Everything we create possesses unique qualities and characteristics; however, nothing we create stands alone. We continuously borrow from other sources: we expand and reflect existing works. The process of writing does not fail to do this. Writers gather and blend the ideas, language, and themes from existing passages to develop their own distinctive text.
Academic writers are no exception to this particular practice. According to Joseph Harris in the introduction of his writing handbook Rewriting, academic writers constantly respond, by rewriting and reinterpreting, to the established texts. In his first chapter, “Coming to Terms,” of his writers’ manual, Harris didactically elaborates in plain language on this practice of borrowing and responding to academic prose. When incorporating an existing text in one’s own writing, Harris proposes that one must first “come to terms” with the text. In other words, one must define the purpose, note key words and passages, and assess the limitations and positive characteristics of the established work. When borrowing from another source, complete understanding of the initial work becomes necessary.
Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon faith, certainly borrowed from existing works when writing his religious text, the Book of Mormon. According to Phillip Barlow, author of Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion, Smith lived and breathed in the Bible-saturated culture of Western New York. Barlow claims that Smith frequently read the King James Bible and was perhaps more aware of the Bible’s contents, messages, and language than historians previously have guessed. Smith’s exposure to the King James Bible certainly reveals itself when reading the Book of Mormon. In the first chapter of his book, Barlow first analyzes the process and timeline by which Smith created his religious work. Barlow then methodically connects particular elements of the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon. The language, events, and themes of the Book of Mormon strongly reflect those of the King James Bible; however, Smith, in the writing of the Book of Mormon, altered some grammatical and lexical elements of the King James Bible, a fact which Barlow demonstrates by placing together almost identical passages from the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon and highlighting the differences and similarities between the two texts.
The similarities of between the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible highlighted in Barlow’s Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion become even more apparent when reading the selections from the Book of Mormon. These particular collections historically chronicle the lives and fates of Nephi and his descendents as they flee Jerusalem, receive messages from the Lord, begin and end cycles of wickedness, and search for the Promised Land. Written in 17th century prose and filled with noted biblical language, the selections closely parallel the well-known stories in the King James Bible, including, among others, the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus’ birth, and the Lord’s Prayer. Smith’s employment of elements from the King James Bible both legitimizes and simplifies his own work for his Christian audience.
Questions for Discussion:
1. How did Smith explain some of the discrepancies between the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible? Why did Smith choose to do this?
2. While the events portrayed in the selections from the Book of Mormon occur in the late first century B.C. and early first century A.D., do elements of Smith’s 19th century culture appear to influence the Book of Mormon?
3. Why did Smith choose to write in 17th century prose? Does this make the work more “legitimate”?
4. The Book of Mormon was advertised as a companion to the Bible. Is it possible to fully understand the Book of Mormon without reading the Bible? Can the Book of Mormon stand alone as a religious work?
I think that Smith explained some of the discrepancies between the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible by making modifications to verses seen in the King James Bible. Smith did this because the modifications convey to the reader that the Book of Mormon is a companion to the King James Bible, yet it has its own unique qualities that separate their beliefs from other sects. For example, as Barlow, the author of Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-day Saints in American Religion, explains that “…the changes reveal ways in which Smith’s ‘restoration’… were … distinct from those of his contemporaries.” Furthermore, this helps legitimize the piece by giving it a unique personality and expose its “own intricate structure and integrity” as Barlow points out. Moreover, as he chose to change the language, he provided further explanation of the passages in the King James Bible which brings the passage to life as well as clarifies the message of the passage. In turn, this decision helps Smith’s movement by attracting more individuals, especially ones without such an elaborate religious background.
ReplyDeleteSmith explained discrepancies between the Bible and the Book of Mormon as errors in the Bible due to faulty translation and centuries of Catholic tampering. Smith views the Book of Mormon as the true and correctly translated view of the Bible - one which was received from God's word (via the golden plates). In this way the Book of Mormon is meant to be a companion to the Bible, perhaps even the better version of God's word. After reading the Book of Mormon it seems to me that knowledge of the Bible would be extremely helpful in fully understanding the Book of Mormon.
ReplyDeleteThe fact the Smith wrote in 17th century prose is important. In my opinion it adds authority to his words. The same this happens often in academia - to signal that a paper is scientific in scope, the paper is often composed in scientific vernacular. So to signal his book's profound similarities with the bible he writes in using similar language. Furthermore had Smith written the Book of Mormon in 19th century English at the time it could have easily been labeled amateurish and false.
As for the question asking if 19th century events appear to influence Smith's writing, I think they do. As has been stated by this and the other response and Barlow's piece Smith lived in a time super saturated with Biblical language and thought. Also common to his time was treasure hunting - something that formed the foundation of his discovery of the plates. Smith was definitely shaped by events of his time, just as we are shaped by events of our time.
I think that the Book of Mormon should be regarded as its own religious work in a literary and historical sense, however if one is reading it for religious purposes, it must be accompanied by study of the Bible. After reviewing the Book of Mormon, I feel it would be easier, as well as more beneficial and meaningful, if the reader extracted religious and spiritual meaning from the Book of Mormon in accompaniment with the Bible, just as Joseph Smith intended.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I was surprised that Joseph Smith chose to include himself in the Book of Mormon. I feel that by doing so he is defying one of the most important Ten Comandments – “do not worship any other god before me.” Granted, Joesph Smith is not encouraging his followers to worship him, though he does makes himself out to be a very important figure in the Book of Mormon. (I might be taking this connection a little to far; does this contradiction bother anyone else?)
In my opinion, the Book of Mormon cannot stand alone as a religious work since there are so many comparisons between it and the Bible. Joseph Smith made the Book of Mormon a companion to the Bible because in a time where Christianity was so domineering in society there was a slim chance of him gaining any followers. The similarities to the Bible made his revelations more real and easy to accept by potential followers since it was already made up of what they primarily know and believe. Had there not been a great comparison between the Bible and the book of Mormon, Smith’s newfound faith would not have had much success in gaining devout followers in such a narrow minded time focused on Christianity. Also, the fact that Smith grew up in the 19th century had a great influence on his writing the Book of Mormon not only with his great focus and similarities to the Bible but also the method in which he discovered his revelations from God. The golden hieroglyphic plates that he translated into the Book of Mormon and received from God were a product of the interests during his time since he lived in an age focused on finding gold and treasure.
ReplyDeleteEllie the contradiction that you mentioned bothers me as well. In my opinion he should not have included himself in the Book of Mormon since his primary focus with writing it was to glorify God and show people the “true” way to live their lives and worship. I believe that with any religious text there should only be messages centered on the belief and values of the religion and nothing else. It seemed a bit egotistic. . . .and yes I am going to say it again. . . . cult-like of him to include himself.
In reponse to Ayan’s post, I would argue that the point of these readings and this class is not to judge or comment on the veracity of Smith’s claims or the perceived “cult-like” tendencies of the faith, but instead to open our minds, learn and appreciate the basis for the beliefs of this group of people. Though we all enter in with our own predisposed notions of spirituality and religion, our goal in this academic setting should not be to form opinions or argue the actual facts of the religion, but to analyze and comment on the effects of both Mormons on American history and that of American history on the Mormon people. This significant foundation for religious study is demonstrated in writings such as “Mormons and the Bible” by Philip Barlow. In comparing the Book of Mormon and the Bible, Barlow successfully presents the conflicting opinions on the reasons behind the correlation between these two works without discrediting the faith. While an argument exists between whether Joseph Smith intentionally used biblical language in the production of his text to substantiate its legitimacy or was subconsciously influenced by the religiously volatile environment of his upbringing, Barlow expounds upon these two opinions while not refuting the idea that the reason for this linguistic correlation is that it is simply the way the spirits actually spoke and that Joseph Smith was not the author but instead merely a Prophet delivering precisely the word of God. When he writes, “Either Joseph by this time knew the Bible quite well, or else the angel’s thrice repeated recitation sank deeply into his memory, for he noticed variations in the angel’s quotations of Malachi and the way they read in his Bible,” we can see how Barlow expertly presents both the conflicting opinions of scholars as well as the Mormon belief. This is something we should all keep in mind as we delve into the study of this people and their history.
ReplyDeleteIn reading the excerps from the Book of Mormon I did not feel as though Joseph Smith insertrd himself as a person into the text.It seems his own beliefs, experiences, and interpretations of the Bible make up the Book of Mormon.He explains the discrepancies between the Bible and the Book of Mormon by saying the translations were tampered by Catholics. Smith recreates many Biblical stories and his upbringing surrounded by the occult become apart of the Mormon faith. For example in 1 Nephi ch 18 the stories of Noah, Moses and Jonah are intertwined into a completely new story and in the Bible King Saul and his whole family is killed by God because Saul consulted a familiar spirit but communicating with the dead is part of the mormon faith.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the Book of Mormon is based on Biblical happenings and may even be called a continuation of the New Testament so it is impossibe for the Book of Mormon to stand on its own. Reading the Mormon scriptures sometimes felt like reading parts of the Bible. But an issue I have with the Book of Mormon being called New Testament "part 2" is that in the Bible it says: "...If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book (KJV Rev. 22:18)". It seems to me that Joseph Smith discredits parts of the Bible at the same time borrowing complete passages and stories, picking and choosing what he wants to use and believe in.