Radio Free Mormon: Daniel C. Peterson: The Artful Dodger

[_consiglieri]

Of particular interest is this quote from Professor Peterson's blog article:

I’m also being branded a liar because of my declaration, in that 31 May 2018 Deseret News column, that there’s been no scandal and no suppression of the variant accounts of the First Vision.

I stand by that statement, as well — and particularly when referring to the past fifty years.

By the same token, Mark Hofmann would be justified in saying:

I'm also being branded a liar because of my declaration that I've never forged documents.

I stand by that statement--and particularly when referring to the past thirty years.

[_I have a question]

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

(Church doctrine on honesty)
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... l?lang=eng

"When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we cannot even remember it's there. But it is still there." (Valery Legasov)
"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later the debt is paid." (Valery Legasov)

[_Shulem]

Is it possible that Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, who headed up the then very small and non-professional office of the Church Historian and Recorder from 1921-1970 — a position that never in those days entailed the production of academic historiography — “sat on” one or more unpublished First Vision accounts? Yes, it is. I’ve heard some assertions to that effect, but I no longer recall the details, such as they were, and I would need to research a bit to be sure of the facts (if, indeed, it is possible to be so). Since the mid- to late 1960s, however — which is to say, just as I said, for the past fifty years — there can be no serious, plausible claim that the Church has suppressed the non-canonical accounts of the First Vision.

How about Dan Peterson follow up and explain why he thinks an apostle of the church (Joseph Fielding Smith) would hide up the 1832 account of Joseph Smith's First Vision experience? This would be an opportunity for Dan to redeem himself, set the record straight by explaining exactly what Joseph Fielding Smith did and why he may have done it. I realize that nobody can speak for Joseph Fielding Smith but we can identify what he did and theorize about why he acted to suppress the testimony of Joseph Smith's earlier account.

What do you say, Dan, can you do that? Will you do that? Pretty please, with sugar on top?

[_Shulem]

This guy is more than a liar, he is a deceiver, and must feel the folks are not capable of handling the truth, apparently he is not concerned enough to know the all the facts he is supposadly defending.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because there is a chance his memory is slipping somewhat -- a natural result of age whereby everybody to some degree or another is effected. Let's allow him to follow up and clear things up. I'd love to hear what he has to say about Joseph Fielding Smith suppressing the 1832 First Vision account. Locking it up in a safe *IS* suppression.

[_consiglieri]

Joseph Fielding Smith did not suppress the first vision account. He sat on it. There's a big difference.

[_Shulem]

Joseph Fielding Smith did not suppress the first vision account. He sat on it. There's a big difference.

I think he sat on (figuratively speaking) but he most certainly did suppress it because that meets with the very definition of suppress:

1 : to put down by authority or force

2 : to keep from public knowledge: such as

a : to keep secret

b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of

Joseph Fielding Smith used his authoritative position to lock up and suppress the 1832 First Vision account.

[_consiglieri]

Now you're just quibbling about definitions.

[_Shulem]

Now you're just quibbling about definitions.

Yes, I am. And I'm hoping that Dan Peterson will too. The more he opens his mouth the more he gets himself into trouble.

[_Stocks]

Daniel Peterson really is the Donald Trump of Mormonism.

[Guest]

A few observations from DCP's response post.

• Use of the word "really" twice in the same sentence suggests his mind has gone into over drive to maintain the layers of deception.
  

  Really solid academic historical writing in the Church can only really be said to have begun to flourish...

  
  
• How convenient to say "I no longer recall the details, such as they were", when Daniel C. Peterson's entire brand is literally built on prideful displays of stringing together historical minutia into long monologues about anything and nothing. No Daniel, you do not get to say "I don't know" as a defense for lying.
  
• Sure enough, after pleading the 5th on the details of that all important sitting on of the 1832 version, he suddenly comes back to himself with some pretty damn specific memory about the details, such as they were, about LDS historiography.
  
  

  The background is important: Really solid academic historical writing in the Church can only really be said to have begun to flourish with the rapid expansion of Brigham Young University following World War Two and with the founding of BYU Studies in 1959, of the Mormon History Association in 1965, and of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought in 1966.

  
  
• The preceding statement above adds a new layer of misdirection (a.k.a., deception) but makes a horrible mistake. Daniel leads us to conclude that the very best argument for suppression of the 1832 version of the first vision is not because Joseph Fielding was suppressing it, but that he couldn't have known what he had because the scholars had not yet arrived on the scene. Ohhhhhh!!!!! Now it gets fun.
  
  

  Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Unless there are no scholars around to guide you, in which case your dishonesty is honest.