Dan Vogel Responds to Lars Nielsen (Part 6) - Liahona
Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2025 2:12 am
Is the Book of Mormon’s Liahona, a magical compass, a Kircherism?
Is the Liahona a Kircherism? Lars uncritically assumes it is. He apparently can’t conceive of Joseph Smith inventing it himself, although such an instrument was perfectly at home with folk magical divining rods and seer stones.
Of course, “an author [Spalding or Smith] can be influenced by a famous object and still alter it somewhat to fit the purposes of his or her fiction,” as Lars maintains. However, the balls that Kircher invented, the ones that had spindles, were not made of brass but of glass filled with mineral oil. The brass ball in one of Kircher’s devices, as referred to by Lars, had no spindle. If Spalding could be influenced by Kircher’s brass ball, then Joseph Smith could be influenced by similar brass balls from his environment. Obviously, Joseph Smith’s main inspiration was the compass. None of Kircher’s balls were used the determine the direction of travel. The one referred to by Lars only showed the direction of the wind. The Liahona was provided by God because the compass had not been invented yet. Debates about the origin of Native Americans in Joseph Smith’s day sometimes involved denying transoceanic crossings based on the lack of the Mariner’s compass. Unlike Kircher’s balls and more like a compass, the Liahona had a second pointer.
Lars, you go on and on about spiritual electromagnetism, but this idea was not foreign to Joseph Smith. He was familiar with divining rods and the pseudoscientific explanations of how they operated. Nephi’s shocking his brothers is not unlike what Joseph Smith claimed he experienced from touching the plates, which in turn was borrowed from enchanted treasure lore. Similarly, Joseph Smith no doubt knew about the “falling power” of the spirit experienced by some of those who attended revival meetings, which is reflected in the Book of Mormon. The power by which the Liahona operated is not exclusive to Kircher.
As previously mentioned, your discussion of electromagnetism in The Romance of Celes is irrelevant since the romance was written by Spalding’s second cousin sometime after Thomas Dick published “Philosophy of a Future State” in 1828, but probably after his marriage in 1832, and before his death in 1862. This fact should cause you to question the many parallels you see between the Book of Mormon and the Celes MS.
At about 1:58:16, you misinterpreted my statement that Kircher claimed the spindles worked by “spiritual forces, electric forces, and magnetic forces.” I don’t see why you had a problem with this. You have repeatedly said in one form or another that Kircher claimed the spindles as operated by “spiritual electromagnetism.” I just chose the phrase Kircher used to describe the power. I clearly state that this was Kircher’s misdirection (not yours). Kircher knew it was just a trick, so what he said about how the spindles worked was fiction, like any magician’s patter. However, this should not be confused with Kircher’s true beliefs, even when he was not talking about his glass balls.
Beginning at 2:02:32, you criticize sole-authorship theorists. “Understandably, sole-authorship enthusiasts latch on to ideas like this in an attempt to say that anything in The Book of Mormon could have come from anything in Joseph Smith’s milieu, and so consequently, there is no need to entertain any evidence (textual or historical) that points to anyone else having composed any parts of The Book of Mormon. Such thinking is narrow and fallacious.”
This mischaracterizes my argument for Joseph Smith’s independent invention of the Liahona. The Liahona isn’t that complicated for Joseph Smith to have invented. He simply incased a compass inside a brass ball. Then he drew on folk magic lore to endow it with special powers. The Liahona is only vaguely similar to Kircher’s glass balls, but this comparison breaks down upon closer inspection. The writing on Kircher’s balls didn’t appear and disappear. The spindles pointed out letters like an Ouija board. The point here is that whatever similarity you see between Kircher’s balls to the Liahona isn’t strong enough on its own to overturn what we know about Joseph Smith and the production of the Book of Mormon from better evidence. It seems to me that Kircher and Smith arrived at comparable devices based on their individual needs and influences. Insisting that the Liahona couldn’t exist without the precursor of Kircher’s balls is extremely narrow and fallacious.
So, to be clear, I didn’t say the brass hand warmers were the source of Joseph Smith’s Liahona. (by the way, I’m not married to the hand warmers as an explanation and appreciate the correction.) I merely offered it and other brass spheres (such as the astrolabe) as possible influences for the spherical brass shape, not for the entire device. So it’s laughable when you say the brass hand warmers (shadow balls) or astrolabe have no pointers.
Composition fallacy does not apply because I haven’t argued that “X could not have been influenced by Y as a whole because X doesn’t contain each and every attribute of Y.” However, you say this just after pointing out that the hand warmers don’t have all the features of the Liahona, which misses my point entirely. My argument is that the Liahona is not necessarily a Kircherism as you uncritically assume. You have exaggerated the similarities and you have connected it to the Book of Mormon solely on the strength of the parallel. So, naturally, I need to point out the differences and show how Joseph Smith could have invented the Liahona himself. Kircher’s balls with pointers were glass, not brass; they were filled wit mineral oil; they had one pointer, not two; the writing on them was permanent; they operated much like an Ouija board than a compass.
On the Bayesian scale, how certain are you that the Liahona is a Kircherism in the Book of Mormon and not Joseph Smith’s invention?
Is the Liahona a Kircherism? Lars uncritically assumes it is. He apparently can’t conceive of Joseph Smith inventing it himself, although such an instrument was perfectly at home with folk magical divining rods and seer stones.
Of course, “an author [Spalding or Smith] can be influenced by a famous object and still alter it somewhat to fit the purposes of his or her fiction,” as Lars maintains. However, the balls that Kircher invented, the ones that had spindles, were not made of brass but of glass filled with mineral oil. The brass ball in one of Kircher’s devices, as referred to by Lars, had no spindle. If Spalding could be influenced by Kircher’s brass ball, then Joseph Smith could be influenced by similar brass balls from his environment. Obviously, Joseph Smith’s main inspiration was the compass. None of Kircher’s balls were used the determine the direction of travel. The one referred to by Lars only showed the direction of the wind. The Liahona was provided by God because the compass had not been invented yet. Debates about the origin of Native Americans in Joseph Smith’s day sometimes involved denying transoceanic crossings based on the lack of the Mariner’s compass. Unlike Kircher’s balls and more like a compass, the Liahona had a second pointer.
Lars, you go on and on about spiritual electromagnetism, but this idea was not foreign to Joseph Smith. He was familiar with divining rods and the pseudoscientific explanations of how they operated. Nephi’s shocking his brothers is not unlike what Joseph Smith claimed he experienced from touching the plates, which in turn was borrowed from enchanted treasure lore. Similarly, Joseph Smith no doubt knew about the “falling power” of the spirit experienced by some of those who attended revival meetings, which is reflected in the Book of Mormon. The power by which the Liahona operated is not exclusive to Kircher.
As previously mentioned, your discussion of electromagnetism in The Romance of Celes is irrelevant since the romance was written by Spalding’s second cousin sometime after Thomas Dick published “Philosophy of a Future State” in 1828, but probably after his marriage in 1832, and before his death in 1862. This fact should cause you to question the many parallels you see between the Book of Mormon and the Celes MS.
At about 1:58:16, you misinterpreted my statement that Kircher claimed the spindles worked by “spiritual forces, electric forces, and magnetic forces.” I don’t see why you had a problem with this. You have repeatedly said in one form or another that Kircher claimed the spindles as operated by “spiritual electromagnetism.” I just chose the phrase Kircher used to describe the power. I clearly state that this was Kircher’s misdirection (not yours). Kircher knew it was just a trick, so what he said about how the spindles worked was fiction, like any magician’s patter. However, this should not be confused with Kircher’s true beliefs, even when he was not talking about his glass balls.
Beginning at 2:02:32, you criticize sole-authorship theorists. “Understandably, sole-authorship enthusiasts latch on to ideas like this in an attempt to say that anything in The Book of Mormon could have come from anything in Joseph Smith’s milieu, and so consequently, there is no need to entertain any evidence (textual or historical) that points to anyone else having composed any parts of The Book of Mormon. Such thinking is narrow and fallacious.”
This mischaracterizes my argument for Joseph Smith’s independent invention of the Liahona. The Liahona isn’t that complicated for Joseph Smith to have invented. He simply incased a compass inside a brass ball. Then he drew on folk magic lore to endow it with special powers. The Liahona is only vaguely similar to Kircher’s glass balls, but this comparison breaks down upon closer inspection. The writing on Kircher’s balls didn’t appear and disappear. The spindles pointed out letters like an Ouija board. The point here is that whatever similarity you see between Kircher’s balls to the Liahona isn’t strong enough on its own to overturn what we know about Joseph Smith and the production of the Book of Mormon from better evidence. It seems to me that Kircher and Smith arrived at comparable devices based on their individual needs and influences. Insisting that the Liahona couldn’t exist without the precursor of Kircher’s balls is extremely narrow and fallacious.
So, to be clear, I didn’t say the brass hand warmers were the source of Joseph Smith’s Liahona. (by the way, I’m not married to the hand warmers as an explanation and appreciate the correction.) I merely offered it and other brass spheres (such as the astrolabe) as possible influences for the spherical brass shape, not for the entire device. So it’s laughable when you say the brass hand warmers (shadow balls) or astrolabe have no pointers.
Composition fallacy does not apply because I haven’t argued that “X could not have been influenced by Y as a whole because X doesn’t contain each and every attribute of Y.” However, you say this just after pointing out that the hand warmers don’t have all the features of the Liahona, which misses my point entirely. My argument is that the Liahona is not necessarily a Kircherism as you uncritically assume. You have exaggerated the similarities and you have connected it to the Book of Mormon solely on the strength of the parallel. So, naturally, I need to point out the differences and show how Joseph Smith could have invented the Liahona himself. Kircher’s balls with pointers were glass, not brass; they were filled wit mineral oil; they had one pointer, not two; the writing on them was permanent; they operated much like an Ouija board than a compass.
On the Bayesian scale, how certain are you that the Liahona is a Kircherism in the Book of Mormon and not Joseph Smith’s invention?
