Don Bradley on the Lost 116-pages

[_sock puppet]

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].”

There were no doubt many close calls with danger in the balance of JSJr's life, but many times he was caught in the very snare of other dangers. More than just close calls.

Interesting history on where the use of the term 'keys' in Mormonism originated. Did JSJr ever acknowledge that the concept (as well as the term) flowed from his 'magic' treasure hunting days, and distinguish the religious 'keys' from his earlier magic days? Or is there historical evidence for JSJr believing throughout the 1830s and into the 1840s to the time of his murder that the two, the magic, treasure hunting and the religious, were part and parcel to the same, a single 'organic' phenomenon?

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).

The LDS version is that this focus of JSJr's was as commanded by the angel Moroni. You, Chris, describe his focus on translating the plates as "he soon fixated" on such, without really suggesting in that terminology what JSJr's motives for so fixating on translating might have been. Any historical clues?

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.

Any historical evidence for why JSJr might have so believed that the Bible had not been entirely 'translated correctly'?

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.

So, JSJr was rather unique in combining tangible objects from his magic days with his interest in the 'sticky problem' of biblical interpretation? He was in essence bridging (uniquely) the gap between the magic with its tangible object and the interest in Biblical interpretation?

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.

So, you are implying that he need to make the keys intangible so that being untied to seer stones (or whatever) more contemporaries of JSJr would be able to accept them? Sounds like there was a significant part of the population that, like the New York Assembly, did not believe in the glass-looking for hire type magic. That makes it sound like the magic was only tolerable in the more rural, less sophisticated areas.

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.

This sounds to me like the props of seership were useful to separate a landowner from his money for treasure digging purposes, but not so necessary to get Mormon converts to contribute money when they were looking for a 'stairway to heaven'.

[_lulu]

You are welcome, of course.

You might enjoy this video. She is a Mormon, if you didn't know.

http://stream.scl.utah.edu/index.php?c=details&id=8263

Great link. I've been dying to know what she said.

And now I do

[_CaliforniaKid]

Sock,

I don't want to spend a long time discussing this, so I'll just make a few comments. If you'd like to read the whole article (which may provide some helpful context for what I'm getting at), see here. (Also relevant, by the way, is Heikki Räisänen's excellent essay in the same issue of Dialogue—"Joseph Smith as a Creative Interpreter of the Bible"—which I alluded to earlier in this thread.)

Interesting history on where the use of the term 'keys' in Mormonism originated. Did JSJr ever acknowledge that the concept (as well as the term) flowed from his 'magic' treasure hunting days, and distinguish the religious 'keys' from his earlier magic days? Or is there historical evidence for JSJr believing throughout the 1830s and into the 1840s to the time of his murder that the two, the magic, treasure hunting and the religious, were part and parcel to the same, a single 'organic' phenomenon?

It appears to me that the two were part and parcel from the outset. I did a little searching for evidence that scryers in Joseph Smith's day used the term "keys" to refer to seer stones, but I didn't find anything. I could be wrong, but I tend to think this use of the term originated with Joseph Smith and was drawn from the Bible and/or Freemasonry.

I also think there's more continuity in the transformation from physical to intangible keys than one might think.

Consider, for instance, that if Don Bradley is correct, then Joseph Smith regarded the Urim and Thummim as a priestly object. That would mean that both the physical keys and the intangible ones are part of the trappings of priesthood. And in speaking later about the priesthood, he continued to regard seership as a priesthood function, implicitly making the tools of seership priestly tools. In other words, the two uses of the term "keys" are related and not mutually exclusive.

Consider also that while the physical keys were a tool for translation, interpretation, and revelation, Joseph Smith soon discovered that he could perform those functions without the actual physical objects. (It's quite common for scryers to reach a point where they no longer need their props.) It makes sense, then, that as he shifted his understanding of where the capacity for translation resided, he also shifted his understanding of where the "keys" resided. In other words, if the term "keys" denotes "that which allows the seer to translate and receive revelation," then it applies equally well to both the physical props and Joseph's intangible charisma. So there's a continuity of function as well as priesthood associations.

Peace,

-Chris

[_Nightlion]

I don't know who is grumbling. I'm just stating that I think he misquoted a source, stretches the parallels a bit and it felt to me like in a few places he jumped to conclusions in his FAIR presentation and so I don't find it all that convincing. I never said I have a problem with anyone who does find that presentation more convincing than I did. To each his own.

We all have a relative tipping point in such things. Who has read Don's source? You simply question it out of hand or have you read what he is referencing with that guy who interviewed Joseph Sr?

[Guest]

Sorry, but I do not have the time to read through and catch up here. Has anyone mentioned that the Urim and Thummim was read under the badger skins, ALA head in a hat? lol Thought that was interesting. Anyone ever heard of a frontier hat made of badger? I am not saying Joseph's was. Just asking.

ETA:

[_Drifting]

Sorry, but I do not have the time to read through and catch up here. Has anyone mentioned that the Urim and Thummim was read under the badger skins, ALA head in a hat? lol Thought that was interesting. Anyone ever heard of a frontier hat made of badger? I am not saying Joseph's was. Just asking.

Joseph with his face in a badger...

[_Sethbag]

Chris, I'm sure you thought of this before, but if you haven't, perhaps this might be useful to you in some way.

Anyone can dig up a rock. Then they hold the "key". Joseph Smith already had to deal with this, in the D&C 28, where he had to come out and say that Hiram Page, though in possession of a seerstone, was not entitled to give out revelations he received with it. Joseph Smith is said to be the only one who could do that.

2 But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.

7 For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.

11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;

12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

By the way, it stands out to me that God only said that Hiram Page was not authorized to receive revelations for the church, not that God doesn't issue revelations through a stone. That's really interesting, isn't it? What exactly are "these things" in verse 12 that are not appointed unto Hiram Page? It seems clear that something like "revelation by use of a seerstone" is what it's talking about.

Anyhow, so long as magic stones and other physical props were viewed as what was required to receive knowledge from God, all someone had to do to issue out their own revelations was be in possession of one of them. Perhaps a primary reason Joseph migrated away from the use of such props was to ensure he didn't have to compete with others who had them. I guess this leads to the question, which is harder, to establish credibility as a Seer or Prophet by demonstrating possession of an interesting rock, or to establish it by claiming God appeared to one in secret and gave them his personal authorization?

[_Elphaba]

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

Don, I have some feedback for your consideration.

I had read your late-night post soon after you published it, and was taken aback by its harshness, so much so that I had written a response which included the fact that I honestly felt like I'd just read a petulant DCP-type retort. Then I decided that it was too late (early) for me to be writing such a post, because I did not want to be guilty of that which I condemned. When I subsequently saw your pitch-perfect apology, I was greatly relieved I had not published my post.

The reason I'm writing about this now is to describe the affect your words had on my willingness, or lack of, to pursue your research. I was very intrigued by your work and had every intention of committing to do whatever it took to make sure I understood your premise completely. But, after I read the tone of your late-night post, that desire disappeared immediately.

But then you posted that amazingly awesome apology that clearly demonstrated you were not a DCP-type at all, and instantly I was once again intrigued, and impatient to discover all I can about your research and conclusions.

By the way, I am not proud of the way my attitude changed depending on whether or not I liked your attitude. Clearly, your work either stands or falls on its own, regardless of how you behave. But my reaction a is fairly common human response, so I thought it would be useful information for the future. (Though, given the way you wrote your apology, I suspect you've already figured this all out on your own.)

I'll end by saying I think you have no need to worry. You've demonstrated such good form today that I have no doubt you will attract readers from across the entire Mormon spectrum, including me.

[Guest]

-

[_consiglieri]

That's really interesting, isn't it? What exactly are "these things" in verse 12 that are not appointed unto Hiram Page? It seems clear that something like "revelation by use of a seerstone" is what it's talking about.

My guess is that the answer is suggested in verse 9, and that the specific revelation Hiram Smith was receiving was the location of the city of Zion.

D&C 28:9 And now, behold, I say unto you that it is not revealed, and no man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold, I say unto you that it shall be on the borders by the Lamanites.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri