Where Have all the Joseph Smith Experts Gone?

[_Nevo]

Regarding Nevo's assertions, I think that historians both collect minutiae and interpret it. Certainly the historians you named, Nevo--like Mark Ashurst-McGee and Robin Jensen--are all about minutiae. They have gone over a great deal of it with me. The reason we don't see that level of detail from Bushman is that (yes) he's doing more interpretive work, and he's not primarily a historian of Mormonism and is mostly trying to compile and present with relative brevity the up-to-date scholarship on Joseph Smith.

Hi guys,

I didn't mean to deny that historians are interested in details ("minutiae"). I realize that historians collect bits of evidence and interpret them. Of course they do. What I was trying to get across was that a lot of Uncle Dale's questions—e.g., what was Joseph Smith doing on August 4, 1826?—aren't the sorts of questions that most LDS historians seem to be asking these days. Maybe I'm wrong, but looking at recent publications by junior LDS historians I see a lot of interpretive history. There seems to be a concern to locate the study of Mormonism within a broader framework, to "de-ghettoize" it. Nobody's asking how many nails were used to build the Smith frame house (which Larry Porter might know, actually).

For example, here's a sampling of recent LDS historical scholarship:

• Mark Ashurst-McGee, "Zion Rising: Joseph Smith's Early Social and Political Thought," (Ph.D. diss., Arizona State University, 2008).
  
  
• Stephen J. Fleming, "The Religious Heritage of the British Northwest and the Rise of Mormonism," Church History 77 (2008): 73–104.
  
  
• Stephen J. Fleming, "'Congenial to Almost Every Shade of Radicalism': The Delaware Valley and the Success of Early Mormonism," Religion and American Culture 17 (2007): 129–164.
  
  
• Steven C. Harper, "'Dictated by Christ': Joseph Smith and the Politics of Revelation," Journal of the Early Republic 26 (2006): 275–304.
  
  
• J. Spencer Fluhman, "Anti-Mormonism and the Question of Religious Authenticity in Antebellum America," Journal of Religion and Society 7 (2005): 1–10.

[_DonBradley]

Dale,

I actually do think that our knowledge of the past will progress not so much through the discovery of new documents but through the careful interpretation of those we already have.

My disagreement with Nevo's statement was that real historians aren't about getting their hands messy with the minutiae. Certainly some aren't--the broad-scale theorists. But a great number, including the ones he named as those who will advance our knowledge of Mormonism, are extremely detail-oriented. One need only have a conversation with Robin and Mark, or read anything they've written, to see that these guys are all about detail--very, very different from what you see in RSR.

To your question, I do think that there was a loosely organized group that was then called "the Golden Bible Company." And I don't think this group was expecting to restore the primitive Christian church. Most of them were diggers and interested in getting rich. The understanding of what the golden plates find was all about evolved with time.

Most of my research in this area, as Trevor knows, has been intended for academic publication, and therefore is not something I'd want to spill the beans on in a message board. He's just brimming over with excitement to tell people what he knows. You know, like most people who've just read the Book of Mormon.

Don

[_DonBradley]

Hey Nevo,

Good to see you!

Certainly most academic historians of our time are not chroniclers or antiquarians--they are interested in details that have interpretive significance.

While I don't share Dale's interest in finding evidence that Joseph Smith met with Sidney Rigdon on a given day, I think you'd be surprised just how illuminating it can be to have the kind of detailed, day by day information Dale is looking for. Such information just requires a context and a method that make it meaningful. You need to come out to Sunstone or MHA so we can talk about this!

by the way, I'm personally dubious regarding some of the rising crop of LDS academics who are doing interpretive work. The ones I have in mind (who don't include most of those you named, though maybe one or two) are doing more celebratory work than real exploratory work. Some have learned a neat method in grad school and are eager to apply it to their faith (which, again, usually turns up surprisingly positive results). I don't think this is the best way to advance our understanding of Mormon origins and history.

Rather than apply some appealing academic method to Mormonism, to see what happens, we need to explore the Mormon sources themselves well enough to know what methods they call for, and then apply these to the task. This doesn't result in insular history; it connects the right Mormonism--the actual one--to the broader world. Attempts to situate Mormonism in the broader scheme of things will fail if we haven't really grasped Mormonism itself.

My two cents.

Anyway, you should message me your e-mail address. I tried to e-mail you earlier this week at an old university e-mail address, and my message bounced.

Don

[_DonBradley]

by the way, UD, I think Mike Marquardt probably fits the billing for your latter-day Joseph Smith expert. Are you in correspondence with him?

Don

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale,

I actually do think that our knowledge of the past will progress not so much through the discovery of new documents but through the careful interpretation of those we already have.
...

Perhaps -- but I have a great interest in wading through old newspaper accounts,
which some historians seem to ignore altogether.

Granted, their documentation is not so solid as might be expected in the
case of originals of old correspondence, diaries, public records, etc. --
but forgotten newspaper items remain one of the few remaining sources
for continual discovery of additional Mormon history information/evidence.

Of the two old articles I cited previously in this thread, the 1888 Walmart. Hyde
interviews were noticed by Mike Quinn -- who only quoted briefly from one
of the Hyde sources in passing. The other item -- from Dr. John Stafford --
has been ignored by all Mormon historians, even though it is indexed in
the Rochester Public Library.

Hyde definitely states that there was an early society of a few people in
the Palmyra area, who were gathered around Joseph Smith, Jr., as both
a seer and the possessor of some mysterious ancient record, filled with
marvels and wonders. The scheme of this "not religious" secret society,
was to seek donations from its members, sufficient to publish Smith's
mysterious book. All of which argues for a date prior to Martin Harris
financing the Book of Mormon publication.

Now Hyde may have been wrong ---- I am always skeptical of relying
too much on a single source. But there appears to be confirming evidence
from independent sources, that such a society was in existence, and that
news of "Joe Smith's Gold Bible," first circulated in the context of it being
a book of wondrous contents, not mandating the formation of any church.

When I read LDS scholars' reporting, it all conveniently skips over this
mid-1820s scenario. I doubt I'll ever learn much more from a Mormon
source, regarding the activities and motives of the "Gold Bible Company."

by the way, UD, I think Mike Marquardt probably fits the billing for your latter-day Joseph Smith expert. Are you in correspondence with him?

We talk, now and then -- and I draft maps for the books he authors. His
most recent communication consisted of hundreds of pages of information on
the 1820s neighbors of the Mormon Smith family. It will eventually go here:
http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/smithmap.htm
and here
http://olivercowdery.com/census/BurntCen.htm

Uncle Dale

[_Brackite]

Welcome Back, Don!!!

The Title of this Discussion Thread, Reminds me of this Song.

Where have all the cowboy's gone?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ9BdQbplRI

[_Nevo]

Hey Nevo,

Good to see you!

Hi Don,

It's good to see you posting again. It's a rare treat that I look forward to every other year ;)

Certainly most academic historians of our time are not chroniclers or antiquarians--they are interested in details that have interpretive significance.

That was all I was trying to say. You said it much better though. For starters, you managed not to use the polarizing term "minutiae."

by the way, I'm personally dubious regarding some of the rising crop of LDS academics who are doing interpretive work. The ones I have in mind (who don't include most of those you named, though maybe one or two) are doing more celebratory work than real exploratory work. Some have learned a neat method in grad school and are eager to apply it to their faith (which, again, usually turns up surprisingly positive results). I don't think this is the best way to advance our understanding of Mormon origins and history.

That's an interesting take. I suspect you're right. Although I'm not sure that the two categories are necessarily mutually exclusive (I think Terryl Givens's recent work fits both categories). But if I were a young scholar working for the Church I'd probably play it safe too.

Rather than apply some appealing academic method to Mormonism, to see what happens, we need to explore the Mormon sources themselves well enough to know what methods they call for, and then apply these to the task. This doesn't result in insular history; it connects the right Mormonism--the actual one--to the broader world.

Makes sense to me. I certainly don't have your depth of knowledge when it comes to primary sources, so I'm not sure that I would even be able to recognize the "right" Mormonism from a cunning scholarly counterfeit. But clearly immersion in the sources is a prerequisite for anyone hoping to do worthwhile history.

Anyway, I look forward to your forthcoming contributions in this area. I wish I could have been at MHA this year. Maybe next year.

Regards,
Nevo

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I do think that there was a loosely organized group that was then called
"the Golden Bible Company." And I don't think this group was expecting to restore
the primitive Christian church. Most of them were diggers and interested in getting
rich. The understanding of what the golden plates find was all about evolved with time.
...

OK -- let's go back to 1826, at South Bainbridge. Did the "Gold Bible Company"
exist there -- and, if so, who were its members?

In his 1842 letter to Thomas Gregg, Judge Noble says:
"Jo. was condemned whisper came to Jo. off off - took Leg Bail
( or gave [Leg_Bail] ) all things straight: Jo. was not seen in our town
for ---- 2 years or more (except in Dark corners)

This seems to say that from March 1826, for "2 years or more," Smith was
not in the Colesville/Bainbridge area, promoting any Gold Bible.

Again, in his 1844 address John Reed says:
[in about the year 1826], "After living in that [Colesville/Bainbridge] neighborhood about three years...
told his particular friends that he had had a revelation from God to go to the west about eighty miles,
to his father's, in which neighborhood he should find hid in the earth, an old history written on
golden plates... Joseph Knight, one of the fathers of your church, a worthy man, and my intimate friend,
went with him."

This seems to say that by 1826 Smith was promoting "old history written on golden plates" as being a
"revelation from God," and Joseph Knight was one of his dupes.

Finally, there were the Bridgeman/McMaster family traditions reported by Ariel Bridgeman in 1881 --
He says:

Peter G. Bridgman, a young man then just about to enter tbe Methodist ministry, entered a complaint before a
magistrate against Smith for deceiving the people. He was arrested and tried. Stowell appeared as a witness
for the defendant. He thought to clear his friend by testifying to all the facts in the case, and laid before the
court the fraud, deception, and chicanery of Smith. Never did lawyers, court, constables, and the ususal crowd
that gathers around a country tavern and lawsuit, have a greater scene of merriment than that afternoon. It
was related to the writer by one who was there as beyond all description. Smith was found guilty.

But the object of the trial being to compel him to leave the neighborhood, it was arranged that the officer in
charge should give him a chance to escape. His counsel having whisperered this in his ear, he embraced the
opportunity given, and with the best strides his long legs could make he betook himself across the fields to the
woods, all the crowd roaring with laughter to see the great prophet run. This ended his work in Chenango
County. He went into Pennsylvania, and afterward returned to Broome County, New York, where he was
again arrested and came near being treated to a coat of tar and feathers. While there he was in possession
of "Manuscript Found," or some part of it. This was in the year 1826 or 1827, and before he had met Sidney
Rigdon. He professed finally to have received his Bible from the angels, communicated to him while in the tops
of trees, for the purpose of receiving it. He read it repeatedly to many in that section; and often in the family
of Reuben Bridgman, one of whose sons followed him west, having put money into Smith's hands which he
was never able afterward to recover. That he had seen Spaulding's manuscript before his work in Chenango
County was finished, is evident from the fact; that the words Nephi and Mormon were well known then.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL ... htm#071681

Here McMaster agrees with Judge Noble:

1. There was a trial at South Bainbridge in March of 1826
2. Smith was found guilty
3. The authorities whispered to Smith, to run away
4. Smith ran away
5. He was not seen in the Bainbridge/Colesville area for some time

But McMaster adds some information, not reported by Judge Noble or by John Reed.

When Smith returned to Chenango County (and adjacent Broom County?) he was
reciting Nephite history -- at least to members of Ariel McMaster's grandfather's
family (that is, in the Reuben Bridgeman family, where Peter G. Bridgeman was a son).

So my question is:

Were Reuben Bridgeman and some members of his family in the "Gold Bible Company"
in 1825-26, and did Peter bring charges against Smith in 1826 at S. Bainbridge, more
in an effort to rid his own family of Smith's influence, than to help Stowell's sons rid
their family of Smith?

Is Reed correct in saying that Smith did not speak of gold plates, while in the
Colesville/Bainbridge area, until AFTER his 1826 trial and conviction there --

??????

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Smith... his 1826 trial and conviction
...

An interesting fact -- the RLDS leaders did NOT contest the fact that Smith was
arrested and brought before Justice Neeley at S. Bainbridge, in 1826.

Reorganized LDS Apostle Thomas W. Smith, admitted as early as 1881, that
such an arrest had taken place:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL ... htm#073081

Of course Oliver Cowdery had also admitted much the same, many years before,
so the RLDS leaders could hardly refute what was published in their own history.
Also, in 1879, Emma Smith had disclosed the fact that her husband used a
peep-stone in a hat for his Book of Mormon "translation" efforts.

On the LDS side of the fence, writers like Francis Kirkham and Hugh Nibley would
fight a losing, rear-guard battle against the 1826 peep-stone arrest and
examination before Justice Neeley, all through the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s --
mostly to combat the growing historical influence of their apostate, Mrs. Brodie.

Perhaps, if somebody were to make the effort, an investigation conducted among
the preserved files of Community of Christ, in Independence, Mo., might turn up
some additional facts on the 1820s "Gold Bible Company."

In the meanwhile, perhaps somebody ought to look into the history and genealogy
of Peter G. Bridgeman's third wife, Elizabeth Robinson Bridgeman (1810-1882)
who perhaps knew something about the Gold Bible Company, as a 16 year old
girl, living in the neighborhood of Joseph Smith's southern NY activities.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
In the meanwhile, perhaps somebody ought to look into the history and genealogy
of Peter G. Bridgeman's third wife, Elizabeth Robinson Bridgeman (1810-1882)
who perhaps knew something about the Gold Bible Company, as a 16 year old
girl, living in the neighborhood of Joseph Smith's southern NY activities.
...

Hint -- in the mid-1820s Elizabeth's parents (Newell Robinson and Sarah Baker Robinson)
were living in Brooklyn, Susquehanna, PA 15 miles SE of Joseph and Emma Hale Smith.
The family was also connected with the town of Lyons, Wayne Co., NY (near Palmyra)

Thus, if Elizabeth Robinson Bridgeman came in contact with Book of Mormon stories
before 1828, that fact would be very significant. If she heard the names Nephi, Mormon,
etc. after that time, her exposure to the text may have occurred during its "translation"

At any rate, Elizabeth's knowledge of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon appears
to have happened entirely separate from her later marriage to Peter G. Bridgeman,
which did not occur until 1856 -- 30 years after the trial before Justice Neeley.

UD