consiglieri wrote:My question is WHY Joseph Fielding Smith would think this one paragraph of sufficient import to not want the readers of his book to know about.
"I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine. It looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter-day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It don’t prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 184 (edited out of TPJS at page 288).
As to why the quote was taken out, I can think of two likely reasons. First, the quote no longer fits with current orthodoxy. Second, the quote directly attacks another Christian denomination and perhaps it was taken out as an irenic gesture.
Some further thoughts on this, I hope this doesn't offend, but it might. I think this quote is much abused among liberal Mormons. Liberal Mormons desperately want space for thinking in the LDS church. The problem is that there isn't much, so liberal Mormons ransack the entire corpus of Mormonism looking for something to make their case. This is one of the few quotes they point to in an effort to make space for themselves. The problem is that I see very little evidence that this has ever been the case in any period of the LDS church. People generally imagine that it must have been so because why else would Joseph Smith have said it unless it was so? If it really was true that people could have doctrinal differences with Joseph Smith without risking church censure, then all if have to say is: William Law.
My experience has been that most questions of doctrine are converted into questions of authority and history. Thus one might be allowed lenience in doctrinal adherence, but that lenience is balanced by restrictions on having to take orthodox stances on questions of history and authority. For example the Book of Mormon is negative on polygamy and teaches a doctrine of God much closer to trinitarianism than the current LDS teachings on the subject. Thus, the LDS church itself officially doesn't care much about the doctrine established in the Book of Mormon (yes, I'm aware there are reasons given for these departures, I don't find them convincing). However, what one cannot do publicly is question 1) The historicity of the Book of Mormon or 2) The authority of the Joseph Smith as translator. The conclusion is that the doctrine of the Book of Mormon itself is not as important as its historicity and its ability to support authority claims.
As to my second point, I think it's quite funny because LDS folk generally like to assert that they don't attack other churches so why don't you filthy evangelicals stop attacking us? Yet, here is Joseph Smith being down on Methodism. Though not a direct attack, it's clearly neither neutral nor positive towards Methodists.
Finally, I think the quote is hilarious because the more I research Methodism, the more I come to see early Mormonism as "Methodism Misunderstood." Now, in the period of Joseph Smith, and in the areas in which he was living, there may have been some insistence on certain creedal beliefs. But historically, Methodism has been pretty open to all kinds of views. Even at the founding of Methodism there was a massive disagreement between Calvinist Methodists and Arminian Methodists. John Wesley (founder of Methodism and an Arminian) and George Whitefield (an extremely popular preacher and staunch Calvinist) were part of the same Methodist movement in the 18th century. Their disagreements were very real, but neither thought it necessary to excommunicate the other from the movement, nor to tell the other to shut up until they got their beliefs correct. While each thought the other mistaken, they saw each other as doing more good than harm and continued to preach their respective views for decades.