“I sup[pose] I am not all[ow]d to go into investing[atio]n but what is cont[aine]d in the Bible & I think is so many wise men who wo[ul]d put me to death for treason,” Joseph Smith declared in the King Follett Sermon.[1] Smith then went onto make a claim about the first phrase in Genesis, a claim that Lance Owen noted was in line with the Zohar’s (a Kabbalistic text) reading of Genesis 1:1. Owens also noted that a Nauvoo tutor of JS, Alexander Neibaur, showed knowledge of Kabbalah.[2]
I note in my dissertation, that the reading JS and the Zohar gave of Gen. 1:1 was in line with Plato’s creation story, the Timaeus, as is Abraham chapter 3. Kabbalah was Jewish Neoplatonism.[3] Joseph Smith referenced a lot of Plato and Platonic ideas throughout his theology and likely drew on such ideas in the KFD. (See this video for a BRIEF discussion of Platonic ideas available to the Smiths early on. He asks me some questions at the beginning and I get to the presentation a little before minute 23. So the presentation is shorter than the video).
The point I want to make here, is that in this statement, JS looks like he’s saying that he wanted to discuss a text or texts other than the Bible to make this theological point in the KFD, but that he felt “so many wise men” would strongly object. Exactly who those objecting wise men were he didn’t say, but considering the setting, it would seem had some or perhaps many of his followers in mind.
I’ve long noticed that arguing for Smith being influenced by sources outside the Bible can make Mormons uneasy. My sense is that many find claims of such influence invalidating or calling into question Smith’s claims of revelation: if he could get the idea out of some book, does that mean he didn’t get the idea from God?
Yet, I’ve also noticed that such attitudes seem to exempt the Bible. Smith’s next line in the KFD was, “I shall turn commentator today” as he discusses “In the beginning.” Apparently, JS felt that the only written source that many in his audience would accept for his theological claims was the Bible.
I’ve noticed this tendency in abundant conversations over decades when I tell fellow members about my research or present at MHA: it’s common to get the pushback of Mormons arguing that JS would have gotten idea x from the Bible and not some other source.
No doubt the Bible WAS very important to Smith’s theology (and in early American culture generally) but were some of JS’s ideas novel? Where do his novel ideas come from? Members often point to revelation/God [4] for JS’s unusual ideas, but when I or others find JS’s unusual ideas in other sources, it’s common for apologists to argue for that disputed ideas actually really come out of the Bible.
Which makes me wonder: would pushing that tendency to its logical end mean that JS simply read the Bible and come up with every Mormon idea? If so, wouldn’t THAT call into question JS receiving revelation if every idea was in the Bible?
This reminds me of a conversation I had with Ryan Mullen (who’s commented on a few of these posts) over a decade ago when we were both in student housing at UC Santa Barbara. I brought up some source for some Mormon idea(s), and Ryan pushed back with a biblical claim (can’t remember the exact ideas I’d brought up). I responded, “Why is it okay for Joseph Smith to get ideas from the Bible and not other sources?” (I should have explained my thoughts better than I did). Ryan responded, “because the Bible is a fundamentally different source.” (again, this was a while ago).
And yet, the Book of Mormon (and JS) specifically said the Bible is missing truth (1 Ne 13:24-26) and that there there is divinity in other sources as well. Again, 2 Nephi 29:12: “I shall speak unto all nations and they shall write it.” In the KFD, JS wanted to refer to extra-biblical sources but felt his followers would not allow it. The idea that he then shared was Platonic.
So can we be okay with JS getting ideas from extra-biblical sources? Can Plato and Platonic ideas be among such sources? (Again see the link above for a brief overview).
[1] Smith, April 6, 1844, Thomas Bullock, 17. josephsmithpapers.org
[2] Lance S. Owens, “Joseph Smith and the Kabbalah: The Occult Connection,” Dialogue 27, no. 3 (1994): 117-94; The Zohar, Pritzker Edition, trans. and comm. by Daniel C. Matt, 6 vols. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004) 1:110.
[3] Stephen J. Fleming, “’The Fulenss of the Gospel’: Christian Platonism and the Origins of Mormonism” (PhD Diss. University of California, Santa Barbara, 2014), 413-15, 398-429, 62-64.
[4] I don’t reject God and revelation as influencing Smith, but think that Smith took a “study and faith” approach to learning.
Comments
32 responses to ““But What Is Contained in the Bible””
You make me think of Professor Kirke (ahem, Lord Digory) on entering Aslan’s sunlit lands muttering to himself “It’s all in Plato, all in Plato; bless me, what do they teach them at these schools!”
Ahh, to have the over-confidence of an RM in his late 20’s again. You didn’t know much, younger version of me, but at least you were very loud about it.
Sounds good, Stephen. Revelation doesn’t only involve God beaming knowledge unmediated into our heads – sure, it might, but I think it’s legitimate to look at our own experiences of receiving revelation to understand Joseph Smith’s experience, and for me, the beams of unmediated knowledge are a lot less common than the revelations following some long struggle with an issue. This should also apply to critics of Joseph Smith who want to negate his revelations by accusing him of plagiarism, or of merely reflecting the influence of some source.
“JS looks like he’s saying that he wanted to discuss a text or texts other than the Bible to make this theological point in the KFD”
JS says he has to “turn commentator” because he is “not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in the Bible.” That doesn’t suggest to me that he wanted to comment on a different text, but rather that he wanted to present truths without reference to a text.
2 Nephi 29 is an interesting one to bring up in this context. It does say the Lord speaks to “all nations of the earth,” but the examples are all scattered branches of the House of Israel. It also describes “the travails, and the labors, and the pains of the Jews, and their diligence unto me, in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles.” That’s consistent with other Book of Mormon passages that describe truth flowing from the House of Israel to the Gentiles and not the other way around.
Of course the Book of Mormon itself presents an abridgement of the records of the Jaredites as scripture even though the Jaredites were not of the House of Israel, so I’m not claiming the Book of Mormon insists the Lord only revealed truth to the House of Israel. But if Joseph Smith meant the Book of Mormon to lead people to the idea that the Greeks might be as important a source of truth as the House of Israel, or even more important, he did a lousy job of it. There’s far more in the Book of Mormon about the special role of the House of Israel than is necessary to make it palatable to a mainstream Christian audience in 1830.
Yes, Plato has a major impact, Coffinberry. I did some posts on Plato and Tolkien at the JI.
https://juvenileinstructor.org/plato-tolkien-and-mormonism-part-1-the-travels-of-cyrus/
https://juvenileinstructor.org/plato-tolkien-and-mormonism-part-2-w-w-phelpss-paracletes/
https://juvenileinstructor.org/plato-tolkien-and-mormonism-part-3-inclusive-monotheism-and-fabula/
Ryan, I just remembered the conversation and thought it highlighted something about the point I wanted to make here.
Jonathan, I see the term “plagiarism” get thrown around by critics of Smith from time to time. It’s a bit anachronistic as citation rules were much looser back then. And visionaries tend not to cite their sources.
I think there’s a few reasons for that. I do think the lack of citation is to enhance the visionary aspect, but I also think was E. P. Thompson says about William Blake is relevant.
“We have become habituated to reading in an academic way…. We learn of influence, we are directed to a book or a ‘reputable’ intellectual tradition, we set this book beside that book, we compare and cross-refer. But Blake had a different way of reading. He would look into a book with a directness which we might find to be naïve or unbearable, challenging each one of its arguments against his own experience and his own ‘system.’ … He took each author (even the Old Testament prophets) as his equal, or as something less. And he acknowledged as between them, no received judgements as to their worth, no hierarchy of accepted ‘reputability.’”
I think this i many ways applies to Smith. He too, I believe, believed he had a larger “system” to compare other authors to. The totality of divine truth and lost wisdom he was called to restore. He had the authority to use his spiritual gifts to determine the ultimate truth. But texts were a guide as well, I argue.
RLD: I do think JS was saying he had other text(s) in mind with that KFD quote. I also think that the BoM is referring to religious perennialism in the 1 Nephi 29 quote, a common attitude in Christian Platonism. Same with Alma 29:8.
I’ll post more!
I think Joseph Smith was less concerned about the source of the idea than whether or not it was true, and he went to God with the ideas to find out if they were true or not. I think that’s a good example for us to follow.
To explain myself a little more, RLD, I see the Book of Mormon as laying out what Smith saw as his foundational doctrine preparatory to his higher doctrine. The foundational doctrine the Book of Mormon calls the “plainness” and the higher doctrine is often referred to as the “fulness.”
So a couple of things. As part of the plainness, issues like the gathering of Israel are important. And that remains important throughout Smith’s teachings. But the Book of Mormon also makes clear that more will be revealed and the “more” that Smith later revealed was Platonic.
The idea of the ancient theology was that there was a larger truth spread throughout the ancient world not all of which was in the Bible. But Christian Platonists often said it went back to Moses, Noah, Enoch, and/or Adam. And such truths had been passed down through the ancient theology: Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Plato etc. It was part of “one great whole” as Mosheim describes the idea.
I’ll post more about this.
““I sup[pose] I am not all[ow]d to go into investing[atio]n but what is cont[aine]d in the Bible & I think is so many wise men who wo[ul]d put me to death for treason,” Joseph Smith declared in the King Follett Sermon.[1] Smith then went onto make a claim about the first phrase in Genesis, a claim that Lance Owen noted was in line with the Zohar’s (a Kabbalistic text) reading of Genesis 1:1. Owens also noted that a Nauvoo tutor of JS, Alexander Neibaur, showed knowledge of Kabbalah.[2]
I note in my dissertation, that the reading JS and the Zohar gave of Gen. 1:1 was in line with Plato’s creation story, the Timaeus, as is Abraham chapter 3. Kabbalah was Jewish Neoplatonism.[3] Joseph Smith referenced a lot of Plato and Platonic ideas throughout his theology and likely drew on such ideas in the KFD.”
Simply put, Owens’ claim was wrong. The KFD’s reading of Gen. 1:1 is _not_ in line with the Zohar’s. Owens claimed far, far too much when he stated that Joseph “apparently quotes almost word for word from the first section of the Zohar.” One of the biggest flaws in Owens’ paper was relying on a dated English translation of the Zohar passage instead of consulting the Aramaic, or at least a better translations available at the time, such as Tishby’s “Wisdom of the Zohar.”
Because this is a comment on your blog post, I’ll condense my analysis from a recent paper on this.
In the relevant Zohar passage, sexual imagery alludes to the process of emanation proceeding again from the sefira Keter which causes Reishit to expand from a single point and build itself a magnificent palace. This palace is the next sefirah, Binah, intelligence or understanding. Hochmah and Binah are a pair that represent the divine father and mother, respectively, or the seed and the womb, because they conceive and birth the rest of the sefirot. Dwelling in this palace, Reishit, the seed, enters Binah, the womb, this seed leading to the creation of the Shekhina, symbol of God’s consort and the holy assembly of Israel. This begetting seed benefits the entire world. The process of emanation continues, the seed being likened to a silkworm who weaves its magnificent clothing and palace out of its own substance. Binah, this palace, is given the divine name Elohim. That is what the Zohar means when it says “With beginning, created God.” That is, the hidden Ein Sof by means of the sefira Hochma in its configuration of Reishit created Elohim, which is the sefira Binah. The letter ‘beit’ functions here as an instrumental preposition, and is essential to the meaning of the entire construct. It cannot be discarded without completely altering the meaning.
This is a very different concept to that of Joseph’s, though both use an eccentric interpretation of the text and both turn ‘God’ into the object of the sentence. Joseph drops the letter ‘beit’ and the suffix ‘it’ leaving him with rosh – the head [of the gods]. The head creates the other gods and forms a divine council of gods, who are all separate beings. The ‘beit’ and ‘it’, on the other hand, are essential to the Zohar’s concept of Ein Sof using a sefira termed Reishit (the beginning) in order to create a palace for one of his sefirot to bring forth others, all manifestations of himself, not actual, separate (human) beings.
Almost no imagery from this Zohar passage has any equivalent in the KFD. Even when the Zohar bears some similarities to the Timaeus, Joseph makes no use of them. There are plenty of elements integral to the logic the KFD – such as its Christology – that have no parallel to that Zoharic passage but make perfect sense as interpretations of the Bible and restoration scripture.
While it is not possible to prove that Joseph never read that portion of the Zohar or was taught it by Alexander Neibaur, leading him to ponder the subject of a council of the Gods; due to the vast, fundamental difference between the two texts, this premise is highly unlikely. Far likelier in my opinion is that when reading the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 Joseph was struck with evidence of a truth he already knew, and he then marshalled that verse in support of his knowledge of the council of the gods. Internal theological developments and visionary experiences, thus, are a better guide to the genesis of this sermon. All the conceptual elements were already in place before Neibaur stepped foot in the Americas.
The problem with assuming that Neibaur had knowledge of the Kabbalah , let alone a strong familiarity with it is that not only are many of the quoted works in his T&S article not Kabbalistic, the quoted content of those which are Kabbalistic is not esoteric. Something that is often overlooked is that the Zohar and other books contained revealed or exoteric (nigleh) content inside the concealed or esoteric (nistar) layers. A distinction was also made between deeper mysteries and more accessible esoteric teachings, or the peshat, the literal sense/plain reading.
Exoteric and semi-esoteric material tended to be widely excerpted and anthologized. Anthologists wrote that parts of the Zohar ”fit everyone” and even contain ”clear and straightforward words,” which anyone could study. Theosophical issues such as the configuration of the sefirot or the highly esoteric creation story of the sefirot were typically excluded from popular works.
It cannot be assumed from these brief references to the Zohar that Neibaur knew or understood the sefirotic structure which is at the heart of the Kabbalah or that he even read the Zohar itself.
Owens was also wrong when he stated, ”What he [Neibaur] discusses for the most part is, however, the Kabbalist concept of gilgul, the transmigration and rebirth of souls.” The gilgul in the article (gilgool meholus) is not the transmigration of souls. Rather, it is the gilgul mehilot, an arduous ordeal those buried outside of the land of Israel will undergo before resurrection. The resurrection is to take place in Israel, so to get there, the earthly remains of the righteous will be rolled and tumbled through tunnels. Neibaur was referencing the discussion of it in the Talmud. While Todros Abulafia, an early Kabbalist, did see in it an esoteric hint regarding an even greater mystery of transmigration, his work is not mentioned by Neibaur, nor does it match the context Neibaur is discussing in his article.
I’ll need to dig my Zohar out of storage, but the bottom line is the JS changed Gen 1:1 to match Plato’s Timaeus, and Abraham 3 matches the Timaeus very closely. See the pages of my dissertation. Again, JS said he wanted to go to a source OTHER than the Bible.
And yes, I agree that JS knew Christian Platonism before Neibaur. See the video I posted.
Yeah, looking at the source I cite, it says the Zohar turns Elohim into the object. The unknowable (God) brings for the Gods (Elohim). But JS’s KFD wording is closer to the Timaeus than the Zohar.
“I’ll need to dig my Zohar out of storage, but the bottom line is the JS changed Gen 1:1 to match Plato’s Timaeus, and Abraham 3 matches the Timaeus very closely.”
You are vastly overstating any similarities. So much so that I cannot tell if you are being quite serious.
“Again, JS said he wanted to go to a source OTHER than the Bible.”
Look at the various KFD accounts again. Joseph is talking about revelation, not other books. “you thus learn the first prin[ciples] of th[e] Gospel when you climb a ladder you must begin at the bottom run[g] until you learn the last prin[ciple] of the Gospel for it is a great thing to learn Sal[vatio]n. beyond the grave & it is not all to be com[prehended] in this world I sup[pose] I am not all[owe]d. to go into investign. but what is cont[aine]d. in the Bible & I think there is so many wise men who wod. put me to death for treason I shall turn commentator to day…” This isn’t books. This is experiential gnosis.
“And yes, I agree that JS knew Christian Platonism before Neibaur. See the video I posted.”
I disagree that JS knew Christian Platonism. I’ve read your dissertation, which is full of parallelomania and forced connections. My point is that all the elements of the KFD can be traced to revelations prior Neibaur, and to things like Seixas’ Hebrew lesson.
“Yeah, looking at the source I cite, it says the Zohar turns Elohim into the object”
You mean Owens? That is about the only similarity.
“The unknowable (God) brings for the Gods (Elohim).”
That isn’t at all what the Zohar passage is saying. Elohim is not used in the plural but is one of the appellations of the sefira Binah.
Well, I guess we disagree. I’d say that Abraham 3 and sections of Timaeus are quite close. I even put a chat together of the numerous similarities and how they go in order. I don’t think I’m overstating it.
And the Stanford version of the Zohar says that’s what it’s saying. Seems like an authority. Lots of other Platonic stuff in Mormonism too. I note the Platonic ideas of eternal matter and preexistence being taught in Vermont while the Smiths were there. Seems pretty clear. So yes, I agree that JS knew of Platonic material before the KFD. Like Abraham 3.
Christian Platonism was influencing Joseph Sr. long before the founding of Mormonism.
“And the Stanford version of the Zohar says that’s what it’s saying. Seems like an authority.”
Factually wrong. Matt’s translation uses the singular, and in the note he states it means Binah. “With this beginning, the unknown concealed one created the palace. This palace is called (Elohim), God. The secret is: (Bereshit bara Elohim), With beginning, created God. (Genesis 1:1)” This is not gods, but Elohim in the singular, an appellation for Binah. This is a well-developed sefirotic concept. Tishby’s translation also uses the singular. That is the sense of the Aramaic in both the Livorno edition and the Margalioth edition. I’m not aware of any traditional Zohar commentators who read it as plural, nor, for that matter, academics.
Factually wrong. Matt’s translation uses the singular, and in the note he states it means Binah. “With this beginning, the unknown concealed one created the palace. This palace is called (Elohim), God. The secret is: (Bereshit bara Elohim), With beginning, created God. (Genesis 1:1)” This is not gods, but Elohim in the singular, an appellation for Binah. This is a well-developed sefirotic concept. Tishby’s translation also uses the singular. That is the sense of the Aramaic in both the Livorno edition and the Margalioth edition. I’m not aware of any traditional Zohar commentators who read it as plural, nor, for that matter, academics.
JS was well aware that Elohim could be plural and talked about it in his Nauvoo speeches.
Matt: “thereby transforming GOD into the object!” of the sentence. Matt 1:110. Just like JS was arguing in the KFD.
Yes, Matt keeps it singular, but JS liked Elohim to be plural. Thus changing Gen 1:1 to sound like Plato’s Timaeus, which was very much like Abraham 3.
‘The foundational doctrine the Book of Mormon calls the “plainness” and the higher doctrine is often referred to as the “fulness.”’
If I understand correctly, you’re arguing that a substantial fraction (most? all?) of Book of Mormon “plainness” is a deliberate deception by Joseph Smith, “trickery” design to lure in orthodox Christians so he can later teach them the Platonic “fulness.” That includes all its teachings on the atonement of Christ and its presentation as a history. If that’s so, then we would expect the major themes of the Book of Mormon to either be part of the Platonic gospel or appealing to Joseph Smith’s audience.
You’ll have to tell us if you think the Platonic fulness has a special role for the House of Israel (I had assumed from your previous posts that you don’t) but I don’t see the Book of Mormon’s teachings on the topic appealing to Joseph Smith’s audience–especially the part about them being interlopers on land God intends to give back to the Native Americans.
Extending the principle to the rest of Joseph’s teachings, I imagine most of us have seen firsthand that God having a physical body doesn’t appeal to orthodox Christians. Again, you’ll have to tell us if you think that doctrine is part of the Platonic fulness. (It seems to go against the Plato I’ve read, but I recognize that reading was limited and done a long time ago.)
Yes, let me explain my thoughts a little more, RLD.
I take JS’s thoughts on the plainness as his views on basic foundational Christianity. He really hated Calvinism and viewed the Arminianism (what the Methodists taught) or the BoM theology as correct at a simple level. So a good foundation to lay, correcting some ideas he saw as false (like Calvinism).
But he saw Arminianism as a stepping stone, just as the BoM presents itself. If people will believe it, then more will be revealed to those who take the first step and believe the BoM (3 Nephi 26). Once his followers accepted that JS as a prophet through believing the BoM, then they would have an increased willingness to believe his additional revelations.
JS certainly seemed to believe in gathering of Israel. I don’t see that and Christian Platonism as mutually exclusive.
In terms of God’s body, I talk about in the video I post. An important local figure attributing a corporeal God to the ancient theology.
“Yes, Matt keeps it singular, but JS liked Elohim to be plural.”
You were claiming that Matt’s translation (“Seems like an authority”) “says that’s what it’s saying.” IE, Matt was saying it is plural. That little sleight of hand on your part wasn’t exactly honest, now was it?
“JS was well aware that Elohim could be plural and talked about it in his Nauvoo speeches.”
Ask yourself how he was aware of it. Joseph did not need the Zohar for that. The 1834 edition of Seixas’ Grammar, which Joseph used, includes Genesis 1:1 in its translation exercises. Reading the English translation of the entries from top to bottom shows the following:
In the beginning
He created
God
This is the order in which Joseph read the verse in Hebrew. The entry for In the beginning draws attention to the prefix and suffix which Joseph discarded, and directs the student to consult the Lexicon on the word reishit. The Grammar mirrored the classroom activities with Seixas in person. Joseph would have had this understanding of the Hebrew by 1836, 8 years prior to the King Follett Discourse.
Gibbs’ 1828 Lexicon – the one Joseph had – defines Rosh as follows: “[A] head; the best of its kind; a chief leader; a chief city, a metropolis; the highest place, the first rank; the top or highest part, as of a mountain pillar; the first in number; the beginning; the sum, the whole number; a company, multitude, host; a person, individual.” In other words, in Seixas and Gibbs we have the right interpretative sequence and definitions undergirding Joseph’s understanding of Genesis 1:1 without the need to posit familiarity with the Zohar passage at all.
To hold that Joseph was inspired by the Zohar’s wording runs into grammatical issues that neither Own nor you have explained. I brought it up earlier. The Zohar says “With beginning, created God.” That is, the hidden Ein Sof by means of the sefira Hochma in its configuration of Reishit created Elohim, which is the sefira Binah. The letter ‘beit’ functions here as an instrumental preposition, and is essential to the meaning of the entire construct. It cannot be discarded without completely altering the meaning. Why is this what inspired Joseph and not the tools by which he learned Hebrew?
I think we’re getting a bit over focussed on this one phrase. JS said that he wanted to go to another source OUTSIDE the Bible to make his point. That’s the whole point of this post. He was making it clear that he was inspired by a text MORE than just the Hebrew in the Bible. The Zohar is a good candidate. It moves Elohim from subject to object. It’s pretty simple.
As I point out in the video I posted, the claim that God created out of eternal matter was seen as a fundamentally Platonic doctrine in JS’s day. That’s central to this part of the KFD. And the reading JS gave Gen 1:1 follows Plato’s Timaeus just like Abraham 3 does.
“I think we’re getting a bit over focussed on this one phrase.”
Not at all. You are claiming a direct genetic relationship between two texts. Your claim must be able to hold up to close scrutiny of the content and wording. You don’t get to assert such and then complain that it is being subjected expected rules of evidence and interpretation.
“JS said that he wanted to go to another source OUTSIDE the Bible to make his point. That’s the whole point of this post. He was making it clear that he was inspired by a text MORE than just the Hebrew in the Bible.”
That Joseph was talking about just another text and not revelation given to him by virtue of his prophetic calling is an assumption you are reading into the sermon, it does violence to Joseph’s preaching and meaning. You are trying to shoehorn a forced environmental interpretation which even on its own terms is weak.
“The Zohar is a good candidate. It moves Elohim from subject to object. It’s pretty simple.”
The Zohar is a poor candidate on multiple grounds. First and foremost, accessibility. There may have only been a single copy of the Zohar in America at the time and it was certainly not available to Joseph. Second, you cannot really derive your claimed interpretation from the Aramaic of that Zohar passage. Third, as I have noted, almost none of the imagery from that passage appears in the KFD.
Why would Joseph need that passage to read Elohim as the subject when a source that we know for sure he read – Seixas’ grammar – visually depicts the same thing? _That_ is pretty simple.
“As I point out in the video I posted, the claim that God created out of eternal matter was seen as a fundamentally Platonic doctrine in JS’s day. That’s central to this part of the KFD. And the reading JS gave Gen 1:1 follows Plato’s Timaeus just like Abraham 3 does.”
Far from exclusively so, and certainly not to where you can just assert that it means Joseph was a Neoplatonist. Just like the parallels to the Timaeus, you are attempting to force the correspondence.
Again, my larger point that JS felt he wasn’t able to go to any source outside the Bible, and you, Allen, are arguing that you do not want JS to go to any source outside the Bible.
JS wasn’t concerned about claiming revelation. He claimed it ALL THE TIME. The issue was his ability to cite sources outside the Bible without his listeners crying “treason.” Again, you seem to be of the same mind of the people that JS was complaining about.
“JS wasn’t concerned about claiming revelation. He claimed it ALL THE TIME. The issue was his ability to cite sources outside the Bible without his listeners crying “treason.””
I could just as easily counter that not only did Joseph and his circle cite and refer to sources outside the Bible, he produced new scriptures ALL THE TIME. You limiting his concern in that part of the KFD to citing a different _book_ than the Bible is a rather flat analysis that doesn’t fit the overall theme too well. You then have to posit a bizarre theory where Joseph covers up reading a rather non-controversial work like the Timaeus.
“Again, my larger point that JS felt he wasn’t able to go to any source outside the Bible, and you, Allen, are arguing that you do not want JS to go to any source outside the Bible.”
Your larger point doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. You seem to know it. At any rate, All of the necessary elements in the KFD can be demonstrated in sources we know beyond a shadow of a doubt JS had: The Bible; the Book of Abraham; revelations received that were later included in the D&C; the nucleus of the temple endowment; and his Hebrew language learning materials. To claim that he read the Zohar and got the KFD from that faces insurmountable obstacles that you have proven yourself unable of overcoming.
“Again, you seem to be of the same mind of the people that JS was complaining about”
That’s a cute little insult that smacks of desperation rather than substance. I’m objecting to your assertion of Joseph’s sources on both the content of the respective works and on historical grounds.
Another comment that demonstrates the point of this post, Allen. You want all of JS ideas to come from the Bible and revelation and no other source. Even when JS specifically said he wasted to cite another source but felt that “so many wise men” would cry “treason.” So, yes, you are doing exactly that.
And using the Timaeus for theology was quite controversial. That was the point of the video I posted. So you do not know what you are talking about. The idea certainly seems to bother you.
Anyway, time to move on Allen.
“And using the Timaeus for theology was quite controversial. That was the point of the video I posted. So you do not know what you are talking about.”
Your dissertation vastly overstates any controversy, and conflates all the specific criticisms of things like Ammonians or Origenists into one general, nebulous idea, so you assert any mention or use of Plato was “quite controversial.” Just in general, beyond any specific criticisms of your assertions re Joseph Smith this is just shoddy and sloppy methodology. Only way you can make your thesis work, though.
“The idea certainly seems to bother you.”
Shoddy scholarship bothers me.
“Another comment that demonstrates the point of this post, Allen. You want all of JS ideas to come from the Bible and revelation and no other source.”
I want for you as a scholar to stick to accepted rules of evidence and interpretation. In the case of the KFD, you have not proven your point.
“Even when JS specifically said he wasted to cite another source but felt that “so many wise men” would cry “treason.” So, yes, you are doing exactly that.”
You are forcing the interpretation that JS meant a book.
Again, Allen, you’re stating over and over that you only believe that JS was influenced by the Bible and revelation. That’s the whole point of this post. So you keep proving my point over and over and over.
I did get a PhD in the topic. You’re statements about the controversy over Christian Platonism are completely false.
So just like I asked Ryan Mullen many years ago, “Why is it okay for JS to be influenced by the Bible but not other sources?”
Stephen, I think it’s fair to ask for striking claims to be backed up by firm evidence, and to object that your explanation isn’t the most parsimonious reading of the evidence. I’m out of my area of expertise in this case, but it’s the small-scale arguments like this where you have to convince people.
When it comes to Plato’s influence, that’s throughout Mormonism. I go over this in a lot of detail in my dissertation passed off by actual scholars and experts. Allen is just saying “nuh uh” over and over without providing the least bit of analysis. He’s given no indication of any competence on this topic other than to simply reiterate that like so many apologists, he wants to argue that JS was only influenced by the Bible and revelation despite the fact that JS said otherwise.
See pages 398-429 of my dissertation for the degree to which Abraham chapter 3 follows sections of Plato’s Timaeus. My committee claimed I made a very good case. Actual experts. That’s why I have a PhD.
The KFD draws on similar reasoning as Allen asserts.
That’s 31 pages, so I can’t post it here.
The point of this post was simply that JS said in the KFD that he felt constrained by certain followers not to cite any text outside the Bible. And Allen REALLY wants JS not to do so.
Stephen, I don’t think you can dismiss Allen’s objection as an apologetically-driven resistance to seeing any non-biblical influence on Joseph Smith. He proposed an alternative in Seixas’ grammar and made a case why Seixas’ grammar would have been a more plausible source than the Zohar. Proving influence is hard.
Dissertation committees, like all forms of peer review, involve human beings. I have full confidence in your committee, but I’ve been through the peer review process from a couple different perspectives and, yeah, I don’t know. I’ve seen some things.
Anyway, I listed the pages. The bottom line: what JS then says in the KFD–the head God calls forth the Gods–is exactly what the Timaeus says. And Abraham 3 follows sections of the Timaeus. So I listed my info. You can take a look if you like.
Timaeus and the Hebrew grammar aren’t mutually exclusive. Smith clearly talks about the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1. But he’s OVERT about the Hebrew. The question is, what source did he feel he wasn’t able to discuss? Not the Hebrew grammar because he DOES discuss that. Again, the Zohar turned Elohim from subject of object like JS does in his explanation, but the important point is that he ends up with a translation that matches the Timaeus: the head God calls form the Gods. So to be repetitive, but again, Abraham 3 follows sections of the Timaeus.
JS was quite open with his followers about receiving revelations. He did not always tell his followers his revelations, but when he DID tell them information he’d gotten from revelation, he didn’t hesitate to tell them that revelation was the source (ie the D&C and so forth). JS’s phrasing makes is clear that feeling compelled to turn to the Bible, he was suggesting he had other texts he was influenced by that “so many wise men” were not allowing him to cite.
And then he turns Gen 1:1 to make it sound like the phrasing of the Timaeus, just like he had in Abraham 3.