Commentary on the Spalding/Rigdon thread

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Mary
_Emeritus
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by _Mary »

Marg,

Since Joseph and others were most likely influenced by, and incorporated into their own developing theology, the ideas of outsiders such as
Emmanuel Swedenborg, Jacob Cochran, the Cambellites and so forth, (as well as hermeneutics/mysticism/divination/masonry)wouldn't it be 'out of character' for Joseph to develop the Book of Mormon in a vacuum?

Just putting it out there...
We find anachronisms and KJV wording in the Book of Mormon which strongly suggests that it is a composite text of 19th Century Origin, though it might well contain instances of revelatory experience through glass looking (real or imagined) had by Joseph. Vogel, may be right, and D'Unk may be also. Both methods may co-exist in the same text?

I wonder if Joseph had access to the works and methods of John Dee (the 16th century one) http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... s/Dee.html, who also engaged in seeking revelation, automatic writing, and eventually wife-swapping.

All these men (just read an account of Noyes/Oneida, which is VERY interesting in terms of his revelatory experiences), also sought divine approval, guidance and sanction, or at least said that they did.

It puts Joseph Smith in perspective a little for me anyhoo.

Hope you can make sense of this!

Mary

(oops the above link to Dee doesn't work (Univ of St Andrews). This one might

http://www.johndee.org/ (John Dee may have been linked to the Rosicrucians/later linked with the masons, and also used stones as a revelatory medium...there's a lot of similaties there/also differences of course)

Image
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

Miss Taken wrote:I wonder if Joseph had access to the works and methods of John Dee (the 16th century one) http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... s/Dee.html, who also engaged in seeking revelation, automatic writing, and eventually wife-swapping.


John Dee didn't engage in wife swapping. He was utterly devoted to his wife, and didn't want to share her with anyone. Nor was he interested in sharing other men's wives. He was the well meaning but unfortunate dupe of Edward Kelley, who wanted to sleep with his wife, and used an alleged revelation to coerce Dee. When the 'revelation' was given, Dee was tremendously upset, and doubted that it could possibly be true. He and his wife were both devastated by the idea, and Dee asked for an opportunity to have it verified. Both he and his wife expressed such great resistance to it that Kelley had to play the part of being equally horrified himself, and tore up the paper on which he had written the 'revelation' (though of course, he 'verified' that it was true).

I have read a number of source documents, and although Dee eventually acquiesced, it is not certain that Kelley actually managed to take advantage of Jane, due in part to the immediate estrangement between Dee and Kelley which resulted from Kelley's 'revelation'.

It has been theorised that Kelley produced the revelation in part to separate himself from Dee, knowing it would provoke an estrangement, since Kelley wanted to go solo at this point, knowing he could earn far more money from gullible royalty and aristocracy than he could from the increasingly impoverished Dee. Whether or not this is true, it's certainly a fact that this 'revelation' caused an irrevocable breach in the relationship between Dee and Kelley, and they separated shortly afterwards.

I have respect and a lot of sympathy for Dee, who was an intelligent though naïve and gullible dupe. I have no respect for Kelley, who was certainly a conman.
_Mary
_Emeritus
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by _Mary »

Fortigorn, thanks.

Can you give sources for him not engaging in the wife swapping episode with Kelley. I thought he reluctantly succumbed and that was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak in terms of their continuing relationship...

I'll see if I can check out the sources I used.

Mary
_Mary
_Emeritus
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by _Mary »

I'd take John Dee over Kelley any day!!!
_Mary
_Emeritus
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by _Mary »

The angels had not yet delivered the final key to the Enochian language, but in April 1587 they made a disturbing demand. Kelley told Dee they were required to swap wives, a sin that would damn both their souls to hell. Remembering Abraham sacrificing his son for God, Dee agreed. His wife Jane, who despised Kelley, was unhappy with the idea, and even more so when she became pregnant. Wife-swapping also changed the relationship of the men, and in 1589 they finally parted company when Dee and his family returned to England.


From: http://www.channel4.com/history/microsi ... s/dee.html

I'll see if I can find the source they used..
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

Miss Taken wrote:Fortigorn, thanks.

Can you give sources for him not engaging in the wife swapping episode with Kelley. I thought he reluctantly succumbed and that was the straw that broke the camels back so to speak in terms of their continuing relationship...

I'll see if I can check out the sources I used.


I will look over my sources again. I have read them pretty closely, and the most I can say is that I wasn't able to tell if he went through with it or not. The sources aren't clear. What I can say is that the whole issue hinged on Kelley sleeping with Jane. Dee had no interest in sleeping with Kelley's wife, and that was undoubtedly because of his faithfulness to Jane.

This is from Smith's biography ('John Dee', Charlotte Smith, 1909), emphasis mine:

Kelley affects not to understand, [the vision] but after more hesitation expounds to Dee that the sharing is to be in everything, even of their wives. All things are to be in common between them. Dee, to whom Madimi is invisible, though he hears her voice, fiercely rebukes her: “Such words are unmeet for any godly creature to use. Are the commandments of God to be broken?” This participation, he insists to Kelley, can be meant only in a Christian and godly sense. Kelley construes the injunction very differently, but he affects a chaste horror and swears for the hundredth time that he will deal no more with the spirits.

[...]

Dee protested and argued with Kelley and with Madimi. He was consumed with grief and amazement that good angels could propound “so hard and unpure a doctrine.”

[...]

Until two in the morning of this April 18, 1587, the pair sat up arguing, talking, praying.

[...]

Dee replied that he had found so much halting and untruth in Kelley’s reports of actions when he was not present, that he would believe nothing save what by better trial he found to be true. But at last his resistance seemed to be overridden, and in the chill of the early morning he went to bed, heavy at heart in spite of his delusion. His poor wife was lying awake, wondering what turn their illstarred fortunes were next to take.

“`Jane,’ I said, `I can see that there is no other remedy, but as hath been said of our cross-matching, so it must needs be done.’“ Poor Mrs. Dee, shocked and horrified, fell a-weeping and trembling for a full quarter of an hour, then burst into a fury of anger. At last she implored her husband never to leave her. “I trust,” said she, “that though I give myselfe thus to be used, that God will turn me into a stone before he would suffer me in my obedience to receive any shame or inconvenience.”

[...]

In obedience to Raphael’s counsel, a solemn pact or covenant was humbly drawn up by Dee on the 21st, and signed by these four strange partners in delusion. It promised blind obedience, with secrecy upon pain of death to any of the four.

[...]

Dee’s hand is unmistakable in the document. He regarded the new development apparently only as a symbol of further spiritual union, and a means of obtaining a closer entrance into the secrets of all knowledge. It was no matter to him, he says, if the women were imperfectly obedient. “If it offend not God, it offended not mee, and I pray God it did not offend him.”

Kelley drew up a paper the day after Dee’s, washing his hands of the whole matter, protesting that he did not believe so damnable a doctrine would be commanded, recounting his warnings to his worshipful Master Dee, and so on. On May 6 Dee spread his covenant, a document of the most truly devout character, before the holy south table in the chapel of the castle, with many prayers for divine guidance. The next day Kelley obtained the paper, cut it in pieces and destroyed it, made away with one of the crystals (which was found again under Mrs. Dee’s pillow), and threatened to depart elsewhere with John Carpio. Coldness and jealousy fell between the pair.

So ended the whole extraordinary episode of the Talbot- Kelley spiritualistic revelations.


As you can see, Smith doesn't provide sufficient information to make a determination one way or another. Perhaps she is being coy, but there's enough in what she recounts to leave open the possibility that the revelation was never acted on.

The account given by Calder ('John Dee Studied as an English Neoplatonist', PhD dissertation, R. F. Calder, 1952), is more definite, but not necessarily more accurate (emphasis mine):

The whole pathetic story, with the exception of a few painful lines toward the end of the manuscript which Dee later partly blotted out, but which may still be read, is printed by Casaubon in the T rue and Faithful Relatio n (243). Dee found himself in a cleft stick. He had pledged his soul as to the “angels” truth, there was now no mistaking the unequivocal but seemingly monstrous nature of their commands, but any show of hesitation on Dee’s or others’ parts about accepting this particular revelation threw Kelly into a violent frenzy, when he would threaten to abandon skrying altogether, claiming his cause about the diabolic origin of the spirits to be proved.

Thus Jane Dee and his [Kelley's] own wife raised a shocked outcry when they were first informed of what was afoot, and Kelly took the opportunity to insist that if it were lawful for the women to harbour
doubts of the spirits, then it was permissible to him to indulge his own, and vowed “I will from this day forth meddle no more herein.”

The “doctrine” was at last fulfilled; almost immediately afterwards there is a gap in Dee’s record extending over nineteen years. But it seems that Kelly, his conscience unable to sustain the weight of sin imposed upon it by continued association and conformity with such a besottedly deluded follower of the promptings of the devil as Dee, departedshortly after.


Calder gives no source for his statement that the 'revelation' was 'at last fulfilled', and chooses not to provide any details (in some ways more coy than Smith), so I'm actually uncertain as to precisely how far it went.
_Mary
_Emeritus
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:45 pm

Post by _Mary »

Brilliant. Thanks Fortigurn,

Could I possibly ask what sparked your interest in the Dee episode?
Was it through Mormonism, masonry or something else?
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

Miss Taken wrote:Brilliant. Thanks Fortigurn,

Could I possibly ask what sparked your interest in the Dee episode?
Was it through Mormonism, masonry or something else?


You're welcome. I became interested in Dee as a result of my interest in the Western traditions of alchemy and astrology. I have collected just over 200 books on alchemy, and 100 on astrology, all written between the 16th and the 19th centuries.
_marg

Post by _marg »

Mary wrote:Since Joseph and others were most likely influenced by, and incorporated into their own developing theology, the ideas of outsiders such as
Emmanuel Swedenborg, Jacob Cochran, the Cambellites and so forth, (as well as hermeneutics/mysticism/divination/masonry)wouldn't it be 'out of character' for Joseph to develop the Book of Mormon in a vacuum?



Whoever (all the conspirators) who had a hand in the contents of the Book of Mormon were, it is likely they did have some influences.

Just putting it out there...
We find anachronisms and KJV wording in the Book of Mormon which strongly suggests that it is a composite text of 19th Century Origin, though it might well contain instances of revelatory experience through glass looking (real or imagined) had by Joseph. Vogel, may be right, and D'Unk may be also. Both methods may co-exist in the same text?



Vogel accepts the Smith as sole author theory, Dale accepts that it highly probable there were other contributors to the contents of the Book of Mormon. Vogel does not allow for any other co conspirator contributors with Smith as far as actual contents of Book of Mormon, irrespective of any influences Smith may have had. Dale not only allows for other sources but theorizes a high probability that a Solomon Spalding unpublished manuscript (which is verified existed as per statements from the intended publisher) was used and that it is likely the connection to Smith was by means of Rigdon who would have had it in his possession at least 4 years before the scheme involving Smith ever initiated.

One of the main problems I have with Vogel’s Smith only theory is that while it is not an impossibility for one man, uneducated, not well read, to write via dictation a complicated storyline such as the Book of Mormon ..the probability is low. Smith wasn’t someone who’d ever shown interest in writing, he wasn’t an avid reader, he just wasn't that way inclined at the time the Book of Mormon was written. And that is irregardless of the evidence which exists for the Spalding Rigdon theory.

So I agree with the Church that Smith didn’t indicate he had what it would take to write such a complicated storyline all by himself. I just don’t agree with their conclusion ..that this is good reasoning for divine intervention. Dale doesn’t rule out other possibilities of co-conspirator writers besides Spalding's manuscript and Rigdon ..such as perhaps Cowdery helping out with the contents. But the most implausible theory of all given all the evidence is Dan’s. Dan's theory not only ignores the evidence which exists for the Rigdon/Spalding but as well his theory is extremely weak. It isn't likely given what was known of Smith at the time that he would have written the Book of Mormon.

I wonder if Joseph had access to the works and methods of John Dee (the 16th century one) http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... s/Dee.html, who also engaged in seeking revelation, automatic writing, and eventually wife-swapping.


Well we can speculate. Smith ( or anyone else) wouldn’t have had to have access to the works you mention, he may have simply been influenced by others who did or who were knowledgable of them. Those occult ideas are the sort which stick in people’s minds, spread easily, are fascinating and would probably be talked about and even passed down to future generations. So sure the ideas or some of them, for this scheme may have originated with John Dee. Smith may have gotten his ideas of a seer stone from hearing about Dee though it's more likely from someone else who perhaps may have heard of Dee but it is probably likely that the idea of seer stones may been floated around by those interested in the occult without them even knowing the first origins of the idea.

All these men (just read an account of Noyes/Oneida, which is VERY interesting in terms of his revelatory experiences), also sought divine approval, guidance and sanction, or at least said that they did.

It puts Joseph Smith in perspective a little for me anyhoo.

Hope you can make sense of this!



Well this also explains why in J. Smith’s day it would be thought that a hoax could easily be pulled off successfully, knowing that many people get taken in. Hoax’s are still tried today, but often times with rapid and vast communication networks, skeptics are able to expose the frauds.
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

Wow, Fort! Your name wouldn't happen to be John Brooke? :-P
Post Reply