Location of Book of Mormon events: evidence from Joseph Smith Papers

[_LifeOnaPlate]

For my general thoughts on the broader topic, see Daniel C. Peterson, “Notes on Historicity and Inerrancy," in Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul Y. Hoskisson (Provo: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2001), 197-215. I don't believe that it's on line.

Free: http://contentdm.lib.BYU.edu/cgi-bin/sh ... e=2350.pdf

[_Daniel Peterson]

There is scarcely a single point in the above summary that isn't problematic and agenda-laden.

That's a nice assertion, but it doesn't go very far to resolve the difficulty as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why holding Joseph's various revelations to the same standard is problematic and agenda-laden?

The difficult is, in my view, created by the way you summarized the data, not by the data itself.

I'm gone, and won't be in evidence much here, if at all, until Friday at the earliest.

[_krose]

I think it's interesting that no one seems to question Smith's statement clarifying the revelation that became Sec. 89. Even though the canonized scriptural text says it's "hot drinks" that are not for the body, he later said that the Lord meant coffee and tea, specifically, with those two words.

From all I've seen, this wasn't an additional revelation, but it changed the meaning of the words, and now Mormons everywhere avoid iced tea and chilled coffee because (strangely) they qualify as "hot drinks," but consume steaming-hot cocoa to their hearts' content. To me this looks like a great candidate for a prophet expressing his own opinion "as a man," but I've never seen this clarifying interpretation questioned by any LDS scholar.

When did Joseph ever say it was only coffee and tea?

From A Voice from the Mountains, by Joel Hills Johnson (my G-G-GF, by the way), p. 12:

On a Sabbath day, in the July following the giving of the revelation, when both Joseph and Hyrum Smith were in the stand, the Prophet said to the Saints:

"I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using tea and coffee, because the Lord only said 'hot drinks' in the revelation of the Word of Wisdom.
"The Lord was showing us what was good for man to eat and drink. Now, what do we drink when we take our meals?
"Tea and coffee. Is it not?
"Yes, tea and coffee.
"Then, they are what the Lord meant when He said 'hot drinks.'"

This reference is used to justify the modified restrictions, as in the CHI, p 185. But in my view, it's an obvious candidate for the prophet "speaking as a man" to change the clear language of a god-given revelation. Of course, if it was not an actual revelation, but something Joseph Smith made up on his own, he could modify and re-interpret the words any way he wanted.

My point is that this looks like a clear parallel to his words regarding Book of Mormon geography, and most TBMs accept it without question.



.

[_Ray A]

I'm gone, and won't be in evidence much here, if at all, until Friday at the earliest.

That's okay, Dan, in the meantime I'll bear my testimony that I know you exist.

[_Dwight Frye]

I think it's interesting that no one seems to question Smith's statement clarifying the revelation that became Sec. 89. Even though the canonized scriptural text says it's "hot drinks" that are not for the body, he later said that the Lord meant coffee and tea, specifically, with those two words.

From all I've seen, this wasn't an additional revelation, but it changed the meaning of the words, and now Mormons everywhere avoid iced tea and chilled coffee because (strangely) they qualify as "hot drinks," but consume steaming-hot cocoa to their hearts' content. To me this looks like a great candidate for a prophet expressing his own opinion "as a man," but I've never seen this clarifying interpretation questioned by any LDS scholar.

When did Joseph ever say it was only coffee and tea?

I think our only account is second hand. According to this FAIR piece, the source for the "official and correct definition of 'hot drinks'" came from the recollection of one "Joel H. Johnson, with whose family the Prophet was intimate," who reported Smith as saying, "I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using tea and coffee, because the Lord only said 'hot drinks' in the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. Tea and coffee are what the Lord meant when he said 'hot drinks.'" (taken from The Word of Wisdom: A Modern Interpretation by John and Leah Widstoe, pp 85-87)

Has the "official" interpretation of this bit of the WoW come to us from a non-canonical, non-doctrinal, unofficial, second hand source, or has FAIR overlooked something with a bit more weight?



edit: Just saw that I was late to the dance. Krose provided this above.

[_John Larsen]

That is a pretty sketchy reference (not a good provenance). I suspect it was a backward reading. For Joseph to say coffee and tea would be an anachronism.

[_Dwight Frye]

That is a pretty sketchy reference (not a good provenance).

I agree. There's actually a pretty interesting thread in the MAD archives about this, with a very insightful comment from Sargon (emphasis added):

This issue has been a small pet pieve of mine for a while. I faithfully abstain from consuming coffee and tea, but it irks me that nowhere in the official canon of the church are either of those two beverages specifically prohibited.

Jessicka is correct in pointing out [below] that we LDS ought to be more consistent in what we consider binding doctrine and what is not. We so often dismiss anti-mormon charges because they stem from unofficial sources, such as journal entries and personal opinions of past leaders of the church. I believe that practice of ours is correct, but in the case of the WoW we are using that exact source in determining official and binding LDS doctrine!

-snip-

I recognize that in Joseph's day there were really only 2 types of "hot drinks" and that it was not hard to determine what was meant by the phrase. But we live in a world that has changed, a world that now has far more substances that lie in the "grey area". Why do we rely on the personal interpretations of church leaders, when we have a living prophet of God who could beseech the Lord to define the matter much more clearly? Isn't that what an open canon is all about?

My real consternation arises when considering the bigger picture of determining just what is Mormon doctrine. In past conversations with Mormons, I have noticed that if I bring up a statement by a past leader that my interlocutor may find controversial, there is a whole grab bag full of reasons to dismiss the statement. You are aware of them, I'm sure. But it seems to me that when it comes to the WoW, an "official" understanding of what exactly is prohibited is obtained by an appeal to sources that a Mormon could impeach if said sources said something he or she did not agree with or believe.

For example, if Armitage's source quoted supra [the Joel H. Johnson account] included Smith saying something a Mormon might be embarrassed of, it could be dismissed as being second-hand, or something he said as a man, not a prophet, or it wasn't at General Conference, or he never submitted it to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for a sustaining vote, or etc, etc.

[_krose]

That is a pretty sketchy reference (not a good provenance).

I agree. There's actually a pretty interesting thread in the MAD archives about this, with a very insightful comment from Sargon (emphasis added):

<-snip->

These are good comments that I had not seen before, and it's exactly the point I was trying to make. In one case the prophet's statements are dismissed or minimized as personal opinion. In the other they are treated as binding commandment which, if broken, will keep an otherwise faithful member out of the temple.

[_Scottie]

I have heard rumors that the term "hot drinks" was slang for the miracle elixirs that snake oil salesmen would try and sell. I have yet to see anything to verify this claim. Does anyone know if this claim is true?

[_cinepro]

In one case the prophet's statements are dismissed or minimized as personal opinion. In the other they are treated as binding commandment which, if broken, will keep an otherwise faithful member out of the temple.

for what it's worth, I've never considered the WoW to be a "commandment" based on anything Joseph Smith did or didn't say; it is obvious that it is the statements (and policy) of subsequent prophets that has made it a Temple-worthiness litmus test.