501 replies to this topic

[calmoriah]

calmoriah, on 21 April 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

I am more concerned with her methodology, which is what was criticized by LDS scholars more than her conclusions. ..... Is her methodology accepted or still criticized?  That would be the important acceptance, imo.

Has this conclusion about her methodology been discounted by more recent historians?

For example:

Quote

The issue is not whether Brodie was right in her claims about Jefferson fathering children by Sally Hemings but the way she tried to support her claim based on the evidence available when she wrote.....

Jordan was not arguing that her conjectures were not true. Like others of Brodie's critics, he complained that she stressed issues that were of relatively little importance, even if some of her guesses turned out to be right, which they might have been. These critics also doubted, especially with her use of so-called "insights" borrowed from Freud, that she had come up with solid evidence to support her hunches....

As I have shown, some historians already accepted the possibility that Jefferson had fathered one or more children by Sally Hemings. What they often objected to in Brodie's treatment of this issue was the way she tried to support the claim and the importance she placed on it. So, on the real issues surrounding Brodie's many "assertions" about Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson, DNA evidence does not seem relevant and simply cannot vindicate her way of doing history; that is, it cannot vindicate her efforts at psychohistory in this or any of her books.

http://maxwellinstit...13&num=1&id=373

Edited by calmoriah, 21 April 2012 - 10:13 PM.

[why me]

reelmormon, on 21 April 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

This isn't about demeaning other's faiths.

And it wasn't. If someone voices a difference between the lds church and other churches and it is done in a tone that is respectful, it is not demeaning the other faith. There are many christian faiths out there who are in disagreement with one another. One can be explanatory and critical without getting called out as a person who is demeaning the other faith. It is called conversation and dialogue.

Edited by why me, 21 April 2012 - 11:06 PM.

[why me]

altersteve, on 21 April 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

Earlier you said "LDS church" instead of "Presbyterian church." That's what caused the confusion.

Regardless, I don't see why the fact that the Smiths joined the Presbyterian church in 1824 rather than 1820 is such a big deal. I'm sure most other members of the Church won't care too much either.

This is true. I think that the smith family was searching for a religious home. People do acts all the time. Sometimes there is logic to the act or not. I have always found it amazing that people jump on a fact and attempt to score a point. But at the end of the day, the Smith's were just human beings who believed in god and wanted to do the right thing. And this is a good case for JS. I don't think that the smith family would mock god by instigating a fraud.  And lets face, the mother, father, the brother would all have to be in on it. No way to hide a story like the book of mormon around the dinner table, when all are present eating, of a small cabin.

Edited by why me, 21 April 2012 - 11:05 PM.

[DBMormon]

Quote

This isn't about demeaning other's faiths.

I wasn't saying you were.  I hope you didn't take it like that.  You mentioned it and I was saying that I wasn't trying to do that.

Quote

In a footnote he concedes that the Smith family joined the LDS (presbyterian) church later after 1823 rather than in 1820. Now where was the revival in his vicinity? A couple of camp meetings suffice?

While it can be a little troubling that the Smiths joined another church in the midst of their son having his experience, this is no different then joseph's name showing up in methodist church records later around 1828 I believe - thought to be a result of his trying to win over Emma's parents.


There is also disussion of whether the revival came before or after the first Vision.  This may seem troubling but how good is your memory of events that took place in your early teens.... I retell stories of my life now of when I was young and tell people I am not 100% certain of the order of the events (I am still young, 30's).

To a 11-14  year old boy, a couple of camp meetings might seem like a big revival, if a space of time passes where there wasn't anything of the sort.  then later in life meshes those with the actual revival... I know it sounds like I am making excuses but in reality this is very real possibility, one that people confront all the time.  Memory is tricky

Edited by reelmormon, 22 April 2012 - 03:35 AM.

[DBMormon]

we hold a man in his late 20's and and early 30's to be perfect in his retelling of an event that took place many years ealier.  Personally I wonder if it is feasible that the revival he mentions is the one took place in 1817.  Perhaps it took a little longer in reality then in his mind to mull over the serious religious questions he had.  Perhaps the vision was in 1819 and not 1820.  While the vision itself should have held a firm place in his mind that doesn't mean he automatically can't displace other events in Time.  at the age of 12 I was on a little league team that won it all...... i remeber it as a huge event in my life and can recount to you how I played in each game down the stretch of the season, yet if you threw out a another event in my life, other then perhpas a birthday party, I likely could not tell you  I was 11 or I was 13 when that happended.  We remember a lot of that stuff based on the teacher we had that year, telling us what grade we were in, telling us our age.  Jospeh doesn't have that indicator.   Much more difficult in his time then our to look back and know order and timeline of events in his early life.

Him looking into the methodist faith would and perhaps does bother me more then the other two issues (family joining presbyterians, and timeline of First vision account)

Edited by reelmormon, 22 April 2012 - 04:06 AM.

[noel00]

It is interesting how LDS deal with information that outsiders and exmormons consider as something to disconform the historicity of the FV story. Once Milton Backman  wrote a whole book dealing the the matter, looking for evidence of a revival in the area Smith lived. Backman according to Walters was a bit free and loose with the data, especially with his map point of  which towns were experiencing a revival.  Smith describes a huge revival among the churches, the preaching which motivated  him to go and pray about. That fits 1823-24 rather than 1820. A couple of camp meetings does not seem to fit.

[noel00]

calmoriah, on 21 April 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

Have you read this article?:  https://docs.google...._vWAGGrRyOosVVw

I will send the article to Annette Gordon-Reed and see what she says. She is fast becoming the writer on the Hemingses.

[calmoriah]

I think you should read it before you send it to see if it is relevant to her topic as the Jefferson/Hemings relationship is not key to his discussion, Jefferson is barely mentioned.  The subtitle is what the article deals with.  I doubt Gordon-Reed will be interested unless she specializes in studying Brodie as well.

If it helps clarify what I am trying to get at, I will accept for the purpose of this discussion that it is a given that Thomas Jefferson and Hemings had at least one child and possibly more.

Again my concern is about Brodie's methodology, specifically her use of psychohistory/psychobiography.  Is this something Gordon-Reed is interested in evaluating?

According to the article I quoted, Brodie's work was applauded by literary critics while historians were much more frugal in their praise even when they agreed with her conclusions (they didn't think the way she got there was that great, iow).  

I am asking if there is anything out there that indicates this disapproval of her methodology by a number of historians has been discounted by something substantial, that has demonstrated her conclusions were supported by much more than her "hunches" (this is overstated, but I really need to go to sleep; I recognize there is more to her work than that, but how much more is what I am wondering).  It does not appear that Bringhurst's work demonstrated this.

Edited by calmoriah, 22 April 2012 - 04:51 AM.

[noel00]

As to the use of psychology, doesn't Bushman use Erickson's stage of development ideas in his discussion of Smith.

[calmoriah]

Psychology used properly is not the same as psychology used improperly.

[Pahoran]

Xander,

Since you chose to drag my name into this discussion, I'd like to respond.

Xander, on 21 April 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

As if that made any sense. Since Selek is having a difficult time comprehending what's been said, the fact that I have cordial friendships with a number of LDS believers means what he just said can't be true at all. What "conspiracy" is he talking about? While he likes making comparisons, I think it is obvious that there are very clear differences between his ilk and the more respectable LDS folks like Brian Hauglid, David Bokovoy and Don Bradley. I've had a number of disagreements with these folks as well, and these exchanges never deteriorate into a rhetorical slugfest the way exchanges with Dan Peterson, Selek, Loran and Pahoran generally do. The reason for this probably has something to do with the fact that they do not hold me in contempt simply because I'm former LDS, and they have no problem admitting that I have something of value to say.  So despite Selek's wishful thinking and bald assertions that I am the problem, I can actually prove that the problem isn't me, but with folks like Selek.

Alternatively, maybe it just means you haven't turned on them yet.  They can be nice to you because they haven't become targets of your rage and hatred.

Not so long ago, you made an absoIutely gratuitous personal attack on Dan Peterson in another forum.  He had not said anything to or about you in that forum, and your attack was utterly unprovoked.  I quoted it in my sig to show that what some tried to explain away as your "history" with LDS defenders was very much history "in the making."  You couldn't deal with that, so you ran whining to the mods to get it removed.

So next time you want to bleat about how unkind people are to you, I suggest that you leave out of the list those people you have accused of  being "proven liars."  Or those against whom you have made proven false accusations.

Because, as you perfectly well know and have always known, Dan Peterson is not now and never has been, a "full-time professional anti-truth propagandist."

You made that accusation up out of whole cloth.

Since Dan has never said anything remotely as bad as that about you, the fact is that you are the problem.

I recommend you do something about solving it.

Regards,
Pahoran

[altersteve]

noel00, on 22 April 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

It is interesting how LDS deal with information that outsiders and exmormons consider as something to disconform the historicity of the FV story. Once Milton Backman  wrote a whole book dealing the the matter, looking for evidence of a revival in the area Smith lived. Backman according to Walters was a bit free and loose with the data, especially with his map point of  which towns were experiencing a revival.  Smith describes a huge revival among the churches, the preaching which motivated  him to go and pray about. That fits 1823-24 rather than 1820. A couple of camp meetings does not seem to fit.

There were previous "revivals" which occurred between 1816 and 1817. Joseph never said any revivals happened in 1820, and, as Richard Bushman notes, the aftermaths of the 1816-1817 revivals were still felt several years later.

And I still don't see what's so significant about the Smith family joining the Presbyterian church in 1824 rather than 1820.

Edited by altersteve, 22 April 2012 - 08:01 PM.

[Cobalt-70]

reelmormon, on 21 April 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

I disagree Cobalt.... The prophet tells us what the church as a whole should do.  The father may receive inspiration on what the family as a whole should do.... never taking away agency except in moments of protection from harm..... My individual  chioices in a family or in the church rely on Moroni 7:  way to judge is what brings me closer to Christ!

But are you saying that a father may define "knowledge" as it relates to his family, in a way that contradicts the "knowledge" defined by the President of the Church? If so, then maybe I should stop having Family Home Evening, let my daughters date at age 14, and have my wife start giving "Mother's blessings."

[Kevin Christensen]

noel00, on 21 April 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

Nibley in The Myth Makers said it was a fraud. If it was true then the most devastating evidence against Smith. When Brodie's book came out this was attacked. Read Reconsidering No Man Knows My History: Fawn Brodie and Joseph Smith in Retrospect ed Newell Bringhurst

Before I said LDS church, II meant Presbyterian church in West Palmyra.

For specifics and consequent implications of what Nibley said in the Myth Makers, see

http://en.fairmormon...sslooking_trial

Quote

Hugh Nibley had serious doubts as to whether or not Joseph Smith was actually brought to trial in 1826, and he felt that the only real trial was in 1830. For the most part, Nibley felt that the "court record" didn't seem to be correct. The following quote is taken from Nibley's book "The Myth Makers:" "if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith."
Since Wesley Walters has found some bills related to the trial, the critics now claim that the case is proven and that Nibley has proven their case for them. Nothing is further from the truth. First of all you need to look at the whole quote. Nibley was chastising Tuttle for not actually using the trial record that he had. He was questioning why he would do that if it was so important. "You knew its immense value as a weapon against Joseph Smith if its authenticity could be established. And the only way to establish authenticity was to get hold of the record book from which the pages had been purportedly torn. After all, you had only Miss Pearsall's word for it that the book ever existed. Why didn't you immediately send he back to find the book or make every effort to get hold of I? Why didn't you "unearth" it, as they later said you did? . . . The authenticity of the record still rests entirely on the confidential testimony of Miss Pearsall to the Bishop. And who was Miss Pearsall? A zealous old maid, apparently: "a woman helper in our mission," who lived right in the Tuttle home and would do anything to assist her superior. The picture I get is that of a gossipy old housekeeper. If this court record is authentic, it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith. Why, then, [speaking to Tuttle] was it not republished in your article in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge after 1891? . . . in 1906 Bishop Tuttle published his Reminiscences of a Missionary Bishop in which he blasts the Mormons as hotly as ever. . . yet in the final summary of his life's experiences he never mentions the story of the court record - his one claim to immortal fame and the gratitude of the human race if it were true!" (Nibley "The Myth Makers", 246)
The Pearsall account, which has never been produced, claims that the defendant was found guilty. The real point at issue is not whether or not there was a trial, but whether or not a record existed proving Joseph guilty of deceit. A document proving such guilt has not been found.
Why was Joseph fined if he wasn't guilty?

The court did not assess a fine against Joseph. There were bills made out by Judge Neely and Constable DeZeng, but these were for costs. Those bills were directed to the County for payment of witnesses, etc., not to Joseph.

Also see Gordon A. Madsen, "Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial: The Legal Setting," Brigham Young University Studies 30 no. 2 (1990), 91

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

noel00, on 22 April 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

It is interesting how LDS deal with information that outsiders and exmormons consider as something to disconform the historicity of the FV story. Once Milton Backman  wrote a whole book dealing the the matter, looking for evidence of a revival in the area Smith lived. Backman according to Walters was a bit free and loose with the data, especially with his map point of  which towns were experiencing a revival.  Smith describes a huge revival among the churches, the preaching which motivated  him to go and pray about. That fits 1823-24 rather than 1820. A couple of camp meetings does not seem to fit.

See Quinn's detailed analysis.

http://ldsfocuschris...-michael-quinn/

One of the key details, pointed out by Bushman and others:
http://maxwellinstit...=6&num=2&id=156

Bushman's note three has this:

Quote

Walter A. Norton has discovered a Palmyra Register article in the 28 June 1820 issue that reported the death of an intoxicated man in Palmyra village and claimed he obtained liquor at "a camp-meeting held in this vicinity." When criticized, the editor exonerated the Methodists from blame, as if they were the chief users of the campground, but asserted that the dissolute frequently resorted to the campground for liquor, implying that the grounds were commonly in use. "Comparative Images: Mormonism and Contemporary Religions as Seen by Village Newspapermen in Western New York and Northeastern Ohio, 1820-1833" (Ph.D. Diss., Brigham Young University, 1991), 255.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

[DBMormon]

I thought since part 2 has strung up some interest again, we would put this one back on the board

[DBMormon]

Kenngo 1969 wrote

Quote

2.  Not Providing What Some Believe to be Adequate Focus on Certain Historical Issues – For me, the issue of how the Book of Mormon came to be is secondary.  Even if Joseph Smith dictated all or part of it to his scribes while standing on his head, rubbing his tummy in a counterclockwise direction and clucking like a chicken, that does nothing to account for the facts that (1) the Book of Mormon still exists, and (2) for me (certain glaring imperfections of mine notwithstanding, which I continue to labor to overcome) it has succeeded very well in its stated mission of bringing people to Christ.

I agree it doesn't matter, my issue was indoctrinate me one way - urim and thummim found with the plates, when actual info is that a seer stone from before the plates was used.  I think kids when told of the translation in Primary and when investigators take the discussions we should try to ensure our teachers and missionaries when they teach this story and they do, that they get it right.  This goes for any other issue that is along these lines as well

[DBMormon]

I think the seer stone/urim and thummim issue is the easiest to address so I went through manuals that I felt could be written better as to see that people do not make the wrong asumptions when studing the gospel.  these lessons while telling the truth are also misleading and cause folks to unamiously make the wrong assumption.

Quote

Primary 5 D&C
When the time had come for Joseph Smith to receive the gold plates, he borrowed a horse and wagon and went with his wife, Emma, to the Hill Cumorah, where the plates were buried. Joseph left Emma with the wagon at the bottom of the hill and climbed the hill alone to meet the angel Moroni. Moroni gave Joseph the gold plates. He also gave Joseph the Urimand Thummim and a breastplate, tools to help with the translation of the gold plates.

4. Teach the children about the Urim and Thummim:
The Urim and Thummim is a sacred tool given by God to help prophets receive revelations from the Lord and translate languages (see Bible Dictionary, “Urim and Thummim”).

Joseph Smith described the Urim and Thummim as “two stones in silver bows … fastened to a breastplate” (JS—H 1:35). The Prophet stated that when he was humble and prayerful, he could look into these stones and read the strange language on the gold plates. He could also look into these stones and get Heavenly Father’s word about certain things he ought to know and do.

Help the children find and discuss the following scriptures that refer to the Urim and Thummim:

Quote

  pearl of great price study manual
Joseph Smith—History 1:34–35. What Was in the Stone Box?

In the stone box were a book and the Urim and Thummim. The book was written on gold plates and included the book of Lehi, the small plates of Nephi, the plates of Mormon, and the sealed plates that Joseph was commanded not to translate (see “A Brief Explanation about the Book of Mormon” in the introductory pages of the Book of Mormon). The Urim and Thummim was a divine instrument prepared by the Lord for the purpose of translation. It consisted of two stones in silver bows and a breastplate onto which it was attached.

Quote

church history in fulness of times     The young prophet and the Church he was to restore faced an important year in 1829. At the end of 1828, Moroni returned the plates and the Urimand Thummim and promised a new scribe to assist in the translation. That fall Joseph’s parents, who had worried about him, came to Harmony and were pleased to find him in good spirits and learn that the plates and theUrim and Thummim were safe in Emma’s red morocco trunk.

This was just a few but there are dozens.... if you read this for the first time, what would you be led to believe?

[KevinG]

reelmormon, on 31 May 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

I think the seer stone/urim and thummim issue is the easiest to address so I went through manuals that I felt could be written better as to see that people do not make the wrong asumptions when studing the gospel.  these lessons while telling the truth are also misleading and cause folks to unamiously make the wrong assumption.




This was just a few but there are dozens.... if you read this for the first time, what would you be led to believe?

I was in Primary and not Institute.

[Stargazer]

Log, on 12 April 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

What shall one say of Abraham, commanded to sacrifice his only son?

In this case, it wasn't that Abraham was blindly doing what the Prophet told him to do: he WAS the Prophet.

I think that if God told me to do something, then I ought to do it.  In fact, most of the time I am doing what I feel God has told me, in one form or another, to do.  I went to Church last Sunday, and will do so again this coming Sunday.  I kept the Word of Wisdom yesterday, and will do so again today.  I read the scriptures this morning, and will do so again tomorrow.

Lather, rinse, repeat.