Bishop's letter 2003

[Questing Beast]

Questing Beast's comment here:

This reminds me of the rather different perspectives that support why I believe in a historically real Jesus, and that the Jesus of History is the Christ of Faith. In a recent essay (Temple Theology, 2009, at her website) Margaret Barker discusses how scholars whose ideas QB echoes here have dealt with evidence:

I think a good case can be made that the gospels are early, rather than late, and that the story they tell, by and large, provides a far more reasonable explanation of the rise of Christianity and the actual behavior of early Christians than does the pious fraud and/or gullible or devious disciples approach. For example, if Jesus in Luke is quoting a version of Isaiah that is contemporary with the rise of Christianity, doesn't become evidence that the Gospel is actually early? And if that early version of Isaiah actually fits with Jesus knowing who he was, and what he was doing, does that not support that notion that the Jesus of history might actually be the Christ of Faith?

I have not heard proof that the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah dates positively to the century before Christ's birth. Has new evidence accomplished this? The closest dating I have heard is c. 100 BCE through 100 CE.

Regardless: where does this kind of evidence take the scholar of faith? If it results in the same old same old "us and them" perspective, then that is wrong, imho. The entire "us and them" mythos of the "Abrahamic" religions is wrong-headed and fosters bigotry and wars of religion (witness today's Islamist terrorism). "God" is too big for such petty religion. But of course, humans come equipped with darkness in our nature as well as light; and in this venue there is ample ground for the darkness to grow. It's all part of learning by our own choices, what works and what hurts.

And it seems to me, that most Mormons (not following the dogmatic exclusivity of their religion) prefer to be part of a world-wide, growing feeling of ecumenism, rather than continue to cling to an exclusive assertion that Mormonism is the ONE WAY to glory. The Church is behind the consensus of it members, as usual. This is the spirit of modern religion, imho: That all religious and non religious persons can agree to disagree, so long as our behavior is just and fair toward all men. And it is the modern wonder of instantaneous communication globally that is making us realize just how much our species has outgrown the "us and them" ethic of our ancient religious traditions. THAT is the momentum, not the remaining backwaters of racism, hatred, bigotry and religiously motivated violence: So I hope and believe, in my more positive moments, anyway.

And of course, the Book of Mormon contains all sorts of details that strike me as best explained in terms of a translation of eye witness descriptions. Palmer, of course, felt no need whatsoever to mention any of this. I found that Palmer constantly suppressed evidence from his sources, along with ignoring important sources. Where Palmer claimed to be taking us back to the original stories, the LDS continued to go about publishing the first hand, eye witness accounts. Flattering, or not. Witness the Joseph Smith papers project, and the Mountain Meadows book.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Palmer's book is concise; he didn't present the well-known Church's slant on things: he was making the appeal to readers who already are intimately familiar with the standard sources and Church presentation of the same. He wasn't suppressing anything: he was addressing it.

I have all the personal writings of Joseph Smith and his History of the Church. The inconsistent content was the most jarring part of the experience of reading all of that. Early Mormons resembled medieval man, not 20th and 21st century Mormons, as the Church likes to portray....

[Kevin Christensen]

I have not heard proof that the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah dates positively to the century before Christ's birth. Has new evidence accomplished this? The closest dating I have heard is c. 100 BCE through 100 CE.

Dating DDS Isaiah before Christ's birth is not necessary to the general argument. The text is far older than the Masoretic text. And the MT became standard in response to the rise of Christianity. (See Margaret's Text and Context.) The particular differences have implications both in themselves, and in relation to a network of other information, oft overlooked for ideological reasons, rather than evidential reasons. Margaret's paper mentions a few things. Other NT scholars provide more.

Regardless: where does this kind of evidence take the scholar of faith?

Towards Christ, if the scholar of faith is paying attention. Margaret's point, and is Where does skeptical ideology deal with this kind of evidence, when to acknowledge such things plays havoc on their claims to be simply following the evidence?

If it results in the same old same old "us and them" perspective, then that is wrong, imho. The entire "us and them" mythos of the "Abrahamic" religions is wrong-headed and fosters bigotry and wars of religion (witness today's Islamist terrorism).

"Us and them" is neither exclusive, nor inherent to Abrahamic religion. "The secret of unity is an external foe." Not a scripture, but an ancient political maxim. But you're changing the topic. I'm offering an alternative to the claim that evidence and honest scholarship leads directly and inevitably to doubt.

SNIP

Palmer's book is concise; he didn't present the well-known Church's slant on things: he was making the appeal to readers who already are intimately familiar with the standard sources and Church presentation of the same. He wasn't suppressing anything: he was addressing it.

I when read Palmer's book, I noticed a militantly one sided presentation, a constant suppression of key information and sources. For instance, in quoting B. H. Roberts' 1923 Study without comment, he suppressed any reference to John W. Welch's 1985 paper "Answering B. H. Roberts' Questions and "An Unparallel." Welch's article is not the only important source he suppressed, only the single most important, well known, readily available, relevant, and conspicuous. No honest, informed, responsible scholar claiming to represent a consensus view should cite the Roberts study without dealing with it. And Palmer treating a 1923 draft like the last word on Book of Mormon scholarship tells far more about Palmer than the state of Book of Mormon study.

I noticed that in discussing King Benjamin's discourse, Palmer failed to mention any of the sources cited in the Blake Ostler Dialogue article that he cited: Oslter mentions Tvedtnes on the Feast of the Tabernacles, Nibley on the coronation, Welch and Szinc on the Ancient Festival, including Day of Atonement, Sabbath Year, and Jubilee, and others. No honest, informed, responsible scholar, claiming to represent a consensus view should discuss King Benjamin's discourse without accounting for those important, readily available studies. Palmer can't claim ignorance of what most of the reviewers, whose consensus he claimed to offer, mentioned as obvious and important.

He quotes Ostler's 1987 Expansion essay as saying that many Book of Mormon teachings are best accounted for in the 19th century context. Palmer suppresses any mention whatsoever that Ostler's article included arguments that many elements of the Book of Mormon are best explained as authentic and ancient.

It also happens that most of what Ostler in 1987 saw as "expansions" happen to involve the Book of Mormon being "too Christian before Christ." In 2001, my "Paradigms Regained" provided evidence that the Book of Mormon was accurately displaying First Temple Theology, something that no on in Joseph Smith's day could have anticipated, at least, without divine inspiration.

Palmer regularly favors late, second or third hand accounts over first hand testimony by the witnesses. In claiming that Joseph Smith made up the story about angelic priesthood ordination as a response to bolster his own authority in light of the Kirtland Crisis, Palmer ignores the first paragraph of the 1832 history, which he cites elsewhere.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm away from my books, and I read a borrowed copy years ago. Palmer's book presents an ideology masquerading as evidence. It's all about the pose. Like, "I'm not a real scholar, but I play one for my uncritical public." The pose and tone are so pleasant that it's rude to notice that the content is poor.

I have all the personal writings of Joseph Smith and his History of the Church.

So do I.

The inconsistent content was the most jarring part of the experience of reading all of that.

As Kuhn says, "Anomaly emerges against a background of expectation." It's expectations that cause the problems. Not the texts. When I run across something I didn't expect, rather than shatter like glass, I pause and reexamine my assumptions, considering, "okay, what should I expect?"

Joseph Smith commented on how the Saints tended to shatter like glass when they ran across anything counter to their traditions.

Early Mormons resembled medieval man, not 20th and 21st century Mormons, as the Church likes to portray....

Who is "the Church" to you? To me, the church is an assembly of people, a diverse group of people at that. And as I learn more, I also learn to recognize who the best teachers are, and why they are.

Interestingly enough, Medieval paintings of early Christianity depicted the apostles as medieval men. Our first approach to any new information is necessarily in terms of our own background understanding. But what else have we got? That is a human problem, much larger than the LDS. Look at how movies over the decades depicted Wild Bill Hickock or Billy the Kid. But the most striking constant I have seen in the efforts of LDS historians over the past 50 years is in going to the sources, to the original contexts.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Questing Beast]

...

Now you might be interested to read this article. While the whole article is well worth a read, I'd particularly like to draw your attention to the section titled "The 'Myth of Objectivity' Revisited

[Kevin Christensen]

Questing Beast announced his view that: "God" does not call masses of people to repentance to a single conformity with "law", and at the same time implement the punishments that attend disobedience - the typical feature of all dogmas that move to bellicose advancement of their religious mandate, their "manifest destiny". Such is not "God's" methodology. I was confident in disbelieving this before I ever realized I had a problem with Mormonism in particular and religion in general.

For the record, here is what Joseph Smith has on this very issue:

But while one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of those contracted feelings that influence the children of man, causes "His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, "according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil," or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, "not according to what they have not, but according to what they have," those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will by judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right.

History of the Church, Vol.4, Ch.35, p.595

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Jason]

And I end up on no side; because Joseph Smith cannot be a prophet in the traditional (accepted by Mormons sense), as there are no such things and never have been.

You sound pretty sure about having proven that negative.

And here I thought it was a logical impossibility to prove that something never existed.

[Pahoran]

"The faith of the Saints is primarily historical; it has clear historical content as well as grounding. It is more intimately rooted in events in the past than any faith with which I am familiar."

And there is the nub of the problem. Which history are we going to do with?

I think it was Dan Peterson who pointed out long ago that there are "three levels" of Church history.

"Level A" is the simplified "Sunday School" level of history. The one in which everything is straightforward and rosy, and each important event can be taught in 45 minutes.

"Level B" is the "look at what the Church doesn't tell us" level. It's all the little bits and pieces and factoids that, ripped from their context, show the founding Church leaders, especially Joseph Smith, in the most negative light possible. Those who proselyte for it invariably market it -- aggressively -- as a "more complete" portrayal, a "larger view" that takes all the evidence into account, a "warts and all" picture that unflinchingly faces the unpleasant facts.

This is sheer marketing hype; and it is an outright lie.

Level B history is emphatically not a "warts and all" view of the Church's past; rather, it is a "warts are all" view. It is as if Oliver Cromwell's portrait consisted, not of his face with all its imperfections, but of nothing but an excruciatingly detailed close-up of his warts. Level B doesn't face unpleasant facts at all; it finds all the little warty factoids to be amazingly pleasant. It is the facts that vindicate the Church's view of its history that Level B finds unpleasant, and far from facing them, it fights against them tooth and nail.

Level B history is where you got to, and where you stopped, smugly satisfied that you had found what you were looking for.

"Level C" history is what Level B claims to be, but makes no real effort to reach: a fully integrated view of all the great mass of historical evidence. It knows all of Joseph's First Vision accounts, and all the second and third-hand reports of his earliest experiences. It knows all about the Palmyra gossips and their wildly contradictory stories. It is fully informed about plural marriage and the crucial gaps in the record, especially during the Nauvoo period, without which the salacious Level B accusations would not be possible. It knows the conflicting claims, accusations and counter-accusations relating to the Kirtland bank scandal, and the Missouri persecutions. It has read Joseph's letters -- all of them -- and knows about the circumstances behind them. Crucially, it knows where the weight of the evidence falls.

Level C history draws a picture of far more detail than Level A and with much more balance than Level B. It simply consults and incorporates far more information than either.

And the remarkable thing about Level C history is this: with all the Level C information at hand, if we attempt to honestly distil all of the evidence about any given episode down to a 45-minute Sunday School lesson, that distillation turns out to rather closely resemble a Level A presentation. Put another way: Level C vindicates the fundamental honesty of Level A, and repudiates Level B.

How true, if you can pull it off that is. But I am not confident that studying Joseph Smith will make you into a better Christian. In fact, the effect of a deep study of Joseph Smith will turn your head in quite a different direction if you're not aware.

Not if you persevere beyond Level B.

If I ever used the term objective history, I repent. If I ever did use it, I meant that the "object" of a comprehensive examination of the facts in evidence is to arrive at the most reasonable interpretation of that evidence, be that what it may. I do not, as this writer seems to, believe that such historians have the "object" in mind to convince themselves to stop believing in the Church.

That is not what Midgley is saying. He is saying that the notion of "objective history" is bunk.

"Novick also appears to agree with me "that there is no middle ground

[Questing Beast]

Questing Beast, on 01 March 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:And I end up on no side; because Joseph Smith cannot be a prophet in the traditional (accepted by Mormons sense), as there are no such things and never have been.

You sound pretty sure about having proven that negative.

And here I thought it was a logical impossibility to prove that something never existed.

I am frequently compelled to eat my words. But I also cannot follow a theory without being dogmatic about it first. So far, this one has born up under the scrutiny of several years. "Proven" is such a useless word (in spite of "Man's Search for Happiness"). Nothing in this life is ever "proven". It can only be shown; and truth can only be shown beyond a reasonable doubt....

[Questing Beast]

I think it was Dan Peterson who pointed out long ago that there are "three levels" of Church history.

...

Not if you persevere beyond Level B.

I have all of Joseph Smith's letters, all of his personal writings. The context is where it's at. I cannot see a reasonable way to explain polyandry and the coercion that he used to get it. I don't expect Joseph Smith to be anything more than any other religious creator: a mere man, more fallible than most, more successful than most. I do not hold him to be fundamentally dishonest; he exercised qualified honesty as most people do. He believed in his visions. But he also did not maintain a consistent story; it altered under the pressure of existing conditions and needs. That is the most reasonable interpretation of the history, imho.

"Novick also appears to agree with me "that there is no middle ground

[Deborah]

I have all of Joseph Smith's letters, all of his personal writings.

How did you get these since they are just now getting released for the Joseph Smith papers?

[Pahoran]

I have all of Joseph Smith's letters, all of his personal writings.

And all you do is mine them for factoids that support your rejection of his prophetic claims.

The context is where it's at. I cannot see a reasonable way to explain polyandry and the coercion that he used to get it.

Of course you can't see what you never even tried to look for. You are entirely too titillated by the thought of "polyandry" and "coercion" to ever question the salacious assumptions behind those accusations.

Silly analogy, "Nessie". In fact if you were open to it, you'd see that it is possible to approach the question of Mormon history from a neutral perspective.

Perhaps, but "Joseph Smith cannot be a prophet in the traditional (accepted by Mormons sense), as there are no such things and never have been," is absolutely not neutral on the question of whether or not he was a prophet. I'm really surprised you thought you could fool anyone with such obvious and self-serving nonsense.

And my conclusion that Joseph Smith is not a prophet is not picking on him or Mormonism:

That's entirely irrelevant. Asserting that Joseph Smith was not a prophet takes sides on the question of whether or not he was a prophet.

So you do accept that God mandates through prophets to commit mass murder and genocide? That God has ONE LAW and everyone who does not join it is sent to hell? That all who don't join that ONE LAW are automatically and irreconcilably wicked and evil? If that is your gospel you can keep it. Joseph Smith didn't even teach it: he said that men are judged by law only when they have law....

Nor does it have anything to do with anything I said. I suppose it must be necessary for you to erect such elaborate straw man caricatures as that, in order to justify your feelings of smug superiority over any and all believing Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Questing Beast]

How did you get these since they are just now getting released for the Joseph Smith papers?

All of them that had been published then. My mistake....

[Deborah]

All of them that had been published then. My mistake....

Well there couldn't have been very many first hand accounts or other accounts which have supporting documentation and corroboration.

[Questing Beast]

And all you do is mine them for factoids that support your rejection of his prophetic claims.

You probably forgot, or didn't believe me in the first place: when I said that I studied the life of Joseph Smith as the most direct way to study Jesus Christ as a person. For many years I held it (as a point of faith) that prophets exist and that Joseph Smith was the prophet of the restoration as asserted.

Of course you can't see what you never even tried to look for. You are entirely too titillated by the thought of "polyandry" and "coercion" to ever question the salacious assumptions behind those accusations.

Ditto what I just wrote: I was looking for a way to get my personal testimony of Jesus Christ. Being a Mormon, and doing my best to have faith in the doctrines, history and teachings of the Church, I was examining Joseph Smith to that end. That was my agenda for many years.

... "Joseph Smith cannot be a prophet in the traditional (accepted by Mormons sense), as there are no such things and never have been," is absolutely not neutral on the question of whether or not he was a prophet. I'm really surprised you thought you could fool anyone with such obvious and self-serving nonsense.

My theory is no longer neutral. Any historian "going in" can enter the study of the facts with a neutral curiosity. In fact, as I have said twice in the post already, I went in convinced that the problem with never having received my own testimony was my fault. I assumed that I had not studied the scriptures deeply enough; I had not studied my native religion seriously or deeply enough; and I intended to rectify that deficit. I went at it for years; doubled the number of times that I had already read the BofM; read the Bible TWICE cover to cover; read the D&C cover to cover twice, etc. I furthermore read each book that came well recommended to me when I inquired after more knowledge about the early history of the Church and its principle characters. At length, after well over ten years of continuous study (during which I hardly read anything BUT Church history and doctrinal materials, increased my praying to audible on my knees twice a day, and continuously in my mind throughout the day; and even included weekly fasting for over a year - trying to adhere to Alma's "I have fasted and prayed many days to know of myself"): finally, I admitted that I felt myself getting further afield rather than any closer to what I wanted - what my AGENDA motivated me to seek. I did not stop studying. But I did back off and reassume a more normal study pattern that included secular history more than religious, and reading for entertainment, as I had done almost exclusively before I started my "quest". Some years passed. I got on the Net. And within two years I had determined that Joseph Smith was not "a man after the Lord's own heart"; that he was apparently a very different person from the man I had assumed him to be. Already, by that point, I had developed serious doubts about the nature of organized religion; of scripture; of so-called authority to act for God, etc. The BofM and Bible before it were different books now than I had assumed them to be: they were manmade and not in any direct way "the word of God": not anymore so than any other books with stories in them intended to inspire the reader to a better life. I had decided that Mormonism was not the exclusively true religion it claimed to be: that any and all religions are either equally valid or invalid, depending on your perspective.

Now, I allow that all religions are equally valid, as long as they teach principles intended to unite men and not foster an "us and them" attitude. Needless to say, many of them fail on this particular point. The LDS Church has many miles to go as it were before it ceases to be such a religion: it is every bit as devoted to the concept of being the ONLY TRUE FAITH as Islam and the RCC are. Many Christian denominations are more liberal, and some Muslim ones as well. The Baha'i in particular are all about ecumenism. Buddhists are also not concerned with a need to convert the world over. And my observation thus far tells me that the ecumenical spirit is the largest concept among our species and is fast growing. May it be so....

[Questing Beast]

Well there couldn't have been very many first hand accounts or other accounts which have supporting documentation and corroboration.

The diaries and journals of Joseph Smith I have in Faulring and some of that is repeated in "The Papers of Joseph Smith vol. 1, Autobiographical and Historical writings". Dean C. Jesse, "The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith", is another published source (even a few Mark Hoffman forgeries in that one!)

It was quite enough to study the man, his life, history, personality and character. But even with that wealth of information the polyandry was not there to see. That is known as irony. I was disappointed "in" Joseph Smith already, having read as much as I had. That added detail pushed me too far....

[Deborah]

The LDS Church has many miles to go as it were before it ceases to be such a religion: it is every bit as devoted to the concept of being the ONLY TRUE FAITH as Islam and the RCC are. Many Christian denominations are more liberal...

So would you have people who really believe the are the one true church (note I said church not faith because Christians of different denominations have a belief in the same faith which revolves around Jesus Christ) deny it so that they can be more liberal and therefore more accepted?

[Questing Beast]

So would you have people who really believe the are the one true church (note I said church not faith because Christians of different denominations have a belief in the same faith which revolves around Jesus Christ) deny it so that they can be more liberal and therefore more accepted?

No. Declaring a belief in that exclusivity isn't the problem per se. It is the attitude that is encouraged with it that manifests as the problem: a superiority perceived, that "we have the truth and God's favor", while the rest of the world, especially those who have heard "the truth" and rejected it, are to be pitied and labeled as beyond redemption, even dangerous (don't let your children play with their children, for instance). This is the trap of dogmatic exclusivity, and Mormons are very, very well-known for it. Just being a Mormon puts that label on you in many eyes. But as I said, most people in the world are not into exclusivity, but instead ecumenism. And an increasing percentage of Mormons feel the same way. That is why the Church pushes its "Christianity" so strongly. Mormons want to be seen by Christendom as more like them than different from them. There's nothing wrong with that. But it remains to be seen if it is true or not. Historically, it has not been true: too much about Mormonism is either opposed to mainstream Christianity's "creeds", or in obvious disharmony with them. But the Church is changing. It has always been changing....

[Deborah]

Mormons want to be seen by Christendom as more like them than different from them.

Nonsense. What they want is for lies not to be told about them about not believing in Jesus or the Bible. It seems to me the superiority is on the "enlightened" apostates who love to show off their new intellectual prowess in having over come the brainwashing of the church.

[Questing Beast]

It may look like that to you. I do not feel any superiority. My mantra has become, "I know almost nothing about practically everything". Being emptied is a profound and quite unsettling experience. And you learn to distrust anything before you allow it "in". Everything gets questioned, more than once, and reviewed and questioned again and again. I doubt that this ever ends....

[Robert F. Smith]

It probably was you who disparaged my "gleefully pointing out" the impossibility of the 1820 first vision dating (which IS impossible, if the church membership records are reliable - show that they are not if you want to discount them - and the memories of the other Smith family members are accurate - ditto); and asserted that this was old information, thus by implication discounting that there is any discrepancy any more. It should be you who shows by CFR that the discrepancy is dead in the water (resolved). You have not....

Mike Quinn and others have pointed to documentary evidence that Methodist revivals did in fact occur (probably out on Vienna Road) in 1820 and were mentioned in the Palmyra Register. These facts were well-known to serious historians for the past 35 years or more, but were deliberately "erased" from discussion by anti-Mormons and the so-called "New Mormon Historians." And, of course, you didn't bother to read Quinn's article when it was available on the Dialogue website.

Here is an excerpt from http://en.fairmormon...t_camp_meetings

The Methodist "camp meeting" in June 1820

In contrast to the Wikipedia article, however, Matzko does provide a balancing reference to the 1820 Methodist camp meeting:

D. Michael

Quinn

argues that, on the contrary, a Methodist camp meeting of 1820 can be fairly interpreted as the religious revival to which Joseph Smith refers and that Methodists typically only asked permission to use property for camp meetings rather than purchase the land.

[1]

One need not refer to Quinn, however, to demonstrate that at least one Methodist camp meeting took play near Palymra in 1820. The Palymra Register notes the occurrence of a Methodist camp meeting in the area in June 1820. From the Palmyra Register June 28, 1820:

Effects of Drunkenness.

[Questing Beast]

@Robert: We went over this above. The camp meetings occurred all throughout this period. And Joseph Smith probably attended more than one during more than one year. The "burned over district" was axiomatic with camp meetings. BUT the sectarian membership records do not show the kind of dramatic increase that he describes as associated with his history for 1820; they only show what he described in 1824-25.

I am not aware of anyone guilty of doing this: "...deliberately "erased" from discussion by anti-Mormons and the so-called "New Mormon Historians."" If you can show that the sectarian membership records for the years under discussion are false or otherwise unreliable then this aspect of Joseph Smith's history revision will indeed become "dead in the water"....

[Robert F. Smith]

@Robert: We went over this above. The camp meetings occurred all throughout this period. And Joseph Smith probably attended more than one during more than one year. The "burned over district" was axiomatic with camp meetings. BUT the sectarian membership records do not show the kind of dramatic increase that he describes as associated with his history for 1820; they only show what he described in 1824-25.

I am not aware of anyone guilty of doing this: "...deliberately "erased" from discussion by anti-Mormons and the so-called "New Mormon Historians."" If you can show that the sectarian membership records for the years under discussion are false or otherwise unreliable then this aspect of Joseph Smith's history revision will indeed become "dead in the water"....

I said nothing about membership records because we don't know whether Joseph had innocently combined events occurring over a period of several years in his recall of religious excitement and conversions. After all, a 14-year-old is not likely to have a pristine memory of all associated events/details up to twelve years later when he writes his first account of a vision which he had kept very private. In real life, people simply tend to make loose associations around central events which may have made an indelible impression. It is enough that there were in fact camp meetings, and people tended to shout and swoon, even if the conversion rate in any given year might be low.

Paul's Vision on the road to Damascus in the book of Acts, for example, is described more than once and the accounts have significant differences. Does this necessarily mean that Paul is a liar, or that Luke is a liar? Of course not, but it does hold true to what we know of all personal accounts. Even the Gospels disagree on basic facts at many points. Holding such accounts up to a standard of perfection is a fallacy.

Your suggestion was that it was "impossible" for Joseph to have had his First Vision in 1820 simply because you claimed that there were no camp meetings in 1820. One of the reasons Quinn wrote his article and posted it online was because he was tired of seeing the same old misinformation being bandied about, and by people who knew better (he called them to account by name).

As a young man of about 18, my grandfather attended a revival meeting at a small schoolhouse near Oskaloosa, Kansas. He was just a farmboy, but that revival changed him permanently. It didn't have to be a huge Billy Graham style revival, and maybe no one but him was "saved" that day. That event remained a source of strength for him whenever he needed it, and he went on to become an ordained Methodist minister. He kept the faith throughout his life -- even though his wife and 5 children had nearly nothing to show for it, except good, solid character.

[Questing Beast]

@Robert: our personal religions (including your grandfather's) are of no historical account or interest. Christianity is not as dependent on historical verification as Mormonism (at least not to most Christians; some critics say otherwise and make all manner of assaults on the validity of Christianity vis-a-vis the historicity of its claims, etc.).

If the "wider view" (of more historical facts held in evidence) calls Joseph Smith's reliability as an autobiographer into question, that does not de facto result in his being a shyster or even insincere. He believed and died for the doctrines that he taught (as did Jesus Christ).

My motive for being interested in Mormon history is suspect on this forum. I have a different view of Mormon history than that which I once held. It has altered my personal religion considerably as it depended once on the Mormon religion. The result of this interest in religious history is that my personal religion no longer depends on a belief in any dogmatically organized religion. This is neither good or bad: it simply is a fact of learning and accepting what I have learned. It satisfies a need for me to be able to explain why. But I don't need to burden anyone else with that. So I don't in Church. This forum provides a way for me to share those concepts that I hold; to test them; and to possibly revise them. Nothing we believe is fixed in cement and we never "arrive", but, rather, we are always traveling; or so it seems to me....

[Robert F. Smith]

@Robert: our personal religions (including your grandfather's) are of no historical account or interest. Christianity is not as dependent on historical verification as Mormonism (at least not to most Christians; some critics say otherwise and make all manner of assaults on the validity of Christianity vis-a-vis the historicity of its claims, etc.).

If the "wider view" (of more historical facts held in evidence) calls Joseph Smith's reliability as an autobiographer into question, that does not de facto result in his being a shyster or even insincere. He believed and died for the doctrines that he taught (as did Jesus Christ).

My motive for being interested in Mormon history is suspect on this forum. I have a different view of Mormon history than that which I once held. It has altered my personal religion considerably as it depended once on the Mormon religion. The result of this interest in religious history is that my personal religion no longer depends on a belief in any dogmatically organized religion. This is neither good or bad: it simply is a fact of learning and accepting what I have learned. It satisfies a need for me to be able to explain why. But I don't need to burden anyone else with that. So I don't in Church. This forum provides a way for me to share those concepts that I hold; to test them; and to possibly revise them. Nothing we believe is fixed in cement and we never "arrive", but, rather, we are always traveling; or so it seems to me....

I have managed (through sheer luck) to obtain a copy of Quinn's article in pdf format. Send me your email via message on this board, and I'll forward a copy. It is not online.