Bishop's letter 2003

[Jason]

Good call. I mean in the sense that the researcher is not out to prove or disprove anything.

Let me rephrase then. I have never seen anything concerning the Church on the internet that was only after the truth and not trying to prove or disprove anything. That includes both pro- as well as anti- viewpoints.

[CV75]

passion and interest is in "painting" as accurate a picture of what happened as humanly possible

In other words, "real intent," which can be applied to the spiritual aspect of the truth of what happened, happens, and will happen.

[Jason]

McCue's point about the Internet being a "crossroads" is that this technology has made information so available that something like an exponential growth in knowledge is resulting. The printing press caused the same thing to occur at the end of the middle ages, which dismantled the RCC's control base in a matter of a few generations. Today the process vis-a-vis the LDS Church's control of its "official" version of history will happen much faster....

Increasing the accessibility of information does not guarantee an increase in knowledge.

The noise-to-signal ratio, in particular, goes way up. The accuracy of much of the information on the internet is, in a word, deplorable, precisely because it is so easy to put it on the internet in the first place. Witness wikipedia.

The Church doesn't rely on an "official" version of history in order to make converts and do its work in bringing people to Christ.

So there is no real "crossroads".

[Mark Beesley]

I have not read McCue's letter before. I am curious if this has come up on Mormon Dialogue before and if so, what was the gist of the exchange regarding it?

That Bob McCue is a typical lawyer, i.e. wordy. (And he's full of himself.)

[Duncan]

That Bob McCue is a typical lawyer, i.e. wordy. (And he's full of himself.)

He was a Bishop in Calgary, Alberta which explains why he is full of himself!

[frankenstein]

That Bob McCue is ... , i.e. wordy.

I can't even begin to read the letter, its just too blasted long for my interest. I feel sorry for the Apostles is lenghty letter like this are a regular occurrence for them, but I suppose down time in flight or other mode of travel would provide an instance where one could spend the time to read something of such length.

[Hamba Tuhan]

My own experience is as McCue's: the Internet is a facile tool to get information about the Church. ALL information. And as that includes dispassionate, even disinterested factual commentary and the research that makes commentary possible, it follows that anyone conducting a personal examination into the Church's history is going to run across the dichotomy as noted: the "faithful history" vs. the factual evidence, or full history. It is that dichotomy which has been created BY the Church.

I mean this as nicely as possible, but, as a professional historian (in the final months of a PhD), I don't think you understand history as a discipline at all.

[ERayR]

I don't believe I have ever seen dispassionate or disinterested factual commentary concerning the Church on the internet.

This was my thoughts too. The faithul vs factual is also a buzz word phrase which is inaccurate.

[Hamba Tuhan]

For instance: how many know that the 1820 date for the "first vision" is impossible? It could not have occurred any earlier than 1824, because according to all extant church records of the area, there were no revivals and increases in memberships resulting therefrom before that year; in fact, churches LOST membership prior to 1824 (emphasis added).

You may also want to start fact checking your 'facts.' On this issue, you may want to begin here. A couple of excerpts for the lazy:

GREAT REVIVALS IN RELIGION. The religious excitement which has for some months prevailed in the towns of this vicinity...This is a time the prophets desired to see, but they never saw it...(emphasis added).

[TAO]

That Bob McCue is a typical lawyer, i.e. wordy. (And he's full of himself.)

Hehe, that could be true... but my former bishop was a lawyer (now stake high council) and he was one of the most wonderful, forgiving, meek, and loving people I knew... being a lawyer isn't always a bad thing... I think it depends on whether it gets to you or not (the competition spirit, which can cause problems).

[TAO]

I think this is the case for anyone on just about any subject who takes advantage of the age of information. See, for example, Matt Ridley, "A Key Lesson of Adulthood: The Need to Unlearn," The Wall Street Journal (Feb. 5, 2011).

I like the thoughts of it, that I do =D. I do disagree with the thought that something can't endure (it can, but it must learn dynamically, much as you yourself do), but the rest of it is quite awesome!

[Questing Beast]

You may also want to start fact checking your 'facts.' On this issue, you may want to begin here. A couple of excerpts for the lazy:

Note the headlines to these articles, all published in Palmyra in 1820. There seems to be a word common to each.

Appearance of stories in newspapers of religious revivals elsewhere are not evidence of such in the vicinity of Palmyra. JS History says "in the place where we lived"; not 75 miles away. While "camp meetings" are as common as dirt in this "burned over district". The combination of revival with dramatic increase in memberships to the various denominations is what the JS History asserts as the condition occurring when he prayed in 1820; and both of those conditions did not coincide as he said they did till 1824-25.

William Smith noted in agreement with Joseph that his mother and family belonged to the Presbyterian church, and even gave the name of the pastor, a Reverend Stockton; Presbyterian records confirm that Stockton was the pastor in Palmyra from 1824-27, and participated in "...the very successful revivals of 1824-25. The records report that 103 persons joined the Palmyra church in 1824-25, while only 14 converted in 1820-21." (Grant H. Palmer p. 241 - An Insider's View of Mormon Origins)

"Palmyra Baptist Church records for 1818-25 reveal that the only conference year to show significant growth was September 1824 to September 1825, during which membership increased from 132 to 219. No other conference year between 1818-25 had an increase of more than a dozen convert baptisms." (ibid)

"According to Methodist records, 208 persons joined in the Ontario district, including Palmyra, in 1824-25, while there was a loss of membership in 1820-21 totaling 81 members." (ibid p. 243)

"Palmyra's newpaper, the Wayne Sentinel, reported the religious fervor in 1824-25. It was also commonplace for religious periodicals to report on revivals. Accordingly, fifteen accounts of this 1824-25 revival have been found. There is not a single reference to a Palmyra revival between 1818 and 1821 in any of the major religious periodicals." (ibid p. 244)

The church record numbers tell the tale, not just relying on verbiage from newspaper articles which are less precise.

The importance of this is to establish a clear picture of what occurred, rather than just accepting a doctored version. If you don't know the version in the JS History is doctored (beginning with Joseph's revisions himself), you won't know there even are other sources to the story of the first vision, or when it could possibly have occurred.

It is telling, that nowhere does anyone relate the first vision story in the form we have it until well past 1838; it wasn't even published until 1842. Before that, in 1834-35, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery offered up the first official "history of Mormonism", published in The Messenger and Advocate. Regarding the calling of Joseph Smith, Oliver wrote:

[Hamba Tuhan]

These kinds of curious inconsistencies make a student of Mormon history wonder and look for answers. The conclusions inevitably fall on the side of revisionist history on the part of the Church's leadership. Motive then becomes the question....

Do you actually believe that anyone who participates on this forum is unfamiliar with Palmer's assertions?

I will repeat and extend my statement above. These kinds of claims are made by those who don't actually engage regularly and deeply in the process of writing history. I'm a historian; 'curious inconsistencies' are the simple reality of what I do, and I work in relatively uncontested source materials. They don't make me wonder at all. Lack of them would make me wonder. Your problem is not with Mormon history; it's with history as a discipline.

[Robert F. Smith]

The history in full cannot positively say "this or that happened", etc. But the best interpretation of the evidence (facts) does not suit the "faithful history" version. That much is undeniable. The same original sources the Church appeals to said much, much more than the Church cherry picks to quote; and it is disingenuous to cherry pick a few quotations and dismiss the bulk of recorded statements as "uninspired" or inaccurate. Then we have the wealth of non Mormon contemporary sources that can be resorted to in obtaining a clearer picture of the times and actions of the principle characters of Mormon foundational history. Apologists will fight these "anti-Mormon" sources to the death. But most of them are simply evidence of a different picture than the "faithful history" version. For instance: how many know that the 1820 date for the "first vision" is impossible? It could not have occurred any earlier than 1824, because according to all extant church records of the area, there were no revivals and increases in memberships resulting therefrom before that year; in fact, churches LOST membership prior to 1824. The recollections of Mother Smith and other Smith family members back this up, e.g. the death of Alvin Smith in 1823 corresponds to the later date and not the asserted 1820 date of the JS History. The Protestant denominational church membership records are not "anti-Mormon"; they simply exist and prove the fallacious 1820 date and purpose of the first vision in the official LDS history. Numerous examples of such tweaking (denial, manipulation) of the facts can be multiplied....

Hey Beast,

You apparently missed this key article -- which makes a shambles of what you just said:

http://www.lds.net/f...ing-1820-a.html

[Robert F. Smith]

Bob McCue is not an "anti". His letters do not attack the Church. His position is critical vis-a-vis the leaders are defending their position of control above all else. The "faithful history" taught is part and parcel to that agenda above all else. The doctrines per se are not a problem, either with McCue or myself. The history as presented is the problem.

Of course Bob McCue is an anti-Mormon. He calls into question the very basis of the existence of the LDS Church. In doing so he is clearly egoistical, arrogant, prolix, and petty -- aside from his knowing nearly nothing of Mormon history or of science (including the history of science, based on his fundamental misunderstanding of the Galileo affair). He is by no means the first outwardly "faithful" Mormon to apostatize, nor will he be the last. Naturally, he attempts to put his apostasy in the best possible light. He portrays himself as the blameless, innocent victim of strict, suffocating orthodoxy.

He even declares that those like him are "legion," and it is just there that we may hear the distant beat of cloven hooves, and smell the sulfur in the air. Mark 5:9

[Jeff K.]

McCue's point about the Internet being a "crossroads" is that this technology has made information so available that something like an exponential growth in knowledge is resulting. The printing press caused the same thing to occur at the end of the middle ages, which dismantled the RCC's control base in a matter of a few generations. Today the process vis-a-vis the LDS Church's control of its "official" version of history will happen much faster....

Again.... you could have said the same thing about the printing press. As the cops say "nothing new here".....

[inquiringmind]

Hey Beast,

You apparently missed this key article -- which makes a shambles of what you just said:

http://www.lds.net/f...ing-1820-a.html

[Questing Beast]

Do you actually believe that anyone who participates on this forum is unfamiliar with Palmer's assertions?

... Your problem is not with Mormon history; it's with history as a discipline.

You keep saying that. As history is my main interest (outside of Existence itself, and the people that populate it - but that relates to my interest in history too, as this precise moment is "history" in the making), I have to say that you are mistaken.

My PROBLEM isn't the existence of inconsistency: it's the blatant use of partial history put forward as "the truth". You know as well as Palmer, McCue, myself and most readers here I assume, that the Church does promote "faithful history" over a full consideration of the sources. And this is the policy because? The most likely answer is: the "brethren" are concerned that the woeful ignorance of MOST members will cause them to lose faith and quit the Church, if they are presented with the inconsistency and controversy.

BTW, you seem to have a problem with Palmer's sources or his conclusions. I am interested in why. I find his book to be very concise, well organized, well referenced and a confirmation of what I had already determined; he even put me onto information that I did not have before which I appreciate. Yet you sweep the entire work aside as "assertions".

How, exactly, is what the Church puts out as "history" any less a set of "assertions"? And as that version of Church history is extremely limited, because it ignores or denies the existence of the rest of the evidence in hand, it is the "faithful history" that is making huge assertions; not someone like Palmer, who at least digs as deep as he can to find out what was really going on as the Church was beginning.

All historians make "assertions". You say "assertions" like it's a bad thing; which makes me suspect that your ego is overly involved here somehow....

[Jeff K.]

Yep, a great deal of whining that a certain hobby in the gospel is not being fully implemented. One wonders if he quibbles about the fact that the Declaration of Independence was signed by everyone July 4th 1776? Or that something else is only partially true? I see it as camo for other motivation.

[Palerider]

Yep, a great deal of whining that a certain hobby in the gospel is not being fully implemented. One wonders if he quibbles about the fact that the Declaration of Independence was signed by everyone July 4th 1776? Or that something else is only partially true? I see it as camo for other motivation.

Was the Declaration actually signed July 4th, 1776? Not so sure about that.........

[Bsix]

Ho hum...yawn...Just another exMormon recycles decades old antiMormon objections, and feels that the Internet is going to be the end of the LDS Church.

And, all this is being resurrected in this forum almost eight years after the fact.

I am not sure what makes this a unique topic of discussion.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Six

[Questing Beast]

Hey Beast,

You apparently missed this key article -- which makes a shambles of what you just said:

http://www.lds.net/f...ing-1820-a.html

[Questing Beast]

Of course Bob McCue is an anti-Mormon. He calls into question the very basis of the existence of the LDS Church. In doing so he is clearly egoistical, arrogant, prolix, and petty -- aside from his knowing nearly nothing of Mormon history or of science (including the history of science, based on his fundamental misunderstanding of the Galileo affair). He is by no means the first outwardly "faithful" Mormon to apostatize, nor will he be the last. Naturally, he attempts to put his apostasy in the best possible light. He portrays himself as the blameless, innocent victim of strict, suffocating orthodoxy.

He even declares that those like him are "legion," and it is just there that we may hear the distant beat of cloven hooves, and smell the sulfur in the air. Mark 5:9

"We" may very well be "legion". So what? Last I heard, believers are supposed to be in the extreme, fading minority in the Last Days.

Your criticism of his character is typical apologist tactics: attack the "messenger", always, and do not address the points of disagreement that he brings up. In avoiding the contest, find errors in his facts, and then dismiss the correct facts on the basis of his having gotten some things not quite right: if you find even one mistake, you assert that this allows you to dismiss the "messenger" utterly. On that basis, you must apply an equal measure of judgment and dismiss Joseph Smith himself....

[Questing Beast]

Again.... you could have said the same thing about the printing press. As the cops say "nothing new here".....

I agreed that the printing press ended the RCC's control base. You seem to dismiss the "almost exponential" capacity of the Internet to provide the WORLD'S populations with historical facts that the LDS leaders want to ignore or forbid study of. THAT difference is the one that McCue points out as "the crossroads" that the Church is at (and possibly the tipping point has already occurred, since the Church has not altered one iota of policy vis-a-vis "faith-promoting history" in the eight years since McCue's exchanged letters with Holland)....

[Questing Beast]

I followed your link.

It has the anstract, and a dead link to the main article.

I'm a little confussed here.

What are the implications of Joseph receiving his first vision in 1824, instead of 1820?

What difference does it make?

(Was composing a too-long response; lost it; not meant to be I guess )

In brief: the whole chronology of the events leading up to 1830 - the organization of the LDS Church - do not work if the 1820 date for the first vision is not correct. This raises further questions about Joseph Smith's reliability and possibly even his integrity.

Also the Godhead as taught by the Church today was not understood in full till AFTER 1842. In 1843, Joseph Smith gave an address at the funeral of his friend King Follett; in which he taught FOR THE FIRST TIME