Page 1 of 2
The Mclellin Papers, book released this week
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:04 am
by _moksha
From the co-author Sam Passey, as mentioned today on the Salt Lake Tribune:
...reveal a Mormon story far different than the one believed today by most church members.
He writes of never hearing the story of Smith's "first vision," the visit by God and Jesus Christ to a young, prayerful Smith in a grove of trees that led to the church's founding in New York state.
Nor was McLellin familiar with the angel Moroni, who led Smith to buried gold plates that became the foundational text, the Book of Mormon, or the story that John the Baptist had appeared to Smith on the banks of Pennsylvania's Susquehanna River.
Some will wonder whether Smith was adding to the church story as he saw fit, or McLellin was so embittered that his recollections were intended to undermine the church.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7771683
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:39 am
by _Sethbag
This quote I find to be very interesting:
There was nothing there that hadn't been said already by other apostates," Passey said. "No big bombshells.
TBMs have a habit of disbelieving things said by apostates because, as apostates, it's assumed that whatever they might say is just a lie to hurt the church. The question is, what happens when certain things are said by more than one apostate? At what point must an assumption be made about a particular thing based on the fact that multiple people independently confirm that thing?
Anyhow, I'd be interested in seeing what this book contains.
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:41 am
by _harmony
Sethbag wrote:This quote I find to be very interesting:
There was nothing there that hadn't been said already by other apostates," Passey said. "No big bombshells.
TBMs have a habit of disbelieving things said by apostates because, as apostates, it's assumed that whatever they might say is just a lie to hurt the church. The question is, what happens when certain things are said by more than one apostate? At what point must an assumption be made about a particular thing based on the fact that multiple people independently confirm that thing?
Anyhow, I'd be interested in seeing what this book contains.
And what about if the apostates were personal friends with Joseph? is that a pro or a con?
I wish this book had come out earlier. I bought
Rough Stone Rolling last year for my boys for Christmas. Some of them actually read it, and had a few "huh?" moments. Perhaps this one would have been a good addition to their libraries.
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:17 am
by _Alter Idem
This is odd. I have a book called "The Journals of William E. McLellin 1831-1836" and published in 1994. It is the famed journals that Hofmann claimed he was going to sell but then after the bombings the church found they'd owned the journals since 1908. So, what's different about this new book?
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:17 am
by _dartagnan
Didn't Jan Shipps publish something on his journals back in the 90's?
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:18 am
by _beastie
I thought apologists pretty much had to accept that Joseph Smith didn't talk about the First Vision, and there were confusions about Moroni, in the early years of the church.
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:20 am
by _dartagnan
alter idem, you and I posted exactly the same time and I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:34 am
by _Alter Idem
dartagnan wrote:alter idem, you and I posted exactly the same time and I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Yes, that's the book. It is edited by Jan Shipps and John Welch. The Trib. article gives the impression that this is the first time the journals have been published. Funny, because they've been available to the public for 17 years.
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:45 am
by _cksalmon
Alter Idem wrote:dartagnan wrote:alter idem, you and I posted exactly the same time and I was thinking exactly the same thing.
Yes, that's the book. It is edited by Jan Shipps and John Welch. The Trib. article gives the impression that this is the first time the journals have been published. Funny, because they've been available to the public for 17 years.
They cover different time periods.
The Journals of William E. McLellin,
1831-1836 by William McLellin, Jan Shipps, and John Welch
vs.
The William E. Mclellin Papers 1854-1880 by Stan Larson and Samuel J. Passey
I pre-ordered the Larson/Passey book. Thanks for the tip.
CKS
Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:48 am
by _dartagnan
I'm guessing it is because the former was strictly journals while the latter is journals along with "his letters [and] sermon-like essays."