Mormonism and Wikipedia: The Church History That “Anyone Can Edit” (Volume Book 1)

---

I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up. Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, vol. What Dustin and Brittney have concocted is nothing new. There is a long history of Mormon apologists vilifying any critic even members of the church as anti-Mormons. A whole new generation of bigots. Nothing would surprise me at this point. Ever hear of S.

The Society for the Prevention of Anti Mormonism? But they were a thing about ten years ago. Here is what the founder said when he closed shop:. This is the end of the line. We started out just tracking numbers of anti-Mormon posts and we embarrassed Jim Robinson. We watched as he banned the Mormon Caucus and purged Mormons from the site. We identified the haters and published their pseudonyms.

We made our point numerically: Free Republic was being used as a platform by anti-Mormons to bash the Church and its members with the support of its owner, Jim Robinson. The last few months have seen our posts degenerate into a tit-for-tat response to the seemingly endless attacks of their one primary, one-topic poster: We have demonstrated how obsessive, hateful, dishonest, and uninformed she actually is. There is no more doubt and there is nothing more to say on the matter.

The number one attribute of anti-Mormons is obsessiveness. Wow, what a list of accomplishments. I would like to start with their conclusion, where the word anti-Mormon appears three times in four paragraphs,. They argue that Latter-day Saints are afraid of the truth and that we are just brainwashed. But the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.

You will search in vain for any such statement. And speaking of brainwashing, one of the techniques used is repeating things over and over again. The quote by Joseph Smith to John Wentworth reads,. Our missionaries are going forth to different nations, and in Germany, Palestine, New Holland, the East Indies, and other places, the standard of truth has been erected: If you are going to put something in quotes, perhaps you should make sure that what you are quoting is accurate. At least that is what the Joseph Smith Papers indicates though they characterize it as a group effort that Joseph simply took credit for.

When somewhere about fourteen or fifteen years old, he began seriously to reflect upon the necessity of being prepared for a future state of existence. When about fourteen years of age I began to reflect upon the importance of being prepared for a future state. I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness. He was also informed upon the subjects, which had for some time previously agitated his mind, viz. They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom.

And he was expressly commanded, to go not after them ; and he received a promise that the true doctrine—the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him. And it pleased God, on the evening of the 21st of September, a. While he thus continued to pour out his desires before the Father of all good; endeavouring to exercise faith in his precious promises ….

On the evening of the 21st of September, A. Indeed, the first sight was as though the house was filled with consuming fire. This sudden appearance of a light so bright, as must naturally be expected, occasioned a shock or sensation visible to the extremities of the body. It was, however, followed with a calmness and serenity of mind, and an overwhelming rapture of joy, that surpassed understanding, and, in a moment, a personage stood before him.

He was informed, that he was called and chosen to be an instrument in the hands of God, to bring about some of his marvellous purposes in this glorious dispensation. This messenger proclaimed himself to be an angel of God sent to bring the joyful tidings , that the covenant which God made with ancient Israel was at hand to be fulfilled, that the preparatory work for the second coming of the Messiah was speedily to commence; that the time was at hand for the gospel, in all its fulness to be preached in power, unto all nations that a people might be prepared for the millennial reign.

I was informed that I was chosen to be an instrument in the hands of God to bring about some of his purposes in this glorious dispensation. So why mention all this about the Wentworth letter? And being curious, I took a little time to research it. Of course, this is known to many historians, and they have their point of view about it. At the Joseph Smith papers, they write ,. No manuscript copy [of the Wentworth letter] has been located, and it is not known how much of the history was originally written or dictated by JS.

And so the reader will have to make up their own mind. Joseph Smith took a published work, copied from it, and published it under his own name without giving any credit to the original author. What that is, is plagiarism. And what brought all this on concerning Jeremy? She [the anonymous mother] helped me realize that by taking the most popular piece of anti-Mormon literature which summarizes just about all the claims against the Church and exposing several blatant lies, I could prove an important point:.

Is he quoting himself? This attitude appears to be validated by on-going discoveries that the most influential anti-Mormon of recent years has been caught spreading blatant falsehoods and misinformation about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His infamous page document has been downloaded nearly 1 million times—primarily, it would appear, by Latter-day Saints and former members. He frames himself as a well-intentioned Latter-day Saint who merely has a few innocent questions about the Church—questions that he genuinely wants answers to.

If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed. By using this seemingly innocent narrative the author has successfully persuaded countless members to trust the information he provides. As a result, many unsuspecting Latter-day Saints have found his claims to be so damaging that they either find themselves stuck in a crisis of faith or they abandon their faith altogether. But other Mormons have told us things like this,.

Talmage, The Articles of Faith. Reuben Clark, counselor in the First Presidency. See the circle jerk they perform here? This is a dishonest tactic and a favorite of Mormon Apologists. Dustin then gives us this confusing mess:. How do you validate not reading something by reading it? Gee, If only everyone could construct a letter like that. Perhaps Jeremy should be out giving lectures on how to construct letters since this one has been so successful.

Of course it has nothing to do with the content. It was just ingeniously constructed. And Jeremy just appears to be trustworthy. So all of this by Dustin is a blatant falsehood. Jeremy never duped anyone. All this information is a result of over a year of intense research and an absolute rabid obsession with Joseph Smith and Church history. Like you, I put my pants on one leg at a time and I see through a glass darkly.

So who is being dishonest here? I doubt Dustin ever even read the CES letter. Took a few claims and made up his whopper about Jeremy being dishonest and a liar. That much is obvious if one reads his rebuttal to Dustin Phelps. I just turned sixty, and I was a lot like Jeremy when I was younger and if you follow this blog, you know that I can be sarcastic and sharp in my responses to Mormon Apologists.

So bear in mind all that Jeremy has been through as you read his response to Phelps. Now, I am not going to do any kind of in-depth rebuttal here, Jeremy has done a great job with his response. And if these are not in order… you guessed it, Phelps changed the order when he repackaged his own blog entry.

Polygamy is not what really bothers anyone. What bothers people is the possibility that Joseph introduced polygamy—not because of revelation but out of a desire to satisfy lustful feelings. They worry that maybe Joseph practiced polygamy in the same way that Warren Jeffs did: This insinuation is common in anti-Mormon literature. Polygamy is a difficult subject for many of us—even if the Prophets of old practiced it too.

But what makes it difficult to move forward with faith is the possibility that Joseph introduced polygamy—not because of revelation but out of a desire to satisfy lustful feelings. Some people worry that maybe Joseph practiced polygamy in the same way that Warren Jeffs did: One of the things that really disturbed me in my research was discovering the real origins of polygamy and how Joseph Smith really practiced it. Of those 34 women, 11 of them were married women of other living men. Among them being Apostle Orson Hyde who was sent on his mission to dedicate Israel when Joseph secretly married his wife, Marinda Hyde.

Church historian Elder Marlin K. Jensen and unofficial apologists like FairMormon do not dispute the polyandry. Joseph was years-old when he married year-old Helen Mar Kimball, twenty-three years his junior. Even by 19th century standards, this was shocking. Every bit of this is true.

This is something the individual must decide. But is this a false claim? The Rolling Stone wrote this about Jeffs:. Beginning in , he came under investigation for child rape in Utah. Joseph Smith declared and had himself ordained a king in Nauvoo. This promulgation created a great sensation — a schism occurred and a large portion of the first membership, including the best talent of the Church, at once withdrew from it. This was during the summer of Yet, this is not what Jeremy claims at all. The fact is, we do not know how often Joseph had sex with his plural wives. If the testimony of Emily Partridge and Malissa Lott count for anything to Phelps, they claimed that they had sex with Smith on multiple occasions.

I asked you how many times you had roomed there in that house with Joseph Smith? I do not expect you to answer positively the exact number of times, but I would like to have you tell us the number of times as nearly as you can remember it? Through no fault of either of us, lack of proper conditions on my part probably, or it might be in the wisdom of the Almighty that we should have none.

The Prophet was martyred nine months after our marriage. Even they were baffled as to why they never got pregnant. You were married to Brigham Young by the law of proxy? Then the law of proxy, -marriage by the law of proxy will raise children, while marriage by the law of the church will not?

My question is this, -that when you were married by the law of proxy you had children? And when married under the law of the church you did not raise children? You did by Brigham Young though when you were married to him by proxy? Yes sir, but that did not have any thing to do with it. He links to an article by Brian Hales that is full of his own speculations and apologetic mumbo jumbo. But one thing that is certain and Brian Hales admits this himself in the very article that Phelps links to:. It is impossible to accurately determine how often Joseph Smith spent time with his plural wives, either in conjugal visits or otherwise.

I can go one step further and with absolute confidence say that it is impossible to determine AT ALL, how often Smith spent time with his spiritual wives or had sex with them. I beg to differ and most likely, Phelps got some blowback on this because he then changed his blog entry to read:. So which is it? Or it is a difficult subject for many of us including Phelps. Do you get the feeling that Phelps will just say anything to defend the church? Why then would he flip flop on this?

Is this anyone you want helping you in times of crisis? Does he really have any answers and is he qualified to give you the historical truth? This was in fact what Jeremy Runnells was originally trying to do. The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead. I find that odd. So how is Jeremy Runnells lying here? This is Dustin Phelps tortured logic:. As part of these changes, Joseph prepared an edition of the Book of Mormon that fixed some typos and included a few clarifications.

So all his blathering about punctuation is just a red herring. One of those minor adjustments has really excited anti-Mormons over the years. Because if you remove the relevant context and place it in just the right light, it appears much more controversial than it really is.

Dustin blathers on about verses that do nothing to prove his point and this has been addressed in Jeremy Runnells response to Dustin, found here. As far as the Trinity in Mormonism, there is some simple evidence to prove that this was taught in the early church. Now what things can there be of greater moment and importance for men to know, or God to reveal, than the nature of God and ourselves the state and condition of our souls, the only way to avoid eternal misery and enjoy everlasting bliss! There are many wonderful things in the law of God, things we may admire, but are never able to comprehend.

When one considers the Book of Mormon teaching, and looks at the Lectures on Faith, which were published in the Doctrine and Covenants and voted on as binding doctrine by the Church, one can see the striking similarities and his change from Monotheism to Modalism. Take this verse from 1st Nephi:. The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man , or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: What is the Father?

He is a personage of glory and of power.

Submit documents to WikiLeaks

What is the Son? First, he is a personage of tabernacle.

Because of the flesh. Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind? What is this mind? All things are delivered to me of my Father: All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son , but him to whom the Son will reveal it. Monotheism, identified as the doctrine of the Trinity in light of New Testament revelation is what is taught in the Bible, the most clearly in Isaiah Is there a God beside me? Sabellian Sequentialism or Swedenborgian Expansionism? The author of this infamous anti-Mormon document provides a map of the cities and towns where Joseph grew up and then compares them to a proposed map of Book of Mormon geography.

He argues that the similarities are too powerful to ascribe to mere coincidence. The way he constructs the comparisons makes it seem as though that is the natural conclusion. Plus, almost half of the names or locations are also found in the Bible—including Biblical names that few are aware of such as Lehi, Boaz, Ramah, and Sidon. But you know what? As ridiculous as this claim may seem, it is also one of the most emotionally impactful parts of the whole document.

Because it starts to paint a picture in your mind of how Joseph Smith might have invented the Book of Mormon. This section is no different. Was one north of the other or south of the other, etc. What about the names? Holley points out that the present day city of Angola, New York is a possible match for a Book of Mormon location. This is another example of the many actual locations in the Great Lakes area that can be located on modern maps by following geographical information in the Book of Mormon.

I happen to live in Upstate New York, and I know a little bit more about the history of this area. The Post Office in Angola was there before The first town meeting for the town of Collins was held on June 9, , a few weeks after the formation of the county. This office was subsequently abandoned and the name given to one in the town of Evans.

Unless one knows the local history, they would not be aware that the Angola Post Office was there in The toponym was derived by the Portuguese from the title ngola held by the kings of Ndongo. How in the world did this word get on to the gold plates in A. And according to the examination minutes, Joseph Smith claimed to have gone to that area of New York:. It elicited little but a history of his life from early boyhood, but this is so unique in character, and so much of a key-note to his subsequent career in the world, I am tempted to give it somewhat in extenso.

He said when he was a lad, he heard of a neighboring girl some three miles from him, who could look into a glass and see anything however hidden from others; that he was seized with a strong desire to see her and her glass; that after much effort he induced his parents to let him visit her. He did so, and was permitted to look in the glass, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light. He was greatly surprised to see but one thing, which was a small stone, a great way off. It soon became luminous, and dazzled his eyes, and after a short time it became as intense as the mid-day sun.

He said that the stone was under the roots of a tree or shrub as large as his arm, situated about a mile up a small stream that puts in on the South side of Lake Erie, not far from the Now York and Pennsylvania line. He often had an opportunity to look in the glass, and with the same result.

Increasing understanding of scripture one article at a time

The luminous stone alone attracted his attention. He took a few shillings in money and some provisions with him. He stopped on the road with a farmer, and worked three days, and replenished his means of support. After traveling some one hundred and fifty miles he found himself at the mouth of the creek. He did not have the glass with him, but he knew its exact location. He borrowed an old ax and a hoe, and repaired to the tree.

With some labor and exertion he found the stone, carried it to the creek, washed and wiped it dry, sat down on the bank, placed it in his hat, and discovered that time, place and distance were annihilated; that all intervening obstacles were removed, and that he possessed one of the attributes of Deity, an All-Seeing-Eye.

He arose with a thankful heart, carried his tools to their owner, turned his feet towards the rising sun, and sought with weary limbs his long deserted home. On the request of the Court, he exhibited the stone. It was composed of layers of different colors passing diagonally through it. It was very hard and smooth, perhaps by being carried in the pocket. So, what are we to make of this?

Did Vernal Holley have a point to make about the Book of Mormon names? But since he is dead, we cannot know where he got his research from, so it is up to others to dig into this and find out, as I did with Angola. Knowing this, is it really so impossible that the Book of Mormon is a fraud? Second, because each account is conveyed to a different audience and for a different purpose, Joseph focuses on different details of the experience in each account. Instead, every time he tells of the First Vision experience, it is from a new angle, revealing an experience that is panoramic and authentic.

Paul and Alma the Younger also retell their transformative spiritual experiences on multiple occasions—to different audiences and with different purposes. Each of their accounts differ on what they emphasize and include new details, but ultimately they in no way contradict each other. This is simply apologetic mumbo-jumbo and does not address the real problems that Jeremy brings up in the CES Letter. Dustin ignores a lot of details. Dustin ignores a lot of contradictions. Dustin wants you to look at this tree over there while keeping your eyes and attention away from the forest of problems.

Mormon apologists do not want you to see the forest. I show you the entire forest with just 2-hours of reading what used to take people in the past, weeks and months to accomplish the same thing on their own. One of the projects I worked on was with my friend H. Michael Marquardt, who co-wrote an article with me on the Origin of the Baptism for the Dead Doctrine, which has been published in the latest issue of the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal!

Here is a teaser page, and I would urge you to purchase this issue as it is chock full of many great articles on Mormon History. Stay tuned, I have some really good articles lined up for this year, and will also be posting an extended version of the above article at a future time…. Gentlemen mark your opponents Fire into your own ranks. Pick the weakest as strategic Move.

To Meet your enemy. For each and every gathering A scapegoat falls to climb. A Journal of Mormon Scripture. They have even devoted a whole website to doing so. Peterson and Michael Ash have jumped on this bandwagon. This has troubled other Mormons, like David Bokovoy who wrote:. But what about attacking people directly like Jeremy Runnells and John Dehlin? Does this strengthen faith? More importantly, that type of apologetic seems inappropriate from my perspective for a serious academic venue, especially one sponsored by the LDS Church.

But I will give a personal example. In the not-too-distant past, my name was attached to an apologetic email list that was discussing how the group should respond to an article that appeared in the news. It made me feel very, very uncomfortable. And this is what this entire unfortunate public confrontation comes down to: What is the most effective type of apologetics, and what style of academics should an LDS sponsored institution engage in? I believe in critical thinking, listening to alternative views, and open friendly exchanges. In one of his blog articles written in June of this year, Smoot advised his fellow Mormons about the dangers of the Internet:.

But they are not alone. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Uchtdorf likewise reminded us of the following in For example, he has caused many members of the Church to stumble when they discover information about the Church that seems to contradict what they had learned previously. If you experience such a moment, remember that in this age of information there are many who create doubt about anything and everything, at any time and every place.

You will find even those who still claim that they have evidence that the earth is flat, that the moon is a hologram, and that certain movie stars are really aliens from another planet. Certainly, the world has changed in the last generation or two. The Internet has put all kinds of information at our fingertips—good, bad, truthful, untruthful—including information on Church history. Information that tries to embarrass the Church is generally very subjective and unfair.

We should seek sources that more objectively describe our beliefs and our history. Some websites are very mean-spirited and can be sensational in how they present the information. The tantrums of Jeremy Runnells notwithstanding, what these brethren have taught is absolutely true. It will ultimately be much better for you intellectually and spiritually.

The only one that seems to be throwing tantrums is Stephen Smoot. Of course Jeremy said no such thing and you can search in vain for that quote. Smoot goes on and on about how Hales is not an amateur historian, but Hales himself claimed that he was:. I actually took part in that conversation, and can verify that it is an accurate quote and that Brian was not being sarcastic. So if Hales is calling himself an amateur; then why is Stephen Smoot even bringing this up? To scapegoat Jeremy Runnells, of course. So what is wrong with Wikipedia or reddit?

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia using wiki software. Anyone can edit entries and it is basically self policed. The Wikipedia model allows anyone to edit, and relies on a large number of well-intentioned editors to overcome issues raised by a smaller number of problematic editors. In general, this philosophy tends to be effective as regards many Wikipedia articles. These types of articles become magnets for editors who have an agenda to push.

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary source material by Wikipedia editors. There are several issues with the above statement. It does correctly represent the source, which was an interview between Peter Bauder and Joseph Smith. Nowhere in the wiki article is it noted that Bauder was a strong critic of Joseph Smith and that Joseph may not have desired to share the experience of his vision with such an interviewer.

The earliest known extant attempt by Joseph to put the vision in writing occurred two years later. The simplest and most obvious explanation was completely ignored: Joseph may have simply chosen not to share the experience of his vision with an obvious enemy of the church. The wiki editor eventually recognized that the original research could not remain and removed the paragraph. There are several things wrong with this analysis from the Interpreter.

First, the Peter Bauder interview with Joseph Smith was published in , not , so we do not know the exact circumstances that led Bauder to Joseph Smith, other than what Bauder wrote later. However … we find him [anti-Christ] in various other places. For instance, view him in the Mahometan system, and a variety of other imposters, who have drawn disciples after them, who had no Theological Seminaries among them; but if you will observe their manner of increasing their numbers, you will find it is done without a reformation wrought in the hearts of their members, by a godly sorrow for sin, and a compunction of soul, and pungent conviction, which precedes a joy which is unspeakable and full of glory, 1 Peter, 1, 8—because the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto them according to Romans, 5, 5.

Among these imposters there has one arisen by the name of Joseph Smith, Jr. His followers are commonly called Mormonites, sometimes New Jerusalemites, or Golden Bible society; they call themselves the true followers of Christ. I conceive it my duty to expose this diabolical system for two special reasons—first, because I have had an opportunity with Smith, in his first setting out, to discover his plan; secondly, because I learn since they were broke up in New York State, they have gone to the western States, and are deceiving themselves and the people, and are increasing very fast.

I will name some of the particular discoveries which through Divine Providence I was favored with in an interview with Joseph Smith, Jr. I called at P[eter]. I improved near four and twenty hours in close application with Smith and his followers: He went, and after the third or fourth time, which was repeated once a year, he obtained a parcel of plate resembling gold, on which were engraved what he did not understand, only by the aid of a glass which he also obtained with the plate, by which means he was enabled to translate the characters on the plate into English.

He says he was not allowed to let the plate be seen only by a few individuals named by the angel, and after he had a part translated, the angel conmanded him to carry the plate into a certain piece of woods, which he did: The part translated he had published, and it is before the public, entitled the Book of Mormon: He told me no man had ever seen it except a few of his apostles: The manner in which it was written is as follows: On my interrogating him on the subject, he professed to be inspired by the Holy Ghost to write it.

I will now give the public my fears on this subject, unless God prevents when he gets his work ready for the press. He will pretend that the angel has brought the plate, and his new Bible will be a translation of the remaining plate, which were not put into the Book of Mormon, and the public will have this diabolical invention imposed on them. It is obvious that this is written from an perspective. We do not know how Bauder felt in when he visited Smith. He may not have been antagonistic at all. That is not about joining a church. The fact that Bauder claims that Joseph did not speak of any Christian experience before his supposed encounter with the angel Moroni in , is borne out by what Mormon Missionaries were teaching in ; and what Smith and Cowdery wrote themselves in Smith made an attempt to rewrite his history in , but left it unfinished and abandoned it in the back of a letterbook and did not include his supposed vision of Christ in the history.

The wiki article today reads:. In June , Smith provided the first clear record of a significant personal religious experience prior to the visit of the angel Moroni. Although the reference was later linked to the First Vision,[75] its original hearers could have understood the manifestation as simply another of many revival experiences in which the subject testified that his sins had been forgiven.

So why the current objections to wiki? And what do they have on their own wiki page? Bauder absolutely did not mean that, as he himself explains above. Reddit is simply a discussion forum. Does Smoot think Mormons will go to reddit specifically to find out about Mormon History? Smoot also talks about memes. Here is a screenshot of one of the pages on their new website devoted to demonizing Jeremy and his work:. Jeremy is simply boiled down to a thrower of tantrums by Smoot. Now here we are four months later and Smoot is at it again here.

So why is Smoot bringing this up again and again ad nauseam? Well, we all know that Hales has published a lot on polygamy. We know that he considers himself an amateur historian. Simply to use any excuse to scapegoat Jeremy:.

lds | Mormonite Musings

Readers of my blog will recall that some time ago Jeremy Runnells amusingly accused Brian C. Finally, is Brian an apologist as well? Sure he is, in that he is defending a specific interpretation of the historical data. Now we are getting to it. He jumps to conclusions, makes outlandish assumptions, and presents the evidence in a one sided way. This is not good apologia, nor good scholarship. Michael Quinn, expanded-finalized, 31 December ; circulated in mid , pages cited in text.

Hales responded to those who would quote Mike Quinn in the comments of his hit piece on Jeremy by stating ,. Most historians at some time have benefited from his research and footnotes. However, I would feel much better about your criticism if you instead were not quoting Quinn, but quoting some Nauvoo polygamist or other historical figure who was there. Quoting secondary sources may create the illusion that some scholarly opinion is documented history. This applies to me as well as Mike. Comment made on July 15, Why be embarrassed about that? A better question might be why do those who call others these names do so, and can they back up their claims with evidence?

Is this just a diversion from the real issues? We all learn and make mistakes. Funny thing is, it was Hales that started all this , not Jeremy. Even Hales admitted it was and that:. Does it take a degree to make one a professional Historian? Mike and Dan same as Hales have been writing books about Mormon History for decades.

But that is about all they do. Therefore, the moniker hobbyist could apply to him as well. In the case of Dan and Mike, would the validation of a degree make a bit of difference? They have done the research, put in the time, and have a body of work to rival any thesis that would give them a doctorate. So why all the fuss and bother about Hales? The difference between Mike M. I can show that he is not when it comes to the way he uses polygamy sources.

What really matters, is what you produce and can it stand up to scrutiny. See for example the problem that Hales had with the evidence that Hales claims is about Ruth Vose Sayers that Don Bradley gave him, that Hales never presented to the public in his books, his articles, or on his website He only presented small out of context snippets from the document, never displayed the document, and never fully explained it even when Don he told me so gave him a copy of the document and Mike Quinn in gave him the info about it: Hales also manipulates evidence in the case of Eliza Snow and her letter to Daniel Munns which I discuss here.

Hales manipulation of the evidence here is astounding. Hales claimed that ,. Did it call any of the nonfiction element of their book into question? I think history has answered that. Is that an amateurish claim? Would a professional make that claim? The recent website they created to attack Jeremy and try to rebut the CES Letter is just another example of the shoddy scholarship they employ. See my thread here for examples. Show each other respect and courtesy? Who attacked who first, Jeremy or Smoot? Justification of his trolling people.

This stuff is just hilarious. Time will tell in relation to Brian Hales, and the clock is ticking. Verifying The Historical Narrative I. Just recently I was highly pleased to find a letter written by Eliza Partridge from , just so I could see what her handwriting and signature looked like so I could compare it with her affidavits from It was nurtured in secrecy and kept alive with lies.

It destroyed lives; it shattered the faith of many; and turned many honest and upright people into liars and fanatics that clung to the belief that someday this principle would be adopted by the citizens of the United States even as they defiantly watched their own prophets abandon it and command them to follow suit. I have also found that many of the authors of works dealing with the subject of polygamy have crafted a narrative about certain events that is taken for granted as fact, when the evidence to support those narratives is at best weak, sometimes apologetic, and often contradictory.

The collection of these affidavits began in the Spring of and continued until shortly after the turn of the twentieth century. Now, the collection of these affidavits in and of itself is not a bad thing, and the information they contain can be a valuable resource in reconstructing the events that took place in Nauvoo during the life of Joseph Smith—if they have credible corroboration.

But what I have found is that many modern historians have been using these affidavits almost exclusively to craft parts of the historical narrative, and as they portray those events, they do so without any caveat to the public reading them. Smith and therefore could have easily been used as a basis for those claims.

I will not go into details here at this time; I have another forthcoming article that will deal with this matter in depth. What is important is that the existing narrative is not set in stone and should be presented with far more caution and questions. We need more researchers to study the original documents and we need them to be presented in their entirety whenever possible, even if it takes large appendixes with full pictures to show context. What I wish to focus on at this time, is a few claims made by Brian Hales, who is considered by many to be an expert on Mormon polygamy.

He has written numerous books and has a massive website about this practice during the Nauvoo era. Smith and Angus Cannon] …. But we have to deal with it today. So, were all fourteen of these women sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity only? In other words, after the sealing to Joseph, the legal husband was not going to be able to experience conjugality with her. The first one is Sylvia Sessions Lyon. But new evidence [Notes by Andrew Jenson from an unknown source that give selective and misleading details about Sylvia and Windsor Lyon] suggests that he is in error.

I talked to him, I emailed him this past week about it and he still defended it at Sunstone when we presented this just a week ago. They are not signed. But there is one other evidence that Todd will cite, to say that Sylvia Sessions was sealed to Joseph early, and that is that she witnessed the sealing of her mother in March of Windsor was excommunicated in November of We have three evidences [if you want to call them that] that the sealing occurred after this, and that the excommunication of Windsor cause [sic] him and Sylvia to part.

There is no statement that his excommunication caused marital problems and the one statement that Hales uses to prove this is an error filled recollection from over a hundred years later] They were already separated. When he left the church she was sealed to the prophet Joseph Smith. Maybe some new evidence will come up and we will find out. Looking at the timeline, we find that Windsor and Sylvia married in Joseph Smith is killed.

Windsor is rebaptized and then they come back together and the legal marriage is still intact. Where and when was the remarriage ceremony? Now, is this weird? Yeah, this is weird. Is it sexual polyandry? According to Joseph himself it was adultery as we shall see] [4]. Some might think this is immoral. Or because the man was disfellowshipped it also gave Joseph that right, even when Joseph himself forbid anyone in the Church from doing this.

Hales himself admits this. So how could Joseph simply wave away their marriage? He could not do so and have sex with her without committing adultery. This is a scenario that Hales takes pages to develop but simply makes up out of whole cloth. It is clear that Joseph Smith believed that the priesthood authority he possessed in could solemnize a marriage that would stand for the duration of mortal life , so long as that union was approved of God. To prove this, on June 12, Joseph Smith dictated to Hyrum Smith a binding Address from the First Presidency which contained specific commands to the Church concerning marriage:.

To our well beloved brother, Parley P. Pratt, and to the elders of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in England, and scattered abroad throughout all Europe, and to the Saints ,Greeting:. Whereas, in times past persons have been permitted to gather with the Saints at Nauvoo, in North America—such as husbands leaving their wives and children behind; also, such as wives leaving their husbands and children behind; and such as women leaving their husbands, and such as husbands leaving their wives who have no children, and some because their companions are unbelievers.

All this kind of proceeding we consider to be erroneous and for want of proper information. And the same should be taught to all the Saints, and not suffer families to be broken up on any account whatever if it be possible to avoid it. Suffer no man to leave his wife because she is an unbeliever, nor any woman to leave her husband because he is an unbeliever.

Behold this is a wicked generation, full of lyings, and deceit, and craftiness ; and the children of the wicked are wiser than the children of light; that is, they are more crafty ; and it seems that it has been the case in all ages of the world. And the man who leaves his wife and travels to a foreign nation, has his mind overpowered with darkness, and Satan deceives him and flatters him with the graces of the harlot, and before he is aware he is disgraced forever: The evils resulting from such proceedings are of such a nature as to oblige us to cut them off from the church.

There is another evil which exists. There are poor men who come here and leave their families behind in a destitute situation, and beg for assistance to send back after their families. Every man should tarry with his family until providence provides for the whole, for there is no means here to be obtained to send back. Money is scarce and hard to be obtained. The people that gather to this place are generally poor, the gathering being attended with a great sacrifice; and money cannot be obtained by labour, but all kinds of produce is plentiful and can be obtained by labour; therefore the poor man that leaves his family in England, cannot get means, which must be silver and gold, to send for his family; but must remain under the painful sensation, that his family must be cast upon the mercy of the people, and separated and put into the poorhouse.

Therefore, to remedy the evil, we forbid a man to leave his family behind because he has no means to bring them. If the church is not able to bring them, and the parish will not send them, let the man tarry with his family—live with them—and die with them, and not leave them until providence shall open a way for them to come all together.

And we also forbid that a woman leave her husband because he is an unbeliever. We also forbid that a man shall leave his wife because she is an unbeliever. If he be a bad man i. And if she be a bad woman, there is law to remedy that evil. And if the law will divorce them, then they are at liberty; [p. These things we have written in plainness, and we desire that they should be publicly known, and request this to be published in the Millennial Star. May the Lord bestow his blessing upon all the Saints richly, and hasten the gathering, and bring about the fulness of the everlasting covenant are the prayers of your brethren.

Did Sylvia go before the High Council in Nauvoo and ask for a divorce? Where is the evidence for this? Smith specifically states that they could not usurp legal marriages, and that if they did, they would fall under condemnation. Yet Hales claims that,. Hence, three documents support a physical separation or effectual divorce between Windsor and Sylvia, with two of them placing it after his excommunication. The First Presidency Message expressly states,.

On his website, Hales writes,. Currently, no documentation of a legal divorce between Windsor and Sylvia after his excommunication has been found. However, in the mid-nineteenth century, religious laws often trumped legal proceedings. They were married by Joseph Smith himself! The quotes Hales employs are about marriages performed by non-Mormons, so why they are being applied here is baffling. Everything official says the opposite. Joseph was living in adultery by his own words. Joseph here, is flat out caught in an adulterous relationship by his own words. There is no other interpretation of this.

There is no loophole. It is what it is and all the apologetics in the world cannot change it. Sayers], not attaching much importance to the theory of a future life, insisted that his wife, Ruth, should be sealed to the prophet for eternity, that he himself should only claim her in this life. It could be hearsay. It could be made up for all we know. But there is something that throws doubt on this account. This is even more confusing when one reads the affidavit that Ruth Vose signed in Be it remembered that on this first day of May, A.

Why is there no mention of Emma Smith? Hyrum Smith and Emma Smith both participating in a plural marriage together? Where do we find any contemporary evidence for that in February, So how can we trust Hales interpretation of the evidence as credible? Even though Eliza R. Snow knew many of those women very well and more than likely traded information with them about their marriages; even Hales cannot claim that Jenson got the information from her.

And notice the language of the affidavit. Lorenzo Snow answered that in his Temple Lot testimony:. Now you have stated that Joseph Smith took your sister for a wife when he had a wife already? Prior to the giving of this revelation? Well what kind of a position did it put your sister and Joseph Smith in? It put them in a first rate, splendid position for time and eternity. Was not that act simply sealing instead of marriage? Sealing for eternity, and marriage, are they all one and the same thing? It was the same thing. A marriage for time and eternity.

The date for Sylvia Sessions sealing comes from [Affidavit] Book 1 and the date from Book 4. Book 4 is also unique because it contains two additional unfinished affidavits, one for Vienna Jacques, and a second started on Jun 26, , but never completed. Book 1 does not contain those who [two] aborted affidavit attempts.

Accordingly, it appears that since Book 4 contains more documents than Book 1, it was in fact the primary of the two and was the first to receive entries, at least in those two instances. This observation suggests that the date could well be the more accurate, or at least the first recorded, even though it is found in a book currently referred to a [sic] Book 4.

History, Doctrine & Art by grindæl

Either way, it is a date with at least as much validity as the date written in Book 1 and should not be dismissed on the inaccurate assumption that it was simply a coypist error that occurred as the contents of Book 1 were being duplicated in Book 4. In light of these observations, the best conclusion seems to be that the year of the sealing is entirely unsubstantiated in these documents.

The Affidavit Books Speculation. When I first heard of these Affidavit Books, my first thought was where can I see them? Fortunately, someone put them all on archive. One thing that immediately becomes evident when one reads what Hales wrote is his forceful language. And that is where having copies of the Affidavit Books comes in handy.

I feel that Mr. Hales has made some critical mistakes from not studying the Affidavit Books more closely. His conclusions therefore, are made from a faulty analysis of the evidence, which I present below. These are in order of their current designation from left to right:. To get an idea of what is in these Affidavit Books, I present the following graphic from the folks at Mormon Bookshelf:.

Mormon Bookshelf Graphic, which may be found here. Hales is almost correct that there are two additional unfinished affidavits in Book 4. In looking at these books, it is obvious that they are out of order. Books 3 and 4 should be reversed:. You have Book 1 with the label and Book 2 without one. This was how they made the copies, The first copy Book 4, actually 3 with a label, and the second Book 3, actually 4 without one.

Now, how do we know which are the copies? There is evidence in the Books! Smith kept Books 1 and 2 in his personal possession. The chronological order of the affidavits also bears this out. At some point since , an unidentified person penciled in identifying marks in two of the books, namely Book 1 and Book 2. It is unclear why those numbers were assigned specifically to those two books. Actually, it is very clear why those numbers were assigned to those Books, because they were designated this way when they were donated to the Church Historians Office.

The originals though, were initially kept by Smith, and there is other evidence that determines that this is what happened. See Note 21 for more on this, and of course below for the additional evidence. First, it is important to note that all of these Books have the first affidavit appearing on page 3 except for Book 4 actually 3.

Because of a copy error. Here is what they look like:. You will notice that the copy on the right was scrapped because whoever I believe this was Robert L. Campbell was copying the affidavit from Book 1 wrote the wrong name in the affidavit. So what did Joseph Fielding Smith do? This is the only Book where an affidavit appears on page 1. In all the other Books, the affidavits start on page 3. If this were the first book, then all of the others should follow the same pattern and start on page 1. Brodie was my first encounter with a truly substantial work that was critical of the truth claims of the Church.

As I browsed through the book, I found myself integrating some of this new information and mentally tagging it with some degree of skepticism. But that was the late s, and discovering even those few bits of information required some effort. Now our youth have access to a quantity of information that is simply astounding.

Information on any LDS Church—related topic is available not only on our nearest networked computer but also on our cell phones. One evening when my family had the missionaries over to dinner, I asked them what new investigators did after they were taught the Joseph Smith story. Some of this information came from Church-sponsored websites. Some of it, however, came from countercult ministries determined to pull the Church from its foundations. The previously shadowy and mysterious body of anti-Mormon work is now available at the touch of a button, and it is as easy to access as the latest YouTube video.

Internet search engines, such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing, place thousands of references at our fingertips. Regardless of how many search results appear, the investigator will usually examine only the ten results that appear on the first page. Therefore, it is the goal of those who wish to spread their message to cause links to their website to appear on the first page of Google results.

The closer to the top the information appears, the better the chance that someone will look at their website. For this reason, the Church now expends considerable effort to make sure that positive information appears high in search engine results. A Catholic reporter recently noted: Among all of the search results that may appear, there is one website in particular that dominates.

This site will typically appear in the number-one position on a Google search of practically any subject. Popular thinking dictates that if enough different people collaborate together on an article, it will eventually approach a balanced and neutral state. The Wikipedia model allows anyone to edit, and relies on a large number of well-intentioned editors to overcome issues raised by a smaller number of problematic editors.

In general, this philosophy tends to be effective as regards many Wikipedia articles. These types of articles become magnets for editors who have an agenda to push. Wikipedia has developed its own online culture and language. It maintains its own complex set of rules and even has its own loose, informal judiciary system. When one chooses [Page ] to edit Wikipedia, one immediately becomes immersed in its unique culture. Acronyms and rule citations are thrown about in general discussions. In the eyes of the Wikipedia community, editors who add their own POV to an article are often viewed in the same manner as people who paint their houses bright orange in a community of tans and browns.

This presents a challenge when dealing with editors with whom one disagrees. The wiki editor is required to come to the negotiation without allowing the conversation to devolve into insults and personal attacks. Neutrality, however, tends to reside in the eyes of the beholder.

Editing from a neutral point of view NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. When believers and critics come together to craft an article about Joseph Smith, Jr. Is neutrality even possible about such a topic unless one is utterly apathetic about it and thus unlikely to spend much time or energy in writing about it?

Editors with polarized points of view sometimes attempt to impose their way of seeing things on an article by making controversial changes without consulting other editors first. Thus whatever Wikipedia has to say about these subjects becomes the first thing that anyone is likely to read. This quality makes Wikipedia extremely attractive to both believers and critics who wish to promote their particular point of view in a forum that is highly likely to be taken seriously. How can an unpublished amateur guarantee that whatever he or she writes will immediately be visible to thousands of people all over the world?

Unfortunately, such open access also encourages vandals to modify controversial articles. One never knows if an article is being edited by a scholarly expert on the subject or by a young teenager in high school. The very editors who come together to create the article in the first place. However, for noncontroversial subjects, Wikipedia can be surprisingly accurate and complete. Wikipedia is an extremely valuable resource for looking up references on a wide variety of subjects.

Its uncontrolled nature, however, has caused it to be banned as a reference work by many academic institutions. For all I know, Wikipedia may contain articles of great scholarly value. The question is, how do you choose between those and the other kind? The discussions involved in these negotiations are as spirited and engaging as any found on an online message board in which critics and believers interact. Negotiation over the construction of a single sentence, or even the use of a single word, can take days to resolve.

Edit wars can last for months, depending upon the tenacity of the individual editors involved. Often a consensus can be reached if all of the editors involved are willing to compromise. Staking out the middle ground on subjects related to Mormonism is a particularly daunting challenge. This leads to a dance of sorts between believers and critics in an effort to insert as many citations and facts as possible to support their opinion.

The overall tone of the article ultimately takes on the attitude of the sum of its references and the manner in which citations are arranged. One might assume that believers could simply add supporting references from LDS scholars to balance out critical ones. The article is structured and referenced in such a way as to discredit the witnesses. In the case of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, however, the majority is not even aware of the pertinent events. Thus the article simply reflects the opinion of an evangelical Christian regarding the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, resulting in an article that is predictably negative in tone and content.

What is unique about the Wikipedia environment, however, is that the critic and believer must ultimately reach some sort of compromise and then place the resulting language in an article. The talk page environment, coupled with anonymity, sometimes emboldens some editors to verbally abuse LDS believers. Such bias even occasionally extends to Wikipedia administrators. Would you ban all scientists from editing articles about science?

Would you ban all doctors from editing articles about health? Would you ban all Native Americans from editing articles about their tribes? I hope you see where this logic leads. Nevertheless, your position is an attempt to deceive the reader. Any attempt on your part to belittle the beliefs of others is rejected in toto.

Furthermore, my personal beliefs are irrelevant here on Wikipedia just as yours. He sometimes got the story wrong, but as his duty to God, he tried to get it right. Any Wikipedia article mentioning Martin Harris must emphasize his visions and his joining of different churches throughout his life. It has to mention treasure-seeking. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary source material by Wikipedia editors. It does correctly represent the source, which was an interview between Peter Bauder and Joseph Smith.

Nowhere in the wiki article is it noted that Bauder was a strong critic of Joseph Smith and that Joseph may not have desired to share the experience of his vision with such an interviewer. The earliest known extant attempt by Joseph to put the vision in writing occurred two years later. The simplest and most obvious explanation was completely ignored: Joseph may have simply chosen not to share the experience of his vision with an obvious enemy of the church.

The wiki editor eventually recognized that the original research could not remain and removed the paragraph. Talk page collaboration between critics and believers can lead to some rather oddly constructed prose in Wikipedia articles on topics relating to Mormonism. Yet, there is selectivity in the application of these qualifiers.

The fact that an assertion is sourced to a Latter-day Saint reference is still no guarantee that it is accurate. Foxe agreed to change what he had written, but not without claiming that the change was insignificant: The overall emphasis of the article tends toward discounting and discrediting the vision, and this becomes apparent when one examines how the sources are used.

How does Wikipedia support such a clear and definitive claim? The editors refer to the source used to support the assertion, D. The great revival of and , which nearly doubled the number of Palmyra Presbyterians, was in progress when the Smiths arrived. There is, in fact, evidence that Methodist camp meetings did occur in the area that did not normally receive newspaper coverage, with one camp meeting only making it into the news as the result of a death that appeared to be associated with it. Wikipedia does not specifically discuss the camp meeting, even though it is the topic of a referenced secondary source from D.

For example, in contrast to the obscure treatment of the Quinn essay in the Wikipedia article, Dr. Matzko correctly and directly acknowledges it in his Dialogue essay: Michael Quinn argues that, on the contrary, a Methodist camp meeting of can be fairly interpreted as the religious revival to which Joseph Smith refers and that Methodists typically only asked permission to use property for camp meetings rather than purchase the land.

An inclusion of the Matzko citation in the Wikipedia article would easily clear up the confusing treatment that the camp meeting currently receives. A Theological Evolution , presents itself in the Wikipedia article as the LDS historical position on the Adam—God theory, without any qualification whatsoever. Bruening and David L.

The following assertion appeared in the 14 July revision of the article: The footnote was changed to read as follows:. Bushman, 69—70; John A. A Journal of Mormon Thought.

Navigation menu

Non-Mormon historian Matzko notes: John Taylor gave a complete account of the First Vision story in an letter written as he began missionary work in France, and he may have alluded to it in a discourse given in In each of these, Taylor refers to the first vision:. None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it.

Journal of Discourses , Both references are taken from the Journal of Discourses , and both record sermons by Taylor made the very same day. Both reference the first vision. The choice of John Taylor as the subject of this demonstration is ironic. Numerous references to the visit of the Father and the Son in his letters, sermons, and other writings are [Page ] recorded in the Journal of Discourses and elsewhere.

If such a blatant inaccuracy exists in Wikipedia, why not correct it? Consider this interaction with partisan sectarian wiki editor John Foxe regarding the treatment of John Taylor. That he did not emphasize it during his tenure as President is just as true as ever. Taylor obviously made more references to the First Vision than I had suspected.

When Taylor discussed the origins of Mormonism in , he did so without alluding to the canonical First Vision story:

• Die Medizin des DAO - Die 12 Organsysteme der Chinesischen Medizin (German Edition)
• My Name...Shall Be Compassion
• African-Atlantic Cultures and the South Carolina Lowcountry (Cambridge Studies on the American South)
• A White Wind Blew: A Novel
• Kept: Volume 1