Camp Meetings and Revivals
September 20, 2007
Skeptics of the claim that the Book of Mormon is literally an historical account of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas note that the book contains elements of Joseph Smith’s 19th century milieu.
One such element is the camp meeting, held from time to time in Joseph Smith’s community (a place known as the “burned-over district”) during his youth (a time called the “Second Great Awakening”). These religious revivals featured local or traveling preachers, standing on a stage, preaching to a festival-style crowd of people, many of whom had come from far away to experience the event. A persuasive preacher could evoke strong emotions from the audience, resulting in very public religious experiences, including public commitments to obey the word of God (e.g., be baptized or stop sinning), physical displays of euphoria or grief, and even fainting spells. Click here for a more in-depth description of these meetings.
The Book of Mormon includes several scenes which, with a simple change of costume and vernacular, could have occurred in Joseph Smith’s region during his youth. Examples include the following: Mosiah Chapters 2-5 (King Benjamin’s address to his people); 7:17-8:4 (King Limhi and Ammon’s address to the people of Lehi-Nephi); 18:7-30 (Alma at the waters of Mormon); Alma 5-6 (Alma the Younger at the Zarahemla stop of a preaching tour); 7 (Alma the Younger at the Gideon stop of a preaching tour); 8 (Alma touring Melek and baptizing people who came from throughout the region); 19:18-35 (Newly-converted Queen and King Lamoni rise from an unconscious state to preach to their gathered people and endorse Ammon, who also preaches); Helaman 7:11-9:9 (Nephi preaches and prophesies to an assembled crowd from a tower in his garden)
This drawing visually emphasizes parallels between the tent meetings of Joseph Smith’s youth and the Book of Mormon scenes, depicting Joseph Smith as the nexus between the two.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Several historical works have an orator on a raised platform making speeches in front of large crowds. Livy’s ‘History of Rome’ comes to mind. Someone standing on a raised platform to preach a sermon to a crowd of people isn’t limited to the Second Great Awakening. Jesus gave a Sermon on the Mount. Why would he choose a hill, when he could have just taught a large group of people standing on the same level as them? Using your logic, the reason that Joseph made up Nephi using a ship was because of the Erie Canal that had been completed recently close to Palmyra.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:07 am
I am afraid you are thrashing away at a straw man, dpc. The parallel that forms the basis of this drawing (which I drew) is more than just “an orator on a raised platform making speeches in front of large crowds”, so it is not equivalent to simply pointing to “a ship” to explain Nephi’s sea voyage. The explanation for this image may be unclear on this point, but besides a stage and crowds, the parallel elements also include (a) similar countryside preaching tours featuring (b) similar religious debates and (c) similar public religious experiences among the audience members caused by (d) the same exact religious concepts preached from the stage.
That said, if your point is to say that this evidence of Joseph Smith’s environment appearing in the Book of Mormon is not definitive proof that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction, then I must say that I agree.
-JV
February 14th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
It is interesting that you parallel all those Book of Mormon stories with scenes from Joseph’s youth. It makes a lot more sense to me, at least, to think that the similarties would have come from Joseph reading and hearing stories from the Old and New Testaments. Especially since Joseph viewed the circuit preachers as false, why would he use them as a skeleton for stories of righteous characters?
It seems to me like you are taking a lot of liberty interpreting the origins of the Book of Mormon stories. But hey, the conjecture is a remote possibility and makes for a good subject to draw. If you’re really digging for dirt that will make interesting drawings then I suggest a chapel full of early LDS pioneers - all of which are sporting horns.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:52 am
I have to say, waaaay offtopic that all of us, either pro or against LDS need to forgo the use of the word “strawman” it is so very over-used. Mostly by anti-mormons who like to throw it around at we faithful mo’s because it sound so “sketchy” and conjures up an image that someone else’s belief system must be fake.
That said, I like the interesting dialogue on the site. The drawings are very talented, it’s a real shame they are so inaccurate historically. As I’ve said in private emails,, my husband is a physician and a direct descendant of JS. I mention the physician part and that I am a journalist to once again point out that their are quite a few well-educated, good researchers out there in the Church who are still active, know TRUE Church history and accept people as human, and have no problem reading or viewing any information excommunicated mormons, or former mormons want to provide.
My husbands’ family has many original and copied documents naturally about Joseph Smith, the early years of Polygyny etc. None of which match up to most of what has been said on this site, or portrayed by the drawings. It’s kind of like telephone the old game:) As a Jewish NYer with some Native American blood, I have had many stereotypes of both nationalities brought up to me, most very inaccurate. I don’t get offended, just try to correct the persons’ misinterpretation and lack knowledge. Most of your site is also taken out of historical context and distorted to look unusual and some of it is down right lies.
Please do some further research of Joseph Smith’s life. I understand dramatic license is a privilege,but you should at least be up front about the exaggerations.
Thanx
Kitty
April 29th, 2008 at 10:10 am
mormon kitty,
The term “straw man” is not meant to conjure up an image that someone else’s belief system is fake. I was not trying to say anything about dpc’s belief system at all. “Straw man” refers to a method of argumentation in which the speaker avoids responding to the other person’s actual argument, and instead attributes another much weaker argument to that person, which the speaker then can easily defeat. The analogy is dressing a straw man up like your opponent in an effort to trick your audience into thinking that you are actually fighting your opponent (with ridiculously favorable, albeit meaningless, results).
Thank you for the compliment on my drawing talents, but I take exception to your opinion that the drawings on this site are historically inaccurate. I don’t think there is any point, however, in responding to your assertions before you present any information to correct my “misinterpretation” and supplement my “lack of knowledge”. What would be the point of that?
Show me the facts, mormon kitty. Give me specifics. Demonstrate the journalistic, well-educated, good researcher skills you openly tout and connect me with the information that will make me remove the “downright lies” from my images (I have to change inaccuracies–website rules). Link me to the “original and copied documents” that your royal-bloodlined husband’s family preserves and protects. Let the truth be seen!
I would truly dig that, even if I have to admit I’m wrong.
-JV
April 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
mormon kitty,
first, let me compliment you on your lower case name. love it.
wanna see an exaggeration? here is one, though it is a bit paraphrased, you may still recognize it. ready? here goes: “Straw man” is overused, mostly by anti-mormons. do you really really think that the overuse of the term is mostly done by anti-mormons? it is an absurdity to suggest. though, feel free to quantify your absurdity for us.
nobody said a belief system is fake. if that was said, can you point me there so i can go have fun with that person too? your belief system is not fake. it is your belief system. you own it. it is what it is. your system is proprietary. nothing fake about it. same is true for mine or mike tyson’s for that matter. now, there can be a load of nonsense in either or all systems, but the system or collection of beliefs you consider to be your system, aint fake.
lemme see if i understand you. some professionals are active mormons, which proves that the images on this site are inaccurate? maybe i can help you make a better argument here. what is inaccurate? what image or fact underlying the image is inaccurate? and more, do you scrutinize the images in church publications with the same tolerance for inaccuracy?
what in the name of sagan does being a professional have to do with the accuracy of an image? are all historians mormon? all pulitzer winners? nobel winners? what is the intellectual cutoff that causes one to not understand truth or facts?
you suggest that information provided by exmormons conflicts in some way with information provided by members of the church. this goes along with there being a professional or intellectual capacity to absorb the different information and not be affected by it. what in the hell is the point there? is all information from exmormons in conflict with mormons? you need to spend a bit of time at FAIR or FARMS where they love to throw out ‘thats not new, everyone knew that’ in response to comments about polygamy, multiple accounts of the first vision and other key historical events. ironically, the exmormons and the apologists are in great alignment on many historical facts.
you close with your royal lineage stamp. nice. not sure what it means. but congratulations. now. whats the effing point? do you have any information that would refute any presentation here? if so, lets have a look-see. can we? if in fact you do have information that resolves some confusion, you should take smith’s advice and harvest that white field. use your resources to bow your head and bend your knee and tell the world that joseph was the real deal, and not just the fella we see in IOTR.
since you went off topic, maybe i can too. exaggerations. lets talk about that. is that bad? is it absolute? is it an exaggeration to stretch one’s qualifications or personal background? lets say for example that you really werent a journalist or that your husband was not really a descendant of smith. or hell, lets say he isnt really a physician, for example. should those exaggerations eliminate you as a commenter or discredit all you have to say? where do we draw the line? what if IOTR exaggerates the the actual size of jesus or moroni? or the artist says he is an exmormon when in fact he is not? would that change how we discuss or consider his art?
December 11th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Looks like you are a real expert. Did you study about the matter? hrhr