Do apologist or the critic better serve and promote truth?

[_karl61]

I was reading an article about the Book of Mormon. About half way down the page he writes:

"In the 1832 account, Joseph leapt in a single phrase from age seventeen to age twenty-one, when he recovered the plates. The only interim event that figured in the story was his marriage to Emma Hale, daughter of Isaac Hale, on 18 January 1827. Actually, the Smith family suffered considerable adversity during the four years from 1823 to 1827. They lost their eldest son and major breadwinner, Alvin, in 1824. In a futile attempt to raise money, Joseph Smith Sr. involved Joseph Jr. in an abortive search for Spanish treasure that was to employ Joseph's powers as a seer. (Joseph had found a seer stone while digging a well for Willard Chase in 1822 and became adept at finding lost objects.) The Smiths failed to make the last payment on their farm and lost it, with all improvements, in 1825. Joseph was brought to trial in 1826 in South Bainbridge on charges of disorderly conduct, presumably because he used his seer stone in a treasure search. All of this, however, was tangential to the narrative of the Book of Mormon recovery, and Joseph left it out.10"

This is about half way down the page on this link:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/books/?b ... chapid=180


Some of this information is not faith promoting. It might have got him in trouble twenty years ago. But if it wasn't for the scholars writing about this years before this article was written do you think something like this would have come out of BYU?


Remember after the Reformation the Catholics came out with a Counter Reformation - I haven't read too much on it yet but I think they read some of the critics work and tried to respond to it - they likely would have kept the everything in Latin had not critics voiced their concerns.

[_Nevo]

Some of this information is not faith promoting. It might have got him in trouble twenty years ago.

All of this information was in Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, published 25 years ago (it was actually completed in 1979).

[_Doctor Steuss]

[...] Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism[...]

Off topic (sorry), but while it's on my mind...

Wasn't this initially part of a Church sponsored multi-volume project? Or am I mixing crap up again?

[_Nevo]

[...] Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism[...]

Off topic (sorry), but while it's on my mind...

Wasn't this initially part of a Church sponsored multi-volume project? Or am I mixing crap up again?

That's correct. There were originally going to be 16 volumes. The sesquicentennial project was eventually scrapped but half of the volumes were subsequently published:

• Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984);
  
  
• Milton V. Backman, Jr., The Heavens Resound: A History of the Latter-day Saints in Ohio, 1830-1838 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983);
  
  
• Glen M. Leonard, Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, a People of Promise (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2002);
  
  
• Eugene E. Campbell, Establishing Zion: The Mormon Church in the American West, 1847-1869 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1988);
  
  
• Thomas G. Alexander, Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1986);
  
  
• Richard O. Cowan, The Church in the Twentieth Century (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1985);
  
  
• R. Lanier Britsch, Unto the Islands of the Sea: A History of the Latter-day Saints in the Pacific (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1986);
  
  
• F. LaMond Tullis, Mormons in Mexico: The Dynamics of Faith and Culture (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1987).

(See Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian [Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998], 173n4.)

[_karl61]

what gives - why know punishment for him but for others?

[_Ray A]

Some of this information is not faith promoting. It might have got him in trouble twenty years ago. But if it wasn't for the scholars writing about this years before this article was written do you think something like this would have come out of BYU?

I can put in a word for BYU Studies as I learned a lot from subscribing to them, but you can judge for yourself by going back over the digital archive using the search feature.

If you type in "First Vision", for example, you get seven pages of files dating from 1959.

Articles of interest include Edward Kimball's The Artist and the Forger: Han van Meegeren and Mark Hofmann (pdf)

However, its mission:

BYU Studies is dedicated to publishing scholarly religious literature in the form of books, journals, and dissertations that is qualified, significant, and inspiring. We want to share these publications to help promote faith, continued learning, and further interest in our LDS history with those in the world who have a positive interest in this work.

They naturally always look for positive angles on problems that might be considered "fatal" to a skeptic. I found even the Tanners to be much more informative and interesting, and controversial. For example:

SLCM

Suppressed First Vision Account

The second article in our first issue was entitled "First Vision." We briefly discussed a few problems with various accounts of Smith's original vision, such as the history in the Messenger and Advocate, 1834-35, and the account written by Smith's brother, William Smith. Neither account mentioned an 1820 vision. Instead, these accounts had Smith's visions starting several years later.

During this period our friend LaMar Petersen told us of a conversation he had in 1953 with Levi Edgar Young of the Seven Presidents of Seventies in the LDS Church. Mr. Young told LaMar that he had read a "strange" unpublished account of the First Vision at church headquarters but was instructed not to divulge the contents to anyone. This led us to research the various accounts of the First Vision and the information was included in our book, Joseph Smith's Strange Account of the First Vision. In this book we quoted from Paul Cheesman's 1965 BYU thesis, An Analysis of the Accounts Relating to Joseph Smith's Early Visions, and reproduced his appendix containing the 1832 First Vision account.

However, LDS scholars were reluctant to mention that we were the first to publish the 1832 account. In fact, the following misinformation was printed in the Autumn 1966 issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought:

In this issue, James Allen publishes for the first time substantial portions of two early accounts by Joseph Smith of his First Vision which became known in modern times and (to just a few people) only in the past two years.

In the January 1967 Messenger no. 12, we quoted LaMar Petersen's letter to the editor of Dialogue, pointing out their mistake. While our original pamphlet on the First Vision is out of print the information is included in our book, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?

In July 1967, we published Messenger no. 15 with the title "Examining The First Vision." In it we discussed Smith's suppressed 1832 account of his vision, where he only mentions Jesus appearing to him. We also mentioned the 1835 account which mentions "angels" but has nothing to indicate that God and Jesus appeared. We then quoted from Wesley Walters' research on other problems with Smith's 1820 vision. Walters found that Smith's description of a revival in 1820 actually applied to a revival in 1824/25, which raises all sorts of problems for the story. He stated:

". . . the point at which one might most conclusively test the accuracy of Smith's story has never been adequately explored. A vision, by its inward, personal nature, does not lend itself to historical investigation. A revival is a different matter, especially one such as Joseph Smith describes, in which 'great multitudes' were said to have joined the various churches involved. Such a revival does not pass from the scene without leaving some traces in the records and publications of the period. In this study we wish to show by contemporary records that the revival, which Smith claimed occurred in 1820, did not really occur until the fall of 1824. We also show that in 1820 there was no revival in any of the churches in Palmyra or its vicinity. In short, our investigation shows that the statement of Joseph Smith, Jr. can not be true when he claims that he was stirred up by an 1820 revival to make his inquiry in the grove near his home." (New Light On Mormon Origins, as quoted in the Salt Lake City Messenger, July 1967, p. 3)

Wesley P. Walters and H. Michael Marquardt further developed this research in their book, Inventing Mormonism.

(Emphasis added)

Critics have spurred more research (for rebuttal purposes mainly) on the part of Mormon scholars, but have also published information that Mormon scholars were reluctant to publish because "some truths are not very useful". So while I read BYU Studies and considered it a good source of scholarly information, I didn't consider it critical enough. And its mission isn't to criticise, but to throw a faith-promoting view on complex problems.

Note:

Charles Tate’s vision for BYU Studies was that articles found therein would “not just tear down the wrong thing,” but build the right thing. This led to the publication of many stellar issues of BYU Studies including several on the origins of the Church: “The articles in that issue showed that when scholars do their homework they find that Joseph Smith was telling the truth about what was happening around him historically.” Because of this perspective, BYU Studies has become a premier journal that looks at Mormon history, religious studies, and many other topics with an eye of faith.

So if you want to view Mormon history with "the eye of faith", BYU Studies is a good bet at 2-1.

[_Ray A]

what gives - why [no] punishment for him but for others?

That's a good question. Bushman looks at Mormon history with "the eye of faith". It's an excellent thing that he's willing to publish that which many other scholars/apologists won't touch with a 20 foot pole. When I read Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism I felt "inspired" by his willingness to be so forthright yet faithful. But it still didn't resolve looming problems for me. The real paradox for me was how Richard Bushman could know all this and still be a "TBM" (he has been a bishop, stake president and stake patriarch), not even a Liahona like Poll. In spite of his acknowledgement of things that might not be faith-promoting, he always sees them as positive for Mormonism. From the article you linked (bold is my emphasis):

How these sources are used to retell the story of recovery varies greatly according to the inclinations of the teller. Mormon historians, for example, emphasize the rapidity of the translation. John Welch and Tim Rathbone estimate that there were sixty-three translating days available from Oliver Cowdery's start as secretary on 7 April 1829 to the end of June when the title page was published in the Wayne Sentinel. That comes to eight pages of printed text a day4—a marvelous production rate for any writer and a stupendous one for an uneducated twenty-three-year-old who, according to his wife, could scarcely write a coherent letter.5 During the translation period, Joseph was hard-pressed to put food on the table. To avoid interruptions from hostile neighbors, he moved his entire household from Harmony, Pennsylvania, to Fayette, New York. Yet, through it all, he dictated the Book of Mormon text without hesitation day after day.

Unbelieving writers pass over this achievement, usually by simply acknowledging Joseph Smith's genius ; one author has attributed the book to a freakish capacity for automatic writing.6 Secular historians pay less attention to the circumstances of translation, such as the production rate, and instead look for the sources of the book's content. They play down the miraculous and play up the conventional material from Joseph's own culture that they think shows up in the Book of Mormon. Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews (Poultney, Vermont, 1823), for example, is credited with supplying the main idea of Israelites migrating to the Western Hemisphere. Masonry and anti-Masonry, the Bible, local theological controversies, and Joseph Smith's own family dynamics are all said to have played a part.7 Secular accounts thus attempt a cultural biography of Joseph Smith, scouring the intellectual landscape for possible sources of Book of Mormon ideas and speculating on how those sources might have made their way into Joseph Smith's mind. Day-to-day happenings are neglected to make room for this wide-ranging search.

Mormon writers are more inclined to put the reports from people close to Joseph Smith into the story. Because the recovery of the Book of Mormon is a sacred story, every detail is relished. Mormons are interested in the futile efforts of Lucy Harris, Martin's tempestuous wife, to see the plates, or in Emma's father's refusal to allow an object in his house that he was forbidden to look at. We love Emma Smith's comment that she never saw the plates but "moved them from place to place on the table as it was necessary on doing my housework."8 The way the divine work played on the lives of the various actors—perplexing, frustrating, thrilling, and enraging them—captures the Mormon imagination.

Note Bushman's qualification: "How these sources are used to retell the story of recovery varies greatly according to the inclinations of the teller.

Intermingled with all of the "non-faith-promoting facts" is Bushman's ringing testimony of Joseph Smith, and that's why he has managed to escape the wrath of the leadership. Quinn, on the other hand, was prepared to show how Mormon leaders lied, thinking that this would make them appear more human and acceptable (i.e., fallible), yet still approved by God, and still "prophets". He seriously underestimated the sentiments of Boyd K. Packer, et.al..

[_bcspace]

Do apologist or the critic better serve and promote truth?

Both have that potential. But in the case of the LDS Church, I've not seen very many unbiased critics or those who don't practice yellow journalism. The only conclusion possible is that even the amatuer/neophyte apologist better serves the truth in this case.

[_Dr. Shades]

Both have that potential. But in the case of the LDS Church, I've not seen very many unbiased critics or those who don't practice yellow journalism. The only conclusion possible is that even the amatuer/neophyte apologist better serves the truth in this case.

Right, because we all know how UN-biased the amateur/neophyte apologists are.

[_Pokatator]

Do apologist or the critic better serve and promote truth?

Both have that potential. But in the case of the LDS Church, I've not seen very many unbiased critics or those who don't practice yellow journalism. The only conclusion possible is that even the amatuer/neophyte apologist better serves the truth in this case.

Just adding, bc's quote found in my sig line, for his perspective on serving the truth.