"Evidence of Early Mormon Counterfeiting 1800-1847" New Book

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't know anything about the book or the author.  I have read a lot of history books and numerous subjects.  I shy away from book where the phrase "connect the dots" is used in the advertising.  Usually it seems to mean that the author jumps to conclusions where evidence is lacking.  Could be entirely different with this book though. 

I agree.  I'd like to know what the actual footnotes contain or if this author found any new documents, etc.  It looked interesting, but I didn't know whether or not to invest money and my time on it.  I loose interest when an author puts their own spin or theories to work even when they are using actual evidence (or when they start do draw their own conclusions and present them as facts pro or con).  I feel that way about many so called anti's (Tanners included).  They may do great research and find authentic evidence or documentation, but I then tend to disagree with many of their conclusions.

In other words, I'll connect my own dots, thank you  

That's why I disregard the comments here by those who are just attacking the author without having even read her book. 

.

Edited October 14, 2016 by ALarson

[Bob Crockett]

I once looked into the counterfeiting claims, but it has been some time.   The Church was often accused of counterfeiting by reason of its use of its own currency and specie and not the forgery and copy of bank notes.  There was no national currency.  The importance of a currency and specie continued to the Great Basin, where the church had its own currency and specie without any national government approval.

[cdowis]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's why I disregard the comments here by those who are just attacking the author without having even read her book. 

.

I'm not attacking her, only making observations.

Hey, For the next 15 minutes I'll do a 50% discount.  Only $250! 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

There are presently four views on Amazon, two of which are anonymous.   All are five stars.

And the other two are Earl Erskine and Doris Hanson - http://www.whatloveisthis.tv/

This book is clearly anti-Mormon, not a scholarly objective study.

Edited October 14, 2016 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I once looked into the counterfeiting claims, but it has been some time.   The Church was often accused of counterfeiting by reason of its use of its own currency and specie and not the forgery and copy of bank notes.  There was no national currency.  The importance of a currency and specie continued to the Great Basin, where the church had its own currency and specie without any national government approval.

Yes, I did quite a bit of reading and looking into this topic as well at one time (it's been a few years).  I know that residents of Palmyra also suspected or accused Joseph Smith of counterfeiting.  It seemed to go hand in hand with the money digging, etc.

It's just a topic I've been interested in, so this book caught my eye.  If there is acutally something new that this author found, I'd like to see it.  But if not, I'm not really interested in any new theories or conclusions.

[Oliver_Cowdery]

For those of you wanting to do some of your own research, it is important to understand that in the early days of the church the word "bogus" was used almost exclusively to refer to counterfeit money, usually coins.

 

A search of the JosephSmithPapers project for the word "bogus" returns several results to get you started.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This book is clearly anti-Mormon, not a scholarly objective study.

You can't possibly know that (part I put in bold) unless you've read it and looked at the footnotes, etc., presented by this author.  The conclusions may be something you disagree with, but the author may have uncovered new information that is well documented.  

I'm able to read with an open mind and I do not take anyone's conclusions as my own.  I would hope you'd not be afraid to read what (if anything) comes out that may contain new, reliable information and come to your own conclusions.  I find doing this to be fascinating and I never shy away just because the author may put their own negative or positive spin on what is presented.  

I'm certainly not saying this book is one to be taken seriously (I simply do not know either way).  But, I thought I'd ask here before I purchased it or wasted my time on something that wasn't worth reading.  I'm not interested though in criticism from those who haven't even seen or read the book themselves.

.

Edited October 14, 2016 by ALarson

[Duncan]

So, if the church did counterfeiting, why were they so broke all the time? why not just make more money? unless you're dealing with super stupid people you're going to get found out and the jig will be up. I wonder who would have done this counterfeiting?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

You can't possibly know that (part I put in bold) unless you've read it and looked at the footnotes, etc.  The conclusions may be something you disagree with, but the author may have uncovered new information that is well documented.  

I'm able to read with an open mind and I do not take anyone's conclusions as my own.  I would hope you'd not be afraid to read what (if anything) comes out that may contain new, reliable information and come to your own conclusions.  I find doing this to be fascinating and I never shy away just because the author may put their own negative or positive spin on what is presented.  

Honestly ALarson I understand your desire to be objective.  I generally share it.
But there can be no denying the source of the publication.  I doubt the part I bolded too.

Look, I'm not biased against things not put out by the Church.  You should know that by now.  I apply my doubts of scholarship equally.  The Church/Deseret Book used to put out whitewashed "scholarly" work which fortunately has improved in the past decade.
A self-published book by an ex-Mormon devout Christian author with no training as a historian that is being advocated by the Tanners, Doris Hanson, and Earl Erskine and sold directly by the Lighthouse Ministry comes with certain baggage. 
Just as official Church publications do.  Just as the Price's books denying Joseph Smith practiced polygamy sold through the Community of Christ (RLDS) do. 

Source matters, no matter how good the research.  And it does change the scholarly nature of the book.

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Honestly ALarson I understand your desire to be objective.  I generally share it.
But there can be no denying the source of the publication.  I doubt the part I bolded too.

Look, I'm not biased against things not put out by the Church.  You should know that by now.  I apply my doubts of scholarship equally.  The Church/Deseret Book used to put out whitewashed "scholarly" work which fortunately has improved in the past decade.
A self-published book by an ex-Mormon devout Christian author with no training as a historian that is being advocated by the Tanners, Doris Hanson, and Earl Erskine and sold directly by the Lighthouse Ministry comes with certain baggage. 
Just as official Church publications do.  Just as the Price's books denying Joseph Smith practiced polygamy sold through the Community of Christ (RLDS) do. 

Source matters, no matter how good the research.  And it does change the scholarly nature of the book.

I agree up until your last sentence.  I'm not going to judge how scholarly a book is by the people who have chosen to review it.  I know the book is not something most active members of the church or church leaders are going to read and review, so we're not going to find many (if any) reviews from them.  

I do have to say, that I found an excerpt from the book just now and read it.  If she wrote this book in her own story, dramatic form, I'm not really interested as I really detest that type of writing (both pro and con church historical books).  I'd still like to see what her 10 years of research uncovered in possible locations not yet researched (if anything), as that is of interest to me.  So maybe I'll buy the book to just read the footnotes (cut to the chase)  

ETA:

I guess the excerpt I read was from the introduction of the book, so I don't know if the book is written in story form or not.  Just thought I'd clarify.

.

Edited October 14, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

26 minutes ago, Duncan said:

So, if the church did counterfeiting, why were they so broke all the time? why not just make more money? unless you're dealing with super stupid people you're going to get found out and the jig will be up. I wonder who would have done this counterfeiting?

All the money they made was Canadian!!!

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Source matters, no matter how good the research.  And it does change the scholarly nature of the book.

I agree up until your last sentence.  I'm not going to judge how scholarly a book is by the people who have chosen to review it. 

I'm not sure how you can disagree with what I said, but OK.

Who the author is may not change the quality of the data gathering research, but it can definitely change the way the data is presented and thus the scholarship.
There are hundreds of both pro and anti Church publications that show that.  But maybe the research alone has some validity.
 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm not sure how you can disagree with what I said, but OK.

Who the author is may not change the quality of the data gathering research, but it can definitely change the way the data is presented and thus the scholarship.
There are hundreds of both pro and anti Church publications that show that.  But maybe the research alone has some validity.
 

I think we do agree (maybe I just misunderstood what you were saying).  Bottom line is that I'm interested in the documentation or evidence, not how the author spins it or the conclusions they come to (as they are almost always biased and understandably so).  I'm fully capable of forming my own opinions, beliefs and conclusions (and yes, those are biased too and I'll admit that  )

I'm just not going to discredit a book by who has reviewed it,  That was the point I was making.  I really do not know enough about the author to form an opinion one way or the other regarding how scholarly her writings are. 

.

.

Edited October 14, 2016 by ALarson

[cdowis]

57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You can't possibly know that (part I put in bold) unless you've read it and looked at the footnotes, etc., presented by this author.  

A scholarly work has been written by a scholar.  A scholar --  "a person who has done advanced study in a special field".  In this case, for example, showing an understanding of source control, a broad historical AND legal knowledge in order to place specific events or statements in context of the time and place -- what constituted counterfeit currency at this time.  A detailed understanding of the banking system and fiduciary responsibilities at that time.

Not having read the book, I looked at her background in these areas, which does not show such advanced knowledge, only the claim of 1400 footnotes.  Whatever that means.

Yes, I believe that I can judge whether it is a scholarly book based on her credentials, her education, or lack thereof.  Her comment on "connecting the dots" does not inspire confidence.

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by cdowis

[JulieM]

31 minutes ago, cdowis said:

A scholarly work has been written by a scholar.  A scholar --  "a person who has done advanced study in a special field".  In this case, for example, showing an understanding of source control, a broad historical AND legal knowledge in order to place specific events or statements in context of the time and place -- what constituted counterfeit currency at this time.  A detailed understanding of the banking system and fiduciary responsibilities at that time.

Not having read the book, I looked at her background in these areas, which does not show such advanced knowledge, only the claim of 1400 footnotes.  Whatever that means.

Yes, I believe that I can judge whether it is a scholarly book based on her credentials, her education, or lack thereof.  Her comment on "connecting the dots" does not inspire confidence.

 

I think her background is pretty impressive.  Add to that the fact that she spent 10 years researching over several states and in many records, facilities, libraries and so on (and the information gathered over the 10 years is in the 1400 footnotes, I'd presume) and her work could be scholarly written (or not).  I guess you'd have to read it to know for yourself (and so would I).

And, don't all historians collect information and "connect the dots" to compile history or theories?  Look at what Brian Hales and others do with info they gather!

Edited October 14, 2016 by JulieM

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I once looked into the counterfeiting claims, but it has been some time.   The Church was often accused of counterfeiting by reason of its use of its own currency and specie and not the forgery and copy of bank notes.  There was no national currency.  The importance of a currency and specie continued to the Great Basin, where the church had its own currency and specie without any national government approval.

I did not know that about the Utah territory! Thanks

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

All the money they made was Canadian!!!

you got that right!!!! although Canada didn't become the greatest place ever until 1867

[Nevo]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

I have seen this new book discussed elsewhere, but wonder if anyone has read it that can comment on it?  

I haven't read it yet. I recall Chris Smith mentioned it on another board a while back and he seemed to have a high opinion of it. I think very highly of Chris, so I'll probably read it at some point. But I am skeptical that there is much there. If a strong case could be made for the Smiths' involvement in counterfeiting I think John Brooke would have made it already. The Melonakos book was under review at Signature Books at one point but evidently didn't clear even the low bar set by An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. Now it's mainly being promoted by Sandra Tanner—not a good sign. The cover art looks decent though.

[boblloyd91]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And the other two are Earl Erskine and Doris Hanson - http://www.whatloveisthis.tv/

This book is clearly anti-Mormon, not a scholarly objective study.

A red flag I noticed is her mentioning she was a direct descendant of Heber Kimball. Often former members who actively fight the church use this as a perceived badge of honor.

[Gervin]

4 hours ago, cdowis said:

Yes, I believe that I can judge whether it is a scholarly book based on her credentials, her education, or lack thereof. 

Which only goes to show that you don't engage much in scholarly endeavors; it's a bigoted claim.

I think I can judge whether a book (related to a historical matter) is "scholarly" by examining the stated assumptions and methodologies, the research and investigative findings - old and new, and the conclusions that the author makes based on all of the above.  All without knowledge of the author's education or his/her credentials (whatever that means).

 

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

And, don't all historians collect information and "connect the dots" to compile history or theories?  Look at what Brian Hales and others do with info they gather!

Of course, but think of a profession athlete who brags about getting up early in the morning to do exercises.  It's not something you put on your resume unless you have very little else to show in experience.  And the "ten years"?  Is that every day, once a week, only when you are taking vacations == another vacuous statement.

You are very easily impressed.

[rongo]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

 I do have to say, that I found an excerpt from the book just now and read it.  If she wrote this book in her own story, dramatic form, I'm not really interested as I really detest that type of writing (both pro and con church historical books). 

Years ago, John Farkas, an anti-Mormon in New York, sent me photocopies of "The Kingdom or Nothing" by Sam Taylor, which he represented as a biography of John Taylor. I was stunned. It was written in narrative form, with the sections he sent me running something like this (to the best of my recollection):

"John Taylor swirled his wine around in his glass and frowned. He hated problems like these, and this one was no different. Something would have to be be done about it, and he was getting too old for this sort of thing."

He wanted to use the pages he sent me to support some point of his about a historical fact, and I couldn't believe that he thought this story form fit the bill. It would be like quoting "The Work and the Glory" on church history instead of documentary sources. 

[Calm]

13 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I've read the reviews and they are all positive, but I'd love to hear from someone here that I can trust.  And, those you mention have been fair in other instances and then also biased at other times (more so).  But that does not mean they are not accurate about this book.

This is why I posted it here.

If this author has done the extensive research as reported and has documentation and evidence, I'd like to know more about it.  I may just order the book and read it for myself, but just thought I'd ask before I ordered it.

I find it strange if the book is that great why Tanner didn't publish it or Bagley didn't manage to talk one of his publishers into taking it on and instead it has been self published.

I started trying to watch a podcast she did from 2012 iirc on the subject, the part I watched amounted to her saying this is what happened without any specific, but lots of gushing so I got bored and went and played DragonVale instead.  Did find out one of the reasons she is into church history is her father was a "lost boy" while her mom was active LDS.  And she only started using "Kimball" for this book as far as I could tell...and one of the promos claim Heber as a "co-founder".  Tends to show what audience the book is intended for imo, given the 'I have insight given my gggrandfather was ________' appeal of the antiMormon EV crowd (subcategory of EVs, I consider them a minority among the greater group).

But perhaps I am just too impatient tonight and perhaps I will get a chance to change my mind.  There is nothing preventing good work coming out of self published material or history done by someone trained in nursing and philosophy (very interesting combination, Masters at Stanford in Philosophy is pretty impressive to me... my dream school, used to drive or ride by it on the way to work at the Stanford Mall and so wanted to go, but too timid to try for a scholarship).

Edited October 15, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

12 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  I'd like to know what the actual footnotes contain or if this author found any new documents, etc.  It looked interesting, but I didn't know whether or not to invest money and my time on it.  I loose interest when an author puts their own spin or theories to work even when they are using actual evidence (or when they start do draw their own conclusions and present them as facts pro or con).  I feel that way about many so called anti's (Tanners included).  They may do great research and find authentic evidence or documentation, but I then tend to disagree with many of their conclusions.

In other words, I'll connect my own dots, thank you  

That's why I disregard the comments here by those who are just attacking the author without having even read her book. 

.

Quite late but if you just search on her first and last name, you should be able to find a podcast she did a few years ago and it should at least hint if there is substance there or not.  You could also join the AML and volunteer to be one of their reviewers.  They probably are going to be looking at this book sometime soon.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree up until your last sentence.  I'm not going to judge how scholarly a book is by the people who have chosen to review it.  I know the book is not something most active members of the church or church leaders are going to read and review, so we're not going to find many (if any) reviews from them.  

I do have to say, that I found an excerpt from the book just now and read it.  If she wrote this book in her own story, dramatic form, I'm not really interested as I really detest that type of writing (both pro and con church historical books).  I'd still like to see what her 10 years of research uncovered in possible locations not yet researched (if anything), as that is of interest to me.  So maybe I'll buy the book to just read the footnotes (cut to the chase)  

ETA:

I guess the excerpt I read was from the introduction of the book, so I don't know if the book is written in story form or not.  Just thought I'd clarify.

.

Iirc, the excerpt involved significant mind reading, speculation and a heavy handed sensationalization that gave it the taste of a bad romance novel to me (I read it a week ago).

Btw, The use of CEO-like bosses comes across as an attempt to taint JS and the Church by portraying it as more a business---and a criminal one at that---than a faith congregation.

And then there is ""She was raised a Mormon and became a Christian in 2000."

Not exactly promising that it will be written with much understanding or insight, imo.

Here are some links I found.

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/4337178519.html

Book sample for those more lazy than ALarson (who is prudently waiting for actual content to judge):

"Joseph Smith Jr. felt his heart begin to pound and cold, clammy sweat made the gun in his hand slippery. His usual fearlessness vanished as his life flashed before him and he began to shiver, though it was a warm summer day in Illinois. The thundering sound of horse hoofs in the distance grew steadily louder. Who was coming? Was it his own trained and loyal soldiers, the Nauvoo Legion, about to rescue him from this paltry jail? Or was it his hated enemies? If it were his enemies what would they do? Shoot him and Hyrum in cold blood while cornered and defenseless? How did it ever come to this horrid pass? He had escaped disaster so many times before. How would he escape from this one?

It was June 27, 1844—a fateful day in the lives of thousands of Americans. The events that took place at Carthage, Hancock County, Illinois, stimulate debate even now, more than one hundred and seventy years later…

So who was Joseph Smith? Was he the direct mouthpiece of the Almighty God of the Bible as he claimed, who endured unspeakable persecutions because he had brought forward the restored gospel of Christ in its pure form, after it had become corrupted? Had he, as he claimed, been given a divine commission to bring forth golden plates containing the ancient record of the Native Americans, who were descendants of the Hebrews of Jerusalem, thereby showing that the Old World was connected to the New World in a continuous thread of redemptive history? Was it God himself speaking when Smith proclaimed, “Thus saith the Lord,” and then revealed such fascinating mysteries as the three levels of heaven in the afterlife, or even more compelling to his believers, the part each of them would play in the “Kingdom of God” on earth that he was building? If he were not these things, then how had so many come to believe that he was?"

mormoncounterfeiting.com

The podcast I talked about:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0KFPT6SBhRc&feature=youtu.be

Other than that (and the ads for the book on anti-Mormon sites (perhaps not all of them were as I did not check them, but those I knew generally treat the LDS Church as a cult), the only references I found to her online were personal and nonLDS writing, such as a nursing book.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Calm