Newly Disclovered William McLellin Journal

[ttribe]

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.

Actually, I believe both events were necessary and create an interesting form of corroboration.

[Bill Hamblin]

Signature Books has posted their (remarkably predictable) evaluation on their web page.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/news.htm

Interestingly, it differs substantially from what was apparently the original version, which a friend sent me by email. Here is what I received in email as the original version, which has been changed in the past few hours.

Alleged McLellin Discovery

Today the Deseret News reported that documents collector Brent F. Ashworth had found a William McLellin "journal." Ashworth declined to say where he had obtained the document (It is actually a notebook, not a diary), thereby taking us back to the days of cloak-and-dagger deals conducted by document collectors in the secrecy of back rooms.

Equally interesting in this time-warp story was that Ashworth gushed over how McLellin in this new document attested his belief in the Book of Mormonâ??as if that had ever been in question based on the previously available historical evidenceâ??and then avoided the real significance of McLellin's authenticated writings.

For instance, unless this is due to the limitations of a news story, Ashment appears to be hightly credulous and unaware of the context of one incident he cites from the new document. The date is July 1833 and McLellin has asked Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer about their vision of an angel, which they confirm. This incident is also mentioned in McLellin's other writings. But McLellin says elsewhere that in July 1833 no Mormon had yet heard of the First Vision, priesthood restoration, or the angel Moroni--as confirmed, for instance, by John W. Welch's Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844 (the texts of the documents, not the apologetic commentary). The summer of 1833 predated the concept of Mormon angels, literal visions, and so on; and the Book of Mormon was thought to have confirmed Joseph Smith's ability with a seer stone.

Ashment may be forgiven for this since few people care to look beyond the shallow commentary in Welch's book, again as an example, and consider the content of the documents themselves. But this was laid out explicitly in The William E. McLellin Papers, 1854-1880. Perhaps Ashment is persuaded by Welch's arguments, such as in his volume of The Journals of William E. McLellin where Welch asserts that when McLellin mentioned an LDS sermon that was based on Galatians 1:8 ("But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed"; see pp. 53, 59), this is evidence that the speaker discussed the First Vision (which would have made it the earliest public mention of the First Vision by nine years). But Welch's strained attempt to defend the "traditional" narrative ranks with John Sorrenson's portrayal of ancient American cavalry riding deer behind pig-drawn chariots as among the most inane apologetic strategies yet. Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see if the document is real and what further interpretation will be given to it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here's the edited version:

Alleged McLellin Discovery

Today the Deseret News reported that documents collector Brent F. Ashworth has found a new William McLellin "journal." Ashworth declined to say where he had obtained the document (it is actually a notebook, not a diary), thereby recalling somewhat the days of cloak-and-dagger deals conducted in secret.

Equally interesting is Ashworth's assertion of how McLellin in this new document attested his belief in the Book of Mormonâ??which has never been in question, based on the previously available historical evidenceâ??while ignoring the real significance of McLellin's authenticated writings.

For instance, Ashworth appears to be unaware of the context of one incident he cites from the new document. The date is July 1833 and McLellin has asked Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer about their vision of an angel, which they confirm. This incident is also mentioned in McLellin's other writings. But McLellin says elsewhere that in July 1833 no Mormon had yet heard of the First Vision, priesthood restoration, or the angel Moroni--as is also confirmed in John W. Welch's Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844 (the texts of the documents themselves, not the apologetic commentary). All this was laid out explicitly in The William E. McLellin Papers, 1854-1880. Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see if the document is real and what further interpretation will be given to it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Signature Books has posted their (remarkably predictable) evaluation on their web page.

It's striking that Signature Books appears to have dropped its pretense of neutrality and to have come out of the closet, as it were, with its adversarial attitude toward the claims of Mormonism.

This is, I think, for the good, and I believe I'm not too far afield in claiming some of the credit for inspiring their ever increasing transparency for the FARMS Review.

[Joseph Antley]

I was informed by a certain LDS historian (whose class I accidentally skipped today) last week that the new McLellin journals had been sitting in the Church archives all along; that after Hoffman was exposed as a fraud, the Church went through and began recataloging its items, and lo and behold they found the McClellin journal. According to him, there are other uncatalogued documents sitting among the masses of papers and books in the archives that the Church probably isn't even aware of yet.

[emeliza]

I was informed by a certain LDS historian (whose class I accidentally skipped today) last week that the new McLellin journals had been sitting in the Church archives all along; that after Hoffman was exposed as a fraud, the Church went through and began recataloging its items, and lo and behold they found the McClellin journal. According to him, there are other uncatalogued documents sitting among the masses of papers and books in the archives that the Church probably isn't even aware of yet.

That is in the article from the OP. However this was a notebook that supposedly McClellin was using to write a possible book? that Ashworth discovered.

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is a different bit than what was in the archives. You may be thinking of what became The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831-1836 by William McLellin (Author), Jan Shipps (Editor), John Welch (Editor).

[Joseph Antley]

This is a different bit than what was in the archives. You may be thinking of what became The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831-1836 by William McLellin (Author), Jan Shipps (Editor), John Welch (Editor).

You're right, I didn't read the OP thoroughly.

[Chris Smith]

It's striking that Signature Books appears to have dropped its pretense of neutrality and to have come out of the closet, as it were, with its adversarial attitude toward the claims of Mormonism.

More accurately, I'd say that it reveals an adversarial attitude toward a literal interpretation of those claims on the part of the author of this article. Or is Signature a monolith whereas FARMS is not?

On a somewhat different note, both versions of the Signature response are a mess editorially. If I were in charge over there, I'd show the guy who wrote this the door.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

How droll, what what!

[Daniel Peterson]

More accurately, I'd say that it reveals an adversarial attitude toward a literal interpretation of those claims on the part of the author of this article. Or is Signature a monolith whereas FARMS is not?

FARMS isn't a monolith. Signature isn't a monolith, either, as is shown by the remarkable rapid shift from Draft A of this press release to Draft B. (I would love to have overheard the fevered conversations that accompanied the hasty change.)

But Signature has a general drift, just as FARMS does, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

FARMS has never pretended otherwise.

[Bill Hamblin]

More accurately, I'd say that it reveals an adversarial attitude toward a literal interpretation of those claims on the part of the author of this article. Or is Signature a monolith whereas FARMS is not?

On a somewhat different note, both versions of the Signature response are a mess editorially. If I were in charge over there, I'd show the guy who wrote this the door.

From style I suspect the author was Ron Priddis (managing director), but that is just a guess. Signature certainly isn't a monolith, but unsigned editorials appearing on official web pages are generally understood to represent some type of pronouncement of an institutional position.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hence the quick change, imo.

[Daniel Peterson]

From style I suspect the author was Ron Priddis (managing director), but that is just a guess.

That was my guess, too.

Signature certainly isn't a monolith, but unsigned editorials appearing on official web pages are generally understood to represent some type of pronouncement of an institutional position.

Quite so.

[Helorum]

McLellin says elsewhere that in July 1833 no Mormon had yet heard of the First Vision

I checked the McLellin book when it was published and concluded that this was a questionable claim. I found no statement within the volume to support it. If anyone has different information please post it in this thread.

[Cold Steel]

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

And yet it's consistent with the hundreds of other, similar, reports. Another fascinating quote comes from Lyman E. Johnson, the first apostle ordained to the Quorum of the Twelve in this dispensation. In one council meeting some time after his apostasy from the church, he made the following statement:

Brethrenâ??I will call you brethrenâ??I will tell you the truth. If I could believe Mormonismâ??it is no matter whether it is true or notâ??but If I could believe Mormonism as I did when I traveled with you and preached, if I possessed the world I would give it. I would give anything. I would suffer my right hand to be cut off, if I could believe it again. Then I was full of joy and gladness. My dreams were pleasant. When I awoke in the morning, my spirit was cheerful. I was happy by day and by night, full of peace and joy and thanksgiving. But now it is darkness, pain, sorrow, misery in the extreme. I have never since seen a happy moment. (Jour. of Dis., Vol. XIX., p. 41, according to Brigham Young)

--------

[Aquilifer]

Signature Books has posted their (remarkably predictable) evaluation on their web page.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/news.htm

Interestingly, it differs substantially from what was apparently the original version, which a friend sent me by email. Here is what I received in email as the original version, which has been changed in the past few hours.

It may be small, but it strikes me as telling that the author of this statement can't get Ashworth's name right on the first go around. I mean, it's not like that name isn't well known in historical LDS documents circles, not to mention intimately connected with the whole Hofmann incident and those other "McLellin papers".

"Kneejerk" is the proper description.

The provenance of this journal is important given what happened in '85 -- I'm surprised at the vague reporting on what should be an obvious issue considering the subject's history.

[why me]

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.

The problem, John, is the strength which both Oliver and David gave their brief testimony when facing death. And that can say a lot. 'When one is facing their maker, one dare not lie' can be the adage here.

And I am sure that such testimonies convinced many at that time of church history when no one was facing death. I believe that many things where said by JS and the witnesses, without the words being recorded, to convince many people of the early truth claims of the lds church during the time of JS and the witnesses. One would have to be a great liar to fool so many people all of the time but of course it is still not impossible to find so many great liars (such as JS, the three witnesses and eight witnesses) at any one time.

[John Larsen]

The problem, John, is the strength which both Oliver and David gave their brief testimony when facing death. And that can say a lot. 'When one is facing their maker, one dare not lie' can be the adage here.

And I am sure that such testimonies convinced many at that time of church history when no one was facing death. I believe that many things where said by JS and the witnesses, without the words being recorded, to convince many people of the early truth claims of the lds church during the time of JS and the witnesses. One would have to be a great liar to fool so many people all of the time but of course it is still not impossible to find so many great liars (such as JS, the three witnesses and eight witnesses) at any one time.

I do not doubt that Oliver and David remained true to their previous witness because such loyalty to perceived paranormal activity early in life is the rule not the exception. When one perceives that they have had some kind of transcendental or metaphysical experience, it leaves an indelible mark on the psyche. This is very, very common. How many UFO abductees recant? How many ghost sightings are later reversed? Just how many followers of religious gurus deny their leader? It happens, but it is just as likely or more so to not. It is even less likely if the experience was internal. Joseph Smith himself wasn't sure if Martin Harris actually had the witness--which clearly indicates that it was an internal event!

If one accepts the testimony of the witnesses as sufficient evidence, that person will be forced to believe a great many strange and contradictory things. This is because the kind of eyewitness evidence that these gentlemen produced is the most common type of evidence in the world and can be produced readily. In fact, this same sort of eyewitness testimony is the method that faith healers, palm readers, magicians, illusionists, and con-men rely on all of the time. It is a common trick to make people think they see or know things that aren't there. I don't know how they do it. When I watch magicians on stage I can't see how they do their tricks. But I know that what they are doing isn't true. Eyewitness accounts verifying the reality of magic tricks hold no credence.

I had a friend that I met at work a few years ago. He and his family were a member of a cult for a few years--a compound type cult. He later became disillusioned and left with his family. However, and this is important, he still believed and could recite the paranormal events that had occurred. He believed very sincerely even though he had "left the faith" that the manifestations were real. You can find followers of exposed, fraudulent leaders who today still swear by their leaders. For example, interviews with Sqeaky Fromme show that she believes in the miraculous power of Charlie Mason. She will likely go to her grave swearing by him even though she has everything in the world to gain by recanting and denouncing Mason.

Of course, the witnesses are nothing similar to murders like Fromme, but it does illustrate the point that personal testimony can be a strong binder, and we tend to believe what we believe.

[erichard]

Signature Books has posted their (remarkably predictable) evaluation on their web page.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/news.htm

...

Hi Bill,

New discoveries are exciting.

What is the chance that this newest McLellin "Notebook" actually came from the First Presidency Vault? I remember reading from an alleged list of First Presidency Vault items that it included a McLellin "Diary". Maybe it is not actually a diary. Or maybe the list is erroneous.

Which brings up, who knows what is in the so-called First Presidency Vault for sure? And is there a plan to publish any of it? I would be extremely interested in the reading writings by Joseph related to the Council of 50.

Richard

[cdowis]

John,

I seem to remember someone who said, "Life after death would not prove to me that there is a God."

I suspect that you would agree with him.

[why me]

I do not doubt that Oliver and David remained true to their previous witness because such loyalty to perceived paranormal activity early in life is the rule not the exception. When one perceives that they have had some kind of transcendental or metaphysical experience, it leaves an indelible mark on the psyche. This is very, very common. How many UFO abductees recant? How many ghost sightings are later reversed? Just how many followers of religious gurus deny their leader? It happens, but it is just as likely or more so to not. It is even less likely if the experience was internal. Joseph Smith himself wasn't sure if Martin Harris actually had the witness--which clearly indicates that it was an internal event!

The problem is: A book exists which claims to have come from an ancient civilization. And so, it becomes more than just paranormal activity. And that is the rub. Oliver also had other experiences with visions but the book is a clincher. It had to come from somewhere. Thus we have McLellin quizing Oliver and David in the face of death to state clearly that the work is true.

Now if all this is on the up and up, we can see McLellin having a touch of doubt as he also faces death. For afterall, who wants to die for a lie? Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum?

[consiglieri]

Now if all this is on the up and up, we can see McLellin having a touch of doubt as he also faces death. For afterall, who wants to die for a lie? Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum?

If I may offer a personal note, McLellin's account strikes a sympathetic chord in me, because I remember a somewhat similar experience I had shortly before embarking on my mission to Japan in 1979.

I had been a member for 17-months, and had received a powerful witness that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God.

Nevertheless, in the face of giving up two-years of my life to go to a strange land and preach the gospel, my faith waivered.

There was another fellow I knew who was similarly getting ready to go on a mission, he to Finland.

I specifically remember asking him one evening, "The Church is true, isn't it?"

He responded with a surprised look, and said, "Well, sure it is."

Although his answer was not as strong as that of Cowdery and Whitmer, I can relate to what McLellin was feeling and why it was that he asked the question in the first place.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[John Larsen]

John,

I seem to remember someone who said, "Life after death would not prove to me that there is a God."

I suspect that you would agree with him.

I would tend to believe that most of you are all just as skeptical as I am. I just apply my skepticism to all 10,000 religions. You only apply your skepticism to 9,999.

[lostindc]

I would tend to believe that most of you are all just as skeptical as I am. I just apply my skepticism to all 10,000 religions. You only apply your skepticism to 9,999.

Wrong, I would say that most of us are very pleased that God has given scriptures to christians, muslims, etc...

Therefore, many are not kept completely out of the dark.