Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

-

[_Kishkumen]

Well all that I had was the text of the presentation that Don gave on FAIRLDS. My only way of knowing what Don was trying to convey is from reading that text. I have no real knowledge of Don's position, whether he believes the Book of Mormon is literal or not, or of his beliefs. I don't think my initial reading of his presentation is unreasonable and I imagine his audience probably took it the same way, but maybe they didn't. You and California Kid seem to know him personally and say that my initial reading of it isn't what Don meant, I already admit that if he meant what you say he did then I have no problem with that and agree with it. I think it is fair to address the way his words come across or may come across to even some of his audience, is there a problem with that?

I suppose it is a fair way to read it. It just seems like you don't appreciate what a milestone it is to connect any aspect of the endowment with pre-1830 Mormonism. In terms of Mormon historiography regarding temple cult, it is huge. To hear you say "meh" borders on inconceivable to me.

I'll admit there was already a notion of literary encounters with deity, but I'm not sure when it was ritualized. I'm unaware of it being acted out or turned into a ritual until later.

The ritualization of encounters with Deity probably begins when Joseph Smith becomes a seer in the first place. All of these things occur in a context of ritual magic, including the discovery of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith's encounters with the supernatural were more likely than not all ritualized to one extent or another. They were probably rewritten to deemphasize that after 1826. The 1826 trial probably convinced Joseph Smith that it was not acceptable any longer to frame his experiences, at least publicly, in terms of ritual magic.

The fact that, at its foundation, there is little to distinguish encounters with Moroni from encounters with a treasure guardian suggests to me that all of these things happened in the context of ritual magic in the first place, and that later accounts expurgated these aspects. I understand that all of this does not accord well with the apologetic position on ritual magic, but that position is frankly obtuse in the way it avoids the evidence sitting right there in front of us.

Why else would he bother to write them? They are, after all, clearly foundation myths.

Why else would Joseph bother to write literary stories involving God talking to people? Specifically why would Joseph bother to write stories of people going to God with questions and him answering them? Well he grew up in an environment where people were constantly saying that they were communicating with God and he had his own such experience in the first vision which was no doubt embellished as his life went on.

He finds a box of sacred relics, parallel, I believe, with the Hebrew Ark of the Covenant, in a place where we learn, from another source (Joseph's uncle), that there had been a "temple of Nephi." Joseph's uncle also makes fun of Joseph for claiming that God had given him dominion over the whole area. I would say that this is fairly strong evidence that Joseph Smith was contemplating community building centered on a temple as he later did in Kirtland and Nauvoo, but before the church was ever founded. The letter is absolutely dated before 1830. That is pretty difficult to reason around and dismiss. One is unlikely to have temple cult on the Hebrew model without some kind of ritual, and some kind of ritual of encounter with Deity.

Have you actually read Lapham's account? I don't think it is the real stand out story in his mind. He makes no reference to a priest or king. He references a tabernacle and God speaking to someone, but he doesn't say to who they speak. The first reference to a tabernacle is while they are travelling away from Jerusalem. Here is what the account says:

"also to erect a tabernacle, wherein they could go and inquire whenever they became bewildered or at a loss what to do. After all things were ready, they started on their journey, in earnest; a gold ball went before them, having two pointers, one pointing steadily the way they should go, the other the way to where they could get provisions and other necessaries."

Let's actually quote the pertinent passage of this account:

They also found something of which they did not know the use, but when they went into the tabernacle, a voice said, "What have you got in your hand, there?" They replied that they did not know, but had come to inquire; when the voice said, "Put it on your face, and put your face in a skin, and you will see what it is." They did so, and could see everything of the past, present, and future; and it was the same spectacles that Joseph found with the gold plates.

So, they find an object, the "spectacles" of the Nephite relics; they bring it into a "tabernacle;" a "voice" asks them what they have in their hand; they reply that they do not know, but had come to inquire, and then the voice directs them to put on the spectacles, then a skin, and then the thing works, at which point they become seers, seeing the past, present, and future.

Imagine that.

I don't have time right now to go into this further. I have errands to run. But I have a difficult time understanding how one could read Lapham's account and not see the strong resonances between this account, Joseph's encounters with the divine as a seer, and a the later endowment ritual.

[Guest]

-

[Guest]

If you were to date US women's rights from 1792 to 1920, you can see that Mormonism "happened" when women's issues were very much on the table.

But no one has ever tried to place Mormonism in/or opposed to that movement. I think there was a lot of back and forth. Things get better for Mormon women,

from Emma being promised ordination to women in the largely, previously almost all male Masonic ceremony;

things get worse, BY disbands the Nauvoo Relief Society, temple ceremonies are suspended until the Endowment House, women stop preforming blessings.

I can't help but think at least some of these things were happening in "dialogue" with the larger society as it dealt with women's issues.

Someone should write that book but I'm full of unexecuted ideas.

There are references to Lucy (a pure women open to impressions?) being the glass looker with Joseph Smith being the digger, the same with Sally (a young women, virgin?) telling Joseph Smith where to dig. It's hard to create a timeline though. But obviously at some point Joseph Smith (pure male youth, except for his minor sins) starts to look too as well as dig. I haven't checked these references in years so I stand open to correction.

On the other hand one can argue that Mormonism began as a magic men's club that spread from the Smith men (with Emma needing chastising) to the Knight men (with Mrs. Knight reluctant) to the Whitmer men (was Mary Whitmer's seeing the plates designed to convince her when she was dragging behind?). In one sense this would make Lucy all the more remarkable. But there may have been some back and forth with Smith family gender roles in the folk practices as there were with the religious issues, if the folk practices and religious issues can even be separated.

Speaking of rituals included in the Book of Mormon narrative involving women, the story of Abish appears having women engaged in Masonic rituals. Maybe it was a foreshadowing of the fact that Joseph would include women within his own masonic ritual in the Nauvoo Endowment. Also in Joseph Smith's endowment it is the woman who sees what has to happen before the man. Not to mention the fact that in blessing her husbands women stand at the pinnacle of Mormon the Mormon temple ritual. Who knows the extent that the role that strong femaleseers played in Joseph's developing religion?

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai[/quote]

[_consiglieri]

I just want to go on record with a completely gratuitous observation that Don Bradley seems to me one of the most intelligent, well-versed and creative minds in Mormon Studies today.

He digs deep as did ever plummet sound.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_lulu]

Who knows the extent that the role that strong female seers played in Joseph's developing religion

And being a female seer was something a woman could do in 1830.

[Guest]

I don't however agree with his conclusions about the items he claims as being considered as relics within some Nephite Ark of the Covenant inside their replica of Solomon's Temple. Maybe when they find that long lost Nephite temple, but maybe if the LDS Church gets Indiana Jones on the case they might find it. It is an interesting idea, but I don't find it very convincing.

I do.

I thought I might weigh in here on the above conversation. As with California Kid I think that Don has provided ample evidence in his analysis. After chatting with Don for several hours about his evidence for this idea in Joseph Smith's rhetorical and doctrinal repertoire, I think he is on VERY strong scholastic ground. While I had not thought deeply about this particular issue until he brought it up to me, I immediately saw connections with other Masonic ideas that he introduced throughout his life and which were particularly potent in his discussions and rhetoric prior to 1830. In particular the specific choice of the relics have parallels with what one would EXPECT to find in a Royal Arch Chapter in both the Royal Arch degree and the Order of High Priesthood degree.

Second I would like to comment on Hasa Diga Eebowai's reading of Don Bradley's work. After having spent many hours in person and on the phone with Don. I can confidently say that your analysis of what he is thinking and conveying is incomplete at best. Don't get me wrong, I understand why you came to the conclusions you did, but I think you are wrong. Others here such as Kishkumen have tried to portray their own evaluation of Don Bradley's work; and he has done an admirable job of putting Don's work into its proper perspective; and Kishkumen's reading of Don's intentions is very similar to my own reading of Don and his work.

Also, let me just comment and say that Kishkumen has noted that Joseph Smith's magic/religious endeavors in the 1830s were ritually based. Kishkumen is entirely and completely correct in this assessment. More importantly, at least to me and my research, Joseph clearly viewed those magical rituals as Masonic in their nature. The main author Joseph Smith drew from in developing his methodology for creating a visionary experience with angels, and for teaching others to do the same, was thought to be the founder of Freemasonry in Europe. Additionally, Mother Smith admitted in her autobiography that the Smith family thought of their magic as Masonic in nature. Additionally, Joseph Smith saw in New York, Kirtland, and Nauvoo the ritual connections between Masonic ritual and the Magic rituals he participating in his treasure digging activities.

Having said that, let me also second the comments of Kishkumen that I see little value in shoehorning Joseph Smith's religious doctrine into an ancient Israelite context. For example, while there are legitimate parallels (and I mean parallels not congruences) between ancient concepts like Israelite temple practice, the preexistence, and the council of the gods, the early 19th century parallels to which the Smith family was exposed to as early their sojourn in Vermont are much more compelling and informative in helping understand Joseph Smith's vision of the kingdom of God in heaven and on earth in context.

[_George Miller]

I just want to go on record with a completely gratuitous observation that Don Bradley seems to me one of the most intelligent, well-versed and creative minds in Mormon Studies today.

Agreed ... And I would add he is one the most honest, thorough, and compassionate researchers I know.

[_MCB]

Welcome back George. We missed you.