Js Manual -- Deletion From Wentworth Letter

[Kevin Christensen]

Nowdays, it seems to me that no one should discuss the Wentworth Letter without mentioning that the key passage appears to be Joseph Smith's borrowing from an earlier 1840 publication by Orson Pratt. See FARMS Review 15:2, page 98, "Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Population" by Matt Roper.

I personally see reason to suppose that any comment by Joseph Smith or any LDS leader that is inconsitent with the Book of Mormon is anything but one of those moments that D&C 1 says to expect: "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest..."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[selek]

Nowdays, it seems to me that no one should discuss the Wentworth Letter without mentioning that the key passage appears to be Joseph Smith's borrowing from an earlier 1840 publication by Orson Pratt. See FARMS Review 15:2, page 98, "Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Population" by Matt Roper.

I personally see reason to suppose that any comment by Joseph Smith or any LDS leader that is inconsitent with the Book of Mormon is anything but one of those moments that D&C 1 says to expect: "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest..."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

And inasmuch as I have erred, it is manifest.

Upon review, it is fairly obvious that I overstated the impact of the quotes- they do not specifically refute the Hemispheric theory, but rather endorse the findings then coming out of Central America as further evidences for the book of Mormon.

My apologies for the error.

[selek]

Emphasis supplied.

Might someone help Selek out, here?

I will be continuing to look for further notes, MMS, but you of all people- with your busy schedule of writing checks for poor orphans, single handedly correcting the misgivings and errors of Mormons throughout the world, teaching the First Presidency the real, true meaning of our scriptures , and substituting for Martha Stewart while the two of you alternate prison time- should be able to grasp the concept that real life occasionally intrudes upon our ability to post.

I responded as quickly as I was able given the other challenges in my life.

Thank you for your inestimable patience along with all your other valiant good deeds.

Guess that's life on a street corner.

[LifeOnaPlate]

And inasmuch as I have erred, it is manifest.

Upon review, it is fairly obvious that I overstated the impact of the quotes- they do not specifically refute the Hemispheric theory, but rather endorse the findings then coming out of Central America as further evidences for the book of Mormon.

My apologies for the error.

I checked my book last night and discovered the same. One thing I remain convinced of, is that Smith's views on the subject were fairly malleable.

[John Williams]

Nowdays, it seems to me that no one should discuss the Wentworth Letter without mentioning that the key passage appears to be Joseph Smith's borrowing from an earlier 1840 publication by Orson Pratt. See FARMS Review 15:2, page 98, "Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Population" by Matt Roper.

I personally see reason to suppose that any comment by Joseph Smith or any LDS leader that is inconsitent with the Book of Mormon is anything but one of those moments that D&C 1 says to expect: "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest..."

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I find it odd that anyone thinks a hemispheric model is clearly inconsistent with the Book of Mormon text. If it were, generations of Mormons, including prophets, seers, and revelators, would have figured it out long ago, one would expect. It's even stranger to believe that the translator of the book, who according to his mother had been telling stories of what he had seen the Lamanites and Nephites do for years, could be so completely off in his estimation of the location of the events described.

[selek]

I checked my book last night and discovered the same. One thing I remain convinced of, is that Smith's views on the subject were fairly malleable.

Which is why I'm still looking for quotes- I remember very clearly reading on these boards (though not clearly enough to locate the $#%@$% things), quotes from Brother Joseph and the early brethren which placed emphasis more on Central America than northern.

I am also mildly intrigued by Givens' general bent that early Mormons tended to look at the Book of Mormon as something of a solution waiting for a problem- and an answer to all of the ruins then becoming extant North and South.

I think it fair to say (as does Givens) that Mormons have tended to err enthusiastically towards any 'proof' and sometimes been bitten for it. The Kinderhook plates and Hoffman forgeries seem to be excellent examples- there was an enthusiastic reception (and a lot of hype) around what was later revealed to be a forgery- and by the grace of God alone, the trap was not sprung in a way to bring discredit or condemnation on the Church.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I find it odd that anyone thinks a hemispheric model is clearly inconsistent with the Book of Mormon text. If it were, generations of Mormons, including prophets, seers, and revelators, would have figured it out long ago, one would expect. It's even stranger to believe that the translator of the book, who according to his mother had been telling stories of what he had seen the Lamanites and Nephites do for years, could be so completely off in his estimation of the location of the events described.

Those more closely connected to the events of the "coming forth" of the Book of Mormon, in my opinion, may be more likely to see a hemispheric model based on the Hill Cumorah. If they believed the last battle in the Book of Mormon (within the Book of Mormon) took place in New York, it would seem reasonable to believe a hemispheric model.

[selek]

I find it odd that anyone thinks a hemispheric model is clearly inconsistent with the Book of Mormon text. If it were, generations of Mormons, including prophets, seers, and revelators, would have figured it out long ago, one would expect. It's even stranger to believe that the translator of the book, who according to his mother had been telling stories of what he had seen the Lamanites and Nephites do for years, could be so completely off in his estimation of the location of the events described.

Two things, JW. First and foremost, do you really think rank-and-file Mormons (or any other Christians) really research their religious texts from a logistical standpoint?

I genuinely doubt it. Most tend to accept the stories more or less "at face value" and concentrate on the larger morals and allegories than on precisely how much weight a camel can carry from Bethlehem to Smyrna and how many miles it can travel per day.

Look at the arduous journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem: It's farther (IIRC) from Salt Lake to Provo, but the contemporary image is one of a horrendously long trek (which, in fairness, it probably was being 9 1/2 months pregnant and either walking or riding on a donkey).

The other point to consider is Mother Smith's recountings of Joseph's wonderous stories took place many years after the fact, and were undoubtedly colored both by the passing of years and the testimony she had of her sons prophetic calling.

Discounting those stories based upon one recollection many years after the fact- especially when the details of those stories are not extant is a bit premature, don't you think? You're not critiquing what Joseph actually said in those stories (because you don't know what he said)- but are working merely from the recollections of a frail old woman who'd seen both wonders and tragedies great and small.

That's hardly a fair point of contention- anymore than it would be for me to critique your character based on your own mother's recollection of your childhood antics.

[selek]

Those more closely connected to the events of the "coming forth" of the Book of Mormon, in my opinion, may be more likely to see a hemispheric model based on the Hill Cumorah. If they believed the last battle in the Book of Mormon (within the Book of Mormon) took place in New York, it would seem reasonable to believe a hemispheric model.

Especially when you consider the miracles and Heavenly forethought they were witnessing every day. Given that they had faith to begin with, and then piling on the miraculous events in their lives, it is not unreasonable for them to believe in an even greater scope and expanse than what the evidence now supports after two hundred years of hindsight.

It's been said that one of the reasons that Jesus was rejected as messiah was because he didn't meet the contemporary expectations of a world-shattering upheaval and new political kingdom.

Yet his mission was every bit as world shattering as prophesied- just not in the manner his contemporaries expected.

Even many among the early Christians expected massive political change and a short Messianic return. Given that the early Christians expected a world-spanning and world-changing upheaval, why is it unreasonably for early Mormons (who lacked our evidence to the contrary) to expect such evidence to be continent wide?

It seems that many who knock the early Mormons for embracing the hemispheric theory are committing a type of presentist fallacy- they conveniently ignore that the data we now take for granted (which apparently undermine that theory) were either not available or were the stuff of legend.

[John Williams]

That's hardly a fair point of contention- anymore than it would be for me to critique your character based on your own mother's recollection of your childhood antics.

Actually, I'm thinking of what Joseph said about Zelph's being known from the Rockies to the Atlantic, to Nephite altars in Missouri, and his approving statements about ruins found in the Yucatan. However, as to your objection, are you suggesting that Lucy was wrong in her statement that Joseph often talked about the Lamanites/Nephites, their ways of life, manner of dress, customs, etc.? If he were that familiar with their way of life, it seems odd that he was so wrong in locating them geographically.

[selek]

Actually, I'm thinking of what Joseph said about Zelph's being known from the Rockies to the Atlantic, to Nephite altars in Missouri, and his approving statements about ruins found in the Yucatan. However, as to your objection, are you suggesting that Lucy was wrong in her statement that Joseph often talked about the Lamanites/Nephites, their ways of life, manner of dress, customs, etc.? If he were that familiar with their way of life, it seems odd that he was so wrong in locating them geographically.

I'm not suggesting that she was wrong that he often talked about them- after all, she was there.

I questioning how accurately the details he offered were conveyed in her recollections.

[John Williams]

I'm not suggesting that she was wrong that he often talked about them- after all, she was there.

I questioning how accurately the details he offered were conveyed in her recollections.

She didn't mention details, just that he knew their way of life down to their manner of dress. Joseph could have been wrong about BofM geography. Of course, he could have made it all up, too. Just saying.

[phaedrus ut]

Yes Givens points out that after reading Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan by John L. Stephens Joseph identified the ruins as Nephite ruins and validating the Book of Mormon. Joseph wrote a review of Stephens book for the Times and Seasons.

One interesting point is that in his review of the book Joseph once again affirmed the Isthmus of Darien(now called the Isthmus of Panama) as the narrow neck of land from the Book of Mormon that divided the land northward and the land southward and consequently "ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them".

Joseph goes on to strongly suggest the city of Quirigua is Zarahemla.

We are not going to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain, we are of opinion, that it would require more proof than the Jews could bring to prove the disciples stole the body of Jesus from the tomb, to prove that the ruins of the city in question, are not one of those referred to in the Book of Mormon.

Phaedrus

[LifeOnaPlate]

Actually, I'm thinking of what Joseph said about Zelph's being known from the Rockies to the Atlantic, to Nephite altars in Missouri, and his approving statements about ruins found in the Yucatan. However, as to your objection, are you suggesting that Lucy was wrong in her statement that Joseph often talked about the Lamanites/Nephites, their ways of life, manner of dress, customs, etc.? If he were that familiar with their way of life, it seems odd that he was so wrong in locating them geographically.

Are we going to assume that Moroni would have contained his explanations to the Book of Mormon text, or could he have included info regarding things he experienced after the last battle and before his death? Apparently he made it up to New York.

[selek]

Apparently he made it up to New York.

Apparently, he made it up to New York at least three times .

I wonder what his frequent flier miles look like..........

[selek]

She didn't mention details, just that he knew their way of life down to their manner of dress. Joseph could have been wrong about BofM geography. Of course, he could have made it all up, too. Just saying.

Quite true- he very well might have, but that's not something that the state of archaeology (then or now) will resolve to anyone's satisfaction.

Yes Givens points out that after reading Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan by John L. Stephens Joseph identified the ruins as Nephite ruins and validating the Book of Mormon. Joseph wrote a review of Stephens book for the Times and Seasons.

One interesting point is that in his review of the book Joseph once again affirmed the Isthmus of Darien(now called the Isthmus of Panama) as the narrow neck of land from the Book of Mormon that divided the land northward and the land southward and consequently "ruins of Zarahemla have been found where the Nephites left them".

Joseph goes on to strongly suggest the city of Quirigua is Zarahemla.

Phaedrus

But the question remains: were these semi-educated (or even bare-butted) guesses from an enthusiastic believer presented with complimentary evidence or were they "the word of the Lord as spoken by his prophet"?

Although many early Mormons embraced them as such, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything authoritative or definitive suggesting that they were any more than a widely held opinion (and one that is, perhaps, relatively widely held today).

In my opinion, mankind is far too quick to accept evidence that supports their presumptions and preconceptions. This isn't a strictly Mormon failing.

[phaedrus ut]

Quite true- he very well might have, but that's not something that the state of archaeology (then or now) will resolve to anyone's satisfaction.

But the question remains: were these semi-educated (or even bare-butted) guesses from an enthusiastic believer presented with complimentary evidence or were they "the word of the Lord as spoken by his prophet"?

I'm going to disagree with you here. Because when it comes to the Book of Mormon Joseph cannot be considered semi-educated. In fact excluding Mormon himself who both lived there and had access to the complete record there shouldn't be a more knowledgable, person past or present, regarding the history of these people.

• As I pointed out before, Joseph had intricate knowledge of the details of the BOM people even prior to him translating the records due to his angellic tutors.
  
• And after such time he read and translated more of the plates than any of the apologists now suggesting he was almost completely in error when it came to the history of these people.
  
• And unlike any of those presently speculating on the subject matter he was a prophet and called many of his identifications as "revelations".
  

Phaedrus

[selek]

I'm going to disagree with you here. Because when it comes to the Book of Mormon Joseph cannot be considered semi-educated. In fact excluding Mormon himself who both lived there and had access to the complete record there shouldn't be a more knowledgable, person past or present, regarding the history of these people.

[*]As I pointed out before, Joseph had intricate knowledge of the details of the BOM people even prior to him translating the records due to his angellic tutors.

Intricate does not equate to exhaustive.

[*]And after such time he read and translated more of the plates than any of the apologists now suggesting he was almost completely in error when it came to the history of these people.

Who among the apologists is suggesting he was completely in error? My only contention with his position is the idea that the Book of Mormon civilizations embraced a sort of Nephite Manifest Destiny. There is little in either the archaeological or the scriptural record to support such a notion.

[*]And unlike any of those presently speculating on the subject matter he was a prophet and called many of his identifications as "revelations".

Phaedrus

I like this "stick in the eye" teaser of yours, P. It has all the smug assurance of the apostate and the delicate nuance of the dishonest rhetorician, tinged with just a bit of subtle bitterness to balance the mixture.

Mormons can accept the concept that Joseph could have been a prophet and not been infallible, even if the anti's and apostates cannot.

Thank you for not projecting your assumptions onto us- it'll make the conversation go much smoother.

[mms]

I will be continuing to look for further notes, MMS, but you of all people- with your busy schedule of writing checks for poor orphans, single handedly correcting the misgivings and errors of Mormons throughout the world, teaching the First Presidency the real, true meaning of our scriptures , and substituting for Martha Stewart while the two of you alternate prison time- should be able to grasp the concept that real life occasionally intrudes upon our ability to post.

I responded as quickly as I was able given the other challenges in my life.

Thank you for your inestimable patience along with all your other valiant good deeds.

Guess that's life on a street corner.

Blah blah blah . . . Selek, look, I know you are embarrassed and you need someone on whom to take it out. I am happy to oblige. But maybe you should just go back to your cookie-baking instead of making statements on this board that you cannot back up?

[selek]

Blah blah blah . . . Selek, look, I know you are embarrassed and you need someone on whom to take it out. I am happy to oblige. But maybe you should just go back to your cookie-baking instead of making statements on this board that you cannot back up?

mms,

Once you put down the bowl of rice you're feeding to a starving child in Uganda, you'll realize that I cheerfully admitted I had misinterpreted and mischaracterized the quotes I'd seen.

Mea culpas don't get more much more plain than that.

My response to your snark was simply an acknowledgement that while I have still not attained your level of magnificence as a champion and protector of the poor, the downtrodden, the sniffly, and the whiny, real life does occasionally prevent me from responding as quickly as I'd like.

The others here seem to understand that, why can't you, oh benevolent wonder of the shady board?

Can't you fit a little sympathy for me in between double-checking God's choreography of the original manger scene (gotta make sure he get's it right, don't you) and your audit of Church finances?

[phaedrus ut]

Mormons can accept the concept that Joseph could have been a prophet and not been infallible, even if the anti's and apostates cannot.

Thank you for not projecting your assumptions onto us- it'll make the conversation go much smoother.

I'm not speaking of Joseph's life or other teachings. Just specifically items he declared he recieved by revelation. At what point did it become ok to dismiss what a prophet's revelations? And in doing so you are you declaring the revelation from God as flawed? Or do you declare the prophet as dishonest when he says he received revelation?

Phaedrus

[selek]

I'm not speaking of Joseph's life or other teachings. Just specifically items he declared he recieved by revelation. At what point did it become ok to dismiss what a prophet's revelations? And in doing so you are you declaring the revelation from God as flawed? Or do you declare the prophet as dishonest when he says he received revelation?

Phaedrus

I'd need to see much more specific references than you've provided.

And no, I don't declare Joseph to be dishonest, nor do I dismiss his genuine revelations- only your characterizations of them- and even that on a case-by-case basis.

[phaedrus ut]

And no, I don't declare Joseph to be dishonest, nor do I dismiss his genuine revelations- only your characterizations of them- and even that on a case-by-case basis.

Imagine a situation where something Joseph declared to be a revelation and the same revelation supports his view of a hemispheric. Would you be willing to say that either hemispheric geography for the BOM is correct or that Joseph's revelation was wrong?

Phaedrus

[selek]

Imagine a situation where something Joseph declared to be a revelation and the same revelation supports his view of a hemispheric. Would you be willing to say that either hemispheric geography for the BOM is correct or that Joseph's revelation was wrong?

Phaedrus

Not without specifics, no.

[mms]

mms,

Once you put down the bowl of rice you're feeding to a starving child in Uganda, you'll realize that I cheerfully admitted I had misinterpreted and mischaracterized the quotes I'd seen.

Mea culpas don't get more much more plain than that.

My response to your snark was simply an acknowledgement that while I have still not attained your level of magnificence as a champion and protector of the poor, the downtrodden, the sniffly, and the whiny, real life does occasionally prevent me from responding as quickly as I'd like.

The others here seem to understand that, why can't you, oh benevolent wonder of the shady board?

Can't you fit a little sympathy for me in between double-checking God's choreography of the original manger scene (gotta make sure he get's it right, don't you) and your audit of Church finances?

Done, yet?