New Arrington Biography Makes Shocking Admission

[Tacenda]

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/william-e-mclellin

Is this about all we get of the Mclellin papers?  Or is there more? 

[Calm]

Do we know for sure that JFS was the one who cut the pages out or just that the cut pages were in his possession?  It has been awhile since I read the article and my memory says there was no conclusion on either the person or the timing of when it was done, just educated guesses though when it was put back can be better determine because of the age of the tape.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Calm

[Duncan]

Just now, Tacenda said:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/william-e-mclellin

Is this about all we get of the Mclellin papers?  Or is there more? 

I own the diaries of him 1831-1836, they are big and so I haven't read them.....I think they were published twice now that I think about it

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/william-e-mclellin

Is this about all we get of the Mclellin papers?  Or is there more? 

Signature Books has published some of the papers.

 

[James Tunney]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Oh my gosh. Can you name one institution that lets anyone come in and maul precious documents? Go have a talk with the Huntington Library. They have a large collection of Mormon documents and limited access. 

I don't know where you come up with mauling documents? I never said that. Anyway, it's good that the church has finally started to embrace more openness.

[Nevo]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Do we know for sure that JFS was the one who cut the pages out or just that the cut pages were in his possession?  It has been awhile since I read the article and my memory says there was no conclusion on either the person or the timing of when it was done, just educated guesses though when it was put back can be better determine because of the age of the tape.

No, we don't know for sure that Joseph Fielding Smith personally cut out the pages. But we do know that the pages were excised while the letterbook was in his custody. The JSP editors note that "a tear on the third leaf, which evidently occurred during its excision, was probably mended at the time. This tear was mended with clear cellophane tape, which was invented in 1930." So the pages were removed sometime after 1930 but before 1965, when Paul Cheesman described them as "cut out." (The pages were reattached in the 1990s.)

In the interim, the history was apparently stored in Joseph Fielding Smith's office safe. LaMar Petersen recorded a conversation with Levi Edgar Young on February 3, 1953, in which Young mentioned that Joseph Fielding Smith had (reluctantly) allowed him to see the 1832 history. According to Petersen's notes, Young's "curiosity was excited when reading in Roberts’ Doc. History reference to 'documents from which these writings were compiled.' Asked to see them. Told to get higher permission. Obtained that permission. Examined documents. Written, he thought, about 1837 or 1838. Was told not to copy or tell what they contained. Said it was a 'strange' account of the First Vision. Was put back in the vault. Remains unused, unknown" (see Stan Larson, "Another Look at Joseph Smith's First Vision," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 47, no. 2 [2014]: 41–42; emphasis mine).

Levi Edgar Young died in December 1963. In early 1964, Petersen approached Jerald and Sandra Tanner and related what Young had told him about this "strange account" of the First Vision. They wrote to Joseph Fielding Smith and asked to see it. Smith refused their request, but shortly afterward apparently authorized the newly appointed assistant church historian, Earl Olson, to show the history to Cheesman. Cheesman transcribed the account (badly) and added it to his master's thesis as "Appendix D."

I think it's a pretty safe bet that the 1832 history was sitting in Joseph Fielding Smith's office safe during the 1940s, 1950s, and the first half of the 1960s. Even general authorities had to "get higher permission" before he would allow them to see it. I don't know if anyone other than Young ever tried to. LDS historians had no inkling of its existence until Cheesman "discovered" it (with Olson's assistance) in 1965. In his memoir, Leonard Arrington noted that Joseph Fielding Smith "took a proprietary attitude toward the vast archival materials in his care and was seldom persuaded that they should be made available to visiting scholars," "had little faith in scholarly studies, particularly in history and the social sciences," and saw himself as "an appointed watchman to protect the image of the church from potential critics and enemies. Few scholars had been given access to the primary documents in the archives. His loyal assistant church historian, A. William Lund, interviewed each person who requested the use of material and told Scandinavian-American stories (Iocally called Sanpete jokes) in the process of gently persuading them to content themselves with examining materials that had been published. Persons could not do in-depth research without Smith's approval and Smith seldom assented" (Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian, 11–13). In other words, it was entirely in character for Joseph Fielding Smith to keep an unusual account of the First Vision sequestered for decades lest it become fodder for critics (which, of course, it did after 1965).

Edited June 16, 2016 by Nevo

[Calm]

Thanks for the info.

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

I own the diaries of him 1831-1836, they are big and so I haven't read them.....I think they were published twice now that I think about it

How did you get these?  Sorry if this has been answered already.

[Duncan]

56 minutes ago, Nevo said:

No, we don't know for sure that Joseph Fielding Smith personally cut out the pages. But we do know that the pages were excised while the letterbook was in his custody. The JSP editors note that "a tear on the third leaf, which evidently occurred during its excision, was probably mended at the time. This tear was mended with clear cellophane tape, which was invented in 1930." So the pages were removed sometime after 1930 but before 1965, when Paul Cheesman described them as "cut out." (The pages were reattached in the 1990s.)

In the interim, the history was apparently stored in Joseph Fielding Smith's office safe. LaMar Petersen recorded a conversation with Levi Edgar Young on February 3, 1953, in which Young mentioned that Joseph Fielding Smith had (reluctantly) allowed him to see the 1832 history. According to Petersen's notes, Young's "curiosity was excited when reading in Roberts’ Doc. History reference to 'documents from which these writings were compiled.' Asked to see them. Told to get higher permission. Obtained that permission. Examined documents. Written, he thought, about 1837 or 1838. Was told not to copy or tell what they contained. Said it was a 'strange' account of the First Vision. Was put back in the vault. Remains unused, unknown" (see Stan Larson, "Another Look at Joseph Smith's First Vision," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 47, no. 2 [2014]: 41–42; emphasis mine).

Levi Edgar Young died in December 1963. In early 1964, Petersen approached Jerald and Sandra Tanner and related what Young had told him about this "strange account" of the First Vision. They wrote to Joseph Fielding Smith and asked to see it. Smith refused their request, but shortly afterward apparently authorized the newly appointed assistant church historian, Earl Olson, to show the history to Cheesman. Cheesman transcribed the account (badly) and added it to his master's thesis as "Appendix D."

I think it's a pretty safe bet that the 1832 history was sitting in Joseph Fielding Smith's office safe during the 1940s, 1950s, and the first half of the 1960s. Even general authorities had to "get higher permission" before he would allow them to see it. I don't know if anyone other than Young ever tried to. LDS historians had no inkling of its existence until Cheesman "discovered" it (with Olson's assistance) in 1965. In his memoir, Leonard Arrington noted that Joseph Fielding Smith "took a proprietary attitude toward the vast archival materials in his care and was seldom persuaded that they should be made available to visiting scholars," "had little faith in scholarly studies, particularly in history and the social sciences," and saw himself as "an appointed watchman to protect the image of the church from potential critics and enemies. Few scholars had been given access to the primary documents in the archives. His loyal assistant church historian, A. William Lund, interviewed each person who requested the use of material and told Scandinavian-American stories (Iocally called Sanpete jokes) in the process of gently persuading them to content themselves with examining materials that had been published. Persons could not do in-depth research without Smith's approval and Smith seldom assented" (Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian, 11–13). In other words, it was entirely in character for Joseph Fielding Smith to keep an unusual account of the First Vision sequestered for decades lest it become fodder for critics (which, of course, it did after 1965).

any indication where it was before Joseph Fielding Smith got his paws on it?

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

How did you get these?  Sorry if this has been answered already.

I bought it!!!!!

"The Journals of William E. McLellin 1831-1836" was published in 1994 by BYU Studies and the University of Illinois Press. This was followed by "The William E. McLellin Papers 1854-1880," published by Signature Books in 2007 "

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705279446/McLellin-journal-finally-is-located.html?pg=all

 

I have the first one, i'd lend it to you but I can't throw that far sadly

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

any indication where it was before Joseph Fielding Smith got his paws on it?

The JSP source note says "it is listed in Nauvoo, Illinois, and early Salt Lake City, Utah, inventories made by the Church Historian’s Office, as well as in the 1973 register of the JS Collection, indicating continuous institutional custody."

Specifically, it was listed in "Schedule of Church Records, Nauvoo, 1846" and "Inventory, Historian’s Office, 4 April 1855," in Catalogs and Inventories, 1846–1904, CR 100 130, CHL, and in Jeffrey O. Johnson, Register of the Joseph Smith Collection in the Church Archives, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1973).

Elder Maynes said that "after the trek West, it remained packed in a trunk for several years." I'm not sure where he got that information from, but in any case it was in the the Church Historian's Office by 1855. Joseph Fielding Smith began working in the Church Historian's Office in 1901, was called as assistant church historian in 1906, and became church historian in 1921. He served as church historian from 1921 until 1970, when he became the president of the Church.

Richard Turley reports in his book Victims that when Joseph Fielding Smith became president he "kept with him a small group of historical materials that became the core of the collection housed in the First Presidency's vault." Turley goes on to quote a 1984 memo from Francis Gibbons to Gordon B. Hinckley, where Gibbons writes: "As you doubtless know, the safe that President Smith kept in his office when he was the Church Historian was transferred to the First Presidency's vault when he became the President of the Church" (Richard E. Turley, Jr., Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case [Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992], 106). Though Gibbons had access to the First Presidency's vault, he didn't seem to know much about its contents. Case in point: when the Church was arranging to acquire the McLellin collection from Mark Hofmann (via a third-party buyer) nobody realized that the Church already owned McLellin's journals. They were located in the First Presidency's vault in March 1986 (see The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831–1836, ed. Jan Shipps and John W. Welch [Provo, UT: BYU Studies; Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994], xiii).

Edited June 16, 2016 by Nevo

[Duncan]

45 minutes ago, Nevo said:

The JSP source note says "it is listed in Nauvoo, Illinois, and early Salt Lake City, Utah, inventories made by the Church Historian’s Office, as well as in the 1973 register of the JS Collection, indicating continuous institutional custody."

Specifically, it was listed in "Schedule of Church Records, Nauvoo, 1846" and "Inventory, Historian’s Office, 4 April 1855," in Catalogs and Inventories, 1846–1904, CR 100 130, CHL, and in Jeffrey O. Johnson, Register of the Joseph Smith Collection in the Church Archives, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1973).

Elder Maynes said that "after the trek West, it remained packed in a trunk for several years." I'm not sure where he got that information from, but in any case it was in the the Church Historian's Office by 1855. Joseph Fielding Smith began working in the Church Historian's Office in 1901, was called as assistant church historian in 1906, and became church historian in 1921. He served as church historian from 1921 until 1970, when he became the president of the Church.

Richard Turley reports in his book Victims that when Joseph Fielding Smith became president he "kept with him a small group of historical materials that became the core of the collection housed in the First Presidency's vault." Turley goes on to quote a 1984 memo from Francis Gibbons to Gordon B. Hinckley, where Gibbons writes: "As you doubtless know, the safe that President Smith kept in his office when he was the Church Historian was transferred to the First Presidency's vault when he became the President of the Church" (Richard E. Turley, Jr., Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case [Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992], 106). Though Gibbons had access to the First Presidency's vault, he didn't seem to know much about its contents. Case in point: when the Church was arranging to acquire the McLellin collection from Mark Hofmann (via a third-party buyer) nobody realized that the Church already owned McLellin's journals. They were located in the First Presidency's vault in March 1986 (see The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831–1836, ed. Jan Shipps and John W. Welch [Provo, UT: BYU Studies; Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994], xiii).

One of these days you'll have to invite me over to your place for supper and tell me how you know all this!!!! hahahahha!

[ALarson]

On 6/13/2016 at 9:00 PM, Nevo said:

1. 1832 First Vision account
2. William Clayton Nauvoo Journal
3. Council of Fifty Minutes
4. Nauvoo High Council Minutes
5.  Joseph Smith's seer stone
6. The papers of every apostle and church president since the time of Brigham Young

Thanks Nevo.  We have now seen some of these, which is great.  I do wonder if we'd ever have seen William Clayton's Nauvoo Journal if it hadn't been "leaked" (for lack of a better term). It does contain quite a bit of information regarding Joseph's polygamy (and others).

Also, what's your opinion on an early church history written by Oliver Cowdery (or his journal)?

.

Edited June 16, 2016 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks Nevo.  We have now seen some of these, which is great.  I do wonder if we'd ever have seen William Clayton's Nauvoo Journal if it wasn't "leaked" (for lack of a better term). 

Also, what's your opinion on an early church history written by Oliver Cowdery (or his journal)?

It seems obvious that attitudes have changed regarding church history. Joseph Fielding Smith was, IMO, one of those people who carefully guarded everything in order to "protect" the church and its members from information that might be damaging. A professor of mine at BYU said his father had worked for JFS in the historian's office, and he (the father) discovered some things Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had done that deeply troubled him. He made an appointment with JFS, who told him that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had never done anything troubling and that he he should forget about it. Things opened up in the Arrington years, but again, leaders like Elders Packer and Peterson fought the openness and apparently won out for the next 30 years or so. Glad to see it's opening up again. 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It seems obvious that attitudes have changed regarding church history. Joseph Fielding Smith was, IMO, one of those people who carefully guarded everything in order to "protect" the church and its members from information that might be damaging. A professor of mine at BYU said his father had worked for JFS in the historian's office, and he (the father) discovered some things Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had done that deeply troubled him. He made an appointment with JFS, who told him that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had never done anything troubling and that he he should forget about it. Things opened up in the Arrington years, but again, leaders like Elders Packer and Peterson fought the openness and apparently won out for the next 30 years or so. Glad to see it's opening up again. 

Me too!  Thanks for the interesting info.  I have wondered if some leaders just simply did not realize what was even in the vault or archives when it was made more accessible during those years. Those who had lived church history were no longer alive (those who had first hand knowledge or memory of it).  Then, when they saw what was being found and what serious historians began writing, many may have been learning about some details from church history for the first time too.

I do wish they'd open everything up, but I understand that most likely will not happen (at least for many years) and I understand why.  I applaud what is taking place with the Joseph Smith Papers.

Edited June 16, 2016 by ALarson

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Me too!  Thanks for the interesting info.  I have wondered if some leaders just simply did not realize what was even in the vault or archives when it was made more accessible during those years. Those who had lived church history were no longer alive (those who had first hand knowledge or memory of it).  Then, when they saw what was being found and what serious historians began writing, many may have been learning about some details from church history for the first time too.

I do wish they'd open everything up, but I understand that most likely will not happen (at least for many years) and I understand why.  I applaud what is taking place with the Joseph Smith Papers.

I use the archives, the Church one and others and one thing that prevents or denies your request is copyright. The archives don't own the copyright to whatever and it sucks it really sucks!!!! plus I wanted to read a diary by a soldier who fought in WW1 but the &*&^%$%&** family that donated it put a ban on it so by the sounds of it you can read it if you came in but they can't send it to you and I am not travelling to read it

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Also, what's your opinion on an early church history written by Oliver Cowdery (or his journal)?

That's an interesting one. John Whitmer claimed that there was such a history: "Oliver Cowdery has written the commencement of the church history commencing at the time of the finding of the plates, up to June 12, 1831." And Joseph Fielding Smith made statements that seemed to support this:

"Oliver Cowdery was the first one appointed to assist Joseph in transcribing and keeping a history of the Church. John Whitmer took his place, when Oliver Cowdery was given something else to do. We have on file in the Historian’s Office the records written in the hand writing of Oliver Cowdery, the first historian, or recorder, of the Church." (1925)

In the mid-1980s, a careful search was made of "the Church's historical collections, including the First Presidency’s vault" and no evidence was found "that the Church ever obtained the early Oliver Cowdery history. No such record appears on any past or present inventories, catalogs, or other lists of the Church’s collections. None of the persons most familiar with these collections remembers ever having seen such an item in Church possession." So Richard Turley reported in the Ensign in 1986.  

In his book Victims, Turley suggested that Joseph Fielding Smith's statements were ambiguous and observed that "no living person seemed to have ever seen the lost history" (Victims, 107). In 2012, the JSP editors wrote matter-of-factly: "Whitmer may have known or assumed that Cowdery wrote a unified narrative covering the period from JS’s discovery of the gold plates to summer 1831, but no such document is extant." So, according to Turley and the JSP team, we don't have it (now).

I think there's a good chance that the Church has never had the Cowdery history (if such a thing ever existed). But Joseph Fielding Smith's involvement—and 1925 statement—leave room for doubt. Remember that another long-lost item, the Book of Commandments and Revelations (Revelation Book 1), didn't come to light until just a few years ago. The JSP editors note that it disappeared from Church Historian's Office inventories after 1878 and "evidence indicates" that it eventually made its way into "the papers of church historian and recorder Joseph Fielding Smith." Their footnote is worth quoting in full:

Quote

In a 1909 article in which he discussed the history surrounding the securing of the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada, B. H. Roberts, an LDS assistant church historian, did not appear to know about the revelation found in Revelation Book 1 that deals with copyright. In a 1907 letter, Joseph Fielding Smith made an indirect reference to Revelation Book 1, indicating that he knew of its existence. Because Roberts apparently did not know about the manuscript volume and Smith did, it may be inferred that the volume was in Smith’s possession as early as 1907. A 1970 inventory establishes the document was in the possession of Joseph Fielding Smith later in his life. (Revelation, ca. Early 1830; Roberts, “History of the Mormon Church”; Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City, UT, to John R. Haldeman, Independence, MO, 24 May 1907, Joseph Fielding Smith Papers, CHL; “Inventory of President Joseph Fielding Smith’s Safe,” 23 May 1970, CHL.)    

I don't think a Cowdery history is likely to emerge from the vault at this late date, but it's amazing to me that other things still are (the McLellin journals in 1986, BCR in the 2000s).

Edited June 16, 2016 by Nevo

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

That's an interesting one. John Whitmer claimed that there was such a history: "Oliver Cowdery has written the commencement of the church history commencing at the time of the finding of the plates, up to June 12, 1831." And Joseph Fielding Smith made statements that seemed to support this:

"Oliver Cowdery was the first one appointed to assist Joseph in transcribing and keeping a history of the Church. John Whitmer took his place, when Oliver Cowdery was given something else to do. We have on file in the Historian’s Office the records written in the hand writing of Oliver Cowdery, the first historian, or recorder, of the Church." (1925)

In the mid-1980s, a careful search was made of "the Church's historical collections, including the First Presidency’s vault" and no evidence was found "that the Church ever obtained the early Oliver Cowdery history. No such record appears on any past or present inventories, catalogs, or other lists of the Church’s collections. None of the persons most familiar with these collections remembers ever having seen such an item in Church possession." So Richard Turley reported in the Ensign in 1986.  

In his book Victims, Turley suggested that Joseph Fielding Smith's statements were ambiguous and observed that "no living person seemed to have ever seen the lost history" (Victims, 107). In 2012, the JSP editors wrote matter-of-factly: "Whitmer may have known or assumed that Cowdery wrote a unified narrative covering the period from JS’s discovery of the gold plates to summer 1831, but no such document is extant." So, according to Turley and the JSP team, we don't have it (now).

I think there's a good chance that the Church has never had the Cowdery history (if such a thing ever existed). But Joseph Fielding Smith's involvement—and 1925 statement—leave room for doubt. Remember that another long-lost item, the Book of Commandments and Revelations (Revelation Book 1), didn't come to light until just a few years ago. The JSP editors note that it disappeared from Church Historian's Office inventories after 1878 and "evidence indicates" that it eventually made its way into "the papers of church historian and recorder Joseph Fielding Smith." Their footnote is worth quoting in full:

I don't think a Cowdery history is likely to emerge from the vault at this late date, but it's amazing to me that other things still are (the McLellin journals in 1986, BCR in the 2000s).

For John Whitmer to have been so specific as dating Oliver's history from the finding of the plates "up to June 12, 1831," sounds like more than just an assumption on his part.

Also, for Joseph Fielding Smith to flat-out state in 1925 that, "We have on file in the Historian's Office the records written in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery, the first historian, or recorder, of the Church," sounds pretty unambiguous, as well.  (Unless this could reasonably be describing something written by Oliver other than the history referred to by John Whitmer.)

Which makes me wonder what would have happened to the Oliver history between 1925 and 1986, when Richard Turley says no evidence was found "that the Church ever obtained the early Oliver Cowdery history."  Well, no evidence unless you count Joseph Fielding Smith's 1925 averment that the Oliver history is "on file in the Historian's Office."

Based on these apparent anomalies, coupled with the Church's track record of hiding documents from its members, I have to remain skeptical about the claim that the LDS Church does not have possession of the Oliver history.

Edited June 16, 2016 by consiglieri

[Duncan]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

For John Whitmer to have been so specific as dating Oliver's history from the finding of the plates "up to June 12, 1831," sounds like more than just an assumption on his part.

Also, for Joseph Fielding Smith to flat-out state in 1925 that, "We have on file in the Historian's Office the records written in the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery, the first historian, or recorder, of the Church," sounds pretty unambiguous, as well.  (Unless this could reasonably be describing something written by Oliver other than the history referred to by John Whitmer.)

Which makes me wonder what would have happened to the Oliver history between 1925 and 1986, when Richard Turley says no evidence was found "that the Church ever obtained the early Oliver Cowdery history."  Well, no evidence unless you count Joseph Fielding Smith's 1925 averment that the Oliver history is "on file in the Historian's Office."

Based on these apparent anomalies, coupled with the Church's track record of hiding documents from its members, I have to remain skeptical about the claim that the LDS Church does not have possession of the Oliver history.

correct me if I am wrong but didn't Cowdery write a history or something in the mid 1830's? 

[CMZ]

The interesting thing in all this is that whatever "era" of the Church someone has lived in, whether certain historical things were getting brushed away or brought out in the open, an individual could STILL choose to have their own personal testimony of the Restored gospel and STILL receive their own personal revelation. And they can ALWAYS choose to endlessly find fault.

[salgare]

On 6/12/2016 at 0:34 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Those who are cowed by fear do not deserve the label or reputation as "historians" or "scholars."  The thing to admire about Leonard Arrington was that he was not fearful.  He had been independently publishing the most important books on Mormon history for decades before he was appointed as Church Historian, and he was widely respected by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars for playing it straight and telling it like it is.  He was the best of the best and kowtowed to no one.  At the same time, he was a faithful member of the LDS Church.

He died in 1999 at age 81.  All of his important work had been done long before that, so your reference to the 1990s bespeaks ignorance of Mormon historiography.

The article spoke of his fear that he was in line for excommunication right after the sept. six. 

[Kevin Christensen]

On 6/16/2016 at 2:52 PM, Duncan said:

correct me if I am wrong but didn't Cowdery write a history or something in the mid 1830's? 

Yes.  Cowdery wrote a series of historical articles in 1834-1835 drawing upon Joseph Smith and " authentic documents now in our possession" which Richard L. Anderson in 1969 and Matthew Brown in A Pillar of Light in 2009 both demonstrated drew upon the 1832 account by Joseph Smith.  More recently see, Roger Nicholson:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/author/rogern/

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, salgare said:

The article spoke of his fear that he was in line for excommunication right after the sept. six. 

I do not see any reason to take that suggestion seriously, even though his diary supposedly contains an expression of concern.  I would need to see the actual quotes.  Bear in  mind that even Sterling McMurrin did not have to fear excommunication and he was in open and frank apostasy.  The so-called September Six were extreme cases and specifically targeted.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I do not see any reason to take that suggestion seriously, even though his diary supposedly contains an expression of concern.  I would need to see the actual quotes.  Bear in  mind that even Sterling McMurrin did not have to fear excommunication and he was in open and frank apostasy.  The so-called September Six were extreme cases and specifically targeted.

Well if we all had a David O'McKay protecting us from Church discipline like McMurrin then there's be no concern for anyone, I suppose.  Come to think of it, sure that's how it should be.  But it appears some people are targeted from high places.  I'm not sure him expressing fear of such to be out of this world. 

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I do not see any reason to take that suggestion seriously, even though his diary supposedly contains an expression of concern.  I would need to see the actual quotes.  Bear in  mind that even Sterling McMurrin did not have to fear excommunication and he was in open and frank apostasy.  The so-called September Six were extreme cases and specifically targeted.

This must be why lazy people don't do a lot of research..  But why were the September Six specifically targeted?  It turns out that what they were teaching was true.