Mormons

[Mike Buonsanto]

Robert J. Pease wrote:

> From this article, it seems that one is faced with a choice between the
> authenticity of Joseph Smiths' writings or "established Science".
>
> If this is the choice , then which one must Bahai's support??

The Baha'i Teachings state that true religion and true science must
agree, as both are aspects of the same truth.

What is true religion? Whatever comes from God! Anything which comes
from man is subject to error. The same is true of science, however.
Many times in our history established scientific theories have been
disproven.

How does the above apply to Joseph Smith? If he was not a prophet,
then his words are not divine revelation. Thus they are subject to
error, however inspired they may be. If (we're not sure about this)
the Book of Mormon contains the revealed Word of God, then those words
are correct. However, any words in that book which are not the revealed
Word of God, and translations into English by Joseph Smith would be
subject to error.

All IMHO, of course.

Sincerely,
Michael.

--
Michael Buonsanto
m...@oceanus.haystack.edu or m...@mit.edu, http://www.haystack.edu/~mjb

[bak...@mc.net]

Here's the full quote from the Guardian that others have alluded to:

"As there is nothing specific about Joseph Smith in the teachings, the
Guardian has no statement to make on his position or about the accuracy
of any statement in the Book of Mormon regarding American history or its
peoples. This is a matter for historians to pass upon." (_High Endeavours:
Messages to Alaska_, p. 71)

Please notice the last sentence. Based on this, I would prefer not to
assume anything, without seeing what the archaeologists and historians
have had to say. If anyone knows of any information comparing the accounts
in the Book of Mormon with known archaeological evidence about America's
prehistory, I'd like to hear about it.

I would also be interested in further discussion on exactly what it means
to be a "Seer". From an earlier post by Darrick Evenson, I understand that
it is a translation of the Arabic word "Muhaddath" meaning "one who has
visions, one who converses with angels". Does that title necessarily confer
absolute infallibility?

Since I know very little about Arabic, I'd be interested to hear whatever
additional information Darrick or others can provide on the meaning of
this term.

Thanks,
Sharon
Robert J. Pease wrote:
>
> Wim kamerbeek wrote:
> >
> > I have read with fascination the article by Darrick Evenson on Joseph
> > Smith. Now i wonder: if Joseph Smith was a true seer, as i suppose he
> > was, then his books and tablets would be authentic. I mean: would a
> > sincere man forge tablets?
> > And as i understand it, but i understand very little, the contents of
> > these writings put a bomb under everything established science supposes
> > about the original population of north and south america.
> >
> > I'm fond of books about great mysteries etc. and all the time i come
upon
> > stories of indian tribes speaking euroindian languages, strange
> > archeological findings and so on.
> >
> > I wonder what mr. Tyler or Darrick Evenson think about this.

[haukness, john]

Dear Friends: As far as Who Abdul Baha is He is the Mystery of God, the
Most Great Branch from the Ancient Tree, The Master, and The Center of
The Covenant and His Writings are a part of the Baha'i Sacred Writings.
The Guardian has a letter in which he compares Abdul Baha to us and to
Bahaullah, he states that Abdul Baha is much closer to Bahaullah than to
us.

As far as Joseph Smith, it is natural for Mormon's to exalt that person
as he, Joseph Smith exalted his own station. It is also natural for some
to exalt Billy Graham, or the Pope, or Halli Salasi, or Che Guervera, or
Karl Marx, or Mary Baker Eddy, or Edgar Cayce, or Buckminister Fuller,
or Martin Luther King, or Martin Luther, but for Baha'is to begin to
speculate as to lessor prophets is in my opinion ill advised and a
labeling in futility. The secular writers of the Association of Baha'i
Studies in the past, as well as probably continuing, likes to name which
philophers or writers are likely Prohpets, so we end up promoting our
own likes. Maybe Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens, or Albert Camus, or
Pablo Picasso, or Handel or who knows was a this or that.

I can find no way to conclude that Joseph Smith was any closer to God
than any of the above, except for Abdul Baha. The Guardian and more
importantly Bahaullah's Writings tell a lot that Abdul Baha had a
definate Station belonging to God, whether Abdul Baha was like Ali, or
like Noah, or Quddus I have no way of knowing, the only thing I know is
that Abdul Baha had a unique Station in the History of humanity. au
revoir j

>
> Wim kamerbeek wrote:
> >
> > I have read with fascination the article by Darrick Evenson on Joseph
> Smith.
> > Now i wonder: if Joseph Smith was a true seer, as i suppose he was, then
> his
> > books and tablets would be authentic. I mean: would a sincere man forge
> > tablets?
> > And as i understand it, but i understand very little, the contents of
> these
> > writings put a bomb under everything established science supposes about
> the
> > original population of north and south america.
> >
> > I'm fond of books about great mysteries etc. and all the time i come
upon
> > stories of indian tribes speaking euroindian languages, strange
> > archeological findings and so on.
> >
> > I wonder what mr. Tyler or Darrick Evenson think about this.
> >

> > Wim Kamerbeek, gri...@movinet-bo.com

[William P. Collins]

The topic of the Mormons recurs frequently on this list, and it often hinges
upon statements that Joseph Smith is a seer. As the author of several
articles on Mormonism and the Baha'i Faith, I have to state that some
distortion has appeared in these discussions. In a pilgrim's note (and
therefore NOT authentic), Ramona Allen Brown recorded that Shoghi Effendi
may have referred to Joseph Smith as a seer [see her book "Memories of
'Abdu'l-Baha" (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1980), p. 117].
Shoghi Effendi, in his authorized written statements, never referred to
Joseph Smith as a seer. In fact, Shoghi Effendi stated that Joseph Smith
was not a Manifestation of God, nor was he a major or a minor Prophet.
Shoghi Effendi also wrote that "Certainly no reference he [Joseph smith]
made could have foretold the Coming of this Revelation in his capacity as a
Prophet." (Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual, 21
Feb. 1942). He also wrote "With regard to Joseph Smith and his activities:
the Guardian would advise the friends not to attach any importance to such
individuals." (written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual, 9 Feb.
1937).

There is no valid historical or theological reason to assume that a
pilgrim's note referring to the term "seer" is indicative that Shoghi
Effendi intended thereby the term "muhaddath." In fact, if Shoghi Effendi
even called Smith a seer, he was doing so to a group of Western pilgrims,
for whom he was simply using the English word that indicates someone with
spiritual insight. We must not invest the term seer with some kind of
infallibility that is then extrapolated to mean that Joseph Smith actually
translated literal golden plates written in "reformed Egyptian." Unbiased
historians have determined that the testimonies to having seen the golden
plates were given by individuals who prayed with Joseph Smith, and who then
beheld a vision of the plates. Likewise, those who claimed to have touched
the plates were permitted by Smith to feel something in a box that was
covered with a cloth; they were not permitted to view beneath the cloth.
The Book of Mormon, in my view, was the product of Joseph Smith's own mind,
and contained much spiritual insight that was no doubt inspired in him by
positive spiritual forces. Mormon mythology does not need to be turned into
scientific and historical fact in order for Baha'is and others to have an
appreciation of the spiritual meaning and value of the Book of Mormon and
the other inspirational writings of Joseph Smith, for whose historical
significance and powerful influence I have the highest regard.

[Darrick Evenson]

On 2/3/98 Wim Kamerbeek wrote:

"I have read with fascination the article by Darrick Evenson on Joseph
Smith. Now i wonder: if Joseph Smith was a true seer, as i suppose he
was, then his books and tablets would be authentic. I mean: would a
sincere man forge tablets? And as i understand it, but i understand very

little, the contents of these writings put a bomb under everthing

established science supposes about the original population of north and

south america. [snip] I wonder what mr. Tyler or Darrick Evenson think
about this."

Dear Wim,
The Book of Mormon claims to be the history of a colony of ancient
Jews who fled Jerusalem right before it's destruction by Nebuchanezzar;
king of Babylon (c. 600 B.C.). The book doesn't claim to be the
"history" of the American Indians; as many uninformed Mormons claim, but
merely the religious history of this colony of Jews. The compilers of
this record were Mormon; a Jewish-American prophet of this colony, and
Moroni, his son. As the story goes, Moroni, now as an Angel, appeared to
Joseph Smith in a vision in 1824, and showed Joseph where he, Moroni,
had buried this record (on gold plates, or tablets that "appeared to be
gold") around 428 A.D. Joseph Smith claimed to translate this record
into English with the help of two ancient Hebrew "seer stones" called
the Urim and Thummim.
Certainly, science in the days of Joseph Smith scoffed at such a
claim; mainly because they denied the possibility of angels. As you
know, the Meccans scoffed at the idea that the Angel Gabriel appeared to
Muhammad, and told him to "Recite" (Arabic: "Qu'ran") his inspired
poetry. They called Him a "mad poet".
Today, science is not so certain that ancient Old World peoples didn't
visit or colonize portions of ancient America (see my article
"Re:Mormonism and Bahai").
Curiously, there are sayings (hadith) of Muhammad and His Companion
Ibn Abbas about the cities of Jubalka and Jubarsa. Jubalka was a city in
the "West, beyond the Great Ocean", which was colonized by righteous
Jews fleeing the destruction of Jerusalem by King Nebuchanezzar.
However, Jubalka became very wicked, and was eventually destoyed by God.
This, in essence, corresponds with the history recorded in The Book of
Mormon.
Shoghi Effendi (Guardian of the Baha'i Faith), once said that Joseph
Smith was a "Seer", and that he had "high standards". In Islam, "Seers"
are called Muhaddathun (those who are spoken to by angels). In shi'ite
Islam, all of the 12 Imams (especially 'Ali) are considered to be Seers.
Also, the Babis (followers of The Bab) considered Shaykh Ahmad al-Asai
and Siyyid Kazim to be "seers". Both of them claimed to have visions, be
visited by angels, and to make prophecies concerning the coming of The
Bab and Baha'u'llah. However, neither were Prophets (i.e. Razuils or
Nabiys).
You may want to get a copy of The Book of Mormon and read it yourself.
It comes in Arabic and Farsi, and most other major languages. Take
care.
Darrick Evenson

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[bak...@mc.net]

William P. Collins wrote:
>
> The topic of the Mormons recurs frequently on this list, and it often
hinges
> upon statements that Joseph Smith is a seer. As the author of several
> articles on Mormonism and the Baha'i Faith, I have to state that some
> distortion has appeared in these discussions. In a pilgrim's note (and
> therefore NOT authentic), Ramona Allen Brown recorded that Shoghi Effendi
> may have referred to Joseph Smith as a seer [see her book "Memories of
> 'Abdu'l-Baha" (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1980), p. 117].
> Shoghi Effendi, in his authorized written statements, never referred to
> Joseph Smith as a seer.

I'm *so* glad you pointed this out! This shows how easy it is for a
misunderstanding to be perpetuated; simply by being passed on and cited
repeatedly, a statement can gain the status of proven fact, whether it
is deserving of that status or not. I feel embarrassed myself to have
overlooked the fact that the word "seer" came from pilgrim's notes and
was not used in any authenticated source.

It also points up the dangers of relying too heavily on pilgrim's notes
as a basis for guidance. Personally, I get nervous when people do that.
They have great value for historical research, but for other matters,
we need to remember to take them with a large grain of salt. We also need
to realize how fortunate we are to have so many *authenticated* writings to
rely on, and to remember that there is indeed, an important distinction.

Regards,
Sharon Bakula

[Maryam Butson]

May I also please point out, that I think it is erroneous to
extrapolate that Shoghi Effendi used an Islamic Shi'ah religious term
to reference Joseph Smith.

Furthermore I am not aware of any authentic use of the word
"muHaddath" in the way that is proposed in this thread. Simply put,
Arabic is a semitic language that revolves around the use of root
letters (mostly three) to convey a concept and then adding certain
prefixes and suffixes to develop more specifically along these lines.

So "H d th" are the three root letters from which come 'to happen,
occur, take place, come to pass" (see the Hans Wehr _A Dictionary of
Modern Written Arabic_ ed. J. Milton Cowan. third edition (New York:
Spoken Language Services, Inc., 1976. p 161)

It is from this root we get the word "Hadiith" - Prophetic tradition,
narrative relating the deeds and utterances of the Prophet and his
companions.

Other forms of this root include "Hadath" - a new, unprecedented
thing, a novelty, an innovation, event, incident, occurance, happening
etc. "Huduuth" - setting in of a state / condition, occurance,
incidence etc. "muHaadatha" - discourse, conversation, discussion,
talk, parley. "muHaadith" - speaker, talker, spokesman, conversation
partner, interlocutor, narrator, transmitter of Prophetic traditions
(eg. someone who appears in the list of transmitters of the traditions
surrounding Muhammad (pbuh) eg. 'John said that Joe said that Jack
said that the Prophet did X' where John, Joe and Jack would be
muHaaddithun.

It is simply fallicious to insert some type of visionary experience
with angels in the meaning. Not to mention the fact, and as I have
pointed this out before, there is simply no way that Joseph Smith
could be termed a prophetic figure within an Islamic theological
framework because of his bid'ah (innovative) beliefs and doctrines
including but certainly not limited to: the godhead of Jesus (pbuh);
immersive baptism *for* the remission of sins; pre-mortal existence of
the human soul; the necessity of the substitionary atonement and
literal resurrection of Jesus (pbuh); until 1978 racial prejudice
based around the fact that black members could not be ordained to the
lay priesthood; the potential godhead of humans; and ironically a
denial of Islam as a legitimate religion from God. Apart from
polygamy and an emphasis on charitable deeds, Mormon and Islamic
theology have extremely little in common. All of which is verifiable
at the LDS homepage: http://www.lds.org/

The point was once made that my objection was incorrect because of my
transliteration of "muHaddath" (eg muHaadith) - can I please point out
that Arabic as a language changes its non essential vowels as a form
of grammatical exercise - they do *not* change the complete meaning of
the word. The use of the vowel fatHa (or in English "a") simply
refers to the participant as being the one receiving the "action" as
opposed to the use of kasra (or "i" in English) which denotes the
participant "doing" the action rather than receiving it.

Regards as always (and on another note I am going to get back to the
other thread "How Baha'u'llah can follow Muhammad" tonight in sha'
Allah)
Maryam