Bushman And A Charge Against Believers

[CASteinman]

You did. Read your own post.

No. I said the quote was bogus. It was not Bushman complaining. It was Bushman reciting a complaint. But Bushman was not, himself, complaining. Even recognizing your quote.

[spartacus]

I don't know if I believe that.

Peter seemed to think he was a prophet.

Acts 1:15 ¶ And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Edited to add,

Let's not forget this one.

Acts 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

No need for two prophets. There was Nathan who was set apart by Samuel. Secondly, do we really want David as a prophet? Consider the adultery, murder, etc.

Wow, way to ignore the evidence. "Prophet" is a term with many meanings. Obviously, Ron is going with the LDS "one prophet" in authority over all. But Ron, can only THE Prophet write scripture? Vance gave evidence that Peter considered David a writer/recorder of the Word of God. Is it possible to be a writer of God's Word but not a Prophet or prophet?

Also, your statement about whether we would want David as a prophet is.... Wow - I might break a rule of the board if I attempted to describe my reaction to that.

David is described by God as "a man after My own heart" TWICE! - Both before (1 Sam 13:14) those sins you seem to think that preclude him from consideration AND AFTER (Acts 13:22). He was chosen to be King by God and chosen to be the predecessor of Jesus (oh and there are others in Jesus' bloodline you probably wouldn't approve of either - But God did!). Jesus is referred to as the "seed of David", the "Son of David", he is in the line of David, and heir to David's Throne! For someone so honored of God, you show much disrespect.

Even from a compassionate LDS perspective, and the official one I suspect, David is still to be honored, because he CONFESSED and REPENTED!

Ron, I don't think we have talked before, but, Whoa!, you've got to do some rethinking here.

Do you know that the Testimony of God says that if you fail in one of the commandments you are guilty of all (James 2:10)? Which of your "Prophets" has not lied, has not stolen, has not lusted, has not hated, has not coveted, has kept the Sabbath perfectly?

You and I would be incredibly blessed to be considered men after God's own heart. Your Prophets too.

[Robert F. Smith]

Wow, way to ignore the evidence. "Prophet" is a term with many meanings. Obviously, Ron is going with the LDS "one prophet" in authority over all. But Ron, can only THE Prophet write scripture? Vance gave evidence that Peter considered David a writer/recorder of the Word of God. Is it possible to be a writer of God's Word but not a Prophet or prophet?

Also, your statement about whether we would want David as a prophet is.... Wow - I might break a rule of the board if I attempted to describe my reaction to that.

David is described by God as "a man after My own heart" TWICE! - Both before (1 Sam 13:14) those sins you seem to think that preclude him from consideration AND AFTER (Acts 13:22). He was chosen to be King by God and chosen to be the predecessor of Jesus (oh and there are others in Jesus' bloodline you probably wouldn't approve of either - But God did!). Jesus is referred to as the "seed of David", the "Son of David", he is in the line of David, and heir to David's Throne! For someone so honored of God, you show much disrespect.

Even from a compassionate LDS perspective, and the official one I suspect, David is still to be honored, because he CONFESSED and REPENTED!

Ron, I don't think we have talked before, but, Whoa!, you've got to do some rethinking here.

Do you know that the Testimony of God says that if you fail in one of the commandments you are guilty of all (James 2:10)? Which of your "Prophets" has not lied, has not stolen, has not lusted, has not hated, has not coveted, has kept the Sabbath perfectly?

You and I would be incredibly blessed to be considered men after God's own heart. Your Prophets too.

Well spoken, spartacus!!

[Nevo]

Also, your statement about whether we would want David as a prophet is.... Wow - I might break a rule of the board if I attempted to describe my reaction to that.

David is described by God as "a man after My own heart" TWICE! - Both before (1 Sam 13:14) those sins you seem to think that preclude him from consideration AND AFTER (Acts 13:22). He was chosen to be King by God and chosen to be the predecessor of Jesus (oh and there are others in Jesus' bloodline you probably wouldn't approve of either - But God did!). Jesus is referred to as the "seed of David", the "Son of David", he is in the line of David, and heir to David's Throne! For someone so honored of God, you show much disrespect.

I've resisted commenting on this issue thus far because David's worthiness has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. But I don't think spartacus's attack on Ron is warranted. The historical David was very likely a nasty piece of work (see, in this regard, Baruch Halpern's study, David's Secret Demons). Even the literary David of the books of Samuel—which is basically court propaganda—leaves something to be desired in my view (e.g., 1 Kings 2:8–9), but to each their own.

[Scott Lloyd]

The FAIR article cited in this thread, by the way, is not a sober scholarly analysis but a highly defensive, one-sided brief aimed at demolishing the credibility of critics of Joseph Smith. The fact is, responsible historians can and do make use of the Hurlbut affidavits, as they do the transcripts of Joseph's 1826 examination before Justice Neely that Hugh Nibley ridiculed mercilessly in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass.

I find some irony in critics' dismissal of the back story regarding the Hurlbut affidavits as a "smear campaign" even as the critics seem anxious to overlook the smear-campaign elements in Hurlbut's gathering of the affidavits in the first place.

[Scott Lloyd]

The FAIR article cited in this thread, by the way, is not a sober scholarly analysis but a highly defensive, one-sided brief aimed at demolishing the credibility of critics of Joseph Smith. The fact is, responsible historians can and do make use of the Hurlbut affidavits, as they do the transcripts of Joseph's 1826 examination before Justice Neely that Hugh Nibley ridiculed mercilessly in Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass.

If Nevo does not think the FAIR treatment scholarly enough, perhaps he will find this articleby Matt Roper more suitable. Titled "The Mythical Manuscript Found," it is a review of a book seeking to resurrect the Spalding theory of the Book of Mormon origin.

Scroll down to find the portion of Roper's article relevant to our discussion. It is under the subheading "Hurlbut: A Man, a Legend, a Way of Life."

Edited August 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

If Nevo does not think the FAIR treatment scholarly enough, perhaps he will find this articleby Matt Roper more suitable. Titled "The Mythical Manuscript Found," it is a review of a book seeking to resurrect the Spauding theory of the Book of Mormon origin.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. I am not ignorant of Hurlbut's history or his motives in canvassing the Smiths' Manchester/Palmyra neighbors. He was obviously looking for damaging information. But it does not follow that the affidavits are historically worthless because they were solicited by an unscrupulous individual.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. I am not ignorant of Hurlbut's history or his motives in canvassing the Smiths' Manchester/Palmyra neighbors. He was obviously looking for damaging information. But it does not follow that the affidavits are historically worthless because they were solicited by an unscrupulous individual.

I'm only solidifying my point that motive, character, trustworthiness and background go to credibility and ought not be ignored or dismissed when evaluating Hurlbut's output as source material.

Furthermore, I remind you that I only put a link in this thread in the first place as a prompt response to sethpayne's solicitation for "an article/reference with more detail on" Hurlbut's background (see post #21). When you disparaged that link, I sought to provide something else you might find closer to your standard.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

I'm only solidifying my point that motive, character, trustworthiness and background go to credibility and ought not be ignored or dismissed when evaluating Hurlbut's output as source material.

Okay, I agree. The Hurlbut affidavits should be used cautiously.

But your initial post on this thread suggested that a "good historian" would point out that "the affidavits gathered by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut...were quite obviously composed by Hurlbut himself"—in other words, a good historian would not use the affidavits as source material and could be expected to warn others that they were wholly unreliable ("composed by Hurlbut himself").

I answered this point by noting that good historians do make use of the Hurlbut affidavits, albeit carefully and selectively, while the FAIR article you cited (apparently as an example of good historical scholarship) is actually an example of the sort of defend-the-faith-at-all-costs approach that Bushman was trying to distance himself from in his essay.

[CASteinman]

it does not follow that the affidavits are historically worthless because they were solicited by an unscrupulous individual.

That much I would agree with -- that the mere fact that "an enemy collected them so that makes them worthless" is not a reasonable position. (Which is what it seems you are saying is the reasoning of LDS).

But to my eye, it is the apparent evidence of tampering or at least coaching that makes them difficult to accept as reliable. I would think this is not a matter of being a member of the Faith but of being a reasonably judicious person when it appears so flagrant. (It has been a long time since I read through them but I remember noticing the patterns at the time and then reading about them later in critiques). I would expect fair historians to consider them impeached and address them only when some completely unrelated source provides some information that these "affidavits" might confirm -- and since they are really so bad, they almost seem like they should be a footnote at best -- with something of an apology for having to appeal to them if that is the best corroboration you could find.

I am hard pressed to think of a specific instance where they were used with appropriate cautions and at the same time produced historical value. Perhaps you have some examples as that is, I understand, your profession or avocation.

Edited August 22, 2012 by CASteinman

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay, I agree. The Hurlbut affidavits should be used cautiously.

But your initial post on this thread suggested that a "good historian" would point out that "the affidavits gathered by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut...were quite obviously composed by Hurlbut himself"—in other words, a good historian would not use the affidavits as source material and could be expected to warn others that they were wholly unreliable ("composed by Hurlbut himself").

Here is my full paragraph as written:

For example: I recall reading that affidavits gathered by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut from Palmyra townsfolk defaming the Prophet Joseph Smith and his family were quite obviously composed by Hurlbut himself for the signature of whomever he could find to sign them. A history that did not point out this fact would be deficient, in my opinion.

You will here observe that you misquoted me, albeit slightly. I did not say "the affidavits gathered" but rather, "affidavits gathered." You may think it a fine point, but the paragraph as written leaves open the possibility that not all of the affidavits were composed by Hurlbut.

Moreover, I did not suggest here that a good historian should avoid use of the affidavits altogether or that said historian must force the conclusion in the reader's mind that they were "wholly unreliable," as you phrase it. I only said that a good historian should point out the questionable nature of the affidavits as information sources. Do you find this unreasonable?

I answered this point by noting that good historians do make use of the Hurlbut affidavits, albeit carefully and selectively, ...

Where have I contradicted this?

... while the FAIR article you cited (apparently as an example of good historical scholarship) is actually an example of the sort of defend-the-faith-at-all-costs approach that Bushman was trying to distance himself from in his essay.

I saw the FAIR Wiki article as a quick-reference source to answer sethpayne's request for more information about the deficiency of the Hurlbut material. As you know, when you indicated it did not measure up to your standard, I endeavored to provide something else.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

I am hard pressed to think of a specific instance where they were used with appropriate cautions and at the same time produced historical value. Perhaps you have some examples as that is, I understand, your profession or avocation.

Hi CASteinman. First, a correction. I am not a historian myself, professional or otherwise. I am more of a dilettante than anything. By profession I am a technical writer. But I do enjoy reading LDS history. I'll see if I can dig up some examples for you. I think most of the historians who've looked seriously at Joseph Smith's early scrying over the past 30 years have used the affidavits responsibly. I'm thinking here primarily of Richard Bushman, Ronald Walker, Marvin Hill, Alan Taylor, D. Michael Quinn, H. Michael Marquardt, Dan Vogel, and most recently Mark Ashurst-McGee.

You will here observe that you misquoted me, albeit slightly. I did not say "the affidavits gathered" but rather, "affidavits gathered." You may think it a fine point, but the paragraph as written leaves open the possibility that not all of the affidavits were composed by Hurlbut.

Scott, I apologize for misquoting you. I did not notice the missing definite article and thought that you were claiming that the affidavits were Hurlbut fabrications, with the inference being that they did not merit consideration as historical sources. Since that was not the case, I guess we don't disagree after all.

[CASteinman]

Hi CASteinman. First, a correction. I am not a historian myself, professional or otherwise. I am more of a dilettante than anything. By profession I am a technical writer. But I do enjoy reading LDS history. I'll see if I can dig up some examples for you. I think most of the historians who've looked seriously at Joseph Smith's early scrying over the past 30 years have used the affidavits responsibly. I'm thinking here primarily of Richard Bushman, Ronald Walker, Marvin Hill, Alan Taylor, D. Michael Quinn, H. Michael Marquardt, Dan Vogel, and most recently Mark Ashurst-McGee.

No need to quote... just brief references to the places I might look would be interesting. This is not a CFR... just curious.

[Nevo]

No need to quote... just brief references to the places I might look would be interesting. This is not a CFR... just curious.

Okay, but I will at least track down some references. In the meantime, here are four links that provide some background on the debate over the Hurlbut affidavits:

• Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reappraised," BYU Studies 10 (Spring 1970): 283-314.
  

• Rodger I. Anderson, Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990).
  

• Marvin S. Hill, review of Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined by Rodger I. Anderson, BYU Studies 30 (Fall 1990): 70-74.
  

• Richard Lloyd Anderson, review of Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined by Rodger I. Anderson, FARMS Review 3, no. 1 (1991): 55-80.
  

The review by Hill (#3 on the list) is a good, brief overview.

[CASteinman]

Okay, but I will at least track down some references. In the meantime, here are four links that provide some background on the debate over the Hurlbut affidavits:

• Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reappraised," BYU Studies 10 (Spring 1970): 283-314.
  

• Rodger I. Anderson, Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990).
  

• Marvin S. Hill, review of Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined by Rodger I. Anderson, BYU Studies 30 (Fall 1990): 70-74.
  

• Richard Lloyd Anderson, review of Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Reexamined by Rodger I. Anderson, FARMS Review 3, no. 1 (1991): 55-80.
  

The review by Hill (#3 on the list) is a good, brief overview.

Thank you... I wish you had not been so speedy.. I have other things to do but now must look....

============

Edit

Ahhh.. This is not quite what I was thinking about. I do not doubt that historians may debate the quality of the "affidavits".

What I was saying is that legitimate non-ax grinding use of them is barely ever done -- for they are unreliable. And I do not mean this as a "no true scottsman" type of thing. I mean it just doesn't happen.

Edited August 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[Nevo]

No need to quote... just brief references to the places I might look would be interesting. This is not a CFR... just curious.

Here are a few references:

• Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (M.A. thesis, Utah State University, 2000), 130, 143, 147, 148.
  

• Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 49-50, 54, 573n81, 573n84, 573n86, 575n99, 575n100.
  

• Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd ed. (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 20, 314n40.
  

• Alan Taylor, "The Early Republic's Supernatural Economy: Treasure Seeking in the American Northeast, 1780-1830," American Quarterly 38, no. 1 (1986): 10-11, 30n12, 30n14.
  

• Ronald W. Walker, "The Persisting Idea of American Treasure Hunting," BYU Studies 24, no. 4 (1984): 448n118.
  

Peter Ingersoll's statement is referred to most frequently, followed by William Stafford's and Willard Chase's. For additional examples, see D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake CIty: Signature Books, 1998) and Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004).

[CASteinman]

Here are a few references:

• Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (M.A. thesis, Utah State University, 2000), 130, 143, 147, 148.
  

• Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 49-50, 54, 573n81, 573n84, 573n86, 575n99, 575n100.
  

• Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd ed. (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 20, 314n40.
  

• Alan Taylor, "The Early Republic's Supernatural Economy: Treasure Seeking in the American Northeast, 1780-1830," American Quarterly 38, no. 1 (1986): 10-11, 30n12, 30n14.
  

• Ronald W. Walker, "The Persisting Idea of American Treasure Hunting," BYU Studies 24, no. 4 (1984): 448n118.
  

Peter Ingersoll's statement is referred to most frequently, followed by William Stafford's and Willard Chase's. For additional examples, see D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake CIty: Signature Books, 1998) and Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004).

Thank you. That was very detailed and more than I expected. It is worthy of being followed up on.