Church Leaders and the Presumption of Dishonesty

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Well I guess the BoM was run-on sentences until some editing, so I guess the FV can be edited the same way. I shouldn't have even used the word "embarrassed". I understand how the church needed to edit because it was a little dizzying to read without periods at the end of the sentences. Just wish the church had let it out and published it in our scriptures maybe alongside the edited. Because it is pretty special to read his exact words. And reading those words you get an idea of the person writing it. 

Thanks.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Here is a link to an interesting Dialogue article on these issues by Stan Larsen: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V47N02_210.pdf

He quotes from the Joseph Smith Papers Project about the history of the 1832 account: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1#source-note

 

Very interesting. Especially if we wanted to find out about Stan Larson's particular hobby-horses (which, for the purposes of this thread, we don't.) But thank you for the second link in particular.

In your post earlier, we learn that Joseph Fielding Smith, the accused villain-in-chief of the piece, himself removed the pages and then, when he was caught, shamefacedly put them back again. However, the record shows that the pages were reattached sometime in the 1990's.

It might be a little hard for Joseph Fielding Smith to have been responsible for the latter deed, since he died in 1972.

As I mentioned, there is another entire thread devoted to the 1832 First Vision account. You will find the entire text of it there. Perhaps you could tell us where the "contradictions" are, since they aren't present in the text.

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by kiwi57

[Exiled]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Very interesting. Especially if we wanted to find out about Stan Larson's particular hobby-horses (which, for the purposes of this thread, we don't.) But thank you for the second link in particular.

In your post earlier, we learn that Joseph Fielding Smith, the accused villain-in-chief of the piece, himself removed the pages and then, when he was caught, shamefacedly put them back again. However, the record shows that the pages were reattached sometime in the 1990's.

It might be a little hard for Joseph Fielding Smith to have been responsible for the latter deed, since he died in 1972.

As I mentioned, there is another entire thread devoted to the 1832 First Vision account. You will find the entire text of it there. Perhaps you could tell us where the "contradictions" are, since they aren't present in the text.

 

Are you serious about there not being any contradictions? How about one being v. two for starters? If you can't admit that is a contradiction then this will quickly devolve into a yes it is, no it isn't engagement like you had with the other posters on other threads. I'm not interested to go down that road with you. So, I guess you can declare victory.

[thesometimesaint]

That darn Saul/Paul couldn't keep his stories straight.

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Duncan said:

correct me if I am wrong but the 1832 account was in private hands until they were given over to the Church archives in the 1960's or early 1970's. 

That's incorrect. It was in the church archives in the 1930's and appears the Church always had it although may not have always known what it had. (The church didn't deal well with its documents until the 1970s when things became professionalized) See the Joseph Smith Papers history for more info. 

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's incorrect. It was in the church archives in the 1930's and appears the Church always had it although may not have always known what it had. (The church didn't deal well with its documents until the 1970s when things became professionalized) See the Joseph Smith Papers history for more info. 

Our priesthood lesson yesterday was taught by a former member of the church historical department.  He talked about several of the First Vision accounts.  The word he used in describing why many of these accounts had not come to the forefront until relatively recently is that they had been "forgotten." 

[rongo]

Tearing it out and putting it in the vault might have contributed to it being forgotten, though, right? 

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

But we don't know by whom, or why.  As Kiwi noted previously: "The presumption that the motives must have been dishonest is, well, a presumption of dishonesty."

This is important. For all we know the brethren were planning on discussing adding it to the canon. The supposition that it was being suppressed comes primarily form secondary memories by LaMar Petersen of Levi Young saying it was strange and not to copy it. So if we're going to attribute suppression to anyone it ought be Young not Smith. When Cheeseman asks Smith to see them in the early 60's he is able to and discusses it in his thesis. Peterson also got to see it in 1953. So when people ask they got to see it. We don't have any account of people being denied access except for the Tanners is the 60's when others were allowed to see it. Given the nature of the Tanners even then that's hardly surprising. 

Now admittedly it was in the First Presidency Vault rather (than as with the rest of the papers it was excerpted from ) in the general archives. However that could easily be due to seeing its value and wanting to protect it as suppression. 

The only other "suppression" appears to be access to the Joseph Fielding Smith diaries for 1930-1954. However so far as I know, all personal diaries of the First Presidency for the 20th century are kept private. One can debate that of course and whether the Church should release even documents they consider having sacred and private experiences. But that's simply a different issue from the 1832 Joseph Smith monograph. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by clarkgoble

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Tearing it out and putting it in the vault might have contributed to it being forgotten, though, right? 

It did.  However, if someone decided to put a document in a vault today there would be some sort of digital record made of the document, or at least a record made of the documents location.  The church archives had not yet entered the modern age when this was done.

[hope_for_things]

21 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

This phenomenon is not, however, limited to conspiracy theories. Rather, I suggest that conspiracy theories really just provide a kind of case study of the underlying issue, which is this: When we start from the assumption that someone is lying, it is impossible to disprove that assumption. That is because every piece of evidence against it, and every possible counter-argument, can be explained away by claiming that the accused liar is so fiendishly cunning, or else that they've orchestrated a massive cover-up of the "real" truth.

That is why the default position, when trying to discover whether someone is lying, is to begin with the presumption that they are telling the truth. Paradoxical as it may seem, this is really the only way to go. If we start with the presumption of honesty, then sooner or later any false assertions will become apparent. However, if we start with the presumption of dishonesty, nothing can ever count against it. The presumption of dishonesty is a way of stacking the deck against the accused.

I don't think we should start with a presumption of lying or of truth telling.  Starting on either side of the issue "stacks the deck" one way or the other.  I think when it comes to evaluating evidence, that before making any conclusions one way or the other that as much information should be gathered and evaluated as possible. 

I think this is hard to do in practice, especially when people have an emotional investment in something as paradigm defining as religion.  So I don't blame people for feeling loyal to Mormonism and giving the presumption of telling the truth.  Conversely I don't blame people who've lost trust in the institution for giving the presumption of lying.  I can empathize with both positions.  

The ideal scenario is a neutral one that looks at evidence in a dispassionate manner.  

[Duncan]

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's incorrect. It was in the church archives in the 1930's and appears the Church always had it although may not have always known what it had. (The church didn't deal well with its documents until the 1970s when things became professionalized) See the Joseph Smith Papers history for more info. 

unless I need new glasses where are you seeing that it was in Church Archives in the 1930's?

[thesometimesaint]

Assumed innocent until proven guilty. Seems to me a better way to go than mind-reading long dead people.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

Are you serious about there not being any contradictions? How about one being v. two for starters? If you can't admit that is a contradiction then this will quickly devolve into a yes it is, no it isn't engagement like you had with the other posters on other threads. I'm not interested to go down that road with you. So, I guess you can declare victory.

Wrong. Thread.

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

unless I need new glasses where are you seeing that it was in Church Archives in the 1930's?

"It is listed in Nauvoo, Illinois, and early Salt Lake City, Utah, inventories made by the Church Historian’s Office, as well as in the 1973 register of the JS Collection, indicating continuous institutional custody."

37 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Our priesthood lesson yesterday was taught by a former member of the church historical department.  He talked about several of the First Vision accounts.  The word he used in describing why many of these accounts had not come to the forefront until relatively recently is that they had been "forgotten." 

Well except that at the key point in 1953 they were known. Ditto in the 60's. But it's completely plausible that in the 30's through 40's they'd been forgotten. Again to re-emphasize the historical department wasn't modern by any stretch of the imagination until the 1970's. These were amateurs with no training and little attempt at systemizing things the way a professional library would.

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Our priesthood lesson yesterday was taught by a former member of the church historical department.  He talked about several of the First Vision accounts.  The word he used in describing why many of these accounts had not come to the forefront until relatively recently is that they had been "forgotten." 

I think forgotten is a fair comment if you're talking about the general church membership, but I would say some leaders that knew about the 1832 account wanted it forgotten.

Other things that were forgotten, is how the FV narrative was not one of the foundational events in early Mormon history.  People forgot or never learned about how founding myths develop and how their emphasis can grow and change over time.  Also forgotten that historical accuracy was not necessarily an emphasis of the authors of these narratives.  Also forgotten is how common visionary experiences were during this time period, and that many elements of the FV narrative appear to be borrowed from other published accounts of the day.  

 

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

"It is listed in Nauvoo, Illinois, and early Salt Lake City, Utah, inventories made by the Church Historian’s Office, as well as in the 1973 register of the JS Collection, indicating continuous institutional custody."

Well except that at the key point in 1953 they were known. Ditto in the 60's. But it's completely plausible that in the 30's through 40's they'd been forgotten. Again to re-emphasize the historical department wasn't modern by any stretch of the imagination until the 1970's. These were amateurs with no training and little attempt at systemizing things the way a professional library would.

I'm just repeating what was said by a former historical department employee.  Not being there myself I cannot vouch for the veracity of the statement. 

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think forgotten is a fair comment if you're talking about the general church membership, but I would say some leaders that knew about the 1832 account wanted it forgotten.

Other things that were forgotten, is how the FV narrative was not one of the foundational events in early Mormon history.  People forgot or never learned about how founding myths develop and how their emphasis can grow and change over time.  Also forgotten that historical accuracy was not necessarily an emphasis of the authors of these narratives.  Also forgotten is how common visionary experiences were during this time period, and that many elements of the FV narrative appear to be borrowed from other published accounts of the day.  

 

You seem to be saying that you believe that Joseph Smith "borrowed" the first vision and that church leaders tried to hide it or change it to fit their purpose.  Is that a fair way of restating what you're writing?

 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

You seem to be saying that you believe that Joseph Smith "borrowed" the first vision and that church leaders tried to hide it or change it to fit their purpose.  Is that a fair way of restating what you're writing?

Sort of.  The idea that Joseph Smith likely borrowed elements from other published visionary accounts is well documented.  Richard Bushman talked about it at length in an essay 20 years ago.  

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/visionary-world-joseph-smith

That other accounts were either hidden or intentionally forgotten is my opinion based on the evidence.  For a more in depth review of the 1832 account and the circumstances around it, see Stan Larson's essay.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V47N02_210.pdf

 

[rongo]

47 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It did.  However, if someone decided to put a document in a vault today there would be some sort of digital record made of the document, or at least a record made of the documents location.  The church archives had not yet entered the modern age when this was done.

Unless they chose not to log it. Logging and tracking systems assume and presume good faith among users. It is possible to archive things, but to leave no searchable record of it being stored. 

Look, guys. the 1832 account doesn't disprove the Church's truth claims. But, it's pretty clear to me that Joseph Fielding Smith chose to rip it out and put it in the vault to keep the account hidden, because he felt that it would be harmful to people's faith.

[rockpond]

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

correct me if I am wrong but the 1832 account was in private hands until they were given over to the Church archives in the 1960's or early 1970's. Pres. Smith was under no obligation to give it over to the Church. It's the same with any document in anyone's hands today, it would be nice for people to give the Church Archives what they have but they don't have to.Maybe some don't think what they have is of any historical value but keep it for family records. Ch ch check it out

Stan Larsen (Dialogue, Summer 2014) wrote this regarding the book from which the 1832 account was cut:

This volume was listed in an inventory made in Nauvoo, came across the plains to Utah, and ended up in the LDS Church archives—with impeccable “continuous institutional custody.” 

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Unless they chose not to log it. Logging and tracking systems assume and presume good faith among users. It is possible to archive things, but to leave no searchable record of it being stored. 

Look, guys. the 1832 account doesn't disprove the Church's truth claims. But, it's pretty clear to me that Joseph Fielding Smith chose to rip it out and put it in the vault to keep the account hidden, because he felt that it would be harmful to people's faith.

I think it's useful to think of populations in this matter. Certain members of a population will love the organization and certain will hate it no matter what. The ones in the undecided middle are the prize and I think JFS was thinking of them and how the 1832 account would change their worldview. So he acted.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

Look, guys. the 1832 account doesn't disprove the Church's truth claims. But, it's pretty clear to me that Joseph Fielding Smith chose to rip it out and put it in the vault to keep the account hidden, because he felt that it would be harmful to people's faith.

When it comes to truth claims, the claim that Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate and distinct beings in his first vision, I think that claim specifically is challenged by the 1832 account.  If its important for Mormonism to claim a visitation of two separate and distinct beings to bolster the theological Godhead definition that Joseph articulated in the Nauvoo period, then I think the evidence of the 1832 account makes us question the use of the 1838/1839 account as evidence to support the Godhead theology.  Not to say that the Godhead concept is in jeopardy at all, just that the use of the 1838/1839 account as supporting evidence is diminished.  What do you think?  

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Now admittedly it was in the First Presidency Vault rather (than as with the rest of the papers it was excerpted from ) in the general archives. However that could easily be due to seeing its value and wanting to protect it as suppression. 

I would think that cutting it out and damaging the original record would really actually devalue it (knowing a bit about how documents kept in original condition are worth more than torn or damaged pages, etc.).  So if they were worried about "value", the record should have been kept intact and in it's original condition.

I certainly can understand why it may have been removed and kept away from other's eyes until a decision was made regarding how to publish this account.  I honestly don't believe there was anything evil a foot, but I do believe it was definitely hidden.  Otherwise why wasn't it immediately published for church members to read?  We can debate why this took place (the cutting out and putting in a vault rather than publishing it), but I think no one can claim it didn't happen, IMO.

Edited December 4, 2017 by ALarson

[rongo]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I would think that cutting it out and damaging the original record would really actually devalue it (knowing a bit about how documents kept in original condition are worth more than torn or damaged pages, etc.).  So if they were worried about "value", the record should have been kept intact and in it's original condition.

I certainly can understand why it may have been removed and kept away from other's eyes until a decision was made regarding how to publish this account.  I honestly don't believe there was anything evil a foot, but I do believe it was definitely hidden.  Otherwise why wasn't it immediately published for church members to read?  We can debate why this took place (the cutting out and putting in a vault rather than publishing it), but I think no one can claim it didn't happen, IMO.

Well, and then it was taped back in place when the Tanners started making noise about its existence and there were requests to see the document. That kind of indicates an "uh, oh" reaction to that. 

[clarkgoble]

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I would think that cutting it out and damaging the original record would really actually devalue it (knowing a bit about how documents kept in original condition are worth more than torn or damaged pages, etc.).  So if they were worried about "value", the record should have been kept intact and in it's original condition.

I think we're equivocating over value a bit. Certainly any professional historian or archivist would never damage a document. However as I mentioned these weren't professionals but at best completely untrained amateurs. To them the value would have just been the content.

But I certainly think that prior to the 1970's the Church didn't keep its documents in a fashion like they should have. That's especially true in the 19th century. While it's just me I read many of the revelations as God trying to get them to pay attention to good records and maintaining their integrity. Yet by and large they did a lousy job. For instance why on earth did they put documents like the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon into the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House (where it suffered water damage).

57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I certainly can understand why it may have been removed and kept away from other's eyes until a decision was made regarding how to publish this account.  I honestly don't believe there was anything evil a foot, but I do believe it was definitely hidden.  Otherwise why wasn't it immediately published for church members to read?  We can debate why this took place (the cutting out and putting in a vault rather than publishing it), but I think no one can claim it didn't happen, IMO.

I think we have to distinguish between "neglected" and "hidden." There's abundant evidence tons of documents are artifacts were neglected in this period. The 1832 record is well in keeping with that. My understanding was that it wasn't well into Pres. Hinkley's administration that the contents of the First Presidency Vault were even systematically examined and tabulated. The current "vault" is now I believe six large rooms akin to bank vaults and is in the microfilm records vault up Little Cottonwood Canyon. I presume the vault in the 50's would have been a small safe either in the temple or office areas - although I've not found a description to be sure. The rumor is that Mark Hoffman had access to the vault with artifacts. (The so-called F vault) The rumor is that some of the items the Church paid Hoffman for (mainly artifacts) were objects that he had stolen. So some of the tighter security since the 80's is almost certainly due to Hoffman and his purported accomplice.

Anyway, assuming the only choices are hidden or published seems like a false dichotomy and certainly doesn't reflect the pretty abundant record of how people viewed records. For instance the Journal of Discourses was largely about providing a secondary income to the stenographer rather than having records of discourses. Their behavior may seem odd to you and I with the relative wealth of the Church today and our more academically informed practices. But that just doesn't reflect the backgrounds of most General Authorities prior to the 1990's. Today nearly all the Apostles have pretty solid academic pedigrees. Even in the 1950's and 60's that wasn't true.