The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Research Paper Example

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Introduction From the moment he founded in 1830 the Church of Christ until his last breath, Joseph Smith broadened the models of biblical practice he started in his teen and young adult years. He thus established the important path that would forever differentiate his final devotees. As ‘mormonism’ developed from a concept into a society, the faith of Smith seemed to expand equally (Parry, 2004). He had hardly accomplished the Book of Mormon when he was inspired to make a move further, just as daring a deviation from long-established values. Putting his own understanding of ‘prophetic authority’ into the general ideas of scholarship widespread in his time, he carried out an amendment of the Bible itself. In addition and, partly, as a result, a series of revelation emanated from the Prophet. Every one of them reflected features instituted in the past: they were filled with biblical icons, phrases, and themes, but were themselves self-governing religious traditions. Thorough analysis of these revelations, to the biblical amendment of Smith, and to his homilies and accompanying Bible usages reveals his idea of scripture to have been unrestrained when evaluated against those of his counterparts (Parry, 2004). For Smith, scripture was not the passive, predetermined, impervious, irreversible Bible that it was for large numbers of antebellum Christians (Barlow, 1997). Even though his dedication to it was profound, the Bible was for him temporary, dynamic, practical, subject to modification, written and spoken, diverse in its sources, and inferior to actual interaction with God. The Book of Mormon was marketed on the 26th of March 1830. A year after the extensively cited analysis of Alexander Campbell charged it of clarifying all the major concerns talked about in New York throughout the 1820s, as well as “infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration… even the question of free masonry, republic government, and the rights of man” (Winn, 1990, 20). Aspects in the book did appear to relate with several of existing issues at that time and to address its readers’ mental and emotional needs; several converts made use of the book as prescribed by Campbell. Numerous, nevertheless, did not. In truth, the Book of Mormon, in comparison with the Bible, was used sparsely (Winn, 1990). Smith’s revelations and converts mention ‘Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures,’ setting aside the ‘holy scripture’ for the Bible (Barlow, 1997, 44). God scolded the members of the Church for not giving little importance to the Book of Mormon. According to Morris (2006), W.W. Phelps, Mormon writer, protested that the Saints would instead seek mysteries and miracles in the Bible than find out details communicated in the Book of Mormon. Mormon publications during the 1830s mentioned the Bible several times as frequently as the Book of Mormon, and in the sermons presented to Nauvoo, Illinois for which current documentations are available, Smith reworded the Book of Mormon a number of times but mentioned or reworded the Bible hundreds of times (Morris, 2006). Even though he illustrated the Book of Mormon as more accurate than any other manuscript and as “the keystone of our religion,” (Parry, 2004, 17) there are very few proofs that he gave an effort to analyze its text as he studied the Bible. The Book of Mormon was given due importance by its followers, but it did not turn out to be the foundation for the early Church tradition and dogma, the everyday revelations of Smith accomplished that. It would linger for a succeeding period of Saints to embrace as idols those Book of Mormon icons like Nephi, Moroni, and Alma (Parry, 2004). The very first Mormon chose the Bible, in spite of the flaws they discovered in it. Malachi, Zechariah, and Nahum were not indefinite or unclear icons for them and their colleagues (Barlow, 1997), as they would turn out to be to future Americans and future Saints. For the very first followers, the Book of Mormon was significant, virtually separate of its particular contents, because it survived; it was evidence that the Lord had given His Word again, lie in biblical times. The key aspect of the Mormon declaration in 1830 was its unique biblical character: not the Bible as ultimate power but, instead, the revival of the power, prophetic ways, and teachings illustrated in the Bible. Lots of converts revealed accepting Mormonism for it fulfilled their longings for a genuine biblical Christianity (Winn, 1990). As attested by the Reverend Orson Spencer about his experience with joining the Latter-day Saints: “What could I do? Truth had taken possession of my mind--- plain, simple Bible truth” (Barlow, 1997, 45). According to Barlow (1997), although Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith had initially explained the scriptures with the goal of persuading followers, succeeding Mormon seniors, whom assumed divine authority, attracted followers with a similar strategy. The Brookville (Indiana) Enquirer was amazed that Orson Pratt did not give any effort at explaining the Bible’s simple message. Sidney Rigdon, giving sermons in Kirtland, Ohio, discussed ‘plain scripture facts’ with remarkable impact (Barlow, 1997, 46). These Mormon seniors said that every time they could justify their stance to the Bible they were certain of achievement. They boldly invited rival preachers to confront them on ‘Bible ground’ (Winn, 1990, 71). Similar to those of other religions, the first Mormons chose their texts cautiously, highlighting those issues that strengthened their views (Barlow, 1997, 46): “the primitive church pattern, prophecies of apostasy and subsequent restoration, millennialism, the uniformity of the gospel in all ages, and the special role of Israel.” Joseph Smith and The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints It is evident that Joseph Smith had a more liberated idea of scripture than many of his counterparts. Even though nearly every early Mormon claim could be substantiated by biblical passages, Smith did not sense any duty to embrace the Bible in its existing official version as an inflexible limitation on the telling dogmas of his church (Morris, 2006). He once remarked that “there are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me” (Morris, 2006, 11). This remark means that, in Smith’s view, it was not a great deal that his revelations had to be adapted completely with biblical texts but, instead, that a faulty Bible should abide to his more straightforward and contemporary revelations. This inclination might be simply overemphasized, because, generally, Smith thought his revelations and the accurately documented Bible were elements of a single truth. He stated on one occasion, after resolving a disagreement in two biblical quotes, “If any man will prove to me, by one passage of Holy Writ, one item I believe to be false, I will renounce and disclaim it as far as I [have promulgated] it” (Barlow, 1997, 57). However, according to Barlow (1997), Smith felt wrong allowing the old scriptures continue unchanged, only claiming the advantage of his revelations over the outdated, dishonest, or flawed parts of the Bible. Rather, Smith’s conviction that truth cannot disagree or clash with itself encouraged him to better reconcile the Bible with the truths he believed he had received from the Lord. If he obtained revelations communicating truths granted to Noah or Enoch but not documented in the Bible, or, at times, although he gained revelations having slight connection with the earliest situations, he sensed no doubts about appending the material as if it were a portion of the scriptural text, thus affirming the Bible’s status (Parry, 2004). The evident rationale underlying such a deed was (Barlow, 1997, 57): If certain truths were not originally included in the Bible, they are truths nonetheless and readers will be edified by studying them; it is not the text of the Bible as such, but rather the truths of God that are sacred. A number of critics may think of these beliefs old-fashioned or offensive. In contrast, several Latter-Day Saints may think they endanger the legitimacy of their founding prophet. None of the assumptions are unavoidable (Barlow, 1997). Nevertheless, it is not the purpose of this paper to criticize either the revelations of Smith or the authenticity of his Bible usage. The purpose of the paper is to contribute to the current historical knowledge on the Mormon prophet: How is it that a rational and faithfully genuine and honest person in antebellum America could meddle quite thoroughly with the Bible that he himself worshipped by lecturing the professed truths of his personal insight in a very old perspective, as if they had been articulated by the earliest prophets? An analysis of two aspects could be helpful. First is the concept of ‘authorship.’ As stated by Ernest R. May, “Not too long ago, topical indexes contained the reference ‘Ghost Writing—see Forgery’; now the searcher is referred… to’—Authorship; Collaboration’” (Barlow, 1997, 58). He mourned that the tempo of contemporary life in the twenty years prior to his writing had compelled a boost in ghost writing for popular or public personalities that consequently brought about difficulties for scholars in their treatment of primary references (Barlow, 1997, 58): If, on the basis of letters and speeches, a scholar should try to analyze Franklin Roosevelt’s mind, he would emerge with a figure made up of Roosevelt and the fragments of Roosevelt’s ghosts [=ghostwriters]- Rosenman, Sherwood, Michelson, Grace Tully, Missy Le Hand, even the sprightly apparition of Harold Ickes. The historical issues of May could be widened temporally and subjectively. Prior to the latter part of the 19th century, historical method functioned under various beliefs than it does nowadays. The scholarly attempts of the president of Harvard College, the Reverend Jared Sparks, were manifestation of the earlier period. Sparks was a gifted writer, who revised the Writings of George Washington in twelve volumes (Adams, 1993). Yet, when his effort was afterward evaluated against the original documents, it was evident that Sparks had rephrased parts of letters, changed or omitted unpleasant statements, edited incongruities of style and discomfited passages, and deeply enlarged the praiseworthy traits of Washington. But while the requirements for accuracy of a subsequent era find the revision of Spark of Washington’s letters improper as primary reference nobody truly challenges the integrity of Spark (Adams, 1993). As Spark’s biographer appropriately remarked, Sparks fitted his effort “to the then needs of the American people, and to the literary taste of the times in which he lived” (Adams, 1970, 271). Likewise, according to Morris (2006), quite a few scholars have argued about the message of Washington’s Farewell Address since nobody was certain whether Alexander Hamilton or Washington himself was its real writer. The wife of Nathaniel Hawthorne reworked his writings prior to publication. The Journal and Miscellaneous Notebooks of Ralph Waldo Emerson were revised to boost his reputation as a ‘gentlemanly sage’ (Barlow, 1997, 59). Lots of cases from the 18th and 19th centuries would reveal that editorial distortion was common, that what is currently known as plagiarism was a quite common act, that indirect discussion was usually converted to direct “as a means of imparting more life to the narration,” and that “quotation marks were not so essential a part of nineteenth century scholarly decorum as they later became” (Barlow, 1997, 59). According to Dean Jessee, the early Saints and Joseph Smith took part in the scholarly traditions of their period. Specifically, the History of the Church, which in contemporary versions is captioned History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, by Himself, is truly of intricate authorship, although it is made public as Smith’s volume by itself (Barlow, 1997, 59). Narrative discrepancies in History were reconciled drawing upon other references, indirect discussion was converted to direct, and narratives of events about which the Mormon prophet did not produce were provided by the writings of other partakers in the occurrences and afterward communicated by Smith (Barlow, 1997, 59). Historical developments continued to be accumulated for years after the demise of Smith. These traditions of revision and authorship are widely recognized for historical writing or individual journals throughout the 19th century, but only some seem to have observed that they are appropriate to Smith’s scripture creation as well. Smith merely adopted the traditions artistically. Nonetheless, if his eagerness to tamper upon past texts was in agreement with his period’s general idea of authorship and editorial, in other regards the effort of Smith was remarkable (Parry, 2004). The texts to which he affixed were, in any case, a portion of earlier sacred summons benefitting from exposure and exclusive status in America. The Bible editions existing in Smith’s time were created by intellectuals who decoded from very old languages or who faintly edited the ‘official edition’ to enhance speech intelligibility and theological details. They refused to assert divine revelation in their works (Parry, 2004). On the contrary, Smith asserted a divine authority and started from the King James Version (KJV) to create vast numbers of revision, several of them substantial ones, involving lengthy contents of sources that cannot be unearthed anywhere else (Parry, 2004). Smith’s Bible, in 19th-century America, was unique in substance, process, and idea. Another factor that should be taken into account in order to make sense of Smith’s edition of the Bible is his prophetic or visionary knowledge. For scholars, what is perhaps the closest representation for Smith’s Bible additions is to be uncovered not among his colleagues but among biblical authors. In any case, the general ideas of authorship explained previously were not new in the 18th and 19th centuries; they lived in the past (Morris, 2006). Many centuries ago these authorship ideas were at times accompanied by a form of prophetic authority: authors recognized themselves to hold divine power and knowledge essentially as grand as a particular document before them, in a setting where the concept of authorship was not particularly significant (Winn, 1990). According to Parry (2004), this was usually as real of what turned out to be the legitimate doctrine as it was of pseudepigraphous (fake writings, specifically writings wrongly ascribed to biblical periods or icons) and apocryphal (mythical) works. In analyzing biblical volumes, numerous times one has to differentiate between the ‘author’ whose insights the manuscript communicates and the ‘writer’. The writers span from scribes who passively transferred texts to the author’s notation to sophisticated associates who, building from an outline of the author’s insights, presented their own scholarly approach to the ultimate work (Barlow, 1997). Though we restrict authorship to duty for the essential insights that emerge in the book, the rules that establish the credit of authorship in the Bible are quite wide-ranging. If a specific author is enclosed by an assembly of believers who continue his ideas even after he passes away, their efforts may be credited to him as the author. Conclusions Joseph Smith, similar to numerous biblical authors, believed he had been granted encouragement and revelation by the Lord. With his wide-ranging idea of authorship and his determined view of prophetic authority, he sensed the power indeed, the mission—to indoctrinate his ideas into his edition of scripture, just like what prophetic authors in earlier periods had performed. As previously mentioned, he may have thought as well, at least in several cases, that he was in fact reviving very old biblical documents lost in contact. Nevertheless, his primary interest was not in content accuracy but with informing or educating humanity through bared truth. He hence refused to be tied to what he viewed to be the original works, and still he kept on venerating the Bible. The consequences of his actions are evidently unique in antebellum America. References Adams, H. (1993). Life and Writings of Jared Sparks. New York: Ayer Co Pub. Barlow, P. (1997). Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-Day Saints in American Religion. New York: Oxford University Press. Morris, C. (2006). New Light on the Atonement. Utah: Cedar Fort. Parry, E. (2004). Joseph Smith’s Teachings: A Classified Arrangement of the Doctrinal Sermons and Writings of the Great Mormon Latter Day Prophet. Kessinger Publishing, LLC. Winn, K. (1990). Exiles in a Land of Liberty: Mormons in America, 1830-1846. The University of North Carolina Press. Read More