The Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, Volume 2

[_Joe Geisner]

I apologize to those on M-L who have seen an earlier version, in fact, I apologize to all of you for using band width for my drivel! But what the heck this is the Internet where drivel is the flavor of the day.

I thought I would share some of my thoughts on the new volume. For the most part this is critical and as you will read I have some real issues and I think they are valid. At the same time, I want to make it clear that I see this volume as a very important contribution to Mormon studies. I think the papers people and the Church hierarchy have done some great things for those interested in our Mormon past. At the same time, I don't think they deserve a free pass from being closely examined or criticized.

So here is some thoughts on the new volume.

As is pointed out in the introduction, Robert Foster was asked to keep Smith's journal during the trip to Washington D.C.. This trip was for Smith to make his one time visit with Martin Van Buren over the expulsion of the Saints from Missouri. Because Sidney Rigdon was very ill during the trip, Foster ended up taking care of Rigdon and not spending much time with Smith and Elias Higbee (Smith's traveling companion). I appreciate that the papers people did a non-attack when it came to Robert Foster on page xiii. Foster did a much greater service than keeping Smith's diary, he kept Rigdon a live. It seems Jesus said something about serving ones fellow man. It would be nice to have a contemporary record of Smith's activities in Washington, though letters do exist.

Though not contemporary as other letters (Elias Higbee's), I do like Foster's letter that he sent to Joseph Smith III published in the True Latter Day Saints Herald April 15, 1875. If anyone would like a copy, let me know. I find it quite accurate and an honest account of the trip.

I also love the footnotes in this new volume. I cannot emphasize enough, this really is the gold in this new volume. They are very beefy with some great information. Some examples of sources used are the Nauvoo House Association Stock Book, Nauvoo Masonic Minute Book (with extensive quotes), Nauvoo High Council Minute Book and the Nauvoo City Council Minute Book.

And now for my problems and some issues with the book. A major problem is no index again. People who have nothing to do with the project have suggested to me that they may do another stand alone index. May be they will and may be they won't. Nothing has been said officially by the papers people. But I am very upset that we have no index. This is wrong! I have heard the excuses, but they do not fly with me. When I have to pay $55.00 for a book and shipping and no discounts available from Deseret Book, I am sorry, but there had better be a index! (by the way, my criticism for the same problem goes for the new Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri coming out in a couple of months from Smith-Pettit, I am an equal opportunity criticizer!)

I also am angry that the entire Book of the Law of the Lord is not published. To excise the revelations and Temple donations is just wrong! Again I know all the arguments, but this is just bad scholarship. It is a complete record. How are historians supposed to evaluate a partial record? This is wrong and the paper people need to be called on it! The CHL has the "Book" in its possession now (after 40 years of no access to anyone while it sat in the 1st Presidency vault) and they will not let outside scholars see it for research purposes. This is just wrong!

There currently seems to be a push by scholars who are "faithful" that they are willing to throw everyone under the bus to protect Joseph Smith. This volume is no different. I see this as a real problem in the introduction when the authors are defending Smith in their polygamy discussion.The introduction covers seventeen and half pages with seven of those pages concentrating on polygamy in Nauvoo. I suppose this defense is to be expected since all the people working on this volume are employed by the Church and the Church will do anything to protect Smith. But it is pervasive. On page xxx footnote #75. They only quote this part about Smith defending charges against his making moves on Sara Pratt; "She lied about me" ... "I never made the offer which she said I did." This is in the DVD's, so anyone can check this and see that Smith was pulling a Bill Clinton, "I never had sex with that woman" ploy.

Here is the comment by Smith: Joseph–She lied about me–I never made the offair which she said I did.–II will not advise you /presumably Orson/ to break up your family /divorse her/–unless it were asked of me. then I would council you to get a bill [?] from your wife and many a virtuous woman–aXnd sire–[?]–a new family but if you do not do it shall (or she’ll) xxxxx [forever?] threw it in your teeth.

Yes, lets condemn the woman, who never went public until after Smith's death. But Smith wanted to bury her before she could tell of his trying to get into her petticoat.

In this same section there is a snide remake over William Law on page xxix where Law calls John C. Bennett a "scoundrel" and the authors write "Even William Law" as though Law would be clueless about scoundrels and such things, since he was one. Law was a decent and good man, and loved the Church, and loved Smith until he saw what he believed to be Smith running a muck marrying other men's wives and young girls, and when Smith was claiming he was equal to God.

One appendix has four days of entries from William Clayton's diary. This diary has also been unavailable to almost everyone while it continues to sit in the 1st Presidency vault all these many, many years. A few scholars have had access to it; Andrew Ehat, Dean Jesse, Mike Quinn and Jim Allen. The longest entry has been available because Andrew Ehat used it in Words of Joseph Smith in the 1980s. Dean Jesse wanted to make most of the entries available when he as working on his papers project in the 1980s and 1990s and was shut down by the powers above him (I have to wonder if President Packer was key in this decision since he told Andrew Ehat that Clayton's diary would destroy the Church) This new papers project seem to be very reluctant to include entries in this new volume. Personally, I think giving us a few "new" sentences from Clayton's diary is not satisfactory. The CHL currently has the complete typescript of Clayton's diary and will not share it with scholars. How do you spell "cover-up?"

[Guest]

-

[_Blixa]

Thanks for your remarks on this volume, Joe. I'm interested in picking through it myself at some point and your remarks give me an interesting guide to it.

The lack of an Index is pretty horrifying, though. I hope there is a stand alone coming, even though that is bad editorial decision IMHO. Otherwise, it could look like a consciously obfuscatory move...

[_sock puppet]

Foster's letter that he sent to Joseph Smith III published in the True Latter Day Saints Herald April 15, 1875. If anyone would like a copy, let me know. I find it quite accurate and an honest account of the trip.

* * *

Some examples of sources used are the Nauvoo House Association Stock Book, Nauvoo Masonic Minute Book (with extensive quotes), Nauvoo High Council Minute Book and the Nauvoo City Council Minute Book.

Thanks, Joe.

I would like a copy of the letter.

Also, you didn't mention in examples of sources the minutes kept for the Council of 50. Surely that was just an oversight; I'm sure that the Church would want to reveal those, redacting out the materials necessary to protect the guilty of course. [/sarcasm]

[_Joe Geisner]

Sock,

Send me a PM with your name and I will send you the letter.

To be fair, I should explain the reasons given for no index on the Journal volumes.

The unofficial reason was that people knew Miller's time was short the fall/winter of 2008 and Miller wanted to see at least one volume come to fruition for his cool million. I have no idea why, only the papers people could explain this, but it took them seven years to produce that first journal that had already been published twice, once by Signature books and edited by Scott Faulring (still the only complete set of journals, though missing the Book of the Law of the Lord) and the second time by Deseret Book edited by Dean Jesse (the first time the Book of the Law of the Lord was published). In there wisdom, the papers people also decided to excise the Mulholland entries, claiming it did not fit their criteria. Dean Jesse thought other wise and included them in his volume on pages 317-333. I shoudl point out that the footnotes in this first volume were much better than Jesse's, or at least more complete.

The official reason was that most of these papers volumes (like the Jefferson and Washington papers) do not have an index until all the volumes are complete and the papers people explained that once all three Smith journals volumes are complete there will be an index, possibly in the third volume. To be honest, I have no idea on the Jefferson and Washington papers, that is a very small niche of people who buy these and these books are produced over multiple life times. I have never looked at either work since I read more general works on the founding fathers.

For a very fair and excellent review of the first volume see Mike Marquardts review here:
http://user.xmission.com/~research/mormonpdf/index.htm

[_GR33N]

Am I missing something here? Isn't the Book of the Law of the Lord a Strangite book? Why would it be included in the Joseph Smith Papers?

[_Joe Geisner]

It is true that Strang had/has a Book of the Law of the Lord (TBOTLOTL) and it is ready available to buy from the Strangites or from used book dealers.

But Smith created his in 1842, much earlier than Strang. TBOTLOTL created by Smith was used as his journal, payments received for the building of the temple and Smith's revelations. I am guessing you see a pattern here. This is a sacred record. It is like the Book of Life. The names and events of the righteous Saints for the Lord. The journal entries are the only parts that have been published and made available to researchers currently. This was first done by Dean Jesse in 1992 in his excellent work, Papers of Joseph Smith vol. 2. A few revelations are included in this latest published version, they were also included in Jesse's volume I believe. But I am guessing at this part, since no one but a very small group of people has seen the manuscript book!

I have also received confirmation that the papers people will be producing an index for volume two. This is great news because I use the stand alone index for volume one frequently.

[_Fence Sitter]

It is true that Strang had/has a Book of the Law of the Lord (TBOTLOTL) and it is ready available to buy from the Strangites or from used book dealers.

But Smith created his in 1842, much earlier than Strang. TBOTLOTL created by Smith was used as his journal, payments received for the building of the temple and Smith's revelations. I am guessing you see a pattern here. This is a sacred record. It is like the Book of Life. The names and events of the righteous Saints for the Lord. The journal entries are the only parts that have been published and made available to researchers currently. This was first done by Dean Jesse in 1992 in his excellent work, Papers of Joseph Smith vol. 2. A few revelations are included in this latest published version, they were also included in Jesse's volume I believe. But I am guessing at this part, since no one but a very small group of people has seen the manuscript book!

I have also received confirmation that the papers people will be producing an index for volume two. This is great news because I use the stand alone index for volume one frequently.

There is this reference in Woilford Woodruff's journal also.

January 16, 1884: I met in council with the Presidency and Twelve and during
the conversation, F. D. Richards was called upon to make a statement of the
[206] purport of a letter that he had written to President Taylor concerning
what he thought ought to be written in the law of the Lord or the Book called
by that name, which met with feelings of all of us. And it was universally
voted that Brother Franklin D. Richards be appointed assistant historian.
January 24, 1884: I met with Brother Richards in our Historical Room and we
took into consideration the subject of commencing to prepare matter for the
Book of the Law of the Lord from the death of President Young up to the
present time under President Taylor's superintendency,.

I would be very interested in reading more about the Utah branch version of this book.

[_zeezrom]

There is no reason to be angry at the board members of the church for chosing not to include the Book of the Law of the Lord. It is disappointing but it is *their* church, after all.

I was told the reason they did not include all the journal writings of Mr. Clayton was because they are private and "how would you like it if someone decided to publish your journal to the world?"