DiscussMormonism.com

One problem that continues to dog the study of Mormon origins is the theologically driven tendency to study Mormonism as though it were somehow unconnected to the history of Western Christianity.

Stephen Joseph Fleming is seeking to change that in his dissertation, “The Fulness of the Gospel: Christian Platonism and the Origins of Mormonism.”

Here is a link where you can download it:

https://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/downloads/v118rd789

I am often more intrigued than convinced by the arguments. It kind of reminds me of Quinn’s EMMWV in that way. But the study must begin, and seminal works such as this get the ball rolling. It is certainly an improvement on Brooke’s Refiner’s Fire, from which Fleming drew inspiration. Things are getting rolling now, and undoubtedly the book version of this will improve on the diss.

Wow Kishkumen, it is almost like you are psychic.

Recently I have been looking into some of the books we know were owned and or referenced by Joseph Smith and those around him, how they were used in creating Mormonism. For example which Bible edition Joseph Smith had in front of him when he wrote the Book of Mormon, or books like Clarke's Bible Commentary (used to make the JST changes), Josephus (source for material found in the Pearl of Great Price), Dick's Philosophy of the Future State & of Religion (quoted in the 1840's M&A), Seixas Hebrew Chrestomathy (used to create the Book of Abraham), The Magus (source for Joseph Smith talismans), Bucks Theological Dictionary (quoted in the Lectures on Faith and source for the concept of the "chain of being") and so on. Recently I have been looking the impact of book owned by Joseph Smith called Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, especially as it pertains to the concept of a "Great Apostacy" as can be found in early Mormonism. We know Mormon early apologist like Pratt, Winchester, Appleby, Talmadge and Roberts quoted from Mosheim's history extensively and considered it actual history.

The dissertation you linked has 119 references to Mosheim.

Great timing.

Thanks!

Yes, Fence Sitter, Mosheim does figure in quite a bit. Indeed, there are lots of eye-popping connections proposed in this diss. Enjoy!

Excellent work and link good Reverend.... I am honored to be among so many good and strong people.

Philo Sofee wrote:Excellent work and link good Reverend.... I am honored to be among so many good and strong people.

You are most welcome, Philo. I figure that this must be right up your alley!

Can't wait to dig into it!

Good Lord, this thing is H-U-G-E!!!!!! It's gonna take me at least a day to read........

Philo Sofee wrote:Can't wait to dig into it!

Good Lord, this thing is H-U-G-E!!!!!! It's gonna take me at least a day to read........

I spent two hours on it last night and got to page 12. There is soooo much interesting stuff in it.

Now that I am going through this more carefully, I find myself more persuaded than I was after my earlier browse through the text. Fleming builds a decent case for Joseph Smith consulting other works as part of the revelation process, and he explains why Smith and other similar mystics tended not to cite their sources. Of course, that leaves the door open to denying sources that cannot be identified confidently. Sure, those who imagine God directly injected light and knowledge into Smith’s brain will probably continue to think so, but those who allow for mundane sources of knowledge in the mix are given a better articulation of the theological rationale justifying it.

Reverend, thank you very much for sharing. I too was stricken with the research on source withholding by contemporary mystics. The bit in which Joseph’s insistence on learning only God’s knowledge is shown, itself, to be a reference to mystic pop culture illustrates the point with surprising clarity. The reader of this book length dissertation is left with a better appreciation for Joseph’s talent for live mic remixing. It makes me wonder what a career he might have had in show business if born in Hollywood 200 years later.

Prior to skimming through your link, I'd never realized just how much Joseph Smith had in common with Aleister Crowley and it makes some sense of the fascination some apologists have with the black arts.

I suppose given my Mormon background and my interest in FARMS as an inquisitive teen, it's not surprising that I was also interested in the occult and to some degree, Satanism. If I can recall some of the titles, then maybe I can find them on archive.org. I recall that the authors of these works were secretive, and had names like "Aurial" rather than "Richard C. Johnson". I also recall that they weren't into bibliographies. Whereas Nibley cites any possible tangent to show you how much he knows, these writers gave away nothing because they're showing what they've mastered.

Magic is open source, it doesn't matter if you got it from a discarded book, your own experimenting, or from a neighbor who also just happens to be a druid. Probably, a master-apprentice model approximates the learning of magic, even if as a metaphor, better than a teacher-student relationship in context of a university. It resists reduction, and it's a bit of a contradiction I think to be so arrogant as to write a book on magic, presuming you are an accomplished magician.

Knowledge doesn't build on sources, but rather, is fragmented among sources, none of which own any of the knowledge they possess, and very possibly misunderstand what they do have.