Is ldsliving denying Woodruff's journal?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/3/2018 at 10:42 AM, SouthernMo said:

I’d encourage you to do your own research on this before you weigh in so strongly about whether or not something happened. You’ll discover:

—Many of the “founding fathers’” work had already been done (multiple times) before Wilford Woodruff claimed to have had this vision. Multiple journal and church records from years earlier support this.  Why would these founding fathers then complain to Wilford Woodruff about their work not being done?

—Wilford Woodruff was an immaculate record keeper in volume and consistency, but like many at the time, prone to hyperbole at times. Read his journal (first hand) in the days after he claimed to have had this vision; you will find no mention of this vision. He did perform proxy work for signers of the Declaration of Independence after August 18, 1877 (supposed date of the vision). He only claimed to have had this vision a month after this date. He then recounted this story a number of times until his death decades later.  I admit - this would be an awesome story to hear if it were true.  He’s likely trying to emphasize how important it is to engage in ordinance work for the dead.

Why would he have not recorded this vision immediately after it happened?  Such a prolific consistent writer somehow forgets to record this immediately after it happens?  It makes no sense that this can both have happened, but not recorded it. It is out of character for him.  The frequent retelling of a story (nor how many people testify the story is retold) does not enhance its truthfulness. 

We can’t know for certain what Woodruff did or did not see.  But, the evidence to support his claim of a vision is not there.

Why is this a big deal?  I want my faith & belief to be based on true stories/events.

People who have remarkable spiritual experiences are often very guarded about recounting them — and justifiably so — thinking them too sacred to share with the world at large or even with close family or friends. Later, after careful and thorough reflection, they sometimes do share them. 

I believe this was the case with the transfiguration of Brigham Young in which he appeared to many to have taken on the voice and visage of Joseph Smith. That would account to some extent for the paucity of contemporary written accounts of the experience. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[provoman]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it's obscure here in Canada! I don't even know what the declaration from independance even is! or who signed or what have you. I could look it up but I am already drinking McDonalds so that's enough USA for one day🛑

Its good thing it wasn't burned in 1812

[SouthernMo]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

People who have remarkable spiritual experiences are often very guarded about recounting them — and justifiably so — thinking them too sacred to share with the world at large or even with close family or friends. Later, after careful and thorough reflection, they sometimes do share them. 

This is an unconvincing argument in favor of this experience happening. The position rests on the belief/assumption that Woodruff thought it too sacred to record in his journal the next day, but one month later, the experience is meant for any audience he chooses to be recorded again and again?

We’re all making assumptions, but this one is a bridge too far for me!

Also - you’re ignoring the fact that the ordinance work for the founding fathers he mentions had been done before!  Your argument that he did have the vision also relies on the belief that the founding fathers who visited him were unaware that the work had already been done for them, or that it was done improperly.   Again - a bridge too far for me!

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it's obscure here in Canada! I don't even know what the declaration from independance even is! or who signed or what have you. I could look it up but I am already drinking McDonalds so that's enough USA for one day🛑

Well, in that, you’re hardly worse than these ditzy, millennial U. S. citizens whose historical IQ is near zero. 

 

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

That's interesting.  This isn't a topic or event from church history that I've read much about.  Do you have sources showing the founding fathers' work had already been done?

I know there are a lot of duplicate ordinances done today as well.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23288590?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Yes - a lot of duplicate ordinance work is done today. That doesn’t bother me. I just believe that sensationalizing the importance of the work can be counterproductive.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is an unconvincing argument in favor of this experience happening. The position rests on the belief/assumption that Woodruff thought it too sacred to record in his journal the next day, but one month later, the experience is meant for any audience he chooses to be recorded again and again?

We’re all making assumptions, but this one is a bridge too far for me!

Also - you’re ignoring the fact that the ordinance work for the founding fathers he mentions had been done before!  Your argument that he did have the vision also relies on the belief that the founding fathers who visited him were unaware that the work had already been done for them, or that it was done improperly.   Again - a bridge too far for me!

As I already pointed out, people can be reluctant at first but change their minds later. It’s not uncommon behavior for people who have spiritual experiences. In fact, the Book of Mormon records strict commandment not to impart such experiences except as divinely directed. 

A college professor teaching a genealogy class asked class members to signify by show of hand which receive communication from beyond the grave to guide them. A fair number had. She then asked them if they had recorded the experience. Those who had not explained that they believed it too personal and sacred to record. 

As someone else here pointed out, this vision to Wilford Woodruff happened when proxy temple ordinance work was still fairly new. I would have to have it documented for me that their work had been done before, especially if the claim is that it was done “many times” before. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As someone else here pointed out, this vision to Wilford Woodruff happened when proxy temple ordinance work was still fairly new.

Proxy baptisms (to which Wilford Woodruff testified) had been going on for 37 years. At what point in church history (how many years later) do you think proxy ordinances were not “fairly new?”

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Proxy baptisms (to which Wilford Woodruff testified) had been going on for 37 years. At what point in church history (how many years later) do you think proxy ordinances were not “fairly new?”

What about endowments and sealings? 

[provoman]

35 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is an unconvincing argument in favor of this experience happening. The position rests on the belief/assumption that Woodruff thought it too sacred to record in his journal the next day, but one month later, the experience is meant for any audience he chooses to be recorded again and again?

We’re all making assumptions, but this one is a bridge too far for me!

Also - you’re ignoring the fact that the ordinance work for the founding fathers he mentions had been done before!  Your argument that he did have the vision also relies on the belief that the founding fathers who visited him were unaware that the work had already been done for them, or that it was done improperly.   Again - a bridge too far for me!

Endowments had not been done all, and only a few baptisms. The baptisms were redone per standard practice of the time...this all accordibg to another ldsliving article.

[SouthernMo]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What about endowments and sealings? 

What about them? Sure, the work for these was (and remains) far less common than baptisms, but we have to focus on Woodruff’s claim that the founding fathers came to him and asked him to do their ordinance work and he responded by having their baptismal work done.  This is what I think history has shown proves his later claim of a vision is a myth.

[Duncan]

54 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This is an unconvincing argument in favor of this experience happening. The position rests on the belief/assumption that Woodruff thought it too sacred to record in his journal the next day, but one month later, the experience is meant for any audience he chooses to be recorded again and again?

We’re all making assumptions, but this one is a bridge too far for me!

Also - you’re ignoring the fact that the ordinance work for the founding fathers he mentions had been done before!  Your argument that he did have the vision also relies on the belief that the founding fathers who visited him were unaware that the work had already been done for them, or that it was done improperly.   Again - a bridge too far for me!

baptisms, except for I think the number was 25 ish, but not endowments, except for one John Hancock done by a member Levi Hancock, but I don't think Pres. Woodruff did him. he clearly recorded it in his journal on the 19th, did the work in the following days  and he talked about in a discourse a month later

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

What about them? Sure, the work for these was (and remains) far less common than baptisms, but we have to focus on Woodruff’s claim that the founding fathers came to him and asked him to do their ordinance work and he responded by having their baptismal work done.  This is what I think history has shown proves his later claim of a vision is a myth.

 The myth is a myth. He was baptized for 54 of the 56 signers who hadn't been baptized, the last two had already been  baptized in march and may. He also wasn't baptized for President Buchanan, Grant and Van Buren because they had already been done. They also did the endowment work for them

[SouthernMo]

21 minutes ago, provoman said:

Endowments had not been done all, and only a few baptisms. The baptisms were redone per standard practice of the time...this all accordibg to another ldsliving article.

“Few baptisms” is an interesting term. “Few” means how many?  If you mean only 16,000 baptisms in the first four years of the revelation, and hundreds of thousands in the next 30+ years, then yes, only a “few baptisms.”

Even if they were redone (which in itself is not problematic - early living members were baptized multiple times, and ordinance records were spotty), why would the founding fathers specifically tell Woodruff they weren’t happy that their work wasn’t done, and ask him to do it?

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

“Few baptisms” is an interesting term. “Few” means how many?  If you mean only 16,000 baptisms in the first four years of the revelation, and hundreds of thousands in the next 30+ years, then yes, only a “few baptisms.”

Even if they were redone (which in itself is not problematic - early living members were baptized multiple times, and ordinance records were spotty), why would the founding fathers specifically tell Woodruff they weren’t happy that their work wasn’t done, and ask him to do it?

because as has been pointed out, it wasn't done

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I want my faith & belief to be based on true stories/events.

So some legend about one man being crucified means your sins are forgiven right? And now your life is changed and you give a tenth of your income to somebody that tells you that that's true right?

Somebody who found gold plates that were given to him by an Angel and there's no evidence that any of that happened right?

I think maybe there's a little problem with that way of thinking.

This stuff is based on pure Faith or nothing. There is no good "evidence" to believe any of it.

Tell me how many converts come into the church because of all the evidence for the gospel? How many scientists do we have who have said "yep I have seen the evidence! "I know it's true." !

Going by the evidence is strictly rationalization for what you already know by faith.

I don't know why we just can't admit that and go on with life.

Logically the whole proposition that because Jesus died my sins are forgiven is ridiculous. It might be proven that he died. We all do. But any scientific evidence that that event had any spiritual significance is simply nonexistent.

I am a TBM but at some point in life we have to face the facts. There are none.

There is no evidence for any spiritual realm and yet those of us who have experienced it know that there is. Either you know it or you don't. There's no convincing by evidence.

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[SouthernMo]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

because as has been pointed out, it wasn't done

If truth is important to you, I urge you to download and read this well-researched and cited paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23288590?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

because as has been pointed out, it wasn't done

And so we take it by faith that either it happened or didn't happen. Duh.

Some say yes some say no there is no evidence except for what has already been discussed.

Either way our opinions are based on faith

I have seen a miracle or two. Those don't hurt the case!

But we could debate all day about if what I saw was a miracle. Either you know that's possible or you don't.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So some legend about one man being crucified means your sins are forgiven right? And now your life is changed and you give a tenth of your income to somebody that tells you that that's true right?

Somebody who found gold plates that were given to him by an Angel and there's no evidence that any of that happened right?

I think maybe there's a little problem with that way of thinking.

 

There is some reason in what you say: that the truth doesn’t matter, that the effects of the story are what are most important. Boyd K Packer shares this belief.

But, I see it differently.will search for truth.  When the evidence points to something not being true, I must acknowledge it - no matter how good the illusion of that truth makes me feel.

There is convincing evidence - both scholarly and spiritual (personal to me) - that Christ lived and died. There is convincing evidence to me - both scholarly and spiritual (personal to me) - that Joseph Smith was inspired as he received the text of the Book of Mormon.

There is not convincing evidence that Wilford Woodruff had the visitation he claims he did.

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

If truth is important to you, I urge you to download and read this well-researched and cited paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23288590?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

yes and even he doesn't agree with you. Stuy says that baptisms were earlier performed for  "Benjamin Franklin;⁶Presidents John Adams, William Henry Harrison, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe" except it wasn't done by Woodruff and he didn't re baptize them, according to the list he kept of people he baptized. Stuy writes in the article "Later in St. George, Woodruff would arrange to have proxy baptisms performed for all of these individuals" and what is his evidence? he presents none.Can you get a copy of his actual Journal, because I have access to it, plus get a copy if possible of Jennifer Mackley's book "Wilford Woodruff's Witness:The Development of Temple Doctrine"

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And so we take it by faith that either it happened or didn't happen. Duh.

Some say yes some say no there is no evidence except for what has already been discussed.

Either way our opinions are based on faith

I have seen a miracle or two. Those don't hurt the case!

But we could debate all day about if what I saw was a miracle. Either you know that's possible or you don't.

This is part of why I have a problem with many religious claims and Mormonism is no exception.   There is this traditional understanding that certain events that are subjective and can't be proven factually actually did happen and could be proven if someone present could have been fortunate enough to have a video recorder and could have recorded the event.  This is based on an idea that spiritual experiences aren't just spiritual and subjective, but they actually were tangible events that could be video recorded, the same as if I were in the same room with you having lunch and talking face to face.  

For me, this is taking spiritual claims too far.  We honestly have no evidence to suggest that any spiritual vision has even happened in a way that could have been recorded on video.  ZERO compelling evidence.  So why would Mormons or other religious people get the false notion that any visions that Joseph or Wilford had were of the same nature as an event that could be captured on video?  These spiritual events are ontologically different.  

I will also say that these events can be just as powerful and real for the participants as an event that could be video taped.  But I think its important to be clear about the differences.  

Edited July 3, 2018 by hope_for_things

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

There is some reason in what you say: that the truth doesn’t matter, that the effects of the story are what are most important. Boyd K Packer shares this belief.

But, I see it differently.will search for truth.  When the evidence points to something not being true, I must acknowledge it - no matter how good the illusion of that truth makes me feel.

There is convincing evidence - both scholarly and spiritual (personal to me) - that Christ lived and died. There is convincing evidence to me - both scholarly and spiritual (personal to me) - that Joseph Smith was inspired as he received the text of the Book of Mormon.

There is not convincing evidence that Wilford Woodruff had the visitation he claims he did.

even though he said he did and you provided the evidence for it? the Sept. 1876 discourse that was recorded? If you can't believe your own evidence that you provide, then I don't know what to say to you

[SouthernMo]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

even though he said he did and you provided the evidence for it? the Sept. 1876 discourse that was recorded? If you can't believe your own evidence that you provide, then I don't know what to say to you

You’re a fast reader!  Only 19 minutes to download a scholarly article, read it, and formulate an over-arching position that you’re defending.

I think that pages 75-77 are the most convincing that Woodruff’s account is problematic.  I suppose all data (history included) is subject to interpretation, and follies of those original recorders, historians, and we readers.  To me, the body of evidence indicates while there are elements of truth to Woodruff’s story - embellishments abound.

[2BizE]

I think there are a number of these myth stories out there being taught that have not yet been addressed.  I think the church is trying to purge out these myths.  LDS living is helping with this.  It is a medium to reach out to members.  The release of the essays is an example of the church trying to be more honest and transparent with history.  There are many myths out there like elevator shafts and the salt lake temple, milk strippings causing Thomas Marsh to leave the church, 3 teens carrying pioneers across river, etc.  Some of these stories have some fact, but are misleading and are not fully  truthful.  How do these myths start?  Ask Elder Holland about his story of the brother and the Hells Angels biker.  He and several other GAs shared this story for years like it was gospel. Turns out it was false.  Elder Holland had the intelligence to apologize and recant, but with many of these myths, they do not fully get recanted.

edit. fixed auto text grammar problems

Edited July 4, 2018 by 2BizE

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

You’re a fast reader!  Only 19 minutes to download a scholarly article, read it, and formulate an over-arching position that you’re defending.

I think that pages 75-77 are the most convincing that Woodruff’s account is problematic.  I suppose all data (history included) is subject to interpretation, and follies of those original recorders, historians, and we readers.  To me, the body of evidence indicates while there are elements of truth to Woodruff’s story - embellishments abound.

yes I am ! I am putting my History degree from University to good use, plus I read it before. Embellishments are not the fault of Wilford Woodruff. This is why we need accuracy This is why unlike, Brian Stuy, you should cite sources if you share them otherwise it's sloppy

[SouthernMo]

29 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Embellishments are not the fault of Wilford Woodruff.

Agreed - citations and sources could be stronger. Would be great to talk to Stuy, and understand where he got his material.

But - how can you state so definitively that Wilford did not embellish?  While we can debate on whom the burden of proof relies, shouldn’t we avoid such statements of finality to remain honest?