Why Is The "Brother Of Jared" Not Called "Mahonri" In The Book Of Mormon?

[Avatar4321]

We do not actually know what his real name is. This blessing is attributed to Joseph Smith, but we have no original statements from Joseph Smith that this was his name. I understand also that the recounting of this blessing was recorded many decades after it was given.

Considering Reynolds Calhoon and Thirza Stiles did have a son named Mohanri Moriancumer Calhoon who lived 54 years, I think that is pretty good evidence of the story...

[Freedom]

Considering Reynolds Calhoon and Thirza Stiles did have a son named Mohanri Moriancumer Calhoon who lived 54 years, I think that is pretty good evidence of the story...

They have the name, we cannot be certain that their account of the meaning of the name is accurate. They may well have misunderstood. Regardless, we have no official record that this was his name.

[Avatar4321]

They have the name, we cannot be certain that their account of the meaning of the name is accurate. They may well have misunderstood. Regardless, we have no official record that this was his name.

So where do you think the name came from?

[Freedom]

So where do you think the name came from?

Without any data we have no idea. I just think we should not assume that the source is reliable. If we do accept it as reliable, we should qualify where the name comes from. Debating it in the context of the Book of Mormon is not productive in my view because the source text does not include the name and we have no first hand record of the translator mentioning the name. Kent Jackson makes the following observation:

There is no suggestion in Moroni's abridgment why he is known by this name. Perhaps his name was not recorded on Ether's twenty-four plates, or perhaps he was actually called "the brother of Jared". In 1892, George Reynolds wrote that Joseph Smith had identified the brother of Jared's name as Mahonri Moriancumer. Even though the reference comes from a late second-hand source, it has been accepted widely...

We often reject late second hand sources that cast a negative light on the restoration but accept those that please us. It is hypocritical to accept some and reject others just because it is not convenient for our paradigm. At this point in time, the name is alleged. There is not much more we can say. We don't even know if the name was recorded property since we do not have a transcript of the blessing.

[Doug the Hutt]

They have the name, we cannot be certain that their account of the meaning of the name is accurate. They may well have misunderstood. Regardless, we have no official record that this was his name.

You must have a very low opinion of the ability of people who existed before the prevalence of smartphones with video cameras to accurately remember details of their own family for which they were present. How hard is it for a sober, level-headed 21 year old Elder to remember Joseph Smith coming into the house, conversing with his father about the newborn, blessing his baby brother with a very unusual name and then specifically telling how he got the name in a very special, very remarkable way (revelation from GOD) along with its significance (it was the name of the brother of Jared)? How the heck does someone misunderstand THAT? They would have to be total morons to get those few details confused. I mean it's not a whole lot to wrap your mind around -- it's pretty straightforward and all highly unusual which is a recipe for remembering details (you know, like remembering God appearing or Peter, James & John laying their hands upon one's head to ordain them to the Melchizedek priesthood). I can't imagine how something so special and intimate could get all jumbled up in a 'late second-hand retelling' (um.....was it Joseph who was in our house?......was it the name of Jared's brother....um....or was it an anagram from the ingredients that strange door-to-door-baby-blessing-giving-Kirtland-ite saw on a product label down at the Piggly Wiggly....?...I'm sooooo confused....).

I just chatted with a missionary on www.mormon.org and asked him "What is 'official LDS doctrine?'" He said that anything in the standard works, General Conference talks, correlated LDS publications and books reviewed by the First Presidency are "official doctrine" (he also went out of his way to say that JoD was not doctrine and neither were books by Apostles that weren't reviewed by the First Presidency). The Cahoon story is found in correlated LDS publications and is therefore "official".

Your discounting the credibility of the story makes you sound desperate to avoid the implications of the revelation. You pointed out the hypocrisy of picking out faith-promoting stories but ignoring faith-disrupting stories but didn't realize that you're also picking & choosing by defining you own definition of "official doctrine" and then going on picking your own 'official' favorites. It makes me remember the Pharisees who denounced Jesus healing the sick one fine Saturday because he was "officially" breaking the Sabbath. The Church doesn't have a problem teaching the Mahonri Moriancumer story in Institute or Sunday School or Seminary. Do we hand out salt shakers to each student as they walk in the doors? "Oh, we're the One and OnlyTrue Church and we only teach the truth, but you'll _need_ _this_..." I also find it quite convenient that you're able to poo-poo a revelation from the Prophet of the Restoration and other leaders so easily simply by discounting the credibility of the source.

Speaking of the Church not leading us astray by teaching false doctrine, here's another reference, this one by then-Elder Henry B. Eyring who I think still has *some*, you know, minor, casual involvement in the instruction of the Church like maybe an occasional hand-raiser in the Gospel Principles class or something, never redacted or retracted his teaching regarding Mahonri Moriancumer (and by association, the Brother of Mahonri Moriancumer)(patent-pending!!!):

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=355

I think the only things that are alleged in your assessment is that the name was alleged, that the account was an untrustworthy second-hand account by some wishful-thinkers with such bad mental capacity that nobody should trust them with a Tickle-me-Elmo and that people without the benefit of a transcript are incapable of keeping a few statements made in their presence by the Prophet straight.

[Freedom]

You must have a very low opinion of the ability of people who existed before the prevalence of smartphones with video cameras to accurately remember details of their own family for which they were present. How hard is it for a sober, level-headed 21 year old Elder to remember Joseph Smith coming into the house, conversing with his father about the newborn, blessing his baby brother with a very unusual name and then specifically telling how he got the name in a very special, very remarkable way (revelation from GOD) along with its significance (it was the name of the brother of Jared)? How the heck does someone misunderstand THAT? They would have to be total morons to get those few details confused.

Hi Mr Hutt,

I would recommend you take anger management classes. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I to mine. Your approach is not academically sound and, as I stated in my post, hypocritical. I would not take the word of any statement recorded many decades after the event. Regardless, it is just his statement and it is not correlated with any other primary source material.

I just chatted with a missionary on www.mormon.org and asked him "What is 'official LDS doctrine?'"

Well, I just read form the church website and read what the Church states on the subject:

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

"With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and thePearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith."

Church publications certainly contain official doctrine, but they are not the source of doctrine. Like any educational material, they pull together the best available information to teach concepts. As more knowledge is revealed, the books get edited. So far, the only source we have identifying the name of the Brother of Jared is the statement in question. This does not make this proclamation doctrine. To use your vernacular "how the heck does someone misunderstand that?". If it isn't in the scriptures or in official declarations it is not doctrine. It doesn't make it false, it simply means it deserves some qualifications.

Your discounting the credibility of the story makes you sound desperate to avoid the implications of the revelation. You pointed out the hypocrisy of picking out faith-promoting stories but ignoring faith-disrupting stories but didn't realize that you're also picking & choosing by defining you own definition of "official doctrine" and then going on picking your own 'official' favorites.

Hopefully now that you have read what the Church says on the subject rather than relying on what some 19 year old volunteer says over the phone you will take the time to calm down, check your blood pressure and realize that I am in fact being quite consistent. I have no idea what you mean by 'the implicatgions of the revelations'. There are no implications what so ever. Someone received a personal blessing. It has no implications for me or the church by any stretch of the imagination.

It makes me remember the Pharisees

Pharisees? Really?

Speaking of the Church not leading us astray by teaching false doctrine, here's another reference, this one by then-Elder Henry B. Eyring

Your quote is by Rex Reeve and it is prefaced with the statement 'The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.' I do not see a conflict with my opinion and the opinion of Elder Eyring either because his statement is not official doctrine and is his own opinion. As I have pointed out, a noted church scholar disagrees with taking so firm a stance. As the church website points out "Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine"

I think the only things that are alleged in your assessment is that the name was alleged, that the account was an untrustworthy second-hand account by some wishful-thinkers with such bad mental capacity that nobody should trust them with a Tickle-me-Elmo and that people without the benefit of a transcript are incapable of keeping a few statements made in their presence by the Prophet straight.

Comments like this only damage the messenger. All you are doing is demonstrating how unprofessional in immature you are in your approach which only serves to strengthen my position. I would suggest you tone it down a bit if you want others to consider any of your opinions worthy of a read. The church has established what is doctrine and I am allowed to have my opinion. You can kick and scream all you want. I am concerned that you are so over-the-top passionate about such a trivial bit of church teachings. Readers of your comments unfamiliar with church doctrine would think that questioning the name of Jared's brother is akin to dismissing the true nature of God.

[volgadon]

Doug does have a valid point.

You, though, haven't provided solid grounds for questioning the veracity of the Mahonri Moriancumer story.

[Freedom]

Doug does have a valid point.

You, though, haven't provided solid grounds for questioning the veracity of the Mahonri Moriancumer story.

I am not questioning the story. It is not a matter of questioning the story but rather of considering the type of source. There is no official statement from the church stating that this is his name. We have a second hand source made years after the event and we need to consider this. No legitimate scholar would accept this as proof. At best, we can say that it is alleged that Joseph Smith identified the name. I was also pointing out that there are several statements by church leaders who claim Joseph said a certain thing but we dismiss it if it contradicts our understanding of doctrine. For some reason, the true name of the Brother of Jared has become a sacred cow. This really is not that big a deal, i am unclear why people are getting so excited about it. I have simply pointed out that we have no primary source from Joseph Smith and no collaborative statements from others at the blessing to support the claim. I am not suggesting that it did not occur or that the person is lying or even wrong. I am simply pointing out that it is a second hand account recorded years after the event. If we changed the topic from the Mohonri to the kinderhook, sexual harassment or treasure hunting we quickly decry the evidence because Joseph was only 'alleged' to have made certain statements.

You are free to embrace this report of the blessing as scripture and accept that we now know the name of the Brother of Jared. I would rather be more tentative.

[altersteve]

Come to think of it, I agree with Freedom here. It's just like how it is "alleged" that Joseph thought there were 1,000-year-old, 6-foot-tall Quakers living on the moon. There's no proof he said this.

[KevinG]

Come to think of it, I agree with Freedom here. It's just like how it is "alleged" that Joseph thought there were 1,000-year-old, 6-foot-tall Quakers living on the moon. There's no proof he said this.

I thought it was Brigham who was sourced as the person who believed that?

[altersteve]

I thought it was Brigham who was sourced as the person who believed that?

We have a third-hand account from Oliver B. Huntington, who wrote in 1881 that Joseph believed it, but you're right, Brigham Young believed that both the moon and the sun are inhabited. I don't think Brigham ever said anything about Quakers, though.