Radio Free Mormon: Daniel C. Peterson: The Artful Dodger

[_Shulem]

Yes, the pages were apparently cut out.

Like the uncut pages, they weren't published.

And we know nothing about who cut the pages or why.

So the accusation against Joseph Fielding Smith fails for lack of evidence, as does the broader accusation against the Church as a whole.

Anybody can walk into the church historian office and cut pages out of Joseph Smith's journal. I snuck in the other day and cut me a slice of the pie. It's easy. It's just sitting there on a table, completely unguarded.

[_Stocks]

talk out of both sides of (one's) mouth

To try to maintain contradictory positions or beliefs in an attempt to please the most people.

[_Stocks]

Yes, the pages were apparently cut out.

Like the uncut pages, they weren't published.

And we know nothing about who cut the pages or why.

So the accusation against Joseph Fielding Smith fails for lack of evidence, as does the broader accusation against the Church as a whole.

So we are like Jon Snow regarding who or why?

Uh, well, not entirely nothing.

There is the circumstantial evidence, in particular the second hand testimonies (Lamar Petersen, Levi Young, Tanners) all pointing to JSF. Considering the weight of this matter, that JSF's journals have been closed to the public, despite requests to review for clarity on the 1832 account, looks suspicious at best.

[_Markk]

show me a list of official LDS documentation references (magazines, CES material, Conference Talks etc.) that have made this issue so clear to the rank and file over the last 50 years.

That's my point...This is not the first time he has done this. He did it years ago with Joseph having a gun smuggled to him. I posted at one of the old forums that I was never taught Joseph shot some of his murders until I was in my 30's, and that finding that out was what made me start my search for truth about the church.

He, with the clones all piping in, pasted some ten or so, mostly obscure teachings, over like 80 or so years where Joseph having a weapon was mentioned. One that I remember was some guy that taught Smiths life through portrait pictures in the early part of the 20th century, and had a painting with Joseph with a gun.

So, to your point there is a difference between clear teaching to the folks, and obscure teachings that very few will see, like someones BYU dissertation, in 1960 before the internet? Give me a break. I know in 1960 my parents were trying stay afloat, were raising 5 children, and so on, I am not sure how the folks would be taught in such a way.

Dan can't even remember if indeed, JFS locked it up, so to answer your question, it can't be taught too clearly if one of Mormonism's chief apologists can't recall the facts.

[_Lemmie]

Billy Shears once again brings reason to mopologetics:

Billy Shears • 5 minutes ago

Here is the timeline of what happened, taken mostly from the FAIR article.

1832: In his own handwriting, Joseph Smith writes in his “letter book” (basically a personal journal) the oldest account of the first vision we have. This version implies that only one being, “the Lord” visited him, and that the message he received was that the world lieth in sin and had turned aside from the gospel, but that Joseph’s sins were forgiven. It is substantially different and in some important ways in conflict with the 1838 vision.

Feb 3, 1953: Levi Edgar Young, the president of the first quorum of the 70, tells LaMar Peterson that he no longer asks questions to Joseph Fielding Smith because “he was laughed at and put off.” Levi Young told LaMar that he was doing some research and got special permission to see Joseph Smith's letter book and these three pages, but he was explicitly instructed “not to copy or tell what they contained.” He told LaMar they contained a “strange” account of the first vision which remains unused and unknown.

Sometime between 1930 and 1965: The three pages that had the 1832 first vision account had been cut out from the book. One of the pages that was cut out got a corner ripped off, “which evidently occurred during its excision,” and was mended with cellophane tape.

December 1963: Levi Edgar Young dies.

Early 1964: LaMar Peterson tells Jerald and Sandra Tanner about his meeting with Levi Edgar Young and what he had heard about the alternate account of the first vision. The Tanners ask Joseph Fielding Smith if they can see the letter book, and in the least surprising decision in the history of Mormonism, Joseph Fielding Smith tells them no. However, the Tanners put up a big, credible stink about this, and the issue becomes public.

1965: Paul R. Chessman is giving access to the 1832 account for his BYU Master’s thesis on varying accounts of the first vision. The Tanners get a copy of the version from Chessman, and are the first to publish it.

1966 - 1980 The various accounts of the 1832 version, as referenced in Professor Peterson's main blog entry above.

1990’s: The three pages that had been cut out were put back into the book.

Analysis

We know that between 1930 and 1953 that the letter book wasn’t lost in the stacks. Somebody was aware of it, and was aware of these specific pages. For some reason, somebody ripped out three pages, and fixed a corner of one of the pages with tape.

There was some official suppression. In 1953 the President of the 70 was allowed to see the account, but was explicitly told not to copy down what it said or tell anybody about it. That is suppression.

Despite the promise, President Young told somebody about it—he told LaMar Peterson, who guarded the secret until Young’s death in 1964. LaMar Peterson then told the Tanners, who then publicized it. At that point scholars were allowed to see the document, but the Tanners were still the first to publish it.

So here is the question. If Young wouldn’t have told LaMar Peterson about the document and if LaMar Peterson wouldn’t have told the Tanners about it, when would the world have learned about this?

There was suppression. If Levi Edgar Young wouldn’t have gotten permission to see it, or if he would have kept his promise not to tell anybody about it, this probably wouldn’t have become public until the Joseph Smith Papers project.

Another reader points out the obvious:

Mike R • an hour ago

I'll tell you what the average reader (me) has taken away from all of this...
Dan Peterson (2018): There's been no suppression

Dan Peterson (yesterday): Maybe there was suppression, I don't know. I don't recall the details, I'll have to do some research.

Dan Peterson (today): My friend from Wyoming says that Steven Harper told him that the 1832 account was just "lost in the stacks"!

Thanks Dan for keeping us up-to-date on your every thought, but, I'm confused as to why you will continue to write on this subject, but will refuse to research it? The current evidence (e.g. cut out and then taped-back-in pages, LaMar Petersen's interview with Elder Levi Young, the timing of the Chessman discovery in relationship to the Tanners immanent disclosure, etc) seems to all point to suppression.

You have not addressed any of those issues, but you are quick to publish a second-hand account of a bald assertion made in a Wyoming stake meeting?

Speaking sincerely here, Dan, I honestly want to believe that there has been no suppression of the 1832 account, ever. Please give me something I can work with. Otherwise, regardless of what you and others have concluded as to the non-issue nature of the discrepancies between the accounts, it would seem that Elder Joseph Fielding Smith disagreed with you.

[_Lemmie]

The comments continue. Clearly Peterson has lost control of this conversation:

Bill Reel > DanielPeterson • 2 hours ago

What do you think the average Deseret News reader took away from

"There’s been no scandal, no suppression, and the often exaggerated if not altogether invented discrepancies between them have been thoroughly examined" ?

And if they read you saying elsewhere "I’m open to the possibility that Elder Joseph Fielding Smith may have tried to hide or “suppress” the 1832 account of the First Vision" Do you think they might be confused and feel these two statements are at odds with each other?

Surely you can see the room for confusion at two statements that seem to contradict each other?


DanielPeterson Mod > Bill Reel • 2 hours ago

I'm hoping that the average Deseret News reader took away from what I wrote the fact that there’s been no scandal, no suppression, and that the often exaggerated if not altogether invented discrepancies between the documents have been thoroughly examined.

That's what I intended to be the take-away.

I stand by it.


Siliconn > DanielPeterson • an hour ago

Apologies, but saying "it is possible" does carry a very different message and conviction from "there is none".

The latter suggests some definitive evidence that eliminates the possibility of suppression.


DanielPeterson Mod > Siliconn • an hour ago

There's no real evidence one way or the other. So it's possible. But it's far from proven. Not even close. It's a speculative hypothesis.

This isn't a difficult concept.


Siliconn > DanielPeterson • an hour ago

Right, it is not a difficult concept. Sincere apologies if I am making it difficult.

You said there's been no suppression. But then you said it is possible. I don't see how those two statements can co-exist.

For example:

If I say there are no coins in my pocket, it means I have checked my pocket and found no coins. Period. Confirmed.

If I say it is possible, but at best a speculative hypothesis, that there are coins in my pocket, it suggests that I don't know for sure, or I am holding that information back deliberately.

I hear you saying that the answer to whether the 1832 diary pages covering the first vision were suppressed is that it is possible.

I am totally cool with that.

But then, here in the comment above, you appear to have backtracked and now assert that the pages were not suppressed.

Can you acknowledge that this would be confusing to someone who is searching for answers and trying to find comfort from those who have looked at the evidence and represent a point of view about that evidence?

Are there coins in your pocket?
[ ] Yes
[ ] Possibly
[ ] No


DanielPeterson Mod > Siliconn • 39 minutes ago

Enjoy the rest of the day, Siliconn.

You'll note Peterson's last comment is code for "you are banned for making a point i can't refute."

[_Lemmie]

Siliconn makes some excellent points here:

Siliconn > DanielPeterson • 2 hours ago

...I would GREATLY appreciate a direct answer as to why you doubt that a senior church official (possibly JSF) decided to cut out the 1832 first vision account pages and "sit on" them for so many years? Nothing about motive, but what facts at your disposal lead you to question whether it happened?


DanielPeterson Mod > Siliconn • 2 hours ago

I don't know that it happened because the evidence for its having happened is lacking.

Isn't that enough reason for withholding a vote of guilty?

I have doubts about JFS seeking to suppress the 1832 account because it was published in multiple places under his stewardship as Church History and as president of the Church altogether.


Siliconn > DanielPeterson • 2 hours ago

I understand the doubt about whether it was JFS or not. But is the evidence that the pages were cut out of the diary lacking?


DanielPeterson Mod > Siliconn • 2 hours ago

No, but there may have been reasons other than suppression for doing so.


Siliconn > DanielPeterson • 2 hours ago

Then we agree at the end?

The pages were cut out. Check.
The pages were held from the public. Check.
Why? We don't know. The evidence is lacking.

As to the Why, it does come down to circumstantial evidence. Would you agree?


DanielPeterson Mod > Siliconn • 2 hours ago

I doubt that we really agree.

Yes, the pages were apparently cut out.

Like the uncut pages, they weren't published.

And we know nothing about who cut the pages or why.

So the accusation against Joseph Fielding Smith fails for lack of evidence, as does the broader accusation against the Church as a whole.


Siliconn > DanielPeterson • an hour ago

Well, again, it is possible is a far cry from saying the argument fails.

There is the circumstantial evidence, in particular the second hand testimonies (Lamar Petersen, Levi Young, Tanners) all pointing to JSF. Considering the weight of this matter, that JSF's journals have been closed to the public, despite requests to review for clarity on the 1832 account, looks suspicious at best.

The hard evidence is clear and we have agreed on what that is.

The circumstantial evidence points to a case of suppression, possibly. We have no idea specifically WHY that happened, and circumstantial evidence is not as reliable as direct evidence.

So again, I am totally cool with just settling on "possibly", but as soon as we seem to agree on that you go and shut the argument down saying that it fails, or that there was "no suppression" which is another definitive statement based on a greater leap in suppositions than the other conclusion based on following the circumstantial evidence.


DanielPeterson Mod > Siliconn • 35 minutes ago

Silicone: "Well, again, it is possible is a far cry from saying the argument fails."

I tend to think that, when it comes to accusations of wrongdoing, "preponderance of the evidence" is a pretty good standard -- and "beyond reasonable doubt" an even better one.

A prosecution arguing that it's "possible" that John is guilty wouldn't get very far. The case would fail.


Siliconn > DanielPeterson • 27 minutes ago

On that we agree 100%. The court of law comparison isn't ideal here. I am a believer in "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to determining guilt that is punishable under criminal code.

Civil code is another matter, but that is not the point either of us are making.

My favorite is Peterson saying suppression of the pages could have been done "for reasons other than suppression."

[_Gadianton]

"We don't know for certain when or how Frank died, why he died, who may or may not have been aware of his death, when and why it was reported that he had died, or where his body is. Plainly, Bob murdered Frank."

Yes, we do know that Frank was locked up in Bob's house for years and years, and that nobody was allowed to see Frank except with special permission from Bob, and that nobody who saw Frank was allowed to speak anything of him. We also know that nobody had a greater incentive for Frank to die than Bob and the Hooded order of Brothers that Bob led. But it is nonetheless true that nobody knows when or how Frank died; his body suddenly disappeared, and all that remained behind was a pair of bloody scissors. But even during those times when Frank was least accessible within his cell in Bob's house, Bob wasn't the only person with access to him. Granted, Bob had one of the most outlandish home security systems known to mankind, and anyone who ever encountered Frank would have been known to Bob, and all would have been cleared members of the Brotherhood Bob belonged to, a Brotherhood that requires all members to consecrate their lives to the cause of the Brotherhood, but this proves nothing against Bob personally nor the Brotherhood. We can't even really say that Frank was murdered. He could have had a heart attack and fallen upon the scissors incidentally. Or he could have been given the opportunity to donate blood while locked away, and the blood bag, temporarily shelved, accidentally ran through with the scissors. We fully deny that Bob or the Brotherhood had anything to do with Frank's death. And we've been forthright about this from the beginning. After a private investigator learned of the death in a chance encounter with one of those who had access to Frank and went public with it, Bob announced that Frank had passed on. There is no foul play here, no suppression of information, nor any reason whatsoever to speculate that suppression of Frank's bodily state had occurred in the least. Anyone the least bit suspicious is a bigot of the worst order.

[_consiglieri]

BRAVO!!!

[_consiglieri]

Professor Peterson deigns to make a comment on Bill Reel's Facebook page:

Daniel Peterson: I've been intensely busy in the Middle East for the past six weeks, returning only last night. I leave the country again on Friday. I haven't listened to the podcast, and very likely won't. However, some critics have shown up on my blog regarding the 1832 First Vision account, and I've responded to them there when they have.

That's our Professor Peterson!