Johannes wrote:It's really just a broad point that Smith's time and culture didn't commit him to a literalistic interpretation of scripture. He consciously chose to go down that path, with overt themes of anti-rationalism and anti-Unitarianism. This is what I've learned from reading about his life. He was a participant in early American debates on the nature of scripture, not a redneck among a society of rednecks who didn't know any better (I appreciate this is undoubtedly an oversimplification of your views).
Fair enough. I just feel that the Book of Mormon is our single best witness to what Joseph Smith's take on the Bible was at the time. My impression based on his portrayal of the Bible therein is that it is one book that contained the pure gospel but was compromised by the interference of wicked men. At no point does he address the internal complexity of the book in the sense you were talking about.
What he does seem to be saying is that other people can come forward with their own books, and that those books, if they are not corrupted, will bring a testimony that will compensate for the corrupted nature of the Bible. They add another witness and one that is potentially superior because it has not been modified. Joseph looked at those words in italics in his Bible, and he saw the fiddling of priests. When he "translated" the Bible, it was these parts he was most eager to tweak.
I think all of that speaks volumes about his understanding of the Bible and his view of how scripture might be legitimately created. None of this includes, to my understanding, sees the internal complexity of the Bible in a positive light. It seems instead to be about regretting this complexity and assuming it is a bad thing. The Book of Mormon is better in the eyes of Smith because it contains the pure ancient gospel, without that fiddling, and without the "reaching beyond the mark" of the Jews, so to speak.
That utterly sinks a personal theory that I'd been developing that the growth of the Mormon Church from the 60s-80s was a function of the Nixonian "silent majority" asserting itself in American society. If Mormonism was still keeping itself from the mainstream as late as the 1970s, it presumably wouldn't have had much appeal for that conservative demographic.
Mormons have for a long time added generous numbers to the ranks of fringe conservatism, paleo conservatism, tax protesting, the John Birch Society, et al. I would say that my experience growing up was a family that was much closer to the kooky conservative end of the spectrum, except for my one grandfather who was an old school Democrat. I first heard some of the famous conspiracy theories about evil Democrats as a child. My parents talked down the Kennedys and MLK. Both of them really hate the Democrats, and I mean hate. No exaggeration. My other grandfather received John Birch newsletters.
One of my branch presidents held John Birch Society meetings in his house for a brief time. He kicked them out when they refused to admit that Joseph Smith was the greatest American who ever lived.
Imagine that. A man who was, in point of fact, treasonously organizing a shadow theocratic world government, albeit in embryo, and this branch president--not knowing those facts of course--was pissed off when John Birchers would not call Smith history's greatest American.
I can't fathom those depths of bizarre.
But he is far from alone.
But I don't think you are actually incorrect. It was the LDS Church's outside role in stopping ERA that created this diabolical marriage between the Religious Right and the LDS Church. I do think that Mormonism was sought out by people who had more conservative, and even crackpot conservative, social and political views. To this day I have relatives who believe all the BS about Whitewater, Clinton murders, etc. I grew up with Rush Limbaugh playing in my kitchen every day. We're talking about gutter pseudo-conservatism here.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist