169 replies to this topic

[noel00]

Are you accusing Vogel as being disfunctional? Seems discussions on this board generate to that level. I have been at the receiving end from RayA. All we  would like is some discussion of the plausiblity of the events in the Joseph Smith story. Did the family join the Presbyterian church after the 1823-24 revival? Cowdery, William Smith, Lucy Smith and other details seem to support that view. The revival in 1823-24 according to the material gathered by Walters was of the type described by Smith. Walter's wrote to Backman concerning one of the footnotes in his book, but received no response. Backman did not cite Walter's Dialogue article. This is supposed to be scholarship. I have a letter which Backman wrote to me on his footnote, he writes like Walters does not exist.

[T-Shirt]

Hi Dan.  I have reviewed this thread but I have not read the entire thing, so please forgive me if I repeat things that have already been said.

I appreciate your thoughts here; you have obviously put a lot of work into it.  Personally, I have no problem assuming some error on the part of Joseph or Lucy as they wrote their histories.  Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s was eighteen years after the fact, and Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s was twenty-five years after the fact.  That being said, however, I think there are some issues that you may not have considered that I think you need to address.

It is possible that Lucy did not join the Presbyterians until 1824-25 and this would not necessarily conflict with Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s 1838 account.  I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t think this is the case as I will show later, but first I will show how it could be so without conflict.  Joseph wrote:

Quote

7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.
(Joseph Smith-History:7)

As this was written eighteen years later, one could see how there could have been a period of time, even years, between the proselyting and the joining.  Nothing here requires that the joining occurred at the time of the proselyting.

However, I tend to think that they did join the Presbyterians in 1820.  here are some of my thoughts:

First, as you know, following Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s bout with near death, she made a promise to the Lord that if He allowed her to live, she would do her best to serve Him.  She attended different churches looking for the right church, but was disappointed.  She chose to be baptized when she found a minister who would allow it without requiring her to join any denomination.  She says:

Quote

At length I considered it my duty to be baptized and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance, after which I continued to read the Bible as formerly until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year
(Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother [Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 36.)

I think it is significant that she said she continued, �?¢â?¬�??until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year.�?¢â?¬�?  Alvin was in his twenty-second year in 1820.  This seems to imply that she may have then joined a denomination.

Second, Lucy gives the following information about her son, Samuel Harrison:

Quote

The fourth son of Joseph Smith and Lucy Mack, was born in the town of Tunbridge, Orange County, Vermont, March 13, 1808. In his early life he assisted his father in farming. He possessed a religious turn of mind, and at an early age joined the Presbyterian Church, to which sect he belonged until he visited his brother Joseph in Pennsylvania in May 1829, when Joseph informed him that the Lord was about to commence his latter-day work.
(Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother [Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 337.)

Now this may be a minor issue, but I think it has some merit.  She says Samuel joined the Presbyterians at an early age.  If this happened as you say, in 1824-25, Samuel would have been sixteen or seventeen years old.  This could be viewed as an early age, but a sixteen or seventeen year-old at that time was not generally viewed as a kid, but was given great responsibility.  On the other hand, in 1820, he would have only been twelve years old, which I think would much more reasonably qualify as �?¢â?¬�??an early age�?¢â?¬�?.

Third, Joseph described the Presbyterians in 1820 in this manner:

Quote

9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.
(Joseph Smith-History:9)

Then, Lucy describes the preacher who came after Alvin�?¢â?¬â?¢s death in this manner:

Quote

Shortly after the death of Alvin, a man commenced laboring in the neighborhood, to effect a union of the different churches, in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind.

This seemed about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers�?¢â?¬�?¦ (Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, p.90)

First off, Joseph and Lucy seem to be clearly describing two very different churches and secondly, Lucy does not mention a denomination.

Since we have a record of the Presbyterians visiting Lucy in 1830, it seems pretty clear that she was attending the Presbyterian Church, probably up to about the middle of 1828.  Assuming for a minute that she did join the church she mentioned above, this does not in any way require that it have been the Presbyterian Church.  Considering Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s description of how divisive the Presbyterians were as well as Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s First Vision, I can see that Lucy may have felt very drawn to a church that was trying to unite, rather than divide.  If she did join, she could have easily become disappointed and returned to the Presbyterians. It is a rather common thing for people to return to their former church after leaving for another, which seems to be exactly what happened according to Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s account:

Quote

but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time."

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's.

During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts. One day he said, that he would give us an example, and that we might set it down as a prophecy; viz.:

"You look at Deacon Jessup," said he, "and you hear him talk very piously. Well, you think he is a very good man. Now suppose that one of his poor neighbors should owe him the value of a cow, and that this poor man had eight little children; moreover, that he should be taken sick and die, leaving his wife with one cow, but destitute of every other means of supporting herself and family�?¢â?¬â?now I tell you, that Deacon Jessup, religious as he is, would not scruple to take the last cow from the poor widow and orphans in order to secure the debt, notwithstanding he himself has an abundance of everything."

At that time, this seemed impossible to us, yet one year had scarcely expired when we saw Joseph's prophecy literally fulfilled.

(Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother [Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 91.)

This indicates that Lucy likely left this church after barely a year which would take us to 1835 or 1836, and at some subsequent time returned to the Presbyterians up to mid 1828 when she left permanently.

Hope this helps.

T-Shirt

Edited by T-Shirt, 11 March 2005 - 03:45 PM.

[Dan Vogel]

T-Shirt,

Thanks for your participation. You basically restate Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s argument, which is entirely speculative and unlikely besides. If you want, you should review the discussion and my answers to Wade. I will quickly respond to your version.

Keep in mind Wade was trying to prove my reconstruction was unfounded speculation, which it is not. So, the discussion is more about my reconstruction than it is about Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s. Is mine speculative, and his not? That is the question.

Wade is particularly troubled by my statement that the 1838 account conflated the 1824-25 revival with the 1820 vision. Now, you might disagree with that interpretation, but is it unfounded speculation? In other words, there can be two reconstructions of the evidence and neither be speculative, although the theory that Lucy joined the Presbyterians in 1820, quit, joined another unnamed church, quit, then rejoined about 1826, and was disfellowshipped in 1830 IS speculation.

Quote

It is possible that Lucy did not join the Presbyterians until 1824-25 and this would not necessarily conflict with Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s 1838 account.

If you admit this, there is little more to discuss. You have just conceded the major piece of my puzzle and rejected Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s characterization that my reconstruction is mere speculation.

Quote

I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t think this is the case as I will show later, but first I will show how it could be so without conflict.

And like Wade, you give begrudgingly. Note here you say �?¢â?¬�??join�?¢â?¬�? in 1824, because you later contradict this.

Quote

Quote

7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.
(Joseph Smith-History:7)

As this was written eighteen years later, one could see how there could have been a period of time, even years, between the proselyting and the joining. Nothing here requires that the joining occurred at the time of the proselyting.

�?¢â?¬�??Proselytize�?¢â?¬�? here doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t mean taking the missionary lessons. Note it says, �?¢â?¬�??proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined.�?¢â?¬�? There is no delay mentioned. If you are saying that Lucy began attending the Presbyterian Church in 1820 but did not join until 1824, then you are agreeing with me, not Wade, that the 1838 account has conflated elements from 1824 with 1820. But you immediately contradict this when you say:

Quote

However, I tend to think that they did join the Presbyterians in 1820. here are some of my thoughts:

You can�?¢â?¬â?¢t have it both ways. So, which is it? I assume the latter, and therefore really side with Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s theory. However, unlike Wade, you do a better job of presenting your reasons from the documents.

Quote

First, as you know, following Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s bout with near death, she made a promise to the Lord that if He allowed her to live, she would do her best to serve Him. She attended different churches looking for the right church, but was disappointed. She chose to be baptized when she found a minister who would allow it without requiring her to join any denomination. She says:

�?¢â?¬�??At length I considered it my duty to be baptized and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance, after which I continued to read the Bible as formerly until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year�?¢â?¬�?
(Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother [Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 36.)

I think it is significant that she said she continued, �?¢â?¬�??until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year.�?¢â?¬�? Alvin was in his twenty-second year in 1820. This seems to imply that she may have then joined a denomination.

This is indeed a difficult passage. Richard L. Anderson suggested that �?¢â?¬�??[t]here may be various degrees of �?¢â?¬�??joining�?¢â?¬â?¢ a church�?¢â?¬�? (BYU Studies 9 [Spring 1969]: 391, n. 55). It�?¢â?¬â?¢s meaning depends on whether or not one thinks the church she joined in 1824 was the Presbyterian Church. If you want to insist that this statement about the 1820 period means she joined a church, you obviously are assuming it was the Presbyterian Church when that has not been established from any source. If fact, above you were willing to concede that Lucy was merely attending the Presbyterian Church in 1820 without joining. So, if one were to speculate, as Wade does, wouldn�?¢â?¬â?¢t it make more sense to suggest Lucy joined (Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s) unnamed church in 1820, then the Presbyterian Church in 1824?

Quote

Second, Lucy gives the following information about her son, Samuel Harrison:

�?¢â?¬�??The fourth son of Joseph Smith and Lucy Mack, was born in the town of Tunbridge, Orange County, Vermont, March 13, 1808. In his early life he assisted his father in farming. He possessed a religious turn of mind, and at an early age joined the Presbyterian Church, to which sect he belonged until he visited his brother Joseph in Pennsylvania in May 1829, when Joseph informed him that the Lord was about to commence his latter-day work.�?¢â?¬�?
(Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother [Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 337.)

Now this may be a minor issue, but I think it has some merit. She says Samuel joined the Presbyterians at an early age. If this happened as you say, in 1824-25, Samuel would have been sixteen or seventeen years old. This could be viewed as an early age, but a sixteen or seventeen year-old at that time was not generally viewed as a kid, but was given great responsibility. On the other hand, in 1820, he would have only been twelve years old, which I think would much more reasonably qualify as �?¢â?¬�??an early age�?¢â?¬�?.

I understand your reasoning, but it�?¢â?¬â?¢s a stretch for me. It�?¢â?¬â?¢s simply too vague and subjective. Plus, I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t have the edition that you are using, but apparently the wording is the same as History of the Church 7:216. I therefore doubt that the words are Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s. Nice try, though.

Quote

Third, Joseph described the Presbyterians in 1820 in this manner:

9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.
(Joseph Smith-History:9)

Then, Lucy describes the preacher who came after Alvin�?¢â?¬â?¢s death in this manner:

Shortly after the death of Alvin, a man commenced laboring in the neighborhood, to effect a union of the different churches, in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind.

This seemed about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers�?¢â?¬�?¦ (Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, p.90)

First off, Joseph and Lucy seem to be clearly describing two very different churches and secondly, Lucy does not mention a denomination.

It only seems contradictory until you read before your quote of JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s description of the revival.

Quote

�?¢â?¬�?¦ For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion �?¢â?¬�?¦ yet when the converts began to file off, some to one part and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued �?¢â?¬�?¦

Thus, JS says that there was harmony during the beginning of the excitement, but that his gave way to a contest for converts. All Lucy says is she was attracted to one minister who was try to unite the churches, which is consistent with JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s description of how the revival began.

Lucy does not mention the name of the denomination, but if it�?¢â?¬â?¢s not the Presbyterians then we have no account of her joining in her history. The prophecy that she relates JS gave of about Jessup directly relates to the church she joined. She admitted this man for his religiosity and he was a leader in the Presbyterian Church. In an interview with E. C. Briggs in 1893, William Smith said:

Quote

�?¢â?¬�?Hyrum, Samuel, Katharine [Sophronia] and mother were members of the Presbyterian church. My father would not join. He did not like it because a Rev. Stockton had preached my brother�?¢â?¬â?¢s funeral sermon and intimidated very strongly that he had gone to hell, for Alvin was not a church member, but he was a good boy and my father did not like it.�?¢â?¬�?

�?¢â?¬�??What cause Joseph to ask for guidance as to what church he ought to join,�?¢â?¬�? asked Bro. B[riggs].

�?¢â?¬�??Why, there was a joint revival in the neighborhood between the Baptist, Methodists and Presbyterians and they had succeeded in stirring up quite a feeling, and after the meeting the question arose which church should have the converts. Rev. Stockton was the president of the meeting and suggested that it was their meeting and under their care and they had a church there and they ought to join the Presbyterians, but as father did not like Rev. Stockton very well, our folks hesitated and the next evening a Rev. Mr. Lane of the Methodists preached a sermon on �?¢â?¬�??what church shall I join?�?¢â?¬â?¢ �?¢â?¬�?¦ (Zion�?¢â?¬â?¢s Ensign, 13 Jan. 1894; rept. Deseret Evening News, 20 Jan. 1894; EMD 1:513)

Both Lane and Stockton were assigned to Palmyra in 1824. Stockton was the �?¢â?¬�??president�?¢â?¬�? of a joint meeting, which gave way to a contest over converts.

Quote

Since we have a record of the Presbyterians visiting Lucy in 1830, it seems pretty clear that she was attending the Presbyterian Church, probably up to about the middle of 1828. Assuming for a minute that she did join the church she mentioned above, this does not in any way require that it have been the Presbyterian Church. Considering Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s description of how divisive the Presbyterians were as well as Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s First Vision, I can see that Lucy may have felt very drawn to a church that was trying to unite, rather than divide. If she did join, she could have easily become disappointed and returned to the Presbyterians. It is a rather common thing for people to return to their former church after leaving for another, which seems to be exactly what happened according to Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s account:

Of course, we would have conclusive evidence if we had the records showing the date of membership for Lucy and her children, but I believe there is strong circumstantial evidence supporting 1824, not 1820. There is no reason to believe she was describing another unnamed church in her history for the 1824 membership, other than apologetic necessity. Lucy may have had the idea of uniting her family in one church, but it had the opposite effect on her family. Only JS Jr. achieved that goal with the church he founded, which I contend was one of his goals. Plus he worked out a way of saving Alvin.

You say, �?¢â?¬�??she could have easily become disappointed and returned to the Presbyterians.�?¢â?¬�? But this contradicts what you said about Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s joining the Presbyterians: �?¢â?¬�??I can see that Lucy may have felt very drawn to a church that was trying to unite, rather than divide.�?¢â?¬�? Thus, according to you, she joined the Presbyterians in 1820 (when, according to JS, they were divisive), then quit to join a uniting group and for unknown reasons became disappointed and quit, and then returned to the Presbyterians in 1826 for unknown reasons. Doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t make any sense to me.

Quote

which seems to be exactly what happened according to Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s account:

�?¢â?¬�??but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time."

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's.

During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts. One day he said, that he would give us an example, and that we might set it down as a prophecy; viz.:

"You look at Deacon Jessup," said he, "and you hear him talk very piously. Well, you think he is a very good man. Now suppose that one of his poor neighbors should owe him the value of a cow, and that this poor man had eight little children; moreover, that he should be taken sick and die, leaving his wife with one cow, but destitute of every other means of supporting herself and family�?¢â?¬â?now I tell you, that Deacon Jessup, religious as he is, would not scruple to take the last cow from the poor widow and orphans in order to secure the debt, notwithstanding he himself has an abundance of everything."

At that time, this seemed impossible to us, yet one year had scarcely expired when we saw Joseph's prophecy literally fulfilled.�?¢â?¬�?

(Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother [Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 91.)

This indicates that Lucy likely left this church after barely a year which would take us to 1835 or 1836, and at some subsequent time returned to the Presbyterians up to mid 1828 when she left permanently.

You are making the same mistake as Wade. You are assuming the fulfillment of JS Jr�?¢â?¬â?¢s prediction caused them to stop attending this unnamed church. Jessup was a leader in the Presbyterian Church. So, as you have it, the fulfillment of JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s prediction was followed by Lucy and the others rejoining the Presbyterian Church, where Jessup was an official. Strange logic indeed. See how convoluted ad hoc rationalizations can get?

Thanks for your thoughtful arguments and for staying on topic. I hope you can now see that Wade has been completely unreasonable in characterizing my reconstruction as unfounded speculation.

[T-Shirt]

[quote name='Dan Vogel' date='Mar 11 2005, 07:36 PM'] Keep in mind Wade was trying to prove my reconstruction was unfounded speculation, which it is not. So, the discussion is more about my reconstruction than it is about Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s. Is mine speculative, and his not? That is the question.

[/quote]
I will not speak for Wade, but I do think that your conclusions do necessarily depend on speculation.  That being said, with as little information as we have, any conclusion, yours, mine or Wades will require a degree of speculation.

[quote]Wade is particularly troubled by my statement that the 1838 account conflated the 1824-25 revival with the 1820 vision. Now, you might disagree with that interpretation, but is it unfounded speculation? [/quote]

Again, I am not arguing for Wade.  I understand why you make the conclusion you do, and I can see your logic, but I disagree and I don't think your case is as strong as you think it is.

[quote]In other words, there can be two reconstructions of the evidence and neither be speculative, although the theory that Lucy joined the Presbyterians in 1820, quit, joined another unnamed church, quit, then rejoined about 1826, and was disfellowshipped in 1830 IS speculation.[/quote]

I think you are making this to be be more difficult than it is.  I have not said that she officially quit the Presbyterian Church.  One can attend another church without officially quiting the other.  This happens all the time, and people do often return to the original.

[quote][quote] It is possible that Lucy did not join the Presbyterians until 1824-25 and this would not necessarily conflict with Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s 1838 account.[/quote]

If you admit this, there is little more to discuss. You have just conceded the major piece of my puzzle and rejected Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s characterization that my reconstruction is mere speculation.[/quote]

I don't think your position is purely speculative, but it is still based on speculative elements.  I stated earlier that I do not think this is the case, but admit that it is possible.  I will restate here that I think it is very unlikely, yet possible.  I have not conceded anything.  My point is, it is possible that Lucy was drawn to the Presbyterian faith in 1820 and may or may not have attended meetings but didn't officially join until years later.  I think this is unlikely, but if it did happen this way, then there is no conflict with Joseph's account.  Let me make it clear, I am only showing a possibility here and in so doing, I am not agreeing with you.  I do not believe that Lucy's first association with the Presbyterians was in 1824-5.  I hope you understand this point.

[quote][quote] I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t think this is the case as I will show later, but first I will show how it could be so without conflict.[/quote]

And like Wade, you give begrudgingly. Note here you say �?¢â?¬�??join�?¢â?¬�? in 1824, because you later contradict this. [/quote]

I didn't contradict anything, I was simply showing two possible explanations, neither of which agree with yours.  I clearly stated that I thought the first was not likely.

[quote][quote][quote] 7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.
(Joseph Smith-History:7)[/quote]

As this was written eighteen years later, one could see how there could have been a period of time, even years, between the proselyting and the joining. Nothing here requires that the joining occurred at the time of the proselyting.[/quote]

�?¢â?¬�??Proselytize�?¢â?¬�? here doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t mean taking the missionary lessons. Note it says, �?¢â?¬�??proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined.�?¢â?¬�? There is no delay mentioned. If you are saying that Lucy began attending the Presbyterian Church in 1820 but did not join until 1824, then you are agreeing with me, not Wade, that the 1838 account has conflated elements from 1824 with 1820.[/quote]

Let me tell you a true story.  My mother was converted to the church but didn't get baptized for a long time later.  If I were to write a brief history and said in my account, "in 1956 my parents learned about Mormonism.  My mother was converted and baptized.", this would still be an accurate account, even if my mothers baptism was a year after her conversion.  There is often more than one way to read things, and often each one has validity.

[quote]But you immediately contradict this when you say:

[quote]However, I tend to think that they did join the Presbyterians in 1820. here are some of my thoughts:[/quote]

You can�?¢â?¬â?¢t have it both ways. So, which is it? I assume the latter, and therefore really side with Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s theory. However, unlike Wade, you do a better job of presenting your reasons from the documents.[/quote]

Once again, I am not trying to have it both ways, I am showing two possible solutions.  Yes, I think the later is more plausible, but even if it is the former, it does not agree with your position.

[quote]First, as you know, following Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s bout with near death, she made a promise to the Lord that if He allowed her to live, she would do her best to serve Him. She attended different churches looking for the right church, but was disappointed. She chose to be baptized when she found a minister who would allow it without requiring her to join any denomination. She says:

�?¢â?¬�??At length I considered it my duty to be baptized and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance, after which I continued to read the Bible as formerly until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year�?¢â?¬�?
(Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother [Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 36.)

I think it is significant that she said she continued, �?¢â?¬�??until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year.�?¢â?¬�? Alvin was in his twenty-second year in 1820. This seems to imply that she may have then joined a denomination. [/quote]

[quote]This is indeed a difficult passage. Richard L. Anderson suggested that �?¢â?¬�??[t]here may be various degrees of �?¢â?¬�??joining�?¢â?¬â?¢ a church�?¢â?¬�? (BYU Studies 9 [Spring 1969]: 391, n. 55). It�?¢â?¬â?¢s meaning depends on whether or not one thinks the church she joined in 1824 was the Presbyterian Church. If you want to insist that this statement about the 1820 period means she joined a church, you obviously are assuming it was the Presbyterian Church when that has not been established from any source.[/quote]

It is a reasonable conclusion.  Why else would she say, "until my eldest..."?  You say that it hasn't been established from any source, well obviously not, but neither has it been established by any source as when she actually joined the Presbyterian Church, if so, we would not be having this conversation.  The only actual evidence we have that she even officially joined is the church documents that speak of the visit to Lucy in 1830 due to her inactivity.  This does nothing for us, however, in determining the date she actually joined.

[quote]If fact, above you were willing to concede that Lucy was merely attending the Presbyterian Church in 1820 without joining. So, if one were to speculate, as Wade does, wouldn�?¢â?¬â?¢t it make more sense to suggest Lucy joined (Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s) unnamed church in 1820, then the Presbyterian Church in 1824?[/quote]
No.
[quote]
[quote] Second, Lucy gives the following information about her son, Samuel Harrison:

�?¢â?¬�??The fourth son of Joseph Smith and Lucy Mack, was born in the town of Tunbridge, Orange County, Vermont, March 13, 1808. In his early life he assisted his father in farming. He possessed a religious turn of mind, and at an early age joined the Presbyterian Church, to which sect he belonged until he visited his brother Joseph in Pennsylvania in May 1829, when Joseph informed him that the Lord was about to commence his latter-day work.�?¢â?¬�?
(Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother [Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 337.)

Now this may be a minor issue, but I think it has some merit. She says Samuel joined the Presbyterians at an early age. If this happened as you say, in 1824-25, Samuel would have been sixteen or seventeen years old. This could be viewed as an early age, but a sixteen or seventeen year-old at that time was not generally viewed as a kid, but was given great responsibility. On the other hand, in 1820, he would have only been twelve years old, which I think would much more reasonably qualify as �?¢â?¬�??an early age�?¢â?¬�?.[/quote]

I understand your reasoning, but it�?¢â?¬â?¢s a stretch for me. It�?¢â?¬â?¢s simply too vague and subjective. Plus, I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t have the edition that you are using, but apparently the wording is the same as History of the Church 7:216. I therefore doubt that the words are Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s. Nice try, though.[/quote]

Upon further review, I see that I made an error.  This information is in the appendix and was written by Preston Nibley.  I don;t know what his source is for "at an early age", so I will withdraw the argument, although maintain that it may still have validity.

[quote][quote] Third, Joseph described the Presbyterians in 1820 in this manner:

9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.
(Joseph Smith-History:9)

Then, Lucy describes the preacher who came after Alvin�?¢â?¬â?¢s death in this manner:

Shortly after the death of Alvin, a man commenced laboring in the neighborhood, to effect a union of the different churches, in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind.

This seemed about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers�?¢â?¬�?¦ (Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, p.90)

First off, Joseph and Lucy seem to be clearly describing two very different churches and secondly, Lucy does not mention a denomination.[/quote]

It only seems contradictory until you read before your quote of JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s description of the revival.

[quote]�?¢â?¬�?¦ For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion �?¢â?¬�?¦ yet when the converts began to file off, some to one part and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued �?¢â?¬�?¦ [/quote]

Thus, JS says that there was harmony during the beginning of the excitement, but that his gave way to a contest for converts. All Lucy says is she was attracted to one minister who was try to unite the churches, which is consistent with JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s description of how the revival began.[/quote]

I disagree.  Joseph didn't say anything about harmony between sects, only among converts.  Whereas Lucy clearly describes the man as one who wanted to establish unity between the different churches.

[quote]Lucy does not mention the name of the denomination, but if it�?¢â?¬â?¢s not the Presbyterians then we have no account of her joining in her history.[/quote]

I am not sure what you mean here.  We have plenty of information to conclude that she joined, we just don't have any to tell us when.  This is the crux of the whole discussion.

[quote]The prophecy that she relates JS gave of about Jessup directly relates to the church she joined. She admitted this man for his religiosity and he was a leader in the Presbyterian Church. In an interview with E. C. Briggs in 1893, William Smith said:

[quote]�?¢â?¬�?Hyrum, Samuel, Katharine [Sophronia] and mother were members of the Presbyterian church. My father would not join. He did not like it because a Rev. Stockton had preached my brother�?¢â?¬â?¢s funeral sermon and intimidated very strongly that he had gone to hell, for Alvin was not a church member, but he was a good boy and my father did not like it.�?¢â?¬�?[/quote]

This does not make your case.  Why do you think Stockton preached at Alvin's funeral?  It is very likely on account of Lucy and other family members already being members.  In fact, this quote seems to imply that Lucy was already a member at the time of the funeral.

[quote]�?¢â?¬�??What cause Joseph to ask for guidance as to what church he ought to join,�?¢â?¬�? asked Bro. B[riggs].

�?¢â?¬�??Why, there was a joint revival in the neighborhood between the Baptist, Methodists and Presbyterians and they had succeeded in stirring up quite a feeling, and after the meeting the question arose which church should have the converts. Rev. Stockton was the president of the meeting and suggested that it was their meeting and under their care and they had a church there and they ought to join the Presbyterians, but as father did not like Rev. Stockton very well, our folks hesitated and the next evening a Rev. Mr. Lane of the Methodists preached a sermon on �?¢â?¬�??what church shall I join?�?¢â?¬â?¢ �?¢â?¬�?¦ (Zion�?¢â?¬â?¢s Ensign, 13 Jan. 1894; rept. Deseret Evening News, 20 Jan. 1894; EMD 1:513)
Both Lane and Stockton were assigned to Palmyra in 1824. Stockton was the �?¢â?¬�??president�?¢â?¬�? of a joint meeting, which gave way to a contest over converts.[/quote][/quote]

I don't know all the sources for the dates of Stockton and Lane, but if Alvin died in November of 1823, why was Stockton preaching at his funeral if he wasn't there until sometime in 1824?  If your date are accurate, you have to account for this.  Assuming that your dates are accurate, why is it not possible that Stockton and Lane preached in Palmyra long before they were actually assigned there?

So, not only does this not make your case, it introduces another problem.  In addition, I would agree with Wade that accepting complete accuracy of William Smith's interview over Joseph or Lucy's account is rather bold.  William was nine years old in 1820 and thirteen in 1824.  His interview occurred seventy years later.  I hope my memory is that good when I am 82 years old.

[quote][quote] Since we have a record of the Presbyterians visiting Lucy in 1830, it seems pretty clear that she was attending the Presbyterian Church, probably up to about the middle of 1828. Assuming for a minute that she did join the church she mentioned above, this does not in any way require that it have been the Presbyterian Church. Considering Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s description of how divisive the Presbyterians were as well as Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s First Vision, I can see that Lucy may have felt very drawn to a church that was trying to unite, rather than divide. If she did join, she could have easily become disappointed and returned to the Presbyterians. It is a rather common thing for people to return to their former church after leaving for another, which seems to be exactly what happened according to Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s account:[/quote]

Of course, we would have conclusive evidence if we had the records showing the date of membership for Lucy and her children, but I believe there is strong circumstantial evidence supporting 1824, not 1820. [/quote]

And I say the same thing with the dates reversed.

[quote]There is no reason to believe she was describing another unnamed church in her history for the 1824 membership, other than apologetic necessity. Lucy may have had the idea of uniting her family in one church, but it had the opposite effect on her family. Only JS Jr. achieved that goal with the church he founded, which I contend was one of his goals. Plus he worked out a way of saving Alvin.[/quote]

I am not following your logic here, sorry.  Why is it so illogical to start attending another church and then a year later return to the previous one?  This is a pretty common occurrence.  In addition, Lucy's account says that Joseph's prophecy was fulfilled scarcely a year later.  It is possible that she had stopped attending long before this.  She only mentions attending their meetings and that Joseph would not and that her husband started but then later refused.  No where does she say how long they attended or if they even officially joined the church, in fact she makes a statement that indicates she may not have joined them:

[quote]During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long,[/quote]

This comes after she and already been attending and Joseph Senior had refused to go anymore, so it appears at this point, she had not actually joined.  In fact, there is nothing more to indicate that she ever did officially join,

[quote]You say, �?¢â?¬�??she could have easily become disappointed and returned to the Presbyterians.�?¢â?¬�? But this contradicts what you said about Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s joining the Presbyterians: �?¢â?¬�??I can see that Lucy may have felt very drawn to a church that was trying to unite, rather than divide.�?¢â?¬�? Thus, according to you, she joined the Presbyterians in 1820 (when, according to JS, they were divisive), then quit to join a uniting group[/quote]

I never said she officially quit the Presbyterian church.

[quote]and for unknown reasons became disappointed and quit,[/quote]

Why does there have to be a known reason?  People change churches all the time, it is hardly a new phenomena.  Her reason for investigating a different faith likely was tied to the death of Alvin as well as well as Stockton's comments at Alvin's funeral.  His comments were very divisive and being in mourning she would have been easily drawn toward someone who was trying to unite.

[quote] and then returned to the Presbyterians in 1826 for unknown reasons. Doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t make any sense to me.[/quote]

I don't know why, it makes perfect sense yo me.  In fact there is more in Lucy's account that sheds light on this. she says:

[quote]The shock occasioned by Alvin's death, in a short time passed off, and we resumed our usual avocations with considerable interest. [/quote]

I don't know what a "short time" is, but it could certainly be less than a year, and with they the shock having passed, returning to usual avocations could include returning to her former church.

[quote][quote] which seems to be exactly what happened according to Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s account:

�?¢â?¬�??but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time."

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's.

During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts. One day he said, that he would give us an example, and that we might set it down as a prophecy; viz.:

"You look at Deacon Jessup," said he, "and you hear him talk very piously. Well, you think he is a very good man. Now suppose that one of his poor neighbors should owe him the value of a cow, and that this poor man had eight little children; moreover, that he should be taken sick and die, leaving his wife with one cow, but destitute of every other means of supporting herself and family�?¢â?¬â?now I tell you, that Deacon Jessup, religious as he is, would not scruple to take the last cow from the poor widow and orphans in order to secure the debt, notwithstanding he himself has an abundance of everything."

At that time, this seemed impossible to us, yet one year had scarcely expired when we saw Joseph's prophecy literally fulfilled.�?¢â?¬�?

(Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother [Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 91.)

This indicates that Lucy likely left this church after barely a year which would take us to 1835 or 1836, and at some subsequent time returned to the Presbyterians up to mid 1828 when she left permanently.[/quote]

You are making the same mistake as Wade. You are assuming the fulfillment of JS Jr�?¢â?¬â?¢s prediction caused them to stop attending this unnamed church.[/quote]

I don't see this as a mistake.  However, as stated above, they may have stopped attending before the fulfilment of the prophecy.  (I notice you use the word, "prediction" rather than "prophecy" )
[quote]Jessup was a leader in the Presbyterian Church. [/quote]

I have been unable to come up with any credible source to uindicate that Jessup was a Presbyterian.  Maybe you could provide it.  However, even if Jessup was a Presbyterian, it is possible that follwing Alvin's funeral, Lucy was turned off by Stockton, but later drawn back by Jessup.

[quote] So, as you have it, the fulfillment of JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s prediction was followed by Lucy and the others rejoining the Presbyterian Church, where Jessup was an official.  Strange logic indeed. See how convoluted ad hoc rationalizations can get? [/quote]

I already explained this.  I feal no need to rationalize anything, nor have I.

[quote]Thanks for your thoughtful arguments and for staying on topic. I hope you can now see that Wade has been completely unreasonable in characterizing my reconstruction as unfounded speculation.[/quote]

Again, I will not speak for Wade, but I will say that while I can see your logic, it is still dependant on a lot of speculation.  And before you say it, yes, my position requires speculation as well.  There simply is not enough information to draw a difinitive conclusion.  So, I guess we are back to faith.

Have a good weekend.

T-Shirt

[Dan Vogel]

T-Shirt,

Again, thanks for your thoughtful comments and for sticking to the subject.

[quote][quote] Keep in mind Wade was trying to prove my reconstruction was unfounded speculation, which it is not. So, the discussion is more about my reconstruction than it is about Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s. Is mine speculative, and his not? That is the question.[/quote]

I will not speak for Wade, but I do think that your conclusions do necessarily depend on speculation. That being said, with as little information as we have, any conclusion, yours, mine or Wades will require a degree of speculation.[/quote]

I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t mean to make you responsible for Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s statements, but I feel that I must remind you and others reading along why this discussion began and why it has the form that it has. Yet, you seem to pick up Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s theme. Of course, all reconstructions require some speculation, because records are always incomplete and gaps must be filled to make a coherent story. But that does not make the entire reconstruction speculative. What we are trying to determine is, which of the possible reconstructions has the most support and which is the most defensible? And, once that is established, what are the implications of that reconstruction?

[quote][quote] Wade is particularly troubled by my statement that the 1838 account conflated the 1824-25 revival with the 1820 vision. Now, you might disagree with that interpretation, but is it unfounded speculation?[/quote]

Again, I am not arguing for Wade. I understand why you make the conclusion you do, and I can see your logic, but I disagree and I don't think your case is as strong as you think it is.[/quote]

Again, I�?¢â?¬â?¢m not making you responsible for Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s comments. Of course, I believe my reconstruction accounts for most of the evidence with the least speculation and special pleading. Inductive and inferential kinds of evidence will always be somewhat subjective. You are free to conclude that my arguments are not compelling.

[You don�?¢â?¬â?¢t have to answer this next statement; it�?¢â?¬â?¢s mostly for Wade] Given my interpretation of the sources, a valid inductive argument and be formulated. You (and Wade) might disagree with my interpretation of the sources, but I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t have to convince you (or Wade) of the truth of the premises to make a valid inductive argument. Otherwise, there would be no valid inductive arguments.

[quote][quote] In other words, there can be two reconstructions of the evidence and neither be speculative, although the theory that Lucy joined the Presbyterians in 1820, quit, joined another unnamed church, quit, then rejoined about 1826, and was disfellowshipped in 1830 IS speculation.[/quote]

I think you are making this to be be more difficult than it is. I have not said that she officially quit the Presbyterian Church. One can attend another church without officially quiting the other. This happens all the time, and people do often return to the original.[/quote]

You can define �?¢â?¬�??quit�?¢â?¬�? anyway you like, because it remains problematic and speculative. Of course, a person can go in and out of churches in any pattern you wish, but did Lucy? You have no evidence for your supposition. You have only been lead to it because you think you need to defend the 1838 history.

[quote][quote][quote] It is possible that Lucy did not join the Presbyterians until 1824-25 and this would not necessarily conflict with Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s 1838 account.[/quote]

If you admit this, there is little more to discuss. You have just conceded the major piece of my puzzle and rejected Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s characterization that my reconstruction is mere speculation.[/quote]

I don't think your position is purely speculative, but it is still based on speculative elements. I stated earlier that I do not think this is the case, but admit that it is possible. I will restate here that I think it is very unlikely, yet possible. I have not conceded anything. My point is, it is possible that Lucy was drawn to the Presbyterian faith in 1820 and may or may not have attended meetings but didn't officially join until years later. I think this is unlikely, but if it did happen this way, then there is no conflict with Joseph's account. Let me make it clear, I am only showing a possibility here and in so doing, I am not agreeing with you. I do not believe that Lucy's first association with the Presbyterians was in 1824-5. I hope you understand this point.[/quote]

You are clearly using the �?¢â?¬�??possibility�?¢â?¬�? argument to counter my position that the 1838 account conflates elements from 1824 with the 1820 vision, not agree with it. Well, you can�?¢â?¬â?¢t argue two positions at the same time. You are attempting to bolster your apologetic position by arguing both sides of the argument at the same time. Call me stubborn but, pick one thesis and defend it. Logically, such a maneuver weakens your position, not strengthens it.

[quote][quote][quote] I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t think this is the case as I will show later, but first I will show how it could be so without conflict.[/quote]

And like Wade, you give begrudgingly. Note here you say �?¢â?¬�??join�?¢â?¬�? in 1824, because you later contradict this.[/quote]

I didn't contradict anything, I was simply showing two possible explanations, neither of which agree with yours. I clearly stated that I thought the first was not likely.[/quote]

The two approaches are contradictory. You didn�?¢â?¬â?¢t just simply show, but clearly intended it as a criticism of my position. Therefore, you did use contradictory positions simultaneously to strengthen your apologetic. So, if you don�?¢â?¬â?¢t mind, I will dismiss the first argument, since it isn�?¢â?¬â?¢t something you really believe.

[quote][quote][quote][quote] 7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.
(Joseph Smith-History:7)[/quote]

As this was written eighteen years later, one could see how there could have been a period of time, even years, between the proselyting and the joining. Nothing here requires that the joining occurred at the time of the proselyting.[/quote]

�?¢â?¬�??Proselytize�?¢â?¬�? here doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t mean taking the missionary lessons. Note it says, �?¢â?¬�??proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined.�?¢â?¬�? There is no delay mentioned. If you are saying that Lucy began attending the Presbyterian Church in 1820 but did not join until 1824, then you are agreeing with me, not Wade, that the 1838 account has conflated elements from 1824 with 1820.[/quote]

Let me tell you a true story. My mother was converted to the church but didn't get baptized for a long time later. If I were to write a brief history and said in my account, "in 1956 my parents learned about Mormonism. My mother was converted and baptized.", this would still be an accurate account, even if my mothers baptism was a year after her conversion. There is often more than one way to read things, and often each one has validity.[/quote]

And here you demonstrate what I said above. This story fits your first argument: that Lucy began attending the Presbyterian Church in 1820 but did not join until 1824. So, since it contradicts your favored argument, I will dismiss this argument as irrelevant.

[quote][quote][quote] But you immediately contradict this when you say:

�?¢â?¬�??However, I tend to think that they did join the Presbyterians in 1820. here are some of my thoughts:�?¢â?¬�?[/quote]

You can�?¢â?¬â?¢t have it both ways. So, which is it? I assume the latter, and therefore really side with Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s theory. However, unlike Wade, you do a better job of presenting your reasons from the documents.[/quote]

Once again, I am not trying to have it both ways, I am showing two possible solutions. Yes, I think the later is more plausible, but even if it is the former, it does not agree with your position.[/quote]

Yes, you are! When you concede your preferred thesis, then I�?¢â?¬â?¢ll think about letting you argue the thesis you don�?¢â?¬â?¢t believe in and we�?¢â?¬â?¢ll see where that goes.

[quote][quote] This is indeed a difficult passage. Richard L. Anderson suggested that �?¢â?¬�??[t]here may be various degrees of �?¢â?¬�??joining�?¢â?¬â?¢ a church�?¢â?¬�? (BYU Studies 9 [Spring 1969]: 391, n. 55). It�?¢â?¬â?¢s meaning depends on whether or not one thinks the church she joined in 1824 was the Presbyterian Church. If you want to insist that this statement about the 1820 period means she joined a church, you obviously are assuming it was the Presbyterian Church when that has not been established from any source.[/quote]

It is a reasonable conclusion. Why else would she say, "until my eldest..."? You say that it hasn't been established from any source, well obviously not, but neither has it been established by any source as when she actually joined the Presbyterian Church, if so, we would not be having this conversation. The only actual evidence we have that she even officially joined is the church documents that speak of the visit to Lucy in 1830 due to her inactivity. This does nothing for us, however, in determining the date she actually joined.[/quote]

Lucy does not unambiguously say she joined a church in 1820, only that she �?¢â?¬�??continued to read the Bible as formerly until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year.�?¢â?¬�? Formerly, she did not attend any certain church. For some reason this might have changed about 1820. But exactly what that means is anyone�?¢â?¬â?¢s guess. I would suggest that you are reading into this vague statement what you want. If you argue your first thesis, that she began attending the Presbyterian Church but did not join until 1824, you might have a point. But, you are not arguing that thesis. Since you are arguing that it means she joined the Presbyterian Church in 1820, you are obviously reading too much into it. Either way, there is nothing in the statement that can be construed as necessarily implying the Presbyterians. However, she is quite clear about what happened in 1824-25: she joined a church along with other members of her family that included Deacon Jessup, who was a Presbyterian (see below). So, what is better known should not be at the mercy of what is less known.

[quote][quote] If fact, above you were willing to concede that Lucy was merely attending the Presbyterian Church in 1820 without joining. So, if one were to speculate, as Wade does, wouldn�?¢â?¬â?¢t it make more sense to suggest Lucy joined (Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s) unnamed church in 1820, then the Presbyterian Church in 1824?[/quote]

No.[/quote]

This was just a hypothetical that you are free to disagree with if you like. It was simply an observation about the relative parsimony of the two reconstructions.

[quote] Upon further review, I see that I made an error. This information is in the appendix and was written by Preston Nibley. I don;t know what his source is for "at an early age", so I will withdraw the argument, although maintain that it may still have validity.[/quote]

Fine.

[quote] [quote] It only seems contradictory until you read before your quote of JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s description of the revival.[/quote]

I disagree. Joseph didn't say anything about harmony between sects, only among converts. Whereas Lucy clearly describes the man as one who wanted to establish unity between the different churches.[/quote]

This is a minor quibble. Lucy does not say the man was successful either.

[quote]Shortly after the death of Alvin, a man commenced laboring in the neighborhood, to effect a union of the different churches, in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind.[/quote]

Nevertheless, JS does say there was initial harmony among the �?¢â?¬�??Priests.�?¢â?¬�? I left that part out of my quote, but you should have check the source before making your quibble.

[quote] �?¢â?¬�?¦ For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one part and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued �?¢â?¬�?¦[/quote]

[quote][quote] Lucy does not mention the name of the denomination, but if it�?¢â?¬â?¢s not the Presbyterians then we have no account of her joining in her history.[/quote]

I am not sure what you mean here. We have plenty of information to conclude that she joined, we just don't have any to tell us when. This is the crux of the whole discussion.[/quote]

What I mean by this is if you dismiss the 1824 story, then we have no account for when she joins the Presbyterian Church and it therefore makes no sense when she later talks about the Presbyterian Committee coming to her, Hyrum, and Samuel in March 1830 to inquire about their inactivity and association with the Gold Bible. By the way, Lucy never calls the committee �?¢â?¬�??Presbyterian,�?¢â?¬�? but we know it was because of the records.

[quote] I don't know all the sources for the dates of Stockton and Lane, but if Alvin died in November of 1823, why was Stockton preaching at his funeral if he wasn't there until sometime in 1824? If your date are accurate, you have to account for this. Assuming that your dates are accurate, why is it not possible that Stockton and Lane preached in Palmyra long before they were actually assigned there?[/quote]

Of course, our only source for Stockton preaching Alvin�?¢â?¬â?¢s funeral sermon is William Smith. Possibly William is also conflating things (confusing something Stockton said about Alvin in 1824 to pressure the Smiths into converting), but it is also quite possible Stockton did give the funeral sermon since it is known from newspaper accounts that he visited Palmyra in Oct. 1822 and again on 26 Nov. 1823, one week after Alvin�?¢â?¬â?¢s death, to perform a wedding (for documentation, see Marquardt and Walters, Inventing Mormonism, 20). Thus Stockton could have very well preached at Alvin�?¢â?¬â?¢s funeral as William remembered. William also remembered that his mother joined when Stockton was pastor of the church and Stockton, which did not happen until 1824.

At the Genesee Conference of Methodist ministers held in July 1819 at Vienna (later Phelps), NY, the Rev. Lane was appointed to preside over the Susquehanna (PA) District, where he served until 1824. He was then appointed to preside over the Ontario District, which included Palmyra and Manchester, where he remained from July 1824 to July 1825. I am unaware of any record that places Lane in Palmyra before July 1824.

[quote]So, not only does this not make your case, it introduces another problem. In addition, I would agree with Wade that accepting complete accuracy of William Smith's interview over Joseph or Lucy's account is rather bold. William was nine years old in 1820 and thirteen in 1824. His interview occurred seventy years later. I hope my memory is that good when I am 82 years old.[/quote]

Williams�?¢â?¬â?¢s account is may be inaccurate in places, but I have not quoted him over the account of Lucy and JS. His mention of Lane and Stockton does not contradict those accounts, because neither of them mentions either minister. However, JS through Oliver Cowdery does mention Lane. A thirteen-year-old William is old enough for me, but a nine-year-old might be problematic for you. But William is clear that he is not describing 1820. True, the passage of time does cloud things, but that does not mean you can automatically throw out such reminiscences. Historians work with all kinds of testimony.

[quote][quote][quote] Since we have a record of the Presbyterians visiting Lucy in 1830, it seems pretty clear that she was attending the Presbyterian Church, probably up to about the middle of 1828. Assuming for a minute that she did join the church she mentioned above, this does not in any way require that it have been the Presbyterian Church. Considering Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s description of how divisive the Presbyterians were as well as Joseph�?¢â?¬â?¢s First Vision, I can see that Lucy may have felt very drawn to a church that was trying to unite, rather than divide. If she did join, she could have easily become disappointed and returned to the Presbyterians. It is a rather common thing for people to return to their former church after leaving for another, which seems to be exactly what happened according to Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s account:[/quote]

Of course, we would have conclusive evidence if we had the records showing the date of membership for Lucy and her children, but I believe there is strong circumstantial evidence supporting 1824, not 1820.[/quote]

And I say the same thing with the dates reversed.[/quote]

The best interpretation of the evidence points to 1824 for Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s joining the Presbyterians. JS said, in the end, all the sects were divisive. William named Stockton as the �?¢â?¬�??president�?¢â?¬�? of the meeting. You say, �?¢â?¬�??If she did join, she could have easily become disappointed and returned to the Presbyterians.�?¢â?¬�? Why did she get disappointed? Pure speculation born out of necessity, because you know she has to be a member in March 1830. �?¢â?¬�??It is a rather common thing for people to return to their former church after leaving for another,�?¢â?¬�? you say. But how do you know Lucy did it? It is far more common for people to die in the church they were born in. Again, you claim, �?¢â?¬�??which seems to be exactly what happened according to Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s account.�?¢â?¬�? Where does Lucy say she went back to the Presbyterian Church? Or that she quit the group she joined in 1824? If Wade is looking for an example of speculation, this is it!

[quote][quote] There is no reason to believe she was describing another unnamed church in her history for the 1824 membership, other than apologetic necessity. Lucy may have had the idea of uniting her family in one church, but it had the opposite effect on her family. Only JS Jr. achieved that goal with the church he founded, which I contend was one of his goals. Plus he worked out a way of saving Alvin.[/quote]

I am not following your logic here, sorry. Why is it so illogical to start attending another church and then a year later return to the previous one? This is a pretty common occurrence. [/quote]

See previous response.

[quote]In addition, Lucy's account says that Joseph's prophecy was fulfilled scarcely a year later. It is possible that she had stopped attending long before this. [/quote]

The prophecy was about Jessup, and Jessup was a leading Presbyterian (see below). Why would JS give a prediction about a Presbyterian leader to discourage her from joining another church? She says:

[quote]During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts. One day he said, that he would give us an example, and that we might set it down as a prophecy;[/quote]

The prophecy was to show them that they �?¢â?¬�??were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.�?¢â?¬�?

Henry Jessup, known as �?¢â?¬�??Deacon Jessup,�?¢â?¬�? was an elder in Palmyra�?¢â?¬â?¢s Western Presbyterian Church (Western Farmer, 12 Dec. 1821, 4). His name appears all over the extant records of that church. He was appointed to a Presbyterian Committee to investigate the inactivity of Lucy, Hyrum, and Samuel in March 1830.

Now this complicates your reconstruction, unless you want to argue that Jessup also quit the Presbyterians in 1824 to join the same unnamed church that you speculate that Lucy did.

[quote]She only mentions attending their meetings and that Joseph would not and that her husband started but then later refused. [/quote]

William gave the reason JS Jr. refused to attend, and named the minister. Stockton had implied Alvin had gone to hell. That is not the kind of detail that is easily forgotten, nor does it contradict Lucy and JS.

[quote]No where does she say how long they attended or if they even officially joined the church, in fact she makes a statement that indicates she may not have joined them:[/quote]

Remember, you said they attended until about 1825 or 1826. I said that was an assumption that she quit when JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s prophecy was fulfilled. I believe it implies that she did join, although understandably her account avoids using explicit language so as not to appear disbelieving of JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s prophetic gifts. We know she did join the Presbyterians and the prophecy was about Deacon Jessup, a Presbyterian leader.

[quote][quote] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long,[/quote]

This comes after she and already been attending and Joseph Senior had refused to go anymore, so it appears at this point, she had not actually joined. In fact, there is nothing more to indicate that she ever did officially join,[/quote]

At the time of the prophecy obviously she had not joined, but it implies that she did and that she was surprised when the prediction came true. The point Lucy was making to here Mormon audience was, JS gave her permission to join, that �?¢â?¬�??it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long.�?¢â?¬�? This would hardly make sense if this was referring to a brief interlude between regular attendance in the Presbyterian Church.

[quote][quote] You say, �?¢â?¬�??she could have easily become disappointed and returned to the Presbyterians.�?¢â?¬�? But this contradicts what you said about Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s joining the Presbyterians: �?¢â?¬�??I can see that Lucy may have felt very drawn to a church that was trying to unite, rather than divide.�?¢â?¬�? Thus, according to you, she joined the Presbyterians in 1820 (when, according to JS, they were divisive), then quit to join a uniting group[/quote]

I never said she officially quit the Presbyterian church[/quote]

Maybe you didn�?¢â?¬â?¢t. But you are saying her motivation for being drawn to the other church was because the Presbyterians were divisive, but then, if that is the case, why does she go back? You can�?¢â?¬â?¢t use it as motivation for changing, and then ignore it for returning. Lucy says she joined because the minister was trying to effect a unity. Obviously, no matter how you look at it, it didn�?¢â?¬â?¢t work. William also said Stockton was that minister, and that it didn�?¢â?¬â?¢t work. But, she did not described leaving and returning to the any church. That is your invention.

[quote][quote] and for unknown reasons became disappointed and quit,[/quote]

Why does there have to be a known reason? People change churches all the time, it is hardly a new phenomena. Her reason for investigating a different faith likely was tied to the death of Alvin as well as well as Stockton's comments at Alvin's funeral. His comments were very divisive and being in mourning she would have been easily drawn toward someone who was trying to unite.[/quote]

Well, you have no evidence that she quit and no reason for speculating that she did. Not very convincing. People change churches, but did Lucy? You have not produced sound reasons for believing she did so. We only know about Stockton�?¢â?¬â?¢s comments about Alvin, and he says Lucy joined Stockton�?¢â?¬â?¢s church but his father would not. You can�?¢â?¬â?¢t divorce Williams�?¢â?¬â?¢s statement from its context, especially without a reason.

[quote][quote] and then returned to the Presbyterians in 1826 for unknown reasons. Doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t make any sense to me.[/quote]

I don't know why, it makes perfect sense yo me. In fact there is more in Lucy's account that sheds light on this. she says:

�?¢â?¬�??The shock occasioned by Alvin's death, in a short time passed off, and we resumed our usual avocations with considerable interest.�?¢â?¬�?

I don't know what a "short time" is, but it could certainly be less than a year, and with they the shock having passed, returning to usual avocations could include returning to her former church.[/quote]

You are wildly reading into the text what you want to see. She does not say she stopped going to the Presbyterian Church and then resumed. To read it like you do, it would mean she stopped going to church altogether, then resumed after the shock wore off. But she makes it clear that she was attracted to church because of Alvin�?¢â?¬â?¢s death. In the context of this statement, she meant things in addition to working the farm like completing the building of the house.

[quote][quote] You are making the same mistake as Wade. You are assuming the fulfillment of JS Jr�?¢â?¬â?¢s prediction caused them to stop attending this unnamed church.[/quote]

I don't see this as a mistake. However, as stated above, they may have stopped attending before the fulfilment of the prophecy. (I notice you use the word, "prediction" rather than "prophecy"[/quote]

It is a mistake because you are reading into the text something that is not there. It�?¢â?¬â?¢s an assumption. You have absolutely no evidence that Lucy stopped going to any church before fulfillment of the prediction. We only know they stopped attending the Presbyterian Church about September 1828.

(I prefer �?¢â?¬�??prediction�?¢â?¬�? because at the time they did not know JS was a �?¢â?¬�??prophet�?¢â?¬�?)

[quote][quote] Jessup was a leader in the Presbyterian Church.[/quote]

I have been unable to come up with any credible source to uindicate that Jessup was a Presbyterian. Maybe you could provide it. However, even if Jessup was a Presbyterian, it is possible that follwing Alvin's funeral, Lucy was turned off by Stockton, but later drawn back by Jessup.[/quote]

See above. Besides being completely speculative, your arguments are becoming impossibly convoluted. According to William, Lucy was not turned off with Stockton, JS Sr. was. Despite what Stockton said, Lucy persisted in trying to convert the family, which William found annoying. It is more likely that she feared for her other children�?¢â?¬â?¢s salvation, which would help explain the origin of JS Jr.�?¢â?¬â?¢s anti-sectarian stance and his preoccupation with uniting his family in a church and saving Alvin from hell.

Your suggestion that Lucy was drawn back to the Presbyterians because of Jessup is unbelievable in light of the fulfillment of JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s prophecy. Not because of the prophecy, but what the prophecy says about Jessup. How could Jessup�?¢â?¬â?¢s meanness towards a widow and her eight children help draw Lucy back to the Presbyterians?

[quote][quote] So, as you have it, the fulfillment of JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s prediction was followed by Lucy and the others rejoining the Presbyterian Church, where Jessup was an official.  Strange logic indeed. See how convoluted ad hoc rationalizations can get?[/quote]

I already explained this. I feal no need to rationalize anything, nor have I.[/quote]

You�?¢â?¬â?¢re not getting it. It is illogical. Ad hoc theories are made up or concocted for the sole purpose of protecting a central theory form negative evidence. That is what you are doing. They are a sign that a theory is in trouble.

[quote][quote] Thanks for your thoughtful arguments and for staying on topic. I hope you can now see that Wade has been completely unreasonable in characterizing my reconstruction as unfounded speculation.[/quote]

Again, I will not speak for Wade, but I will say that while I can see your logic, it is still dependant on a lot of speculation. And before you say it, yes, my position requires speculation as well. There simply is not enough information to draw a difinitive conclusion. So, I guess we are back to faith.[/quote]

For someone who engages in unfounded speculation and ad hoc hypothesizing, I�?¢â?¬â?¢m not sure you can distinguish between sound arguments and speculation. We are not after �?¢â?¬�??definitive conclusions,�?¢â?¬�? they don�?¢â?¬â?¢t exist. Faith has nothing to do with weighing the relative strength of evidence and arguments. Faith does not answer the historical questions we are dealing with. The question is, which is the most defensible position? I find it quite ironic that those who have tried to counter my reconstruction end up engaging in wild speculation themselves.

I think I have given enough evidence and argumentation to establish the strength of my reconstruction and to counter Wade�?¢â?¬â?¢s accusations.

[T-Shirt]

Dan Vogel, on Mar 13 2005, 08:29 PM, said:

Lucy does not unambiguously say she joined a church in 1820, only that she �?¢â?¬�??continued to read the Bible as formerly until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year.�?¢â?¬�? Formerly, she did not attend any certain church. For some reason this might have changed about 1820. But exactly what that means is anyone�?¢â?¬â?¢s guess.

Well, she must have said it for a reason.  And as you said, something must have chamged and since the context of what she was wtiting was that of serving god and trying to find the right church, I think it is reasonable to conclude that she joined a church in 1820.

Quote

I would suggest that you are reading into this vague statement what you want. If you argue your first thesis, that she began attending the Presbyterian Church but did not join until 1824, you might have a point. But, you are not arguing that thesis. Since you are arguing that it means she joined the Presbyterian Church in 1820, you are obviously reading too much into it. Either way, there is nothing in the statement that can be construed as necessarily implying the Presbyterians. However, she is quite clear about what happened in 1824-25: she joined a church along with other members of her family that included Deacon Jessup, who was a Presbyterian (see below). So, what is better known should not be at the mercy of what is less known.

Well, here is something else that is known.  The Presbyterian Church was incorporated in Palmyra in 1797.  In 1817 the Presbyterain Church split, a group of men, including a Henry Jessup incorporated the new Western Presbyterian Church and Society.  This group lists their Pastor as Benjamin Stackton beginning in Feb 1824, for two years prior to Stockton they did not have a pastor, but a stated supply.
Given Lucy's comments about some change occuring in 1820 and her mention of Jessup after Alvin's death, I think it is reasonable to conclude that she joined or attended the Presbyterian church in 1820 (the original church, not the newly formed one from 1817) and then later, after Alvin's death, felt "inclined" to "unite" with the newer group.  This would also explain why, in 1824 or 1825 it would not be odd for her to unite with a Presbyterian group, if she was already a Presbyterian.
Why did Lucy include in her book, Joseph's account of telling her in 1820 that he had learned that Presbyterianism was not true?  She must have been at least leaning toward Presbyterianism in 1820.

I am convinced that with what we have available, it is possible to arrive at different conclusions.  Both can rely on known facts and both must also rely on some speculation.  You will believe your way, and I will believe mine.

Take care,
T-Shirt

Edited by T-Shirt, 14 March 2005 - 03:34 PM.

[Dan Vogel]

T-Shirt,

Quote

Quote

Lucy does not unambiguously say she joined a church in 1820, only that she �?¢â?¬�??continued to read the Bible as formerly until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year.�?¢â?¬�? Formerly, she did not attend any certain church. For some reason this might have changed about 1820. But exactly what that means is anyone�?¢â?¬â?¢s guess.

Well, she must have said it for a reason. And as you said, something must have chamged and since the context of what she was wtiting was that of serving god and trying to find the right church, I think it is reasonable to conclude that she joined a church in 1820.

Something perhaps did change. Perhaps that�?¢â?¬â?¢s when she started attending a church or churches. Who knows? But there is nothing to indicate that she joined a church in 1820. You quoted Lucy as follows:

Quote

At length I considered it my duty to be baptized and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance, after which I continued to read the Bible as formerly until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year
(Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith by His Mother [Salt Lake City: Stevens & Wallis, Inc., 1945], 36.)

Even if you insist that she joined a church, it could not have been the Presbyterian Church since she is clear, although not explicit, that it was in 1824.

Quote

Quote

I would suggest that you are reading into this vague statement what you want. If you argue your first thesis, that she began attending the Presbyterian Church but did not join until 1824, you might have a point. But, you are not arguing that thesis. Since you are arguing that it means she joined the Presbyterian Church in 1820, you are obviously reading too much into it. Either way, there is nothing in the statement that can be construed as necessarily implying the Presbyterians. However, she is quite clear about what happened in 1824-25: she joined a church along with other members of her family that included Deacon Jessup, who was a Presbyterian (see below). So, what is better known should not be at the mercy of what is less known.

Well, here is something else that is known. The Presbyterian Church was incorporated in Palmyra in 1797. In 1817 the Presbyterain Church split, a group of men, including a Henry Jessup incorporated the new Western Presbyterian Church and Society. This group lists their Pastor as Benjamin Stackton beginning in Feb 1824, for two years prior to Stockton they did not have a pastor, but a stated supply.

I�?¢â?¬â?¢m not following your chronology here. I need more information and some sources.

Backman mentions this 1817 split (Bakcman, Joseph Smith�?¢â?¬â?¢s First Vision, p. 67). In the wake of the 1816-17 revival in the township of Palmyra (townships in NY were large areas and often incorporated several villages), the Presbyterian Church nearly doubled. It was this increase that caused the split. Backman explains:

Quote

Consequently the congregation was divided in 1817. Fifty-six members separated from the mother church and formed the Western Presbyterian Church of Palmyra with Jesse Townsend as the first installed pastor.

The mother church was in East Palmyra about four miles east from Palmyra Village. Both groups belonged to the Geneva Presbytery and were not in conflict, as you seem to think. The sometimes shared the same pastor. It was not unlike a Mormon ward splitting. Regarding the pastorship of the Western Presbyterian Church and the two- (four-) year gap, Backman states:

Quote

Jesse Townsend continued to serve as minister of the Western Prebyterian Church from 1817 to the winter of 1819-1820, and then early in 1820 moved to Illinois �?¢â?¬�?¦ Since a preacher had not been assigned to replace Townsend during the spring of 1820, undoubtedly Benjamin Baily, pastor of the church in Eastern Palmyra, occasionally supplied the Presbyterians of Palmyra village with spiritual leadership. In January, 1822, Rev. Daniel C. Hopkins became the minister of that parish and continued to serve in that capacity for about two years. In February, 1824, Benjamin B. Stockton initiated his three-year period of leadership; and about the time of his arrival a major awakening erupted in that area which was one of the most powerful revivals that occurred in Palmyra. [p. 69]

The sharing of pastors is a practice that still goes on. I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t know where you got your information, but Backman�?¢â?¬â?¢s account is very different than what you state, especially in the next paragraph.

Quote

Given Lucy's comments about some change occuring in 1820 and her mention of Jessup after Alvin's death, I think it is reasonable to conclude that she joined or attended the Presbyterian church in 1820 (the original church, not the newly formed one from 1817) and then later, after Alvin's death, felt "inclined" to "unite" with the newer group. This would also explain why, in 1824 or 1825 it would not be odd for her to unite with a Presbyterian group, if she was already a Presbyterian.

You are confused about what happened in 1817. You seem to think there are two competing Presbyterian churches in Palmyra Village. That is wrong. The sister church was about four miles away in East Palmyra (both Palmyra and East Palmyra are in Palmyra township). Also, in 1820, the two churches were likely sharing the same pastor.

I note that in making this argument that you have conceded that the group Lucy joined in 1824 was Presbyterian. That�?¢â?¬â?¢s progress, but you still desperately and blindly invent possible scenarios to avoid the most logical and simple explanation.

Quote

Why did Lucy include in her book, Joseph's account of telling her in 1820 that he had learned that Presbyterianism was not true? She must have been at least leaning toward Presbyterianism in 1820.

Again, I think this statement to which you allude is not Lucy but the editors of the edition you are using. I think you are referring to this statement:

Quote

When the light had departed I had no strength, but soon recovering in some degree. I went home. & as I leaned up to the fire piece. Mother Enquired what the matter was. I replied never mind all is well.�?¢â?¬â?I am well enough off. I then told my mother I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true�?¢â?¬�?¦

Is that it? This statement is not in Lucy�?¢â?¬â?¢s history (you should get the 1853 edition by Orson Pratt, a facsimile reprint of which can be purchased from the Tanners).

Quote

I am convinced that with what we have available, it is possible to arrive at different conclusions. Both can rely on known facts and both must also rely on some speculation. You will believe your way, and I will believe mine.

I know you are convinced. But would an unbiased reader be impressed by your interpretations? Whose interpretations and reconstructions fit most of the facts with the least elaboration and difficulty? No interpretation or theory is ever established definitively or conclusively. Deciding which is more probable, supported, defensive is the work of scholars. There are times when the evidence is inconclusive. This is not one of those times.

Now, I return to my original statement and the implications of the probability that Lucy and her children joined the Presbyterian Church in 1824.

The 1838 account conflates the 1824 revival and conversions of his mother and siblings with the 1820 vision.

This brings up a question about JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s motivations preceding his prayer and vision in 1820.

Any historian worth his salt would distrust an official history of any kind, but the 1832 account deserves priority here. In this account, there is no revival, no question of which church is true, and no prophetic calling. The transition to the 1838 account is striking. In 1838, the vision has perhaps been recast to reflect, not a historical truth, but a spiritual and religious truth.

[MorningStar]

Daniel Peterson, on Jan 25 2005, 11:29 AM, said:

Mighty Curelom, on Jan 25 2005, 12:22 AM, said:

I was wondering which tactic you'd decide to use.�??�?   At least by choosing character assassination you'll be keeping in line with the proud tradition of Mormon apologetics.�??�?  Maybe you could throw in a few anecdotes about the Tanners, AKA "The Embodiment of Pure Evil."

Ah yes.  The character-assassinating insinuation that all we "apologists" do is assassinate character.

Quote

But with respect to Dr Nelson, swing away Brother Peterson, swing away.�??�?  If Nelson was the only Egyptologist who determined the BoA papyri to be common funerary texts, you might be doing some good for your cause by attacking his character.

Here's a clue, M. LeCurelom:  Your respectable Egyptologist Dee Jay Nelson wasn't an Egyptologist at all, and his two doctorates were fraudulent.  You can turn that into an assault on his character if you wish, and you can blame me, the messenger.  But you were the one who cited him as somehow authoritative.

A useful study of the late "Professor" "Dr." "Dr." Nelson's illustrious career can be found at

http://www.fairlds.o.../liw/liwv1.html

Hi!

Would you please tell me more about Dee Jay Nelson?  I'm about to have a conversation about him on another board.



MorningStar

[TrespassersW]

The FAIR section provides these links:
http://www.lightplan...onse/deejay.htm
http://www.mormonfor...om/nelson1.html
Also, they recommend the book They Lie in Wait to Deceive (volumne I deals with Dee Jay Nelson, IIRC). It's a pretty good series. A bit mean-spirited, IMO, but excellent information for anyone who might have been tempted to take "Dr." Nelson seriously.

[golddigger]

dragonslayer, on Jan 25 2005, 07:20 PM, said:

It has nothing to do with what the actual translations are. The Egyptologists are not in the correct "Spiritual Plane" , so they will never be able to translate them properly.

Interestingly enough, the Dead Sea scrolls can be translated into the Book of Breathings, if you are in the correct "spiritual plane".  This is a proven fact.

Oh, so that explains the Kinderhook plates.  I guess Jo could make up stories from anything with scribbles on it, whether it was authentic or not since he was on a different "spiritual plane" than most.