaliforniaKid wrote:I think I get what you mean now. Rather like where Joseph talks about being "Crafty" by sealing as much to yourself as you can, right? The prophet shapes reality, ergo the prophet can do essentially whatever he wants? This is rather like the megalomania I mentioned.

OK. As I said, one can call it fraud, and one can engage in psychologizing. I see nothing wrong with either enterprise. I think I have had this conversation with Don a few times. If the one who holds the sealing power is viewed as being in perfect harmony with the will of God, such that nothing he does could be contrary to God's will, then, yes, the prophet 'shapes' reality, but in exactly the way God would have it.

Do I think that the end result of these teachings is desirable? No. But calling it out as undesirable and seeking to understand it better in other, less moralizing terms, are two different enterprises. Scholarship need not do one to the exclusion of the other, but there may be something to gain from laying the one aside. I can see that given the context in which these discussions usually take place (apologist v. critic) that is a challenge, but I think the future of Mormon Studies has room for this too.

CaliforniaKid wrote:Still, did Joseph Smith have golden plates or didn't he? Seems to me like a pretty binary test case.

I know you do. But I do not. Look at scholarship on shamanism for a reference point. Performance includes the use of props.