Did Joseph Smith Borrow from Thomas Dick?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Of course, this presupposes that Joseph should have received any and all information from God without thinking or listening to anyone else or any other theory of God. As I mentioned in my post above, CK, I have no problem with Joseph getting ideas from elsewhere, asking God about them, receiving clarifying revelations, etc.

Additionally, there were some interesting things Joseph brought to light without any obvious sources, such as specific material within the Book of Abraham. I know you're really interested in the KEP and the translation of the Book of Abraham, but we can't overlook the words therein. But that's a topic for a different thread. Again, Dick and Smith differed greatly. I'm not up for looking for all the dates when Joseph specifically rejected ex nihilo, but the fact that he differed from Dick was my point in this particular thread.

Regards!

[_cksalmon]

Again, Dick and Smith differed greatly. I'm not up for looking for all the dates when Joseph specifically rejected ex nihilo, but the fact that he differed from Dick was my point in this particular thread.
Regards!

And that he mirrored Dick in many ways was the counterpoint. It's actually much easier to explain the differences if one accepts the primary, pre-existing, template in Dick that Smith modified.

Dick's template + Smith's modifications = Smith's intelligences.

CKS

[_dartagnan]

Of course, this presupposes that Joseph should have received any and all information from God without thinking or listening to anyone else or any other theory of God.

Yea, that is usually the general presupposition. And it makes sense. We were led to believe Joseph Smith literally conversed with God and received information in this manner. Now, after more than a century of scholarship has revealed numerous parallels between Smith and his contemporaries, apologetics takes on a new role and we’re told that God actually speaks to prophets through people like Thomas Dick. Essentially the prophet doesn’t reveal anything new. He just takes pieces of a puzzle found in 19th century America and puts them together and calls it a restoration of Ancient times. This appears to be another no-fault system designed especially for Joseph Smith.

If parallels exist between his theology and the ancient world, it is evidence of divine inspiration. If the parallels are not exact, it is evidence of a corruption in transmission as Smith restored it through divine inspiration. If any of these things strikingly resemble things found in 19th century America, then this proves they were inspired too, and Joseph Smith knew which “truths” to borrow from, via divine inspiration.

Can you at least admit that non-LDS do not approach the facts through this “Smith was divinely inspired no matter what the evidence” paradigm? There is no need for anyone, except the TBM, to reinterpret all evidence to be in harmony with this presupposition.

As I mentioned in my post above, CK, I have no problem with Joseph getting ideas from elsewhere, asking God about them, receiving clarifying revelations, etc.

Can you at least admit that LDS investigators would have problems with this? As it is, it is a tough sell for missionaries to teach prospective converts that bonfide prophets exist in modern times. It would become and even tougher task to convert them to this new, apologetic version on how real prophets operate.

So Joseph Smith spoke with God the Father and Jesus Christ face to face. He also had numerous encounters with angels who allegedly taught him divine truths. However, he inexplicably needed to mull through contemporary works and pray about them in order to sift through the true points of what they were saying? This begs the question: why didn’t he learn this stuff when he was talking to deities face to face? And where exactly can those teachings be found?

Additionally, there were some interesting things Joseph brought to light without any obvious sources, such as specific material within the Book of Abraham.

The Book of Abraham has already been proved to have been a work of his own creation. Even Will Schryver said that his own biased premise is probably what keeps him from accepting this. The numerous so-called “parallels” the apologists have dwelled on have, for the most part, been explained by other sources available to Smith.

I know you're really interested in the KEP and the translation of the Book of Abraham, but we can't overlook the words therein.

You mean the way the investigators are encouraged to overlook any controversial matters that would naturally dissuade them from the conversion process? Dan Vogel hit the nail on the head yesterday. Critics are not worried about the investigators getting the full scoop. The Church is. The Church is the one that rushes them through conversion while doing everything it can to shield them from other perspectives. In other words, they do not want them to make an “informed” decision. They want them to make the “right” decision, and they’re more than willing to dictate it to them.

Again, Dick and Smith differed greatly.

So did Joseph Smith and Moses. You haven’t done anything to mitigate the compelling similarities between the two.

I'm not up for looking for all the dates when Joseph specifically rejected ex nihilo, but the fact that he differed from Dick was my point in this particular thread.

But ex nilhilo comprised most of the “difference” you relied on. You’re not interested in knowing whether that claim is justified?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Additionally, there were some interesting things Joseph brought to light without any obvious sources, such as specific material within the Book of Abraham. I know you're really interested in the KEP and the translation of the Book of Abraham, but we can't overlook the words therein. But that's a topic for a different thread.

I am very interested to hear what you think Joseph brought to light in the Book of Abraham without any obvious sources. Please, start another thread. I'm thoroughly convinced that focusing on the text of the Book of Abraham is at least as suicidal for apologists as arguing about the manuscripts and translation process. In fact, Gee is probably wise to have focused on the vignettes almost to the total exclusion of the text. Vignettes are much more open to interpretation.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Of course, this presupposes that Joseph should have received any and all information from God without thinking or listening to anyone else or any other theory of God.

Yea, that is usually the general presupposition. And it makes sense. We were led to believe Joseph Smith literally conversed with God and received information in this manner. Now, after more than a century of scholarship has revealed numerous parallels between Smith and his contemporaries, apologetics takes on a new role and we’re told that God actually speaks to prophets through people like Thomas Dick. Essentially the prophet doesn’t reveal anything new. He just takes pieces of a puzzle found in 19th century America and puts them together and calls it a restoration of Ancient times. This appears to be another no-fault system designed especially for Joseph Smith.

Shortsighted, at best. Essentially the prophet reveals nothing new, you say? I really don't know how to respond to that, to be frank. I guess I really am a lightweight. Either that, or less dogmatic. You can judge for yourself, though.

If parallels exist between his theology and the ancient world, it is evidence of divine inspiration. If the parallels are not exact, it is evidence of a corruption in transmission as Smith restored it through divine inspiration. If any of these things strikingly resemble things found in 19th century America, then this proves they were inspired too, and Joseph Smith knew which “truths” to borrow from, via divine inspiration.

Joseph Smith received information from God, from his culture, from the Bible, from who knows how many sources and places. You can see this as discrediting Joseph Smith, that's fine. That's one way to look at it and you're welcome to do so. I do say, though, you seem a little "attack-y" at this point, painting my view as a fools belief. Again, fine, but still, opinion, as is mine. I gladly allow you yours; but I'm not feeling that coming back at all.

Can you at least admit that non-LDS do not approach the facts through this “Smith was divinely inspired no matter what the evidence” paradigm? There is no need for anyone, except the TBM, to reinterpret all evidence to be in harmony with this presupposition.

Ah, now we start in with the labels: "TBM." I can see we're not getting anywhere yet, as far as dialogue goes, but if you want to exchange petty remarks we can do that, too. "TBM's" must only take evidence that supports their case, I see? Again, it can be said that some approach the topic this way. I personally think that's a problem shared by both sides of the debate. (I say both sides, but would include the various shades of the debate as it isn't really a black and white issue on some of these points.)

As I mentioned in my post above, CK, I have no problem with Joseph getting ideas from elsewhere, asking God about them, receiving clarifying revelations, etc.

Can you at least admit that LDS investigators would have problems with this? As it is, it is a tough sell for missionaries to teach prospective converts that bonfide prophets exist in modern times. It would become and even tougher task to convert them to this new, apologetic version on how real prophets operate.

Sure, some LDS investigators would have problems with many different things. I'll grant you that no problem. For me I see it as consistent with how I believe God worked in the Bible, and it seems reasonable to me from my own experience as well.

So Joseph Smith spoke with God the Father and Jesus Christ face to face. He also had numerous encounters with angels who allegedly taught him divine truths. However, he inexplicably needed to mull through contemporary works and pray about them in order to sift through the true points of what they were saying? This begs the question: why didn’t he learn this stuff when he was talking to deities face to face? And where exactly can those teachings be found?

The things he was directly instructed by God or angels regarding aren't usually dileanated [sic] from what I can tell. If I met with God face to face I'm not certain I'd be able to grill Him on whatever topic I choose. For example, I love a band called Guster. I had about 50 questions I wanted to ask the drummer, I had backstage passes. When the time came I ended up just talking and listening to him and forgot to ask every single one of my questions. That was a conversation with a regular musician, not the God of the Universe. Go figure! I see your perspective on it, but I believe God and His prophets have a unique relationship, but that doesn't excuse prophets from pondering.

Additionally, there were some interesting things Joseph brought to light without any obvious sources, such as specific material within the Book of Abraham.

The Book of Abraham has already been proved to have been a work of his own creation. Even Will Schryver said that his own biased premise is probably what keeps him from accepting this. The numerous so-called “parallels” the apologists have dwelled on have, for the most part, been explained by other sources available to Smith.

Again, this is opinion, the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if Will Schryver or whoever else has whatever theories on whatever topics, to be honest.

I know you're really interested in the KEP and the translation of the Book of Abraham, but we can't overlook the words therein.

You mean the way the investigators are encouraged to overlook any controversial matters that would naturally dissuade them from the conversion process? Dan Vogel hit the nail on the head yesterday. Critics are not worried about the investigators getting the full scoop. The Church is. The Church is the one that rushes them through conversion while doing everything it can to shield them from other perspectives. In other words, they do not want them to make an “informed” decision. They want them to make the “right” decision, and they’re more than willing to dictate it to them.

This is getting less and less about Thomas Dick and more and more about your apparent issues with the LDS Church overall. The Church is more interested in preaching Christ and Him crucified. That seems like a reasonable misison to me, and an honorable one, at that. You have every right to disagree with it, that's fine.

Again, Dick and Smith differed greatly.

So did Joseph Smith and Moses. You haven’t done anything to mitigate the compelling similarities between the two.

I see. Re-read my other posts.

I'm not up for looking for all the dates when Joseph specifically rejected ex nihilo, but the fact that he differed from Dick was my point in this particular thread.

But ex nilhilo comprised most of the “difference” you relied on. You’re not interested in knowing whether that claim is justified?

[/quote]

I'm unclear on why the time period Joseph taught against ex nihlio is relevant to whether or not Joseph's doctrines regarding intelligences match up with Dick's or not. The fact is there are many similarities and differences. I can see both; you apparently can't. You tell me who is carrying more bias into this conversation.

[_Sethbag]

LOAP, it's not that we're not seeing the differences. It's that the differences don't mean squat in terms of whether the similarities were things that influenced Joseph Smith's thinking.

Nobody's saying that Joseph Smith was a Thomas Dick acolyte, who took every word Dick said as gospel truth. What they're saying is that when Joseph Smith was inventing his own Gospel Truth, he took some things he'd read or heard of from other, contemporary sources, and integrated them into his own belief system. The fact that Dick had some differences is completely irrelevant. Joseph Smith simply didn't think those points were worthy of going into his theology, so he didn't include them.

And another thing people are saying is that it's completely laughable the way you're protesting the Dick influence on Joseph Smith on the basis of some differences between Dick and Smith, but the apologists of FARMS and the folks on MAD regularly pick and choose from amongst entire ancient religions bits and pieces here and there that they can call "parallels", while at the same time overlooking the fact that in other respects these ancient religions were utterly different than the LDS religion in terms of theology.

The difference here is that we're saying Joseph Smith picked and chose pieces of others' thoughts to include in his own, invented theology, so the differences don't matter. But the FARMS folks are using these parallels to show that the LDS theology is the same as the theology of the ancients, ie: we have a restoration of the same theology known since the dawn of time. In that kind of comparison, the differences are huge.

[_dartagnan]

Shortsighted, at best. Essentially the prophet reveals nothing new, you say? I really don't know how to respond to that, to be frank. I guess I really am a lightweight. Either that, or less dogmatic. You can judge for yourself, though.

I never called you a lightweight, and I’m willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

Joseph Smith received information from God, from his culture, from the Bible, from who knows how many sources and places. You can see this as discrediting Joseph Smith, that's fine. That's one way to look at it and you're welcome to do so.

There is more to it than that. We’re also supposed to believe that an ancient source (Book of Abraham) that allegedly refers to divine intelligences also falls in Joseph Smith’s lap along with Dick’s book. Just dumb coincidence huh? Or maybe that is how God works? He couldn’t just tell Joseph Smith about this stuff face to face. He had to use Chandler in delivering him papyri, and even that didn’t do the trick. He also had to make sure one of his contemporaries, Thomas Dick, wrote a book about it too, and Joseph Smith, in his eternal search for “truths wherever they are found” was inspired to purchase, read and quote from Dick’s book.

I do say, though, you seem a little "attack-y" at this point, painting my view as a fools belief. Again, fine, but still, opinion, as is mine. I gladly allow you yours; but I'm not feeling that coming back at all.

I’m just seeing a double-standard in the standard apologetic line. You have to consider the irony. David Bokovoy assures us that modern scholars “follow” Joseph Smith’s concept of the divine council. As I noted, the differences between Smith’s divine council and the council discussed among modern scholars share the same exact differences you have pointed out between Smith and Dick. But somehow those differences don’t mean much when they undermine an apologetic line.

Ah, now we start in with the labels: "TBM." I can see we're not getting anywhere yet, as far as dialogue goes, but if you want to exchange petty remarks we can do that, too.

For lack of a better term. Why get defensive?

"TBM's" must only take evidence that supports their case, I see? Again, it can be said that some approach the topic this way. I personally think that's a problem shared by both sides of the debate. (I say both sides, but would include the various shades of the debate as it isn't really a black and white issue on some of these points.)

But this is demonstrably not the case. Believing Mormons need these things to be true, far more than the critics need them to be false. Most people here have no problems knowing an investigator might reads FARMS or attend a faith-promoting apologetic presentation, but it just burns you guys up if they happen to come across forums like these and read what the dissenters have had to say. For you it is a matter of eternal salvation, but for the other side it isn’t. So who is more likely to be biased? The evidence suggests you guys are, and the quality of current apologetics – even from FARMS - makes this evident.

Sure, some LDS investigators would have problems with many different things. I'll grant you that no problem.

Thank you, but you’re generalizing whereas I am not. I am speaking of specifics. Do you think it is fine that missionaries do not teach about the priesthood ban to blacks? Do you think it is fine that missionaries haven’t the faintest clue about the Book of Abraham? Do you think it is fine that the Church effectively encourages members and investigators to refrain from independent study and insist that they seek only the Mormon side of the debate?

For me I see it as consistent with how I believe God worked in the Bible, and it seems reasonable to me from my own experience as well.

The Bible teaches that it is OK to withhold information that would naturally dissuade a potential Christian convert?

The things he was directly instructed by God or angels regarding aren't usually dileanated [sic] from what I can tell. If I met with God face to face I'm not certain I'd be able to grill Him on whatever topic I choose. For example, I love a band called Guster. I had about 50 questions I wanted to ask the drummer, I had backstage passes. When the time came I ended up just talking and listening to him and forgot to ask every single one of my questions. That was a conversation with a regular musician, not the God of the Universe. Go figure! I see your perspective on it, but I believe God and His prophets have a unique relationship, but that doesn't excuse prophets from pondering.

So the answer is that they must have a special/mysterious relationship with God?

Again, this is opinion, the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned.

No, the jury is not still out. You might find 12 LDS apologists willing to sit on the jury stand and pretend the defense actually has a case, but as far as the rest of the world goes, the evidence is pretty damn convincing.

I don't care if Will Schryver or whoever else has whatever theories on whatever topics, to be honest.

But Will was initially just as dogmatic in his assertions as you are. He is not the first LDS to admit his biased presupposition is what precludes him from accepting what the evidence clearly suggests. In other words, their testimony is used to save their testimony.

This is getting less and less about Thomas Dick and more and more about your apparent issues with the LDS Church overall. The Church is more interested in preaching Christ and Him crucified. That seems like a reasonable misison to me, and an honorable one, at that. You have every right to disagree with it, that's fine.

Hey, I can actually discuss two things at once, and I believe they are tied together. But this isn’t what I disagree with. I disagree with the methods used by the Church to sway investigators into making uninformed decisions. This to me is one of the most embarrassing aspects of the Church. Push them to baptism with virtually no knowledge about the issues except the talking points provided by two teenage kids, and then nag them to death to bear their testimony and spill tears as a means to emotionally sew them into their new social group.

[_Runtu]

No, the jury is not still out. You might find 12 LDS apologists willing to sit on the jury stand and pretend the defense actually has a case, but as far as the rest of the world goes, the evidence is pretty damn convincing.

I don't care if Will Schryver or whoever else has whatever theories on whatever topics, to be honest.

But Will was initially just as dogmatic in his assertions as you are. He is not the first LDS to admit his biased presupposition is what precludes him from accepting what the evidence clearly suggests. In other words, their testimony is used to save their testimony.

This is exactly right. I used to be like LOAP. I posted on MAD as an apologist, confident that somewhere out there the evidence was in the church's favor, and in the meantime the jury was still out because there wasn't sufficient evidence either way. There are few feelings worse in life than realizing that not only is your supporting evidence unbelievably weak, but the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. So, you do what Will does and hang on to your testimony, the evidence be damned. But that doesn't last forever, at least it didn't for me.

Dogmatic assertions give way eventually to unsustainable hope. Then you either admit the obvious or end up like some of the shriller apologists I've met. Me, I kind of like coming to grips with reality. And the reality is that Mormonism's claims are demonstrably and obviously wrong. I used to wish it weren't so, but wishing doesn't make it so.

[Guest]

Dart, I really don't know where to start in response. I can see, however, you're more interested in quibbling about "Mormon apologists" and what the "missionaries ought to do" than about similarities and differences between Dick and Smith's teachings. They had similarities, they had differences. It doesn't bother me. I don't expect God to spell every last thing out with no effort on the part of the prophet. It's no different for me than it was for Joseph in that regard. I get to use my brain to think about things. Some I understand, other things I don't. I learn from here and from there; I don't see an issue with it. If you don't believe in the Bible I really don't have many other points to make, because revelation itself won't make sense at all without a belief in that, or in a revealing God.

I'm not sure why I even thought it might be otherwise. I've lurked enough to see what you're on about, and it's not scholarship. I haven't lurked long enough to discover whether you believe in God, or that God can reveal things to His children.

You can call this a victory for yourself, but I've lost interest in discussing it with you; your view being as dogmatic as you believe "apologists" are.

[_Runtu]

Dart, I really don't know where to start in response. I can see, however, you're more interested in quibbling about "Mormon apologists" and what the "missionaries ought to do" than about similarities and differences between Dick and Smith's teachings. They had similarities, they had differences.

I'm not sure why I even thought it might be otherwise. I've lurked enough to see what you're on about, and it's not scholarship. You can call this a victory for yourself, but I've lost interest in discussing it with you; your view being as dogmatic as you believe "apologists" are.

I've said what I wanted to about the similarities, which I believe are many and interesting. The differences are interesting too. Joseph's positing of eternal intelligence as refined matter is interesting indeed, but there's no point in discussing things when one of us believes that differences obviate any similarities. What's the point?