A
Arandur
Guest
WhyMe, the witnesses aren’t very convincing, having not actually seen much (and even if they had, only indicating that something was there, not anything about the truth of it), being relatives or friends, and this being a method never used before in Scripture. Even if they never changed their stories, it’s still not convincing. Deceived people think the deception is truth (else it would not be deception), and those who work deception and stake so much on it have every incentive to hold to their deception. And this doesn’t even get into the supernatural possibilities, and the surety (that we already have from Scripture) that fallen ones masquerade as angels of light and work to spread “gospels” contrary to that the apostles preached.
Smith’s death doesn’t say much either, even if he did expect his own death. Many leaders through history have frequently predicted persecution and their own death, by the way, to lend credence to their message and puff up their own heroism. Even if this were not the case with Joseph, do you really think him “recanting” would have saved him at that point? He surely knew that, too. And then there’s still the very real possibility that Smith believed the spiritual powers masquerading as angels of light and believed their messages to be true.
I also find it absurd that you call his flight to the window an act of heroism, by the way. It appears quite clearly that this was a panicked act of desperation, dashing to the window in a last ditch effort to escape. Heroes do not leave their fighting friends behind and attempt to flee. What would have been heroic is if Smith had stepped forward, casting himself as a shield in front of the others, declaring that it was him they wanted. There are many examples of this in history, and especially among martyrs. But Smith did not. Smiths companions were braver than he.
As for Spaulding and others, it is not required that Smith directly copy a work to be influenced by it. All that need be shown to form a likelihood that the BoM is a derivative work is that similar ideas existed contemporary to its authorship. Clearly, they did. To give an example of what I mean, consider Strang’s works (for a direct connection), or Tolkien’s, which spawned a whole literary genre of derivative works, most of which copy over many, many themes and are not very independent of Tolkien at all (all stand on his shoulders).
The BoM is a mishmash of contemporary ideas, from Indians as Hebrew tribes to the new church itself claiming that honor for its members; from millenialism/last day prophecies to the popularity of making prophecies; from ideas that gifts and miracles were lost (they weren’t) to the idea that priesthood was lost and the church needed to be divinely restored (I have seen many quotes from contemporaries used by Mormons as if they somehow indicate that the BoM is true/expected, when they really show that Smith was influenced by others and attempted to produce what they were looking for). It came at a time where similar historical fictions were popular, and where wonder at the New World and its history was still fresh. It came at a time of the growth of American exceptionalism and nationalism, and from a culture influenced by state faith, such that interweaving church and state and promulgating a mythos of the special-ness of this land, nation, and church/church members was very enticing. It came at a time of religious revivalism and seeking, with many new splinter groups and denominations to choose from. Its doctrines are a mishmash of these and freemason/gnostic beliefs (progressively more gnostic, as one would expect from leaders progressing through gnostic ranks to “gain access” to more “hidden (occult) knowledge”). It comes at a time of frontier settlement, and encouraged/rode this wave.
It is easy to see how Smith’s ideas could have been popular. One of the few brazen enough to claim divine revelation, proclaimed boldly, it attracts wonder and belief. Many have been successfully at this (Muhammed probably the most so). Smith produces an attempted answer to the wishes and theological musings of some other leaders. He claims a restoration and true church. He proposes that church members are special, inheritors of the Hebrews. He proposes that this grand new nation and land will be the place of the new Zion, appealing greatly to nationalism. He suggests a mission eventually to even include essentially a theocracy, reinforcing that special-ness/power/authority. He encourages a group to gather and settle new lands, riding the wave of both frontier pioneers and utopian communities, providing security in numbers and hope in a religiously-founded community to people willing to join and take the leap to settle further West. He inspires with a grand and fanciful story (again playing on contemporary fashions) that purports to explain the Indians and the blacks, assuring white people in their right-ness and superiority, that these other races need their help to hear the saving message and become one of them. He joins others in preaching certain doctrines and even making prophecies, particularly the popular one that the end days were coming soon, likely in peoples’ lifetimes (always a fear-driven catalyst to change and embrace the “solution” to those end times). He reassures followers using the canard of persecution as if it justifies the persecuted and proves their righteousness. He provides an avenue for power and the feeling of privilege granted by hidden (occult) knowledge, following the gnostic vein.
Smith’s death doesn’t say much either, even if he did expect his own death. Many leaders through history have frequently predicted persecution and their own death, by the way, to lend credence to their message and puff up their own heroism. Even if this were not the case with Joseph, do you really think him “recanting” would have saved him at that point? He surely knew that, too. And then there’s still the very real possibility that Smith believed the spiritual powers masquerading as angels of light and believed their messages to be true.
I also find it absurd that you call his flight to the window an act of heroism, by the way. It appears quite clearly that this was a panicked act of desperation, dashing to the window in a last ditch effort to escape. Heroes do not leave their fighting friends behind and attempt to flee. What would have been heroic is if Smith had stepped forward, casting himself as a shield in front of the others, declaring that it was him they wanted. There are many examples of this in history, and especially among martyrs. But Smith did not. Smiths companions were braver than he.
As for Spaulding and others, it is not required that Smith directly copy a work to be influenced by it. All that need be shown to form a likelihood that the BoM is a derivative work is that similar ideas existed contemporary to its authorship. Clearly, they did. To give an example of what I mean, consider Strang’s works (for a direct connection), or Tolkien’s, which spawned a whole literary genre of derivative works, most of which copy over many, many themes and are not very independent of Tolkien at all (all stand on his shoulders).
The BoM is a mishmash of contemporary ideas, from Indians as Hebrew tribes to the new church itself claiming that honor for its members; from millenialism/last day prophecies to the popularity of making prophecies; from ideas that gifts and miracles were lost (they weren’t) to the idea that priesthood was lost and the church needed to be divinely restored (I have seen many quotes from contemporaries used by Mormons as if they somehow indicate that the BoM is true/expected, when they really show that Smith was influenced by others and attempted to produce what they were looking for). It came at a time where similar historical fictions were popular, and where wonder at the New World and its history was still fresh. It came at a time of the growth of American exceptionalism and nationalism, and from a culture influenced by state faith, such that interweaving church and state and promulgating a mythos of the special-ness of this land, nation, and church/church members was very enticing. It came at a time of religious revivalism and seeking, with many new splinter groups and denominations to choose from. Its doctrines are a mishmash of these and freemason/gnostic beliefs (progressively more gnostic, as one would expect from leaders progressing through gnostic ranks to “gain access” to more “hidden (occult) knowledge”). It comes at a time of frontier settlement, and encouraged/rode this wave.
It is easy to see how Smith’s ideas could have been popular. One of the few brazen enough to claim divine revelation, proclaimed boldly, it attracts wonder and belief. Many have been successfully at this (Muhammed probably the most so). Smith produces an attempted answer to the wishes and theological musings of some other leaders. He claims a restoration and true church. He proposes that church members are special, inheritors of the Hebrews. He proposes that this grand new nation and land will be the place of the new Zion, appealing greatly to nationalism. He suggests a mission eventually to even include essentially a theocracy, reinforcing that special-ness/power/authority. He encourages a group to gather and settle new lands, riding the wave of both frontier pioneers and utopian communities, providing security in numbers and hope in a religiously-founded community to people willing to join and take the leap to settle further West. He inspires with a grand and fanciful story (again playing on contemporary fashions) that purports to explain the Indians and the blacks, assuring white people in their right-ness and superiority, that these other races need their help to hear the saving message and become one of them. He joins others in preaching certain doctrines and even making prophecies, particularly the popular one that the end days were coming soon, likely in peoples’ lifetimes (always a fear-driven catalyst to change and embrace the “solution” to those end times). He reassures followers using the canard of persecution as if it justifies the persecuted and proves their righteousness. He provides an avenue for power and the feeling of privilege granted by hidden (occult) knowledge, following the gnostic vein.
) I think the influence of his hosts are really quite common. But, again, this does not remove culpability from individuals. Their sin is still by their own faults. The simplest example of this is if I tempt you to steal a candy from a corner store, your choice to do so is still entirely your fault. Sure, I’m complicit in it, but it doesn’t reduce your own culpability one whit.