Newly Disclovered William McLellin Journal

[dblagent007]

The Deseret News has an interesting article about a newly discovered journal of William McLellin. The article is here.

The interesting part is as follows:

Ashworth, however, sees the notebook as one of the most significant finds in the past 50 years because of an unexpected element: McLellin's faith in the Book of Mormon.

The notebook puts a story in context that was only partially known through the photograph and excerpt from the 1920s. McLellin asks his readers a question in a section titled, "The Testimony of Men." He says the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who said they saw an angel, "either told the truth or they willfully lied. How shall we tell which, how shall we know?"

McLellin then recounts a story of meeting two of the witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, in July 1833 in Missouri. McLellin and the two were in danger of their lives from anti-Mormon mobs. McLellin wrote:

"I said to them, 'Brethren, I never have seen an open vision in my life, but you men say you have, and therefore you positively know. Now, you know that our lives are in danger every hour, if the mob can only catch us. Tell me, in the fear of God, is that Book of Mormon true?' Cowdery looked at me with solemnity depicted in his face and said: 'Brother William, God sent his holy angel to declare the truth of the translation of it to us, and therefore we know. And though the mob kill us, yet we must die declaring its truth.' David said: 'Oliver has told you the solemn truth, for we could not be deceived. I most truly declare to you its truth!!' Said I: 'Boys, I believe you. I can see no object for you to tell me falsehood now, when our lives are endangered.' " (punctuation modernized)

Ashworth said: "This 'apostate' had a rock-solid testimony of the Book of Mormon. And you can extrapolate his belief in Joseph Smith. Obviously he believed Joseph Smith was a prophet at the beginning of the church."

Another surprise is McLellin's description of Joseph Smith as a student in McLellin's "High school" he taught during the winter of 1834. McLellin wrote: "I learned the strength of his mind as to the study and principles of science. ... And I here say that he had one of the strongest and well-balanced, penetrating and retentive minds of any man with whom I ever formed an acquaintance."

This new journal strongly corroborates the testimony of the three witnesses. It also provides some evidence that Joseph Smith was not a country bumpkin.

[katherine the great]

This new journal strongly corroborates the testimony of the three witnesses. It also provides some evidence that Joseph Smith was not a country bumpkin.

I certainly hope it never passed through Mark Hoffman's hands! (he forever tainted the credibility of "newly discovered" LDS documents!)

[annewandering]

I certainly hope it never passed through Mark Hoffman's hands! (he forever tainted the credibility of "newly discovered" LDS documents!)

No kidding. It sounds like a wonderful find. Hope it stands up to scrutiny.

[emeliza]

By 1834 Joseph was already running the Church. We know at that point he was trying to become more educated. I am not surprised he was in 'high school' at that point.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks for the tip.

[John Larsen]

The Deseret News has an interesting article about a newly discovered journal of William McLellin. The article is here.

The interesting part is as follows:

This new journal strongly corroborates the testimony of the three witnesses. It also provides some evidence that Joseph Smith was not a country bumpkin.

Of course, McLellin was setting up a false dichotomy that covers more complex explanation. They may have been telling the truth as they perceived it, but that does not prove the reality of the events.

[annewandering]

Of course, McLellin was setting up a false dichotomy that covers more complex explanation. They may have been telling the truth as they perceived it, but that does not prove the reality of the events.

Of course not. lol. Although the events were real. There will never be enough evidence to skeptics till Christ Himself says so face to face.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Of course, McLellin was setting up a false dichotomy that covers more complex explanation. They may have been telling the truth as they perceived it, but that does not prove the reality of the events.

I'm sure this wasn't intended to sound as frantic as it did, my friend!

[John Larsen]

I certainly hope it never passed through Mark Hoffman's hands! (he forever tainted the credibility of "newly discovered" LDS documents!)

True, and Hoffman was continually talking about having a McLellin journal. The possibility is there, even if remote. But I understand that Hoffman forgeries are pretty easy to spot for experts based on how he aged his ink.

Of course not. lol. Although the events were real. There will never be enough evidence to skeptics till Christ Himself says so face to face.

The same principle works in reverse.

[consiglieri]

Well, thank heaven he didn't start spouting off about a salamandar transfiguring into an angel and whopping Joe Smith upside the head!

I appreciate this link, and will incorporate it somehow into my Gospel Doctrine class either this week or next!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[dblagent007]

<br />Of course, McLellin was setting up a false dichotomy that covers more complex explanation. They may have been telling the truth as they perceived it, but that does not prove the reality of the events.<br />

Telling the truth as they perceived it is really all we can expect them to do. The fact that three people tell the same story even when disaffected from the church gives a lot of credibility to the reality of the events. An angelic visitation to three people at the same time seems to be something that would be difficult to fake or delude someone into believing.

[consiglieri]

An angelic visistation to three people at the same time seems to be something that would be difficult to fake or delude someone into believing.

And it is in the fiery crucible of the Missouri persecutions that we would expect the concoctions of frauds to grow cool.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[erichard]

The Deseret News has an interesting article about a newly discovered journal of William McLellin. The article is here.

...

This part is very faith promoting:

McLellin then recounts a story of meeting two of the witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, in July 1833 in Missouri.

McLellin and the two were in danger of their lives from anti-Mormon mobs. McLellin wrote:

"I said to them, 'Brethren, I never have seen an open vision in my life, but you men say you have, and therefore you positively know.

Now, you know that our lives are in danger every hour, if the mob can only catch us. Tell me, in the fear of God, is that Book of Mormon true?'

Cowdery looked at me with solemnity depicted in his face and said: 'Brother William, God sent his holy angel to declare the truth of the translation of it to us, and therefore we know. And though the mob kill us, yet we must die declaring its truth.'

David said: 'Oliver has told you the solemn truth, for we could not be deceived. I most truly declare to you its truth!!'

Said I: 'Boys, I believe you. I can see no object for you to tell me falsehood now, when our lives are endangered.'

Richard

[gmormon]

I certainly hope it never passed through Mark Hoffman's hands! (he forever tainted the credibility of "newly discovered" LDS documents!)

This was my thought also. However is seems to confirm the church, (not seeing the whole journal,) and wasn't Hoffman's MO to create documents that would chip at the foundation of the church?

[katherine the great]

Does the article say how and where Ashworth finally found this? I don't like to be cynical, but I can't help but be skeptical. I do know that Ashworth is a credible person, but he was burned badly by Mark Hoffman (although luckily lived through it), and I know he has diligently pursued this for many years. Anything even remotely connected to Mark Hoffman makes me suspicious.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The provenance wasn't named in the article (big flaw, imo. It at least merited something like "Ashworth has not yet disclosed his source," or something.

[dblagent007]

Does the article say how and where Ashworth finally found this? I don't like to be cynical, but I can't help but be skeptical. I do know that Ashworth is a credible person, but he was burned badly by Mark Hoffman (although luckily lived through it), and I know he has diligently pursued this for many years. Anything even remotely connected to Mark Hoffman makes me suspicious.

The article talks a lot about Hofman and how Ashworth got burned by him. It doesn't, however, state where Ashworth found the journal. It only says that Ashworth believes the evidence shows it is authentic and that Ashworth intends to publish it. Ashworth says his hope is that this find will help him get out from under the shadow of Hofman.

The article also contains a curious quote from a historian about how articulate McLellin was for his time. (Hey Des News, next time ask if the historian will vouch for the authenticity of the document!).

[robuchan]

As a witness for the BOM, I find the simple accounts of touching and handling the plates associated with the eight witnesses more valid than the accounts associated with angels or visions associated with the three witnesses.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't.

[rpn]

When I read the story, I thought I had heard the witness story before. Am I imagining things, or is there another source that also reports it?

[consiglieri]

As a witness for the BOM, I find the simple accounts of touching and handling the plates associated with the eight witnesses more valid than the accounts associated with angels or visions associated with the three witnesses.

Is that because you don't believe in angels or visions?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Daniel Peterson]

Of course, McLellin was setting up a false dichotomy that covers more complex explanation. They may have been telling the truth as they perceived it, but that does not prove the reality of the events.

I have to admit that the above did sound just a tad forlorn, even desperate.

[robuchan]

Is that because you don't believe in angels or visions?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

No, I believe in angels and visions. But I don't believe every story ever told about angels and visions. No one does.

As a test, what would you be more inclined to believe. I tell you McD's has brought back the McRib and I touched one with my own hands or an angel appeared to me and told me the McRib is back and gave me a McRib to handle.

[LifeOnaPlate]

No, I believe in angels and visions. But I don't believe every story ever told about angels and visions. No one does.

As a test, what would you be more inclined to believe. I tell you McD's has brought back the McRib and I touched one with my own hands or an angel appeared to me and told me the McRib is back and gave me a McRib to handle.

I wouldn't find the angelic message about McRibs relevant, and certainly not within your scope of delegation to receive such a visitation in my behalf.

[John Larsen]

I have to admit that the above did sound just a tad forlorn, even desperate.

Desperation is not an uncommon undertone on this board, however, it is lacking in my person even if seemingly present in my post.

My point, however poorly delivered, was simply that the common assertion that it is either "true" or a "lie" is false, but often repeated. There are literally 1000s of other possibilities and the fact that McLellin bases his examination of "evidence" based on this premise points to at least one fault in his logic.