Swedenborg...

[_Themis]

What level of research do you demand? I think we have one brief comment supposedly made by Joseph Smith about Swedenborg and that is it.

Calm down. Now sit back and relax. When you have done this try to get out of the "I must defend Joseph at all costs mind set". At this point you will be in a better position to be open minded and not be making so many straw man arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

At this point you may be able to read Mike's comments with better comprehension, and start to ask him questions of some of the things he brings up, since so far you have dismissed them without any thought. I suspect you don't know who he is, and why one should not simply dismiss him so easily.

[_Equality]

I don't think the ideas expressed by Swadenborg had a significant impact upon Joseph Smith, hence the passing reference, and the association was tangential at best. So I really don't see much of a story here.

Tobin, I think you are right to identify this as the issue that needs to be addressed. That is, simply pointing to others who had similar ideas, while it shows that Joseph Smith's innovations were not uniquely innovative, does not necessarily show that he borrowed or plagiarized a given idea from another. For that, we would need to show, first, that (a) Joseph could have known about the other person's idea; and (b) that he likely did know about the other person's idea. With respect to Swedenborg, the record indicates that both (a) and (b) are satisfied. Now, measuring the significance of the impact of an idea on Joseph Smith is, of course, a speculative venture. But wouldn't the fact that particular ideas from Swedenborg show up in the scriptures Smith produced be evidence of "significant impact"?

I also agree with you that not every parallel from the entire universe is necessarily relevant to the question of what influenced Joseph Smith. If I were to show that a small tribe in Papua New Guinea in the 7th century practiced baptism for the dead, and that this information was discovered 30 years ago, that fact would be totally irrelevant because it is so far removed from Joseph Smith in time and space. But showing that a primitivist Christian sect living in an area not far removed from Joseph Smith geographically and temporally practiced baptism for the dead is relevant because Joseph Smith could have known of the sect and its practices. And showing, for example, that Joseph Smith had a copy of Thomas Dick's Philosophy of a Future State in his library, and that Oliver Cowdery quoted from it in a church publication, places the ideas of Dick in such close proximity to Joseph Smith that it is reasonable to suggest that the similar doctrines found in the Doctrine & Covenants and Book of Abraham were borrowed from Dick.

[Hawkeye]

Uhm, that assumes that Joseph Smith had a monopoly on the truth.

No it doesn't. It assumes nothing of the sort. These are simply examples that people (like yourself) can start exploring, to better understand how "in the air" Swedenborg's ideas were in antebellum America.

I don't think that is the case, so what does that leave us with?

It leaves us agreeing that Joseph Smith had no monopoly on the truth. But that does not negate the reality of Swedenborg's influence in american thought.

Joseph Smith and Swadenborg said some similar things.

Agreed.

I don't think the ideas expressed by Swadenborg had a significant impact upon Joseph Smith, hence the passing reference, and the association was tangential at best.

I am not merely relying on Joseph Smith's "passing reference."

So I really don't see much of a story here.

You might if you studied the topic more. If you are interested in doing a study on this, and happen to be in northern California, I can probably help you obtain access to the Swedenborgian Library and Archives on campus where I am working on my doctorate (GTU Berkeley). I am told that the library is one of 5 that exist worldwide. It even has the James family collection and many family artifacts.

ps. It is SwEdenborg. Not a big deal--unless, of course, you are being an ass by calling him a "swad" (short fat person, or clown). I'll assume the misspelling was accidental.

[_Mike Reed]

What I haven't seen is a rebuttal from apologia showing which doctrines 'restored' by Joseph Smith weren't already being bandied about in some form or other by people unrelated to Mormonism.
Or is that it?
The restoration was actually picking the true bits that were already about and parcelling them together under a unique label?

I think your conclusion is an accurate one.

I don't believe that there should be shame in this. I love Joseph's motto, "one of the grand fundament principles of Mormonism is to receive truth and let it come from whence it may" (paraphrased).

Many religions start from this sort of process. Unfortunately, as they develop they tend to soon forget this process, become traditionalized, settle in a fundamentalist stance, and stifle the pragmatic imaginaiton from which they bloomed.

It is therefore understandable that conservative Mormons would now struggle with the idea that Joseph's materials came from his environment, but I believe a redefination of "revelation" is in order. It may also be good to reconsider what it means to be a "restoration" of the "true Church." Fortunately, it seems that folks like Tobin are willing to make adjustments like this.

I also believe that critics can go too far when pointing out the obvious eclecticism, and conclude that Mormonism should therefore be reduced to the sum of its parts. I think this is a mistake.

[_Tobin]

I don't think the ideas expressed by Swadenborg had a significant impact upon Joseph Smith, hence the passing reference, and the association was tangential at best. So I really don't see much of a story here.

Tobin, I think you are right to identify this as the issue that needs to be addressed. That is, simply pointing to others who had similar ideas, while it shows that Joseph Smith's innovations were not uniquely innovative, does not necessarily show that he borrowed or plagiarized a given idea from another. For that, we would need to show, first, that (a) Joseph could have known about the other person's idea; and (b) that he likely did know about the other person's idea. With respect to Swedenborg, the record indicates that both (a) and (b) are satisfied. Now, measuring the significance of the impact of an idea on Joseph Smith is, of course, a speculative venture. But wouldn't the fact that particular ideas from Swedenborg show up in the scriptures Smith produced be evidence of "significant impact"?

I also agree with you that not every parallel from the entire universe is necessarily relevant to the question of what influenced Joseph Smith. If I were to show that a small tribe in Papua New Guinea in the 7th century practiced baptism for the dead, and that this information was discovered 30 years ago, that fact would be totally irrelevant because it is so far removed from Joseph Smith in time and space. But showing that a primitivist Christian sect living in an area not far removed from Joseph Smith geographically and temporally practiced baptism for the dead is relevant because Joseph Smith could have known of the sect and its practices. And showing, for example, that Joseph Smith had a copy of Thomas Dick's Philosophy of a Future State in his library, and that Oliver Cowdery quoted from it in a church publication, places the ideas of Dick in such close proximity to Joseph Smith that it is reasonable to suggest that the similar doctrines found in the Doctrine & Covenants and Book of Abraham were borrowed from Dick.

I don't think that gets you where you want to go with me. It might get you somewhere with someone that believes that Mormonism is inspired and therefore unique. I don't link the two and here is why:

Let's suppose you are right and Joseph Smith copied everything. And I'm not conceding that point, but doing it just for fun. Your main assumption is that Joseph Smith is a fraud. If he invented it or copied it, it really doesn't make a difference to that assumption. Now, let's look at it from my point-of-view. I believe Joseph Smith was inspired. If he invented it or copied it, it really doesn't make a difference to my assumption either. The only person with a dog in this fight is the person that believes that Mormonism is uniquely true and that is why it is inspired of God.

Now, why do I wish to deny he copied it then? Actually I don't. If we were discussing the temple ceremony and whether parts of it were copied from Masonry, I think there is a lot of direct and incontrovertible evidence that it was. However, I am certainly not there on Swedenborgianism nor am I there with the theories that someone else wrote the Book of Mormon either, and the list goes on. I heavily subscribe to position taken by Grant Palmer that Joseph Smith solely wrote it and it is a 19th century work - or counter his position, that or it must be inspired. And yes, I know Grant Palmer has left the reservation. For me, it is important to determine what assumptions and positions are valid over being wed to assumptions and positions that are invalid and lead nowhere useful.

[_Tobin]

You might if you studied the topic more. If you are interested in doing a study on this, and happen to be in northern California, I can probably help you obtain access to the Swedenborgian Library and Archives on campus where I am working on my doctorate (GTU Berkeley). I am told that the library is one of 5 that exist worldwide. It even has the James family collection and many family artifacts.

ps. It is SwEdenborg. Not a big deal--unless, of course, you are being an ass by calling him a "swad" (short fat person, or clown). I'll assume the misspelling was accidental.

Thank you for the kind invitation. I will certainly avail myself of that opportunity if I am in the area. And I'm not saying that you can not convince me that your position is valid. It just might take a while since I tend to be very dubious of things like this. I will continue to look into SwEdenborg since I do agree that what he wrote is interesting and the impact of that may not be fully appreciated by me yet.

[_Equality]

I don't think the ideas expressed by Swadenborg had a significant impact upon Joseph Smith, hence the passing reference, and the association was tangential at best. So I really don't see much of a story here.

Tobin, I think you are right to identify this as the issue that needs to be addressed. That is, simply pointing to others who had similar ideas, while it shows that Joseph Smith's innovations were not uniquely innovative, does not necessarily show that he borrowed or plagiarized a given idea from another. For that, we would need to show, first, that (a) Joseph could have known about the other person's idea; and (b) that he likely did know about the other person's idea. With respect to Swedenborg, the record indicates that both (a) and (b) are satisfied. Now, measuring the significance of the impact of an idea on Joseph Smith is, of course, a speculative venture. But wouldn't the fact that particular ideas from Swedenborg show up in the scriptures Smith produced be evidence of "significant impact"?

I also agree with you that not every parallel from the entire universe is necessarily relevant to the question of what influenced Joseph Smith. If I were to show that a small tribe in Papua New Guinea in the 7th century practiced baptism for the dead, and that this information was discovered 30 years ago, that fact would be totally irrelevant because it is so far removed from Joseph Smith in time and space. But showing that a primitivist Christian sect living in an area not far removed from Joseph Smith geographically and temporally practiced baptism for the dead is relevant because Joseph Smith could have known of the sect and its practices. And showing, for example, that Joseph Smith had a copy of Thomas Dick's Philosophy of a Future State in his library, and that Oliver Cowdery quoted from it in a church publication, places the ideas of Dick in such close proximity to Joseph Smith that it is reasonable to suggest that the similar doctrines found in the Doctrine & Covenants and Book of Abraham were borrowed from Dick.

I don't think that gets you where you want to go with me. It might get you somewhere with someone that believes that Mormonism is inspired and therefore unique. I don't link the two and here is why:

Let's suppose you are right and Joseph Smith copied everything. And I'm not conceding that point, but doing it just for fun. Your main assumption is that Joseph Smith is a fraud. If he invented it or copied it, it really doesn't make a difference to that assumption. Now, let's look at it from my point-of-view. I believe Joseph Smith was inspired. If he invented it or copied it, it really doesn't make a difference to my assumption either. The only person with a dog in this fight is the person that believes that Mormonism is uniquely true and that is why it is inspired of God.

Now, why do I wish to deny he copied it then? Actually I don't. If we were discussing the temple ceremony and whether parts of it were copied from Masonry, I think there is a lot of direct and incontrovertible evidence that it was. However, I am certainly not there on Swedenborgianism nor am I there with the theories that someone else wrote the Book of Mormon either, and the list goes on. I heavily subscribe to position taken by Grant Palmer that Joseph Smith solely wrote it and it is a 19th century work - or counter his position, that or it must be inspired. And yes, I know Grant Palmer has left the reservation. For me, it is important to determine what assumptions and positions are valid over being wed to assumptions and positions that are invalid and lead nowhere useful.

I think we are not far apart here. I mean, whether Joseph Smith borrowed concepts that were first articulated by others is interesting to me as a historical matter. But the question of whether he was inspired by God or not does not rise or fall on whether his revelations were unique or borrowed. There are faithful proponents of Mormonism who argue that what Joseph Smith gave the world was new and unique. I think that history does not support that position. But if he borrowed from Dick and Swedenborg and Masonry and the Campbellites, etc., he was still an important figure in American and religious history. And the question of whether he was a true prophet or a fraud is not determined by whether (and to what extent) the religion he founded was based on ideas first propagated by others.

[_Quasimodo]

I think we are not far apart here. I mean, whether Joseph Smith borrowed concepts that were first articulated by others is interesting to me as a historical matter. But the question of whether he was inspired by God or not does not rise or fall on whether his revelations were unique or borrowed. There are faithful proponents of Mormonism who argue that what Joseph Smith gave the world was new and unique. I think that history does not support that position. But if he borrowed from Dick and Swedenborg and Masonry and the Campbellites, etc., he was still an important figure in American and religious history. And the question of whether he was a true prophet or a fraud is not determined by whether (and to what extent) the religion he founded was based on ideas first propagated by others.

Well, it kind of does. He claimed that the Book of Mormon was his translation of ancient texts aided by the Urim and Thummim and God's guidance. If he borrowed the ideas from other mortals, it means that he was lying and a fraud. If he lied about this there is no reason to assume he told the truth about anything else.

[_Equality]

I think we are not far apart here. I mean, whether Joseph Smith borrowed concepts that were first articulated by others is interesting to me as a historical matter. But the question of whether he was inspired by God or not does not rise or fall on whether his revelations were unique or borrowed. There are faithful proponents of Mormonism who argue that what Joseph Smith gave the world was new and unique. I think that history does not support that position. But if he borrowed from Dick and Swedenborg and Masonry and the Campbellites, etc., he was still an important figure in American and religious history. And the question of whether he was a true prophet or a fraud is not determined by whether (and to what extent) the religion he founded was based on ideas first propagated by others.

Well, it kind of does. He claimed that the Book of Mormon was his translation of ancient texts aided by the Urim and Thummim and God's guidance. If he borrowed the ideas from other mortals, it means that he was lying and a fraud. If he lied about this there is no reason to assume he told the truth about anything else.

I agree to an extent. That is, I think it goes into the mix of all the things we should look at when examining Joseph Smith's claims. I just meant that the fact that Mormonism is a collection of ideas does not, by itself, show that Joseph Smith was a fraud. When viewed in conjunction with everything else we know about Smith, it certainly doesn't help his case. I think a believer could reasonably argue that Joseph Smith was inspired in sifting among all the competing religious ideas and putting together a coherent system of religion by pulling out only those ideas that were "true." I don't think he did that. I think he was a fraud who took others' ideas and claimed to have received revelation from God. But that he synthesized the ideas that were in the cultural milieu, alone, is not enough to prove him a fraud, in my opinion.

[_Mike Reed]

Well, it kind of does. He claimed that the Book of Mormon was his translation of ancient texts aided by the Urim and Thummim and God's guidance. If he borrowed the ideas from other mortals, it means that he was lying and a fraud. If he lied about this there is no reason to assume he told the truth about anything else.

I'm not so sure that it does. The experimental religion of the second great awakening (as well as the conditions that folks were living, social and political turmoil, rapidly changing environment, westward expansion into the wilderness, etc.) did wonders on people's psyches/imaginations. I don’t believe that the trances, fits, and visions that people were having throughout the states were all made up. I think it also worthy of notice that this is the approximate period from which both transcendentalism and mesmerism sprang. I'm convinced that people's imaginations were far far more vivid than what is typically experienced today. As for the problem of the Gold plates... stay tuned. I can think of a couple scenarios where the prophet vs fraud dichotomy breaks down in this respect. This is a topic that I will probably eventually publish on, but it may take a while. Lots more research needs to be done, and too many pans on the fire.