Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

[_dblagent007]

Don, I have a simple question. Are you trying to shoehorn Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon into an ancient Israelite context?

[Guest]

Don, I have a simple question. Are you trying to shoehorn Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon into an ancient Israelite context?

Don apparently isn't posting on this thread anymore, but as his roommate, I feel fairly safe in speaking for him. Don is making connections between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. He's acting as a literary critic exploring issues of inter-textuality. He is not taking sides on the issue of whether these connections are ancient or modern in origin; that's a job for others with the relevant expertise. What he is doing—what he thought would be interesting to the FAIRites—is suggesting that the germs of the Nauvoo theology were present in New York: that Joseph's career was in large part an unfolding of things that were seminally present in some form from the outset.

And in case anyone is wondering, I agree with this conclusion. I came independently to many of the same conclusions about the seeds of Nauvoo being present in New York—though they certainly undergo important transformations in the unfolding—some of which I'll be laying out in my dissertation. I haven't published much on the issue, but here's one small example from one of my published papers:

As a scryer, Smith referred to his magical stones as “keys” to special knowledge. His mother reported that it was because Joseph “possessed certain keys by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye” that money digger Josiah Stowell hired him to help locate a Spanish mine in Chenango County. When Smith received from an angel a pair of large stone spectacles that functioned in much the same way as his seer stones, he referred to these also as a “key”, and claimed that by them he could “ascertain, at any time, the approach of danger, either to himself or the Record [i.e. the Book of Mormon plates].” Smith’s Palmyra neighbor William Stafford reported that Smith believed the hills were full of such keys, and periodically divined their locations. With such objects, Joseph reportedly “could see everything—past, present, and future.”
. . .
Whatever other knowledge Joseph could obtain through his keys, the function upon which he soon fixated was the translation and interpretation of ancient records. The Book of Mormon tellingly referred to Smith’s stone spectacles as “interpreters,” and told of ancient seers who used them in translation (Mos. 8:11–19). Since Smith believed that the Bible had not been entirely “translated correctly” (A of F 1:8), it is significant that he armed himself with the tools to correct the problem. He was equally determined to correct problems of transmission and interpretation (1 Ne. 13:26, 40; Alma 41:1). Many other writers of Smith’s day had claimed to be able to provide the “keys” to the sticky problem of biblical interpretation, but Smith’s keys were uniquely tangible.

Smith continued to claim the keys to authoritatively interpret the Bible until the end of his life. Significantly, however, the claim underwent a subtle transformation over time. As Smith matured, the physical instruments of revelation became unnecessary, and the terminology of “keys” was transferred to an intangible priesthood. Smith’s scriptures referred to the Melchizedek priesthood as the “key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God” (D&C 84:19). Like his stones, the priesthood empowered him to know “things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come” (D&C 93:24). The motivation for this change from tangible to intangible keys seems partly that, as his audience broadened beyond the folk religious circles of his youth, his involvement in magic became a public relations liability. Partly, however, it is because he no longer needed concrete objects to ground his hermeneutical privilege. His vigorous personal charisma as a prophet had eclipsed the props of seership.

Obviously the implications of such a finding are not uniformly apologetic. But—and now I'm speaking for myself, not Don—I think highlighting the apologetic implications of such findings is beneficial, because it helps "end the war" by making scholarship more familiar and acceptable to a believing audience.

[_consiglieri]

I am completely convinced that Joseph not only was deeply steeped in the Bible, but also saw things in it by age 19 that some people work and train their whole lives to be able to see.

Sounds like a certain precocious twelve-year old in the temple.

I am interested in how you relate to Bloom's characterization of Joseph Smith as a "religious genius," CK.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

I guess I am the naïve one in assuming that an organization dedicated to Mormon Apologetics would be interested in, well, Mormon Apologetics, not presentations that make said enterprise more difficult.

On a somewhat related note, I recently congratulated Don on appearing at the FAIR Conference one week after presenting at Sunstone.

I doubt there are many to have done so.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_DonBradley]

Aristotle,

I apologize for needlessly barbing my words. Despite my sharp reaction to your notes of caution, I will doubtless hold them in mind as I complete my book, resulting in a better finished product.

I think you'll better understand what I'm doing and how it works if you read the book. But be that as it will, you have my apologies once again--and also my thanks for offering a critique.

I'll try not to post further snarkiness to you in wee hours of the night, when my judgment is off. In fact, I'll try not to post then at all!

Cheers,

Don

[_CaliforniaKid]

Sounds like a certain precocious twelve-year old in the temple.

I am interested in how you relate to Bloom's characterization of Joseph Smith as a "religious genius," CK.

That's absolutely how I make sense of him, consig. I think Joseph was extremely perceptive and intuitive, and may also have had a really good memory. As I recently told my friend Basil Williams, I think we unbelievers end up with a Joseph Smith who was practically a biblical scholar by age 19.

[_CaliforniaKid]

On a somewhat related note, I recently congratulated Don on appearing at the FAIR Conference one week after presenting at Sunstone.

I doubt there are many to have done so.

lol! very true. :)

[_DonBradley]

Not that this excuses it, but has anyone else noticed that message boards, and perhaps especially late-night posting, do not bring out the better angels of our nature. <Sigh>

I have to wonder...

WWJP? (What would Jesus post?)

And

WWJF? (Who would Jesus flame?)

;)

I really do want to be open to learning from others' criticism.

I'll try to do better.

Don

[_consiglieri]

That's absolutely how I make sense of him, consig. I think Joseph was extremely perceptive and intuitive, and may also have had a really good memory. As I recently told my friend Basil Williams, I think we unbelievers end up with a Joseph Smith who was practically a biblical scholar by age 19.

Coming from an "outsider" with so much knowledge and acumen in Mormon Studies, I think that really means something, CK.

I appreciate your sharing your personal thoughts on this issue.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

WWJF? (Who would Jesus flame?)

Please try to resist the temptation, Paul.