Peterson the historical skeptic

[Kishkumen]

One of the jobs of historians is to do the best they can to come to a rational and evidence-based estimate of "the lost intentions of the writers of those texts [that serve as their sources]". That's a difficult task, certainly, but I don't think it is always a hopeless one.

I think the reality of the situation is a lot more complicated than you seem to think. Yes, certain historians (and history is only one scholarly discipline among many) do make it their business to do what you are saying, but they do a lot more than that, and the author with their intentions is only one vector for approaching the historical interpretation of a text.

And coming to a rational and evidence-based estimate of the intentions of Joseph Smith, a man who lived in a social and intellectual environment about which we are vastly better informed that we are (say) about that of Deutero-Isaiah, and who wrote and spoke copiously about how he saw his role, is by no means an entirely impossible task.

And yet it is still a big challenge, one that is made more difficult by people's biases and agendas. The tendency I see among critics is to glom onto whatever interpretation makes Joseph Smith and Mormonism come out looking disappointing or even downright fraudulent.

Of course we are not obliged to receive the text as Smith almost certainly wanted us to receive it - a true record of ancient events in the Americas. We can use it for any purpose we wish - a moral fable, or an interesting study of early 19th century religious imagination, or as a textbook example of a relatively successful fraud, that brought its perpetrator power, relative riches, and access to rather a lot of young women.

Yeah, as to the latter, a lot of people expect the "honest" historical reading to amount to that. So, I do not begrudge people who want to see other things in the text and use it for different things, including positive ones. I also don't think we have plumbed the depth of its historical purpose or the author's intentions. Getting a better handle on them does not always lead to negative conclusions.

[sock puppet]

* * * The Book of Mormon was written by a man who, in the light of what he wrote, said and did, clearly wanted his readers to take the contents of the book he wrote as being a truly ancient and authentic text, which recounted events that really happened in the ancient Americas. When Smith's early followers took it 'as literal history', they were doing exactly what he intended them to do.

"in the light of what he wrote, said and did,... ." This was a man
--charged in March 1826 with glass looking for hire, and after a hearing, Judge Neeley ruled that he should have to stand trial for it.
--arrested and tried in June-July 1830 for being a disorderly person
--charged and bound over to trial in February 1837 for illegaly banking and issuing unauthorized bank paper, and tried in absentia in Oct 1837
--charged in June 1837 with conspiring to murder Grandison Newell for impugning the Kirtland Safety Society (Orson Hyde testified that Smith had declared Newell "should be put out of the way, or where the crows could not find him: he said destroying Newell would be justifiable in the sigt of God, that it was the will of God." Solomon Denton testified similarly.
--fled to Missouri on Jan. 12, 1838 rather than face new charges of bank fraud.
--arrested on Aug. 8, 1842, along with Porter Rockwell, for their roles in attempting to assassinate former Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs
--indicted by a Hancock County grand jury in May 1844 for perjury, fornication and polygamy.

According to one compiler of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, Smith who died at just age 44 had been involved in over 200 legal proceedings during his life.

In the light of what Joseph Smith wrote, said and did? It is not, Chap, a leap that you are making.

[drumdude]

I have to think we'd all be better off supporting Dr. Peterson's endeavor of taking on the absurdness of Trumpism and its damage to democracy rather than putting him on the defensive of his own absurdities when he does that. It is going to take conservative voices for conservatives to really fathom the damage being done to democracy in their name - let's encourage that!

I have to push back on this a bit.

Is it any coincidence that a church which encourages its members to believe a conspiracy theory (the Book of Mormon is historical) has members which are more likely to believe other conspiracy theories? They’re more likely to believe vaccines are a government plot, the capitol riot was a government plot, etc because the Mormon church has a history of teaching its members to go against common sense, and to go against the US government. This dates back all the way to Mormonisms early clashes with local government and then the federal government. They continue the narrative of oppression today. It’s in the DNA of the religion.

[NorthboundZax]

Is it any coincidence that a church which encourages its members to believe a conspiracy theory (the Book of Mormon is historical) has members which are more likely to believe other conspiracy theories? They’re more likely to believe vaccines are a government plot, the capitol riot was a government plot, etc because the Mormon church has a history of teaching its members to go against common sense, and to go against the US government. This dates back all the way to Mormonisms early clashes with local government and then the federal government. They continue the narrative of oppression today. It’s in the DNA of the religion.

It's in the DNA of pretty much any religion, wouldn't you say? Evangelicals are even more all in on the conspiracy theories than Mormons are. Still I would welcome any Evangelical voices that would push back on the conspiracy theories currently damaging democracy. Castigating religionists espousing beneficial viewpoints because it isn't intellectually consistent seems horribly counter-productive to me.

[Rick Grunder]

To accentuate Sock Puppet's comments on one point, one may note that Joseph Smith actually died at age 38 1/2 . . .

https://www.calculator.net/age-calcula ... &x=55&y=20

[Philo Sofee]

* * * The Book of Mormon was written by a man who, in the light of what he wrote, said and did, clearly wanted his readers to take the contents of the book he wrote as being a truly ancient and authentic text, which recounted events that really happened in the ancient Americas. When Smith's early followers took it 'as literal history', they were doing exactly what he intended them to do.

"in the light of what he wrote, said and did,... ." This was a man
--charged in March 1826 with glass looking for hire, and after a hearing, Judge Neeley ruled that he should have to stand trial for it.
--arrested and tried in June-July 1830 for being a disorderly person
--charged and bound over to trial in February 1837 for illegaly banking and issuing unauthorized bank paper, and tried in absentia in Oct 1837
--charged in June 1837 with conspiring to murder Grandison Newell for impugning the Kirtland Safety Society (Orson Hyde testified that Smith had declared Newell "should be put out of the way, or where the crows could not find him: he said destroying Newell would be justifiable in the sigt of God, that it was the will of God." Solomon Denton testified similarly.
--fled to Missouri on Jan. 12, 1838 rather than face new charges of bank fraud.
--arrested on Aug. 8, 1842, along with Porter Rockwell, for their roles in attempting to assassinate former Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs
--indicted by a Hancock County grand jury in May 1844 for perjury, fornication and polygamy.

According to one compiler of the Joseph Smith Papers Project, Smith who died at just age 44 had been involved in over 200 legal proceedings during his life.

In the light of what Joseph Smith wrote, said and did? It is not, Chap, a leap that you are making.

Aw come on, lets give Brother Joseph a break...

[drumdude]

Is it any coincidence that a church which encourages its members to believe a conspiracy theory (the Book of Mormon is historical) has members which are more likely to believe other conspiracy theories? They’re more likely to believe vaccines are a government plot, the capitol riot was a government plot, etc because the Mormon church has a history of teaching its members to go against common sense, and to go against the US government. This dates back all the way to Mormonisms early clashes with local government and then the federal government. They continue the narrative of oppression today. It’s in the DNA of the religion.

It's in the DNA of pretty much any religion, wouldn't you say? Evangelicals are even more all in on the conspiracy theories than Mormons are. Still I would welcome any Evangelical voices that would push back on the conspiracy theories currently damaging democracy. Castigating religionists espousing beneficial viewpoints because it isn't intellectually consistent seems horribly counter-productive to me.

I don’t know of a large correlation between being catholic and being anti-vax or conspiracy minded.

I’m sure there are correlations between fundamentalist evangelicals, but they’re all from the similar family tree as Mormonism; American revivalism in the 1800s.

I think Anglicans and early Protestants would be similar to Catholics, not much of a correlation there either.

[sock puppet]

To accentuate Sock Puppet's comments on one point, one may note that Joseph Smith actually died at age 38 1/2 . . .

https://www.calculator.net/age-calcula ... &x=55&y=20

Thanks for the correction. I was confusing the year he died, 1844 (the 44 at least).

[Dr. Shades]

Well, Axial Age, but yeah. There is another incredible story that is found in the Bible. It is the myth of Noah's Flood. The Book of Mormon story is just a tale following the model of Noah's Flood. I feel badly for all the people who see it as literal history or make fun of it as though that were the only way to read it.

What other way is there to read it?

[drumdude]

Well, Axial Age, but yeah. There is another incredible story that is found in the Bible. It is the myth of Noah's Flood. The Book of Mormon story is just a tale following the model of Noah's Flood. I feel badly for all the people who see it as literal history or make fun of it as though that were the only way to read it.

What other way is there to read it?

Community of Christ treats it as inspired fiction If I recall correctly. John Hamer is still a "Mormon" while not believing it's at all historical.