New Narrative History - Chapter 1

[hope_for_things]

The church has posted chapter one of their new narrative history that was announced last year.  

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/02/chapter-1-ask-in-faith?lang=eng

 

[The Nehor]

Neat. For the most part I liked it. Not sure what the point of the natural disaster rundown at the beginning was. No, I know why it was there. I just disagree with putting it there.

[hope_for_things]

So just a couple comments on this new narrative history.  There is a different style to the writing which is interesting and engaging and I really like that.  I like that they brought the year without a summer context into this narrative and the poor conditions that the Smiths were brought into, I think that sets an important stage.  

However, I’m concerned after reading this first chapter that the overall narrative will intentionally avoid all the warts and try to present a very crafted tale.  A couple things I saw here, one is the mentioning of Joseph not taking any alcohol during his leg surgery and then later when Mr. Howard took advantage of the Smiths, Lucy finds him in a bar.  I get the impression that these selected elements are no coincidence, that they are already trying to present a very polished picture of the Smiths and leaving out the falures.  

For example, no discussion of Joseph Sr’s failure with the ginseng investment sceme that brought them to this poor financial situation.  Also, when mentioning alcohol and the bar, they might also mention Joseph Sr’s troubles with alcohol himself?  

I hate to sound this suspicious, but I was looking forward to more responsible telling of the complicated history, and after chapter one I’m sensing a much more whitewashed approach.  Maybe I’ll be proven wrong in future chapters, I can only hope.  

What do others think about this?  

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So just a couple comments on this new narrative history.  There is a different style to the writing which is interesting and engaging and I really like that.  I like that they brought the year without a summer context into this narrative and the poor conditions that the Smiths were brought into, I think that sets an important stage.  

However, I’m concerned after reading this first chapter that the overall narrative will intentionally avoid all the warts and try to present a very crafted tale.  A couple things I saw here, one is the mentioning of Joseph not taking any alcohol during his leg surgery and then later when Mr. Howard took advantage of the Smiths, Lucy finds him in a bar.  I get the impression that these selected elements are no coincidence, that they are already trying to present a very polished picture of the Smiths and leaving out the falures.  

For example, no discussion of Joseph Sr’s failure with the ginseng investment sceme that brought them to this poor financial situation.  Also, when mentioning alcohol and the bar, they might also mention Joseph Sr’s troubles with alcohol himself?  

I hate to sound this suspicious, but I was looking forward to more responsible telling of the complicated history, and after chapter one I’m sensing a much more whitewashed approach.  Maybe I’ll be proven wrong in future chapters, I can only hope.  

What do others think about this?  

I saw reference to the ginseng fraud in reference to the Smith family's failed investments.

I do not expect a reference to Joseph Sr. struggling with alcohol. I did not believe this was going to be a "warts and all" history so I do not share your disappointment.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I saw reference to the ginseng fraud in reference to the Smith family's failed investments.

I do not expect a reference to Joseph Sr. struggling with alcohol. I did not believe this was going to be a "warts and all" history so I do not share your disappointment.

Thanks, I didn’t look at all the footnotes yet, but I’ll check it out.  

And I’m by no means expecting a warts and all history, but somewhere marginally more realistic and honest than in the past.  

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So just a couple comments on this new narrative history.  There is a different style to the writing which is interesting and engaging and I really like that.  I like that they brought the year without a summer context into this narrative and the poor conditions that the Smiths were brought into, I think that sets an important stage.  

However, I’m concerned after reading this first chapter that the overall narrative will intentionally avoid all the warts and try to present a very crafted tale.  A couple things I saw here, one is the mentioning of Joseph not taking any alcohol during his leg surgery and then later when Mr. Howard took advantage of the Smiths, Lucy finds him in a bar.  I get the impression that these selected elements are no coincidence, that they are already trying to present a very polished picture of the Smiths and leaving out the falures.  

For example, no discussion of Joseph Sr’s failure with the ginseng investment sceme that brought them to this poor financial situation.  Also, when mentioning alcohol and the bar, they might also mention Joseph Sr’s troubles with alcohol himself?  

I hate to sound this suspicious, but I was looking forward to more responsible telling of the complicated history, and after chapter one I’m sensing a much more whitewashed approach.  Maybe I’ll be proven wrong in future chapters, I can only hope.  Lot

What do others think about this?  

Lots of rosey colored adjectives here.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I didn’t look at all the footnotes yet, but I’ll check it out.  

And I’m by no means expecting a warts and all history, but somewhere marginally more realistic and honest than in the past.  

So who are you saying was dishonest in the past, HFT?

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

So who are you saying was dishonest in the past, HFT?

The church’s whitewashed history.  Pick you manual or video presentation they all pretty much fit the bill to one degree or another.  

[Atheist Mormon]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The church’s whitewashed history.  Pick you manual or video presentation they all pretty much fit the bill to one degree or another.  

I don't understand you.....What you want them to write? Would it be more honest for them to start from MMM that a dozen rogue members killed 130 people? Yes...it looked out of touch with the real history of the Church too....but what can they do besides emphasizing the positive spin? It is up to investigators to do the research...I have couple former TBM friends who always lament "I wish I knew 20 years before what I know now".....

What can anybody say to that.....except it was his own fault...The information was out there all along. 

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't understand you.....What you want them to write? Would it be more honest for them to start from MMM that a dozen rogue members killed 130 people? Yes...it looked out of touch with the real history of the Church too....but what can they do besides emphasizing the positive spin? It is up to investigators to do the research...I have couple former TBM friends who always lament "I wish I knew 20 years before what I know now".....

What can anybody say to that.....except it was his own fault...The information was out there all along. 

I've thought a lot about this issue of feeling that the church lied about its history. I can understand how an organization doesn't want to lead with dirty laundry when it speaks about its past and certainly the information was out there. However, there was always this group pressure to view everything in a faithful way, promulgated by the church leaders.  The past was mythologized under the guise of correlation. They wanted the members to remain in a faithful cocoon. So, it has to be a little shocking when someone realizes the past is full of human apostles and prophets that made a lot of mistakes like the rest of us.

[MiserereNobis]

Why the focus on Joseph Smith not taking alcohol during his leg surgery? It  it doesn’t make sense to me  why this is supposed to make him look good. It would seem awfully strange for someone to deny anesthesia during surgery today and then hold that up as a sign of better character.

 If I am misreading the intent of the story, why is it included? 

 

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The church’s whitewashed history.  Pick you manual or video presentation they all pretty much fit the bill to one degree or another.  

Only to the most determined accusers of the brethren.

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't understand you.....What you want them to write? Would it be more honest for them to start from MMM that a dozen rogue members killed 130 people? Yes...it looked out of touch with the real history of the Church too....but what can they do besides emphasizing the positive spin? It is up to investigators to do the research...I have couple former TBM friends who always lament "I wish I knew 20 years before what I know now".....

What can anybody say to that.....except it was his own fault...The information was out there all along. 

I think more responsible portraits of history is what I expect in our modern age.  We see this happening throughout society with the histories being written and about institutions.  I don’t expect them to emphasize and highlight the negative aspects though.  Some middle ground seems reasonable.  

[janderich]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why the focus on Joseph Smith not taking alcohol during his leg surgery? It  it doesn’t make sense to me  why this is supposed to make him look good. It would seem awfully strange for someone to deny anesthesia during surgery today and then hold that up as a sign of better character.

 If I am misreading the intent of the story, why is it included? 

George MacDonald was a Scottish preacher. The story of his father's leg surgery is strangely similar to the story of Joseph Smith's surgery. Here is the relevant portion: 

Quote

The patriarch of the MacDonald family relied on the teachings of the Bible for his religious succor rather than regular attendance at the local Presbyterian Church. He was a man of extraordinary toughness and strength of will. When George was less than a year old his father had been suffering for some time from what was then called “white swelling” and was actually tuberculosis attacking the joints rather than the lungs. George Sr. had been bothered for two years with a swelling in one of his knees and the usual treatments had been unsuccessful. He and his doctor decided to go ahead with amputation of the leg above the knee. George Sr. insisted that the operation be carried out with no consumption of alcohol to dull the pain (it ws the only form of anesthesia available in 1825) and that his face remain uncovered so that he could watch the procedure. According to Greville MacDonald, George MacDonald Jr.’s son and biographer, the man made just one grant [grunt] as the doctor cut into his skin and maintained a stoic silence after that. (see The Life and Times of George MacDonald, by Golgotha Press)

 As is stated, this story of George MacDonald Sr. is provided to show his strength of will. This was likely Lucy Mack Smith's reason for providing the very similar story regarding her son. I don't know if Lucy Mack Smith had heard this story when she wrote her biography of Joseph but it appears Joseph didn't strictly reject alcohol. In fact Richard Lyman Bushman in Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling says frankly, "From time to time he [Joseph] drank too much." (p. 43). He provides this additional detail in the end notes:

Quote

Martin Harris was brought before a high council ins 1834 for saying Joseph drank while translating the Book of Mormon. Harris said the drinking happened before the translation began. Kirtland High Council, Minutes, Feb 12, 1834. Josiah Stowell Jr., who knew Joseph Smith from about 1825 through 1827, said Joseph took a glass but never got drunk. Ashurst-McGee, "Josiah Stowell Jr.," 113. For references to Joseph's drinking, see EMD, 2:22, n.4.

So to me this whole story about Joseph not taking alcohol during his operation seems to be at odds with his later life. For instance, why was he so against taking alcohol when he was a boy but then drank on occasion when he was a young man? Even when he was older he was not strictly apposed to alcohol.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why the focus on Joseph Smith not taking alcohol during his leg surgery? It  it doesn’t make sense to me  why this is supposed to make him look good. It would seem awfully strange for someone to deny anesthesia during surgery today and then hold that up as a sign of better character.

 If I am misreading the intent of the story, why is it included? 

 

This story has been used in Mormonism for a very long time as evidence of Joseph’s strength and even righteousness and it also implies his foresight towards the word of wisdom.  What I’ve never heard mentioned at church is that Joseph uses alcohol throughout his life before and after the WoW.  

Edited January 21, 2018 by hope_for_things

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't understand you.....What you want them to write? Would it be more honest for them to start from MMM that a dozen rogue members killed 130 people? Yes...it looked out of touch with the real history of the Church too....but what can they do besides emphasizing the positive spin? It is up to investigators to do the research...I have couple former TBM friends who always lament "I wish I knew 20 years before what I know now".....

What can anybody say to that.....except it was his own fault...The information was out there all along. 

Heya...do you want the truth or do you want a positive spin?  You take your pick..you and others say prophets are just men who make mistakes...so admit it and don't put it in the middle of a magazine but teach it!

[janderich]

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This story has been used in Mormonism for a very long time as evidence of Joseph’s strength and even righteousness and it also implies his foresight towards the word of wisdom.  What I’ve never heard mentioned at church is that Joseph uses alcohol throughout his life before and after the WoW.  

Right. It might tarnish the image of Joseph in the minds of the saints so it is not discussed.  

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Heya...do you want the truth or do you want a positive spin?  You take your pick..you and others say prophets are just men who make mistakes...so admit it and don't put it in the middle of a magazine but teach it!

Again.......I'm going to put in those magazines whatever works (or sells)......So far so good.

[Calm]

"From time to time he [Joseph] drank too much."

"Joseph took a glass but never got drunk"

This conclusion seems to be contradicted by his own footnote.  I don't have the book any more, can you please supply the references he gives for "too much"?

[janderich]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

"From time to time he [Joseph] drank too much."

"Joseph took a glass but never got drunk"

This conclusion seems to be contradicted by his own footnote.  I don't have the book any more, can you please supply the references he gives for "too much"?

The context of Bushman's quote is in regards to Joseph's statement wherein he said, "I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the corruption of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations to the gratification of many appetites offensive in the sight of God.” (Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:275–76). 

Here are the references he gives: 

BofC, 24:5 (D&C, 20:5);

Man H A-1 (Manuscript History of the Church)

PJS 1:276 n.  (The Papers of Joseph Smith)

Saints' Herald, June 1, 1881, 163, 167. Here is a link to an online version which has interviews and statements about Joseph's drinking: http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/il/sain1872.htm#060181

Edited January 22, 2018 by janderich

[Calm]

Thank you.

From the link, it appears most had either not seen him drink at all or seen him drink, but not into excess.

The Papers and D&C are not specific, even if it is a good guess.

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/19/2018 at 8:10 PM, The Nehor said:

Neat. For the most part I liked it. Not sure what the point of the natural disaster rundown at the beginning was. No, I know why it was there. I just disagree with putting it there.

It sets up the Smith family’s move to Palmyra where Joseph would have access to the plates. 

[kiwi57]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why the focus on Joseph Smith not taking alcohol during his leg surgery? It  it doesn’t make sense to me  why this is supposed to make him look good. It would seem awfully strange for someone to deny anesthesia during surgery today and then hold that up as a sign of better character.

 If I am misreading the intent of the story, why is it included? 

 

Instead of looking for ulterior motives, why not consider this possibility: maybe it was included because it happened that way.

Well, how about it?

[Maureen]

8 hours ago, janderich said:

...So to me this whole story about Joseph not taking alcohol during his operation seems to be at odds with his later life. For instance, why was he so against taking alcohol when he was a boy but then drank on occasion when he was a young man? Even when he was older he was not strictly apposed to alcohol.  

For one thing, he was just a boy. I doubt, even in his family and culture, children were typically offered alcohol. The operation would have been a different circumstance.

M.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Instead of looking for ulterior motives, why not consider this possibility: maybe it was included because it happened that way.

Well, how about it?

I never disputed it happened that way. I was just wondering why the focus on it when, as others have pointed out, alcohol was a part of Joseph Smith's life.

Look, kiwi, I don't want to fight with you on multiple threads. I'm not out to score points or drag people away from Mormonism or any such thing. I'm not Mormon and I have my own good reasons not to be but I am not an "anti-Mormon." I make comments based on my questions and observations so I can learn and so that a good discussion can happen, too. I promise you, I am a friend to Mormonism in the traditional Catholic world. Please take my questions, observations, and criticisms in that light. If you don't trust my word, then review my postings.