Manetho, Josephus, and the Book of Abraham

[drumdude]

The sham re-marriages done for Emma after she “authorized” the marriage without realizing he had already done it behind her back…

Do you need to know anything else about Joseph Smith’s character? If he had really seen Jesus he would have the balls to tell Emma the truth.

I agree that polygamy was and is bad business. Unconscionable in the way Joseph Smith did it, but also just a poor model of marriage for any society.

At the same time, I don’t find it very useful to try to understand everything about Mormonism through the lens of Joseph Smith’s apparent character flaws in individual areas, as though all we need to know is that he lied about this, that, or the other, to write the whole thing off.

All that is, in my view, is an inversion of the simplistic and naïve thinking that some people lean heavily on in order to become and stay LDS. Replace simple and naïve with simplistic and cynical, and there one is: the disillusioned but no more enlightened ex-Mo.

I don’t like Brigham Young, but I think he was somewhat more realistic than most when he disassociated Joseph Smith’s moral character from the religion he founded. Joseph Smith himself also understood that people would demand him to be the two-dimensional “saint” they felt a prophet should be but that he would always fail at being.

Whether one buys into the LDS thing or not, human culture does not come out of ideal situations and ideal people. Although it is nearly irresistible to obsess over the moral character of others, there are times when that concern can become oppressive, and those who insist on doggedly pursuing the question almost seem to be relishing in the failures of others to their own detriment. That is something that I know I have to be on my guard against in myself.

I guess what doesn’t make sense to me is how someone can gain a sure knowledge of the existence of Jesus and God and still feel the earthly need to lie to their spouse.

I would expect meeting Jesus and God to have a much more transformative effect on a man’s life, elevating him beyond basic natural human faults and worries.

All of this makes sense if as you say, we simply chalk it all up to humans acting as humans do. The mystery vanishes. And Joseph’s faults don’t become a smoking gun, but just add to the cumulative case against Mormonism being anything but a human creation.

[Physics Guy]

You might be interested in W. Davis' piece, then. In his opinion, Smith was considerably influenced by Bunyan's storytelling.

Huh again. I remember bringing up The Pilgrim's Progress here myself once, as a possible source for the archaic language of the Book of Mormon, since I had read somewhere that PP was still a popular book in Smith's time and place, with many copies available. The rather silly error on which Skousen and Carmack based all their Early Modern English stuff seems to have been to confuse archaic language with inaccessible language, when in fact usages remain known and understood, and are even available in print, long after people have stopped using them in natural writing and speech.

I hadn't thought, though, about Bunyan's allegorical adventure stories as influences on Smith's characters and plots. Bunyan's characters are remarkably less thin than one would expect from their explicitly allegorical names and roles, but they are still two-dimensional mouthpieces for pious or reprehensible views. Although Smith evidently decided against writing an outright allegory, Bunyan might have given him the idea that a good religious book would feature a lot of sternly upright characters preaching sermons, and overcoming their vile enemies in contrived ways.

I've been thinking of the Book of Mormon as Old Testament fan fiction, and I still think it is that, but perhaps I should have been expecting that Smith's idea of a cool restored Scripture might have been shaped by a wider range of literary influences.

I'm still curious about Smith's choice of using so much first-person narration. Where would he have gotten the idea to do that? Maybe Robinson Crusoe? Written in 1719, it was also very popular throughout the English-speaking world in Smith's time, and it features sea voyages, settling uninhabited land, and religious themes. And it's narrated by its protagonist.

Here from Project Gutenberg is the first paragraph, which does ring at least faintly of Nephi's beginning, with the narrator naming himself and boasting of his good family.

I was born in the year 1632, in the city of York, of a good family, though not of that country, my father being a foreigner of Bremen, who settled first at Hull: he got a good estate by merchandise, and leaving off his trade, lived afterwards at York, from whence he had married my mother, whose relations were named Robinson, a very good family in that country, and from whom I was called Robinson Kreutznaer; but by the usual corruption of words in England, we are now called, nay we call ourselves, and write our name Crusoe, and so my companions always called me.

[Nimrod]

I guess what doesn’t make sense to me is how someone can gain a sure knowledge of the existence of Jesus and God and still feel the earthly need to lie to their spouse.

I would expect meeting Jesus and God to have a much more transformative effect on a man’s life, elevating him beyond basic natural human faults and worries.

One would think so, but Joseph Smith's own experience dispels the notion that we're kept in the dark so that we can exercise free will and be tested on our true character--even after the theophany denied the rest of us, Joseph Smith continued to exercise free agency and be plagued by his human foibles.

All of this makes sense if as you say, we simply chalk it all up to humans acting as humans do. The mystery vanishes. And Joseph’s faults don’t become a smoking gun, but just add to the cumulative case against Mormonism being anything but a human creation.

The case is pretty convincing as is. I've always wondered if a bishop/stake president today would give Joseph Smith of the 1830s and 1840s a temple recommend. How would he answer the question about being honest in his dealings with others?

[Marcus]

You might be interested in W. Davis' piece, then. In his opinion, Smith was considerably influenced by Bunyan's storytelling.

Huh again. I remember bringing up The Pilgrim's Progress here myself once, as a possible source for the archaic language of the Book of Mormon, since I had read somewhere that PP was still a popular book in Smith's time and place, with many copies available. The rather silly error on which Skousen and Carmack based all their Early Modern English stuff seems to have been to confuse archaic language with inaccessible language, when in fact usages remain known and understood, and are even available in print, long after people have stopped using them in natural writing and speech.

Indeed. I recall many of your posts arguing this on (If I recall correctly) Lindsay's Mormanity blog. It was even pointed out that there was significant research indicating that the NorthEastern area of North America lagged even further, with many elements of older language persisting in their speech.


As far as I know, Carmack and Skousen didn't acknowledge any of these arguments, although Skousen did end up redacting about 80% of Carmack's previously published evidence on behalf of his theory, on the basis that further research ruled out legitimacy of the vast majority of his work. (I would love to have been a fly on the wall for the discussion between Skousen and Carmack that preceded those redactions.)

I hadn't thought, though, about Bunyan's allegorical adventure stories as influences on Smith's characters and plots. Bunyan's characters are remarkably less thin than one would expect from their explicitly allegorical names and roles, but they are still two-dimensional mouthpieces for pious or reprehensible views. Although Smith evidently decided against writing an outright allegory, Bunyan might have given him the idea that a good religious book would feature a lot of sternly upright characters preaching sermons, and overcoming their vile enemies in contrived ways.

I've been thinking of the Book of Mormon as Old Testament fan fiction, and I still think it is that, but perhaps I should have been expecting that Smith's idea of a cool restored Scripture might have been shaped by a wider range of literary influences.

I'm still curious about Smith's choice of using so much first-person narration. Where would he have gotten the idea to do that? Maybe Robinson Crusoe? Written in 1719, it was also very popular throughout the English-speaking world in Smith's time, and it features sea voyages, settling uninhabited land, and religious themes. And it's narrated by its protagonist.

Here from Project Gutenberg is the first paragraph, which does ring at least faintly of Nephi's beginning, with the narrator naming himself and boasting of his good family.

I was born in the year 1632, in the city of York, of a good family, though not of that country, my father being a foreigner of Bremen, who settled first at Hull: he got a good estate by merchandise, and leaving off his trade, lived afterwards at York, from whence he had married my mother, whose relations were named Robinson, a very good family in that country, and from whom I was called Robinson Kreutznaer; but by the usual corruption of words in England, we are now called, nay we call ourselves, and write our name Crusoe, and so my companions always called me.

Interesting point about the Robinson Crusoe opening, it sounds very familiar. It would be interesting to see if that point of view filtered into other tales of the time. Smith really did seem to be a master at absorbing and reflecting back the sine qua non of contemporary thought.

[Kishkumen]

I guess what doesn’t make sense to me is how someone can gain a sure knowledge of the existence of Jesus and God and still feel the earthly need to lie to their spouse.

I would expect meeting Jesus and God to have a much more transformative effect on a man’s life, elevating him beyond basic natural human faults and worries.

All of this makes sense if as you say, we simply chalk it all up to humans acting as humans do. The mystery vanishes. And Joseph’s faults don’t become a smoking gun, but just add to the cumulative case against Mormonism being anything but a human creation.

As I said above, I really, and I mean really, do not care what you expect of Joseph Smith visa-vis divine legitimation. For me the mystery resides in people doing remarkable things, however it is they do them. I don’t claim to know how, but I am not going to downplay the remarkable they do just because they are flawed people. Tiger Woods was an abysmal husband and a golf legend. People are complicated, and just because one does something extraordinary doesn’t mean they are a nice person or a morally upright person.

[drumdude]

I guess what doesn’t make sense to me is how someone can gain a sure knowledge of the existence of Jesus and God and still feel the earthly need to lie to their spouse.

I would expect meeting Jesus and God to have a much more transformative effect on a man’s life, elevating him beyond basic natural human faults and worries.

All of this makes sense if as you say, we simply chalk it all up to humans acting as humans do. The mystery vanishes. And Joseph’s faults don’t become a smoking gun, but just add to the cumulative case against Mormonism being anything but a human creation.

As I said above, I really, and I mean really, do not care what you expect of Joseph Smith visa-vis divine legitimation. For me the mystery resides in people doing remarkable things, however it is they do them. I don’t claim to know how, but I am not going to downplay the remarkable they do just because they are flawed people. Tiger Woods was an abysmal husband and a golf legend. People are complicated, and just because one does something extraordinary doesn’t mean they are a nice person or a morally upright person.

I should clarify that when I say "I expect" I am referring to the perspective of a believing Latter-Day Saint and all that implies. I'm making an observation about the internal consistency (or lack thereof) of the religion and its beliefs, not trying to undermine the historical significance of Mormonism when viewed from a non-believing outsider's perspective.

[Res Ipsa]

You might be interested in W. Davis' piece, then. In his opinion, Smith was considerably influenced by Bunyan's storytelling. Here's a quick overview of his article in the LA Review of Books:

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/149066

Parallels between Bunyan’s The Pilgrim's Progress (1678) and the Book of Mormon have not gone entirely unnoticed. As early as 1831, Eber Howe, in his anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed, noted the use of names — “Desolation” and “Bountiful” from Pilgrim’s Progress reappear in the Book of Mormon — but most observations have been similarly limited in scope or suffered from lack of a systematic methodology. Bunyan wrote upwards of 60 books, tracts, and pamphlets, including Grace Abounding, A Few Sighs from Hell, Holy War and The Life and Death of Mr. Badman, and these texts provide extensive narrative parallels to the Book of Mormon, often containing unique characteristics shared only by Bunyan and Smith.

Thanks Marcus. Interesting stuff. I checked to see if he'd actually written a book, and he did. But the influence of Bunyan's storytelling doesn't appear to have made it into the book. Have you seen anything by him either explaining why not or elaborating on the similarities?

[Marcus]

As I said above, I really, and I mean really, do not care what you....

Yes, kishkumen. We are all well aware that you care not at all about what anyone who disagrees with you thinks. You have expressed repeatedly -and repeatedly, and repeatedly!- the disdain you feel for everyone you think is in that position, and it's getting quite boring to continue to read it. You might consider just expressing your opinion without telling everyone how much you despise them for disagreeing. We all already know it, you've told us all repeatedly, and your disdain drips like acid. Well, in the sense that you think it's acid. At this point your disdain is such a mundane and expected part of the conversation that i doubt anyone does anything but roll their eyes and scroll past.

If you could just move on to an actual point, it would be appreciated.

[Kishkumen]

If you could just move on to an actual point, it would be appreciated.

I’ve made a number of points. Sorry you missed them.

[Kishkumen]

I should clarify that when I say "I expect" I am referring to the perspective of a believing Latter-Day Saint and all that implies. I'm making an observation about the internal consistency (or lack thereof) of the religion and its beliefs, not trying to undermine the historical significance of Mormonism when viewed from a non-believing outsider's perspective.

Thank you for the clarification. I am sorry for any misunderstanding.