New 4 volume history "transparent, honest, faithful"

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Just reading chapter 3 now, what do you think of this quote: 

This is a good example of a problematic statement that is made.  There is quite a bit of evidence that Joseph may have joined another church during this time period, other family members as well.  So making a statement like the one I bolded, is problematic if you're claiming transparency and honest history.  

There is in fact no actual evidence that he joined any church.  Yes, other family members did.  Yes, some people recall him speaking loudly to gather the faithful to Methodist meetings, and there are hints of his interest in various churches, including attendance at revivals, but none of that indicates actual membership in any of the local churches.  Interest in those religions, yes, but no more than that.  No professional historian would make such an assumption.  He himself gives no indication that he joined any church.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is in fact no actual evidence that he joined any church. 

 

I think there's evidence he did.  I don't know that means its a safe conclusion to make or not, because actually the question doesn't interest me much.  But I do believe there is evidence:  

his event is also mentioned in Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, by Linda K. Newell and Valeen T. Avery, University of Illinois Press, 1994, p.25.

    Emma's uncle, Nathaniel Lewis, preached as a lay minister of the local Methodist Episcopal church. His congregation met in the homes of the members for Sunday services. On Wednesdays a regular circuit preacher visited Harmony. In the spring or summer of 1828 Joseph asked the circuit rider if his name could be included on the class roll of the church. Joseph "presented himself in a very serious and humble manner," and the minister obliged him.

    When Emma's cousin, Joseph Lewis, discovered Joseph's name on the roll, he "thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer" as a member. He took the matter up with a friend, and the following Sunday, when Joseph and Emma arrived for church, the two men steered Joseph aside and into the family shop. "They told him plainly that such character as he . . . could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation." Joseph refused to comply with the humiliating demands and withdrew from the class. His name, however, stayed on the roll for about six more months, either from oversight or because Emma's brother-in-law, Michael Morse, who taught the class, did not know of the confrontation. When Joseph did not seek full membership, Morse finally dropped his name.²"

Page 314, footnote 2:
Amboy Journal, 11 June and 30 April 1879. In 1879 Joseph and Hiel Lewis, sons of Uncle Nathaniel Lewis, debated with a Mormon named Edwin Cadwell over events in Harmony while Emma and Joseph lived there. The Amboy Journal reproduced their letters.

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All fair comments, and Bitton was a historian's historian.  However, I was responding to a comment you made which was unfair in light of the page 1 comment by Bitton:

Your perspective on Robert's was simply too harsh by any measure.

Prior to your message I had made three thread comments about Robert's history.  

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

There has been a wealth of scholarship since Robert's history was written.  Why would you preference the old text?  

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly I have only read portions of the Robert's history, and I probably should read it all sometime.  I know he's well respected as one of the best thinkers in Mormonism.  However, I have a hard time believing his historical analysis with the tools he had in his day and his lack of formal training in historiography, is even on the same level with modern historians.  

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

17 hours ago, rongo said:

There are things he didn't know or didn't have access to, for sure. But even accounting for that, he compares very favorably with the best of modern Mormon historians.

I respect your opinion, but I highly doubt this and I haven’t heard any professional historians involved in Mormon Studies make this kind of a claim about Robert’s work.  

17 hours ago, rongo said:

It is really staggering what some people (Thomas Jefferson, B. H. Roberts, etc.) did (amount of self-motivated learning, writing production, knowledge, etc.) with what they had, compared to what any one of us has nominal access to. Or the George Reynolds Concordance of the Book of Mormon, written while in prison for polygamy under the Edwards Act. 

I agree and I’m not disparaging Roberts or others who did so much with so little.  Really amazing stories and he was very influential on Mormonism, there is no doubt about all of that.  

Would you care to point out which comment I made that you think was too harsh?  

 

 

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is in fact no actual evidence that he joined any church.  Yes, other family members did.  Yes, some people recall him speaking loudly to gather the faithful to Methodist meetings, and there are hints of his interest in various churches, including attendance at revivals, but none of that indicates actual membership in any of the local churches.  Interest in those religions, yes, but no more than that.  No professional historian would make such an assumption.  He himself gives no indication that he joined any church.

We have evidence, its just late recollections and its not as conclusive as an actual contemporary record on letterhead from a particular denomination.  I take issue with you saying the evidence is "no actual evidence".  The evidence is circumstantial but its still evidence and should be evaluated in the full context of everything happening.  Many professional historians have discussed the possibility that Joseph joined another church, I wouldn't be surprised if Richard Bushman has talked about this, but I can't recall off the top of my head.  You are making some pretty strong claims here.  

Its also problematic to take a late first vision account 1838 that commands that Joseph join no other church, and to project that back into the 1820s as a command that Joseph was explicitly told to follow.  Why would his family members join if he shared with them his vision that explicitly commanded that he join no other church?  Why would Joseph even attend other church's whether or not he officially joined or not?  These things make no sense in the context of an 1820 command by God to join no other church.  

The whole context sheds a lot of light here on this subject, and that context is missing from the new narrative history.  Is it 100% conclusive that Joseph officially joined another church, no.  Is there "no actual evidence", no.  There is evidence its just not conclusive evidence.  

[Exiled]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think there's evidence he did.  I don't know that means its a safe conclusion to make or not, because actually the question doesn't interest me much.  But I do believe there is evidence:  

his event is also mentioned in Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, by Linda K. Newell and Valeen T. Avery, University of Illinois Press, 1994, p.25.

    Emma's uncle, Nathaniel Lewis, preached as a lay minister of the local Methodist Episcopal church. His congregation met in the homes of the members for Sunday services. On Wednesdays a regular circuit preacher visited Harmony. In the spring or summer of 1828 Joseph asked the circuit rider if his name could be included on the class roll of the church. Joseph "presented himself in a very serious and humble manner," and the minister obliged him.

    When Emma's cousin, Joseph Lewis, discovered Joseph's name on the roll, he "thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer" as a member. He took the matter up with a friend, and the following Sunday, when Joseph and Emma arrived for church, the two men steered Joseph aside and into the family shop. "They told him plainly that such character as he . . . could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation." Joseph refused to comply with the humiliating demands and withdrew from the class. His name, however, stayed on the roll for about six more months, either from oversight or because Emma's brother-in-law, Michael Morse, who taught the class, did not know of the confrontation. When Joseph did not seek full membership, Morse finally dropped his name.²"

Page 314, footnote 2:
Amboy Journal, 11 June and 30 April 1879. In 1879 Joseph and Hiel Lewis, sons of Uncle Nathaniel Lewis, debated with a Mormon named Edwin Cadwell over events in Harmony while Emma and Joseph lived there. The Amboy Journal reproduced their letters.

Do you know if we have a copy of the roll extant?  Or is it just the recollection cited above?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

We have evidence, its just late recollections and its not as conclusive as an actual contemporary record on letterhead from a particular denomination.  I take issue with you saying the evidence is "no actual evidence".  The evidence is circumstantial but its still evidence and should be evaluated in the full context of everything happening.  Many professional historians have discussed the possibility that Joseph joined another church, I wouldn't be surprised if Richard Bushman has talked about this, but I can't recall off the top of my head.  You are making some pretty strong claims here.  

Its also problematic to take a late first vision account 1838 that commands that Joseph join no other church, and to project that back into the 1820s as a command that Joseph was explicitly told to follow.  Why would his family members join if he shared with them his vision that explicitly commanded that he join no other church?  Why would Joseph even attend other church's whether or not he officially joined or not?  These things make no sense in the context of an 1820 command by God to join no other church.  

The whole context sheds a lot of light here on this subject, and that context is missing from the new narrative history.  Is it 100% conclusive that Joseph officially joined another church, no.  Is there "no actual evidence", no.  There is evidence its just not conclusive evidence.  

If there is actual evidence that Joseph joined any church, I have yet to see it.  People constantly make suggestions that he did, but saying that the evidence just isn't conclusive is nonsense.  I have attended many different churches and synagogues over long periods without joining them, and there is no actual evidence that I joined any of them.  Someone seeing me there for months or years could have easily concluded that I was a member of any of those congregations, but no actual evidence exists that I joined.  Real historiography is stringent in the conclusions which can be reached based on primary sources.  You're playing fast and loose with those sources.

[cinepro]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If there is actual evidence that Joseph joined any church, I have yet to see it.  People constantly make suggestions that he did, but saying that the evidence just isn't conclusive is nonsense.  I have attended many different churches and synagogues over long periods without joining them, and there is no actual evidence that I joined any of them.  Someone seeing me there for months or years could have easily concluded that I was a member of any of those congregations, but no actual evidence exists that I joined.  Real historiography is stringent in the conclusions which can be reached based on primary sources.  You're playing fast and loose with those sources.

I think it was Bushman who pointed out that Joseph may have only ended up on the Methodist rolls because they had a popular local lacrosse league that Joseph played in, and the minister convinced Joseph that part of joining the league was to be sprinkled with some water.

Even more interestingly, because Joseph never formally resigned and they didn't realize he was dead, he stayed on the rolls as a member until 1915.

Edited May 17, 2018 by cinepro

[CA Steve]

Can church history be "transparent and honest" without being "faithful"?

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

.....................................

Would you care to point out which comment I made that you think was too harsh?  

In my post, I actually quoted you saying "I respect your opinion, but I highly doubt this and I haven’t heard any professional historians involved in Mormon Studies make this kind of a claim about Robert’s work.  .........................................................................."  That is why I cited a classic evaluation of Roberts by Davis Bitton. When someone responds to a specific claim and quotes it with bolding, that is usually a good indication that that is what is being responded to.  I was trying to temper your remark, which was too harsh.  That doesn't make Roberts a modern, professional historian, but neither does it make him as terrible as you suggest.  Bitton's more reasonable comment on page 1 of his essay is how I see Roberts.  Yet I also agree with Bitton's critical comments elsewhere in the essay.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If there is actual evidence that Joseph joined any church, I have yet to see it.  People constantly make suggestions that he did, but saying that the evidence just isn't conclusive is nonsense.  I have attended many different churches and synagogues over long periods without joining them, and there is no actual evidence that I joined any of them.  Someone seeing me there for months or years could have easily concluded that I was a member of any of those congregations, but no actual evidence exists that I joined.  Real historiography is stringent in the conclusions which can be reached based on primary sources.  You're playing fast and loose with those sources.

Robert, it sounds to me like you're overreaching here.  Your statement that "there is no actual evidence" is just a false statement and I think you know it.   Historians don't speak in these absolute terms, and I'm pretty sure based on your familiarity with Mormon studies that you know enough about this topic to be familiar with the late recollections and the evidence I'm talking about. 

There are different levels of confidence on different topics.  I'm not making a hard claim that any historians have "concluded" anything.  Historians rarely make such claims from my experience. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think there's evidence he did.  I don't know that means its a safe conclusion to make or not, because actually the question doesn't interest me much.  But I do believe there is evidence:  

his event is also mentioned in Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, by Linda K. Newell and Valeen T. Avery, University of Illinois Press, 1994, p.25.

    Emma's uncle, Nathaniel Lewis, preached as a lay minister of the local Methodist Episcopal church. His congregation met in the homes of the members for Sunday services. On Wednesdays a regular circuit preacher visited Harmony. In the spring or summer of 1828 Joseph asked the circuit rider if his name could be included on the class roll of the church. Joseph "presented himself in a very serious and humble manner," and the minister obliged him.

    When Emma's cousin, Joseph Lewis, discovered Joseph's name on the roll, he "thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer" as a member. He took the matter up with a friend, and the following Sunday, when Joseph and Emma arrived for church, the two men steered Joseph aside and into the family shop. "They told him plainly that such character as he . . . could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation." Joseph refused to comply with the humiliating demands and withdrew from the class. His name, however, stayed on the roll for about six more months, either from oversight or because Emma's brother-in-law, Michael Morse, who taught the class, did not know of the confrontation. When Joseph did not seek full membership, Morse finally dropped his name.²"

Page 314, footnote 2:
Amboy Journal, 11 June and 30 April 1879. In 1879 Joseph and Hiel Lewis, sons of Uncle Nathaniel Lewis, debated with a Mormon named Edwin Cadwell over events in Harmony while Emma and Joseph lived there. The Amboy Journal reproduced their letters.

Sounds like a Sunday School class roll, not a membership list.

Why can't I give you a rep point?

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Can church history be "transparent and honest" without being "faithful"?

Yes, but it depends on how someone defines being faithful.  

The better question is can church history be faithful and also transparent and honest.  If being faithful means an allegiance to factual representations of history, then I think the answer is yes.  If being faithful means telling a narrative that always paints a picture of the church in positive light, then I think the two things are incompatible.  

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In my post, I actually quoted you saying "I respect your opinion, but I highly doubt this and I haven’t heard any professional historians involved in Mormon Studies make this kind of a claim about Robert’s work.  .........................................................................."  That is why I cited a classic evaluation of Roberts by Davis Bitton. When someone responds to a specific claim and quotes it with bolding, that is usually a good indication that that is what is being responded to.  I was trying to temper your remark, which was too harsh.  That doesn't make Roberts a modern, professional historian, but neither does it make him as terrible as you suggest.  Bitton's more reasonable comment on page 1 of his essay is how I see Roberts.  Yet I also agree with Bitton's critical comments elsewhere in the essay.

Robert, with all due respect, I think there is a reading comprehension problem going on here.  Let me review:  

Rongo said Roberts work "compares very favorably with the best of modern Mormon historians."  

In response I said, "I respect your opinion, but I highly doubt this and I haven’t heard any professional historians involved in Mormon Studies make this kind of a claim about Robert’s work."  

How is my comment needing to be "tempered" because it "was too harsh?"  What did I say to make Roberts "as terrible as you suggest."  I honestly have no clue what you're reading into my comments.   Also, the fact that Bitton's essay essentially supports all my comments is even more perplexing.  I'm really at a loss as to where you are coming from.  

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Robert, it sounds to me like you're overreaching here.  Your statement that "there is no actual evidence" is just a false statement and I think you know it.   Historians don't speak in these absolute terms, and I'm pretty sure based on your familiarity with Mormon studies that you know enough about this topic to be familiar with the late recollections and the evidence I'm talking about. 

There are different levels of confidence on different topics.  I'm not making a hard claim that any historians have "concluded" anything.  Historians rarely make such claims from my experience. 

What we have here is the difference between professional historiography and by gosh and by golly reckoning.  Unless there is an actual statement that Joseph joined one of those churches, there is simply no basis to make the claim.  Joseph became such a controversial figure in his day that any actual membership would surely have been recalled.  His enemies searched high and low for that, just as they did for any evidence of a revival in the Spring of 1820 (desiring to show that there was no such revival).  Rev Wesley Walters even made it seem that Joseph had lied about that 1820 revival.  However, his monomania was his undoing, as demonstrated by Mike Quinn (http://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/2006-joseph-smiths-experience-of-a-methodist-camp-meeting-in-1820-d-michael-quinn/ ).

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Robert, with all due respect, I think there is a reading comprehension problem going on here.  Let me review:  

Rongo said Roberts work "compares very favorably with the best of modern Mormon historians."  

In response I said, "I respect your opinion, but I highly doubt this and I haven’t heard any professional historians involved in Mormon Studies make this kind of a claim about Robert’s work."  

How is my comment needing to be "tempered" because it "was too harsh?"  What did I say to make Roberts "as terrible as you suggest."  I honestly have no clue what you're reading into my comments.   Also, the fact that Bitton's essay essentially supports all my comments is even more perplexing.  I'm really at a loss as to where you are coming from.  

Maybe you should look up the meaning of "tempering."  To me it is suggestive of a more balanced appraisal -- the difference in the quotes you provided from Bitton, while at the same time leaving out that crucial comment from page 1.  In no sense am I suggesting that Roberts was immaculate or a modern professional historian, but I still think that he is very valuable and should be given his due -- as Bitton did.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What we have here is the difference between professional historiography and by gosh and by golly reckoning.  Unless there is an actual statement that Joseph joined one of those churches, there is simply no basis to make the claim.  Joseph became such a controversial figure in his day that any actual membership would surely have been recalled.  His enemies searched high and low for that, just as they did for any evidence of a revival in the Spring of 1820 (desiring to show that there was no such revival).  Rev Wesley Walters even made it seem that Joseph had lied about that 1820 revival.  However, his monomania was his undoing, as demonstrated by Mike Quinn (http://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/2006-joseph-smiths-experience-of-a-methodist-camp-meeting-in-1820-d-michael-quinn/ ).

I agree that strong claims and conclusions are not how professional historians typically operate, but I don't think you are showing that kind of an understanding on this subject.  You see, the strong claim being made is not by me.  Its by you and the church in their new narrative history.  You're making the claim of "no evidence".  The church is also making that claim.  This is precisely the kind of claim that professional historians don't make.  

Now with respect to the revivals in early 1820, while Wes Walters may stated the evidence too strongly for his hypothesis (I'm not very close to the whole Walters debates as that is a little before my time and I haven't studied those exchanges with apologists in detail), I think there are some positives that came from these debates with respect to what was happening in the early 1820s and how that influences the first vision timeline.  If you're claiming that the 1820 timeline for revivals has been entirely vindicated in the apologists' favor, I would point out that there is a lot of discussion and debate on this topic by the professional historians today.  There definitely isn't a consensus on that topic.  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Maybe you should look up the meaning of "tempering."  To me it is suggestive of a more balanced appraisal -- the difference in the quotes you provided from Bitton, while at the same time leaving out that crucial comment from page 1.  In no sense am I suggesting that Roberts was immaculate or a modern professional historian, but I still think that he is very valuable and should be given his due -- as Bitton did.

And that's exactly what I said as well, and somehow you got the wrong impression, which I'm trying to correct.  

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I know he's well respected as one of the best thinkers in Mormonism. 

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree and I’m not disparaging Roberts or others who did so much with so little.  Really amazing stories and he was very influential on Mormonism, there is no doubt about all of that.  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that strong claims and conclusions are not how professional historians typically operate, but I don't think you are showing that kind of an understanding on this subject.  You see, the strong claim being made is not by me.  Its by you and the church in their new narrative history.  You're making the claim of "no evidence".  The church is also making that claim.  This is precisely the kind of claim that professional historians don't make.  

Now with respect to the revivals in early 1820, while Wes Walters may stated the evidence too strongly for his hypothesis (I'm not very close to the whole Walters debates as that is a little before my time and I haven't studied those exchanges with apologists in detail), I think there are some positives that came from these debates with respect to what was happening in the early 1820s and how that influences the first vision timeline.  If you're claiming that the 1820 timeline for revivals has been entirely vindicated in the apologists' favor, I would point out that there is a lot of discussion and debate on this topic by the professional historians today.  There definitely isn't a consensus on that topic.  

The reason I mention the 1820 revival question is that the anti-Mormons were so vociferous and final in their statements, which were completely undone by the Quinn response.  Wes Walters was a friend of mine in those days, and I saw him often.  Since both of us were aware of a series of new discoveries (Wes was even making some of those discoveries), we kept each other informed.  We tempered one another's views, and provided a lot of important context from the early 19th century.  At Mormon symposia, I noticed that the mainstream Mormon historians were deeply fearful of Wes, and did not avail themselves of his counsel.  That was a paranoid mistake, based perhaps on a lack of faith by them.

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The reason I mention the 1820 revival question is that the anti-Mormons were so vociferous and final in their statements, which were completely undone by the Quinn response.  Wes Walters was a friend of mine in those days, and I saw him often.  Since both of us were aware of a series of new discoveries (Wes was even making some of those discoveries), we kept each other informed.  We tempered one another's views, and provided a lot of important context from the early 19th century.  At Mormon symposia, I noticed that the mainstream Mormon historians were deeply fearful of Wes, and did not avail themselves of his counsel.  That was a paranoid mistake, based perhaps on a lack of faith by them.

Interesting times for sure.  I've heard Wes was a likable person, but it sounds like the more conservative apologetic types were fearful of engaging with him, is that what you're saying?  I think the environment has changed quite a bit since then, at least from my perspective there isn't this polarizing dichotomy between faithful and anti perspectives in the historians community nearly as much as I've read about from the past.  

As for Quinn's response, are you suggesting that Quinn's response has settled the debate, because from my reading on this topic, the debate about the revival activities in the Manchester area during that time period hasn't been settled, and I know of faithful Mormon historians who question whether Joseph didn't conflate the timeline for his 1820 vision with later revivals.  I think Sam Brown talks about this in his book if I recollect correctly, and I know Richard Van Wagoner and Michael Marquart also question the timeline and the evidence of revivals at that time period, and I believe others have as well, but those are the ones I'm recalling of the top of my head.  

https://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Joseph-Mormon-Conquest/dp/0199793573/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526595157&sr=8-1&keywords=samuel+brown+joseph+smith

 

[Wiki Wonka]

On 5/16/2018 at 3:24 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I guess I'm not seeing what, if anything, precludes teachers and speakers in the Church today from drawing upon the new history or the Gospel Topics essays or the Joseph Smith Papers project or the older works by B. H. Roberts or any other authoritative and properly vetted source for inclusion in their lessons and sermons

I am definitely planning to use this new history when I teach Doctrine and Covenants in Seminary next year, as well as the Gospel Topics essays and JSP.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting times for sure.  I've heard Wes was a likable person, but it sounds like the more conservative apologetic types were fearful of engaging with him, is that what you're saying?  I think the environment has changed quite a bit since then, at least from my perspective there isn't this polarizing dichotomy between faithful and anti perspectives in the historians community nearly as much as I've read about from the past.  

Wes was a great raconteur, and told wonderful jokes.  However, he was smart as a whip, had a powerful memory, and was certainly the most dangerous anti-Mormon out there -- and the historians all knew it.  He converted one entire congregation of former RLDS that I knew well.  Bushman and Quinn did not consider him a threat, but they were as knowledgeable as Wes, and Quinn even took Wes to the woodshed on the 1820 revival question.  Wes had nothing to say on the matter after that.

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

As for Quinn's response, are you suggesting that Quinn's response has settled the debate, because from my reading on this topic, the debate about the revival activities in the Manchester area during that time period hasn't been settled, and I know of faithful Mormon historians who question whether Joseph didn't conflate the timeline for his 1820 vision with later revivals.  I think Sam Brown talks about this in his book if I recollect correctly, and I know Richard Van Wagoner and Michael Marquart also question the timeline and the evidence of revivals at that time period, and I believe others have as well, but those are the ones I'm recalling of the top of my head.  

https://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Joseph-Mormon-Conquest/dp/0199793573/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526595157&sr=8-1&keywords=samuel+brown+joseph+smith .

I knew Van Wagoner and Marquardt well, and neither was a trained historian.  No one has been able to reply to Quinn's essay, and (so far as I know) none have tried.

[aussieguy55]

Dan Vogel has responded to Quinn. Bushman seems in RSR to accept it is possible to accept the 1823-24  date for when the Smith family joined the Presbyterian Church. See RSR p.570. Footnote 30.  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/19/2018 at 12:21 AM, aussieguy55 said:

Dan Vogel has responded to Quinn. Bushman seems in RSR to accept it is possible to accept the 1823-24  date for when the Smith family joined the Presbyterian Church. See RSR p.570. Footnote 30.  

Vogel is a trained historian (B.A. in history from Cal State Long Beach, where I also studied), but I am unaware of any sort of response to the Quinn essay from him.  Perhaps you could show us how Vogel successfully deals with Quinn's main points.  As for Bushman, he mentions everything in his bio of Joseph.  That doesn't mean that he questions the finality of Quinn's case -- which is very good.

I know both Vogel and Bushman and have talked to each of them on many occasions.  Vogel even sometimes holds forth on this board, though not recently.

[rodheadlee]

On 5/17/2018 at 12:40 AM, Marginal Gains said:

 

I’m skeptical.

 

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

[aussieguy55]

Quinn is involved in writing his second volume on Joseph Smith.  Walters thinks the figures show the Methodists were  barely holding their own from 1819 to 1821. and any large increase that Backman comes up with is in the Genesee District to the west of Smith's  area. Ontario 1819 membership  674    1820 670      1821   621