Comments on: The Provenance of Mormonism

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 02:48:20 +0000

LOL. I’ll consider it.

By: Terry H

Terry H — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 02:19:01 +0000

One fascinating addition is Alma’s treatment of Melchizedek in Chapter 13. Jack Welch, years ago, wrote an article about this that’s available on the MI website. Melchizedek and his “high priesthood” have an impact on the Church and its doctrine. (Clark Goble, another plug for that book. You know which one I’m talking about :))

By: CJ Armga

CJ Armga — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 23:44:20 +0000

There are so many doctrinal influences of the BoM. Some are obvious like infant baptism, the covenants of baptism, understanding of the Atonement, etc. Some are not so obvious but do have a major presence in doctrine, i.e., concept of a promised land, being led by inspiration, the condescension of God, the role of opposition, why the Fall took place, etc. These actually are also pretty obvious. I’m sure there are others that are less obvious that I’d love to have pointed out.

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:55:11 +0000

I think there’s been a tendency to underestimate the role of the Book of Mormon in Mormon development. While it’s true the Bible was more of an influence (at least until recent decades) I think the Book of Mormon did play a significant role. Obviously our sacrament prayers come from the text. But I think there are other influences as well.

By: christiankimball

christiankimball — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:56:57 +0000

“the ancient religious institutions documented in the Book of Mormon as sources of significant religious influence in Mormon doctrine, liturgy, and practice”
Does this work (interesting and thanks all for bringing it to my attention) assume historicity (“ancient religious institutions”) or seek to work as a proof? For all I can tell here, it would be equally logical (and insightful and useful) to describe the Book of Mormon as fundamental to Joseph’s religious vision and understanding, the same vision and understanding that shows up in Mormon doctrine, liturgy, and practice.

By: athena

athena — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 12:11:08 +0000

#7 Thanks John for your response. I have nothing to add to it! All good.

And Brad L, thanks for the clarifications in your posts to many of the ideas floating around on this blog. It’s a shame to see comments shut down. Reminds me too much of lessons in church where discussions or a comment are diverted when they are seen as “contentious” and are replaced with the feelies (a comment to make you feel the spirit or feel good). Where can one go if they can’t openly explore such topics in a rational manner if they can’t do it at church and on social media? No need to answer because I’ve heard the worst possible logic and use of abuse known to mankind. I had no idea what Nathaniel’s post was saying. A lot of words that the more I read, the more confused I got. Sometimes I wonder if maybe I’m just not spiritual enough or smart enough to understand what half the things brainy spiritual people say.

By: Anne

Anne — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 03:38:31 +0000

thank you, Brad L

By: Ardis

Ardis — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:15:14 +0000

Thank you, stephenchardy

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:32:43 +0000

Brad (9), as I mentioned in the other thread the question of changing doctrine depends upon what one means by doctrine. Lots equivocation over meanings in these discussion. Typically the term doctrine means quite a few different things. When one isn’t careful different meanings are used in the same argument leading to equivocation fallacies.

By: stephenchardy

stephenchardy — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:54:03 +0000

Brad L: The tone of your responses are, for me in this forum, a distraction. This is a place mostly for and about faithful Mormonism. All of the participants here know, believe me, that our faith can have problems, and we are constantly aware of inconsistencies, shortcomings, and unanswered questions about our doctrine, and our lives. (Similar, I believe, to other faiths.) I don’t think that N. Givens “lost the debate” but rather that he does not choose to pursue your “well articulated challenges” in this forum. There are plenty of sites for those who wish to belittle our faith. Good questions deserve good answers. Generally negative tones or intent, however, requires no such response.

By: Brad L

Brad L — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 03:15:52 +0000

Looks like Nathaniel Gives lost the debate and can’t come up with a good response a number of well-articulated challenges to his groundless proposition that doctrine hasn’t changed. Alright, I guess. Take your ball, close the comments, and go home, then.

By: Brad L

Brad L — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 18:46:33 +0000

Thanks for trying to clarify Gerald’s post, Nathaniel. While I understand how in some senses you could use the term “revealed” neutrally (meaning, the adherents believe their faith to have been mostly revealed instead of based on a long chain of historical precedent)(fn1), I don’t think that the revealed/historical dichotomy is 1) much of a dichotomy or 2) if it can be considered a dichotomy, that it is all that significant. Even you concede that Islam, Mormonism, and Catholicism place emphasis on both historical and revealed elements. In other words, the religions mentioned by the OP and by you all claim authority because there are claims to divine revelation and because there is continuity with an authoritative past. Yes, some place more emphasis on revelation and others on consistency with a deep historical tradition. But it isn’t either/or, so I agree.

What I understand from the OP is that Gerald appears to believe that traditional thinking about Mormon provenance, both on the side of believers and non-believers, is that it stems from the Bible plus revelation. He is claiming that this traditional thinking has ignored the role of the Book of Mormon in shaping Joseph Smith’s restoration. Of course, Gerald’s narrative is all based on the assumption that the Book of Mormon contains the words and ideas of ancients in the Americas and isn’t mostly a product of some combination of Joseph Smith’s imagination and other 19th-century narratives circulating both in written form and orally.

My issue with the OP is that he brings non-Mormons and non-believers into this debate, but lumps them together with believers, thereby skirting around a significant dichotomy on the question of provenance: God (revelation) and the Bible vs. imagination and environment. It is one thing to look at differences in understandings of provenance only among believers, and if that were his focal point, I wouldn’t take any issue. But he is suggesting that Bloom is somehow on the side of believing Mormons on the question of provenance. No, Bloom is not. Not in any conceivable way.

Gerald’s proposition that the Book of Mormon influenced Joseph Smith’s restoration is significant only if you share his assumptions about the origins of the Book of Mormon. It is not at all significant if you believe the Book of Mormon to be a product of imagination and environment, as does Bloom.

fn1: If you are a believing Mormon, it is not logically possible for you to maintain a neutral stance on Islam. By default, you believe its central claims (specifically the claims that it is blasphemous to believe that Jesus is the son of God and that the greatest sin is attributing anything to God (such as a body or children), which is known as shirk) are false.

By: John

John — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 18:24:08 +0000

Interesting addition, Athena. I think Joseph Smith’s genius was in his ability to see the gaps that had been created in Christian doctrine/theology, and fill them in with answers that were quite consistent with the doctrine, yet at the same time allowed new and invigorating reinterpretations of the doctrine. I think, however, his genius was beginning to wane. The King Follett Sermon answered questions and filled gaps that simply didn’t exist in Christianity, but were beginning to exist in Mormonism. In order to do so, he openly refuted the core theological doctrine of the Christian faith. He said so himself. And thus, the internal logic that he had been building up within Mormonism all along, and the harmony he created with Christianity, failed. And he was dead a few months later. The Saints were sent into a state of disarray from which they have never yet recovered. Now, the religion (the main branch of it anyway) faces an existential crisis just like the one it faced in 1890. Then, Mormon doctrine’s view of marriage and the way it intersected with their belief in the nature of God placed them squarely outside the general consensus of the rest of society. The religion Smith created was destroyed, and something new emerged from the ashes. Soon, the current Mormon understanding of God and marriage will again be outside the general consensus of society, and the faith will either have to adapt or be destroyed again. If destroyed, who know what new bird will come forth from these ashes.

By: athena

athena — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 17:31:31 +0000

It is interesting that you should mention art in your post. I was just watching the documentary “Beltracchi: The Art of Forgery” and Beltracchi, an art forger (but an equally talented artist in his own right) talks about how works of art are documented or catalogued and how oftentimes artists throughout history have wide gaps (or gaps) in their works that make it easy for art forgers like Beltracchi to create a work of art in the likeness of the artist’s work and claim it as that artist’s. No-one would ever know his work were forgeries because of the amount of research he put into them. Beltracchi served prison time and when he was released ended up creating his own works of art that are absolutely amazing. While I don’t compare Joseph Smith to Beltracchi or Mormonism to this pattern of creative genius (which some have labeled forgery) one wonders and speculates what other contributions Joseph Smith would have given if he had lived longer.

Great post, by the way.

By: John

John — Sat, 16 Jan 2016 16:50:38 +0000

What is the provenance for the doctrine of eternal marriage, the eternal nature of gender, the male/female duality in God, etc….