The two passages, “Joseph Smith — History” and “Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition,” both tell of the origins of the Mormon religion. Nevertheless, they address the topic in two completely different ways. The former is Joseph Smith, Jr.’s first-hand account of his upbringing, work and persecution. On the surface, it is merely a retelling of the events leading to the foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but under closer inspection, the reader can see Smith’s appeal to nonbelievers to consider the religion. He includes such details as his own indecision and alienation to make the religion more accessible. By mentioning his own hardships, he seeks to prove that believers in his faith are no different than mainstream Protestants; if the founder, a man gifted with God’s work, suffers from human troubles, so must the others. Smith likewise elaborates on his visions. His vivid imagery is there to reinforce the idea that these scenes are not mere hallucinations but visions detailing his task before God. All in all, the piece elucidates the origins of the religion in order to bring acceptance from nonbelievers of that time period.
Contrariwise, the second piece summarizes Smith’s role in the creation of the religion while drawing upon modern interpretation of historic events and their influences on Smith. Ian Shipps, the author, gives the reader perspective: he really puts the founding of the religion into context. He considers the mentality of the era, dwelling on the common view of the time period, which was that the world had already been enlightened by science. He states that others regarded the Mormon movement as superstitious and thus a threat to the educated world. Of course, such a benighted view lead to an irrational fear and ironically actions that would threaten a civilized world. Shipps then hones his historical microscope in on the actual environment Smith developed his ideas in. He looks at the consequences of Smith’s upbringing and the religious landscape of the second Great Awakening’s Burned-over District. He suggests that without this environment Smith could not have founded the Mormon religion, for without the religious supersaturation Smith would not have questioned and searched for his beliefs, and without his supportive family he probably would not have set out on his endeavor.
In conclusion, both works examined the birth of Mormonism; however, they possess different focuses. Keeping that in mind, what do you think is the difference between a historical view looking back to the birth of Mormonism and a real time period view? Also, consider Joseph Smith for who he is. How would he be different if he had been born into different circumstances (ie. lacking the Enlightenment culture, religious upheaval and loving family) and still had his visions? How would the modern world be different in light of that?
On a less serious note, can we just say that I think this is a really weird facial expression? Is he smiling or is he not? Joseph Smith might be the new Mona Lisa. http://www.mormontemples.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/joseph-smith.jpg
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that a historical view would run the risk of bias. The author would be examining the subject knowing its flaws and strengths. They would have seen the various different scholarly interpretations of the subject and would thus either have many different options to further explore or would be pressed to discover a new way of examining the subject. That is to say a historical view would perhaps be more expansive and possibly more biased. On the other hand a real time period view would be limited to the author's immediate and often totally unique thoughts. It would offer a very good microscopic view of the subject because different interpretations would not exist yet.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Smith was born in a very unique time which was perfectly suited for the foundation of a new religion. As Shipps piece pointed he belonged to a superstitious family that was constantly searching whether for treasure or religion. This was perhaps a backlash to the Enlightenment, thus it is hard to imagine such a family existing in another period. Furthermore Smith lived in an area of the country which was ripe with religious upheaval thus this constant reforming of religions was bound to influence him. Had he be born into an environment where religion was more static such as Europe he might have been more reticent to form his new religion.
The poster claims that “Joseph Smith - History” explains the origins of Mormonism for nonbelievers in order to create acceptance for the movement. However, this text also directly addresses the established Mormon community. Smith had to legitimize his claim that God had chosen him to complete a special task to maintain his believers’ focus and loyalty, particularly if the non-Mormon society continuously attacked Mormonism. Smith’s account of the beginnings of Mormonism certainly attempts to complete this particular objective. By introducing his history as a way of dispelling rumors and of demonstrating the righteousness of the Mormon Church, Smith sets up his history as a strong argument in favor of Mormonism. This argument, through meticulous details and vivid imagery, both strengthens the Mormon community’s existing beliefs and reveals the gentiles’ lack of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely a difference between the real time period view and the historical view looking back to the birth of Mormonism. The piece written by Joseph Smith Jr. was written explaining his account of events to contemporaries of his time. He doesn’t include as much background information as the passage by Ian Shipps.
ReplyDeleteShipps takes care to mention the in depth history of the Smith family and the history of the land on which they inhabited. He includes that where the Smith family lived in New York was the Burned-over area and then the author goes further, explaining to his twenty first century readers what exactly that means. Shipps’ writing put Smith’s early years into context, whereas, Smith assumed that we were already familiar with the era.
I feel it is important to study both the historical view and a real time period view. Because I tend to think in a more practical and realistic way, it is helpful for me to study both the religion and the historical setting. The latter can help explain the reasoning behind the birth of the religion itself and the adoption of its beliefs by a large group of people. I have found that if I study any religion without focusing just as much on the time period and its founders, I find the beliefs to be too sensational. However, once I turn my attention towards historic facts, it becomes clear why such a large group of people may have chosen to follow a specific set of religious beliefs. The Enlightenment culture fostered an environment that allowed Joseph Smith to gain so many followers. If he did not live in this time period, it is certain his life would be different and Mormonism may not had such an impact on the modern world.
ReplyDeleteThe historical view can show Joseph Smith's intentions of what he wanted the religion to become, but looking at Mormonism from a real time view can reveal the results of those intentions. It seems he intended people to flock to a new take on religion, with the retelling of his visions and the many connections to the Bible. However, the vehement backlash from popular influential protestant denominations is what resulted.
ReplyDeleteI believe Smith would not have turned out different if he was brought up in different circumstances. I think it is within human nature to question everything that is learned and unlike Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism, Joseph Smith questioned the popular religious views of his time, the same way Luther did Catholisism.
I think that a historical view and a real time period view are both important and are both given with the two articles. I felt like “Joseph Smith – History” provided a real time view because I had only my own views to produce an opinion on the birth of Mormonism, while “Mormonism: The Story of A New Religion” provided a historical view as Jan Shipps included the historical context. I think that the historical view can show many of the extenuating circumstances such as the religious movement to explain the growth of Mormonism, while a real time period view cannot give a full explanation of the founding of Mormonism.
ReplyDeleteIf Joseph Smith was born into a different time era, I think that there are two main consequences. First, I think that he would not have had such a religious upbringing so he would not have been able to draw a parallel between his experiences with persecution to Paul’s experience with King Agrippa as he wrote in “Joseph Smith – History.” Due to this, I believe that he would have ignored the visions. Therefore, he would not have created Mormonism. The second consequence could be that Smith believed and shared his visions. Due to this, I think that many people in society would view him as clinically insane, so the movement would have grown very minimally, if at all.