John Milton, Joseph Smith and LOST

[jay santos]

Perhaps you should read (or re-read) the Book of Enoch and then tell me Milton's ideas are original.

I appreciate this response more than your first in this thread. I'll read up on the Book of Enoch material. Thanks.

[SeattleUte]

Perhaps you should read (or re-read) the Book of Enoch and then tell me Milton's ideas are original.

The Book of Enoch isn't in the Bible. That's only one reason why your statement was facile and incorrect. The details compared in Santos' analysis above originate with Milton.

Certainly Milton was more available to early American preachers who influenced Joseph Smith and to Joseph Smith. The point we've been discussing is not whether Milton's ideas are so original but whether Joseph's Smith's are.

This is the thing about intertextuality, though. Concepts and images reapear in literature and drama and often even the creater isn't fully aware of the source. They become part of our DNA. This is what's ironic about LDS claims to modern revelation, last dispensation, etc. The chauvenistic claim to higher more current knowledge, while never has a faith been more indebted to a prior religious tradition and more derivative of it.

[SloanHater]

I appreciate this response more than your first in this thread. I'll read up on the Book of Enoch material. Thanks.

I admit my first post was a bit defensive.

The Book of Enoch, though not canon in most modern Christian Bibles, describes Enoch's journey through heaven/hell and touches upon the fall of Satan/angles. I think you'll be surprised to see a source material that Milton, perhaps, drew upon.

[beefytee]

The point we've been discussing is not whether Milton's ideas are so original but whether Joseph's Smith's are.

I don't think anyone has claimed that Joseph's Smith's revelations were original ideas. Did Joseph Smith claim that God had never revealed them before? So apologists are going to claim they are original and neither are critics.

There really isn't much of a discussion to have there.

[SloanHater]

The Book of Enoch isn't in the Bible. That's only one reason why your statement was facile and incorrect. The details compared in Santos' analysis above originate with Milton.

Certainly Milton was more available to early American preachers who influenced Joseph Smith and to Joseph Smith. The point we've been discussing is not whether Milton's ideas are so original but whether Joseph's Smith's are.

This is the thing about intertextuality, though. Concepts and images reapear in literature and drama and often even the creater isn't fully aware of the source. They become part of our DNA. This is what's ironic about LDS claims to modern revelation, last dispensation, etc. The chauvenistic claim to higher more current knowledge, while never has a faith been more indebted to a prior religious tradition and more derivative of it.

Does that also mean it Wasn't ? Say around the time Milton wrote Paradife Loft ?

This is pretty bad. Milton did much more than what you say. The Bible has little of Milton's cosmos in it, including how the war in heaven unfolded, and his Satan, including Satan's charsimatic and engaging personality and biography, is entirely his invention. Santos' point is that the details of Paradise Lost and the LDS war in heaven scenario appear to originate with Milton and there are too many parallels absent third source to dismiss as coincidence. This is a very interesting subject that is not getting the drill down here that it deserves. Where are our apologist theologeons like Pelagius? Typical.

[SeattleUte]

Does that also mean it Wasn't ? Say around the time Milton wrote Paradife Loft ?

you're speaking gibberish. It's not the first time, though.

[Moliere]

The point we've been discussing is not whether Milton's ideas are so original but whether Joseph's Smith's are.

Who would claim that Josephs ideas were original? If he restored a church, those ideas had to be around somewhere at some point.

The point you are trying to make isn't whether JS ideas were original. Rather, the point you're trying to make is that JS was not inspired through revelation when he stated his ideas and instead he got those ideas through reading/hearing Paradise Lost or some other similar work (a summary perhaps). Your point has traction, it's just a matter of how much traction.

[SloanHater]

you're speaking gibberish. It's not the first time, though.

You feign dumb knowing your argument is lost. You claim that the Book of Enoch is not contained in the Bible, do you claim it wasn't in the Bible of Milton's time? Do you think Milton had no access to read the story of Enoch and his travels through heaven and hell?

If Milton based his writing upon the Book of Enoch, is it fair to say JS Jr's ideas are rooted firmly in scriptural writing? Thus from God.

[SeattleUte]

You feign dumb knowing your argument is lost. You claim that the Book of Enoch is not contained in the Bible, do you claim it wasn't in the Bible of Milton's time? Do you think Milton had no access to read the story of Enoch and his travels through heaven and hell?

If Milton based his writing upon the Book of Enoch, is it fair to say JS Jr's ideas are rooted firmly in scriptural writing? Thus from God.

You grossly overstated your point. If you read my posts I said Milton may have gotten some ideas from apocryphal materials as well as Revelations. Certainly those were the seed of his work. But I think clearly Milton is less indebted to the Book of Enoch than Shakespeare is to Plutarch.

[Babs]

Aren't you a fan of His Dark Materils? That has increased the public's awareness of Paradise Lost.

lol. How pathetic is that?

[SeattleUte]

lol. How pathetic is that?

Yes, the public is pathetic.

[SloanHater]

You grossly overstated your point. If you read my posts I said Milton may have gotten some ideas from apocryphal materials as well as Revelations. Certainly those were the seed of his work. But I think clearly Milton is less indebted to the Book of Enoch than Shakespeare is to Plutarch.

I see. So we can easily dismiss from whence Milton drew inspiration, but JS Jr. is a plagiarist by the same standard.

[Edit] If you think the Book of Enoch is merely the 'seed' for Paradise Lost, perhaps, as I suggested, you should (re-)read the Book of Enoch.

[SeattleUte]

I see. So we can easily dismiss from whence Milton drew inspiration, but JS Jr. is a plagiarist by the same standard.

Plagiarist is not a word I recall ever applying to JS, but he is WAY more indebted to his literary sources of inspiration (includinig Milton) than Milton.

My whole point is that every writer including most emphatically JS (i.e., he is no exception; and probably more so for him) is indebted to the canon that preceded them. Like Harold Bloom, I don't think a distinction between the Bible and the rest of the canon is really meaningful at this point.

[SloanHater]

Plagiarist is not a word I recall ever applying to JS, but he is WAY more indebted to his literary sources of inspiration (includinig Milton) than Milton.

My whole point is that every writer including most emphatically JS (i.e., he is no exception; and probably more so for him) is indebted to the canon that preceded them. Like Harold Bloom, I don't think a distinction between the Bible and the rest of the canon is really meaningful at this point.

I see. You just post things you don't mean.

This is pretty bad. Milton did much more than what you say. The Bible has little of Milton's cosmos in it, including how the war in heaven unfolded, and his Satan, including Satan's charsimatic and engaging personality and biography, is entirely his invention.

Santos' point is that the details of Paradise Lost and the LDS war in heaven scenario appear to originate with Milton and there are too many parallels absent third source to dismiss as coincidence.

This is a very interesting subject that is not getting the drill down here that it deserves. Where are our apologist theologeons like Pelagius? Typical.

[creekster]

Plagiarist is not a word I recall ever applying to JS, but he is WAY more indebted to his literary sources of inspiration (includinig Milton) than Milton.

My whole point is that every writer including most emphatically JS (i.e., he is no exception; and probably more so for him) is indebted to the canon that preceded them. Like Harold Bloom, I don't think a distinction between the Bible and the rest of the canon is really meaningful at this point.

So you suggest you are making a big point in your earlier posts but then retreat to this rather small point. Who can argue with what you have just said? Of course, by the same token, we certainly didnt need any 'apologist theologian' to analyze the issue in order to reach THAT conclusion.

Given your current position, the only real issue is whether JS simply relied on a literary tradiion (or more likely oral permuation of a literary tradition) that was available to him or if he was inspired/directed to enucleate the eternal truths from those prior tradtions. In my mind, he probabyl did both of these from time to time. GIven the conclusion you have just set forth, however, this distinction would be meaningless to you and you are left now with no dog in this fight.