Did Joseph Smith Really Say This?

[inquiringmind]

"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels." (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60)

[Log]

I am unable to verify the citation, and my net search turns up solely anti-Mormon sources for it.

[inquiringmind]

I am unable to verify the citation, and my net search turns up solely anti-Mormon sources for it.

Thank you Jared.

Do you know what this ""Elder's Journal" (supposedly edited by Joseph) is?

I've heard of the History of the Church, the Journal of Discourses, and even one or two newspapers he edited, but I've never seen this referred to before.

Edited May 13, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Log]

Nope - I've never heard of it before.

[inquiringmind]

Hummm.

Thank you.

[Log]

I will also add that if the verbiage is Joseph's, then it is the only such statement of that sentiment I've ever seen from him.

The Elders' Journal existed, that much I know (now), but I don't have access to the contents thereof.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Log

[Gohan]

Think I found a copy, give me a while and I'll see if anything turns up...page numbers are being difficult...

That citation didn't happen to have a year attached to it that you didn't post, did it?

Edited May 13, 2012 by Gohan

[Log]

http://archive.org/s...age/55/mode/1up

I found the citation, but there's no authorial attribution.

The verbiage does not, to me, appear to be Joseph's.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Log

[CA Steve]

The citation is from the Elders Journal as noted. Here is more of it.

"Good men loves to associate with good men; and bad men with bad ones; and when two see men making friends with drunkards,thieves, liars, and swindlers, shall we call them saints? If we were to do it, we might he justly charged with partaking of their evil deeds.-'Therefore until we have more evidence than we have now, we shill always think when we see men associating with scoundrels, that they themselves are scoundrels.And there we shall leave them for the present, firmly believing, that when the day of decision has come, that we shall see all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day, with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels."

[Log]

So, as it turns out, once again, the ellipses are masking significant qualifiers, no matter whose verbiage it is.

[Gohan]

Glad somebody else typed the full paragraph, I didn't quite want to. I've been going over it, that entire section is worth reading. And the archive.org link that Log posted is much easier on the eyes than is the one on Google Books, so I'd look at that one for anyone interested.

[Log]

Yeah, the whole article is interesting, and I am personally convinced it is NOT Joseph who wrote it.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Log

[CA Steve]

According to page 54 he was the editor.

[Log]

According to page 54 he was the editor.

Editor is not author. Joseph was a pretty liberal guy, from all accounts, mostly letting people say what they wanted.

[Cobalt-70]

http://archive.org/s...age/55/mode/1up

I found the citation, but there's no authorial attribution.

The verbiage does not, to me, appear to be Joseph's.

Joseph Smith was the editor of this journal, and thus any unattributed editorial language would be his. Looking at other examples of unattributed text in this journal, it is clear that Smith himself did write this material. For example, it is through editorial language in this journal that Smith admitted that he had been a money digger. Such information could only have come from him, and there is no reason to think Smith was delegating the actual work of editing to an un-credited mystery writer. In any event, as he is the editor, he was responsible for all editorial content, and readers would assume that he was the author of anything written by "the editor."

Edited May 13, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Log]

Joseph Smith was the editor of this journal, and thus any unattributed editorial language would be his.

And it can be proven that for each instance of unattributed language in The Elders' Journal, that language was Joseph Smith's?

In any event, it scarcely matters, does it?

Edited May 13, 2012 by Log

[Cobalt-70]

And it can be proven that for each instance of unattributed language in The Elders' Journal, that language was Joseph Smith's?

In any event, it scarcely matters, does it?

Because Smith was listed as the editor of the journal, and claimed to be the editor, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that he was wasn't actually the editor. But yes, it doesn't matter. Whether he wrote the first draft of it or not, he was responsible for the content.

[Storm Rider]

Joseph Smith was the editor of this journal, and thus any unattributed editorial language would be his. Looking at other examples of unattributed text in this journal, it is clear that Smith himself did write this material. For example, it is through editorial language in this journal that Smith admitted that he had been a money digger. Such information could only have come from him, and there is no reason to think Smith was delegating the actual work of editing to an un-credited mystery writer. In any event, as he is the editor, he was responsible for all editorial content, and readers would assume that he was the author of anything written by "the editor."

So you are saying that when there is an editor of a newspaper, a book, a journal that every word in them belongs solely to the editor; that the editor is the author? My, that is a high standard in deed. Generally, good editors approve of everything that is written; they are supposed to have read all written text and approved it, but that does not happen even today. Are you really saying this or is Smith just a special case of someone that never used scribes and wrote all his own test and then edited perfectly every time?

[Log]

Because Smith was listed as the editor of the journal, and claimed to be the editor, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that he was wasn't actually the editor.

Who claims Joseph wasn't the editor? The claim that is under examination now is whether all unattributed text in the Elders' Journal was Joseph's writing. Can you therefore prove that for each unattributed text in the Elders' Journal that Joseph was the author and not merely the editor?

The reason it scarcely matters, of course, is because the full citation does not exactly say what the edited version presented in the OP says.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Log

[Storm Rider]

It would be helpful to make sure the word "editor" is understood. It is defined as:

ed·i·tor

  <a onmousedown="spk(this,{lk:'nx1fkx',en:'wotdau',io:'0',b:'wotd',tp:'lrl',m:'wotdau'})" href="#"></a><a target="_blank" href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/E00/E0046400"><img border="0" src="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif"></a> /ˈɛdɪtər/ Show IPA

noun

1. a person having managerial and sometimes policy-making responsibility for the editorial part of a publishing firm or of a newspaper, magazine, or other publication.

2. the supervisor or conductor of a department of a newspaper, magazine, etc.: the sports editor of a newspaper.

3. a person who edits material for publication, films, etc.

4. a device for editing film or magnetic tape.

Stating that an editor is the author of every word is incorrect and demonstartes a misunderstanding of the term. Smith should have reviewed the test and approved what was written. Whether he did or not is only supposition; he allowed his name to go on it. Regardless, it is interesting how supposedly educated, neutral critics like to parse language to meet an agenda. As soon as they do this, they no longer can claim the title critic but become anti-Mormon and they lose any confidence that they know what they are talking about.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Storm Rider

[Log]

So, in combing through the journal, it appears some articles are explicitly attributed to "Editor," such as on page 4, 17, 19, 31, 54, and so on.

Joseph was explicitly named author on page 17, 47, and so on.

Joseph was unattributed, but the writing was in his voice on pages 42 - 44.

Many unattributed writings were given, such as High Council minutes (see p. 46, for example), which seem unlikely on their face to have been authored by Joseph.

On its face, it appears that there is, in fact, no reason to suppose unattributed writings were necessarily Joseph's writing, even if he was the editor.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

such as High Council minutes (see p. 46, for example), which seem unlikely on their face to have been authored by Joseph.

Good catch. Edited May 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

Well, truth be told, I am now persuaded that Joseph did write the stuff in question.

[Calm]

Think it's his style?

[Log]

Yes, I do. Reading the whole thing in context, it does seem clear it is him using the royal third person basically defending himself against the calumny from the apostates.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Log