Is ldsliving denying Woodruff's journal?

[SouthernMo]

10 minutes ago, provoman said:

Proxy work - to include endowments - for the dead was in operation at the Endowment House in SLC...AND proxy work - to include endowments - for the dead was in operatiom at the St George Temple starting in the April prior to the vision Woodruff had. Stuy denies this, and because of his denial of this he focuses solely on baptism and does not address endowments;  If I am incorrect I welcome the correction.

Take a look at @JulieM‘s last post. She clarified my position better than I can reframe. 

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, provoman said:

Proxy work - to include endowments - for the dead was in operation at the Endowment House in SLC...AND proxy work - to include endowments - for the dead was in operatiom at the St George Temple starting in the April prior to the vision Woodruff had. Stuy denies this, and because of his denial of this he focuses solely on baptism and does not address endowments;  If I am incorrect I welcome the correction.

Well, Wilford Woodruff's original journal entry was also focused on baptism (and how he went directly to the baptismal font).  How do you explain how Wilford Woodruff reported that he was told nothing had ever been done for these men?   The words "nothing" and "ever" are pretty undeniably specific and definite and there's no question that statement (as he gave it) is not the truth.  I'm not sure how one really gets around that fact without trying to come up with a whole lot of "well maybe he meant this" or "could it be that he used the wrong word" type of statements that would never be allowed if there was an anti-Mormon sentiment to the story being discussed here.

And your suggestion that "could it be that" they meant rebaptism and not really baptism is pretty ridiculous, IMO.

Here's more on that and I fully agree with it: 

Quote

This again [rebaptism], makes little sense, because rebaptism was an ordinance performed for the living, not the dead, and was discontinued shortly after the turn of the Twentieth Century.

So would the spirits of the dead be concerned with what was never a requirement for redemption? The spirits of the dead did not appear to Woodruff and tell him that their work was invalid and needed to be repeated, (the work that could be done up to that point), they told him that nothing had ever been done for them, which (in the light of the facts) was untrue.

I do think this is a nice, feel good story that many tell (including some from back then), but I don't see how it is true as it was originally told (and then was embellished as time went on).

Edited July 5, 2018 by ALarson

[Duncan]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, Wilford Woodruff's original journal entry was also focused on baptism (and how he went directly to the baptismal font).  How do you explain how Wilford Woodruff reported that he was told nothing had ever been done for these men?   The words "nothing" and "ever" are pretty undeniably specific and definite and there's no question that statement (as he gave it) is not the truth.  I'm not sure how one really gets around that fact without trying to come up with a whole lot of "well maybe he meant this" or "could it be that he used the wrong word" type of statements that would never be allowed if there was an anti-Mormon sentiment to the story being discussed here.

And your suggestion that "could it be that" they meant rebaptism and not really baptism is pretty ridiculous, IMO.

Here's more on that and I fully agree with it: 

I do think this is a nice, feel good story that many tell (including some from back then), but I don't see how it is true as it was originally told (and then was embellished as time went on).

if you strictly base it on baptisms but endowments and sealings and sealings to children and other ordinances are also done in Temples. We are assuming we know what "nothing" means to these signer guys, why don't we understand it as Wilford Woodruff understood it? having them baptized again doesn't undo their previous baptism, if it was done

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if you strictly base it on baptisms but endowments and sealings and sealings to children and other ordinances are also done in Temples. We are assuming we know what "nothing" means to these signer guys, why don't we understand it as Wilford Woodruff understood it? having them baptized again doesn't undo their previous baptism, if it was done

Come on Duncan, are you seriously going to claim that their baptisms would have meant "nothing" to these men?  Because that's how they would have referred to it ("nothing has ever been done for us)?  That's really reaching to attempt to make this work.  And why would Wilford Woodruff be chastised for waiting 2 days to rush to the baptismal font when they'd already been baptized?  Again, that makes absolutely no sense.  You seem to really, really want this story to be true and I get that....but look at this with an honest and critical eye like a historian would.  If they needed their endowment done, it's good it was done.  But that's not what they said.  The original telling and reporting of this was focused on baptism.  More was added later (most likely when they learned the baptisms had already been done and many times for some of these men prior to that date).

Edited July 5, 2018 by ALarson

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Come on Duncan, are you seriously going to claim that their baptisms would have meant "nothing" to these men?  Because that's how they would have referred to it ("nothing has ever been done for us)?  That's really reaching to attempt to make this work.  And why would Wilford Woodruff be chastised for waiting 2 days to rush to the baptismal font when they'd already been baptized?  Again, that makes absolutely no sense.  You seem to really, really want this story to be true and I get that....but look at this with an honest and critical eye like a historian would.  If they needed their endowment done, it's good it was done.  But that's not what they said.  The original telling and reporting of this was focused on baptism.  More was added later (most likely when they learned the baptisms had already been done and many times for some of these men prior to that date).

if you are strictly referring to baptisms alone, but if that was true why would Woodruff et al have their endowment done? We are assuming we know what "nothing" means, why don't we, as I said before, understand it as Woodruff understood it? it appears he had more on his mind than just baptism. They did need their endowment done and that's how Temple ordinances are and plus sealings and all that. In some people's minds in all some big conspiracy, Woodruff lied, Bleak can't be trusted now, it wasn't a vision but had the same effect. Personally speaking I don't know if any of it will make any difference, as I think they were treasonous B&*%$(*s anyways but maybe it'll induce them to repent☺️

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if you are strictly referring to baptisms alone, but if that was true why would Woodruff et al have their endowment done? 

Because that was what was done next when proxy work was performed for the dead.  Nothing unusual about that.  Why did Wilford Woodruff rush to the baptismal font (after being chastised for making them wait), if the urgency was that they needed their endowments done?

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

We are assuming we know what "nothing" means,

Because we do know what "nothing" means.  We also know what the word "ever" means.  So a very specific statement recorded stating that "nothing has ever been done for us", doesn't leave much wiggle room unless you want to claim that their baptism meant "nothing" to them.  Baptism is a very important and necessary ordinance to have performed.  IMO, it certainly would not ever be referred to as "nothing"......not back then and not today.

Edited July 5, 2018 by ALarson

[provoman]

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

Edited July 5, 2018 by provoman

[SouthernMo]

30 minutes ago, Duncan said:

We are assuming we know what "nothing" means, why don't we, as I said before, understand it as Woodruff understood it?

Duncan - you made my day.  You blew my mind! Suddenly, your argument has made me realize that to some people, words can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean! Also, those who read others words can take them to mean anything they want them to mean. Thus, words have no communicative value.

Maybe we’ll toss Woodruff’s 1890 Official Declaration 1 aside? We assume he did not mean to end the practice of polygamy, but what he really meant was - keep it secret, and have at it folks!  We suddenly can’t rely on anything he said because we’re assuming we know what it means.

You’ve given me a whole new perspective on how to view the words of men sustained as prophets, seers and revelators!  Never assume what they mean.  We can’t assume that President Nelson really means never break the law of chastity. We don’t know what he meant by ‘never.’  Shall I go on?

In case my American sarcasm isn’t coming through clearly - this (my) post is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as other posts I’ve read here.

Edited July 5, 2018 by SouthernMo

[Duncan]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Because that was what was done next when proxy work was performed for the dead.  Nothing unusual about that.  Why did Wilford Woodruff rush to the baptismal font (after being chastised for making them wait), if the urgency was that they needed their endowments done?

Because we do know what "nothing" means.  We also know what the word "ever" means.  So a very specific statement recorded stating that "nothing has ever been done for us", doesn't leave much wiggle room unless you want to claim that their baptism meant "nothing" to them.  Baptism is a very important and necessary ordinance to have performed.  IMO, it certainly would not ever be referred to as "nothing"......not back then and not today.

 Do you remember that scene in Seinfeld when Jerry and George go to NBC to pitch their show idea and they said "it's a show about nothing" and NBC was like what? George asks what did you do today and the NBC guy says, 'I got up, got dressed and came to work' and George was like there's a show, that's the show and the NBC guy was like more confused than before. Jerry jumps in and said, well not nothing. Nothing doesn't mean literally nothing, as in zero as the NBC guy understood it but George had in mind something but really nothing. Nothing can mean zero and it can mean nothing of any importance. George and the NBC had differing opinions on what nothing meant. How did Woodruff understand nothing? something but more is needed because as the NBC exec. said, "well, why am I am watching it" because it's on TV and he replies "Not yet". We need to understand it as people back then understood it. Would Woodruff have had access to baptismal records or anything back then? who knows, but I doubt. But he did all their work it appears anyways, maybe to get it all done and recorded, for once and for all

here's the clip, I remembered it mostly correct!

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Duncan

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

So I think it is safe say that Stuy denies that endowments for the dead were occuring at the time of the Woodruff's journal entry.

Why do believe that?  I remember him stating that proxy endowments weren't done previously in the endowment house, but not that they weren't occurring later in the St. George temple.  Do you have a quote that you're basing your assumption on?

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Duncan - you made my day.  You blew my mind! Suddenly, your argument has made me realize that to some people, words can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean! Also, those who read others words can take them to mean anything they want them to mean. Thus, words have no communicative value.

Maybe we’ll toss Woodruff’s 1890 Official Declaration 1 aside? We assume he meant to end the practice of polygamy, but what he really meant was - keep it secret, and have at it folks!  We suddenly can’t rely on anything he said because we’re assuming we know what it means.

You’ve given me a whole new perspective on how to view the words of men sustained as prophets, seers and revelators!  Never assume what they mean.  We can’t assume that President Nelson really means never break the law of chastity. We don’t know what he meant by ‘never.’  Shall I go on?

In case my American sarcasm isn’t coming through clearly - this (my) post is ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as other posts I’ve read here.

in history you understand it as they understood it, you may have a different opinion on what should have happened or what but you can't use someone else made me do it approach to your own life. I think it was Pres. Clark who said once when he became US ambassador to Mexico and all the things he had to do and how problems were dealt he could see why it was done that way, not necessarily how he would have approached it and dealt with it. In case you're confused there is a word we use called "clarify". If someone from England says the word "football" that means something entirely different from someone from North America

[provoman]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Because that was what was done next when proxy work was performed for the dead.  Nothing unusual about that.  Why did Wilford Woodruff rush to the baptismal font (after being chastised for making them wait), if the urgency was that they needed their endowments done?

 

As has been posted,and as it was reported in a separate ldsliving article, rebaptism prior to endowments was the pratice of the day. 

So it is not unusual that Woodrufd would have been baptised for those people, prior to their proxy endowment work.

So could the "nothing" refer to endowments? Had endowments already been completed for the people Woodruff was rebaptised for?

[provoman]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Why do believe that?  I remember him stating that proxy endowments weren't done previously in the endowment house, but not that they weren't occurring later in the St. George temple.  Do you have a quote that you're basing your assumption on?

edit: my error, Duncan clarified

Edited July 5, 2018 by provoman

[Duncan]

9 minutes ago, provoman said:

ugh, yes, I'll have to slog through signing on that website....the ugh is about the website, not your request.

endowments for the living were done in the endowment house and the endowments for the dead were first done in the St. George Temple when it opened in 1877

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, provoman said:

As has been posted,and as it was reported in a separate ldsliving article, rebaptism prior to endowments was the pratice of the day. 

So it is not unusual that Woodrufd would have been baptised for those people, prior to their proxy endowment work.

So could the "nothing" refer to endowments? Had endowments already been completed for the people Woodruff was rebaptised for?

I think that "nothing" means that he was stating that he believed "nothing had ever been done" for them.  I don't buy the rebaptism thing.  I'm not sure why it's so difficult here for members to just read what he originally recorded and believe what was stated.  If there has to be a whole lot of "well, what if he meant this" to make it true, then that means it's questionable as originally told, IMO.  He either was simply mistaken (maybe it was just a dream) or he embellished it as it went along after he learned that they had indeed already been baptized (and many times for some of them).

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎7‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 4:51 PM, JAHS said:

Regarding the shooting at the Carthage jail; for the longest time the tour guides at the jail never mention the pistol Joseph used to fire at the mob.
They would only say that all they had for defense was the canes they used to knock down the guns of the attackers. 
Does anyone know if they are still only saying that or do they mention the guns now also? I don't know why they couldn't just tell the whole story in the first place.
I am assuming they don't mention it because it makes Joseph look less like a martyr. But I would think it would make the story more interesting.
Joseph could still be considered a martyr with or without the gun. 
 

Last time I was there a couple of years ago I asked specifically about the weapons the prisoners had. They flat out said Joseph had no access to weapons. We had a small group so I pressed them a little and they were incredulous that I would think Joseph had a gun or actually fired at mobbers. I suggested to them it might be wise to have more accurate information if they were going to be giving tours of the jail and recounting the story. They were totally uninterested in learning a more complete account. Withholding significant information is bad enough but an unwillingness to learn and be more accurate was super frustrating.

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Last time I was there a couple of years ago I asked specifically about the weapons the prisoners had. They flat out said Joseph had no access to weapons. We had a small group so I pressed them a little and they were incredulous that I would think Joseph had a gun or actually fired at mobbers. I suggested to them it might be wise to have more accurate information if they were going to be giving tours of the jail and recounting the story. They were totally uninterested in learning a more complete account. Withholding significant information is bad enough but an unwillingness to learn and be more accurate was super frustrating.

They might get a lot of visitors making claims about certain details that may or may not be right. Maybe after your tour they went and looked it up to verify your claims. 
It appears that it depends on who the tour guide is and how informed they are because others here have said the tour guides actually do bring up the details about the guns.
 

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, JAHS said:

They might get a lot of visitors making claims about certain details that may or may not be right. Maybe after your tour they went and looked it up to verify your claims. 
It appears that it depends on who the tour guide is and how informed they are because others here have said the tour guides actually do bring up the details about the guns.
 

I  agree. They indicated that they had a specific script and that was all they needed. Sadly, if they later went back and realized that they were spreading false information, even in good faith, it could damage their trust of leaders. Many have had faith crisis instigated by similar issues, thinking they knew the truth, confidently sharing that truth as absolute, only to find out they were wrong. And not only wrong, sometimes purposefully mislead into believing something false.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I  agree. They indicated that they had a specific script and that was all they needed. Sadly, if they later went back and realized that they were spreading false information, even in good faith, it could damage their trust of leaders. Many have had faith crisis instigated by similar issues, thinking they knew the truth, confidently sharing that truth as absolute, only to find out they were wrong. And not only wrong, sometimes purposefully mislead into believing something false.

It also undermines their credibility for those going through the tours (members who know the truth and nonmembers who have more information).  

When we went through not too long ago, the tour guide also said "unarmed" but I didn't say anything.  Then one of them gave Joseph's final words and testified that meant even to the very end, Joseph was seeking God and willing to die as a martyr.  Another man on the tour raised his hand and said, "I'm a mason and every mason would recognize those last words as him crying for help (sign of distress) from any masons in the group attacking him or near him".  The guide was ruffled and said, "No, that can't be true because how would Joseph have even known to do that?"    It was obvious the tour guide didn't even know that Joseph had been a freemason which seems incredible to me!  

So, how much do you think this man believed regarding the rest of the story the guide told?  I'm sure it caused him to doubt it.

[clarkgoble]

Not to state the obvious but we're relying on Woodruff's paraphrase of what they said when he later wrote in his diary. Getting too pedantic on the language when it's almost certainly not word perfect seems problematic. Add in that everyone is neglecting the role of hyperbole (either Woodruff's or what he thought he heard) and it seems like trying to draw a lot of claim out of not a lot of words. Saying "you've done nothing" when someone has done very little is a common bit of rhetoric. (I can attest after seeing what my son or daughter have done in the kitchen after telling them to clean it up)

Edited July 5, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I  agree. They indicated that they had a specific script and that was all they needed. Sadly, if they later went back and realized that they were spreading false information, even in good faith, it could damage their trust of leaders. Many have had faith crisis instigated by similar issues, thinking they knew the truth, confidently sharing that truth as absolute, only to find out they were wrong. And not only wrong, sometimes purposefully mislead into believing something false.

It also undermines their credibility for those going through the tours (members who know the truth and nonmembers who have more information).  

When we went through not too long ago, the tour guide also said "unarmed" but I didn't say anything.  Then one of them gave Joseph's final words and testified that meant even to the very end, Joseph was seeking God and willing to die as a martyr.  Another man on the tour raised his hand and said, "I'm a mason and every mason would recognize those last words as him crying for help (sign of distress) from any masons in the group attacking him or near him".  The guide was ruffled and said, "No, that can't be true because how would Joseph have even known to do that?"    It was obvious the tour guide didn't even know that Joseph had been a freemason which seems incredible to me!  

So, how much do you think this man believed regarding the rest of the story the guide told?  I'm sure it caused him to doubt it.

I originally brought this up because I thought the reason they don't mention the guns in the script is because it would make Joseph and Hyrum look less like martyrs,  just because they tried to defend themselves and their friends.
But, as far as I know the definition of martyr does not mean that the victim who dies cannot try to defend themselves. Whether they do or not doesn't change the fact they they were killed because of who they were and what they believed.

[provoman]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Why do believe that?  I remember him stating that proxy endowments weren't done previously in the endowment house, but not that they weren't occurring later in the St. George temple.  Do you have a quote that you're basing your assumption on?

it was a missunderstanding in my part....so disregard

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I originally brought this up because I thought the reason they don't mention the guns in the script is because it would make Joseph and Hyrum look less like martyrs,  just because they tried to defend themselves and their friends.
But, as far as I know the definition of martyr does not mean that the victim who dies cannot try to defend themselves. Whether they do or not doesn't change the fact they they were killed because of who they were and what they believed.

Oh, I fully believe that Joseph had every right to defend himself and say, "Good for him!".

I was just reporting what the guide stated.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think that "nothing" means that he was stating that he believed "nothing had ever been done" for them.  I don't buy the rebaptism thing.  I'm not sure why it's so difficult here for members to just read what he originally recorded and believe what was stated.  If there has to be a whole lot of "well, what if he meant this" to make it true, then that means it's questionable as originally told, IMO.  He either was simply mistaken (maybe it was just a dream) or he embellished it as it went along after he learned that they had indeed already been baptized (and many times for some of them).

I can see reasons for confusion for Woodruff then and confusion now.  It has been awhile since I studied this stuff.  Some may have answers and others not.

In the vision  or whatever you want to call it...

Do we know who was speaking?  Was there a spokesperson for all or did every person speak for themselves and say the same thing?  Do we know how Woodruff knew who they were?  Did they introduce themselves to him, did their names come into his head when he looked at them?  Was he aware of the names of all who were there or did he make assumptions?

Maybe there was one person who was really ticked off because while work for others had been done, nothing had been done for him and it was his wailing and demands that impressed Woodruff the most and therefore Woodruff in his telling of the experience made him the spokesperson when it was really just an individual reaction.

Do we know who was there in the group?  Do we know who they themselves were referring to?  Were they speaking of purely themselves or their families (given exaltation requires family)?  Were their families also present?

We know baptisms had been done before, but had they been done for everyone in the group?  Had they been done for spouses so that endowments and sealings could proceed.  If speaking collectively, not everyone had been done or perhaps done properly, given the awareness of the fallibility of human memory, perhaps it made more sense to speak as nothing being done to avoid some falling through the cracks because their name got left off the list of to dos.

Perhaps they were more concerned with endowments and were concerned that Woodruff did not have the proper sense of urgency, but his efforts to get the baptisms done satisfied them he had caught the vision so to speak and they no longer feared the endowment process would fade out before all were done (especially if it had been decided to look through all baptismal records, including ones they would have had to send for send for prior to any work getting started so as not to repeat baptisms), even if baptisms were not what most needed.  Rebaptism was the beginning of the endowment process for many of the living.  Why not for the dead as well, especially now they were living beings in WW's eyes as opposed to just names on paper?  The endowment process at that time was started, though not completed with rebaptism. (DeGroote calls it "standard practice", http://www.ldsliving.com/What-You-Didn-t-Know-About-the-Founding-Fathers-Temple-Work-Story/s/78831 )

Perhaps they said it that way because they knew that was what was needed to get Woodruff motivated, even though they knew he might misunderstand and assume some false ideas.

I doubt it would matter to them if ordinances were repeated for some, but it certainly would matter if some were left out.

From descriptions of some visions, there seems to be a toll on the physical strength in at least some cases. Perhaps more spirits present was harder to process and endure than one on ons, but the choice was the crowd to impress on Woodruff the need. Perhaps the limitations were at the other end.  In either case, that would mean a need to convey information needed under the time limit and a choice to go for generalities rather than precise lists that might be forgotten anyway (they ended up doing the work for over a hundred iirc).

I can think of several more nitpicky types of possibilities, but hopefully I am conveying a sense of there being a great deal of information about the people involved and their exact concerns that we likely don't know and that Woodruff might not have had a chance to learn.

Bottom line for me ignoring all these above potential issues of communication...

We don't know how communication between the dead and the living take place and how much of the interaction is framed by the living's expectations.  It seems strange to me to insist on precision of understanding ( we can be exactly certain of what was meant by the spirits, what was said by them, and what was understood by Woodruff) when speaking of such an interaction, of communication between nonresurrected spirits and mortal beings.  We can't tell if it was a hallucination or dream or a vision that involved a human and therefore also involved the givens of inaccurate assumptions and interpretations about the ones he was communicating with.

For me, since we only have Woodruff's testimony for information on what happened to him, rather than trying to figure out whether or not he was lying by comparing to historical facts of baptisms done or not done, it makes more sense to see if his behaviour is consistent with his story...did he make personal sacrifices to achieve what he said he was directed to do or does it look like he cared only about the impact of his words on others (since he would be lying in order to influence others).

Edited July 5, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think that "nothing" means that he was stating that he believed "nothing had ever been done" for them.  I don't buy the rebaptism thing.  I'm not sure why it's so difficult here for members to just read what he originally recorded and believe what was stated.  If there has to be a whole lot of "well, what if he meant this" to make it true, then that means it's questionable as originally told, IMO.  He either was simply mistaken (maybe it was just a dream) or he embellished it as it went along after he learned that they had indeed already been baptized (and many times for some of them).

I can't speak for provoman's perspective, but Duncan is a historian and he's coming at this from a historian's perspective and using the tools historians are taught to use to interpret history.  He's given supporting evidence for his view and explained how from his perspective, he is believing 'what was stated.'  He's explained why he feels that his interpretation of what was stated in WW journal is more supported by the evidence than your interpretation of what was stated.

Which is honestly what makes studying history so much fun and so incredibly frustrating at the same time!  It's also why credibly historians often disagree (sometimes vehemently) when looking at the same evidence.  There is no 'believe what was stated;' it's all evidence and interpretation and context and bias, etc.