@ Craig Clark – “He relied too heavily on a spectacular intuition
until he would find himself in water over his head.”Curious
what your sources on JS are – books, etc… grateful.
m.g. scott,Here are my impressions. Joseph Smith founded the school
of the prophets in Kirtland to encourage learning across a wide spectrum of
secular and religious studies. Joseph himself never mastered any subject but he
could put on a pretense to an erudition he didn’t possess.He
was easily consumed with burning enthusiasm to learn but couldn’t sustain
a study to fruition. One example was Hebrew. Another was law. He plunged into
both, mastered neither, learned just enough to impress people, then pontificated
like a world class authority. He relied too heavily on a spectacular intuition
until he would find himself in water over his head. How sad that he had the
intellect but lacked the necessary discipline to channel it.
From what little I know of Joseph Smith history, it seems to me that in all his
moving and travels he was basically in very rural areas of America. It's
not like he spent a year studying at Harvard in Boston, or even had access to
any major libraries. I could be wrong, but I would like to know just what
sources of scholarly information he had access to and where they came from. No
matter how smart you are, without some way to inform yourself you will mostly
stay a third grade educated person. So, did this symposium address this issue?
From the article is didn't seem so. Anyone know?
I have a B.A. degree from BYU in Provo and a M.A. degree from Stephen F. Austin
in Nacogdoches, TX. Therefore, I have been associated with many highly educated
people. I'm also a retired teacher and that occupation helped me continue
to be associated with highly educated people. My father had a first cousin who
did not complete the eighth grade. He probably was the best educated man I have
ever been associated with. His formal education was considerably greater than
that of Joseph Smith but considerably less than that of college professors. But
in the end both he and Joseph Smith were indeed highly educated.
Thinkman -- First of all, you're clinging to a strict, personal definition
of the phrase "not a learned man", that precludes Joseph from seeking an
education as he progressed in his life. My take is that he was unlearned in that
he did not have access to a formal public education up to the time that the
gospel was restored. As for your criticism of the translation of
verses in the Bible, I think you're setting a standard that is not valid --
As in any translation from one language to another, there are going to be
ambiguities -- ambiguities that well need constant clarification as time
progresses and language changes. Languages rarely translate literally. There
will be descriptions and phrases in King James English that could always be
further clarified. I believe this was true in Joseph's time as well as
ours. The purpose of the translation of the Book of Mormon under Joseph was to
provide a 2nd witness for Jesus Christ, not to meet some Socratic standard of
logic. I always like to remember the Book of Mormon admonishing us to not
condemn the things of God because of the weaknesses of men.
@thinkmanIf compare the Book of Mormon account and the Bible version
of Mathew 5 you will notice that there are a few small differences but with
great significance. 1. In Math Jesus says bring your sacrifice to the alter. In
the BOM he says bring your sacrifices unto me. 2. in vs 48 Jesus says be perfect
even as God is perfect. In the BOM it says be perfect even as I, and your God
are perfect. It's interesting to note that Jesus in Mathew is talking
before he comopleted his mission. In BOM he already completed his mission and
therefor can say bring your sacrifice unto me, because that is the new law, and
be perfect like him and God because he can actually say, after completed his
life and mission, was perfect. Again very small changes but very significant and
in my opinion shows Joseph as being more inspired than a fraud.
Iron & clay - Where is any reference that the stones Joseph found while
digging a well were 'touched by the finger of god'? They were common
stones, not only that, but people using supposed magic stones were very common
in that day. People used them to treasure hunt. Also, why would he need stones
to translate the plates? He knew he had the urim and thummim to translate. He
didn't actually translate the plates, as witnesses state he didn't use
the plates during translation. Why would he go to all of the trouble to get the
plates when he didn't even use them in translation? The point I
think that thinkman is trying to make is that the church often makes Joseph
Smith seem to have been illiterate, unable to read, and write and that clearly
wasn't the case. It is overstated to the maximum. There is a big difference
in uneducated(formally) and illiterate. You can be literate withough being
educated (formally) and that is where the problem is. I was taught that as well,
that Joseph was illiterate.
@thinkmanThere is no "rewrite" or change of history. Joseph Smith
was very unlearned. He translated the plates in his early 20's throughout a
time when he had little formal education in the ways of reading and writing. His
thirst for knowledge allowed him to teach himself several things throughout his
life. It is inaccurate to say that Joseph was not intelligent. Few people have
accomplished such a variety of difficult things in such a short time. It
IS accurate to say that he was uneducated. Especially at the time of the
Twin Lights,"I have no wish to engage in an argument over the
issue of whether Joseph was or was not a prophet."______________________________That wasn't my intent. My point
is that, for non-Mormons, the Mormon belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet is
an obstacle to understanding his ideas. In my view, accepting his prophetic
claims shouldn't be prerequisite to considering his theological thought.
Craig Clark,I have no wish to engage in an argument over the issue
of whether Joseph was or was not a prophet. You have made your opinion obvious.
I assume mine is equally so.You and Woolybruce had posed questions
as to why members responded the way they often do and I was simply trying to
provide (my interpretation of) the “why”.One would
suppose that most prophetic claims have been greeted with skepticism.
Understandably so. I was once skeptical as well.Sharrona,I have no doubt there have been many such as the psychologist you mention. Do
folks of all backgrounds around the world subscribe to that person’s
prophetic gifts?Of course any and all prophetic claims can be
ridiculed (and Biblically many were). Of course Joseph could have been a false
prophet. Just as John the Baptist could have been. But I believe in both.You keep trotting out the different Jesus issue. But perhaps it is your
understanding which is less true to what the apostles understood.I
have no idea why you quote Joseph on lawyers. Attorneys have so few friends to
defend them . . .
RE:Twin Lights, By his mid to late 30s Joseph had become a talented man. But
still not talented enough to have done what he did and produced what he wrote on
his own.In 1965 a Jewish atheistic psychologist from Columbia
University began to channel messages from a spirit she believed to be Jesus. She
ultimately produced, or she says Jesus revealed to her, well over a thousand
pages of revelation during the next seven years.A course in miracles,Who
there is Jesus? Jesus evolutionary elder brother shows the rest of us our
evolutionary potential. " So in reality Jesus is a way-shower.(2Cor 11:4)”For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than
the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the
Spirit… . Or,Joseph Smith, “Don’t employ lawyers,
or pay them money for their knowledge, for I have learned that they don’t
know anything. ‘ I know more than they all do’. (D.H.C. v. 5 p.467).
Twin Lights,".....the way some would tell it, Joseph was so
remarkable as to fabricate the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl
of Great Price. I think most LDS would say that, at least in the first part of
his ministry, Joseph was simply not that capable...."______________________________To that I say nonsense. Creating the
Book of Mormon from imagination is not unachievable with the King James Bible as
a conscious or subconscious model. But let's consider the possibility that
his initial dreams of fame and fortune crystallized into an altruistic objective
in the process. His account of Moroni warning him that he could not translate if
his desire was to make money is an intriguing bit of information Joseph provides
us with.That’s one of those details that made people find him
credible. It’s his claim to be a prophet that remains an obstacle for many
to giving serious consideration to his distinctive theology.
Woolybruce, Craig Clark,I agree Joseph was a remarkable man with
strong native gifts and a desire to use them in fulfillment of his mission.
That included learning a wide variety of things.The problem I think
is in two issues.First, the way some would tell it, Joseph was so
remarkable as to fabricate the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl
of Great Price. I think most LDS would say that, at least in the first part of
his ministry, Joseph was simply not that capable. His knowledge grew
exponentially over his adult life as he learned both from revelation and his own
study. But the evidence indicates he was still rather rough at 21.Second, is what “drive” means. This goes to his motives vs. his
mission. Some want to present him as a highly driven, very clever man (neither
description fully positive). Hence, not a prophet but a talented charlatan.By his mid to late 30s Joseph had become a talented man. But still not
talented enough to have done what he did and produced what he wrote on his
own.Just my thoughts, but I think this is the resistance you
It can be misleading to over-stress the lack of a disciplined formal education
as indicative of what he one is capable of achieving. Abraham Lincoln and Mark
Twain are two examples of being largely self-taught through the reading they
sought out. What I sense in Joseph Smith is an impatience to know and speak
authoritatively on matters to which he was drawn by native gifts and
inclination.Because of Latter-day Saint faith that Joseph Smith was
first and foremost a prophet, it’s a natural tendency for Mormons to
deemphasize what secular knowledge he may have picked up along the way that may
have influenced his thought. We don’t ignore those factors when assessing
St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. Why handicap Joseph Smith?
I think the key word here is Prophet, Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, He was
taught from on high how could any earthly school compare. I have a testimony to
the glorious visions, the Book of Mormon, Temples and all of Gospel Restoration
that he brought forth by the power of God and Prophets that held the keys to
those Sacred Ordinances and Gospel ideals which were need to bring back the
Church of Jesus Christ as in former days. Take a look at the Missionarys that
go forth thru out the world and bear witness to the Restoration. The lives that
are touched and the many people whose hearts are changed when taught the Gospel.
The lives of members and of Missionaries speak of the love the Savior had for us
and we as the Savior, welcome all unto Christ.
Mhenshaw, Ktc John, Michigan, You still haven't addressed my
point. Why did I learn and why did Gospel Principles and Gospel Doctrine and
even church leaders teach that Joseph wasn't a learned man and now the
shift in thinking is that he was actually an authority on ancient scripture? Also, why didn't he correct the Book of Mormon passages that are
word for word just like the corrected verses he corrected in his Bible JST
translations if he hebis such an ancient language expert?
>>I thought Joseph Smith wasn't a learned man...Why the shift and
rewriting of history?There's no conflict or rewriting of
history. Joseph wasn't a learned man in the sense that he had very little
formal education. His family was very poor and so didn't have the resources
to send their children to school, so a lot of his training in reading, writing,
and math came through home study. He had no college degrees and never attended
any secular institution of higher learning. Virtually all of the education he
attained as an adult came through his own motivated study. But that self-study
was so intense that by the time he died, he was pretty knowledgable on a variety
of subject related to religion.
Joseph acquired the gold plates from which the translation was made in 1827 when
he was only 21 years of age, and he did some early translating shortly
thereafter, although his original translation work was lost by Martin Harris.
As of the time he first acquired the gold plates, he had a near total absence of
formal educational training as the world views it. That fact should help to put
the origin of the Book of Mormon into a proper perspective.
@ThinkmanThe way that I have understood it is that during the
translation process he was not yet a learned man, with much formal education.
The Book of Mormon was published when he was 24. He died when he was 38.
During his life he sought for learning and definitely became learned. Now,
I'm not a Joseph Smith expert, so I don't know exactly when he started
studying other languages, but it's not hard for me to imagine that most of
it took place in his 20's and 30's.
RE: Tators, he was also very learned from being self taught in ancient
languages.Hebrew,Greek,Latin and English are all used in the
prophecy of (Genesis 6:60 JST),… “Only Begotten is the Son of Man
even “Jesus Christ ,a righteous judge who shall come in the *meridian of
time”.“Only Begotten“ KJVT=(g 3439 monogenes).“Jesus” is the Hellenized-anglicized form of
“Yeshua”,which means salvation. Yeshua never heard the name
“Jesus” in his lifetime. He was always called Yeshua which is very
similar to Joshua.“Christ” is taken from the Hebrew word
“Mashuach” or “Anointed One”,which translated into the
Greek “Christos” and later Anglicized to” Christ.” *Meridian of time.(Hebrews 9:26 JST)….in the end=( g
4930,synteleia) of the age has he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself. (Heb 9:26) Moses, Adam or JS must have had a KJV N.T..*12 century Latin?
I don't presume to know the conversion of angelic visitations to college
credit, but the overwhelming evidence is that Joseph was quited unlearned
growing up. But believe in his prophetic calling or not, it's also hard to
argue that he wasn't innately intelligent and eager to learn. It's
not a "shift and rewriting of history" to teach that Joseph "could
not write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter" (per Emma Smith) at
the time of the Book of Mormon translation, and at the same time point out that
he was a hungry learner and later in life he tried teaching himself (or finding
those who could teach him) on a variety of subjects. It is possible to be both
intelligenct and completely uneducated formally.
@ThinkmanI'm not LDS but I have a lot of friends who are. A
basic part of Mormon belief is that Joseph Smith was not capable of composing
the Book of Mormon on his own. I think some of them overdo his lack of education
a bit, suggesting that he was completely illiterate. The historical record would
suggest that Joseph Smith certainly had thirst for knowledge and took the
opportunity to educate himself whenever he could. Whether or not it was enough
to write the Book of Mormon is of course a matter of faith. Joseph Smith was
fascinated not only with the ancient world but astronomy and mathematics as
well. He surrounded himself with people of learning. He seems to be a
self-styled Prophet who doesn't think revelation is the only way to learn.
That's what makes him such a fascinating person to study.
Joseph Smith was not learned as to any formal education per the standards of
men. And yet he was also very learned from being self taught in ancient
languages and in other related matters and subjects. Whether he was learned or
unleaded depends on the standard one is applying... formal or informal
education. Either way, he was certainly a very informed man and obviously very
Discussing Mormon History with the orthodox is problematic. Commenting on the
"remarkable" man Joseph Smith was offensive even heretical. It seems to
be a problem for true believers to make Joseph Smith more remarkable than what
he should be. Or make Joseph Smith more driven than what he should be. Does
making Joseph Smith more remarkable, or more driven for self enlightenment
somehow make him less of a prophet? It must be for the offense generated from
the true believers.
@Thinkman:Joseph Smith was unlearned UNTIL his five yearly teaching
sessions (Sep.22, 1823 to Sep.22, 1827) under the instructive voice of the Angel
Moroni and later on Friday May 15, 1829 when his mind was further enabled (along
with Oliver Cowdery's mind) with the laying-on-of-hands by the Angel Moroni
on both of their heads, nothwithstanding Joseph's many post-1830 doctrinal
errors.Joseph Smith's five yearly sessions (or 5 days) with
Angel Moroni were akin to today's four years of college credit.
I would LOVE to see that..
I thought Joseph Smith wasn't a learned man. That is what I was taught in
Gospel Principles and later Gospel Doctrine and even when I attended BYU. We
were told by prophets, apostles and Seventies that he was without learning and
in no way could have written anything of historical nor of high scholarship yet
now we are told that he was a very learned man? Why the shift and
rewriting of history? What purpose does this conference serve oher than
veneration of an already beloved founder of the church? I'm a
Joseph was a Seer who had possession of stones (glass, crystal?) which were
touched by the finger of God and gave him not only tri-generational views of
past present and the future but a super-natural ability to translate ancient
languages into the English language.My perceptions from Joseph Smith
of the language of Adam is that one syllable of Adamic language is equivalent to
a whole phrase of English.Joseph Smith did not have the advantage of
the internet in the early 1800's.The internet, though inspired by
God, is just a rudimentary communication and resource tool and cannot break
through the veil to contemporary spheres nor can it allow it's user to see
into the future or the past of the earth with it's inhabitants and their
destiny in God's plan of Salvation.
Sure wish I'd been there.
David Holland's comments ought to be brought to the attention of every
student reluctant to get serious about learning history. To say that we study
history to avoid the mistakes of the past is only one reason to immerse
ourselves into it's study, and probably not the best one. A more productive
view is to think in terms of building upon the past to create a better
future.A side note: to LDS students and others persuing a
genealogical interest, the connection to held beliefs about family history (or
just the love of it) ought to be obvious.
Independently, regardless whether or not one believes the teaches of the LDS
church; Joesph Smith was a very learned man. It was not uncommon in those days
with any that could, to read not only biblical and religion texts but classical
writings as well.