So it came as quite a surprise to see him actually getting into the nitty-gritty concerning Richards. Willard Richards was, in Dr. Peterson's estimation, "an unusually bright and capable man," and, the Proprietor notes, he doesn't "seem to have accepted the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without thought or investigation." Dr. Peterson even goes on to frame the whole thing as a sort of "challenge": "to pretend that he (and his cousin Brigham Young before him, who investigated for a year) simply swallowed whatever assertions were served up to them uncritically and without thought is plainly contradictory to their genuine history."
Okay....I guess? But what's so interesting is to backtrack and review the details that DCP finds so persuasive. First of all, he's deriving a major portion of his argument from a book called “Here is Brigham . . .:: Brigham Young, the Years to 1844, by S. Dilworth Young, who, it just so happens, *is a relative of BY's.* Not exactly an objective observer, eh? No wonder Peterson finds his account believable. Even if we treat the account as accurate (and DCP himself notes that Dilworth Young "wasn't a scholar"), there are portions that seem to have flown over the Chief Mopologist's head:
Remember: DCP said that Richards *did not* "seem to have accepted the claims of the Church...without thought or investigation." Uh, this passage says, right there--plain as day--that he had "a strong spirit of testimony accompanying the reading." Did he *question* this "feeling"? And what was the feeling? Has there ever been a case, in the entire 200+ year history of faith-promoting stories, where a Church investigator had a "strong spirit of testimony" and then *didn't* wind up joining the Church? The point being: this is pretty terrible evidence of Richards's alleged 'questioning' nature. If anything, this shows him as someone who is credulous and naturally inclined towards religious feelings.Willard had always shown an independence of spirit in family affairs. He had read a copy of the Book of Mormon and had been profoundly influenced by it. Twice reading through it, with a strong spirit of testimony accompanying the reading, convinced him that he must know more about it and the people from which it came.
The story continues, with Richards enduring an illness ("palsy") and then heading off to Kirtland where he stays in the home of his first cousin, Brigham Young. Dilworth Young writes that Richards "Then followed nearly three months of most intense investigation. Willard was well versed in the Bible and in the tenets of the Protestants of his day. Every objection he raised was countered by Brigham; every doctrine was followed through and justified by the Bible; every error of doctrine common to the churches of the day was pointed out by Brigham, argued through, and the truth substituted in the mind of Willard.[/quote]
"Intense investigation"? What does that mean, exactly? First, he is in Brigham Young's house. How aggressive was he going to be? And BY was his cousin, and which Dilworth Young says that Richards also got the perspectives of "apostates" (who, exactly?), who do you think he's going to be more likely to believe (especially given his "strong spirit of testimony")--his own flesh and blood, who was housing him in Kirkland, or these anonymous "apostates"? Of course, Richards is eventually baptized, and Dilworth Young gives us a classic story of Latter-day Saint suffering: Heber Kimball has to actually chop off the ice on the creek so that Richards can be baptized. Again I ask: is this truly evidence of someone who is carefully weighing out evidence? Or is it better characterized as someone in the grip of a religious fervor?
I would say that I'm surprised that DCP seemingly read this with such an uncritical eye, but of course it's not surprising: of course he accepts all of this without much thought at all. Not only is it *not* questionable (and remember: the author of this fails one of the Mopologists' own fundamental tests--he's "not a scholar"), but it's actually evidence that careful, objective thinkers convert to Mormonism!
Later in the blog entry, we get the de rigueur mention of Richards's 'academic' credentials: he had a "teacher's certificate." He studied "physical mechanics and science." Later, he even became a doctor! Hey: it's not Oxford or the Ivy League, but it certainly makes the whole thing more palatable for the credential-obsessed Mopologists.
But there was yet another detail that seemed to have escaped Dr. Peterson's notice:
Wow: *1,884* pages? All about Joseph Smith? Tell me: is this the work of a careful, objective reviewer of the truthfulness of Mormonism? Or, instead, does this speak to Richards's obsession--his veneration, even, of Joseph Smith--and his function as a kind of religiously-appointed "fan-boy"? Dr. Peterson is fond of referring to this board as "obsessed." But consider this: for Richards to have produced those 1,884 pages, he would have needed to have written an entire page--by hand, with ink and quill, mind you--every day for more than 5 years. Richards only lived to the age of 49, which meant that a rather huge percentage of his life was spent penning all these thousands of pages about Joseph Smith.In Nauvoo, Illinois, Willard became both Joseph Smith’s private secretary and Nauvoo Temple recorder in December 1841. Twelve months later, in December 1842, he was appointed Church Historian and Recorder, a position that he held until his death. He wrote a total of 1,884 pages of Joseph Smith’s history, and what he wrote has been largely preserved in the so-called “Documentary History of the Church” — more properly The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, edited by B. H. Roberts.
At the end of the blog entry, Dr. Peterson writes, "Willard Richards was clearly, it seems to me, an unusually bright and capable man." Yes: "it seems to me." That's a good way of putting--i.e., emphasizing his highly tendentious and subjective take on the matter--because the details here are not credible at all--not by a long shot. And no wonder that the Mopologist President never posts specific details about all these allegedly "credible" witnesses. If this is the best he's got, then he might as well have nothing at all.
