Comments on: Rational Supernaturalism, Part II: What’s in a Name?

By: Juvenile Instructor » Rational Supernaturalism, Part III: The Pratt Brothers and Defining Mormon Doctrine

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:08:50 +0000

[...] (very) Loosely continuing on the same theme from parts I and II. [...]

By: John Turner

John Turner — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:38:57 +0000

Thanks, Justin. I will investigate Crawley; I’m sure it will help clear up my confusion.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:29:34 +0000

I misread your comment and was merely responding to your question. My error.

By: John Turner

John Turner — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:16:38 +0000

Justin, Do you think I presume that the reprint just added the C of the LDS reference and that it wasn’t contemporary?

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:16:27 +0000

A longer explanation is found in Crawley's bibliography(pp. 50-51; also 32-34).

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:07:56 +0000

Evening and Morning Star is the edited reprint of issues of The Evening and the Morning Star. Peter Crawley's explanation is here.

By: John Turner

John Turner — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:43:34 +0000

I’ve seen a reference to the Church of the Latter Day Saints in Evening and Morning Star, July 1832, p. 30.

[At least in the version available via the BYU library website. Oddly, a reprint edition of The Evening and the Morning Star from the same month (that contains many of the same articles) does not include that reference). Can anyone help me understand the difference between "Evening and Morning Star" and "The Evening and the Morning Star?"]

By: SC Taysom

SC Taysom — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:15:01 +0000

Joseph Smith did claim to be Joseph Smith Sr once after his father died in an attempt to refute a warrant.

I hadn’t heard of this before. Hilarious!

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:06:05 +0000

smb: great point about the Disciples of Christ tension. I think you probably nailed a major part of it.

By: smb

smb — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:36:37 +0000

they do at various points refer to Former Day Saints as their ancient counterparts. I suspect they were trying to disambiguate themselves from the Christian movement (Campbellites)–they could not claim that being “the Church of Christ” was the real litmus test of a true church when the restorationists under Campbell were making the identical argument and using a much more convincing Biblical exegesis to support it. My sense is that by opting to refer to themselves as the millennial version of the Former Day Saints they were liberating themselves from the tyranny of Biblical literalism and sufficiency. By focusing on Saints and last days, they could draw attention to the charismata that were central to the authority of earliest Mormonism. Rigdon particularly (having split with Campbell over charismata), despised the claims Campbell made to have authority on the basis of scripture commonsensically understood.

To try to make that paragraph clearer: one reason they may have changed their name was because Alexander Campbell, notorious for his belief that the true church could be restored by reading the NT in Greek, without any spiritual gifts, claimed the Church of Christ as the only Biblical name for a church. Joseph Smith’s followers countered with a name that drew attention away from the closed canon toward the vital spirit existing within Christians–called Saints by those who actually read the Bible (in the appropriation of Saints there is the possibility of a claim to superiority over Campbell–Christians weren’t called that until later–they were first and foremost Saints).

The fleeing debt hypothesis is worth considering, although I agree it’s probably not a full explanation: in a similar vein Joseph Smith did claim to be Joseph Smith Sr once after his father died in an attempt to refute a warrant. Stranger things have happened.