The Golden Age of Joseph Smith’s Presence in Mormonism?

It is clearly the case that (for a multitude of reasons) the majority of Latter-day Saints share little interest in the tiny details of Joseph Smith’s life, or his ideas that extend beyond what may appear in the current correlated materials. Herding the minutia of Joseph’s sermons is what we do here and that’s an activity which raises little interest in that quarter. But an unintentional side effect of the natural loyalty many Saints have to the “correlated” materials generally leaves some fraction of them open to the shocks the various critics of Mormonism love to deliver. That, more than the history geeks, keeps alive some interest in the side lights of early Mormonism and the unofficial Joseph Smith.*

Urim, Joseph Smith, Book of Abraham, King Follett, part 3. Joseph Smith and Seer Stones.

Howard Coray’s letter demonstrates a fallacy that has many supporters in popular Mormonism. The fallacy is this: When Joseph Smith finished the translation of the Book of Mormon, he gave up using his revelatory instruments. The basis for this belief is a statement by Orson Pratt to the effect that he once observed Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon producing a portion of the “New Translation” of the Bible. Pratt asked why the seer stone was not being employed in the work. According to Pratt, Joseph responded that since being ordained in the Melchizedek Priesthood he was able to obtain revelation without the use of such items.

Urim, Joseph Smith, Book of Abraham, King Follett, part 2. Polygamy and Apocalypse

The previous post (part 1) gives, more or less in facsimile, a letter from Howard Coray to one of his daughters, Martha Jane Lewis. Howard Coray converted to Mormonism in 1840. His account of meeting Henry Ward Beecher is instructive, it gives us some flavor both of Coray’s intellect and his independence in dealing with some of the religious hot-buttons of the time. Coray met and heard Joseph Smith preach at the April 1840 church conference in Nauvoo. He described this experience several times as pivotal for him.[1] The available reports for this conference are very brief and unremarkable, demonstrating again the unfortunate lack of information regarding much of Joseph Smith’s public instruction and remarks.

Urim, Joseph Smith, Book of Abraham, King Follett, part 1.

Intersting title, huh? This is really about a letter from one of Joseph Smith’s former clerks. Written decades after Joseph’s death, it nevertheless points to something interesting regarding his use of Urim. To my knowledge, this letter has never been published. It is a gold-mine of information about a number of contemporary and historical matters. In succeeding posts, I will comment on the contents and indicate the logic of the title. I give you a typographical facsimile (as close as html will allow). Here we go:

Charles Finney and Sermon Theater

Charles Finney:

The actor suits the action to the word, and the word to the action. His looks, his hands, his attitudes, and everything, are designed to express the full meaning of the writer. Now, this should be the aim of the preacher . . . the more theatrical the sermon is, the better.[1]

The Infinite, part 5. Mormonism and the Infinite.

The complexities of the infinite are magnified in ordinary discourse, and doubly so in western religions because infinity and its verbal relatives like “eternal” and “forever” are used in a wide range of ways, from the metaphorical and metaphysical to the literal. “Infinite” is sometimes used as a synonym for God. In an attempt to describe the “otherness” of God, phrases like, “sits on the top of a topless throne” were commonly used. Such seemingly self-contradictory claims were eschewed in Mormonism, which eventually engaged a very material aspect in the extra-mortal.

The Infinite, part 4. Difficulties, order.

There are many orders of infinity. With no humor intended, there are infinitely many such orders. But when dealing with large collections of things, usually these are very abstract things, you can get into trouble.

The Infinite, part 3. Parsing infinity – ever larger

Last time we observed that in some sense, one can count infinite collections. However, so far, they were all the same size.[1] Our goal this time is to show that counting infinite collections is actually interesting: not everything infinite is the size of N.[2]

The Infinite, part 2. Parsing infinity – In the Beginning.

In the last post, we looked a little at meanings. What do we mean by “finite”? And the answer was that it depends. If we are measuring size, it is a matter of counting: counting is just a matching exercise. Match numbers to the number of cows that pass the gate for example: one, two, three, . . . 25. 25 cows came through the gate. Our ordinary experience prepares us for such things. But when the number of objects becomes too large, the process becomes less meaningful. Scriptural accounts that suggest certain things are just too large to comprehend can be understood on several levels. Whether they entail the infinite will be examined later. Questions like “How many moons does Jupiter have?” and “How many water molecules are in a cup of water?” are not just different in scope, they are different in meaning. Abstraction and approximation are the only ways to deal with the second question. (The “answer” is *about* 8 x 10²⁴. Ten to the 24th power is so large that we can only deal with it as an abstraction. But it is a finite number!)

Some cultures avoid counting things when they are too large in size. But the accountants won’t give us that luxury now. Budget and deficit and loss discussions bat around extraordinary figures. Our common experience does not prepare us to understand the idea of a trillion dollars and it may be impossible to do so. So we deal with these kinds of things as abstractions. Does that make you a bit nervous?

The Infinite, part I. What is finite?

I sort of threatened to discuss infinity some time ago. Why? Well, Joseph Smith delves deeply into the infinite, and in particular in funeral sermons, even though he does not engage it with rigor.

The B. H. Roberts Cabal…….

The 19th century produced some prominent thinkers in Mormonism. But the 20th century also had its share. One particular group (I use the term in a loose sense) was what I choose to call the “B. H. Roberts Cabal.” Roberts himself was not entirely self taught, but he trolled the waters of intellectualism in his day and in some respects sought to show Mormonism consistent with or even ahead of the science and philosophy of the times.

Review: Terryl Givens, “When Souls Had Wings”

I mentioned Professor Terryl L. Givens’ new book last year and wrote that I would have more to say about it. So here it is. Not terribly polished, but school starts on Monday. So out the door it goes.

Joseph Smith Papers, journals – vol. 1-Errata

If you got Journals vol. 1 for Christmas, you can find the errata here. It’s actually interesting reading (ok, for history dorks maybe). Print it, fold it up and stick it in your book! Have a good one.

Lady Ann Conway and Her Questions

The most prolific of the Cambridge Platonists, Henry More, put his views on preexistence into poetry (1647). Ann Conway wrote to him several years later with the following very interesting questions which I have edited slightly for readability:

“Learn How to Live and How to Die”

Much of Joseph Smith’s preaching about death was meant to compel his listeners to faith. Over the years of my own life I have seen death. Even if you don’t experience death as it was in the early 19th century, if you live long enough, you will see it impact your life.

I have buried a son, a brother, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and unrelated friends. Looking at death as inevitable has become a routine matter. But what is it for us survivors? It is first and foremost, loss. Whatever theology one subscribes to, or to no theology at all, this is the universal fact. The dead don’t come back. You don’t find him or her sleeping in their bed the next morning after the funeral.

They are gone.