DiscussMormonism.com

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2024 5:31 pm

Nevo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2024 4:29 pm

The last time I expressed my skepticism in these parts regarding the "Dartmouth Connection," I was chided for materializing out of the blue to mock people (in that instance, Randy Bell) and for not keeping an open mind. I thought my emphatic rejection of Nielsen's theory on the other board as "utter nonsense" might elicit a similar rebuke.

Also, for Fence Sitter, John Smith never taught Hyrum at Dartmouth. John Smith died in April 1809 and Hyrum probably started attending Moor's Charity School in the fall of 1812. His teacher was Joseph Perry. We should be looking for his unpublished manuscripts!

I think the issue here is whether Dartmouth is worthy of investigating or not. I think it definitely is, especially for the cultural and intellectual background that informs Mormonism. On the other hand, I am not a conspiracy-theorist. I am not looking for the person who “really” made up Mormonism.

That's just what we would expect a conspiracy-theorist to say.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2024 5:31 pm

Nevo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2024 4:29 pm

The last time I expressed my skepticism in these parts regarding the "Dartmouth Connection," I was chided for materializing out of the blue to mock people (in that instance, Randy Bell) and for not keeping an open mind. I thought my emphatic rejection of Nielsen's theory on the other board as "utter nonsense" might elicit a similar rebuke.

Also, for Fence Sitter, John Smith never taught Hyrum at Dartmouth. John Smith died in April 1809 and Hyrum probably started attending Moor's Charity School in the fall of 1812. His teacher was Joseph Perry. We should be looking for his unpublished manuscripts!

I think the issue here is whether Dartmouth is worthy of investigating or not. I think it definitely is, especially for the cultural and intellectual background that informs Mormonism. On the other hand, I am not a conspiracy-theorist. I am not looking for the person who “really” made up Mormonism.

I found the presentation too slow and thin to make it all the way through. The Dartmouth connection has some interest but perhaps too much can be made of it. I am not sure why people do not wonder if Hyrum helped with the Book of Mormon. Well not much more than "what if" there to my knowledge. Still, he is closer than an unknown Spaulding document.

Nevo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2024 4:29 pm

The last time I expressed my skepticism in these parts regarding the "Dartmouth Connection," I was chided for materializing out of the blue to mock people (in that instance, Randy Bell) and for not keeping an open mind. I thought my emphatic rejection of Nielsen's theory on the other board as "utter nonsense" might elicit a similar rebuke.

Also, for Fence Sitter, John Smith never taught Hyrum at Dartmouth. John Smith died in April 1809 and Hyrum probably started attending Moor's Charity School in the fall of 1812. His teacher was Joseph Perry. We should be looking for his unpublished manuscripts!

Nevo,

Thanks for the correction. Your contributions here and at MAD are ones I always read and appreciate.

I know that the general (and reasonable) standard is to look for definitive ties, but for me just the existence of certain ideas within the time and area -- even amongst seemingly unrelated individuals -- is interesting to me because of my own (young) experiences with just how organically information can spread.

When I was a kid, none of us subscribed to gaming magazines. The internet wasn’t a thing yet (or, if it was, we certainly didn’t know anyone with a computer). We'd buy our video games at the grocery store, so it's not like there was a GameStop equivalent to hang out at and get information. Yet, we always seemed to know every single cheat code or level trick to the video games we played. I don’t know how we knew… the information just kind of somehow made its way through everyone who shared the interest of video games.

When I hear about these types of strenuous(?) parallels, I can’t help but think back to my own experiences of how information/ideas just kind of moved freely, without a known ultimate source, amongst those that shared a common interest.

Maybe that's far too simplistic of a way to look at these things, but it's where my noggin tends to go.

Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2024 8:08 pm

I know that the general (and reasonable) standard is to look for definitive ties, but for me just the existence of certain ideas within the time and area -- even amongst seemingly unrelated individuals -- is interesting to me because of my own (young) experiences with just how organically information can spread.

When I was a kid, none of us subscribed to gaming magazines. The internet wasn’t a thing yet (or, if it was, we certainly didn’t know anyone with a computer). We'd buy our video games at the grocery store, so it's not like there was a GameStop equivalent to hang out at and get information. Yet, we always seemed to know every single cheat code or level trick to the video games we played. I don’t know how we knew… the information just kind of somehow made its way through everyone who shared the interest of video games.

When I hear about these types of strenuous(?) parallels, I can’t help but think back to my own experiences of how information/ideas just kind of moved freely, without a known ultimate source, amongst those that shared a common interest.

Maybe that's far too simplistic of a way to look at these things, but it's where my noggin tends to go.

Yes! Exactly! The apologetic standard in defense of the faith is to demand a genuine, authenticated, autobiographical account by Smith detailing exactly how he produced the Book of Mormon via mundane means, existing sources, specific social connections, etc. Critics make the mistake of trying to satisfy that ludicrous standard. But that really isn't how culture works. It does not take a conspiracy to participate in a particular cultural discourse.

So, yeah, your example is on the nose. Anyone who has followed the historical evidence and is not invested in emphasizing the miraculous nature of the Book of Mormon can easily see how it came together in its cultural and historical context. That's why books like this one are beside the point, ultimately ineffectual, and, I would say, they really ought to be. I worry about people who stretch to believe in these conspiracy theories in order to permit themselves to leave Mormonism. These "arguments" make for good entertainment, but they are a poor reason to abandon your faith.

Don't get me wrong. The author seems like a nice, genuine, and brilliant guy. I disagree with his conclusions, but I bought the book because I thought it would make for a fun read. I am sure it will be.

Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2024 8:08 pm

I know that the general (and reasonable) standard is to look for definitive ties, but for me just the existence of certain ideas within the time and area -- even amongst seemingly unrelated individuals -- is interesting to me because of my own (young) experiences with just how organically information can spread.

When I was a kid, none of us subscribed to gaming magazines. The internet wasn’t a thing yet (or, if it was, we certainly didn’t know anyone with a computer). We'd buy our video games at the grocery store, so it's not like there was a GameStop equivalent to hang out at and get information. Yet, we always seemed to know every single cheat code or level trick to the video games we played. I don’t know how we knew… the information just kind of somehow made its way through everyone who shared the interest of video games.

When I hear about these types of strenuous(?) parallels, I can’t help but think back to my own experiences of how information/ideas just kind of moved freely, without a known ultimate source, amongst those that shared a common interest.

Maybe that's far too simplistic of a way to look at these things, but it's where my noggin tends to go.

Isn't this what Givens refers to as Joseph's bricolage?

I can see some 19th-century cultural influences in the Book of Mormon for sure. I mean, apart from big ones: Christianity and a concern with Native American origins. For example, I think Dan Vogel is correct that anti-Universalist rhetoric is present in the text. On Reddit, I recently came across an argument that Jonathan Edwards the Younger influenced Alma the Younger's sermons. There are clear similarities in wording. But one doesn't need to posit a "straight path" from Edwards to Joseph Smith. You can find this sort of language over and over again in the sermons and writings of orthodox opponents of universal salvation. Joseph was marinating in this environment throughout his teens as he attended camp meetings and as he encountered these divisions in his own family, so it's not surprising that echoes of the debate can be detected in the Book of Mormon.

My issue with the "Dartmouth connection" is that it's largely made up. At least, the way Richard Behrens framed it in his article, "Dartmouth Arminianism and Its Impact on Hyrum Smith and the Smith Family." Behrens's half-baked research and theories are now taken as the gospel truth in post-Mormon circles (and Lars Nielsen's new book is bound to perpetuate this). Anyone who takes the time to check Behrens's sources will quickly discover that they don't say what he says they do. What he didn't exaggerate he just made up, such as the claim that there was such a thing as "Dartmouth Arminianism" or that John Smith's theological lectures were well-known and circulated within the Dartmouth community. Smith, by all accounts, was thoroughly conventional theologically and deadly dull as a teacher. More Andrew Crocker-Harris than Professor Dumbledore. But you wouldn't know that from Behrens's description. Hyrum Smith spent hardly any time on the Dartmouth campus, a few months at most, but to hear Reddit tell it, you'd think he spent years drinking deep from the Pierian Spring at Dartmouth Hall, taking in everything that Dartmouth's "School of the Prophets" could offer. Anyway, rant over.

I'm all for investigating the Dartmouth environment further. There may be something there. But hopefully it will be done with more care and less sensationalism.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2024 11:40 pm

Don't get me wrong. The author seems like a nice, genuine, and brilliant guy. I disagree with his conclusions, but I bought the book because I thought it would make for a fun read. I am sure it will be.

I would really appreciate a "return and report" on the book. I listened to the some of the podcasts he has been on, and they more he spoke, the less interested I became. The title seemed to raise expectations for a theory of Book of Mormon authorship. The more he spoke, the more it seemed to be mostly background information (possibly interesting) or speculative connections (not interested in the slightest).

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2024 5:31 pm

Nevo wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 25, 2024 4:29 pm

The last time I expressed my skepticism in these parts regarding the "Dartmouth Connection," I was chided for materializing out of the blue to mock people (in that instance, Randy Bell) and for not keeping an open mind. I thought my emphatic rejection of Nielsen's theory on the other board as "utter nonsense" might elicit a similar rebuke.

Also, for Fence Sitter, John Smith never taught Hyrum at Dartmouth. John Smith died in April 1809 and Hyrum probably started attending Moor's Charity School in the fall of 1812. His teacher was Joseph Perry. We should be looking for his unpublished manuscripts!

I think the issue here is whether Dartmouth is worthy of investigating or not. I think it definitely is, especially for the cultural and intellectual background that informs Mormonism. On the other hand, I am not a conspiracy-theorist. I am not looking for the person who “really” made up Mormonism.

Which Mormonism? The one in the early 1830s with a single God, or the 2024 version with the rough stones rolling almost two hundred years? There are now three separate Gods, who are smooth, reworked, and changed, etc.

Failed Prophecy wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 26, 2024 8:53 pm

I would really appreciate a "return and report" on the book. I listened to the some of the podcasts he has been on, and the more he spoke, the less interested I became. The title seemed to raise expectations for a theory of Book of Mormon authorship. The more he spoke, the more it seemed to be mostly background information (possibly interesting) or speculative connections (not interested in the slightest).

It should arrive today.