History Of The Church

[inquiringmind]

I'm reading "The History of the Church."

I understand it's not one of the standard works, but it does seem to have been written by Joseph Smith.

How reliable and authoritative is it?

[Ares]

Which one?

Comprehensive History by BH Roberts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_History_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Or Documentary History of the Church http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Church taken from Joseph Smiths writings, transcriptions of his sermons, exerpts from the journals kept by his scribes and other Church historians after Joseph's death.

Both links talk about authorship.

[inquiringmind]

The second one.

How authoritative is it?

[Emerson]

It's a tricky question. First and foremost, though, it should be recognized that even though it sounds as if it were written by Joseph Smith, in actuality it was written by his scribes and secretaries. As was the case for many historical works of the period, they shifted a lot of the "Joseph Smith said" to "I said" to make it sound more authoritative. The project was started in 1838/39, where it began with Joseph Smith's childhood, and made it to the events of 1838 before Joseph Smith was murdered. So, for the chronology from Joseph's birth to when the Saints were kicked out of Kirtland, Joseph at least oversaw the writing--though we do not really know how much of an active hand he had in participating. Probably not much, though obviously he would have been able to answer questions. After Joseph's death, the project was, for the most part, put on the backburner for a decade and wasn't picked up again until the 1850s. Willard Richards was the head compiler for the first half, and George A. Smith for the second. They had access to many historical documents--some documents that are still not available for researchers--so it can be a good source in that sense. They followed a lot of the historical practices of the day, which we would generally call into question now. Then BH Roberts went through and edited it several decades later, again using historical practices of the day that have been since discarded. Dean Jessee, who has worked in the Church's historical department for a long, long time, has a couple really good articles on the topic.

To put it simply, it was a great accomplishment for its day, but it has severe limitations. It is good to give you a general idea, but they--both subconsciously and very consciously--left many things out. The most blatant instances, of course, are Joseph Smith's treasure seeking as a boy and his polygamous practices in Nauvoo--two themes that dominated those particular time periods. They also had to rely on competing and conflicting accounts, which can make the history muddled at times. The Joseph Smith Papers Project, for example, have deemed the series too problematic to be trusted, and will be providing earlier documentation and manuscripts on their website soon as a replacement for historians.

If you are a major history buff, it could be useful to read through. In a majority of cases, though, I think one would be best to look elsewhere.

[ldsfaqs]

It is a basic overview of many events related to the history of the Church. No history book covers every single detail from start to finish of history.

It would be a multi-volume encyclopedic sized work if one did. Maybe there will come a time when such a work is done, but it's a huge endeavor that would take many years.

There already are multi-volume works, but they are generally on one subject area, such as the Joseph Smith Papers project.

One needs to read a vast majority of the historical works on the Church, in order to get a full picture.

It's good to throw some anti-mormon works in there also, just to compare. But, LDS works get into all the issues, thus not necessary, but it's good to see how the anti's don't tell the whole truth of issues, making false conclusions by omitting important information on subjects. This fact makes me always laugh when they accuse LDS of hiding history and such.

Anyway, you just need to start reading many of the LDS historical works out there, and then you will get the full picture, including "History of the Church".

[inquiringmind]

Thank you.

One thing I'm interested in is whether Joseph ever had a premonition of his own death.

Does anyone know?

(I'd be very interested in anything Joseph may have said or written on the subject, and I haven't found anything along those lines yet.)

[LeSellers]

One thing I'm interested in is whether Joseph ever had a premonition of his own death.

I answered in your new topic.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

I answered in your new topic.

Lehi

Thank you.

[cinepro]

I'm reading "The History of the Church."

I understand it's not one of the standard works, but it does seem to have been written by Joseph Smith.

How reliable and authoritative is it?

While not perfect, this manual is entirely readable and probably a lot more reliable:

Church History in the Fulness of Times

You can get it from the distribution center for $10.

[mapman]

The Teachings of Joseph Smith has a good explanation in an appendix. It is pretty acurate historically even if it isn't as clear as we would like about its sources. (unrelated, but I just noticed that lds.org search now searches josephsmithpapers.org)

[Questing Beast]

I'm reading "The History of the Church."

I understand it's not one of the standard works, but it does seem to have been written by Joseph Smith.

How reliable and authoritative is it?

I have it and have read it. By doing so you get in a re-reading of the D&C too, since each "section" comes along in its historical context.

Anyone studying Mormon history must include this work overseen and dictated in part by Joseph Smith....

[Questing Beast]

While not perfect, this manual is entirely readable and probably a lot more reliable:

Church History in the Fulness of Times

You can get it from the distribution center for $10.

Why do you assert that a puny rewrite is "a lot more reliable" than the first history of the church ever compiled, and by the first prophet of the church?...

[Bob Crockett]

Why do you assert that a puny rewrite is "a lot more reliable" than the first history of the church ever compiled, and by the first prophet of the church?...

I don't consider B.H. Roberts the "first prophet of the church."

What you're reading is his rewrite of history, with an emphasis on political issues. While acceptable in its day, it would never even remotely pass muster today as a recitation of history. It is still in print because of its historical value itself and that it is the writing of a general authority.

B.H. Roberts was, indeed, the Church Historian when this work was published. But the Church Historian's mandate is to keep a faithful history, not publish one to the masses. Every church historian who has sought to exceed his mandate and publish history (like, Essentials in Church History) is merely acting as a man without a divine mandate. Witness Leonard Arrington's experience. He thought he had a mandate to publish when he didn't.

Edited July 4, 2011 by rcrocket

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't consider B.H. Roberts the "first prophet of the church."

What you're reading is his rewrite of history, with an emphasis on political issues. While acceptable in its day, it would never even remotely pass muster today as a recitation of history. It is still in print because of its historical value itself and that it is the writing of a general authority.

B.H. Roberts was, indeed, the Church Historian when this work was published. But the Church Historian's mandate is to keep a faithful history, not publish one to the masses. Every church historian who has sought to exceed his mandate and publish history (like, Essentials in Church History) is merely acting as a man without a divine mandate. Witness Leonard Arrington's experience. He thought he had a mandate to publish when he didn't.

Not certain, but I think you may be confusing History of the Church with A Comprehensive History of the Church. While both are the product of B. H. Roberts, they are quite distinct. History of the Church is primarily a compilation of journal entries, ostensibly penned by the Prophet Joseph Smith, although I think they were largely written by his scribes and clerks at his behest (as noted here by others), consistent with documentary and administrative practices of the day. The latter is Roberts's own narrative history of the Church, and it appears from your remarks above, that may be more what you have in mind.

Also, it may be a fine point, but B. H. Roberts never was the Church Historian, although he did serve for a time as Assistant Church Historian. They are separate and distinct priesthood offices.

Finally, I will take a stand here and say that I still regard A Comprehensive History as a fine work, one of the classics in LDS literature. If, in so believing that, I am out of step with those who say it doesn't "pass muster today as a recitation of history," then so be it.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[David T]

Not certain, but I think you may be confusing History of the Church with A Comprehensive History of the Church. While both are the product of B. H. Roberts, they are quite distinct. History of the Church is primarily a compilation of journal entries, ostensibly penned by the Prophet Joseph Smith, although I think they were largely written by his scribes and clerks at his behest (as noted here by others), consistent with documentary and administrative practices of the day. The latter is Roberts's own narrative history of the Church, and it appears from your remarks above, that may be more what you have in mind.

I don't think he's confusing them, although I think his rhetoric is a little over the top. The B.H. Roberts editions - of which I am reading through right now (and am currently in vol 5, in the middle of June of 1843) - is indeed highly redacted in its editing - although to be fair, heavy layers of editing and redaction were done before B.H. Roberts even began his work. Many of the sermon reports are and had been selectively merged, and at times, given emendations that significantly doctrinally change what was originally recorded in the source documents.

While a great general source for chronology and placement of events and documents (I'm highly enjoying reading through it), I strongly recommend using a few other documentary histories as companions to 'check' certain original sources. There are some substantial (and at times very enlightening!) differences. These are the volumes I've been using that I've found the most useful:

For Journal Entries:

Joseph Smith Papers, Journals: Volume 1

For Revelation Texts:

Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations: Manuscript Revelation Books

For Sermons

The Words of Joseph Smith (only currently available in Kindle form) - also good for Nauvoo Era D&C sections, which often came from sermon extracts

For 1842-1845 events involving Joseph's Quorum of the Anointed / Development of the Temple Ordinances

Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Anointed

For what its worth, I understand that Joseph's Manuscript History of the Church is getting two new treatments right now - one as part of the Joseph Smith Papers: Histories series, and one by Dan Vogel (who also published the outstanding Early Mormon Documents series).

Also, word on the street is that the Church History Department is, at the very least, preparing for a brand new 21st Century Multi-Volume Comprehensive History of the Church.

Edited July 7, 2011 by nackhadlow

[David T]

Here's an example of editing:

Willard Richard's Joseph Smith Diary, 2 April 1843: (as cited in Cook, Lyndon W. (2009). The Words of Joseph Smith (Kindle Locations 3271-3273). Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition. )

again reverted to Elders Hyde mistake. &c. the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.—and a person cannot have the personage of the H G in his heart he may receive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him,

The Footnote for that entry is as follows:

5. Neither the William Clayton Diary, the Joseph Smith Diary here quoted, nor the draft Manuscript History of the Church entry for this date, implies the phrasing of D&C 130:22: "Were it not so [that the Holy Ghost is a spirit], the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." Originally the wording in the Manuscript History of the Church entry for this date was the same as in the original draft, but in the 1850s the Church historians reworded it to read the way it appears in the Doctrine and Covenants. Other than this alteration, the Joseph Smith Diary is the source for D&C 130:22-23.

Cook, Lyndon W. (2009). The Words of Joseph Smith (Kindle Locations 3281-3285). Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition.

[David T]

[bump]

[inquiringmind]

Here's an example of editing:

Willard Richard's Joseph Smith Diary, 2 April 1843: (as cited in Cook, Lyndon W. (2009). The Words of Joseph Smith (Kindle Locations 3271-3273). Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition. )

again reverted to Elders Hyde mistake. &c. the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.—and a person cannot have the personage of the H G in his heart he may receive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him,

The Footnote for that entry is as follows:

5. Neither the William Clayton Diary, the Joseph Smith Diary here quoted, nor the draft Manuscript History of the Church entry for this date, implies the phrasing of D&C 130:22: "Were it not so [that the Holy Ghost is a spirit], the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." Originally the wording in the Manuscript History of the Church entry for this date was the same as in the original draft, but in the 1850s the Church historians reworded it to read the way it appears in the Doctrine and Covenants. Other than this alteration, the Joseph Smith Diary is the source for D&C 130:22-23.

Cook, Lyndon W. (2009). The Words of Joseph Smith (Kindle Locations 3281-3285). Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition.

I'm confussed here.

Which version is the original, and which is edited?

Did Joseph say that the person of the HG could live in our hearts, or that He couldn't?

Edited July 10, 2011 by inquiringmind

[David T]

I'm confussed here.

Which version is the original, and which is edited?

Did Joseph say that the person of the HG could live in our hearts, or that He couldn't?

Original:

the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.—and a person cannot have the personage of the H G in his heart he may receive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him,

Edited (and canonized in D&C):

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him.

--

The original (citing Joseph) states that the personage of the HG cannot dwell in someone's heart. The edited version, revised and canonized following Joseph's death, says he can, because he's a spirit. They are opposites. The original makes much more sense in the context of full LDS theology.

Edited July 10, 2011 by nackhadlow

[volgadon]

Original:

the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.—and a person cannot have the personage of the H G in his heart he may receive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him,

Edited (and canonized in D&C):

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him.

--

The original (citing Joseph) states that the personage of the HG cannot dwell in someone's heart. The edited version, revised and canonized following Joseph's death, says he can, because he's a spirit. They are opposites. The original makes much more sense in the context of full LDS theology.

Thanks! I was just thinking about this the other day. I remember hearing a Truman Madsen recording mentioning that, unsourced of course.

[cinepro]

Then there's this from Von Wagoner's book "Mormon Polygamy", as discussed in this blog post:

“The Prophet’s most pointed denial of plural marriage occurred on 5 October 1843 in instructions pronounced publicly in the streets of Nauvoo. Willard Richards wrote in Smith’s diary that Joseph ‘gave instructions to try those who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives...Joseph forbids it and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife.’”

Which he goes on to note:

“When incorporating Smith's journal into the History of the Church, church leaders, under Brigham Young's direction, deleted ten key words from this significant passage and added forty-nine others so that it now reads:

"Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives; for, according to the law, I hold the keys of this power in the last days; for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power and its keys are conferred and I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise." (Emphasis in blog post)

And yes, this is the same Church that altered Brigham Young's statements for the recent Priesthood manual to de-polygamize them.