New Arrington Biography Makes Shocking Admission

[Jeanne]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR.

I'm quite well acquainted with several of the scholars who are working on the Joseph Smith Papers. I've written many stories about them. I've never heard anything like this.

Maybe because it is hidden!  Maybe you can find out more about this if you know a few people.  I am anxious about this.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Jeanne

[Jeanne]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/leonard-arrington-and-mormon-history

Just saw this, it may give a little insight.  Sorry to those that can't listen for one reason or another.

Don't be sorry.  I appreciate you.

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Maybe because it is hidden!  Maybe you can find out more about this if you know a few people.  I am anxious about this.

Based on what I know about the project (which is quite a bit) and those whom I know who are working on it (which is quite a few people)  I have no reason to suspect this gossip is true. The burden of proof is on those who say it has happened.

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I sited a MD&D thread earlier in this thread from a few years ago where such claims were made

Then it should be easy for you to provide actual quotes instead of falsifying what they in fact said.  I expect yokels to make such silly statements, but have yet to see a scholar do so.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I've heard that some things in the Joseph Smith's Papers got deleted, this was from someone that worked on them.  So I guess they aren't as reliable either.

I'd sure like to know what has supposedly been deleted.  That would be very difficult for anyone to do, since (1) it would be readily discoverable (too many historians already know the content and have copies of the materials),  and (2) it would therefore destroy the career of any historian who would dare do so.  Of course, this is just probably a typical anti-Mormon rumor.  One hears them all the time, including on this board.

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I recall is that Arrington had taken materials that were rightly the property of the Church History Department (then the Church Historical Department) and, after his death, these were among items that were to be donated to Utah State.

I also recall that the matter was settled amicably.

These sorts of disputes over work-product are quite common in scholarly circles.  There are even library special collections which have classified some of my own original work as their own (with standard ownership stamps thereon), and require that I agree in writing to obtain permission from them before copying or publishing them.  Rather silly since I have copyright, but that is in the nature of the beast.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's impossible to win with some of you guys.

CFR's are called for, accusations made, names like anti are bandied about no matter what we say.

If I say something like "the church willfully hid information from its membership" there will be feigned shock and dismay. I will be labeled a critic, a dissenter, an anti-Mormon.

But simultaneously we'll get CFR's from apologists saying "of course items were hidden". CFR that anyone would ever say other wise. This stuff is absurd. Apologists continue to play both sides because otherwise they'd be required to admit they and/or the church are/were wrong.

Mormonism seems incapable of agreeing  on the wetness of water.

You need to learn to make correct statements and then to stand behind them with actual evidence.  That is the real issue.  You play fast and loose with any issue.  I don't.  For you it is all about winning.  For me it is about understanding reality.

If you want to claim that Mormon scholars claimed that the LDS Church did not hide historical materials, then you need to cite those sources.  It speaks volumes that you cannot cite such a source.  That is why your only defense is to call such an issue "absurd."  Yet the lie did not come from anyone but the anti-Mormon crowd.  In addition, people who hate Mormon scholars like to call them "apologists."  It never occurs to them to conduct themselves in a proper, well-mannered way, because it is all about hate and vilification.  Real discussion cannot take place in such a vituperative atmosphere.

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'd sure like to know what has supposedly been deleted.  That would be very difficult for anyone to do, since (1) it would be readily discoverable (too many historians already know the content and have copies of the materials),  and (2) it would therefore destroy the career of any historian who would dare do so.  Of course, this is just probably a typical anti-Mormon rumor.  One hears them all the time, including on this board.

The more I think about it, it could be just grammar or something.  Did you read this link: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/editorial-method  

"The same is true for interpreting original spelling and punctuation. If a letter or other character is ambiguous, deference is given to the author’s or scribe’s usual spelling and punctuation. Where this is ambiguous, modern spelling and punctuation are favored. Even the best transcribers and verifiers will differ from one another in making such judgments. Interested readers may wish to compare the transcripts with the images of the documents on this site to understand how these transcription rules have been applied."

The guy on the podcast said the person who was transcribing, was a little too quick to cross out or something like that.  By what Scott said, there were many involved in this endeavor. Maybe if one were to take the time to compare the original with the one transcribed in order to comprehend, one might see what he was talking about.  I wish my brain functioned, I might be able to back up my statements a little better.  

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Then it should be easy for you to provide actual quotes instead of falsifying what they in fact said.  I expect yokels to make such silly statements, but have yet to see a scholar do so.

Falsifying?  I expect better from you Robert.

[salgare]

On 6/10/2016 at 10:03 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Interesting that Arrington has a reputation as a historian, rather than, say, scandal monger, a tabloid gossip, a yellow press muckraker, or a propagandist. There are some obvious reasons why that is the case and potential lessons to learn for those who care to know.

Yes, and as I recall part of those reasons were fear, fear of Church discipline.  The 90's was a time of keep it to yourself.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The more I think about it, it could be just grammar or something.  Did you read this link: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/editorial-method  

"The same is true for interpreting original spelling and punctuation. If a letter or other character is ambiguous, deference is given to the author’s or scribe’s usual spelling and punctuation. Where this is ambiguous, modern spelling and punctuation are favored. Even the best transcribers and verifiers will differ from one another in making such judgments. Interested readers may wish to compare the transcripts with the images of the documents on this site to understand how these transcription rules have been applied."

The guy on the podcast said the person who was transcribing, was a little too quick to cross out or something like that.  By what Scott said, there were many involved in this endeavor. Maybe if one were to take the time to compare the original with the one transcribed in order to comprehend, one might see what he was talking about.  I wish my brain functioned, I might be able to back up my statements a little better.  

There are actually very few transcribers, all of them trained historians or linguistics experts.  For the Book of Mormon manuscripts, for example, there are only two editors, both very experienced and seasoned scholars.  Moreover, since high quality images are being published on the opposite page, anyone can quickly check on their work.  None of this is being done in a corner somewhere.  Having been a user of the JSPP, I am satisfied with their work, and it is a great boon to scholars and the general public.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Falsifying?  I expect better from you Robert.

Then, instead of complaining about me, just provide direct quotes.  That's what we should expect from anyone making such claims.  Thus far, when I compare the actual quotes with your version, I see that you have been falsifying the meaning.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Yes, and as I recall part of those reasons were fear, fear of Church discipline.  The 90's was a time of keep it to yourself.

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.

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, 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.

According to the Prince book, Arrington did fear excommunication because of his publishing 

[Rain]

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 6:16 PM, jkwilliams said:

I thought Johnnie was expressing respect,  not hatred, for Brother Arrington, though I could be mistaken. 

And yes, I've been told numerous times that information has never been hidden but has been widely published, and only 'lazy and intransigent members' are ever surprised by information they should have already known. I agree that it's ludicrous, but I have heard such talk too many times to count. 

Someone earlier in this thread quoted rodheadlee saying that. 

I wonder if often this isn't miscommunication.  Often I have heard people say they have been told the church doesn't hide anything.  

What I have experienced is "June" saying,  "I just found out about ____A_____. The church is hiding it".

Me: I learned about that in institute or seminary. 

June: Well I didn't learn about it. You must be special to have learned about it. 

Several months later June in another thread: As children we often talked about _______A_______.

So no,  I don't think everything has been open and I don't think people are lazy if they didn't know,  but it does drive me crazy when the church is accused about hiding specific things especially after they have unknowingly showed they had known at one time, and still scream on the rooftops that the church is hiding everything. Not saying you are doing that. It had just happened enough to me that "the church is hiding things" doesn't mean much to me anymore. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

I wonder if often this isn't miscommunication.  Often I have heard people say they have been told the church doesn't hide anything.  

What I have experienced is "June" saying,  "I just found out about ____A_____. The church is hiding it".

Me: I learned about that in institute or seminary. 

June: Well I didn't learn about it. You must be special to have learned about it. 

Several months later June in another thread: As children we often talked about _______A_______.

So no,  I don't think everything has been open and I don't think people are lazy if they didn't know,  but it does drive me crazy when the church is accused about hiding specific things especially after they have unknowingly showed they had known at one time, and still scream on the rooftops that the church is hiding everything. Not saying you are doing that. It had just happened enough to me that "the church is hiding things" doesn't mean much to me anymore. 

I'm not accusing the church of anything but simply acknowledging that there hasn't always been transparency. I am glad things are changing. 

But yes, I've been told many times that the church has always been completely open. And what you describe has nothing to do with my experience. I never felt blindsided by anything I learned. 

[Rain]

49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not accusing the church of anything but simply acknowledging that there hasn't always been transparency. I am glad things are changing. 

But yes, I've been told many times that the church has always been completely open. And what you describe has nothing to do with my experience. I never felt blindsided by anything I learned. 

No,  haven't felt that from you and I hoped what I said clarified that.  Sorry that it didn't. 

Just trying to show that on the other side, experiences like I have had may influence what people say to people like you and sometimes what is said is not communicated well or with thinking. So we get into this war of hiding everything/hiding nothing that often gets us nowhere.  "Hiding" is a loaded word in this context. 

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

No,  haven't felt that from you and I hoped what I said clarified that.  Sorry that it didn't. 

Just trying to show that on the other side, experiences like I have had may influence what people say to people like you and sometimes what is said is not communicated well or with thinking. So we get into this war of hiding everything/hiding nothing that often gets us nowhere.  "Hiding" is a loaded word in this context. 

Thanks. I understood what you meant. Life is rarely as black and white as we think. 

[JLHPROF]

20 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Maybe because it is hidden!  Maybe you can find out more about this if you know a few people.  I am anxious about this.

What exactly do you think this "hidden" record might contain at this point?
What could possibly be in the JSP that would be worth hiding and risking later exposure that isn't already known?

A love letter to Fanny Alger?
A missing ordinance beyond the ones we currently give?
The Adam-God teaching by Joseph that Brigham alluded to?
A secret revelation to assassinate the President?

Let's be honest.  The church at this point has pretty much owned up to everything of significance in its history, sometimes by choice, sometimes because it had no choice.  At this point the JSP builds evidence of things we already know historically and explains motives

I see no purpose in the Church bothering to hide anything since I can't think of anything they are still denying historically.  Now it all comes down to how the church understands the history versus how the critics understand the history.  In today's world it's all about the interpretation, not the record.
 

 

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What exactly do you think this "hidden" record might contain at this point?
What could possibly be in the JSP that would be worth hiding and risking later exposure that isn't already known?

A love letter to Fanny Alger?
A missing ordinance beyond the ones we currently give?
The Adam-God teaching by Joseph that Brigham alluded to?
A secret revelation to assassinate the President?

Let's be honest.  The church at this point has pretty much owned up to everything of significance in its history, sometimes by choice, sometimes because it had no choice.  At this point the JSP builds evidence of things we already know historically and explains motives

I see no purpose in the Church bothering to hide anything since I can't think of anything they are still denying historically.  Now it all comes down to how the church understands the history versus how the critics understand the history.  In today's world it's all about the interpretation, not the record.
 

 

I wasn't being nasty about it.  I don't even know what is in the JS papers yet.  But when I do..I am hoping nothing is left out.  I am an avid history buff.  I find it interesting in those times and I really don't care if there are letters to Fanny or not!

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

What exactly do you think this "hidden" record might contain at this point?
What could possibly be in the JSP that would be worth hiding and risking later exposure that isn't already known?

A love letter to Fanny Alger?
A missing ordinance beyond the ones we currently give?
The Adam-God teaching by Joseph that Brigham alluded to?
A secret revelation to assassinate the President?

Let's be honest.  The church at this point has pretty much owned up to everything of significance in its history, sometimes by choice, sometimes because it had no choice.  At this point the JSP builds evidence of things we already know historically and explains motives

I see no purpose in the Church bothering to hide anything since I can't think of anything they are still denying historically.  Now it all comes down to how the church understands the history versus how the critics understand the history.  In today's world it's all about the interpretation, not the record.
 

 

JLHPROF, it's already been established that some leaders in the church held back on some history if they thought it wouldn't be faith promoting.  Why not now also?  And it appears that some historians went along with it.  So why not now?  How are we to know if everything is covered in the JSP?  When are we going to get the Council of the 50 minutes? The cut and paste below is interesting, I don't how true it is.  And sorry I cannot share the link, in case of temple content.  

Changes in Joseph Smith's History

Chapter 13

 

In 1838 Joseph Smith started writing the account of his life which is now published by the church. Smith began publishing this history in the Times and Seasons in 1842. It was published in installments, and therefore only part of the history appeared in print before Joseph Smith's death. The church continued to publish the history in the Times and Seasons after his death until the Mormons were driven from Nauvoo. The remainder of the history was published in the Millennial Star and also in the Deseret News. After the turn of the century the History of the Church was reprinted in seven volumes. It has been republished several times since then.

Mormon leaders have claimed that Joseph Smith's History of the Church is the most accurate history in the world and that it has never been changed or falsified in any way. President Joseph Fielding Smith boasted: "The most important history in the world is the history of our Church, and it is the most accurate history in all the world, it must be so" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, p. 199).

Apostle John A. Widtsoe claimed that "the History of the Church and the utterances therein contain, if read properly, a continued evidence that Joseph Smith told the truth.... There is in them no attempt to 'cover up' any act of his life.... Mormon history and doctrine have been carefully preserved in the published records of the Church—and all has been published" (Joseph Smith—Seeker After Truth, 1951, pp. 256-57).

Apostle Widtsoe also maintained that "The History of Joseph Smith, published by the Church, as to events and dates, may be accepted as an unusually accurate historical document.... The history is trustworthy. No flaws have been found in it" (p. 297).

In the preface to volume 1 of Joseph Smith's History of the Church, we find the claim that "no historical or doctrinal statement has been changed" (History of the Church, vol. 1, p. vi).

398

The material which follows will prove beyond all doubt that the statements quoted above are completely false. Actually, Mormon historians have broken almost all the rules of honesty in their publication of Joseph Smith's History of the Church. It is a well known fact that when an omission is made in a document it should be indicated by ellipses points. Mormon historians have almost completely ignored this rule; in many cases they have deleted thousands of words without any indication. They have also added thousands of words without any indication. They have changed spelling, grammar, punctuation, and rearranged the words. There can be no doubt that the changes were deliberate, although there may have been a few typographical errors. For instance, we have already shown that three important changes were made to cover up the fact that Joseph Smith broke the "Word of Wisdom" (see p. 387). Certainly, no one would argue that these changes happened by accident, for they bear unmistakable evidence of falsification.

Mormon historians have also changed some of Joseph Smith's prophecies that did not come to pass. Many exaggerated and contradictory statements were either changed or deleted without indication. Crude or indecent statements were also deleted. Joseph Smith quoted the enemies of the church as using the name of the Lord in vain many times in the history, but much of this profanity has been removed by Mormon leaders. In the first printed version of Joseph Smith's history he cursed his enemies, condemned other churches and beliefs, and called the President of the United States a fool. Many of these extreme statements were omitted or changed. Mormon leaders did not dare let their people see the real Joseph Smith. They would rather falsify theHistory of the Church than allow Joseph Smith's true character to be known. Mormon leaders have not only changed the History of the Church, but they have further deceived their people by making the claim that no historical or doctrinal statement has been changed.

Not only has the History of the Church been changed since it was first printed, but there is also evidence to prove that changes were made before it was first published. In other words, there is evidence that even the first printed version of the history is inaccurate. It does not agree with the handwritten manuscript.

When the history was first printed church historians George A. Smith and Wilford Woodruff (who later became president of the church) stated that "a history more correct in its details than this was never published," and that it was "one of the most authentic histories ever written" (History of the Church, vol. 1, Preface v-vi).

399

There is an abundance of evidence to show that this statement is absolutely false. Charles Wesley Wandell, who worked in the church historian's office after the death of Joseph Smith, must have been one of the first to accuse the leaders of the Mormon church of falsifying the history. When he saw the way that they were printing it in 1855, he commented in his journal:

I notice the interpolations because having been employed (myself) in the Historian's office at Nauvoo by Doctor Richards, and employed, too, in 1845, in compiling this very autobiography, I know that after Joseph's death his memoir was 'doctored' to suit the new order of things, and this, too, by the direct order of Brigham Young to Doctor Richards and systematically by Richards (Statement from the journal of Charles Wesley Wandell, as printed in the Reorganized Church's Journal of History, vol. 8, p. 76).

 

Written by Joseph Smith?

In 1965 we published a book entitled Changes in Joseph Smith's History. In this book we showed that thousands of words were added, deleted, or changed since Joseph Smith's History of the Church was first published. In this book we also cast serious doubt on the claim that Joseph Smith was really the author of such a large work:

On the title page to Vol. 1 of the History of the Church, this statement appears: "History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet BY HIMSELF"; this study, however, reveals that much of the history was not written by Joseph Smith. Only a small part of the history was printed during Joseph Smith's lifetime, and we are very suspicious that Joseph Smith did not finish writing the history before his death. Joseph Smith probably kept a journal which the historians used to write part of the history. The entries in theHistory of the Church for 1835 sound very much like a day-to-day journal. The Church Historians, no doubt, used Joseph Smith's journals, but they also interpolated material of their own and tried to make it appear that Joseph Smith had written it. An example is found in theMillennial Star, v. 19, p. 7:

"... on this evening JOSEPH THE SEER commenced giving instructions to the scribe concerning writing the proclamation to the kings of the earth...."

It is very obvious that Joseph Smith did not write this; when this was reprinted in the History of the Church, the words "JOSEPH THE SEER" were changed to the word "I." In the Millennial Star, v. 19, p. 630, Joseph Smith was referred to in the third person four different times, but when this was reprinted in the History of the Church it [was] changed to the first person to

400

make it appear that Joseph Smith was writing the history... The account of the "Kirtland Camp" was probably not written by Joseph Smith, but rather by someone who was with the camp....

In the Millennial Star, v. 23, pp. 737-739, the Mormon Historians included an article which was found in the Times and Seasons. Joseph Smith could not have included this article in the history as it was not published in the Times and Seasons until after his death. Later Mormon Historians evidently became aware of this and deleted it from the history ... in the year 1840 there seems ... to be an abundance of information concerning England but very little concerning incidents that were happening in Nauvoo (where Joseph Smith was). The interesting thing about this is that Brigham Young, George A. Smith and Heber C. Kimball (the men who 'revised' Joseph Smith's history after his death) were in England at this time. Could it be that they wrote this part of the history after Joseph Smith's death? See especially the History of the Church, v. 6, pp. 233-239....

The Mormon Historians evidently feel that more converts can be won to the church with a bogus history than with a true factual one. It is apparently felt that the truth will not bear its own weight and that a little forgery here and there is not wrong as long as it helps win converts to the Church.... Perhaps some day the members of the Church will demand an honest history and that the "secret manuscripts" be made available (Changes in Joseph Smith's History, pp. 7-9).

 

New Discoveries

Since we published our book, Changes in Joseph Smith's History, a great deal of information has come to light that supports our conclusions concerning the falsification of Joseph Smith's history. For instance, a microfilm copy of the original handwritten manuscript of Joseph Smith's History, Book A-1 and part of B-1, was given to us. This manuscript is the basis for the History of the Church up to the year 1835. Mormon leaders were very upset about this matter because this film provided devastating evidence against Joseph Smith's history. Recently, we became aware of the fact that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had traded microfilm copies of documents with the Mormon church and that they had films of all of the original handwritten manuscripts of Joseph Smith's history. Although we live within two miles of the historical department of the Mormon church, its restrictive policy forced us to travel to Independence, Missouri, the location of the headquarters of the RLDS church, to see the Joseph Smith collection. We had only a few days to examine the documents, but a preliminary examination clearly reveals the duplicity of the

401

early Mormon historians. Now that we have had a brief look at the entire manuscript of Joseph Smith's History—i.e., books A-1 through F-1—we must conclude that the history is in a deplorable state. Thousands of words—sometimes entire pages—have been crossed out so that they could be deleted from the printed version. On the other hand, the films show that many pages of material were interpolated after Joseph Smith's death.

In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 128 and 131, we tell how we were fortunate enough to obtain a microfilm of the newspaper published in Nauvoo by the Mormons. This newspaper was originally called The Wasp, but the name was later changed to The Nauvoo Neighbor. At any rate, the microfilm not only proves that the changes made in Joseph Smith's history were deliberate falsifications, but it provides evidence to show that Joseph Smith did not finish the History of the Church and that it was actually written after his death. In our study of the film we found articles that were slightly reworked and inserted in the History of the Church as if they were the very words of Joseph Smith himself. For example, in the Wasp for August 13, 1842, the following was written concerning Joseph Smith:

... Joseph Smith was arrested upon a requisition of Gov. Carlin, ... Mr. Rockwell was arrested at the same time as principal.... these officers ...left them in care of the Marshal, without the original writ by which theywere arrested, and by which only they could be retained, and returned back to Gov. Carlin for further instruction,—and Messrs. Smith and Rockwell went about their business....

As to Mr. Smith, we have yet to learn by what rule of right he was arrested to be transported to Missouri for a trial of the kind stated (The Wasp, August 13, 1842).

The reader will notice that this same material was changed to the first person and inserted in the History of the Church as if it were part of Joseph Smith's personal narrative:

... I was arrested ... on a warrant issued by Governor Carlin .... Brother Rockwell was arrested at the same time as principal .... these officers ... left us in the care of the marshal, without the original writ by which wewere arrested, and by which only we could be retained, and returned to Governor Carlin for further instructions, and myself and Rockwell went about our business.

I have yet to learn by what rule of right I was arrested to be transported to Missouri for a trial of the kind stated (History of the Church, vol. 5, pp. 86-87).

402

Over Sixty Percent After Joseph Smith's Death

As we did more research with regard to the History of the Church we saw that all evidence pointed to the unmistakable conclusion that Joseph Smith never finished his history. As early as 1965 we printed the evidence we had on this subject, but we were very skeptical as to whether Mormon writers would receive it because of the heavy blow it would deal to the foundation of the Mormon church. For a number of years there was complete silence, but in 1971 Dean C. Jessee, of the LDS church historian's office, published an article that contained some very startling admissions. We were very pleased that this article verified our contention that Joseph Smith did not finish hisHistory of the Church and that it was actually completed after his death. Mr. Jessee stated:

Not until Willard Richards was appointed secretary to Joseph Smith in December 1842 was any significant progress made on the History. At the time he began writing, not more than 157 pages had been completed, covering events up to November 1, 1831. By May 8, 1843, he had written 114 pages beyond W. W. Phelps' last entry. At the time of Joseph Smith's death, the narrative was written to August 5, 1838....

By February 4, 1846, the day the books were packed for the journey west, the History had been completed to March 1, 1843.... resumption of work on the History occurred on "Dec. 1, 1853 [when] Dr. Willard Richards wrote one line of History being sick at the time—and was never able to do any more." ...

The remainder of Joseph Smith's History of the Church from March 1, 1843 to August 8, 1844, was completed under the direction of George A. Smith....

The Joseph Smith History was finished in August 1856, seventeen years after it was begun (Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1971, pp. 466, 469, 470, 472).

Dean C. Jessee frankly admits that the manuscript was only completed to page 812 at the time of Joseph Smith's death (Ibid., p. 457). Since there were almost 2,200 pages, this would mean that over sixty percent of Joseph Smith's history was not compiled during his lifetime!

As we had suspected, Willard Richards played a prominent part in making up this bogus history after Joseph Smith's death in June, 1844. Dean C. Jessee said that "Bullock became the chief scribe under Willard Richards when work resumed on the Joseph Smith History in 1845" (Ibid., p. 456).

In his diary Thomas Bullock admitted that he helped Willard Richards in "preparing Church History." In 1845 he made these

403

interesting entries in his diary: "March 15... finished the year 1839—wrote 56 pages last week.... May 3 Saturday Office—writing history finished July 1842 being the end of Vol. 3" (Thomas Bullock Diary, February 11, 1844—August 5, 1845, as cited in Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1971, p. 467).

Dean C. Jessee cites a letter from the Mormon historian George A. Smith which shows that he was still writing the last part of Joseph Smith's history many years after Smith's death:

On the 10th April 1854, I commenced to perform the duties of Historian by taking up the History of Joseph Smith where Dr. Willard Richards had left it when driven from Nauvoo on the 4th day of February 1846. I had to revise and compare two years of back history which he had compiled, filling up numerous spaces which had been marked as omissions on memoranda by Dr. Richards.

I commenced compiling the History of Joseph Smith from April 1st 1840 to his death on June 27th 1844. I have filled up all the reports of sermons by Prest. Joseph Smith and others from minutes of sketches taken at the time in long hand ... which was an immense labor, requiring the deepest thought and the closest application, as there were mostly only two or three words (about half written) to a sentence.... The severe application of thought to the principles of the History, the exercise of memory &c., have caused me to suffer much from a nervous headache or inflamation [sic] of the brain; and my application of mind being in exercise both day and night, deprived me of a great portion of necessary sleep (Letter from George A. Smith to Woodruff, April 21, 1856, as cited in Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1971, pp. 470-72).

This letter certainly provides irrefutable evidence against the authenticity of "Joseph Smith's history."

 

Rocky Mountain Prophecy

Important evidence concerning Joseph Smith's prophecy that the Mormons would come to the Rocky Mountains has recently come to light. This prophecy was reported to have been given in 1842 in Illinois. Joseph Smith himself was supposed to have said:

While the Deputy Grand-Master was engaged in giving the requisite instructions to the Master-elect, I had a conversation with a number of brethren in the shade of the building on the subject of our persecutions in Missouri and the constant annoyance which has followed us since we were driven from that state. I

404

prophesied that the Saints would continue to suffer much affliction and would be driven to the Rocky Mountains, many would apostatize, others would be put to death by our persecutors or lose their lives in consequence of exposure or disease, and some of you will live to go and assist in making settlements and build cities and see the Saints become a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains (History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 85).

In our book Falsification of Joseph Smith's History, page 10, we stated concerning this prophecy:

There is some evidence that Joseph Smith considered going west to build his kingdom, but since we now know that the Mormon Historians actually compiled Joseph Smith's History after his death and that they drew from many sources, we cannot help being suspicious of the authorship of this prophecy. An examination of the original handwritten manuscript would probably help solve this problem, but the Mormon leaders are still suppressing this portion of the manuscript.

Just after we wrote this statement the situation changed and we were able to make this statement in the Appendix to the same book: "We are now happy to announce that a photograph of the portion of the original handwritten manuscript containing this 'prophecy' has been located at the Visitor Center in Nauvoo, Illinois. Wesley P. Walters of Marissa, Illinois, has sent us a photograph of this page.... This photograph is taken from 'Joseph Smith's Manuscript History,' Book D-1, page 1362."

An examination of the photograph revealed that the part concerning the Mormons becoming "a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains" was crammed in between the lines of the text in a much smaller handwriting. This indicated that the famous prophecy had been added to the manuscript sometime after this page had originally been written. When we published an enlarged edition of Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? we stated that "Dean C. Jessee's study proves that this prophecy could not have been written in 'Joseph Smith's Manuscript History' until at least a year after Joseph Smith's death. He shows that page 1362 of the Manuscript History—the page containing the prophecy—was not even written until July 4, 1845!"

We reasoned that if the page was not written until July 4, 1845, then it was likely that the interpolation containing the prophecy was not added until after the Mormons came to Utah. We have recently found new evidence which further undermines the authenticity of this prophecy. Fortunately, in 1845 Brigham Young had ordered the scribes to make a "duplicate handwritten copy of the History" (Brigham Young University)

[Kevin Christensen]

For a less sensationalized account of the writing of the Joseph Smith History, see Dean C. Jesse:

https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/view/4554/4204

Back in the 80s, Jesse also published a very good essay through Van Hales Mormon Miscellaneous titled "Has Mormon History Deliberately Been Falsified?"   I've got a copy somewhere in my closet.  His major point is that the Tanners (quoted above without attribution) miss the major point that they apply standards of history which had not been developed at the time the History of the Church was written.  I've bee trying to find a copy online.   It's worth a read.

He did address the issue i the Ensign in 1985:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/07/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&_r=1

And as far as anyone writing "objective history", please consider the quote from Novick which I offered earlier on in this thread, a post which I noticed, has not as yet generated a response, probably because is addresses the foundational sands upon which various arguments are built.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 12, 2016 by Kevin Christensen
Added link to Jesse's Ensign essay

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

According to the Prince book, Arrington did fear excommunication because of his publishing 

Cite and quote the source.  You have a habit of misstatement.

[Johnnie Cake]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Cite and quote the source.  You have a habit of misstatement.

 

On June 11, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Tacenda said:

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/leonard-arrington-and-mormon-history

Just saw this, it may give a little insight.  Sorry to those that can't listen for one reason or another.

Listen for your self Robert. Prince refers to Arringtons fear of excommunication towards the end of this interview.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Listen for your self Robert. Prince refers to Arringtons fear of excommunication towards the end of this interview.

Thanks, Johnnie.  The quotation begins at 46:09 (Gregory Prince speaking),

Quote

He worried later, when he was publishing his autobiography, if he might be excommunicated.  And that's a tragic thought for him to have had for all that he did in his lifetime.  He really feared that, because that was the climate that still pervaded the Church in the late 1990s."  http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/leonard-arrington-and-mormon-history .

Notice what I do here:  I provide an actual quote and my source.  Just as you should have done.  I assume, unless shown otherwise, that Prince had access to diary entries or letters actually making that sort of statement.  We'll see from professional reviews whether this claim stands up to close scrutiny.

On the other hand, I found Prince erroneously claiming at 40:00 that Jerald Tanner was the first to have considered a Hofmann document a forgery.  In fact it was Rhett S. James of USU who did so first.