New Yorker article on Mormonism

[Adrift]

Has anyone seen this article on Mormonism on the New Yorker's website? http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...urrentPage=all

I thought it was pretty interesting, and wondered if anyone had any thoughts.

[Sparko]

fairly good summary of Mormon history, but WAY too long. I found my attention waning about 2/3 of the way through.

[Adrift]

fairly good summary of Mormon history, but WAY too long. I found my attention waning about 2/3 of the way through.

It is pretty long. More an essay than an article, but great writing.

[Cow Poke]

Has anyone seen this article on Mormonism on the New Yorker's website? http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...urrentPage=all

I thought it was pretty interesting, and wondered if anyone had any thoughts.

Just saw this, Adrift, but no time right now to read. I'll look forwarding to looking at it tonight or tomorrow.

[Adrift]

Just saw this, Adrift, but no time right now to read. I'll look forwarding to looking at it tonight or tomorrow.

Sounds good.

[Cow Poke]

Sounds good.

OK, so I was curious. Reading now. But do you have any idea what they're talking about here...

The Book of Mormon is, in any case, only one of many pronouncements that Smith offered his new troops, apparently improvising as he went along, according to the shifting spiritual needs of the moment. (After other followers began to have revelations from angels of their own, the Holy Ghost inspired Smith to the conclusive revelation that only his revelations ought to be church policy.)

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...#ixzz22tmzOwTZ

The article seems rather flippant at times, so I don't know if this is sarcastic, or if Smith really did have a "revelation" that only HIS revelations were real.

[Adrift]

OK, so I was curious. Reading now. But do you have any idea what they're talking about here...

The Book of Mormon is, in any case, only one of many pronouncements that Smith offered his new troops, apparently improvising as he went along, according to the shifting spiritual needs of the moment. (After other followers began to have revelations from angels of their own, the Holy Ghost inspired Smith to the conclusive revelation that only his revelations ought to be church policy.)

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...#ixzz22tmzOwTZ

The article seems rather flippant at times, so I don't know if this is sarcastic, or if Smith really did have a "revelation" that only HIS revelations were real.

The author seems to be citing "four new scholarly books" on the subject of Mormonism. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that over time, Joseph Smith's contemporary followers were having unauthorized "revelations", that he was hoping to quiet so they wouldn't undermine his own. But I don't know for sure. Maybe somebody around here does. If you're assuming that this means that all future revelations by authorized LDS prophets were not allowed, I don't think that's what the author was getting at.

[Cow Poke]

The author seems to be citing "four new scholarly books" on the subject of Mormonism. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that over time, Joseph Smith's contemporary followers were having unauthorized "revelations", that he was hoping to quiet so they wouldn't undermine his own. But I don't know for sure. Maybe somebody around here does. If you're assuming that this means that all future revelations by authorized LDS prophets were not allowed, I don't think that's what the author was getting at.

No, I agree with your assessment -- it makes it sound like Smith was being "upstaged", more or less, by other people having revelations.

[robertb]

OK, so I was curious. Reading now. But do you have any idea what they're talking about here...

The Book of Mormon is, in any case, only one of many pronouncements that Smith offered his new troops, apparently improvising as he went along, according to the shifting spiritual needs of the moment. (After other followers began to have revelations from angels of their own, the Holy Ghost inspired Smith to the conclusive revelation that only his revelations ought to be church policy.)

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...#ixzz22tmzOwTZ

The article seems rather flippant at times, so I don't know if this is sarcastic, or if Smith really did have a "revelation" that only HIS revelations were real.

D&C 28

[Sparko]

very convenient for Smith.

[OtherCheek]

Has anyone seen this article on Mormonism on the New Yorker's website? http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...urrentPage=all

I thought it was pretty interesting, and wondered if anyone had any thoughts.

I found this part strange:

"Scholarly opinion on Smith now tends to divide between those who think that he knew he was making it up and those who think that he sincerely believed in his own visions—though the truth is that, as Melville’s “Confidence Man” reminds us, the line between the seer and the scamster wasn’t clearly marked in early-nineteenth-century America."

In other words, there are none who study the man who also believe him. I find that as an expression of ignorance on behalf of the critic-author.

What can you expect from the "New Yorker".

[robertb]

I found this part strange:

"Scholarly opinion on Smith now tends to divide between those who think that he knew he was making it up and those who think that he sincerely believed in his own visions—though the truth is that, as Melville’s “Confidence Man” reminds us, the line between the seer and the scamster wasn’t clearly marked in early-nineteenth-century America."

In other words, there are none who study the man who also believe him. I find that as an expression of ignorance on behalf of the critic-author.

What can you expect from the "New Yorker".

I think misread this and attributed what is clearly his personal opinion, (though the truth is that, as Melville’s “Confidence Man” reminds us, the line between the seer and the scamster wasn’t clearly marked in early-nineteenth-century America), to that of the scholars he previously mentioned.

[Sparko]

I found this part strange:

"Scholarly opinion on Smith now tends to divide between those who think that he knew he was making it up and those who think that he sincerely believed in his own visions—though the truth is that, as Melville’s “Confidence Man” reminds us, the line between the seer and the scamster wasn’t clearly marked in early-nineteenth-century America."

In other words, there are none who study the man who also believe him. I find that as an expression of ignorance on behalf of the critic-author.

What can you expect from the "New Yorker".

I will give you that, OC. I dislike when people use the vague term "Scholarly opinion" to bolster their points. It usually means they want to sound more authoritative than their claim really is. Another is "Most scholars believe..." - but without actual data or references, you can't know who those scholars are or what their credentials are, so the term is useless other than as hyperbole.

The New Yorker is an entertainment type of magazine. It's not going to be something you can use for research or expect any hard data from.

[Adrift]

I will give you that, OC. I dislike when people use the vague term "Scholarly opinion" to bolster their points. It usually means they want to sound more authoritative than their claim really is. Another is "Most scholars believe..." - but without actual data or references, you can't know who those scholars are or what their credentials are, so the term is useless other than as hyperbole.

I think the difference is that the author of the essay is referring to modern scholarship being published right now in light of public interest in Mit Romney's beliefs (and not scholarship going back a number of years). The scholars the author cites specifically date no earlier than January of this year, and he names a couple of books that aren't even available until Sept.

The New Yorker is an entertainment type of magazine. It's not going to be something you can use for research or expect any hard data from.

Very true.

[Cow Poke]

D&C 28

Interesting. Thanks. This part....

11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;

Seems really odd. It appears to be taking the principles of Matt 18:15-17...

Matt 18

15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.

Which is the first step in a discipline/reconciliation process, and misapply it by making it quite public.

The VERY PURPOSE of the FIRST step of Jesus' instruction on Church discipline was to try to restore a brother by going to him PERSONALLY - "one on one" - to KEEP IT OUT of the public eye. If that didn't work, there was the "take one or two more" (v 16) and if THAT didn't work, THEN you take the matter before the Church (v 17).

It seems that Smith is using the authority of Jesus' teaching to get a SECOND party to approach a THIRD party "one on one", under the guise of the instructions of Jesus ("between him and thee alone"), yet broadcasts this not only to the whole Church, but to the whole world for generations to come.

It is also reminiscent of Smith using the authority of his position as prophet (allegedly) to threaten his wife with destruction of she didn't go along with plural marriage.