Did Joseph Smith Really Say This?

[Cobalt-70]

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?

This was an 1838 frontier newspaper, not the 21st century New York Times. These things were basically one-man shows, as far as editing was concerned (there would typically be separate type-setters and printers, however). The editor chose the contributions and their order, and wrote all the editorial content that appears as the "voice of the newspaper." If there was guest editorial content, the author was named. That's how it was for all these frontier monthlies.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

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.

It was very common for the editor to refer to himself in the third person.

[Cobalt-70]

Think it's his style?

Look at some of the flowery religious language in that same article. It sounds very much like Smith.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Storm Rider, I don't know what you're getting at here, but this article is not that big a deal either for apologists or critics. This is just Smith venting a little about some apostates and how Christian writers had been quoting them to malign the church. This article is not surprising to anyone who has read a moderate number of frontier newspapers of that era.

[CASteinman]

I don't think it is likely this was penned by Joseph. The Elders Journal was originally started in Kirtland, where Joseph Smith was Editor, but in name only, as his brother Don Carlos Smith did most of the work. The Elders Journal was then restarted -- by Don Carlos Smith -- when he moved to Far West.

[bu11fr0g]

More importantly, this is completely inconsistent with the scriptures which constitute the doctrine.

[why me]

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."

Whoever wrote the above did not write the book of mormon. Reading the above gave me a headache. The english is poor and the sentences are confusing. Joseph did not do much writing. He was not much of a journal writer which is why we have problems today. Could joseph have written the above. Yes, I think so because it was wriiten by someone unschooled in the English language. But could the person who wrote the above also have written the book of mormon: no.

[Storm Rider]

Cobalt, I was responding your your proposition that Joseph Smith was the editor and therefore wrote the text (see #15).

[Log]

More importantly, this is completely inconsistent with the scriptures which constitute the doctrine.

In context, it may not be, actually. Read it very literally - don't interpret stuff into it.

Whoever wrote the above did not write the book of mormon. Reading the above gave me a headache. The english is poor and the sentences are confusing. Joseph did not do much writing. He was not much of a journal writer which is why we have problems today. Could joseph have written the above. Yes, I think so because it was wriiten by someone unschooled in the English language. But could the person who wrote the above also have written the book of mormon: no.

Hahahaha, you know, that's a pretty good argument!

Edited May 13, 2012 by Log

[David T]

More importantly, this is completely inconsistent with the scriptures which constitute the doctrine.

In early Mormon preaching and rhetoric, not all the scriptures were given equal weight. For example, the implications of The Vision (section 76) was mostly ignored until Joseph re-emphasized aspects of it towards the end of his life, over a decade later. And by that point, there was already more nuanced understanding than the original text presented.

"Their scriptures contradict that" is very much not a good measuring stick to indicate whether any early Mormon taught, wrote, or said something or not.

[Log]

"Their scriptures contradict that" is very much not a good measuring stick to indicate whether any early Mormon taught, wrote, or said something or not.

To address the fundamental issue: the whole statement, in context, is clearly Joseph speaking as a man, but even as it stands, it is not inconsistent with the Gospel, read literally.

[Mark Beesley]

Whoever wrote the above did not write the book of mormon. Reading the above gave me a headache. The english is poor and the sentences are confusing. Joseph did not do much writing. He was not much of a journal writer which is why we have problems today. Could joseph have written the above. Yes, I think so because it was wriiten by someone unschooled in the English language. But could the person who wrote the above also have written the book of mormon: no.

Well then, considering Emma's descriptions of the Prophet's command of the written English language, this very well could have been penned by him. So what?

[CA Steve]

So if the editor is not responsible for content s/he did not specifically write, where does that leave anonymous content such as what is published by LDS Newsroom?

[rpn]

Is the Elder's Journal in the released Joseph Smith papers? Will it be?

[Calm]

They already have some selections: http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/selections-from-elders-journal-august-1838

[Carborendum]

"...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..."

If I understand "day of decision" as "judgment day", and they still choose the sectarian religions when God Himself has told them they were incorrect, I'd say that is on par with denying the Holy Ghost.

[why me]

Well then, considering Emma's descriptions of the Prophet's command of the written English language, this very well could have been penned by him. So what?

I know that he could have written it because the sentence structure was so poor. I was just having fun with the critics who claimed that joseph wrote the book. Let me put it this way: if JS wrote the book of mormon and it was written in the same sentence structure as the quotation, I would hate to be the scribe. My head would be spinning.

[why me]

"...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..."

If I understand "day of decision" as "judgment day", and they still choose the sectarian religions when God Himself has told them they were incorrect, I'd say that is on par with denying the Holy Ghost.

It would be interesting to see if Joseph actually wrote the piece or does the piece come from notes that others took. Joseph was not known to enjoy putting hand to pen during his lifetime.

[why me]

Also, if Joseph did write this piece, I can see why he wanted clayton to write his journal. Writing was a real chore for joseph. And this brings us to the book of abraham. Reading his paragraph in this thread, I cannot see JS writing the book of abraham unless of course the original translation was just as poor in sentence structure.

[Carborendum]

It would be interesting to see if Joseph actually wrote the piece or does the piece come from notes that others took. Joseph was not known to enjoy putting hand to pen during his lifetime.

I don't know if this is answerable. To me, it doesn't sound like his style. But even so, I'd be open to the idea that he reviewed it an was aware of the general content if not the verbiage or even specific content.

When taken in context, it appears to be something that is reasonable. But I don't see how this would have any impact on doctrine or history or???

[DBMormon]

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.

Cobalt we need to be careful we don't place Joseph under modern expectations of an editor now and the ethical rules and accountability that come with it. I could see Joseph having his name as editor but not always being the one if anyone to look over this work in it's every jot and tittle. Also in full context I think the quote speaks more about inappropriate judgement and jumping to conclusions. He never says whether it is right or wrong just that men are prone to do it

[Calm]

Perhaps the JS Papers project will be able to answer this question.

[why me]

When taken in context, it appears to be something that is reasonable. But I don't see how this would have any impact on doctrine or history or???

I doesn't. However, for critics, who go over every word with a fine tooth comb, everything that JS has said is up for grabs to discount the truthfulness of the lds church. I do believe that if JS would have seen the future and just how people are using his words and actions now he would be having nightmares and would not be able to function in life knowing that all that was written down by clayton or himself or others during his lifetime would be up for grabs with the critics.

Edited May 16, 2012 by why me