Saturday, April 14, 2018

Book of Mormon: support for the 'stone in a hat' translation method from an early, unique source


In my preceding, last six posts on Mormonism (link), I focused on the recent paradigm shift within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning the 'translation' method of the Book of Mormon. The long held view that the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith via the use of the 'gold' plates and spectacles which were buried together in the Hill Cumorah, is being replaced by the use of a single 'seer stone' in a hat without the plates being used.

On Thursday, I discovered in an early, unique source, certain comments which support the latter process. To my knowledge, no LDS scholar who has written on the subject of the translation method of the Book of Mormon has mentioned this source. The source is a book written in 1854 by the notable 19th century Catholic convert, Orestes Augustus Brownson, under the title, Spirit-Rapper: An Autobiography. Brownson was a prodigious authorThe Works of Orestes Brownson (20 volumes) contains more than 12,000 pages. Prior to this week, I had read only his contributions on the subject of doctrinal development, and had no knowledge of the aforementioned book. It was on Wednesday that I learned of the existence of this book via an article published on the The Catholic World Report website under the title: "The devil always leaves us in the lurch" (link). From the article, we read:

If weirdness were an Olympic sport, the American nineteenth century would have a closet full of gold medals.

But out of that weirdness comes the strange and compelling figure of Orestes Brownson, a Catholic convert who wrote an equally strange and compelling book: The Spirit-Rapper: an Autobiography. Newly reissued by Cluny Media under the (improved) title Like a Roaring Lion, Brownson’s 1854 book dissects some of the biggest bad ideas of his day, and warns of a menacing darkness that lurks beneath them. But Brownson’s novel also speaks to us today about the errors and practices that open our souls to the work of the devil.

I ordered the book, but could not wait to receive it, so I looked for the 1854 edition online, finding a PDF copy (link), that I downloaded and read. Note the following:

Much nonsense has been vented by the press about the origin of his Bible, or the Book of Mormon. The most ridiculous as well as the most current version of the affair is, that the book was originally written as a novel, by one Spalding, a Presbyterian minister in Pennsylvania, and that Joe got hold of the manuscript and published it as a new Bible. This version is refuted by a simple perusal of the book itself, which is too much and too little to have had such an origin. In his normal state, Joe Smith could never have written the more striking passages of the Book of Mormon ; and any man capable of doing it, could never have written any thing so weak, silly, utterly unmeaning as the rest. No man ever dreamed of writing it as a novel, and who ever had produced it in his normal state, would have made it either better in its feebler parts, or worse in its stronger passages.

The origin of the book was explained to me by one of Joe's own elders, on the authority of the person who, as Joe's amanuensis, wrote it. From beginning to end, it was dictated by Joe himself, not translated from plates, as was generally alleged, but apparently from a peculiar stone, which he subsequently called his Urim and Thummim, and used in his divination. He placed the stone in his hat, which stood upon a table, and then taking a seat, he concealed his face in his hat above it, and commenced dictating in a sleep-waking state, under the influence of the mysterious power that used or assisted him. I lived near the place where the book was produced. I had subsequently ample means of investigating the whole case, and I availed myself of them to the fullest extent. For a considerable time the Mormon prophets and elders were in the habit of visiting my house. They hoped to make me a convert, and they spoke to me with the utmost frankness and unreserve. (Pages 165, 166 - bold emphasis mine.)

I find it more than a bit interesting that Brownson's comments concerning the origin of the Book of Mormon, are virtually identical to the method now being endorsed by LDS scholars who have been working on Joseph Smith Papers project—minus the "sleep-waking state"—which elements include: that it was Joseph Smith alone, and not some other person or persons like Spalding, who produced the English 'translation'; the 'translation' method did not utilize the plates; Joseph dictated the book to his amanuensis while using a stone in a hat, into which he concealed his face.

Now, in my January 7, 2018 post (link), I asked the following question:

WHY has Kirkham's and Nibley's assessments been jettisoned by so many 21st century LDS scholars?

Though Brownson's comments seem to support the new paradigm shift promoted by a good number of 21st century LDS scholars, I still believe that my question remains valid.


Grace and peace,

David

*UPDATE (April 14, 2018): I am in the process of attempting to find any references to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, Mormonism et al., that Orestes Augustus Brownson may have made in his extensive corpus. Just moments ago, I found the following article in Dialogue - A Journal of Mormon Thought:

"I Consdier the Proper Authority Rests Among the Mormons": Oran Brownson to Orestes Brownson on Oran's Conversion to Mormonism


The following from the article is germane to this post:

Orestes demonstrated his interest in Mormonism by addressing the subject throughout his prolific writing career. In the Spirit-Rapper, published in 1854, Brownson associated Mormonism with spiritualism and mesmerism, movements rapidly gaining adherents in America of the 1850s. Referring to Smith’s use of a divining rod, he stated that “every mesmerizer would at once have recognized him as an impressible subject.” Brownson ridiculed the Spaulding theory of the origins of the Book of Mormon; he likewise denied that Smith without assistance could have authored the book. Brownson accurately described the translation process as having occurred by the use of a seer stone placed in a hat, a description he had learned from “one of Joe’s own elders, on the authority of the person who, as Joe’s amanuensis, wrote it.” Having deemed Smith incapable of producing the Book of Mormon on his own, Brownson concluded that “there was a superhuman power employed in founding the Mormon church,” asserting that direct satanic intervention explained both the Book of Mormon and Mormon miracles. In short, “Mormonism is literally the Synagogue of Satan.” (Page 194)

And so, I can now say that I know of one "LDS scholar who has written on the subject of the translation method of the Book of Mormon [who] has mentioned this source."

6 comments:

  1. Wow. It seems like this thread could go a lot of directions. It is very interesting to me that Orestes Brownson and Joseph Smith were childhood acquaintances, and that Brownson resolutely refused to consider a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon as a Catholic.

    I was a little surprised at the LDS author to which the opening thread linked, that characterized Brownson as a "liberal Catholic," as follows: "Brownson carried his taste for controversy into Catholicism, becoming America’s preeminent Catholic liberal by the 1850s, a development bemoaned by his more conservative coreligionists both at home and at Rome."

    In opposition to John Henry Newman and his theory of doctrinal development, it would seem that Brownson would be taking the less liberal of the positions. But perhaps I do not know how he takes Newman to task. I should have thought he simply believed that revelation came through the Apostles more fully developed than what Newman perceived. That is why I thought he would be anything but liberal.

    Rory

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Rory,

    Thanks much for taking the time to share some of your thoughts on these intriguing historical events. And thanks for pointing out that, "Brownson resolutely refused to consider a naturalistic explanation for the Book of Mormon as a Catholic." As you well know, I too do not think that a naturalistic explanation is a viable option.

    I was also surprised that Dr. Grow, "characterized Brownson as a 'liberal Catholic,'", for as you pointed out—during their lifetimes—it was Newman who was considered the liberal concerning the issue of doctrinal development. I suspect that Newman was considered a liberal on this issue because a number of this ideas were novel; though as us moderns look back on that period, we now know that Newman was anything but a liberal.

    As for Brownson, I know from scholars that after his conversion to Catholicism, a good number of his views became quite conservative, especially concerning cultural and political issues.

    BTW, did you know that Dr. Grow was awarded his PhD from the University of Notre Dame?


    Grace and peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello David and Rory,
    I wanted to respond to this a while ago, but I am easily side tracked. One of my fantasies is to be able to spill out text onto some computer through a direct link to my mind at rates sufficient to compress weeks of banter into an hour or so. Alas such technology is far away (which is probably good for the Internet and those who would subject to my comments, but still arg!!!).
    I think Orestas and Oran are two more examples of the common trend I see in folks who deal with authority as Protestants. Both of you would be folks who moved in a Catholic direction. Francis Beckwith became a Catholic not long after his work on The New Mormon Challenge. Paul Owen as I recall calls himself a “reformed Catholic” as a product of his interaction with Mormonism.
    I suppose as a LDS believer I should speak about translation methods. As I posted earlier, I cannot remember being uncomfortable with the “stone in a hat.” As I came to believe my faith deserved more than a few hours on Sunday, I was immersed in pro and anti arguments.
    I am not sure if this a good thing or not, but I think one of the currents that drives the “rock in a hat” description is the foe of Mormonism is changing. I think in 1840 there were many folks who found seer stones to be reasonable and so this explanation existed in faithful circles. I think in 1910 there were few LDS who found occult-ish things to be acceptable and they rebelled against it. I think in 2010 the real enemy of FAITH in God is not Satanic influence, but is radical naturalism where there is no God and no devil.
    If an atheist could see Joseph Smith looking through glowing spectacles and “translating” he could claim some natural explanations. Like those who postulate that Joseph Smith read Josephus, got maps from Dartmouth, and …. But an atheist who sees a simple fellow speak of Nahom and ancient population dynamics while looking into a hat is going to be truly baffled.
    I am not sure if this is good. I just think it could have something to do with the switch.
    I am reminded of my criticism of Catholics for telling Mormons, “sure we have revelation” and Protestants, “don’t worry there is no new revelation.” But…
    Anyway, I almost always read here and it is great!
    Charity, TOm

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think I should have said as fewer folks believe in God, fearing that the CoJCoLDS is the "Synagogue of Satan" is less of a concern and this directs the way people think about evidence.
    Charity, TOm

    ReplyDelete
  5. Tom said:

    "I think Orestas and Oran are two more examples of the common trend I see in folks who deal with authority as Protestants. Both of you would be folks who moved in a Catholic direction. Francis Beckwith became a Catholic not long after his work on The New Mormon Challenge. Paul Owen as I recall calls himself a “reformed Catholic” as a product of his interaction with Mormonism."

    Rory replies:

    Tom, hi. I was recently invited to speak to a Catholic apologetics class on the subject of your church. I am pretty sure I failed to convey how important Mormonism was to my journey to the Catholic faith. Mormon ecclesiology is consistent with apostolic and Catholic ecclesiology. Protestant ecclesiology is a mess.

    Since I did the same thing, I find it very interesting and believable that prominent converts to the Catholic faith from Protestantism did so after interaction with LDS claims. I am not ashamed to be in theior company.

    As for my two weeks with the class, comprised of thoughtful Catholic teenagers and young adults, I think I was able to defend LDS claims to the extent that they are more viable than those of Luther or Calvin, the reformers. If the Catholic Church could be safely ignored, as the actions of the "reformers" assumed, what was needed was restoration, not reformation.

    As you know well, I take the position that the Catholic Church is ignored not safely, but to the peril of souls. But still...Rome or Restoration. If you think the Catholic Church is false, Protestantism, mere reform, won't do. I tried to sew respect for the LDS position. Nobody objected. They listened respectfully, probably because they knew I was only trying to make the Catholic position stronger, even if I was making those whose baptisms Catholics accept weaker.

    As always...good to see you old friend. Be well.

    Rory

    Rory

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Tom,

    I was hoping that you would find the time, to share some more of your thoughts on our topic at hand. So good to see you back.

    You wrote:

    ==I am not sure if this a good thing or not, but I think one of the currents that drives the “rock in a hat” description is the foe of Mormonism is changing. I think in 1840 there were many folks who found seer stones to be reasonable and so this explanation existed in faithful circles. I think in 1910 there were few LDS who found occult-ish things to be acceptable and they rebelled against it.==

    Brant Gardner, in his 2011 book, The Gift and Power - Translating the Book of Mormon wrote the following:

    >>Truman Coe, a Presbyterian minister living among the Saints in Kirtland, Ohio, in 1836, relates the story of the translation as he understood it: "The manner of translation was as wonderful as the discovery. By putting his finger on one of the characters and imploring divine aid, then looking through the Urim and Thummim, he would see the import written in plain English on a screen placed before him. After delivering this to his emanuensi, he would again proceed in the same manner and obtain the meaning of the next character, and so on till he came to the part of the plates which were sealed up.">> (Pages 6, 7)

    Brant then states the Coe himself did not actually witness the translation of the plates, but probably got his information from the Kirtland Saints that he lived amongst. He then wrote concerning Coe's portrayal of the translation method that, "it provides a picture of the translation that has endured from at least 1836 until modern times." (Page 7)

    In much later narrations—1870 or later, but by actual witnesses to the translation—two other methods were related. The first being the use of the Urim and Thummim in a hat; and the second, a dark brown stone in a hat.

    ==I think in 2010 the real enemy of FAITH in God is not Satanic influence, but is radical naturalism where there is no God and no devil.==

    I would argue (along with folk like C. S. Lewis), that "radical naturalism where there is no God and no devil", is actually a form of Satanic influence.

    Anyway, though I am a committed, Christian theist, my ecclesiastical agnosticism leaves the actual process of the translation of the Book of Mormon 'open'...


    Grace and peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete