The Lincoln Hypothesis

[Alan]

I have just finished reading The Lincoln Hypothesis.

I found it quite interesting, though perhaps a little contrived in places.

Just wondered if there was anyone here who has read it, and if so, what are your thoughts?

[Alan]

So, I take it no one has read this book?

[The Nehor]

I saw the premise and laughed. Does that help?

[SmileyMcGee]

I saw the premise and laughed. Does that help?

Well put.

Edited April 10, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[The Nehor]

The whole book appears to be based on the fact that Lincoln checked out the Book of Mormon from the Library of Congress. Then supposition about how it guided him. No evidence he actually read it. The cynic in me says he checked it out because Mormon allegiance in the Civil War was in question meaning to look at it before dealing Brigham Young and never got around to it.

[Alan]

The whole book appears to be based on the fact that Lincoln checked out the Book of Mormon from the Library of Congress. Then supposition about how it guided him. No evidence he actually read it. The cynic in me says he checked it out because Mormon allegiance in the Civil War was in question meaning to look at it before dealing Brigham Young and never got around to it.

 

Actually, that is not the whole premise of the book at all. In fact, it is not mentioned much.

The author (who really knows his stuff by all accounts) draws parallels between Joseph and Lincoln in a number of ways, particularly their interest in the prophecies of Isaiah as they relate to America.

 

Have you ever heard the phrase "don't judge a book by it's cover"?

Edited April 10, 2015 by Alan

[The Nehor]

Actually, that is not the whole premise of the book at all. In fact, it is not mentioned much.

The author (who really knows his stuff by all accounts) draws parallels between Joseph and Lincoln in a number of ways, particularly their interest in the prophecies of Isaiah as they relate to America.

 

Have you ever heard the phrase "don't judge a book by it's cover"?

As much fun as the parallels undoubtedly are you can do that between any historical individuals. Premise was probably a bad word. The bulk of the real evidence is that Lincoln had access to the Book of Mormon. When I was on my mission in England there was a story that a missionary gave a member of the British Royal Family a copy of the Book of Mormon. I suspect it was true but could not confirm it. In any case several missionaries began to tie things the members of the Royal Family were saying to the Book of Mormon. It was wishful thinking much like I suspect this book is.

[cinepro]

Actually, that is not the whole premise of the book at all. In fact, it is not mentioned much.

The author (who really knows his stuff by all accounts) draws parallels between Joseph and Lincoln in a number of ways, particularly their interest in the prophecies of Isaiah as they relate to America.

 

Have you ever heard the phrase "don't judge a book by it's cover"?

 

I had heard about this book, and my concerns are echoed by this amazon review by "Nelson":

 

The author takes some little known facts, ties them together, and makes an interesting story one would like to believe. Unfortunately, it is, as some others have mentioned, speculative. He makes a passionate defense for his premise, sometimes too passionate for a matter so speculative. Simply because we want something to be true, doesn't necessarily make it so. The book is not a difficult read, so is readily accessible, and I suspect it will appeal mostly to LDS people, of which I am one. My main complaint is that it may be taken for fact by too many readers. His frequent assumptions of what Lincoln, the nation, and others were thinking is a dangerous way to write history. (It reminds me of Fawn Brodie's methods in her infamous attack on Joseph Smith). As much as I would like it to be true, one must simply consider it interesting speculation and read it as such.

 

Or this more detailed response:

 

There are three problems with this book.

First, it entirely misreads Lincoln. Lincoln thought Mormon polygamy a serious threat to US civilization, knew that Brigham Young and his followers were considering the establishment of an independent nation, and was aware of the Mormon militias in the Mountain West. These were not formidable forces but they were so far from the East Coast, sitting astride the wagon trails to California and Oregon, that they could cause a lot of trouble. Lincoln opted for conciliation not because he liked the Mormons or their religion but because he had bigger fish to fry. If it had not been for the Civil War, he would probably have been more forceful in dealing with the Latter-Day Saints and their state-cum-kingdom.

Second, in describing the Civil War as a punishment for the sin of slavery Ballard misrepresents Mormon values. The Book of Mormon says that race is a reflection of divine judgment. Inhabitants of ancient America who were righteous had light-colored skin; people who were evil saw their skin turn "dark and loathsome." This message is also enshrined in the Mormons' Book of Abraham and Book of Moses, which both, as interpreted by Latter-Day Saint leaders from 1835 through 1978, defined black African skin as an indication of moral inferiority. It escapes me how familiarity with such materials would have motivated Lincoln or anyone else to emancipate the slaves--unless it was through sheer revulsion at the sentiments expressed therein.

Third, Mormons thought the United States was corrupt and should be overthrown. There is a section in the Doctrine and Covenants that says that the American Indians (the aforementioned "dark and loathsome" people) would repent and rise up and join the Mormons in fighting an insurrection against the United States. The Mormon temple ceremony from the middle 1840s through the early 20th century called on Mormons to swear an "oath of vengeance," whereby they would pray unceasingly for God to exact vengeance on the US for the persecution they had suffered in the East. These doctrines played a substantial role in the Mormons' massacre of what they called the "American" wagon train at Mountain Meadows. So the notion that Lincoln would study Mormon doctrine and come away with a pro-abolition and pro-America attitude is paradoxical, to say the least.

The bottom line is that Ballard is radically reinterpreting Mormon history. Brigham Young and his immediate successors thought the US was a corrupt country that God would--or, at least, should--destroy. They thought black Americans were inferior and that slavery would persist into the afterlife, forming part of the heavenly order. If Ballard's view of the Book of Mormon and its values is correct, then Brigham Young and a century of subsequent Mormon leaders must never have bothered to read it, for they clearly did not share the convictions that Ballard implies Lincoln gleaned from it.

[The Nehor]

I like Cinepro's quotes but take some issue with the last one. The Civil War was seen by the sainst as punishment from God for the U.S. people's handling of the saints (and not slavery). Brigham Young spoke in particular about the war ravaging much of Missouri. I agree with the reasoning. I do not buy that Brigham Young was praying for the destruction of the United States. The Saints and the Brethren had a love/hate relationship with the US. On one hand Brigham Young spoke highly of American ideals and their governmental system. He at one time even said the Millenial government would be much like the structure of the US government. On the other hand they were very annoyed at those in power. Even in persecution Joseph Smith had an idealistic view of the federal government backing the saints until they failed him. I think Brigham Young expected the US to be punished but not destroyed....at least not for some time.

Edited April 11, 2015 by The Nehor

[Alan]

The basic premise of the book is that the US is a covenant nation and that Lincoln knew it, just as Joseph did. Lincoln came to see the civil war as God's judgment upon the nation (just as Joseph predicted it would be) for the way it treated the blacks, the Mormon's, the Catholics etc. In fact the way it ignored the Constitutional rights of it's citizens in favour of "States rights". Joseph knew that this needed sorting out and even included it in his presidential manifesto. The civil war victory for the Union paved the way for the 13th and 14th amendments which achieved this. But it also brought about national repentance and a renewal of the covenant.

 

The time that the rhetoric changed from "let's put down the southern rebellion" to "this is a holy war and God is on our side" coincided with and occured during the 8 month period Lincoln had the Book of Mormon in his possession. This may be simply a coincidence, but it is an intriguing one. However, Ballard doesn't make a big deal of it to be honest, he simply states it as a possibility that the Book of Mormon narrative may have been influential. With Lincoln being such an avid reader it is considered very likely he did actually read the book.

 

The main thrust if the book is that Joseph prophesied of the coming civil war, that it was a punishment for a broken covenant, that only repentance could restore the covenant (the south would win otherwise and the nation would be broken up) and that cometh the hour cometh the man. Not only did Lincoln win the war, but he won it for the right reasons and understood it's true nature.

 

So if anyone is going to reject and criticise this book based on the false notion that it's all about Lincoln reading the BofM and nothing else, then shame on them.

[readstoomuch]

I read part of it at the bookstore. I wasn`t sure it looked solid enough to read. It sounds like Abe Lincoln was exposed to the BOM to some extent. Beyond that requires speculation, even about Lincolns beliefs and understanding. Maybe it is worth another look, even if it is theoretical.

[The Nehor]

The basic premise of the book is that the US is a covenant nation and that Lincoln knew it, just as Joseph did. Lincoln came to see the civil war as God's judgment upon the nation (just as Joseph predicted it would be) for the way it treated the blacks, the Mormon's, the Catholics etc. In fact the way it ignored the Constitutional rights of it's citizens in favour of "States rights". Joseph knew that this needed sorting out and even included it in his presidential manifesto. The civil war victory for the Union paved the way for the 13th and 14th amendments which achieved this. But it also brought about national repentance and a renewal of the covenant.

 

Not buying it. Lincoln may have seen the Civil War as punishment from God but this is hardly a strong parallel with Joseph Smith. Lots of people at the time thought it was punishment from God without ever knowing about the Book of Mormon. As to Lincoln thinking the war was punishment for how the nation treated the Catholics and the Mormons that makes me laugh. Lincoln did not seem to have a strong dislike of the Mormons but he does not seem to have had any fondness. He rightly figured the Mormons should be a problem for another day with the nation ripped in half. Also, the nation did not renew their covenant with God. They never truly had one. There was undoubtedly some repentance brought about by the war along with a lot of sinning but renewing some national covenant. That is reading into Lincoln and the body of the United States LDS values without evidence.

 

 

The time that the rhetoric changed from "let's put down the southern rebellion" to "this is a holy war and God is on our side" coincided with and occured during the 8 month period Lincoln had the Book of Mormon in his possession. This may be simply a coincidence, but it is an intriguing one. However, Ballard doesn't make a big deal of it to be honest, he simply states it as a possibility that the Book of Mormon narrative may have been influential. With Lincoln being such an avid reader it is considered very likely he did actually read the book.

 

Why would he need the Book of Mormon to being talking about holy war? The idea of holy war is not really in the Book of Mormon. War in the Book of Mormon is always a punishment for the people's sins. I think the Bible would be a better source for "holy war" rhetoric. You can find a lot of it in there.

 

It is also fairly normal for war to acquire an aura of holiness in the rhetoric of its leaders. It is a wonderful inspiration to get people to fight and die. Lincoln more likely stepped up the rhetoric when it was realized that there was no way to negotiate an end to the war without ending it.

 

 

The main thrust if the book is that Joseph prophesied of the coming civil war, that it was a punishment for a broken covenant, that only repentance could restore the covenant (the south would win otherwise and the nation would be broken up) and that cometh the hour cometh the man. Not only did Lincoln win the war, but he won it for the right reasons and understood it's true nature.

 

The South had little chance of winning. They were outnumbered, outproduced, had an inferior transportation network, and a weaker central government. Their only real hope was European aid and as much as Britain and France would have loved to see the United States humbled they also had a strong distaste for slavery.

 

So if anyone is going to reject and criticise this book based on the false notion that it's all about Lincoln reading the BofM and nothing else, then shame on them.

 

That is not the only reason I reject it. I think the book was published because the author has been writing these books and making money off of them. He might believe them and be well-intentioned. I just think he is wrong.

[SmileyMcGee]

I like Cinepro's quotes but take some issue with the last one. The Civil War was seems as punishment from God for the U.S. people's handling of the saints (and not slavery). Brigham Young spoke in particular about the war ravaging much of Missouri. I agree with the reasoning. I do not buy that Brigham Young was praying for the destruction of the United States. The Saints and the Brethren had a love/hate relationship with the US. On one hand Brigham Young spoke highly of American ideals and their governmental system. He at one time even said the Millenial government would be much like the structure of the US government. On the other hand they were very annoyed at those in power. Even in persecution Joseph Smith had an idealistic view of the federal government backing the saints until they failed him. I think Brigham Young expected the US to be punished but not destroyed....at least not for some time.

I'm a bit confused by the grammatical errors in the beginning of your post. Are you suggesting that the civil war was punishment for how certain communities treated the saints?

[The Nehor]

I'm a bit confused by the grammatical errors in the beginning of your post. Are you suggesting that the civil war was punishment for how certain communities treated the saints?

 

Sorry, fixed it. I should stop posting on my phone.

 

And yes, I am suggesting that. Brigham Young did as well.

[SmileyMcGee]

Sorry, fixed it. I should stop posting on my phone.

And yes, I am suggesting that. Brigham Young did as well.

So over a million people died because an obscure group of people were mistreated by a few communities. I would love to here details of your idea if you have any. Or does your idea stop at "there was a war in the US after the saints left and parts of the U.S. treated them poorly, so god probably did it."

Edited April 11, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Thinking]

This.

[The Nehor]

So over a million people died because an obscure group of people were mistreated by a few communities. I would love to here details of your idea if you have any. Or does your idea stop at "there was a war in the US after the saints left and parts of the U.S. treated them poorly, so god probably did it."

No, they died because of prevalent wickedness. This is the cause of virtually every war. The word of God was given to them and they largely rejected it. I would encourage reading the words of the apostles and prophets at the time.

[SmileyMcGee]

No, they died because of prevalent wickedness. This is the cause of virtually every war. The word of God was given to them and they largely rejected it. I would encourage reading the words of the apostles and prophets at the time.

Ha...no thank you. I wouldn't know whether brother Brigham was speaking as a prophet or like a man who was just really upset that his dear friend was martyred.

Edited April 12, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[The Nehor]

Ha...no thank you. I wouldn't know whether brother Brigham was speaking as a prophet or like a man who was just really upset that his dear friend was martyred.

I would request divine confirmation of my determination.

[Alan]

Not buying it. Lincoln may have seen the Civil War as punishment from God but this is hardly a strong parallel with Joseph Smith. Lots of people at the time thought it was punishment from God without ever knowing about the Book of Mormon. As to Lincoln thinking the war was punishment for how the nation treated the Catholics and the Mormons that makes me laugh. Lincoln did not seem to have a strong dislike of the Mormons but he does not seem to have had any fondness. He rightly figured the Mormons should be a problem for another day with the nation ripped in half. Also, the nation did not renew their covenant with God. They never truly had one. There was undoubtedly some repentance brought about by the war along with a lot of sinning but renewing some national covenant. That is reading into Lincoln and the body of the United States LDS values without evidence.

 

 

 

Why would he need the Book of Mormon to being talking about holy war? The idea of holy war is not really in the Book of Mormon. War in the Book of Mormon is always a punishment for the people's sins. I think the Bible would be a better source for "holy war" rhetoric. You can find a lot of it in there.

 

It is also fairly normal for war to acquire an aura of holiness in the rhetoric of its leaders. It is a wonderful inspiration to get people to fight and die. Lincoln more likely stepped up the rhetoric when it was realized that there was no way to negotiate an end to the war without ending it.

 

 

 

The South had little chance of winning. They were outnumbered, outproduced, had an inferior transportation network, and a weaker central government. Their only real hope was European aid and as much as Britain and France would have loved to see the United States humbled they also had a strong distaste for slavery.

 

 

That is not the only reason I reject it. I think the book was published because the author has been writing these books and making money off of them. He might believe them and be well-intentioned. I just think he is wrong.

 

I'm not going to bother answering these comments.

You are obviously close minded on this, and are not even willing to read the book before passing judgment.

The missionaries come across this kind of thing all the time.

[The Nehor]

I'm not going to bother answering these comments.

You are obviously close minded on this, and are not even willing to read the book before passing judgment.

The missionaries come across this kind of thing all the time.

 

Actually the main objection I have is one the missionaries do not face. I refuse to pay the author money for the book. The missionaries give away the Book of Mormon.

[SmileyMcGee]

I would request divine confirmation of my determination.

But the "speaking as a man, speaking as a prophet" principle causes a problem (or problems) for me. If Brigham Young, the Lord's mouthpiece, couldn't tell that he was speaking as a man when he taught about Adam-God and blood atonement, then he may have had difficulty concluding that he was speaking as a prophet when he spoke about the "true cause" of the civil war. And if the prophet can't even distinguish between his own prophetic words and opinions, I hold little hope for myself. In other words, if Brigham Young struggled to recognize divine inspiration then I think I will too when asking God about what caused the civil war.

[Tacenda]

I just got finished watching "The Better Angels", a movie about Abraham Lincoln's boyhood. It's a very well made movie, fairly recent if anyone's interested. It's on Prime on Amazon. I wonder if Joseph and him had similar frontier boyhoods. Except that Abe's father never drank which was fairly common back then and but not learned. I wish it had told right on up to his Presidency but gave very good insight at how he was special from the start.

[The Nehor]

But the "speaking as a man, speaking as a prophet" principle causes a problem (or problems) for me. If Brigham Young, the Lord's mouthpiece, couldn't tell that he was speaking as a man when he taught about Adam-God and blood atonement, then he may have had difficulty concluding that he was speaking as a prophet when he spoke about the "true cause" of the civil war. And if the prophet can't even distinguish between his own prophetic words and opinions, I hold little hope for myself. In other words, if Brigham Young struggled to recognize divine inspiration then I think I will too when asking God about what caused the civil war.

 

The antidote to misunderstanding in revelation is more revelation. I am sure there are accretions of rationalizing and reasoning built around my genuine revelations. Some of it may be right but I am sure some of it is wrong. The way to get closer to the truth is more revelation, not tossing it out because I screwed up a little. Reason works in a similar way. If you reason something out and test it and find out you are wrong do you chuck reason as unreliable or instead hunt down the error where you reasoned badly and correct it. Pure revelation is truth. It sometimes gets diluted when we mix it with other sources and it is hard not to. I know the prophets are reliable in leading us to eternal life. They can make errors but in time they will be corrected and I will not be lost due to them. The revelation I received to that effect is not a doctrinal accretion I added on to genuine revelation.

[cinepro]

I'm not going to bother answering these comments.

You are obviously close minded on this, and are not even willing to read the book before passing judgment.

The missionaries come across this kind of thing all the time.

 

In your first post, you say that the book is "quite interesting but contrived in places".  As far as I can tell, Nehor and I are only saying that although we haven't read it, based on what we have heard (including from you), we would probably agree, and we haven't seen any evidence that would make us invest the time and money to investigate the author's thesis further.

 

There are millions of books that have been written, and thousands of new ones each year.  We've only got 24 hours in each day.  Every time you visit the library, bookstore or browse Amazon or Deseret Book online, you are "passing judgement" on thousands of books that you choose not to read.  I can't speak for Nehor, but I think we are both saying that based on what we can see about this book, it just doesn't make it.  And honestly, looking at the collection of LDS books on my bookshelf, the bar really isn't that high.

 

But as with most books of this sort, I suspect I'll get to read in when I visit my relatives this Thanksgiving as I expect to find it there.