TAK wrote:So which serious Historian that has not been employed by the Church accepts the LDS version of events? Bonus points for Non and Ex Historians. .
Wow. You're a genius, TAK. It had never occurred to me before that people who don't accept Joseph Smith's claims might not accept the claims of Joseph Smith. Brilliant! Devastating!
Still, you've evidently forgotten folks like Davis Bitton (of the University of Utah), Dean May (of the University of Utah), Leonard Arrington (of Utah State University), Richard Bennett (of the University of Manitoba), Stanley Kimball (of Southern Illinois University), and Richard Bushman (formerly Gouverneur Morris Professor of American History at Columbia University and now at Claremont Graduate University). Neither the University of Utah nor Utah State University nor the University of Manitoba nor Southern Illinois University nor Claremont Graduate University nor Columbia University is funded by the Church, so far as I'm aware.
Ray A wrote:I'm quite certain that Brodie was subjected to much criticism from the Church (if you want to call it "attacks" or not), but I'll have to mine that one some more.
But no one can say that Dan Vogel has never been attacked. As one example, go back over the FAIR archives and witness Schryver's constant attacks on him.
I'm pretty sure that the FAIR folk do not equal the Church. Unless you're saying the Church sicced the FAIR folk onto him (always a possibility. Perhaps we should consult the SCMC for confirmation?)
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:I think that qualifies as an attack. I'm surprised you don't agree.
No - it was a Court of Love!!!
I'm pretty sure that's not what Christ meant when he said "love one another".
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote: I'm pretty sure that the FAIR folk do not equal the Church. Unless you're saying the Church sicced the FAIR folk onto him (always a possibility. Perhaps we should consult the SCMC for confirmation?)
LOL.. Actually I was thinking of Mormons in general attacking her.. which she does not seem to indicate.
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it. Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010
Daniel Peterson wrote:Anyway, I was talking about nineteenth-century scenarios, apples to apples. No serious historian -- Mormon, non-Mormon, or ex-Mormon -- has taken the Spalding theory seriously for at least the past sixty years.
I wonder if that response will be revised, based on the data from the Jockers et al study.
Let me rephrase: I wonder if serious non- or ex-LDS historians will revise their response, based on the current study? I doubt that it will effect the LDS ones at all.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:I wonder if that response will be revised, based on the data from the Jockers et al study.
Let me rephrase: I wonder if serious non- or ex-LDS historians will revise their response, based on the current study? I doubt that it will effect the LDS ones at all.
I doubt that this study will have much lasting effect on anybody at all, excepting those, of course, already wedded in some way to the Spalding theory.
My reasons for that doubt will become apparent with the passage of time.
TAK wrote:LOL.. Actually I was thinking of Mormons in general attacking her.. which she does not seem to indicate.
Ah! I see. Well, when I think of "the church" attacking someone, I think of the church as a group of leaders based either locally and/or in SLC. Obviously she was excommunicated for the book. I consider that a pretty serious attack. Perhaps more zealous members in the bcspace mode would take it upon themselves to attack her, but thankfully there are very few of those.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Daniel Peterson wrote: My reasons for that doubt will become apparent with the passage of time.
How much more time do you think is needed?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote: I'm pretty sure that the FAIR folk do not equal the Church. Unless you're saying the Church sicced the FAIR folk onto him (always a possibility. Perhaps we should consult the SCMC for confirmation?)
I'll be back with some references soon.
(What's the SCMC's phone number?)
1-800-Exx-them?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
