Last week I was in London on business. While I didn’t see any colorful geckos, I did get to spend Sunday afternoon in the British Museum, which makes the top 10 list of museums in the world on anybody’s list. I paid particular attention to items that might have a Mormon connection.
In the section on coinage, I was disappointed not to see any mention of a Senine, a Senum, or even a Onti. In fact there was no coinage in the new world until the Europeans arrived.
Next in the Egyptian exhibits, I did see many drawings that looked similar to the Book of Abraham’s facsimiles, but none of them in the museum were attributed to the “hand of Abraham”.
Then I saw the Rosseta Stone. I often wonder if Joseph Smith would have written/translated/revealed the Book of Abraham if he had know about the Rosetta Stone. While the stone was discovered in 1799, the translations on the stone were not deciphered until 1822 by Champollion, and then not widely know in the Americas until 20-30 years later. So while Joseph may have heard of the Rosetta Stone’s discovery, the fact that it was used to decipher hieroglyphics was not known to him.
Would Joseph Smith have made such bold claims about the translation of the hieroglyphics on the facsimiles if he had know that in a few years Egyptian scholars would be able to read them? As a kid in church, usually bored out of my mind (bait for a JCS comment), I loved looking through the facsimiles, and especially liked number 2, with all the secret stuff on it.
I would stare at Figures 8-21, wondering what secret stuff they had in them
Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.
Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.
Fig. 10. Also.
Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.
Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the own due time of the Lord.
We now know that figures 8-11 are actually read in order 11, 10, 9, 8, and they they are translated to something like “O noble god from the beginning of time, great god, lord of heaven, earth, underworld, waters [and mountains,] cause the ba-spirit of the Osiris Sheshonq to live.”. I don’t know about you, but the last time I went to the temple, I never heard anything about the ba-spririt or the Osiris Sheshong. I guess the “own due time of the Lord” has arrived, because all of it has been translated.
Did Joseph think it would never be translated, and he was safe from ever being questioned? Did he really believe he was translating, and thought he had the right translation, or did he know it was all made up, but thought he would never be discovered?
Wheat & Tares 
Ah the British Museum. Living proof that the British Empire relentless plundered the sacred artifacts of every place it colonized, conquered, or explored. In part, as a ritualized way of demonstrating it was the new top dog of the world. And yet, for we who are on the team of the conquerer, the plundered artifacts of the British Museum are a unique opportunity to understand so many ancient cultures.
I have ponderized on the question Bishop Bill asks a lot, because knowing the answers seems like it would help know how to deal with Joseph’s legacy. If Joseph sincerely thought he was translating, I could be more excited about treating the BoA as inspired fiction. Joseph did really have a very active imagination and loved to tell a great story and its easy to believe that he simply believed that anything that came into his imagination was from God.
But I also can’t help having a nagging feeling that Joseph was a bit of a braggard. So it is also easy to believe he saw the mummies and papyrus as an opportunity to further cement his reputation with his followers as a revealer of ancient secrets and would have been quite willing to bluff, assuming that no one would be able to prove otherwise.
While I could never countenance the failure of young people to pay attention in Church, more of them would do well to follow little Billy’s example of looking at printed copies of the scriptures. It is appalling how many are on their phones during the sacrament itself. Wasting time on fantasy football or cat videos was not what Joseph had in mind when he founded the Church.
As for the adoration of the British Empire, I condemn it. Asael Smith and his fellows sacrificed too much to free this country from the madness of King George for us to throw it all away.
As for the Rosetta Stone, I am afraid that today’s young people are no more aware of it than Joseph was. Unless someone makes a TikTok video of it, they will remain unaware.
Just re coinage, that’s an erroneous word later added in a headnote but never used in the Book of Mormon itself, so no reason to assume there would be a senine on display. And there is historical precedent for what they used: https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-you-should-care-about-the-nephite-weights-and-measures-system
BoM as “inspired” fiction – hilarious, but really all we’ve got left. No Nephites, no Lamanites, no Zarahemla. BoA also entirely made up. From these fictions a powerful & successful culture emerged – ours- amassing great wealth & culturally punching way above its weight. THAT’S the miracle! Our institution is “inspired” only to the extent that Jos Smith’s religious genius was otherworldly, which it surely was. One can say & admit all this and still love the Church. I do.
On the fascinating John Charity:
1 simply an ass
2 a program (recurrent “crocs” a clue)
3 a thesis or dissertation, certainly BYU
4 some poor soul confined to an iron lung a la Arthur Digby Sellers of “Big Lebowski” fame typing with a big toe (recurrent “crocs” a clue).
5 a divine test of our patience & broadmindedness
6 all the above
What you have given for the “translation” of the Egyptian characters is not a translation at all. It is a simple mechanical transcription. As Nibley pointed out in “The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri” after he gave such a translation of the Book of Breathings: “What we have is a transmission rather than a translation of the text, and such transmission, as G. Santillana notes, ‘need in no way imply understanding.'” . . . “Though as correct and literal as we can make it, the translation in the preceding chapter is not a translation. It is nonsense.” (page 47 of first edition)
The rest of the book explains why. Without the understanding of what the words and symbols represent we have no clue what the translation means.
Sorry about that AZ recount, Cache. Ouch!
Re: the accurate translation of the BoA facsimiles:
I’ve rarely seen my wife laugh so hard as when she found out what was actually going on in figure 7 in facsimile 2. To think of all those bored kids in sacrament meeting trying to focus on the scriptures and actually looking at the Egyptian fertility god Min’s…you know, fertility…that is pretty hilarious.
It’s like if someone a couple thousand years from now found assembly instructions from Ikea or a Nintendo Power strategy guide, had no clue what it was trying to say, but decided it was an early draft of the Constitution written by the hand of George Washington himself, and then spent the rest of his life using it to justify his infatuation with younger women.
On a more serious note, the Book of Abraham was a really hard thing to learn about. Not that it’s a difficult and murky question like the Book of Mormon (did Smith write it by inspiration? Did it happen exactly as he said it did?), but because it’s such an open and shut case. How did I go so long without learning the truth of it? We have the original document, and it’s nothing more special than a formulaic obituary with the name customized. Apparently it’s not even a great example, either, as the artist seems to have been an apprentice. It’s aggravating to realize I was fooled by something so easily and reliably verified. When I was a teenager it was one of my favorite books of scripture to read, and the facsimiles were fun to really study and wonder what it all meant. What a huge disappointment when all that mystery was solved, and those deep spiritual revelations waiting to be unveiled were never even there.
One of the big questions many of us have is whether Joseph Smith really believed what he was claiming or whether he knew he was fabricating and making it up. So when you ask whether he would have done what he did had he known about the Rosetta Stone, I wonder. It seems like he had to know at some level that at some point his fiction would be discovered. And that could ruin his legacy. But maybe he didn’t care as long as he could keep it going during his lifetime.
Joseph Smith “translated” abstract revelatory visionary experience: he did not transliterate text. LDS scholars who grew up with portrayals of the young prophet transliterating ancient text to modern text on a wooden desk by candlelight, have made dogma of the image.
The Church Educational System (CES) [as if to spite the scholarship of Hugh Nibley, Michael Rhodes, John Gee, and others], has continually promoted “transliteration theory.”
Joseph Smith visions of Abraham and Moses were translated into text, not transliterated from text to text. The rare Hyphocephelus, Book of Breathings, and Book of the Dead (Tshemmin and Neferirnub) all represent types of coronation and enthronement, which are understood as forms or degrees or kingdoms of resurrection. The idea is to return to the proximity of God’s throneseat.
Joseph’s purpose for including Egyptian pictures in the Pearl of Great Price was NOT to say, “this-means-this,” but rather to say, “the context of afterlife and sacred ritual in the temples of the Restored Church is the same as the context we find in ancient Egypt.”
The CES has made a mess of it.
@Travis. This: “Joseph Smith “translated” abstract revelatory visionary experience: he did not transliterate text.”
I’ve heard that explanation before, and it makes sense to me. Joseph Smith claimed to translate, but then he also said he looked at a seer stone in a hat. If we had the actual, physical golden plates, it’s anyone’s guess what it actually says.
My opinion is that Joseph Smith 100% believed that what he said was revelation was actually revelation. He surrounded himself with people who had a testimony that he was a literal prophet of God, which is quite an echo chamber. Anyone who questioned his prophetic calling or criticized his revelations was a heretic who should be purged. Joseph Smith had no reality check on him, so he could say what he believed and expected others to believe it as well. But I don’t think he was a con man – meaning I think he believed in himself and his connection to God completely. I’ve concluded for myself that JS wasn’t communing with a God that I want to worship, but I think JS believed he was receiving revelations from God.
@Travis
Except, didn’t Joseph claim to be able to actually translate, in the common sense of the word, the ancient languages?
He even gave what he claimed were Egyptian words and gave their meaning. The whole claim that this was all just revelation and not translation runs into significant issues to me when compared to what Joseph actually claimed.
@travis:
Translate: “express the sense (of words or text) in another language.” Did this word have a completely different meaning during Joseph Smith’s time?
Transliterate vs translate is a straw man IMO. No one’s testimony (that I know of) rises or falls on the idea that what they were taught was a “transliteration” was actually a “translation.”
It’s that they were taught (and what’s JS claimed) that what was a “translation” wasn’t actually a “translation” unless you create a new definition for the word “translation” that actually means something other than translation.
I get the argument re inspiration or revelation or channeling or whatever, but the reality is that’s not what JS said he did. He said he translated. He said those scrolls were something they weren’t. Unless translate meant something very different in the 19th century than it does today, he was not accurately describing what he did.
Josh H said:
Joseph’s purpose for including Egyptian pictures in the Pearl of Great Price was NOT to say, “this-means-this,” but rather to say, “the context of afterlife and sacred ritual in the temples of the Restored Church is the same as the context we find in ancient Egypt.”
I just can’t agree with this viewpoint. He literally numbered tiny details in the images and snippets of text and labeled them with a name or an interpretation. Sure, with the Book of Moses Joseph just shrugged his shoulders and claimed it was given to him, but the church’s position on the Book of Abraham has been very different. Ask anybody in your ward today about it. Likely nobody is gonna say Joseph was inspired to write doctrine from a mundane ancient-ish text. No one is going to admit the labels given to the facsimiles are total nonsense pulled from Joseph’s tail-end.
Melinda:
I’ve really wondered this too, but I think more and more I’m deciding that Joseph was at least partially an intentional fraud. All the shenanigans around the plates, convincing Martin Harris to mortgage his farm, the cloak and dagger routine around polygamy, on and on and on. I believe Joseph knew, at least in some situations, that he was deceiving people for his own gain.
Well, not to offend the more orthodox thinkers on this blog, but I think Joseph Smith was at least partially deluded. That does not mean that I dismiss all of his claims of angelic visitations, etc., but it does mean that I look upon them with a skeptical eye. Part of the reason why I do is because of the absolute debacle of the “translation” of the Book of Abraham. We can go back and forth about “translation” vs. “transliteration”, etc., but the simple facts are that Smith presented a relatively common Egyptian document as something rare, mysterious and, of course, corroborating a bunch of stuff he had already said. And the church canonized it, meaning it had (and still has) the stamp of official approval. Elisa has the right idea, that we need to go back to Smith’s own claims. Apologists often act as if we have nothing on record from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. regarding such controversial topics. We do; and as Elisa points out, Joseph Smith claimed that he did what actually didn’t end up doing, therefore he made it up, i.e. he lied.
Now, was he deluded? Did he actually think he was doing what he claimed he did? Hard to say. He was a great self-promoter and he obviously possessed a kind of charismatic low cunning, but I think it’s also possible that he MAY have believed that he was doing what he said he was doing. He certainly seemed to believe strongly that he was God’s chosen prophet, etc. On the other hand, when you start digging into all of the polygamy stuff, and I don’t mean just whether he was a polygamist, but rather, the lengths to which he went to “marry” other men’s wives, including the way he spoke about women who had credibly accused him of certain things, it’s pretty obvious that he was also a sexual predator. And sexual predators are very good at manipulating, grooming and taking advantage of people. So perhaps Joseph Smith’s skill set allowed him to claim any number of things and be credibly believed because of his skills as a manipulator, including that he had “translated” an ancient text that (surprise, surprise) corroborated a lot of what he was claiming. No serious scholar, whether Mormon or not, would buy Smith’s claims about the papyri at all; and neither should any of us. And that certainly calls into question most of his other truth claims.
Transliterate means to take text written in one writing system and convert it into another (i.e., Chinese pinyin, the romanization of the Cyrillic alphabet and Semitic abjads, etc.). The definition listed above is, at best, not a commonly accepted one.
(In other words, “Olaha Shinehah” is a transliteration; “the Plains of the Moon and the Sun” is a translation.)
I sincerely believe it’s both.
My father was a mystic as well and would frequently talk about visions and angelic visits. He would compare himself to Lehi as a visionary man and would frequently have us read up on Doctrine and covenants section 129.
As a kid I really had no reason not to believe him. As an adult, I think he was seeking attention. But I also think HE believed it as well.
People seem to have this irrational sense that they can get away with anything, notwithstanding so much evidence to the contrary. I’m sure Joseph’s charisma led him to believe he would always have a following regardless of what he said or did.
We had stake conference where our stake president was replaced after 9 years.
We live in different worlds that are difficult to understand. And make it difficult to understand each other.
We met in person because our state, queensland, which has a population of 5.2 million has not had a covid case in the community for months, and have a total of 7 deaths from covid. Can you imagine/understand that reality? Everything is open and normal except the borders.
The senior priesthood authority for the conference was Ian Ardern who is the pacific area president. He was sitting at a desk in NZ. He is the uncle of Jacinda Ardern the PM of NZ, and a great woman and leader according to the church newsroom. “On her first day back at work after a triumphant trip to Paris that substantiated her No. 2 ranking on Fortune’s list of the world’s greatest leaders, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern welcomed President Russell M. Nelson, leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” She left the church because of discrimination against women and gays, but perhaps the newsroom is trying toassociate RMNs name with great leadership?
The Stake Conference was mostly the old and new stake presidencies congratulating themselves(bearing testimony). Our bishop is now on the stake presidency, and told a story of how to choose a bishop; which is, find the most caring, compassionate, and christlike person in the ward and call her husband. Many people would think you would choose the christlike person herself, but not a patriachal male. He told this story when he was called as bishop, hasn’t realised.
It occured to me as the meeting went on that I have the same problem talking/ listening to the leadership of the church, as I do talking to a trumper, or antivaxer. We do not agree on a lot of the basics. We are living in different realities, based on different facts (or lack of them).
Trumpers have clarified for me the idea of not sharing basic facts being a problem.
We were also told we had had a great spiritual experience, (no)
That we had seen revelation exercised by the priesthood leaders,
That we were here on earth to read scriptures, pay tithing, attend church, and after all we could do the lords grace would save us, (I believe we are here to learn to have joy, and become christlike by loving our neighbour.)
The stake primary president had been asked to speak on how wonerful the come follow me programme was in her home. She pointed out the previous stake primary president gave the same talk, but that she was married to a non member who was active in his own church, and although they had Christ in common, come follow me talking about the D&C was not common ground. She did talk about gospel principles they shared. Hers was the best talk of the meeting.
I think our leaders can do like trumpers, and ignore facts, re Joseph Smith, and this post.
I might even ignore them if the leaders of the church were teaching and acting the gospel of Christ, If they were not discriminating against, women and gays. If they were not protecting their patriachal power as very old white men.
I find it pretty incredible that in many SS classes I’ve attended in recent years that people still talk of the Book of Abraham as exactly how JS described – a translation of the papyri. My Mum was a convert in London in 50s – she was so thrilled to know that prophets again walked the earth. She also loved taking us to the museums on Exhibition Road so I have seen the Rosetta Stone too. Simpler times when faith existed.
Dylan: Regarding transliteration, thank you. It is not a possible description of what JS did, as far as I know.
Jung refers to the interpretation of vision as translating latent imagery. Abulafia calls the translation power “active imagination.” Blavatsky refers to seeing and speaking with the third-eye as spiritual translation. Eliade’s Shamanism contextualizes the act of writing as totem “translates” symbol. Coomaraswamy uses the word “circumscription” via speculum aeternum to translate forms, ideas, quintessentia from the underworld. Corbin sees relationships between archetypes as “translation.” Uzdavinys links translation with ascension, so that all visionary experience is equated with some translating process. Scholem describes the methodology of visionary translation: “write, conceal, ponder, reveal.” Lossky sees translation as a synergy or cooperation of heavenly power to icon or image [text].
There is a lot of good scholarship that supports the mystical lens for “translate.” I think it is fair to open the perspective in light of non-LDS scholarship that supports the position.
The CES has polluted the well. I do not recommend drinking their version of bottled water.
Travis, two genuine questions:
(1) What motivates you to go to such lengths to defend Joseph Smith & the Book of Abraham? Why give him such an enormous benefit of the doubt in the face of contrary evidence, common sense, and the ordinary meaning of the word translate? It reminds me of the Snufferites and others who claim Joseph Smith didn’t really practice polygamy or at least didn’t have a sexual relationship with any of his plural wives. OK – maybe. But you *really* have to go out of your way to build a case for that, and ignore a lot of evidence, and I’m trying to understand why you’d do that.
(2) What then do you make of the way that Joseph Smith himself described the Book of Abraham and the translation process? They really don’t fit with mysticism. I know we call Joseph Smith a mystic now – that’s a lens that makes sense for some people – but I doubt he considered himself that. He described himself as reading and deciphering ancient languages and characters and “translating” them the English language. i.e., the plain and ordinary definition of the word translate, the existence of other possible interpretations of the word notwithstanding.
JS’s own words about the BoA:
-“[W]ith W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the [scrolls] contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. – a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them.”
-Smith described himself as “translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”
-Part of the project resulted in a manuscript entitled “”Grammar & A[l]phabet of the Egyptian Language”
As others have noted, he made specific and detailed claims about the meanings of pictures, characters, and texts. That & the way he described translation and even titled the notes / books does not square with the new-and-improved apologetic definition of “translate.”
***
I think one can argue that the Book of Abraham is an inspired text and still derive value from it. I’m not arguing otherwise. But to claim that Joseph really did “translate” it and did not misrepresent anything about the text by using a completely different definition of the word “translate” and ignoring his own descriptions and characterizations of the process in order to defend his personal character seems to me to require a series of mental contortions that I don’t understand the point of performing. Does the truth really need that kind of a defense?
Elisa,
I see the CES as the problem. I see the censorship, redaction, and cowardly approach to hard questions as arrogance on the part of the LDS establishment. I empathize with folks who need history and facts to determine belief, but it’s not my approach. I am familiar with the arguments that you make, I think attacking Joseph is valid, but not for me.
I offer a nuanced approach that seems to be supported by some of the best of the best scholarship I know. I find it intriguing.
If you would experiment with the non-LDS scholarship I listed, you may or may not come to the same conclusion. The caliber of scholarship I shared should excite those who thirst.
@Travis, I don’t need history and facts to determine belief and my testimony doesn’t rise and fall on the BoA. I’m actually reading Julian of Norwich’s Showings right now and I find value in mysticism as a way to personally connect with divinity. And if the BoA does that for people too, great.
What I’m skeptical of are personal claims of authority / the right and ability to tell other people to do things on God’s behalf. If Joseph Smith is going to claim he had some direct channel to God (and by the way used that claim to coerce women into marrying him and other people into parting with property), then I’m going to scrutinize that more carefully. And if current leaders ride on JS’s coattails to similarly claim to have some special authority from God that allows them to tell people what they can and can’t do, and to exclude certain people from privileges & leadership, I’m going to be similarly skeptical. The BoA is tangential to that (his claims of the priesthood restoration are much more relevant) but it’s all part of a larger claim to authority that I think has done a whole lot of harm through Church history and that is based on events for which there is *no* credible evidence and indeed quite a bit of contrary evidence. So while I’m not interested in villifying JS, I am wary of apologetics and defenses of bad behavior and lying.
I’m also increasingly concerned about religious folks’ disinterest in science & willingness to accept spectacular claims without evidence (and even in spite of contrary evidence). Just today I heard an unvaccinated LDS friend talking about going to see a medium / psychic and going on and on about how we KNOW that Jerusalem will be destroyed in the second coming (and various other very specific end-of-days prophesies I haven’t heard since the 80’s). I am honestly mind-blown that she won’t accept evidence about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine but doesn’t question anything she considers to be a “prophesy.” And I thought something spectacularly wrong is going on with how we teach people to discern truth and it’s actually literally killing people.
What Elisa said above: “I’m also increasingly concerned about religious folks’ disinterest in science & willingness to accept spectacular claims without evidence (and even in spite of contrary evidence)”. This is the most distressing thing for me right now. What COVID has demonstrated is what Elisa says in the last line of her comment: The past year and half has clearly shown that religious belief/faith has ethical consequences far beyond the parameters we normally discuss. If Travis (or anyone else) thinks of Joseph Smith as a mystic or thinks there are things of value in the BofA, who am I to argue with that? That’s all well and good. However, it’s pretty clear that the willful delusions of many religious folk, including a number of Mormons, have lead directly to COVID deaths because of an embrace of some bizarre, juvenile concept of freedom that is not linked to responsibility, the belief that God will protect people from the virus, the belief that scientists and medical professionals who have dedicated their lives to healing the sick are all suddenly evil lunatics who want to inject microchips into people, etc. So I actually think it’s a good thing that we’re really interrogating beliefs, how we came to have them, and the dearth of corroborating evidence in the case of many religious claims.
COVID has made religion no longer a matter of simple belief, but has illustrated the point that some religious beliefs lead to demonstrable harm and death. That’s always been the case, but COVID has simply sharpened and illustrated the dire consequences of unsupportable religious belief. I don’t take any pleasure in calling Joseph Smith a liar, but as Elisa says, when there’s evidence to the contrary of his claims, there’s evidence. And I don’t think that obfuscating about the meaning of the word “translation” when Smith’s own words clearly illustrate what he believed he was doing helps matters.
@Elisa: “And I thought something spectacularly wrong is going on with how we teach people to discern truth and it’s actually literally killing people.” Well-said. Church teaches that a strong emotional experience is spiritual, and we should believe that the emotional experience conveyed truth to us. Then teachers/leaders explain what that truth is and that’s where the problems gather.
(Church has literally taught people to believe strong emotions over evidence and reasoning – the more ‘supernal’ and unexplainable the experience, the more it’s divine. The leadership now seem to be distressed that people are applying this principle of ‘how to know things’ outside of the boundaries of testimony, but have expanded it to include science and medicine.)
I’ve felt the spirit and learned some spiritual truths from the Book of Abraham. The concepts are interesting. Does my spiritual experience with the BoA mean JS literally translated it? No. It means I had certain feelings and ideas while reading it. That doesn’t give me any authority to say what the source of the text is. At some point, I realized that when I “felt the spirit” I was interpreting what the spirit meant, when really all it did was give me an effervescent feeling. The excitement I felt while reading about Kolob just means that I felt excited to learn about Kolob, not that JS literally translated characters from a papyrus.
The way the Church teaches truth needs to narrow down. Having a spiritual experience doesn’t mean that everything surrounding that spiritual experience is now exactly what the Brethren say it is. I remember being puzzled by this on my mission. We would teach people to pray and ask God if the BoM was true. If they did, and had a good feeling, we told them that meant the Holy Ghost was telling them the BoM was true and they should be baptized. We basically interpreted their feeling and explained what the Spirit was telling them to do. Maybe they had a good feeling because they were relaxing and focusing on something besides the struggle of their day-to-day life. Maybe they had a good feeling because they liked it when we came over and they knew we wanted them to do this. “I felt good while I was praying” (or reading the BoA) doesn’t mean that I now have an unshakable proof that my feeling means what the Brethren/teacher/missionary told me it means.
There’s an experience (a good feeling), and the way we interpret that experience (that feeling means JS is a prophet and you should believe/accept everything). We need to bring back that distinction.
Brother Sky,
I know a lot of people whom I would consider religious but who also accept and love science and evidence. And most anti-vaxxing pseudo-libertarians I know here in the northeastern US are not religious. I agree with the idea that there is clearly something wrong with Mormon, especially western US Mormon, culture when we see not just science denialism but also such rank materialism and obsession with plastic surgery. But are these problems really entirely attributable to religious belief, or do we have a culture problem rooted in some ironically faithless tendencies like love of money and sex?
your food allergy: Yes, you make a good point, which is why I said “some” religious beliefs. And it is interesting to see how conspiracy theories cut across religious and even political lines, which I think you’re right to point out. Frankly, I think it’s a human tendency to elevate any kind of ideology into some sort of bizarre key to all mythologies, and that goes for both religious and secular thinking and left and right political thought. And really, as I’ve come to realize over the past decade (and which COVID has made so abundantly clear), so-called religious beliefs are really just stand-ins for what we sort of feel/think anyway. It’s my experience that most people seek ideologies and religions that match their already preconceived notions rather than seeking out religions and ideologies that challenge those notions. So yes, in that sense, the “faithless tendencies” you note, which I take to revolve around what the Romans would have called “cupiditas”, also influence our decision making. I often wonder whether religious or political ideologies function merely to “give cover” to our poor decision making by allowing us either to claim that we’re flawed and we shouldn’t be judged too harshly or that we’ve got some sort of moral approval for our actions.
@food allergy, I agree, and that’s a good callout. A lot of secular research lately is showing us that we make decisions with our feelings and then justify them with reasons after-the-fact. I guess the difference is the Church still says it’s good to make decisions with feelings* whereas other sources are trying to get us to reckon with that.
My lens is Utah County where I live & see the way that the “gospel” is appropriated by the anti-vaxxers / anti-maskers and also see how the ways we’ve been taught to discern truth may have set us up for this. It’s caught me off guard because I always thought of Mormons as way more intellectual / scientific / rational than for example evolution-denying evangelicals. (I know some Mormons are evolution-deniers, but typically not the ones I’ve associated with.). But (1) Covid, (2) some recent talks by DHO and RMN that are shockingly anti-intellectual (generally around discounting psychology / social sciences when it comes to homosexuality), and (3) the way apologists have responded to Church history issues have caused me to consider the ways that we’ve been taught to distrust secular experts, knowledge, and evidence.
I think it’s really important to note as you’ve reminded us that Church didn’t invent a lot of the things that bug me about it (like sexism, and racism, and homophobia, and anti-intellectualism), but it’s also fair to point out the ways it buttresses those harms and puts the stamp of God on them. It may not be making things materially worse (not sure though) but it isn’t helping in a way I would expect a Church that claims to honor truth should help.
*As Melinda noted, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making some kinds of decisions based on feelings. Some of my best decisions have been personal decisions I’ve made after weighing all of the considerations and then going with my gut. But those were decisions about what I should do for my future, which I can’t predict anyway and is not a fact to be adjudicated. And I also think it’s fine to hear accounts told in Church and feel good about them because maybe they are teaching us some truth that goes beyond facts. But I think it’s very different to be making factual determinations based on feelings – like whether Obama is part of a child-sex ring, or the Covid vaccine is safe and effective, or Joseph Smith actually literally saw God and was told certain specific things.
It would seem to me that one who has both discovered and translated an unknown language might be morally bound to share that language and the key to its translation in a ” Rosetta Stone-type” document. I don’t recall any instructions from Moroni that would have proscribed such an effort when it came to the translation of the BOM. Joseph Smith could have honored a lost culture, provided invaluable help to future researchers and proved the very existence of God (assuming Nephite cities and their records would eventually be found) had he simply left to posterity a paragraph of “Reformed Egyptian” taken from First Nephi with its accompanying English translation. The fact that he didn’t speaks volumes. He was in way over his head with the BOA scroll. Thank goodness he left us his version of its “translation”. It has probably facilitated many faith journeys in ways he never imagined.
Chadwick:” People seem to have this irrational sense that they can get away with anything, notwithstanding so much evidence to the contrary. I’m sure Joseph’s charisma led him to believe he would always have a following regardless of what he said or did.”
Now, my goodness, what silly fools those people of the 1820’s to 1840’s were. I’m glad I live in an era where someone could never get away with telling lies – I don’t know, maybe 3,000 or so – with so much evidence to the contrary and get away with it. We’re way too sharp now-a-days for that kind of foolishness. What utter simpletons them illiterate folks be !
I read this when it was newer and fresher in everyone’s mind, and some of the earlier comments really resonated. Since then I was in transit and otherwise preoccupied but my thoughts have persisted, generated by this short , pointed post. (Insert kudos to OP here)
I don’t remember when I first learned about the BoA issues, probably as a BYU student in the 70s. I do remember coming up with my own thoughts about the possibility of mystical “translation” generated by mundane artifacts that could qualify as revelation from above. I’ve always had a fascination with the nuts and bolts of what JS’s processes were.
I never rejected the stone/hat reports, and I clearly recall hearing a GC address by Holland (or was it Ballard?) about 2005 where the translation process using a stone in a hat was specifically referenced with those words. It startled me to hear those words from that pulpit. Unfortunately I’ve been unable to find the address, and I’ve concluded that the exact words and/or description was scrubbed.
I found inspiration in learning, from one of the best SS teachers ever, that the U&T and the hat/stone processes were similar, but the U&T was “nuclear powered” and the stone was comparatively primitive technology, like an early telephone prototype. I have always sought to connect with the actual realities of the restoration, where JS’s gifts come into play, the spiritual intersecting with physical reality, and the suggestion that he lost the use of the nuclear technology (in the Martin Harris pages episode) was exciting.
I’ve still not found satisfactory understanding of what appears as a freely gushing fountain of revelation from JS’s tenure as prophet, and the remarkable lack of it from any of the following leaders. Which seeking to understand I still indulge, and find a rich lode to mine at times in the messiness that was Nauvoo polygamy and its aftermath.
In my personal experience with my reality of patriarchy, I’ve learned much about what narcissism looks like, how it functions and how it is enabled (all forms of lies and gaslight + flying monkeys + doubling down,) and that narcissists can believe in their abusive delusions more than anyone. Abusive sexual behavior in this context has been well-studied, especially recently, and Nauvoo polygamy in general, and individual leaders’ polygamy in particular show many clear hallmarks of covert narcissism. It isn’t a good look for early church leaders, but I have at times managed to give them some benefit of doubt.
But learning here about more specific details about the BoA and the facsimiles in the context of the Rosetta Stone research, I see more clear hallmarks of familiar narcissistic gamesmanship afoot.
I’m not gonna give conclusions that I haven’t reached yet. But I have learned much about my responsibility for my own safety, so no more leaps of faith just to reach a conclusion.
And now I have a new goal: visit the British Museum at the first opportunity.
Thanks, Bishop!