Is ldsliving denying Woodruff's journal?

[Calm]

2 hours 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.

This topic has come up before multiple times on the board.  Even if one doesn't get the chance to discuss this elsewhere, that is still plenty of opportunity to seek out sources and read them already.

[Duncan]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

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?

you go with what they said, after all they are the one who experienced it (in this case) but if you heard someone say the Signers of the Defamation of Independance drove up in a Mercedes, you know that would be an embellishment. You have to follow the story throughout time to see who, if anybody, was embellishing anything. His story seems consistent throughout to me. It would be problematic if you found a diary entry that says, "I told a crowd today in a talk in Payson about my experience with the Signers of the Independance document but I kept it to myself that I was just kidding around" Clearly then he would be lying, but I doubt a diary entry exists.  That's also why people cite sources because you want your readers to know where you got sources from so they can double check it, if it isn't there it's as you say a not a strong case and just opinion. People's opinions though have to be based on something, I think X because of Y

[provoman]

4 hours 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?”

And the endowments were completed with by Feb 1878. So what is the myth again? 

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, provoman said:

And the endowments were completed with by Feb 1878. So what is the myth again? 

The subject of debate here is on baptism, which Woodruff claimed to have done, and that Stuy and the editorial review board of the Journal of Mormon History state were unnecessary.  Thus, Woodruff’s claim of this visitation isn’t 100% true.

Admittedly, the subject of endowments muddies the debate. It’s far less clear.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

And the endowments were completed with by Feb 1878. So what is the myth again? 

That's my point as well, Wilford Woodruff believed and wrote down in his journal and publicly talked about this issue, the work, baptisms and endowments, was all done

[provoman]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

The subject of debate here is on baptism, which Woodruff claimed to have done, and that Stuy and the editorial review board of the Journal of Mormon History state were unnecessary.  Thus, Woodruff’s claim of this visitation isn’t 100% true.

Admittedly, the subject of endowments muddies the debate. It’s far less clear.

The subject of the thread is Woodruff's journal entry. And according to a post by Duncan, it appears you are misrepresenting Stuy. And as pointed out by me earlier by way of different ldsliving article, it was common practice at the time to rebaptize prior to endowments.

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, provoman said:

The subject of the thread is Woodruff's journal entry. And according to a post by Duncan, it appears you are misrepresenting Stuy. And as pointed out by me earlier by way of different ldsliving article, it was common practice at the time to rebaptize prior to endowments.

Please read the Stuy article, then let me know what you think.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours 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.

What is your evidence that freedom is better than having someone else make your decisions for you?

What is your evidence that is Honorable and praiseworthy to die for one's country?

For that matter what is your evidence that murder is wrong?

Why is killing babies in their mother's womb wrong? After all they are just tissue.

And yet I would warrant that you believe all of these things strongly without any evidence at all for them being" true", nor could you define any reason for them to be considered true.

Why believe in magic incantations that because an event occurred -the incantation -then the magic will work?

What I here term incantations could be any physical act. It could be the death of Jesus it could be the finding of the plates it could be any historical event.

How can any physical event imply magic results? 

How can any statement about morals be considered true or false? What evidence would it take to justify such a statement as true or false?

If we could just get over this need for historicity and show the world the importance of spirituality in our lives and to follow the advice of Moroni   and James  that God can teach us everything, we could convert the world. But no we're stuck on Joseph Smith's character and what actually happened in Book of Mormon times, and we are stuck being ridiculed over Golden Plates even though we know by the spirit that they existed. We need to teach people to live by the spirit not by history.

Edited July 4, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What is your evidence that freedom is better than having someone else make your decisions for you?

What is your evidence that is Honorable and praiseworthy to die for one's country?

For that matter what is your evidence that murder is wrong?

Why is killing babies in their mother's womb wrong? After all they are just tissue.

And yet I would warrant that you believe all of these things strongly without any evidence at all for them being" true", nor could you define any reason for them to be considered true.

Why believe in magic incantations that because an event occurred -the incantation -then the magic will work?

What I here term incantations could be any physical act. It could be the death of Jesus it could be the finding of the plates it could be any historical event.

How can any physical event imply magic results? 

How can any statement about morals be considered true or false? What evidence would it take to justify such a statement as true or false?

If we could just get over this need for historicity and show the world the importance of spirituality in our lives and to follow the advice of Moroni   and James  that God can teach us everything, we could convert the world. But no we're stuck on Joseph Smith's character and what actually happened in Book of Mormon times, and we are stuck being ridiculed over Golden Plates even though we know by the spirit that they existed. We need to teach people to live by the spirit not by history.

MF, maybe in about 500 years this will be so!

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

MF, maybe in about 500 years this will be so!

I think much sooner than that.  I think as soon as we see post-post modernism as a friend, it will be to our advantage in a big way.

All these "new age" folks are hungry for purpose in their lives and don't know where to find it.  Everyone wants to "save the world" but don't know what we have to save it.

Popular culture is about a hundred years behind philosophy and so it is getting to be about time.  Deflationary truth has been around about that long now generally speaking, and we are seeing more people leaving classical religions for secular ones- which implies they are seeking purpose in life without even considering where the whole notion of "purpose" comes from or the fact that getting purpose in life is something that happens psychologically within us, and is not induced from facts about the world.

You don't do therapy by teaching facts.

One's purpose is defined by feeling, instinct and by following the heart.  In our parlance that means the "spirit".

More and more you hear "follow your passion" and ideas like "be all you can be" and "I wasn't getting fulfilled in life so I did xyz".  We see the rise of mindfulness meditation, eastern philosophy and even things like aroma therapy and crystals, dietary fads etc- all promising us a happy and long life of fulfillment etc.

None of those are based on "evidence" and yet people find these counterfeit "purposes" for their lives because they work for them.

If they would understand meditation-based prayer allowing their own spirits to contemplate and communicate with the Perfect Man of Holiness and allow Him to lead them, we could do away with spirit guides and lead folks to the perfection of humanity through contemplating the Ideal Human within.

The Ideal Human within is the Savior of the world who's kingdom is within.  He is a PERFECTED Human and so is his Father and Mother- who else would you rather have as "spirit guides" than the Creator Himself?  What better purpose can one have than the perfection of humanity, filling the measure of your creation by being all you can be and having joy therein in spiritual communication with God?

Believe it or not, these are all things Joseph taught and are all scriptural if we just know that and preach them.

You can't do much better than family unity and the perfection of humanity including our own self-perfection by following the spirit within.

What more could anyone want?

You cant get that from archaeology or geography.  Sorry.  Can't be done.

Edited July 4, 2018 by mfbukowski

[ALarson]

The below writings has some interesting information regarding this.  I know members here have extended Wilford Woodruff's meaning to include the endowment, etc., but he specifically did say these men needed to be baptized:

Quote

 

For those who may not be familiar with the story (and I can't imagine any member who is not), here is Wilford Woodruff's personal testimony as delivered in the Salt Lake City tabernacle in September of 1877: 

"I will here say, before closing, that two weeks before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, “You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.” These were the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and they waited on me for two days and two nights.  I thought it very singular, that notwithstanding so much work had been done, and yet nothing had been done for them. The thought never entered my heart, from the fact, I suppose, that heretofore our minds were reaching after our more immediate friends and relatives. I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others. I then baptized him for every President of the United States, except three; and when their cause is just, somebody will do the work for them." (Journal of Discourses Vol. XIX, pg 229)

It's too bad Wilford hadn't bothered to check the records at the endowment house, because if he had, he would have seen that proxy baptisms for the founders had already been done. Sometimes repeatedly.

In the recently published collection of essays Dimensions of Faith: A Mormon Studies Reader, [1] Brian H. Stuy reveals that baptisms for the signers had already been performed by Haden Wells Church and John M. Bernhisel as recently as a year before Woodruff says those men appeared to him in the St. George temple. As Stuy rightly asks, if the founder's baptisms had already been performed, "why would they need to urge Wilford Woodruff to repeat the same ordinances? They could not have been referring to endowments since these were not performed for the dead in the endowment house." 

I really want to give Woodruff the benefit of the doubt on this, because I honestly want to believe his story. If he had related that experience only once, we might be able to suppose George Gibbs, the scribe who recorded the talk, had misquoted him. But Woodruff must have felt the story was too good not to repeat, so he told it again and again. "In 1892," writes Stuy, "he described how these individuals 'came to me two nights in succession and pleaded with [me] as one man pleads with another to redeem them.' "   

1876 was the centennial of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the celebrations taking place throughout America may have been the catalyst that prompted Haden Church and John Bernhisel to perform the baptisms of the men who signed that document. But even that wasn't the first time many of those prominent persons had the ordinance of baptism performed in their stead. After Joseph Smith revealed the doctrine of baptism for the dead in 1841, members of the church instantly began having themselves baptized for their immediate dead ancestors, and when they ran out of family names, they naturally took to coming up with names of famous people they wanted to be baptized for.

When Wilford Woodruff wondered aloud why it was the Saints had been concerned only with "reaching after our more immediate friends and relatives" while forgetting to consider the men who founded the country, he was clearly unaware of the great interest many of the Saints had taken to looking after the salvation of those eminent worthies.

As it turns out, zealous members had themselves baptized for George Washington at least three times while the Saints were still in Nauvoo, which makes sense since his name was probably the first to come to most people's minds when contemplating a list of prominent Americans. Charlotte Haven, a non-Mormon visitor to Nauvoo, wrote home about an account she witnessed of Mormons performing proxy baptisms in the Mississippi river:

"We followed the bank toward town, and rounding a little point covered with willows and cottonwoods, we spied quite a crowd of people, and soon perceived there was a baptism. Two elders stood knee-deep in the icy cold water, and immersed one after another as fast as they could come down the bank. We soon observed that some of them went in and were plunged several times. We were told that they were baptized for the dead who had not had an opportunity of adopting the doctrines of the Latter Day Saints. So these poor mortals in ice-cold water were releasing their ancestors and relatives from purgatory! We drew a little nearer and heard several names repeated by the elders as the victims were douched, and you can imagine our surprise when the name George Washington was called. So after these fifty years he is out of purgatory and on his way to the 'celestial' heaven!" ("A Girl's Letters From Nauvoo," The Overland Monthly December 1890, pg 630) [2]

As famous as George Washington was, Benjamin Franklin may hold the record for most baptisms performed for a Founding Father. He was dunked first in Nauvoo with John Harrington as proxy, then by Haden Church in the Salt Lake endowment house in 1871, and again by John Bernhisel in 1876. After Wilford Woodruff performed the ordinance for Franklin in the St George temple in 1877, records show the same Benjamin Franklin was baptized there again in 1880 and yet again in 1884.  More recently Franklin was baptized in the London temple in 1972, then the Arizona temple in '75, and finally in Boise in 1992. (Dimensions of Faith, fn 6 pg 105) 

 

I'm fine with extending this on to other ordinances being done for them.  But let's be honest here and read the actual words written by Wilford Woodruff in his journal and he stated the need to baptize them and we now know that had already taken place.

Edited July 4, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Here's a bit more that's interesting:

Quote

 

Wilford Woodruff was a prodigious journal keeper who wrote in his diary almost daily. He was thoughtful enough to leave us 31 separate volumes describing his life and experiences. That makes it a simple task for interested scholars to simply go back and read what Woodruff wrote at the time he claimed to have had that miraculous visitation from the founders. Oddly, Woodruff's journal entry for August 19, 1877 contains no mention of the miraculous event he would later relate in public:

“I spent the evening in preparing a list of the noted men of the 17 century and 18th, including the signers of the Declaration of Independence and presidents of the United States, for baptism on Tuesday the 21 Aug 1877.”

And his entry for Tuesday, August 21st:

“I, Wilford Woodruff, went to the temple of the Lord this morning and was baptized for 100 persons who were dead, including the signers of the Declaration of Independence.… I was baptized for the following names.”

He then listed the names of 100 men. The baptisms were performed by J.D.T. McCallister, who was a counselor in the temple presidency. Woodruff's journal entry for the 21st continues:

"When Br. McAllister had baptized me for the 100 names, I baptized him for 21, including Gen. Washington and his forefathers and all the presidents of the United States that were not on my list except Buchanan, Van Buren, and Grant. [5] It was a very interesting day. I felt thankful that we had the privilege and the power to administer for the worthy dead, especially for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, that inasmuch as they had laid the foundation of our Government, that we could do as much for them as they had done for us."

Woodruff's journal entry for that period makes no mention of the miraculous visitation, only that he spent the evening of the 19th compiling a list of the noted men, then showed up at the temple on the morning of the 21st to meet with Brother McCallister and perform baptisms for the men on that list. He calmly records in his diary that it was an "interesting" day.

Yet the way Woodruff told the story publicly a month later, the founders appeared to him as a group and berated him for not seeing to their baptisms whereupon he "straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers." No mention of waiting until Tuesday. Of course, Woodruff was unaware that Brothers Church and Bernhisel had already performed those baptisms in the endowment house, and for some reason the founders didn't bother to mention that little detail.

And here's the kicker: After Haden Wells Church had systematically been baptized for the founding fathers in 1872, J.D.T McCallister was the guy who performed the confirmations. This was the same J.D.T McCallister who would later assist Wilford Woodruff in performing baptisms for those very same signers all over again. I guess McCallister felt it wise to just keep his mouth shut and not say anything to Elder Woodruff, since Woodruff was the temple president at the time and must have had his reasons.

 

 

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The below writings has some interesting information regarding this.  I know members here have extended Wilford Woodruff's meaning to include the endowment, etc., but he specifically did say these men needed to be baptized:

I'm fine with extending this on to other ordinances being done for them.  But let's be honest here and read the actual words written by Wilford Woodruff in his journal and he stated the need to baptize them and we now know that had already taken place.

we've plowed over this and we've used his actual words and not the speculations of others, i've tried anyways!!!!. What is with these late rememberances anyways? 1890 is good enough for this situation but for the Lorenzo Snow episode it isn't? other times too you get 'you can't use that it's too late' 1890 is a far cry for something that happened in 1843

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's a bit more that's interesting:

 

I think it's self explanatory it was a vision, I doubt they all showed up in a van or something, "I will here say, before closing, that two weeks before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me" how would that not be a vision?

[ALarson]

57 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think it's self explanatory it was a vision, 

No, it isn't.  If someone came here with an actual journal entry from an anti-Mormon that was later embellished and added to, no one would accept it as the truth.  They would be strict about adhering to the actual words that were written when the incident happened (the original journal entry).  Wilford Woodruff said these spirits claimed that "nothing has ever been done" for them....and that's not true. Why would these spirits lie to Wilford Woodruff?  That makes no sense.  He then only mentions baptizing them after that. That more was later added is highly suspect (IMO) and was most likely added for affect (getting the saints to want to go do work for the dead) and it probably had the desired results (which was good...but doesn''t  make the story less suspect).  If a serious historian were to look at this and read his actual diary entry, they'd agree that the later versions and embellishments were suspect and that his original entries were most likely the actual truth. 

Once again, if this were something anti-Mormon being claimed here, most of us would be all over it claiming it to be false (which we should do) or highly suspect.  Let's give both sides equal treatment is all I'm saying.  Kudos to lds.living for doing that.

Edited July 4, 2018 by ALarson

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

No, it isn't.  If someone came here with an actual journal entry from an anti-Mormon that was later embellished and added to, no one would accept it as the truth.  They would be strict about adhering to the actual words that were written when the incident happened (the original journal entry).  Wilford Woodruff said these spirits claimed that "nothing has ever been done" for them....and that's not true. Why would these spirits lie to Wilford Woodruff?  That makes no sense.  He then only mentions baptizing them after that. That more was later added is highly suspect (IMO) and was most likely added for affect (getting the saints to want to go do work for the dead) and it probably had the desired results (which was good...but doesn''t  make the story less suspect).  If a serious historian were to look at this and read his actual diary entry, they'd agree that the later versions and embellishments were suspect and that his original entries were most likely the actual truth. 

Once again, if this were something anti-Mormon being claimed here, most of us would be all over it claiming it to be false (which we should do) or highly suspect.  Let's give both sides equal treatment is all I'm saying.  Kudos to lds.living for doing that.

What would you call it then? it's for sure not made, he clearly experienced something. It's unfortunate Brian Stuy doesn't cite all his sources, which doesn't help. I don't agree with everything here but as I say I don't even know what the desperation of independance is or who the singers were of it

Edited July 4, 2018 by Duncan

[FearlessFixxer]

Woodruff was lying.

The work had already been done.  If he had the internet back then he would have known and this tale would.never have been told.

[Duncan]

21 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

Woodruff was lying.

The work had already been done.  If he had the internet back then he would have known and this tale would.never have been told.

Wrong again. If he knew what a mountain Anti Mormon myth makers make out of this issue, i'm sure he's up in heaven quoting Ether 12:26

[FearlessFixxer]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Wrong again. If he knew what a mountain Anti Mormon myth makers make out of this issue, i'm sure he's up in heaven quoting Ether 12:26

I honestly don't understand the reference.

A lie is a lie. Nobody is saying this means the church isn't true 

if the facts and circumstances around this particular situation do not lead you to believe the Wilford Woodruff lied, then we have a very different definition of what a lie is. But that is okay, I suppose that is what makes the world go 'round

[JulieM]

On 7/3/2018 at 7:46 PM, provoman said:

....it was common practice at the time to rebaptize prior to endowments.

I don’t see how that’s relevant or applies.  Wilford Woodruff claimed he was told they said that “nothing has ever been done for us”.  So, it wouldn’t have been that they wanted to be baptized again.   And why would they have been upset that they had to wait two days if they’d already been baptized?

It’s a nice story to inspire members to do temple work for the dead or instill an urgency in them to get the work done.  But the story doesn’t appear to be factual and doesn’t really add up (from what I read here).  

[Duncan]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I don’t see how that’s relevant or applies.  Wilford Woodruff claimed he was told they said that “nothing has ever been done for us”.  So, it wouldn’t have been that they wanted to be baptized again.   And why would they have been upset that they had to wait two days if they’d already been baptized?

It’s a nice story to inspire members to do temple work for the dead or instill an urgency in them to get the work done.  But the story doesn’t appear to be factual and doesn’t really add up (from what I read here).  

a story that isn't factual is someone saying that something happened to them or someone else but the person it supposedly happened to denies it. For example if someone said my dad was in WW1, well I know that isn't true and I could phone him and tell him what so and so is saying and he can tell me himself that yes, he was not in WW1. That would be a non factual story. Nobody has ever found a diary entry from Woodruff or a letter or anything saying he told a lie, to inspire the members to do temple work. Nobody has found and can't be found an entry that says, "Told the saints today that I saw the signers of the declaration of independance come to me in Aug. of 1877, boy what a bunch of idiots! never happened!!!!" That's why he wasn't lying 

Wilford Woodruff fully believed, wrote it in his journal, as did James Bleak a St. George Temple attendant, that these men came and told him to do their work. There are more than baptisms for the dead done in Temples. Obviously it would be nice to be a fly on the wall on the night of Aug. 18 &19 1877 and see how it came down the pipe but we can't do that.  History isn't right or wrong or judgements but what happened. 

[JulieM]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

a story that isn't factual is someone saying that something happened to them or someone else but the person it supposedly happened to denies it. For example if someone said my dad was in WW1, well I know that isn't true and I could phone him and tell him what so and so is saying and he can tell me himself that yes, he was not in WW1. That would be a non factual story. Nobody has ever found a diary entry from Woodruff or a letter or anything saying he told a lie, to inspire the members to do temple work. Nobody has found and can't be found an entry that says, "Told the saints today that I saw the signers of the declaration of independance come to me in Aug. of 1877, boy what a bunch of idiots! never happened!!!!" That's why he wasn't lying 

Wilford Woodruff fully believed, wrote it in his journal, as did James Bleak a St. George Temple attendant, that these men came and told him to do their work. There are more than baptisms for the dead done in Temples. Obviously it would be nice to be a fly on the wall on the night of Aug. 18 &19 1877 and see how it came down the pipe but we can't do that.  History isn't right or wrong or judgements but what happened. 

I was specifically responding to the idea that the men just wanted to be rebaptized.  That idea makes no sense.

They supposedly said “nothing” had “ever” been done for them. But that wasn’t true.

It just doesn’t add up to me (my opinion) that Wilford Woodruff would head to the baptismal font if he knew they’d already been baptized .  And why would they be upset that he waited 2 days if they were already members of the church (through previous proxy work)?

I read this as either the men weren’t accurate with what they told Wilford Woodruff or he heard it wrong (their definite statement)  or it just simply didn’t happen (or was just a dream possibly).  Anyone who wrote about it afterwards wouldn’t have been present for  the supposed vision, so I’m not seeing that as being good evidence.

Duncan, if you have faith that it happened, that’s fine and I have no issue with that.  It just honestly doesn’t make sense to me or add up to being completely true because of the reasons I’ve given.

I also agree that if this was a negative story from church history that someone reported in this manner (with so many holes in it), the same people who are defending this story would be ripping that one apart (if it made the leaders or church look bad).

Edited July 5, 2018 by JulieM

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

Wilford Woodruff fully believed, wrote it in his journal, as did James Bleak a St. George Temple attendant, that these men came and told him to do their work.

Jennifer Mackley gives the Bleak account and writes that it was at least 21 years "after the fact".....between 20-40 years after 1877:

Quote

His statement was “copied from some of his own records” by his great-granddaughter and the version I have is in her handwriting. My estimate is James Bleak’s statement/record was made 20-40 years after 1877. (It was at least 21 years after the fact because he repeats parts of Wilford Woodruff’s April 1898 Conference address regarding the experience and less than 40 years because he died in 1918.)

(Mackley wrote: the book: Wilford Woodruff's Witness: The Development of Temple Doctrine)

Edited July 5, 2018 by ALarson

[provoman]

removed for inaccurracies

Edited July 5, 2018 by provoman

[Duncan]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Jennifer Mackley gives the Bleak account and writes that it was at least 21 years "after the fact".....between 20-40 years after 1877:

(Mackley wrote: the book: Wilford Woodruff's Witness: The Development of Temple Doctrine)

I have that book but do you have a reference for that?