Christian Platonism and Mormon Origins

[_Physics Guy]

Apologists try to find things that Smith couldn't have known. Skeptics try to find things that he could have known. Couldn't and could aren't symmetrical, because "couldn't" has to rule out all possible mechanisms but "could" only has to identify one mechanism that could possibly work.

So for example an apologist might find some feature in the Book of Mormon which a real ancient Israelite might have written, but the skeptic then has to show that Smith could never have invented that detail himself. A skeptic might similarly show that Smith could have copied some phrase from a contemporary sermon, but the skeptic doesn't care if Smith could also have invented the phrase independently.

[Guest]

I am about a 100 pages in and am struck by something. They type of contemporary evidence (contemporary to Joseph Smith's time that is) he is presenting and the manner in which he is presenting it is eerily similar to how apologist defend Joseph Smith by presenting parallels to ancient texts and practices they claim Joseph Smith could not of known about.

So we have an outside view claiming that Joseph Smith was influenced by all these texts and presenting evidence of how they are strikingly similar to what Joseph Smith produced. The only difference is the apologist claims Joseph Smith could not of known and Fleming is claiming he did, but the methodology is the same. What grounds can an apologist criticize Fleming that also don't criticize their own approach?

For me this is about contextualizing Mormonism within the full range of Christian tradition, practice, and thought. I don’t care so much whether we can prove that Smith had a copy of Mosheim open when he wrote or dictated a particular thing. I care about understanding how and where Mormonism fits.

[_Philo Sofee]

The attempts appear to me to be situating Mormonism within the mytho-poetic realm of Christianity, as Northrop Frye described the mythical ground of religious and spiritual experience in Christianity and in the Bible in his very interesting book "Words with Power," the 2nd book in his mythic/spiritual investigation of the Bible and literature, the first book being "The Great Code."

Having been so wrapped up in apologetics for years, it is a thrill beyond description to finally be having time to spread my wings into other areas such as Frye and many other authors. I really, really, REALLY wish I had spent a lot less time in Nibley's materials and more in the wider horizon of literature and spirituality. But such that it is, I can catch up somewhat now and am just overjoyed with the amazing ideas I am discovering. My gawd, I just had no idea how narrow apologetics actually is for learning the incredible literature of the world. Mormon scholarship, such as Terryl Givens had a better chance at rounding themselves out but as an amateur apologist, totally given to defense, the most of what I studied was how to make Mormonism work, and so the vision was laser spot narrowed, which, in some respects, is truly a travesty to my spirit. I am soaring now and discovering which is ....... well............. just heaven to me.

[_Kishkumen]

The attempts appear to me to be situating Mormonism within the mytho-poetic realm of Christianity, as Northrop Frye described the mythical ground of religious and spiritual experience in Christianity and in the Bible in his very interesting book "Words with Power," the 2nd book in his mythic/spiritual investigation of the Bible and literature, the first book being "The Great Code."

Having been so wrapped up in apologetics for years, it is a thrill beyond description to finally be having time to spread my wings into other areas such as Frye and many other authors. I really, really, REALLY wish I had spent a lot less time in Nibley's materials and more in the wider horizon of literature and spirituality. But such that it is, I can catch up somewhat now and am just overjoyed with the amazing ideas I am discovering. My gawd, I just had no idea how narrow apologetics actually is for learning the incredible literature of the world. Mormon scholarship, such as Terryl Givens had a better chance at rounding themselves out but as an amateur apologist, totally given to defense, the most of what I studied was how to make Mormonism work, and so the vision was laser spot narrowed, which, in some respects, is truly a travesty to my spirit. I am soaring now and discovering which is ....... well............. just heaven to me.

I sympathize. I can understand the desire to make Mormonism work, but the problem with LDS apologetics was the constraint to fall into line with the Brethren. Mormonism fits within the broader currents of historical Christianity, but the current LDS view is like looking under that single street lamp for one’s keys.