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

[Calm]

6 hours ago, cdowis said:

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....

It shows an ongoing and committed interest, though not the level of that interest.

The Stanford Master of Philosophy means she is highly intelligent, can analyze and likely research...but the 1400 footnotes make me wonder if that translates to history for her as often that many footnotes can indicate a lack of discrimination in the quality of ones' sources and instead trying to impress with volume.

Otoh, Rough Stone Rolling is apparently 20% footnotes.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

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.

The appearance of "Kimball" in her name for this book does seem to me to be an ill portent.

[boblloyd91]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The appearance of "Kimball" in her name for this book does seem to me to be an ill portent.

Interesting, why would that be?

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, Nevo said:

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.

Well, I went ahead and ordered the book.  I thought, what the heck, might as well take a look myself since no one here seems to have read it   

I'll post when I've read some of it and give my opinion of the book.  Please let us know if you end up reading it too.

ETA:

Nevo, isn't Chris Smith writing his own book covering this topic?  Or am I not remembering correctly?

.

Edited October 15, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

It shows an ongoing and committed interest, though not the level of that interest.

The Stanford Master of Philosophy means she is highly intelligent, can analyze and likely research...but the 1400 footnotes make me wonder if that translates to history for her as often that many footnotes can indicate a lack of discrimination in the quality of ones' sources and instead trying to impress with volume.

Otoh, Rough Stone Rolling is apparently 20% footnotes.

Thanks for all the information you found and posted, Calm.  I agree with your impressions so far.  

Like I just told Nevo, I ordered the book and will post when I've read at least part of the book.

Edited October 15, 2016 by ALarson

[boblloyd91]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for all the information you found and posted, Calm.  I agree with your impressions so far.  

Like I just told Nevo, I ordered the book and will post when I've read at least part of the book.

I myself look forward to hearing what you have to say, as this is an intriguing topic.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, boblloyd91 said:

I myself look forward to hearing what you have to say, as this is an intriguing topic.

Thanks, and I agree (about the topic)  

[Calm]

7 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

Interesting, why would that be?

Because it didn't seem to be important to her to have it included until it could be seen as adding to her credibility as an author on the subject of Mormonism.  It can be seen as helping draw attention to the whole 'my ancestor was a cofounder of Mormonism/bosom buddy of JS' theme.  

Perhaps somehow she decided she wanted to deepen her personal connection with someone who is a thief and a fraud in her view?  It just seems strange that she would feel like she wanted to tighten a relationship for positive reasons while she is denouncing the man in public.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for all the information you found and posted, Calm.  I agree with your impressions so far.  

Like I just told Nevo, I ordered the book and will post when I've read at least part of the book.

I will very much look forward to it.

[cdowis]

On 10/14/2016 at 8:11 PM, boblloyd91 said:

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.

Actually, we all are probably related to church leaders.  No big deal.

If you family line is on familysearch, then go here to see your relationships.  https://www.relativefinder.org/#/relatives/all/user

[boblloyd91]

32 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Actually, we all are probably related to church leaders.  No big deal.

If you family line is on familysearch, then go here to see your relationships.  https://www.relativefinder.org/#/relatives/all/user

Right, that's why I get such a kick out of those claims. I also think it's funny when they call themselves "temple Mormons" or talk about how they were high up in the church and wind up being former bishops or elders quorum presidents.

[Nevo]

I just finished the introduction. She's not off to a great start. For one thing, there was no "thundering sound of horse hoofs" on June 27, 1844. The militia approached the jail on foot.

She states that her aim is to "explore the evidence that Joseph and Hyrum were born into a family enmeshed in the criminal subculture of their times" and that "Joseph Smith Jr. was a deliberate con-artist from the beginning." She suggests that "producing the Book of Mormon was a way to potentially make a lot of money, and cover up swindling by the Smith family." So this isn't your typical scholarly history.

She urges readers to consider Mormonism apart from "biblical Christianity in early America" and not to reject Christianity when confronted with "Mormon contradictions." She then concludes with two quotes from the New Testament:

• "For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light." (Luke 8:17)
• "And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)

You can see where this is going. Melonakos is writing in the tradition of Wesley Walters, Art Vanick, and other crusading Christian investigators into Mormon origins. Not surprisingly, Sandra Tanner was apparently the book's principal reviewer.

This is an amateur effort, obviously, but I still expect there will be some interesting research here and there (as there was in Walters's and Vanick's work).

Edited October 16, 2016 by Nevo

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

Right, that's why I get such a kick out of those claims. I also think it's funny when they call themselves "temple Mormons" or talk about how they were high up in the church and wind up being former bishops or elders quorum presidents.

Or even better == "Get the INSIDER information on Mormonism."  

Such as order forms for office supplies and floor plans for chapels.

Edited October 16, 2016 by cdowis

[ALarson]

17 hours ago, Nevo said:

I just finished the introduction. She's not off to a great start. For one thing, there was no "thundering sound of horse hoofs" on June 27, 1844. The militia approached the jail on foot.

She states that her aim is to "explore the evidence that Joseph and Hyrum were born into a family enmeshed in the criminal subculture of their times" and that "Joseph Smith Jr. was a deliberate con-artist from the beginning." She suggests that "producing the Book of Mormon was a way to potentially make a lot of money, and cover up swindling by the Smith family." So this isn't your typical scholarly history.

She urges readers to consider Mormonism apart from "biblical Christianity in early America" and not to reject Christianity when confronted with "Mormon contradictions." She then concludes with two quotes from the New Testament:

• "For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light." (Luke 8:17)
• "And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)

You can see where this is going. Melonakos is writing in the tradition of Wesley Walters, Art Vanick, and other crusading Christian investigators into Mormon origins. Not surprisingly, Sandra Tanner was apparently the book's principal reviewer.

This is an amateur effort, obviously, but I still expect there will be some interesting research here and there (as there was in Walters's and Vanick's work).

Ok....got the book today (post office delivered today...who knew?).  I am not impressed so far and I'm quickly loosing interest.

I found some historical errors just in the introduction (the one you mentioned and then she states that John Corrill was a Danite, and iirc, he was not a Danite, but did write about them....I did read Corrill's book a few years ago and found it interesting regarding the Missouri years).

Then the first couple of chapters are filled with "connections" like, well they were related to each other so they may have been affiliated or worked together.  Or, these two were related generations back, so they most likely were all involved in doing the same illegal activities.  That is all meaningless as far as providing any real evidence, IMO.

I'll try to keep reading, but I feel a desire to just cut to the chase regarding any new documentation (if any) that she has.

I do find the connection with Joseph Smith Sr., and Oliver Cowdery's father to be pretty credible and probable regarding the rodsmen connection (the New Israelites in Vermont), but even that is up for interpretation and speculation. 

I do believe that the Smiths were not the perfect, upstanding citizens portrayed by the church, but so far, she has not convinced me they were up to all the evil activites she is trying to prove here.

.

Edited October 16, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Just thought of one other thing that irked me when reading the introduction.  She keeps referring to the "Smith brothers" like they are some sort of gang.  I have to assume she means just Joseph and Hyrum, but there were many other Smith brothers (4 of them were killed or died during the Nauvoo years).  She seems to include Alvin in some activities, so is she including him in her reference to the "Smith brothers"?  She also mentions William.  How about Samuel and Don Carlos (who both died in Nauvoo and were involved in the church too)?  

That just annoyed me.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Just thought of one other thing that irked me when reading the introduction.  She keeps referring to the "Smith brothers" like they are some sort of gang.  I have to assume she means just Joseph and Hyrum, but there were many other Smith brothers (4 of them were killed or died during the Nauvoo years).  She seems to include Alvin in some activities, so is she including him in her reference to the "Smith brothers"?  She also mentions William.  How about Samuel and Don Carlos (who both died in Nauvoo and were involved in the church too)?  

That just annoyed me.

Glad to hear your comments, you probably saved me some money. And I like that you are a little more neutral than some others from both sides' viewpoints are.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Just thought of one other thing that irked me when reading the introduction.  She keeps referring to the "Smith brothers" like they are some sort of gang.  I have to assume she means just Joseph and Hyrum, but there were many other Smith brothers (4 of them were killed or died during the Nauvoo years).  She seems to include Alvin in some activities, so is she including him in her reference to the "Smith brothers"?  She also mentions William.  How about Samuel and Don Carlos (who both died in Nauvoo and were involved in the church too)?  

That just annoyed me.

Does Amazon have a 30 day return policy on books?

Edited October 16, 2016 by cdowis

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Does Amazon have a 30 day return policy on books?

That's not a concern of mine.  I've only just started to read the book and will wait and see if this author has found anything new or of interest to me.  You see, I actually read a book before I critique it and will still not personally attack the author even if I disagree with some of their writings.

[cdowis]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not a concern of mine.  I've only just started to read the book and will wait and see if this author has found anything new or of interest to me.  You see, I actually read a book before I critique it and will still not personally attack the author even if I disagree with some of their writings.

This is the second time you have insulted me.  I responded the first time, but let's just ignore you for now.

[ALarson]

57 minutes ago, cdowis said:

This is the second time you have insulted me.  I responded the first time, but let's just ignore you for now.

I'm just stating how I review a book or go about giving my opinion regarding how an author writes.  I try to wait until I've actually read the book or I just don't comment on it.  Nothing more, but if you see yourself or your actions in there somewhere, ok.

.

Edited October 17, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

On 10/14/2016 at 6:11 PM, boblloyd91 said:

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.

And Sandra Tanner has long advertised herself as "a great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon Church."

As a bit of trivia, the recitation of an anti-Mormon author's ancestral ties to early LDS leaders would be incidentally interesting, like for about ten seconds.

But as a credential, it's pretty much just a tacky gimmick to gloss over the likely lack of training/expertise/competency of the author.

Prominently featuring the author's ancestry is just bolstering.  I think well-regarded, stands-on-its-own-merits scholarship would not need to rely on such irrelevant frippery, and in fact would stay away from such a patently obvious "red flag."

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And Sandra Tanner has long advertised herself as "a great-great-granddaughter of Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon Church."

As a bit of trivia, the recitation of an anti-Mormon author's ancestral ties to early LDS leaders would be incidentally interesting, like for about ten seconds.

But as a credential, it's pretty much just a tacky gimmick to gloss over the likely lack of training/expertise/competency of the author.

Prominently featuring the author's ancestry is just bolstering.  I think well-regarded, stands-on-its-own-merits scholarship would not need to rely on such irrelevant frippery, and in fact would stay away from such a patently obvious "red flag."

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think this is a big deal.  If that's her name or ancestry, so what?  It doesn't mean much either way at least for me.

And as far as Tanner being a great-great- granddaughter of Brigham Young's, those must number in the 100's (1000's ?) with as many wives and kids as he had 

Nothing special there!

Edited October 17, 2016 by JulieM

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I don't think this is a big deal.  If that's her name or ancestry, so what?  It doesn't mean much either way at least for me.

And as far as Tanner being a great-great- granddaughter of Brigham Young's, those must number in the 100's (1000's ?) with as many wives and kids as he had 

Nothing special there!

It would be very interesting to figure out how many other descendants have as close or closer 'blood ties' as those authors who make the claim.

[Rain]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

It would be very interesting to figure out how many other descendants have as close or closer 'blood ties' as those authors who make the claim.

If you assume,  which of course you shouldn't, that each of his children who lived to adulthood had 2 children and so on there would be 688 descendants at her closeness or closer. 

ALarson - I look forward to seeing what else you have to report. 

[The Nehor]

On 10/14/2016 at 3:04 PM, JulieM said:

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!

Protip for Book Blurbs: They don't fact-check them for accuracy. They can lie.

Don't tell anyone. It's a secret.