The Smith Family vs. the Lehi Family

[wenglund]

Don't forget Jess Groesbeck:

The extant history of Joseph, Sr., suggests that he lived a very difficult life filled with suffering.

[Dan Vogel]

Enummaelish,

If Joseph Smith Sr.

[Dan Vogel]

Enummaelish,

What I think is that in our efforts to understand the dynamics of the Joseph Smith family and their relationship to the initial people described in the Book of Mormon, that we should give some credence to William Smith

[enummaelish]

I hope this isn

[enummaelish]

Let me see. Good historians accept one statement from William, which is not exactly a flat denial, as opposed to many other statements by friendly and unfriendly witnesses and an admission by JS Sr. himself. That

[enummaelish]

Ok more confusion taken from this very thread:

This is an important difference between the two dreams. Joseph Sr.

[Nevo]

Let me see if I have this correct. The only evidence we have for Joseph Smith Sr.'s drinking is: 1) a vauge reference to his being "out of the way through wine" in Hyrums 1834 Patriarchal Bless; and 2) The late recollection of a former neighbor of the Smiths, Lorenzo Saunders, some 50 years after the Smith's had left the Palmyra area, that JS Sr. would "get tight" at turkey shoots, and that "sometimes Joseph Smith Sr, and Joseph Smith, Jr. sometimes drank together, most likely cider."

Well, not quite. Sources for Joseph Smith Sr.'s drinking include:

1) Joseph Sr.'s own admission of bouts of drunkenness (9 Dec 1834)

2) Three statements of Lorenzo Saunders (17 Sep 1884; 20 Sep 1884; 12 Nov 1884)

3) The statement of eleven acquaintances of the Smiths (3 Nov 1833)

4) The statement of Barton Stafford (3 Nov 1833)

5) The statement of David Stafford (5 Dec 1833)

6) The statement of Sylvia Walker (20 Mar 1885)

7) The statement of Christopher M. Stafford (23 Mar 1885)

The statement of Isaac Butts (ca. Mar 1885)

9) Martin Harris interview with Joel Tiffany (1859)

10) The account books of Lemuel Durfee (21 May 1827; 1 Sep 1827; 13 May 1828; and June 1829)

(see Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, vols. 1 & 2)

Circumstantial evidence might include Joseph's refusal of alcohol during his leg operation and his emotional reaction to his father's baptism ("he was the most wrot upon that I ever saw any man," recalled Joseph Knight).

Against the above we have William Smith's statement (ca. 1875), which downplays his father's drinking.

[Calm]

Nevo, since this is given by Grosbeck as a possiblity with many assumptions about what was going on in JSSr's inner life, I am assuming you are not presenting it as being on the same level as William's statement which was a rather definite first hand account of family outer behaviour.

Yes, William's is a "first hand account" but it shows a marked tendency to minimize or deny embarassing information about the family; hence, it minimizes Joseph Sr.'s drinking and denies his involvement in money digging.

This is, of course, something that has to be guarded against in pyschotherapy, the tendency to present family in glowing terms (the opposite happens a lot as well).

I take what William says with a grain of salt and would look for confirmation. I'd try to find other of his comments that have outside confirmation (or not) and try to determine how much he departs from the actual situation in those cases and then likely use that as a measure of 'rosecolouring' in this case. I would not just dismiss it outright or place second and thirdhand accounts as equivalent especially if they involved such heavy speculation to unknown behaviour such as intent. At this point, I have no issue with the belief that JS Sr. was drinking beyond the norm, even likely to the point of deteriment of himself and his family. Beyond this, specifics seem to be lacking in sufficient amount IMO. I do believe there lacks evidence as to the motivators for this behaviour as well as their weight/amount of influence and interaction as well as how this behaviour fitted into and affected the family structure.

An analogy to demonstrate why I'd have a problem with this:

A pyschologist testifies as to the mental state of the defendant in court. He has not personally interviewed the individual but is relying on the notes of the man's therapist. In one part of his testimony he is responding with specific references provided by the therapist. I'd be comfortable with this as there should be consistency based on training and theory between what the therapist would conclude and what the pyschologist does conclude based on the therapist's information.

However, the questioner then takes him into areas the therapist didn't examine and only a limited amount of relevant behaviour is known.

Do you think that given those conditions the psychologist's testimony would be called into question if he wandered off into speculation? I would certainly hope so.

Conclusions about behaviour based on actual history--great. Conclusions about intent based on personal information (such as from recorded dialogue or journals)---great. Conclusions based on possible intent that is neither confirmed or denied by available information save for the fact that such has occurred in other individuals in similar situations---not great, not good, bad. One would have to demonstrate a significant similarity to these other individuals and the situation so that one can validly assume like motivators, etc.

IMO.

Someone wants to speculate on unknown intent and its implications, then they need to find evidence that their speculations are confirmed. I'd fire any therapist who operated otherwise.

I don't see that being done in the article being referenced.

[Calm]

My analysis has nothing to do with

[Dan Vogel]

Enummaelish,

I hope this isn

[enummaelish]

On my way home this morning, I happened to drive through Lebanon, NH. Of course I couldn

[noel00]

Is not there some context as regards the 1820 revival issue that William Smiths recollections are dealt differently because of his age (very young) while is this issue (his fathers drinking) he does remember he did not see him drinking. Could this be an issue of shame on the part of the son about his father emabarressing behavour? Families often cover up the disfunctional behavour of one of their parents. I could be wrong just a thought. Does William Smith's recollections have more weight to those of his neighbours?

[Dan Vogel]

Enummaelish,

Sorry to see you break off the discussion that you began. I respond to your comments nevertheless.

While reflecting upon this statement, I happen to conclude that there could actually be some validity to this theory. Joseph Smith

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

Sorry I haven

[enummaelish]

I don

[Benjamin McGuire]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the earliest written account of Joseph Smith Sr.

[Dan Vogel]

Enummaelish,

I don