Js Manual -- Deletion From Wentworth Letter

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm also not aware of quotes that discount a hemispheric belief. In fact, it seems to me that every time JS had a chance to identify some artifact, ruin, or Native People, he referred to them in terms of the Book of Mormon.

I believe you; you aren't aware of the quotes.

Lets look at it his way. When I was younger I was lead to believe that the hemispheric belief is what actually happened.

Same.

I was in error.

Same.

[phaedrus ut]

I don't have the book with me, so you'll have to wait until tomorrow for specific quotes, but Terryl Givens covers this at some length in one of his earlier tomes.

I'll post the relevant quotes and citations tomorrow.

If you are referring to By the Hand of Mormon the only relevant discussion is on pages 127 & 128. There is no mention of Joseph discounting the hemispheric model at all.

Phaedrus

//It's funny I just reread a bunch of Givens book after first reading it 5 years ago. Back then I thought it was generally accurate and only slightly apologetic. It's amazing how different it looks now.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I believe you; you aren't aware of the quotes.

Same.

Same.

I think alot of us might be lead to believe this was the case. I know I actually formed thes opinions of my by myself. AS I hadnt read any church history. I just remeber reading the introduction to the BoM and thinking that is what they were talking about.

[Doctor Steuss]

If you are referring to By the Hand of Mormon the only relevant discussion is on pages 127 & 128. There is no mention of Joseph discounting the hemispheric model at all.

Phaedrus

Although Joseph did indeed make comments about events occurring in Central/South America, overall my impression (when his comments regarding North America are taken into account) is that if anything, he felt that the events took place over all of the Americas. However, in a way Iâ??m not real sure he was certain as to the actual locations, and tended to be somewhat malleable in his overall views.

My thoughts anyway.

//It's funny I just reread a bunch of Givens book after first reading it 5 years ago. Back then I thought it was generally accurate and only slightly apologetic. It's amazing how different it looks now.

Although apologetic in nature, I felt that By the Hand of Mormon was somewhat careful as to not go into overwhelming detail in regards to the "evidences" as to allow the reader(s) to do their own in-depth research if they chose.

*shrugs*

[LifeOnaPlate]

Although Joseph did indeed make comments about events occurring in Central/South America, overall my impression (when his comments regarding North America are taken into account) is that if anything, he felt that the events took place over all of the Americas. However, in a way Iâ??m not real sure he was certain as to the actual locations, and tended to be somewhat malleable in his overall views.

My thoughts anyway.

Although apologetic in nature, I felt that By the Hand of Mormon was somewhat careful as to not go into overwhelming detail in regards to the "evidences" as to allow the reader(s) to do their own in-depth research if they chose.

*shrugs*

But it didn't defraud Joseph Smith, so boo to it.

[selek]

If you are referring to By the Hand of Mormon the only relevant discussion is on pages 127 & 128. There is no mention of Joseph discounting the hemispheric model at all.

Phaedrus

I'm not sure if that's the title I'm thinking of or not, but if it is, then it is still clear that the hemispheric model was not and has not been the only school of thought on the matter.

I think Calmoriah's post is an accurate summation of my position, as well. As Stuess pointed out, the Mormon leadership has always been willing to accept new evidence on the issue, and there are statements which can be construed to support both arguments.

I won't for a moment argue that the hemispheric model has not been the prevailing conventional wisdom, but I will contest that it has been 1) the only wisdom on the matter and 2) the idea that it is a recent development. The historical record simply does not support such revisionist thinking.

It's funny I just reread a bunch of Givens book after first reading it 5 years ago. Back then I thought it was generally accurate and only slightly apologetic. It's amazing how different it looks now.

It's amazing how our perception of many things change as we age. Do you think your changing perceptions somehow invalidate the facts and ideas presented in the book or merely your perception of them?

I'm still not terribly keen on stirring the tea leaves or taking a show of hands on an anonymous message board in an attempt to divine the committee's motivations in committing the omission. I also stand by my assertion that the correct way to find out what they were thinking is to ask them.

Anything else is, in my opinion, still baseless speculation and gutless carping. IMNSHO, all of the second guessing about what and why is little more than gossip being committed by those who lack the inspiration, wisdom, and responsibility to make the actual decisions.

If you haven't walked in their moccasins and are not called or commissioned to make those kinds of decisions, who are you to question their motives and decisions?

Frankly, it offends me to see a gaggle of critics and wanna-be's clucking and cackling with a self-important air about something they know little to nothing about.

[The Dude]

I believe you; you aren't aware of the quotes.

Am I the only one who is in awe at the depth of LOP's recent posts? In the last 24 hrs especially. My how the discussion board has moved along with LOP's help.

Still patiently waiting for Selek to share the quotes, since LOP obviously isn't gonna supply them.

[why me]

I haven't checked the manual for this letter. However, usually when something is left out or cut, it is duly noted by ..... or something like it. The reader is aware of a deletion to the orginal. Now when an entire paragraph is deleted I am not sure if dots are necessary. However, there should be some notice of an abridgement. If not, well, it can be considered not intellectually honest by some academics. However, I am not sure of protocol in such cases. I have my opinion which I just stated.

The church should explain itself is something 'dubious' is at work here.

[Teancum]

Your litany of on-the-street-corner self congratulations not withstanding, it is you who are ark-steadying and nit-picking. It is you who, rather than asking your questions of those commissioned and charged with producing the materials, instead go to an unrelated message board and demand that we mindread and speculate without basis or foundation on the motives of those so commissioned.

That's not the behavior of someone demanding answers, but of someone looking for something to kvetch about. It is not the behavior of someone with an honest inquiry, but of an apostate in training looking for reasons to leave.

In your opinion. Unfortunately, it is only your opinion- nothing more.

Some people need help in exposing their sophistries, errors, and presumptions. You are not one of these.

Perhaps, but then again, perhaps you simply find the truth to be hard.

A lot of words. No substance. Hot air

So why did the Church leave out the paragraph? And where did JS say anything other then a hemispheric model and where did he say something about the America Indian not being Lamanites?

Thank you once again for more ad hominem.

[Teancum]

Frankly, it offends me to see a gaggle of critics and wanna-be's clucking and cackling with a self-important air about something they know little to nothing about.

It seem that most the time anything that you consider critical you are offended. And many who birng the issues up do know something about it.

As noted in my post, I never said this was a doctrinal matter. But it is pretty clear that the prevailing view of the BoM people that most Church leaders and manuals and on and on have presented over the almost entire history of the Church is a hemispheric model. Even the revelation in the D&C that sent Oliver and Parley Pratt on a mission to Missouri tells them to go the the borders of the Lamanites.

Now within a short time we see the change in the BoM intro that is less forceful about the Laminites being the principle ancestor of the Lehi and we see a whole paragraph on the same subject left out of a major letter written by JS and included in a manual about his teachings. I do not think my conclusion that the Church is now leaving out stuff that establishes a hemispheric model unresonable. Again, I ask you what is your explanation.

[cksalmon]

Am I the only one who is in awe at the depth of LOP's recent posts? In the last 24 hrs especially. My how the discussion board has moved along with LOP's help.

Still patiently waiting for Selek to share the quotes, since LOP obviously isn't gonna supply them.

What? You think it's easy to rack up 5059 posts in only eleven months?

You try it, then.

[/ribbing]

CKS

[selek]

It seem that most the time anything that you consider critical you are offended. And many who birng the issues up do know something about it.

Are you one of them?

As noted in my post, I never said this was a doctrinal matter. But it is pretty clear that the prevailing view of the BoM people that most Church leaders and manuals and on and on have presented over the almost entire history of the Church is a hemispheric model. Even the revelation in the D&C that sent Oliver and Parley Pratt on a mission to Missouri tells them to go the the borders of the Lamanites.

Then we are in agreement- the hemispheric model was the prevailing conventional wisdom. I don't dispute that......only that it was the only or correct school of thought.

Now within a short time we see the change in the BoM intro that is less forceful about the Laminites being the principle ancestor of the Lehi and we see a whole paragraph on the same subject left out of a major letter written by JS and included in a manual about his teachings. I do not think my conclusion that the Church is now leaving out stuff that establishes a hemispheric model unresonable. Again, I ask you what is your explanation.

I've told you once already that I don't have the volume at my fingertips but will provide the quotes tomorrow.

Also, the revision to the frontspiece of the Book of Mormon was according to my understanding at least made to reduce confusion amongst those desperate to find it rather than a retraction or retreat from our previous claims. "Principal" has been something of a hobby-horse to those who would make the Church offenders for a word.

As to my "explanation", I think I've been patently clear that the explanation lies with those who made the decision rather than in forcing particpants on these boards to read minds, tea-leaves, or the entrails of recently slaughtered trolls.

[phaedrus ut]

I won't for a moment argue that the hemispheric model has not been the prevailing conventional wisdom, but I will contest that it has been 1) the only wisdom on the matter and 2) the idea that it is a recent development. The historical record simply does not support such revisionist thinking.

I'm in agreement with you here. My suggestion is that it's highly unlikely that Joseph Smith could be so misguided as the present consensus toward LGT suggests. After receiving his instruction from Moroni, Nephi, Alma, and Mormon Joseph would tell his family very detailed stories about the ancient inhabitants of this continent. He did so according to his mother "as if he had spent his whole life among them". After all these years of angellic tutelege he translates their story from the Plates of Lehi, then the same story from the Plates of Nephi.

After access to all these unique resources somehow it's ok to assume that Joseph is ignorant and others with less information are more informed?

Is it really that likely he could have been that wrong? Why would he identify Chile as Lehi's point of landing, why would he find Zelph's bones in Illinois, or the Nephite Tower in Missouri?

It's amazing how our perception of many things change as we age. Do you think your changing perceptions somehow invalidate the facts and ideas presented in the book or merely your perception of them?

Specifically, I read his discussion of the Isaiah and Sermon at the Temple problems in the BOM. The difference between then and now is that I'm a lot more informed on the subject matter and now familar with the sources he cites.

Phaedrus

[why me]

Checking the manual I discovered that the wentworth letter chapter has footnotes. It seems that there were two versions of the letter. Check the footnotes under # 3 I believe. Most likely, the part missing was in the early version. Perhaps the later version of the letter includes the missing part. I am sure that the different dates of the letters may have something to do with the missing paragraph. It is a possiblity.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Am I the only one who is in awe at the depth of LOP's recent posts? In the last 24 hrs especially. My how the discussion board has moved along with LOP's help.

Still patiently waiting for Selek to share the quotes, since LOP obviously isn't gonna supply them.

A few thoughts: Glad I can help "move things along." Also, I don't feel disposed to go find all the references to Joseph Smith's views on the subject of BoM geography as they adapted over time. Frankly, the best evidence against such a proposition is that the critics haven't jumped on it accusing JS of "changing his story." Perhaps it hasn't struck them as a possibility for which their quote mining would assist in sending up the flag pole.

I have to be utterly honest and tell you I don't make great efforts to supply you, The Dude, with any information. If I can recall or reference something off the top of my head, I will go ahead and do so. Apparently you expect a higher standard of me, and that is a compliment, but one that I am not likely to live up to, I confess.

Lastly, if Joseph Smith, to his dying day, believed in the hemispheric model it wouldn't really bother me; it's a peripheral issue as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps you can accuse me of "turning off the critical thinking in my brain" in order to reach such a strange conclusion, and that might help you sleep better at night, or let you feel like you have scored some imaginary points against me. That's fine.

What? You think it's easy to rack up 5059 posts in only eleven months?

You try it, then.

[/ribbing]

CKS

If only I had some other hobby. Like, for example, making fun little comics ridiculing another Christian religion.

[The Dude]

Apparently you expect a higher standard of me, and that is a compliment, but one that I am not likely to live up to, I confess.

On this board you seem quite comfortable and a bit lazy. On Mormondiscussions, where the company is not so supportive, your posts are more worthwhild. Just an observation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

On this board you seem quite comfortable and a bit lazy. On Mormondiscussions, where the company is not so supportive, your posts are more worthwhild. Just an observation.

Depends largely on the topic and time of day. Sometimes I am too preoccupied to give a fuller response. Sometimes I am far from qualified in sounding off, but being who I am, feel compelled to stick my big nose in just about everything. Sometimes these instances have led me to re-evaluate former thoughts, ideas, views, or led me to look further into subjects I didn't have interest in before.

[phaedrus ut]

Checking the manual I discovered that the wentworth letter chapter has footnotes. It seems that there were two versions of the letter. Check the footnotes under # 3 I believe. Most likely, the part missing was in the early version. Perhaps the later version of the letter includes the missing part. I am sure that the different dates of the letters may have something to do with the missing paragraph. It is a possiblity.

What makes it most likely "the part missing was in the early version"? I can't see anything that makes it likely at all other than some crazy wild speculation. Here is the same paragraph in the second version of the "wentworth letter." This one was sent to I. Daniel Rupp for his book An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States

One interesting point about the second version of the letter. Joseph made some minor changes and this was 2 months before his death so in many ways this letter reflects among his final opinions on matters of the church and its teachings.

Here is the paragraph in question in the "Rupp" version of the letter:

In this important and interesting book, the history of ancient America is unfolded from its first settlement by a colony that came from the tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages, to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era.

We are informed by these records that America in ancient times, has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites, and came directly from the tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians who now inhabit this country.

I can't see any changes.

Phaedrus

[It occurs to me . . .]

I've told you once already that I don't have the volume at my fingertips but will provide the quotes tomorrow.

Bumping for Selek. I'm interested in reading the reference.

[mms]

I would like to see the quotes, also.

[The Dude]

Statements by JS discounting the hemispheric model... maybe they don't exist?

Okay, so Josphe Smith lived his entire life under the misconception that BoM people lived all over the Americas and not in some tiny corner of Central America. Big deal! Mormons have overcome greater disappointments.

Right?

Correct geography is not important for salvation anyways.

Right?

[sunstoned]

I haven't checked the manual for this letter. However, usually when something is left out or cut, it is duly noted by ..... or something like it. The reader is aware of a deletion to the orginal. Now when an entire paragraph is deleted I am not sure if dots are necessary. However, there should be some notice of an abridgement. If not, well, it can be considered not intellectually honest by some academics. However, I am not sure of protocol in such cases. I have my opinion which I just stated.

The church should explain itself is something 'dubious' is at work here.

Leaving no note or comment that this letter has been altered from its original form is intellectually dishonest. I can't imagine how the committee could believe this would go unnoticed. Didn't they learn anything from the feedback on BY manual?

[spinner]

Leaving no note or comment that this letter has been altered from its original form is intellectually dishonest. I can't imagine how the committee could believe this would go unnoticed. Didn't they learn anything from the feedback on BY manual?

Anyone who provides negative feedback on church manuals is either an apostate or is soon to be one, and the only place where such feedback should be dealt with is in church discplinary councils.

[mms]

I've told you once already that I don't have the volume at my fingertips but will provide the quotes tomorrow.

Emphasis supplied.

Might someone help Selek out, here?

[gtaggart]

Leaving no note or comment that this letter has been altered from its original form is intellectually dishonest. I can't imagine how the committee could believe this would go unnoticed. Didn't they learn anything from the feedback on BY manual?

Maybe you and whyme should read the part of the new manual in question. The omissions are noted with elipses. Standard practice. Puts the reader on notice. If the reader even reads the manual. Hint. Hint.