John C Bennett - Assistant to the Prophet Joseph Smith - Scheme to Murder?

[stemelbow]

23 hours ago, cinepro said:

Hate to crash the party, but there is this in D&C 124:

This was given in January 1841.  If he was "always fraudulent," then apparently he was slick enough to fool God Himself! 

I don't think God cares which name get's tossed into which revelation.  He first spoke to Jesse Clause revealing his will for him.  But when Clause left the Church and was excommunicated that year, they switched the name in the revelation to Frederick G. Williams instead.  It did't matter to God who it was that was John Bennett or Elbert Ecraft, he that guy in particular was Joseph's buddy.  It works in Chruch in our day too.  God doesn't care if it's Brother Misanthony or Brother Jacobs whose buddy enough with the other leaders to be called as Bishop.  Just do it, and move on.  Someone along the way will hurt someone or turn into a humbug. 

[CA Steve]

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

How does that follow? Jesus called Judas.

God seems pretty pragmatic in his dealings with people. He's not above using scoundrels to bring about his work.

I don't deny in the least Bennett was a complex figure. But then so is Charlie Sheen or Donald Trump.

So how does one know if a choice is God just being pragmatic like Judas, or simply a failure to communicate like the priesthood ban or the attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada?  

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

So how does one know if a choice is God just being pragmatic like Judas, or simply a failure to communicate like the priesthood ban or the attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada?  

Not sure what you mean. I think many statements are ambiguous in that sense.

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm personally not aware of his formal credentials, but I respect his work, I know the church history department has used his work as well, and from what I've seen and spoken with Mormon historians he is well respected in the community.  Perhaps you just haven't worked with the historical community much?    

Perhaps.  Sorry; you haven't sold me on his credentials.  Looks to me that he is just another glorified anti-Mormon blogger.   This website says "This site contains accurate information" or something like that.  

Has he ever published an article in a peer-reviewed university-affiliated publication, or a book by a university printing house?  I honestly don't know. 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Perhaps.  Sorry; you haven't sold me on his credentials.  Looks to me that he is just another glorified anti-Mormon blogger.   This website says "This site contains accurate information" or something like that.  

Has he ever published an article in a peer-reviewed university-affiliated publication, or a book by a university printing house?  I honestly don't know. 

Are you serious?  I consider myself a novice who's interested in Mormon studies and I'm quite familiar with him.  Your response tells me two things, one is you have a lack of knowledge about Mormon history, you must not read the mainstream journals like Dialogue, Journal of Mormon History, or JWHA's journal because you would have come across his work, he's been working in the field for longer than I've been alive, and like I said he's well respected in Mormon historian circles, you are obviously outside of those circles or even aware of his works being frequently cited by others. 

Secondly that you're so quick to label someone as anti-Mormon tells me you have no desire for objectivity.  He's written multiple books on Mormon history and many of those essays on his web site were originally published in some of the journals listed above.  I find him to be highly fair and one of the better historians when it comes to honest history that isn't anti or pro LDS.  He's even consulted for the church on projects in the past so they obviously respect his honesty or they wouldn't have used him.  It's rude and ignorant of you to label him anti or dismiss him because of your own admitted lack of knowledge.  

Edited November 9, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Bobbieaware]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you serious?  I consider myself a novice who's interested in Mormon studies and I'm quite familiar with him.  Your response tells me two things, one is you have a lack of knowledge about Mormon history, you must not read the mainstream journals like Dialogue, Journal of Mormon History, or JWHA's journal because you would have come across his work, he's been working in the field for longer than I've been alive, and like I said he's well respected in Mormon historian circles, you are obviously outside of those circles or even aware of his works being frequently cited by others. 

Secondly that you're so quick to label someone as anti-Mormon tells me you have no desire for objectivity.  He's written multiple books on Mormon history and many of those essays on his web site were originally published in some of the journals listed above.  I find him to be highly fair and one of the better historians when it comes to honest history that isn't anti or pro LDS.  He's even consulted for the church on projects in the past so they obviously respect his honesty or they wouldn't have used him.  It's rude and ignorant of you to label him anti or dismiss him because of your own admitted lack of knowledge.  

H Michael Marquardt is a well k own critic of the LDS Church. It’s likely the.reason why you don’t think of him as an anti-Mormon is because you like what he has to say.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

H Michael Marquardt is a well k own critic of the LDS Church. It’s likely the.reason why you don’t think of him as an anti-Mormon is because you like what he has to say.

If you think he's a critic, could you please tell me the names of people you consider more fair and balanced?  Certainly you can see there is a spectrum of people who are either highly critical of the church or highly supportive of the church, and then people more in the middle so I'd like to know if Marquardt is a critic, who you think the fair and balanced moderates are in the Mormon studies universe.

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

How does that follow? Jesus called Judas.

God seems pretty pragmatic in his dealings with people. He's not above using scoundrels to bring about his work.

I don't deny in the least Bennett was a complex figure. But then so is Charlie Sheen or Donald Trump.

 

I'm pretty sure Bennett's services could have been used on a utilitarian basis without God promising him "blessings and great glory." 

And there wouldn't be anything wrong with a private revelation to Joseph saying "Behold, John C. Bennett is a charlatan but shall be useful for mine purpose of establishing this city, yea, even the city of Nauvoo.  But behold it is wisdom in me that he shall be used for this purpose only, and that he shall not be entrusted with mine Prieshood not mine power, thus saith the Lord.  And when his work is done for me, if he shall not repent and hearken unto mine counsel, he shall be cut off and thrust out of Zion."

"Gift of discernment" and all that.

 

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Are you serious?  I consider myself a novice who's interested in Mormon studies and I'm quite familiar with him.  Your response tells me two things, one is you have a lack of knowledge about Mormon history, you must not read the mainstream journals like Dialogue, Journal of Mormon History, or JWHA's journal because you would have come across his work, he's been working in the field for longer than I've been alive, and like I said he's well respected in Mormon historian circles, you are obviously outside of those circles or even aware of his works being frequently cited by others. 

Secondly that you're so quick to label someone as anti-Mormon tells me you have no desire for objectivity.  He's written multiple books on Mormon history and many of those essays on his web site were originally published in some of the journals listed above.  I find him to be highly fair and one of the better historians when it comes to honest history that isn't anti or pro LDS.  He's even consulted for the church on projects in the past so they obviously respect his honesty or they wouldn't have used him.  It's rude and ignorant of you to label him anti or dismiss him because of your own admitted lack of knowledge.  

Maybe so.  But at least I state my opinions with my own name.

What are his credentials?

He has consulted for the church?  Where?

Edited November 10, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

If you think he's a critic, could you please tell me the names of people you consider more fair and balanced?  Certainly you can see there is a spectrum of people who are either highly critical of the church or highly supportive of the church, and then people more in the middle so I'd like to know if Marquardt is a critic, who you think the fair and balanced moderates are in the Mormon studies universe.

Michael Quinn.  He has the credentials and he doesn't insult people.  

Edited November 10, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Michael Quinn.  He has the credentials and he doesn't insult people.  

Who did Marquardt insult?  And I agree that Quinn is a great example of a moderate historian, I’m not sure why you have a bias against someone who’s work you aren’t familiar with.  

[Bob Crockett]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Who did Marquardt insult?  And I agree that Quinn is a great example of a moderate historian, I’m not sure why you have a bias against someone who’s work you aren’t familiar with.  

I am familiar with Marquardt's work.   

What are his credentials?  I have a bias against people without credentials who claim to be historians.  That doesn't mean that they can't be good historians.  But if they've never had to defend a dissertation and they don't publish in peer-reviewed university-affiliated publishing venues, I mean, why wouldn't a discriminating reader be biased against such a person?

He has consulted for the church?  Where? When?

Edited November 10, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I am familiar with Marquardt's work.   

What are his credentials?  I have a bias against people without credentials who claim to be historians.  That doesn't mean that they can't be good historians.  But if they've never had to defend a dissertation and they don't publish in peer-reviewed university-affiliated publishing venues, I mean, why wouldn't a discriminating reader be biased against such a person?

He has consulted for the church?  Where? When?

What, so you've been pretending you aren't familiar with Marquardt and his work just to trying bate me?  Not cool...

If you're so concerned about credentials, why don't you tell us what you think of Brian Hales and his work?  

[Bob Crockett]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What, so you've been pretending you aren't familiar with Marquardt and his work just to trying bate me?  Not cool...

If you're so concerned about credentials, why don't you tell us what you think of Brian Hales and his work?  

It is "bait."   And yes I baited you to get you to come out for his defense.  You didn't.  You haven't. 

What are Marquardt's credentials?  How many times do I have to ask?

I have Brian Hale's two-volume work but haven't read it, for the reason reason I don't think much of Marquardt.  At least Hales has a doctorate.  I also reject as capable historians Will Bagley and Juanita Brooks for the very same reason.  In a list conversation with Will Bagley, he told me that the University of Oklahoma did not check his sources in his Mountain Meadows Massacre book.   It was obvious, as some of them simply did not exist. 

When I published my two works in FARMS about MMM, FARMS staff and academics checked all and each of my footnotes and took exception to some of my conclusions.  A PhD-level person rewrote or had me rewrite some conclusions.

Rick Turley is a tax lawyer but at least his books are peer-reviewed.

So the hallmarks of trusted historians are:  (1) do they publish in an university-affiliated peer reviewed venue (that doesn't necessarily mean a university press) and (2) have they ever defended a dissertation.  I find it notable that you don't know the answers to those questions about Marquardt.  He's a hack, just like me.  I'm a hack.  I have a "doctorate" as a J.D., but it is laughable to say it is the same thing as a history professor who has defended a dissertation.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

It is "bait."   And yes I baited you to get you to come out for his defense.  You didn't.  You haven't. 

What are Marquardt's credentials?  How many times do I have to ask?

I have Brian Hale's two-volume work but haven't read it, for the reason reason I don't think much of Marquardt.  At least Hales has a doctorate.  I also reject as capable historians Will Bagley and Juanita Brooks for the very same reason.  In a list conversation with Will Bagley, he told me that the University of Oklahoma did not check his sources in his Mountain Meadows Massacre book.   It was obvious, as some of them simply did not exist. 

When I published my two works in FARMS about MMM, FARMS staff and academics checked all and each of my footnotes and took exception to some of my conclusions.  A PhD-level person rewrote or had me rewrite some conclusions.

Rick Turley is a tax lawyer but at least his books are peer-reviewed.

So the hallmarks of trusted historians are:  (1) do they publish in an university-affiliated peer reviewed venue (that doesn't necessarily mean a university press) and (2) have they ever defended a dissertation.  I find it notable that you don't know the answers to those questions about Marquardt.  He's a hack, just like me.  I'm a hack.  I have a "doctorate" as a J.D., but it is laughable to say it is the same thing as a history professor who has defended a dissertation.

I’m not a scholar nor will i get overly critical about someone’s credentials, i care about quality.  And I’m done talking with you, don’t like your tactics, don’t like your challenging me to defend someone else’s credentials, I’m not into these kinds of petty attacks.  

[Bob Crockett]

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m not a scholar nor will i get overly critical about someone’s credentials, i care about quality.  And I’m done talking with you, don’t like your tactics, don’t like your challenging me to defend someone else’s credentials, I’m not into these kinds of petty attacks.  

Well, I feel badly about that.   

He doesn't have credentials.  He's like a lot of Mormon and anti-Mormon scholars.  Dilettantes.   Whom to trust? 

A credentialed scholar with a job in the discipline is going to be cautious. A blogger just wants attention.  He's just a guy with a hobby and a website.  Guys like that are into "gotcha" and "you're a hypocrite" history.  

Edited November 11, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Well, I feel badly about that.   

He doesn't have credentials.  He's like a lot of Mormon and anti-Mormon scholars.  Dilettantes.   Whom to trust? 

A credentialed scholar with a job in the discipline is going to be cautious. A blogger just wants attention.  He's just a guy with a hobby and a website.  Guys like that are into "gotcha" and "you're a hypocrite" history.  

This is such bad form of you to make such unfounded and untrue statements.  Lost a lot of respect.  

[Bob Crockett]

Well, nobody's perfect.

[Nevo]

Since this thread has turned into a discussion of Michael Marquardt, let me offer a few additional observations.

Marquardt, as far as I know, has never presented himself as a professional academic historian but rather as an independent researcher and scholar of Mormon origins—which he is.

Marquardt's work is referenced in the Joseph Smith Papers (see, e.g., footnote 7 here), so he is taken a bit more seriously than just some guy "with a hobby and a website."

Credentialed LDS historians such as Richard Bushman, the late Paul Peterson, and Jed Woodworth, have all praised his research. Reviewing Inventing Mormonism, Bushman wrote: "The book assembles material that has not been part of the record before, and in good faith offers variant readings of Joseph Smith’s history. I have taken exception to the most critical conclusions, but I like the book. I admire the research, and I appreciate the generous, fair-minded tone of the writing." Reviewing the same volume in BYU Studies, Peterson wrote: "Whatever the motivation of Marquardt and Walters, we must admit they have searched and scoured through obscure, but occasionally important, records in musty basements and nondescript courthouses with more diligence and thoroughness than most of our own LDS historians." In a review in the academic journal Church History, the religious historian Rodger Payne called Inventing Mormonism, a "meticulously researched and impartially presented reevaluation of the traditional account of the early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., and the New York roots of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." 

In a review of a later Marquardt book, The Joseph Smith Revelations, for the Journal of Mormon History, Community of Christ archivist Ron Romig wrote: "The objectivity of Marquardt's Joseph Smith Revelations may come as a surprise for some potential readers. Neither an apology for nor tool against the Restoration, it forthrightly points out textual and historical problems (335). Once perceived among Latter-day Saints as inclined toward the anti-Mormon end of the spectrum, in this and recent works, Marquardt often seems transformed. He appears to argue certain interpretations of Latter-day Saint canon as an insider. For example, see his discussion of Elias (78). Marquardt has now come into his own in this field of documentary editing and brings considerable experience to the task of compiling and straightforwardly explaining Smith's revelations."

In his review of Marquardt's 2005 book, The Rise of Mormonism (one of the sources cited by the JSP editors of Histories, vol. 1), Church History Department employee Jed Woodworth describes Marquardt as "a well-published traveler in Mormon history who writes in the gentleman's tradition." Though Woodworth takes exception to Marquardt's overall approach to Joseph Smith, he acknowledges Marquardt's serious engagement with primary sources, noting that "Marquardt thanks by name some seventy libraries and archives in seven states." Later, he writes: "Marquardt's interest in primary sources produces some interesting finds that nibble around the edges of the traditional story. One of these is a third letter from Charles Anthon, the classical linguist from Columbia College to whom Martin Harris showed a sheet of Book of Mormon characters in 1829. Marquardt has also found the original testimony from the 1838 Richmond hearings of the Mormon War, located in an obscure manuscript collection in Columbia, Missouri."

In short, Marquardt is a long-time researcher of Mormon origins who has made important contributions to the field (see, for example, his 2012 JMH article "Setting the Record Straight: Brigham Young's Baptism Date"). He's not a believer and sometimes writes with an agenda, but his research is generally solid. There is no reason to doubt his chronology of John C. Bennett.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Nevo

[Bob Crockett]

I have not contested any of this.  What are his qualifications and credentials other than being self-taught?   The world is filled with Mormon history dilettantes.  

[CA Steve]

Yes,  let's spend another 2 or more pages discussing whether or not Marquart has the right letters after his name or the right universities are publishing his work, or whether he is a "real historian" or just a "lowly researcher", because we can ignore what he says if he doesn't meet some arbitrary standard some hayseed lawyer sets.

 

Or, I dunno, maybe we could respond to what he actually said.

 

Just a thought.

[Bob Crockett]

47 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Yes,  let's spend another 2 or more pages discussing whether or not Marquart has the right letters after his name or the right universities are publishing his work, or whether he is a "real historian" or just a "lowly researcher", because we can ignore what he says if he doesn't meet some arbitrary standard some hayseed lawyer sets.

 

Or, I dunno, maybe we could respond to what he actually said.

 

Just a thought.

I haven't said we should ignore what he says.  I merely say that he lacks credentials and thus we can distrust what he says.  And, yes, having the "right letters by his name" from the "right universities" and, further, being peer reviewed is super duper duper important in this area.  I have a lot of respect for a man or woman who obtained a doctorate from UC Berkeley and spent many years toiling in the Bancroft and the Huntington before publishing a single thing.   Not so for a guy who throws up a website.

I read what lots of Mormon dilettante historians say.  Some of it is worthwhile.  Just because I mistrust a source doesn't mean I won't cite it in m own dilettante articles. 

And, although I confess to being a hayseed lawyer from downtown Los Angeles (you know who I am; I'm not anonymous; I have courage), I'm not setting any kind of arbitrary standard.  All too often Mormons like to follow pseudo- or non-history or -science just because it suits them.   We must stick to rigorous academic standards that set the standards for quality.  Having a degree, teaching in one's field at a university and being peer-reviewed (all like Quinn was, for some periods of time, Bushman, Michael Coe, DCP, Arrington) makes a huge difference over people like Marquardt, Bagley (no degree; not peer reviewed), "Backyard Professor," Brian Hales (wrong kind of doctor; wrong venue; not peer reviewed), John Sorenson (not peer-reviewed), Ed Ashment (no degree), Richard Van Wagoner (wrong kind of doctor), Gregory Prince (wrong kind of doctor) and others.  Even Todd Compton doesn't fit this bill.  Marquardt in particular is suspect given his webpage. 

If one wants to be objective about Mormon history, one must discriminate and sift sources using either the scientific method or the standards which govern the profession of a history professor/author.   You publish in the National Enquirer and may be accurate?  Good for you, but I won't trust anything you say.

Your post reminds me of friends who argue that herbal supplements work because you can't trust anything the FDA and MDs have to say.

In terms of your comment, "maybe we could respond to what he actually says," I have never suggested that we don't.  

Edited November 13, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I have not contested any of this.  What are his qualifications and credentials other than being self-taught?   The world is filled with Mormon history dilettantes.  

Opinions of other credentialed scholars seems to me the most useful of credentials given what I have seen from some Ph.Ds.

Why would you automatically distrust someone because he hasn't gone through standardized training.  Be more cautious, doublecheck sources, etc., sure, but distrust without having first studied what he has said...seems a less than useful prejudice that might lead to missing important information.

"Your post reminds me of friends who argue that herbal supplements work because you can't trust anything the FDA and MDs have to say."

Your comments promoting automatic distrust of someone without your approved credentials seems more in line with the above dismissal of the FDA and MDs than someone willing to read and research what someone says before drawing conclusions and than basing that conclusion on the quality of the work, not the level of training.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Calm

[Bob Crockett]

Not my "approved credentials."  Standard stuff.   You don't have academic credentials it is very hard to be taken seriously.  You depend on a website, you aren't going to be taken seriously.  Sure there are exceptions but they don't make the rule. 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Not my "approved credentials."  Standard stuff.   You don't have academic credentials it is very hard to be taken seriously.  You depend on a website, you aren't going to be taken seriously.  Sure there are exceptions but they don't make the rule. 

Just because someone has a website doesn't mean they depend upon it. Do you look down on everyone who have websites or just those who don't have degrees as well?