Did Joseph Smith Borrow from Thomas Dick?

[_Trevor]

The problem comes when you say, "Since there are differences, Joseph couldn't have borrowed anything from Dick. Why not just admit the similarities and differences and discuss whether the similarities are evidence of borrowing. But the apologetics I've seen simply say, "Nope, there are differences, so obviously Joseph didn't get his ideas here. Nothing to see. Move along."

Frankly, I don't see why anyone needs to be so dense about this issue. I mean, so what if Smith borrowed from Dick? So what if the ancient books of Mormon scripture are not ancient? Even as a believer I was perfectly willing to accept Joseph's debt to other thinkers (Swedenborg, Dick, etc.), and that ancient LDS scriptures were not really ancient. What is the big deal? Is it because the LDS Church insists that the scriptures in question were really ancient? Am I to trust their historical expertise on this? Or the ad hoc defenses of Mopologists? Why does everything in a revelation of Joseph Smith have to be sui generis to be worthwhile? Is it that grand truths have to come only from face-to-face pow-wows with the Risen Christ? They can't possibly come from other sources? Geez!

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Runtu, the problem I am seeing as you describe, tends to come from both "sides" of the debate, and no middle ground is seen by most, from my experience. Joseph Smith himself said the saints were to gather up truth from wherever they could, else they would not come out "true Mormons." This is a key concept in the life of Joseph Smith, whether people see him as a true prophet, a pious fraud, or even an intelligent charlatan. Why? Because Joseph was a seeker who found things of value, and included them in the system he brought to light in his time. Many of the prophets doctrines arose from studies in Hebrew, and if from there, why not other places? Another example would be the Word of Wisdom; there were temperance societies in Joseph's day, it wasn't particularly anything new at that time, I'm well aware of that, but I don't see it as evidence that God was somehow not involved or that Joseph was just pulling things out of his hat (pun intended.) If Joseph read Dick and found things he liked, I see no problem with him associating those things into the gospel, even asking God about them and receiving revelations regarding them. I grant that some apologists tend to emphasize the originality of Joseph's doctrine as proof that he was inspired. There are some compelling examples of that, but as for other things it's clear he could have gleaned them from his surroundings.

As far as the intelligences go, to keep it short:

Dick's arguments regarding intelligences were similar to the Baconian (more scientific) bias of Dick's experience. He seems to pick up where Francis Bacon left off regarding intelligences increasing in mastery over nature over a period of time. Where they differ most, perhaps, is in the nature of the intelligences themselves. Like Joseph's cosmology, Dick's intelligences comprise physical and spiritual elements in a future state. (Smith emphasizing that, deep down, everything is spirit.) Dick believed and emphasized creation ex nihilo of the orthodox tradition. Additionally, he taught that God was "infinite, both in respect of space and duration." Both of these beliefs contrast with Smith's doctrine to the extreme. Dick also rejected Joseph's grand key: that of eternal progression into godhood. Truly, and ultimately, a close inspection of Dick's works would reveal Joseph's idea that matter is self-existent and indestructible would have been blasphemy to him. Dick even surmises that God could completely cancel the entire universe at will if He wanted, intelligences and all. Further, Dick held a difference between heavenly and earthly beings; mankind wasn't a part of the heavenly intelligences at all, wheras Joseph taught they were, in fact, those intelligences. Smith never mentions Dick, and rejects most of Dick's other protestant theories, the one point of convergence being the word "intelligences," and the progression of those intelligences; though the very nature, creation and end result of those intelligences differ in Dick's theology.
Dick at one point was even cited in the Messenger and Advocate in Dec. of 1836, but this was 4 years after Joseph had received Section 93 of the D&C discussing intelligences. Fawn Brodie made much of Dick and Joseph, but again, there were not only similarities, but differences.

HUGE difference: Dick said intelligences were created ex nihilo, Joseph said they weren't created at all, and that they could become like God. Joseph's teaching that intelligences could contain the ultimate attributes of God would have been totally offbase to Dick.

For much of this I am indebted to Breck England and Edward T. Jones.


PS- How do we know Joseph owned Dick's book, I wasn't ever clear on that.

[_dartagnan]

Yep, that sounds like Ted Jones alright.

Do me a favor and tell him I said hello (I assume he is still on the FAIR e-list). It has been a while since we last spoke and I miss our late night phone conversations.

LifeonaPlate, I want to get something straight.

You point out that according to Joseph Smith, intelligences include premortal humans and that this marks a huge difference with Dick.

Fine.

So why is it that when I draw attention to the fact that Joseph Smith’s concept of a divine council also consists of premortal humans, somehow this doesn’t count as a significant difference?. I note this and the apologists maintain a Bokovoyan doggedness that modern scholars are “following” Joseph Smith.

Yes, we all know Joseph Smith rejected ex nihilo, but his concept of creation dealt with all material, not only intelligences. I think you guys are wandering off the reservation here in an attempt to find a significant difference, but the difference is already noted and does nothing to divert away from the likelihood that Smith borrowed from Dick in significant ways. Again, Dick was cited in Messenger and Advocate for crying out loud. You note that this was a few years after D&C 93, but so what? The book was available in 1833.

Further, your argument here is like saying Mormons and Christians have nothing to do with one another since Mormons reject creation ex nihilo. Think about it. Isn’t that precisely what Evangelical fundamentalists have argued for so many years, while Mormons reject their logic and insist the similarities are more important and prove an ultimate source: Jesus Christ?

Evangelicals point to dozens of HUGE differences between the faiths, yet Mormons have no problems whatsoever assuming a common source for both. I mean, do Evangelicals really believe in a different Jesus? Then there is no reason to suppose Dick and Smith believed in two different intelligences.

[_Chap]

The point here for any uncommitted bystander is that once again we see evidence that Joseph Smith's actions, teachings and writings make perfect sense within a 19th century cultural context - which is just what we would expect if he was doing it all without divine aid of any kind. The evidence points to him having been a clever man, if lacking formal education, but also to his having been extremely unreluctant to embark on what can (using maxumum charity) perhaps be described as imaginative construction designed to draw in others. (Evidence: Book of Abraham, and a lot else besides ...)

And that, I submit, is how it looks to 99% of the human race who were not brought up as Mormons with a reverence for Joseph Smith and ingrained respect for LDS scripture. We just can't see why you would need any other explanation of the whole shebang.

[_Runtu]

Runtu, the problem I am seeing as you describe, tends to come from both "sides" of the debate, and no middle ground is seen by most, from my experience. Joseph Smith himself said the saints were to gather up truth from wherever they could, else they would not come out "true Mormons." This is a key concept in the life of Joseph Smith, whether people see him as a true prophet, a pious fraud, or even an intelligent charlatan. Why? Because Joseph was a seeker who found things of value, and included them in the system he brought to light in his time. Many of the prophets doctrines arose from studies in Hebrew, and if from there, why not other places? Another example would be the Word of Wisdom; there were temperance societies in Joseph's day, it wasn't particularly anything new at that time, I'm well aware of that, but I don't see it as evidence that God was somehow not involved or that Joseph was just pulling things out of his hat (pun intended.) If Joseph read Dick and found things he liked, I see no problem with him associating those things into the gospel, even asking God about them and receiving revelations regarding them. I grant that some apologists tend to emphasize the originality of Joseph's doctrine as proof that he was inspired. There are some compelling examples of that, but as for other things it's clear he could have gleaned them from his surroundings.

I'm with Trevor on this. Why is it such a big deal that, as you put it, Joseph gathered up truth wherever he found it? That was always my position back when I was a believer, and yet there's this stubborn insistence on denying every instance where that seems to be the case, including this one.

As far as the intelligences go, to keep it short:

Dick's arguments regarding intelligences were similar to the Baconian (more scientific) bias of Dick's experience. He seems to pick up where Francis Bacon left off regarding intelligences increasing in mastery over nature over a period of time. Where they differ most, perhaps, is in the nature of the intelligences themselves. Like Joseph's cosmology, Dick's intelligences comprise physical and spiritual elements in a future state. (Smith emphasizing that, deep down, everything is spirit.) Dick believed and emphasized creation ex nihilo of the orthodox tradition. Additionally, he taught that God was "infinite, both in respect of space and duration." Both of these beliefs contrast with Smith's doctrine to the extreme. Dick also rejected Joseph's grand key: that of eternal progression into godhood. Truly, and ultimately, a close inspection of Dick's works would reveal Joseph's idea that matter is self-existent and indestructible would have been blasphemy to him. Dick even surmises that God could completely cancel the entire universe at will if He wanted, intelligences and all. Further, Dick held a difference between heavenly and earthly beings; mankind wasn't a part of the heavenly intelligences at all, wheras Joseph taught they were, in fact, those intelligences. Smith never mentions Dick, and rejects most of Dick's other protestant theories, the one point of convergence being the word "intelligences," and the progression of those intelligences; though the very nature, creation and end result of those intelligences differ in Dick's theology.
Dick at one point was even cited in the Messenger and Advocate in Dec. of 1836, but this was 4 years after Joseph had received Section 93 of the D&C discussing intelligences. Fawn Brodie made much of Dick and Joseph, but again, there were not only similarities, but differences.

HUGE difference: Dick said intelligences were created ex nihilo, Joseph said they weren't created at all, and that they could become like God. Joseph's teaching that intelligences could contain the ultimate attributes of God would have been totally offbase to Dick.

For much of this I am indebted to Breck England and Edward T. Jones.

Again, arguing that there are differences in no way argues that there are not similarities and specifically doesn't rule out "borrowing." This is what I find frustrating. You are of course right in all your points here, but that doesn't magically wipe out the similarities. Wouldn't you think that this is a fairly obvious case of such borrowing, and if so, what does that mean for a believer? That's what I'm interested. I do not care to use Dick's book as a club with which to beat Joseph or you, believe it or not.

PS- How do we know Joseph owned Dick's book, I wasn't ever clear on that.

It's been a while, but I recall reading that the book circulated in Kirtland and Nauvoo, and Sidney Rigdon quoted it approvingle on several occasions. I don't think there's an actual statement placing the book in Joseph's hands, but I could be wrong.

[_Runtu]

The point here for any uncommitted bystander is that once again we see evidence that Joseph Smith's actions, teachings and writings make perfect sense within a 19th century cultural context - which is just what we would expect if he was doing it all without divine aid of any kind. The evidence points to him having been a clever man, if lacking formal education, but also to his having been extremely unreluctant to embark on what can (using maxumum charity) perhaps be described as imaginative construction designed to draw in others. (Evidence: Book of Abraham, and a lot else besides ...)

And that, I submit, is how it looks to 99% of the human race who were not brought up as Mormons with a reverence for Joseph Smith and ingrained respect for LDS scripture. We just can't see why you would need any other explanation of the whole shebang.

Exactly right. I'm just always surprised at the vehemence with which some people try to take away that cultural context.

[_dartagnan]

For the TBM and his or her bulletproof testimony, I’m sure there is no problem in adjusting one’s perspective here and argue that it is perfectly fine that Joseph Smith borrowed a ton of things from his contemporaries.

However, I am supremely confident that if these little facts were known to investigators, they would weigh heavily in influencing their decision as to whether Joseph Smith was a bonafide prophet receiving divine truths via revelation. Believeing someone was receiving information through supernatural means requires substantial evidence as it is, but when that information happens to be available to the supposed prophet, through natural means, it makes the proposition all the more unlikely.

This ties in with a thread at MAD started by wade a couple of weeks ago. He asks to what extent the LDS Church should disclose its history. This is a great question, but after 20 some odd threads, an answer hasn’t been provided.

I think that when certain information will naturally dissuade an investigator. it should be provided no questions asked. Dan Vogel made a comment yesterday that I thought was interesting. He said he is not interested in getting people to abandon the faith. He just wants people to make informed decisions, whether they end up joining the Church or not. I think this approach resonates with many of us here. I couldn’t care less if some LDS stay firm in their convictions. I’m sure many are better people because of the Church and I would never want to be instrumental in jeopardizing that. But the conversion effort by the missionaries, the members in general as well as the apologists, is borderline sleazy. They go out of their way to exclude information that they know will dissuade a potential convert and they think it is justifies as if only they have the right to share their version: “Mormons should be allowed to tell their side” they demand. I agree, but so should the opposition. In the end, and after a decade of analyzing LDS apologia and anti-Mormon literature, I cannot say the LDS side any more respectable.

So how do you know what parts to tell and what parts not to tell? Members say that if it doesn’t change their testimony, then they don’t see why it should have an effect on investigators. But this is lame-brained. Investigators do not begin with the premise that the Church is true and that all apparent inconsistencies can be explained through mystery.

If it will effect one’s decision, it should be disclosed. Period.

For example, Kevin Barney said that it is missionary malpractice to baptism black people without first informing them about the priesthood ban. It isn’t part of the discussions, and it isn’t knowledge required for salvation, but it will weigh heavily in the mind of the black investigator, and that makes it the responsible thing to do.

Same goes with the Book of Abraham. To prove my point, all I have to do is point to William Schryver’s admission:

“In all honesty, if I were an outsider looking in at all of this, I find it difficult to believe that I could be persuaded that the production of the Book of Abraham was anything other than a clumsy imposture perpetrated by Joseph Smith upon his followers. But, of course, I’m not. I came into the discussion already possessing a conviction that the Book of Abraham was divinely-inspired scripture.”

This essentially proves the point I want to make. Outsiders will never believe this nonsense unless they begin with the premise that Joseph Smith was a prophet. It is like expecting people to believe Morpheus will eventually save you without first believing you’re in the Matrix. This is why there is no detail discussion of the Book of Abraham in the missionary discussions. They know perfectly well nobody will believe this if they are given all the facts. Their entire basis is circular reasoning and the missionary discussions represent an effort to draw potential converts into that same fallacious loop while neglecting to disclose crucial information that would naturally persuade them otherwise.

Most Mormons today are those who made uninformed decisions, and the apologists seem to be OK with that.

[_Runtu]

Most Mormons today are those who made uninformed decisions, and the apologists seem to be OK with that.

Of course. Most BIC members have no idea of these issues, and if they did, some of them might leave. And some of those might be angry that they never knew about these things. But it's OK. They'd leave secure in the knowledge that certain apologists would sneer and blame them for their own ignorance.

[_Trevor]

Of course. Most BIC members have no idea of these issues, and if they did, some of them might leave. And some of those might be angry that they never knew about these things. But it's OK. They'd leave secure in the knowledge that certain apologists would sneer and blame them for their own ignorance.

One of the dangers of becoming unusually well informed about a subject is that you begin to forget what it was like not to be so well informed about it. You take for granted the benefits of thinking about the subject, of being exposed for hours on end. You see nothing overly extraordinary about your achievement, and then you think--surely anyone could and should learn this.

The truth is, most people have nary the time nor the inclination to be as obsessed with Mormonism as the better-educated and informed apologists and critics. I am distressed when people disparage others for struggling with information, or for being ignorant about it. From what I see, the Church is not really that interested in conveying a thorough education in its history to its members, and critics are not interested in having their readers remain Mormons. That puts many Mormons in a bind as far as their education in LDS history goes.

Good point, Runtu.

[_CaliforniaKid]

What year did Joseph Smith reject ex nihilo? And what year did he say God had a body? Had he said these things by 1833? Let's not forget that Joseph's theology was not static and that Dick wasn't the only one he borrowed from. He wouldn't be much of a prophet if he mechanically followed one author, but the brilliance of Joseph Smith was in borrowing what he wanted and ditching (or rewriting, in the case of the Bible) the rest.