Rewriting History?
James
Would you be surprised to learn that Joseph Smith drank alcohol
after introducing the Word of Wisdom?
The truth is he did, yet most Mormons who I talk to would
swear that Joseph Smith never touched it outside of the sacrament.
I think the LDS Church not only ignores this obvious
embarrassment, but takes active measures in keeping it secret.
On June 1, 1844 (only a couple of weeks prior to Joseph's death)
the History of the Church as published in the Millennial Star
indicated that Joseph Smith drank "a glass of beer at Moessers."
This statement was later removed in recent editions of the
History of the Church.
Joseph Smith's statement in the LDS Millenial Star:
"Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him and another brother
$200. Drank a glass of beer at Moessers. Called at William
Clayton's ..." (Millennial Star, vol. 23, p. 720).
This phrase was edited in a new edition of the History of the
Church:
"Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him and another $200.
Called at William Clayton's...." (History of the Church, vol. 6,
pg. 424).
***
Sincerely,
James
___________________________________________________________________
** "Mormonism:Shadow or Reality?"--A book in Review- Ch. 2, pg. 6 **
The above topic was found in "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?"
I believe this book is the most comprehensive critical book on
Mormonism. You can obtain it by visiting this web
site: http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/reason.htm
********************************************************************
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
____________________________________________________________________
Yist&Feog
James wrote:
> On June 1, 1844 (only a couple of weeks prior to Joseph's death)
> the History of the Church as published in the Millennial Star
> indicated that Joseph Smith drank "a glass of beer at Moessers."
> This statement was later removed in recent editions of the
> History of the Church.
>
> Joseph Smith's statement in the LDS Millenial Star:
> "Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him and another brother
> $200. Drank a glass of beer at Moessers. Called at William
> Clayton's ..." (Millennial Star, vol. 23, p. 720).
>
> James
If you read the begining of D&C 89, it staits (vs2)
To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of
wisdom. . .
So, we see that when Joseph Smith recieved this revelation, it was not a commandment,
but more like advice. So, it wasn't a sin to drink, so no problem.
Now, why are parts of D&C 89 considered a commandment? Why isn't all of D&C 89 a
commandment? Why don't you answer that for us, James? Or, are you content on repeating
this tidbit every few months?
Geoff Matthews
(who read this from you a few months ago)
Peggy Rogers
On 16 Feb 1997, James wrote:
> Would you be surprised to learn that Joseph Smith drank alcohol
> after introducing the Word of Wisdom?
Not at all.
> The truth is he did, yet most Mormons who I talk to would
> swear that Joseph Smith never touched it outside of the sacrament.
> I think the LDS Church not only ignores this obvious
> embarrassment, but takes active measures in keeping it secret.
Okay, probably some Latter-day Saints would freak out if they saw
the passage you cite below in a History of the Church which is an
official church publication. (This is probably the same impulse that
encourages Primary leaders to teach children that the wine used
at the Last Supper was actually pure grape juice. I mean, give me
a break--grapes were harvested in the fall, right? And Passover
is usually about April, and they didn't have either refrigeration or
canning tehcnology. So I think it's pretty obvious that it must have
been _real_ fermented wine.)
> On June 1, 1844 (only a couple of weeks prior to Joseph's death)
> the History of the Church as published in the Millennial Star
> indicated that Joseph Smith drank "a glass of beer at Moessers."
> This statement was later removed in recent editions of the
> History of the Church.
>
> Joseph Smith's statement in the LDS Millenial Star:
> "Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him and another brother
> $200. Drank a glass of beer at Moessers. Called at William
> Clayton's ..." (Millennial Star, vol. 23, p. 720).
>
> This phrase was edited in a new edition of the History of the
> Church:
>
> "Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him and another $200.
> Called at William Clayton's...." (History of the Church, vol. 6,
> pg. 424).
Honestly, James, I really don't understand why you bother to dwell on
such a non-issue as this one. How often do you bring it up? I'm sure we
heard about it when this newsgroup got started, only about four months
ago. It could simply be that the editors of the more recent History of
the Church considered Joseph's beer-drinking to be an unimportant
detail, and it probably would be, even in your opinion, if he had eaten
a cupcake at Moessers instead of drinking beer. And as we have told you,
over and over, at this time the Word of Wisdom was regarded simply as
good advice--not a commandment--and a detailed understanding of what
substances were forbidden had not really been developed.
|For it is one of the main duties of friends to help
Peggy Rogers |one another to be better persons: one must hold up
<kro...@xmission.com> |a standard for one's friend and be able to count on
|a true friend to do likewise. --Robert Bellah
James
(Message sent to Geoff and to s.r.m.)
Yist&Feog wrote:
<snip>
> So, we see that when Joseph Smith recieved this revelation, it was not
> a commandment, but more like advice. So, it wasn't a sin to drink, so
> no problem.
The issue I attempted to raise in this thread is that the LDS Church is
rewriting history. Joseph Smith's alcohol consumption could very well
interfere with the common Mormon perception of him so it was changed
(IMO).
You are correct that the Word of Wisdom was not yet made a commandment.
However. the fact that Joseph Smith clearly did not follow the advice
and
council shown in the Word of Wisdom certainly puts him in a poor light
(IMO).
The issue that I am raising in this thread is the fact that the
LDS Church has resorted to rewriting history to "edit out" what is
uncomfortable to them, even when it is the truth. The History of the
Church appears to be a historical document, yet by editing out passages
of the work the document can easily become pro-Mormon propoganda.
Sincerely,
James
_____________________________________________________________________
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
_____________________________________________________________________
James
(Message sent to Peggy and to s.r.m.)
Peggy Rogers wrote:
<snip>
> Okay, probably some Latter-day Saints would freak out if they saw
> the passage you cite below in a History of the Church which is an
> official church publication.
Thank you for admitting that Joseph Smith's drinking habit
is not common knowledge among Mormons. On the other hand, Joseph
Smith's abhorance of alcohol during a childhood surgery probably
is common known knowledge ( I recall hearing it repeated a couple
times in LDS Sunday School and by LDS friends).
> (This is probably the same impulse that
> encourages Primary leaders to teach children that the wine used
> at the Last Supper was actually pure grape juice.
Why do you think the Primary leaders resort to teaching something
that they know is not true?
> I mean, give me
> a break--grapes were harvested in the fall, right? And Passover
> is usually about April, and they didn't have either refrigeration or
> canning tehcnology. So I think it's pretty obvious that it must have
> been _real_ fermented wine.)
I would agree here.
<snip>
> > Joseph Smith's statement in the LDS Millenial Star:
> > "Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him and another brother
> > $200. Drank a glass of beer at Moessers. Called at William
> > Clayton's ..." (Millennial Star, vol. 23, p. 720).
> >
> > This phrase was edited in a new edition of the History of the
> > Church:
> >
> > "Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him and another $200.
> > Called at William Clayton's...." (History of the Church, vol. 6,
> > pg. 424).
>
> Honestly, James, I really don't understand why you bother to dwell on
> such a non-issue as this one. How often do you bring it up?
You are corret that a couple of weeks ago I brought up the issue of
the Word of Wisdom and Joseph Smith's drinking habit. However,
this thread focuses on what appears to be an attempt to "cover up"
Joseph's drinking habit.
If the LDS Church is willing to "rewrite" history for such a
non-issue as Joseph Smith's drinking, could the LDS
Church leaders be willing to cover up even bigger embarassing
issues, like the Book of Abraham & Egyptian papryi, Masonic
connection to Mormonism, Joseph Smith's marriage to other men's
wives, etc.?
> It could simply be that the editors of the more recent History of
> the Church considered Joseph's beer-drinking to be an unimportant
> detail, and it probably would be, even in your opinion, if he had eaten
> a cupcake at Moessers instead of drinking beer.
I think this particular "editing" was done to remove an embarrassing
fact. My posts and web page try to focus on these same facts, the
facts I think the LDS Church may not want you to know.
**
So you see no problem in the rewriting of the LDS history to make it
more palatable? What happened to the truth?
The History of the Church is supposed to be a historical document
by itself. However, it appears that at least parts of it are
not representative of the original historical facts. I think this
alteration of the historical document is unethical.
Sincerely,
James
________________________________________________________________
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web page at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
________________________________________________________________
Pete Russell
In article <5e9r5p$1...@q.seanet.com>, Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.xmi
ssion.com> writes
> It could simply be that the editors of the more recent History of
>the Church considered Joseph's beer-drinking to be an unimportant
>detail, and it probably would be, even in your opinion, if he had eaten
>a cupcake at Moessers instead of drinking beer.
I doubt very much that it was simply considered an unimportant detail.
Indeed I think it a lot more likely that they considered it quite
important, hence they omitted it.
Consider also the following from JS diary:
Friday, May 31, 1844 -- "called to see Sister Richards who was very
sick. Laid on hands. Directed some Raspberry tea and she was better."
(p. 486).
In History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 424, the entry for Friday, May 31,
1844 now reads,
"called to see Sister Richards, who was sick. I administered to her
laying on of hands, when she felt better."
Now not only has the raspberry tea disappeared but Sister Richards is
now just sick instead of very sick and the wording of the portion re
laying on of hands has changed.
Now these appear to be the words used by JS and yet they are obviously
not, they have been altered. Why? Both versions have 20 words so it
cannot be to save space.
This at the very least appears to be a very poor example of accurate
textural transmission.
Pete.
--
Pete Russell
Craig Anderson
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<5ec7ci$h...@q.seanet.com>...
> The issue I attempted to raise in this thread is that the LDS Church is
> rewriting history. Joseph Smith's alcohol consumption could very well
> interfere with the common Mormon perception of him so it was changed
> (IMO).
What was changed in this regard? When was the fact that Joseph consumed
some alcohol changed? When did the church revise this piece of "history"?
I've never read any statements by the church that would support such a
conclusion.
> You are correct that the Word of Wisdom was not yet made a commandment.
> However. the fact that Joseph Smith clearly did not follow the advice
> and
> council shown in the Word of Wisdom certainly puts him in a poor light
> (IMO).
I think only because you _want_ to look at it that way.
> The issue that I am raising in this thread is the fact that the
> LDS Church has resorted to rewriting history to "edit out" what is
> uncomfortable to them, even when it is the truth.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course. I think you have failed
to show that that is the case in regard to Joseph and drinking, though.
> The History of the
> Church appears to be a historical document, yet by editing out passages
> of the work the document can easily become pro-Mormon propoganda.
Hmmmm, so if the church doesn't publish and promote all the warts along
with all the beauty then it is guilty of pro-Mormon propoganda? Well,
possibly. However, I wonder why in the world you would expect the church to
put anything other than it's best face forward? Suppression would be a
different thing. But merely not advertising the warts is hardly anything
serious.
Craig
G. Merrill Dodge
James wrote:
>
> You are corret that a couple of weeks ago I brought up the issue of
> the Word of Wisdom and Joseph Smith's drinking habit. However,
> this thread focuses on what appears to be an attempt to "cover up"
> Joseph's drinking habit.
>
Oh come on now! It says he had a beer, and now you call it a 'drinking
habit.' You'll soon have Joseph hosting drunken orgies in the Nauvoo
temple with the baptismal font filled with wine! Gimme' a break.
And again, about the story of Joseph as a boy turning aside alcohol
offered as pain killer when he was to have his leg operated on. Even the
children of non-Mormons are advised by their parents to aviod alcohol
since they feel it is better tolerated and managed by adults. An Joseph
was a non-Mormon at the time. What he was, as his mother attests, was a
good boy.
Peggy Rogers
James wrote:
> I had written:
> > Okay, probably some Latter-day Saints would freak out if they saw
> > the passage you cite below in a History of the Church which is an
> > official church publication.
> Thank you for admitting that Joseph Smith's drinking habit
> is not common knowledge among Mormons. On the other hand, Joseph
> Smith's abhorance of alcohol during a childhood surgery probably
> is common known knowledge (I recall hearing it repeated a couple
> times in LDS Sunday School and by LDS friends).
Um...I admit no such thing. I think most members of the church realize
that J.S. did drink wine, even after receiving the Word of Wisdom.
And your choice of the words "drinking habit" makes it sound like he
was a closet alchoholic. Not much evidence for that, I don't think.
> > (This is probably the same impulse that
> > encourages Primary leaders to teach children that the wine used
> > at the Last Supper was actually pure grape juice.)
> Why do you think the Primary leaders resort to teaching something
> that they know is not true?
I don't think they _know_ it's not true. I think they've just never
thought about it very hard. Negligent, perhaps, but not especially
devious. If I were in that situation, I'd just let it pass without
an explanation.
<snip>
> > > Joseph Smith's statement in the LDS Millenial Star:
> > > "Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him and another brother
> > > $200. Drank a glass of beer at Moessers. Called at William
> > > Clayton's ..." (Millennial Star, vol. 23, p. 720).
> > >
> > > This phrase was edited in a new edition of the History of the
> > > Church:
> > >
> > > "Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him and another $200.
> > > Called at William Clayton's...." (History of the Church, vol. 6,
> > > pg. 424).
>
> > Honestly, James, I really don't understand why you bother to dwell on
> > such a non-issue as this one. How often do you bring it up?
> You are corret that a couple of weeks ago I brought up the issue of
> the Word of Wisdom and Joseph Smith's drinking habit. However,
> this thread focuses on what appears to be an attempt to "cover up"
> Joseph's drinking habit.
There you go again with "drinking habit." A real lush, wasn't he?
But, okay, I get it now. And I'll grant that it's a new topic,
sort of... But if the omission of a single glass of beer is the most
damning example you can come up with (if there were a worse one,
I'm sure you'd oblige us by bringing it to our attention) well...
does the phrase "grasping at straws" ring a bell? (BTW do you do
your own comparisons of the original sources to the revised versions?
Do you have that sort of time on your hands?)
> If the LDS Church is willing to "rewrite" history for such a
> non-issue as Joseph Smith's drinking, could the LDS
> Church leaders be willing to cover up even bigger embarassing
> issues, like the Book of Abraham & Egyptian papryi, Masonic
> connection to Mormonism, Joseph Smith's marriage to other men's
> wives, etc.?
James, all historical writing is selective. Your own treatment of LDS
history is highly selective, in that you do your best to focus on
incidents that will discredit the church. One doesn't find a lot of
faith-promoting stories on your web page, does one? And yet many of
those are just as verifiable, historically, as the ones you choose
to promote. Should the church be obliged to publish all the slanders
written about Joseph Smith by his contemporaries, because those are
also part of the historical record?
> > It could simply be that the editors of the more recent History of
> > the Church considered Joseph's beer-drinking to be an unimportant
> > detail, and it probably would be, even in your opinion, if he had
> > eaten a cupcake at Moessers instead of drinking beer.
> I think this particular "editing" was done to remove an embarrassing
> fact. My posts and web page try to focus on these same facts, the
> facts I think the LDS Church may not want you to know.
Facts, schmacts! Does you web page include any facts about how I can
do a better job of serving God and loving other people? _Those_ are the
sorts of facts that the LDS Church wants me to know. Others may be
interesting, but are largely incidental.
> So you see no problem in the rewriting of the LDS history to make it
> more palatable? What happened to the truth?
Truth is one very important value, but it is not the only one.
Yesterday my very unartistic daughter presented me with a homely
collage made of pictures cut from a seed catalog. Should I have
told her "the truth" when she asked me what I thought of it? or
should I have given her "milk before meat"? Your insistence on
truth often reminds me of a favorite couplet by William Blake:
A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.
> The History of the Church is supposed to be a historical document
> by itself. However, it appears that at least parts of it are
> not representative of the original historical facts. I think this
> alteration of the historical document is unethical.
Well, maybe you're right. Possibly, in the eternal scheme to things,
someone made an ethical mistake in doing that. One of the things that
you seem to have a hard time grasping is that the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, like the people who comprise it
(including, yes, Joseph Smith, and other prophets as well) is still
learning and growing--has not yet reached a state of perfection. But
those of us who are faithful to the church are not about to turn
away from all the goodness and strength we have experienced there
when we come across some flaws--in either the organization or the
people.
| The remarkable thing about television
Peggy Rogers | is that it permits several million
<kro...@xmission.com> | people to laugh at the same joke
| and still feel lonely. --T.S. Eliot
Pete Russell
In article <5efkf9$6...@q.seanet.com>, Craig Anderson
<10511...@CompuServe.COM> writes
>I've never read any statements by the church that would support such a
>conclusion.
not. I mean if it is not in the liturature provided by the church and
the Church discourages reading any "anti" propaganda then many people
would be unaware of it. And as already been mentioned on this thread
many LDS would even be surprised by it.
>> council shown in the Word of Wisdom certainly puts him in a poor light
>> (IMO).
>
>I think only because you _want_ to look at it that way.
So are you actually stating here that not to follow the advice in the
Word of Wisdom is NO reflection on a persons dedication to doing what
God would like him to do. Did I not read somewhere in this NG a short
time ago that BY stated that although not binding a true believer would
adopt the WoW advice? (perhaps not I cant find it at the moment)
>Hmmmm, so if the church doesn't publish and promote all the warts along
>with all the beauty then it is guilty of pro-Mormon propoganda? Well,
>possibly. However, I wonder why in the world you would expect the church to
>put anything other than it's best face forward? Suppression would be a
>different thing. But merely not advertising the warts is hardly anything
>serious.
Nobody is claiming that the church has to produce warts and all just
that they dont change quotes so that they dont contain them. Besides
sometimes I think that the church actually changes some bits in ways
that make things look less appealing. (see my other post on the laying
on of hands)
The point is that the HoC is not being portrayed as a propaganda
document, it is held out as an accurrate historical account, it is not
that and hence it is misleading.
If the Church has to rely on ommitting phrases because they are awkward
for them, or changing quotations then this seriously undermines their
credability. And IMHO this is not just MHO this is a universally
accepted means of establishing the historical accurracy and reliability
of evidence.
I think the LDS would adopt a different attitude to re-writting of
history if say the Tanners started changing JS's quotes to assist their
points of view to be accepted, do you not agree?
Pete.
--
Pete Russell
Pete Russell
In article <5efl8n$6...@q.seanet.com>, Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.xmi
ssion.com> writes
>Um...I admit no such thing. I think most members of the church realize
>that J.S. did drink wine, even after receiving the Word of Wisdom.
_all_ members would be aware of it.
>And your choice of the words "drinking habit" makes it sound like he
>was a closet alchoholic. Not much evidence for that, I don't think.
I agree.
>I don't think they _know_ it's not true. I think they've just never
>thought about it very hard. Negligent, perhaps, but not especially
>devious. If I were in that situation, I'd just let it pass without
>an explanation.
But what would you do if the Church in a carefully considered and
officially recognised document started teaching it? Worse what if they
changed the biblical text to read Christ turned the water into
unfermented grape juice?
>> > Honestly, James, I really don't understand why you bother to dwell on
>> > such a non-issue as this one. How often do you bring it up?
And I cannot understand how the obvious and openly admitted changing of
quotes by JS can be so casually dismissed as irrelevant. Do you not
understand that to many people a church authority which does this sort
of thing is undermines their own credence?
>There you go again with "drinking habit." A real lush, wasn't he?
>But, okay, I get it now. And I'll grant that it's a new topic,
>sort of... But if the omission of a single glass of beer is the most
>damning example you can come up with (if there were a worse one,
Well how about a cuppa tea? <G>
It is not the fact that the ommitted/altered quotations are in
themselves damaging indeed in the case of the cuppa tea some of the
changed text actually IMHO reduces the significance of the incident as
far as portraying the positive side of the Church is concerned! It is
the fact that we appear to be unable to accept the accurracy of what is
portrayed as a historically accurate document.
>I'm sure you'd oblige us by bringing it to our attention) well...
>does the phrase "grasping at straws" ring a bell? (BTW do you do
>your own comparisons of the original sources to the revised versions?
>Do you have that sort of time on your hands?)
Personally yes where I can get the original text on the net then I will
compare them as best I can. However mostly I rely on other peoples work,
Why? are you stating that the quotes given are wrong. If so do let me
know please I do not appreciate relying on the accuracy of a document
only to find that it is incorrect.
>to promote. Should the church be obliged to publish all the slanders
>written about Joseph Smith by his contemporaries, because those are
>also part of the historical record?
No but where they do publish documents they should be as accurrate as
possible.
>> > It could simply be that the editors of the more recent History of
>> > the Church considered Joseph's beer-drinking to be an unimportant
But why was it _unimportant_ enough to warrant changing direct
quotations for?
>Facts, schmacts! Does you web page include any facts about how I can
>do a better job of serving God and loving other people? _Those_ are the
>sorts of facts that the LDS Church wants me to know. Others may be
>interesting, but are largely incidental.
But the fact is that JS wrote one thing and the LDS history now says
that he wrote another.
>
>> So you see no problem in the rewriting of the LDS history to make it
>> more palatable? What happened to the truth?
>
>Truth is one very important value, but it is not the only one.
Well it is when you are trying to establish it! <G>
>those of us who are faithful to the church are not about to turn
>away from all the goodness and strength we have experienced there
>when we come across some flaws--in either the organization or the
>people.
I am not asking you to do so. I know a few mormons and have found them
to be very decent kindly people. You are entitled to your beliefs, I
just think that the Church does itslf no favours when it alters facts
to suit. As I have said before it even alters bits which would have been
more faith promoting if left alone.
All the best
Pete
--
Pete Russell
Peggy Rogers
On 20 Feb 1997, Pete Russell wrote:
[Note to Pete: it's useful to put a blank line between the material you
are quoting and your reply to it. I, at least, find thoughts easier to
follow that way.]
> In article <5efl8n$6...@q.seanet.com>, Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.xmi
> ssion.com> writes
> >Um...I admit no such thing. I think most members of the church realize
> >that J.S. did drink wine, even after receiving the Word of Wisdom.
>
> most members. But if the WoW had accuratly recorded JS writings then
> _all_ members would be aware of it.
I really don't understand your point here, Pete. I don't even know
exactly what "History of the Church" you and James are going on about
here. The Word of Wisdom (Section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants)
is part of the LDS _scriptures_. The history of the church volume,
whichever version, is _not_ a part of the canon of scripture, and is
not generally refered to except by people who take a strong interest
in that sort of thing. Perhaps some of your alarm in this situation
is because you think the History of the Church, as a church publication,
is regarded as the Word of God? Well, it isn't.
<snippety>
> >> > Honestly, James, I really don't understand why you bother to dwell on
> >> > such a non-issue as this one. How often do you bring it up?
>
> And I cannot understand how the obvious and openly admitted changing of
> quotes by JS can be so casually dismissed as irrelevant. Do you not
> understand that to many people a church authority which does this sort
> of thing is undermines their own credence?
Listen, Pete, my reference to a "non-issue" was to the fact of Joseph
Smith's having drunk alcohol after getting advice not to. (That was in
my first reply to James, see?) I have admitted that the question of
changing the historical record is worth talking about. I've also
admitted that maybe it is wrong of the church historical office, or
whoever is in charge of such things, to make these changes. (You left
out that part of my reply, you know.) I'm certainly convinced that
most Latter-day Saints who delve into the history of the church in a
serious way are mature enough not to be unduly alarmed by a glass of
beer passing J.S.'s lips. But I have a life, and I'm not going to go
down to the church office building and carry a protest sign about it
until they change it back. I mean, what do you expect people to do
about this?
> >those of us who are faithful to the church are not about to turn
> >away from all the goodness and strength we have experienced there
> >when we come across some flaws--in either the organization or the
> >people.
>
> I am not asking you to do so. I know a few mormons and have found them
> to be very decent kindly people. You are entitled to your beliefs, I
> just think that the Church does itslf no favours when it alters facts
> to suit. As I have said before it even alters bits which would have been
> more faith promoting if left alone.
Well then we agree, don't we?
Woody Brison
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Joseph Smith's statement in the LDS Millenial Star:
> "Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him and another brother
> $200. Drank a glass of beer at Moessers. Called at William
> Clayton's ..." (Millennial Star, vol. 23, p. 720).
and contrasted it with:
> "Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him and another $200.
> Called at William Clayton's...." (History of the Church, vol. 6,
> pg. 424).
Let's see, James. Here we have two statements, one from the MS,
one from the HC. If you have quoted them correctly, they are
different. It makes me eternally sad, but I don't have the
resources to doublecheck you...I wasn't subscribed to MS in 1844.
I wasn't even on the earth then.
Neither, I daresay, were you. How do you know which account is
correct? How do you know that the first account wasn't simply
sabotaged by the printer's anti-mormon assistant or something
like that? How do you know that good honest men didn't spend a
long time interviewing people, and found eyewitnesses to the
event, so that they could correct the account in the newer
edition truthfull and faithfully? That would be far more
consistent with the character of the Latter-Day Saints.
In my estimation, truth is all there is. True, we give children
milk before meat, but meat by itself is blase'. A balanced meal
is the ideal, and truth is often impaired when it's incomplete,
just like your comparison above is incomplete. Without all the
facts, it can't be complete. The character of the LDS people is
part of the facts, and your story here, that the Church has
rewritten history, doesn't match the known character of the
leaders of the Church. The rest of the story, as to why the
account was changed, is also missing. Speculation is fun, but
pales in comparision to actual data.
Wood
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an
understanding. -- Samuel Johnson
Craig Anderson
Pete Russell <Pe...@sera.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<5ehjp0$j...@q.seanet.com>...
> So are you actually stating here that not to follow the advice in the
> Word of Wisdom is NO reflection on a persons dedication to doing what
> God would like him to do. Did I not read somewhere in this NG a short
> time ago that BY stated that although not binding a true believer would
> adopt the WoW advice? (perhaps not I cant find it at the moment)
BY's statement came after the saints had settled in SLC. But the larger
point is that the WofW was considered "advice", not "commandment" (as the
scripture itself says) in Joseph's time. It was later adopted as official
after the saints had moved west. To this less of Joseph for not obeying a
non-binding commandment seems, well, petty to me.
> The point is that the HoC is not being portrayed as a propaganda
> document, it is held out as an accurrate historical account, it is not
> that and hence it is misleading.
"Accurate historical account" is an interesting term. In this context, just
what _is_ "historical"? Does it mean: every last fact and 100% truth about
all things regarding a particular event or situation in the past?
Personally, I wouldn't define it that way. "Historical" accounts are,
pretty much by definition, subjective. Therefore, I don't find your
contention that the HofC is not "accurate" wholly convincing.
Craig
James
(Message sent to Pete and to s.r.m.)
Pete Russell wrote:
<snip>
> Consider also the following from JS diary:
>
> Friday, May 31, 1844 -- "called to see Sister Richards who was very
> sick. Laid on hands. Directed some Raspberry tea and she was better."
> (p. 486).
>
> In History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 424, the entry for Friday, May 31,
> 1844 now reads,
>
> "called to see Sister Richards, who was sick. I administered to
> her laying on of hands, when she felt better."
>
> Now not only has the raspberry tea disappeared but Sister Richards is
> now just sick instead of very sick and the wording of the portion re
> laying on of hands has changed.
Hmmm... Joseph Smith spent a lot of time with Sister Richards
disobeying the Word of Wisdom. For May 3, 1843, the History
of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 380, records that Joseph Smith
"Called at the office and drank a glass of wine with Sister
Janetta Richards, made by her mother in England, and reviewed
a portion of the conference minutes."
Joseph Smith also was disobeying the Word of Wisdom (not yet
a commandment then) on other instances, including the night
he was killed (History of the Church, vol. 7, pg. 101).
Sincerely,
James
___________________________________________________________________
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
*******************************************************************
To test your early Mormon history knowledge try my interactive
quiz at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/quiz/histquiz.htm
____________________________________________________________________
James
(Message sent to Peggy and to s.r.m.)
Peggy Rogers wrote:
> James wrote:
<snip>
> James, all historical writing is selective.
I agree, but the "History of the Church" is presented as a diary
of the historical events. If the document is selective and edited
then I think the reader should be fully informed about it.
> Your own treatment of LDS
> history is highly selective, in that you do your best to focus on
> incidents that will discredit the church.
There is a big difference between expressing a specific or
"select" opinion and altering the historical record (IMO).
In the example I provided the historical record was changed
to match the specific view proposed by the LDS Church. The
LDS Church did not take a specific interpretation of the
facts, it changed them.
> One doesn't find a lot of
> faith-promoting stories on your web page, does one?
My web page certainly presents information that one would
likely not learn in LDS Sunday School. If you go by that
definition, then you are right, that my web page is not
LDS faith-promoting. In my opinion, certain facts and
truths just can't be interpreted in any other way.
> And yet many of
> those are just as verifiable, historically, as the ones you choose
> to promote. Should the church be obliged to publish all the slanders
> written about Joseph Smith by his contemporaries, because those are
> also part of the historical record?
Most of my web pages reproduce information gathered and compiled
from LDS sources, not "anti" sources. I encourage you to prove
me wrong here.
The LDS Church was not editing out slander, it was editing out
the historical facts it had recorded earlier themselves. There
is a big difference.
<snip>
> Facts, schmacts! Does you web page include any facts about how I can
> do a better job of serving God and loving other people?
Follow what you personally believe is the truth.
> _Those_ are the
> sorts of facts that the LDS Church wants me to know.
Does it? I am not so sure.
<snip>
> Your insistence on
> truth often reminds me of a favorite couplet by William Blake:
>
> A truth that's told with bad intent
> Beats all the lies you can invent.
An even greater man, Jesus Christ, once said;
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free"
(John 8:32)
<snip>
> One of the things that
> you seem to have a hard time grasping is that the Church of Jesus
> Christ of Latter-day Saints, like the people who comprise it
> (including, yes, Joseph Smith, and other prophets as well) is still
> learning and growing--has not yet reached a state of perfection.
It appears that Mormons are much more forgiving of their past
leaders than they would be of their own family. How would
you feel if your son/daughter/brother/sister/mother/father
went out for a beer at the local bar?
> But
> those of us who are faithful to the church are not about to turn
> away from all the goodness and strength we have experienced there
> when we come across some flaws--in either the organization or the
> people.
You are certainly free to choose what you may. However, when
a person comes to research Mormonism, I think they
should have at least the opportunity or availability of both
sides of Mormon history -- the history Mormons want to ignore, and
the history Mormons perceive.
I think that the interpretation of history must be left up
for us personally to decide. BUT, I think that the rewriting
of historical facts is both unethical and immoral. There is a
difference.
Sincerely,
James
___________________________________________________________________
Test your early history LDS knowledge at my web site by taking
this interactive quiz:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/quiz/histquiz.htm
Or
For a history many Mormons would rather ignore, please take
"A Close Look at Mormonism" by visiting my web page at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
___________________________________________________________________
Pete Russell
In article <5ei5lb$m...@q.seanet.com>, Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.xmi
ssion.com> writes
>On 20 Feb 1997, Pete Russell wrote:
>
>[Note to Pete: it's useful to put a blank line between the material you
>are quoting and your reply to it. I, at least, find thoughts easier to
>follow that way.]
OK!
>not generally refered to except by people who take a strong interest
>in that sort of thing. Perhaps some of your alarm in this situation
>is because you think the History of the Church, as a church publication,
>is regarded as the Word of God? Well, it isn't.
Ok well that does clear things up a bit and yes I am glad to see that
they do not do so. I think my problem with this arose since I heard that
the PoGP was canonitical and it contains part of JSH. I think perhaps I
was confusing the two. I was wrong. Sorry.
>Listen, Pete, my reference to a "non-issue" was to the fact of Joseph
Oooohh! Ok Ok I'm listening. <G>
>my first reply to James, see?) I have admitted that the question of
>changing the historical record is worth talking about. I've also
I think it was actually the way the subject which clearly related to the
change and NOT his actually drinking beer (IMO) was ignored and diverted
to another (actually taking the beer). However with this response I see
that we share the same opinion so enough said.
>until they change it back. I mean, what do you expect people to do
>about this?
Just what you have done, namely openly admit that it was done and should
not have been.
>> >those of us who are faithful to the church are not about to turn
>> >away from all the goodness and strength we have experienced there
>> >when we come across some flaws--in either the organization or the
>> >people.
No I know that you are not and nor was I asking you to. Unfortunatly
whenever a question is raised very often this is the immediate
suspicion. However since I am in a position where I am seeking to learn
the truth about the church and its history, both the history of the
church and any other quotes, documents etc are all very important. I
have been frequently warned by LDS that the _antis_ change documents,
that they are unreliable, mis-quoted etc. thus when I find that the LDS
have done the same in a document openly sanctioned by their current
leader Bingham Young (am I right here?) it does make a BIG difference to
my acceptance of other reportedly accurrate documents. That is why I
said that the church had done itself a great disservice. Can you
understand that POV?
>Well then we agree, don't we?
Yes we do so what were we falling out about anyway? <G>
All the best
Pete.
--
Pete Russell
Peggy Rogers
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, James wrote:
> Peggy Rogers wrote:
>
> > James, all historical writing is selective.
>
> I agree, but the "History of the Church" is presented as a diary
> of the historical events. If the document is selective and edited
> then I think the reader should be fully informed about it.
I can go along with that. No problem. So what do you expect church
members to do about this? I expect a new edition of _History of the
Church_ won't be issued for some time to come.
<snip>
> > Facts, schmacts! Does you web page include any facts about how I can
> > do a better job of serving God and loving other people?
>
> Follow what you personally believe is the truth.
>
> > _Those_ are the
> > sorts of facts that the LDS Church wants me to know.
>
> Does it? I am not so sure.
In general, James, I'm willing to let you hold to your own opinions
on these subjects. But in this case you're wrong. "If there is
anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy"--those
are the truths I am urged to seek out.
<snip>
> > Your insistence on
> > truth often reminds me of a favorite couplet by William Blake:
> >
> > A truth that's told with bad intent
> > Beats all the lies you can invent.
>
> An even greater man, Jesus Christ, once said;
> "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free"
> (John 8:32)
I'm not at all sure those two statements are incompatible. Can you
possibly grant that there is such a thing as telling the truth with
bad intent? That there are times, and circumstances, when it will do
harm rather than good?
<snip>
I notice you have left out my statement that yes, maybe you are right,
maybe the historical record shouldn't have been altered in the way
you pointed out. We admit that mistakes can be made, even by the
church in its official capacity. As I mentioned to Pete in another
post on this thread, I think that most members who dip into the
history of the church are mature enough to handle information about
Joseph's behavior in this and other instances without undue dismay.
> It appears that Mormons are much more forgiving of their past
> leaders than they would be of their own family. How would
> you feel if your son/daughter/brother/sister/mother/father
> went out for a beer at the local bar?
Are you asking about me, personally? As it happens, I have had no
trouble at all in this situation, even when it has occurred _before_
my_very_eyes_! I fear the people in your family must be much more
"hard-line" than the people in mine.
> ...when a person comes to research Mormonism, I think they
> should have at least the opportunity or availability of both
> sides of Mormon history -- the history Mormons want to ignore, and
> the history Mormons perceive.
BTW, for anyone who would like to look at a more objective history
of Mormonism than either the church or James here provides, I'd like
to recommend _Mormonism and the American Experience_ by Klaus J.
Hansen, published in 1981. (Thanks to Stephen Scalf who pointed out
this book on a.r.m.) I'm enjoying it very much!
Hal Leifson
Pete Russell (Pe...@sera.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <5ei5lb$m...@q.seanet.com>, Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.xmi
: ssion.com> writes
: >On 20 Feb 1997, Pete Russell wrote:
: >
: >[Note to Pete: it's useful to put a blank line between the material you
: >are quoting and your reply to it. I, at least, find thoughts easier to
: >follow that way.]
: Ok! Ooops
:
: OK!
: >is because you think the History of the Church, as a church publication,
: >is regarded as the Word of God? Well, it isn't.
: Ok well that does clear things up a bit and yes I am glad to see that
: they do not do so. I think my problem with this arose since I heard that
Pete, you said "OK" but then proceeded to ignore. Habits certainly are
hard to break.
: >> >when we come across some flaws--in either the organization or the
: >> >people.
: No I know that you are not and nor was I asking you to. Unfortunatly
: whenever a question is raised very often this is the immediate
: suspicion. However since I am in a position where I am seeking to learn
: the truth about the church and its history, both the history of the
: church and any other quotes, documents etc are all very important. I
: have been frequently warned by LDS that the _antis_ change documents,
: that they are unreliable, mis-quoted etc. thus when I find that the LDS
: have done the same in a document openly sanctioned by their current
: leader Bingham Young (am I right here?) it does make a BIG difference to
: my acceptance of other reportedly accurrate documents. That is why I
: said that the church had done itself a great disservice. Can you
: understand that POV?
:
What follows is a brief statement on the History of the Church volume set
that appears at the beginning of a FAQ put together by Willard C. Smith
years ago. Maybe this description will help (a little) put into perspective
how reliable and accurate the HC volume set is (or isn't).
History of the Church. Seven volumes.
Alternately this work has been called, The Documentary History of the
Church (sometimes abv. DHC, generally it is abv. HC). It began as a
project of collecting all the primary material relating to the history of
the church from 1829 to 1847. You will find minutes of meetings; sermons;
letters; diary entries; newspaper 'clippings'; and what appear to be diary
entries, but are actually rewrites of other primary sources.
The individuals responsible for collecting and publishing this material
were not trained historians. Although they followed practices current
among historians of the 19th century, some of those practices would be
considered rather appalling by today's standards.
While this source is very interesting, IT IS NOT TO BE USED UNCRITICALLY.
Several years ago, Joe Applegate tried to argue that JS had shot and
killed several people at the time he was murdered by citing a passage from
HC. At best the passage showed only what one person thought, not what
actually took place. I had to go back to the primary sources to show that
JS wounded a couple of his attackers (superficial in each case) and was
able to supply their names and describe their wounds in detail.
Regards,
Hal.
Raymond Bingham
I uncovered clues pointing to Pete Russell (Pe...@sera.demon.co.uk) having written:
>In article <5efl8n$6...@q.seanet.com>, Peggy Rogers <kro...@xmission.xmi
>ssion.com> writes
[snip]
>I am not asking you to do so. I know a few mormons and have found them
>to be very decent kindly people. You are entitled to your beliefs, I
>just think that the Church does itslf no favours when it alters facts
>to suit. As I have said before it even alters bits which would have been
>more faith promoting if left alone.
Pete,
I don't think the "church" has officially changed history
or the perception of such to its members. Occasionally there
are issues that arise in which LDS members seek for answers.
No doubt some of these explanations and answers are going to
be true, some are speculation and some are doctrinal. Some
will be historical, some will be traditional, and some may
change over time, because of the retelling or increased
understanding of an issue. Sometimes over time context and
information is lost. And when this happens stories drift.
I think it a herculean task to hold the church to if you
expect it to spend its entire efforts in giving 100% context
to its members regarding stories of the past, revelations of
the past and anything of historical significance. The church
has a very well organized historical department but sure it
is not perfect and surely not all members of the church have
the time or resources to spend the time required to get a
complete understanding of the context of a given event in
time. I would beg you to detail to me without making a single
error in judgement or concept exactly what you did two days
ago. Even if you kept a journal, you could not keep the detail
that you would like. Now if you started to tell me something
and then later found an old email that described your day
in better detail, I might cry foul and accuse you of lying
about your past, but in all reality you probably just overlooked
the fact that you didn't have that concise a description.
The point is, that the LDS church is a living church. The ENEMY
of the church, is frequently culture that arises out of traditional
interpretation. Sometimes we get into mindsets that things have
always been so. However I have found that few things are
constants. For one thing, Joseph didn't KNOW all the revelations
that he was to reveal until they were given to him, and then
I think it took some time for him to fully grasp what they meant.
We LDS have the benefit of over a dozen prophets that have
followed Joseph to give more inspired context of the revelations
given so that we may more fully adhere to the will of God.
Do you think that if you read the Bible you could tell me
exactly how the earliest Christians worshipped? I don't think so.
There are scant details and even some misleading historical accounts
that were purposefully constructed lies in their regards. (For
example, some Roman historians hyped the early christians and claimed
they sacrificed/ate babies and such attrocities, to focus hatred
against them.)
The difference between us and the early Christians, however is
that the line of authority in which divine context of God's laws
has not been taken from the earth, but it endures. Thus we are
given the ability to live the will of God here and now and not
concern ourselves overtly with gaining the perfect feel of
the 1800s. The LDS church was created to change, to be able to
incorporate new truths and new revelations when they were come
upon.
Now just because it has changed some LDS have looked back to try
and see if there is evidence of this being practiced in the
earlier days. I suppose it is because we are interested in our
ancestors. Occasionally we find stories in which we are justified
and they help us live our beliefs better today. We look to our
brave fathers with love and we want to tell their tale. So pardon
us if occasionally a traditionally accepted abridgement of our
history is sometimes innaccurate. Like I said ANY historical
account is an abridgement, it is difficult to capture all time
without a time machine...
Best regards,
--
*****************************************************************
* Raymond Bingham * Fort Collins System Lab - Hewlett Packard *
* (aka. wReam...) * ra...@shofixti.fc.hp.com - 100% MY opinion *
*****************************************************************
* The internet needs a lobotomy to recover from its lobotomy. *
*****************************************************************
Pete Russell
In article <5ekaiq$6...@q.seanet.com>, Woody Brison <william.w.brison@ast
.lmco.NO.SPAM.PLEASE.com> writes
>Neither, I daresay, were you. How do you know which account is
>correct? How do you know that the first account wasn't simply
Well I think you have just hit on exactly why James, myself and others
do not think that it was a particular sensible thing for the church to
do. It appears that history is indeed what you choose to make it.
Pete.
--
Pete Russell
Pete Russell
In article <5ekalc$6...@q.seanet.com>, Craig Anderson
<10511...@CompuServe.COM> writes
>after the saints had moved west. To this less of Joseph for not obeying a
>non-binding commandment seems, well, petty to me.
Why does that not surprise me in the least? <G>
Of course if I am correct then BY did actually think less of people for
not doing so.
>"Accurate historical account" is an interesting term. In this context, just
>what _is_ "historical"? Does it mean: every last fact and 100% truth about
>all things regarding a particular event or situation in the past?
No just where it alleges/portrays statements as direct quotes from
primary sourses that they should be just that, not a re-write.
>Personally, I wouldn't define it that way. "Historical" accounts are,
>pretty much by definition, subjective. Therefore, I don't find your
>contention that the HofC is not "accurate" wholly convincing.
Yep I agree that history is subjective which is why accuracy in quoting
primary sourse material is important. However I also have no doubt that
you feel that this is unimportant.
Cheers
Pete.
--
Pete Russell
Pete Russell
In article <5en2dc$l...@q.seanet.com>, Raymond Bingham
<ra...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com> writes
> I don't think the "church" has officially changed history
> or the perception of such to its members. Occasionally there
But this whole thread was related to just such an instance. Now I can
certainly see how a lot of publications by members of the church and not
officially endorsed are beyond the control of the church but the HoC
appears to have been heavily endorsed by the president of the chuch
thereby giving it legitimacy.
> understanding of an issue. Sometimes over time context and
> information is lost. And when this happens stories drift.
Yep and I dont have too much of a problem with that as long as it is
admitted that these are views/opinions etc.
> expect it to spend its entire efforts in giving 100% context
> to its members regarding stories of the past, revelations of
> the past and anything of historical significance. The church
No I do not expect that at all! What I do expect though is that the
church is not activly involved in promoting incorrect and anaccurrate
material when it is blatently obvious from the primary evidence was
purposfully changed.
> time. I would beg you to detail to me without making a single
> error in judgement or concept exactly what you did two days
> ago. Even if you kept a journal, you could not keep the detail
If you want to read what I wrote 2 days ago I suggest that you can
either re-read my original message or if you want to ensure that nobody
else has altered it I will gladly re-post it. However this is IMHO only
a matter of trying to avoid the real issue. As you are well aware my
comments were in relation to the ability of the LDS to accuratly quote
primary sources which they were in personal possession of.
> and then later found an old email that described your day
> in better detail, I might cry foul and accuse you of lying
> about your past, but in all reality you probably just overlooked
And if I had altered my email and posted a changed copy of it you would
be quite entitled to do so. The LDS church was in possession of the JS
diaries when they quoted from them (were they not?). This is exactly the
same sort of situation. You appear to be insinuating that I said
something which I did not, I never complained of the accuracy of hearsay
evidence. I did not complain that the LDS got things wrong, I complained
that they PUT things wrong.
Portion clipped as it is irrelevant to the point in question
> brave fathers with love and we want to tell their tale. So pardon
> us if occasionally a traditionally accepted abridgement of our
> history is sometimes innaccurate. Like I said ANY historical
O I do where it is genuine mistake, or as a result of incorrect
information. However I do not accept that changing the evidence is the
way forward. Likewise I also believe that where obvious problems exist
they should be openly admitted and corrected as nessessary, this would
do a lot more to enhance the credibility of the church. Unfortunatly
IMHO too many people try to ignore/minimize/deny the facts and this only
exagerates the problem.
J.&S. Harrison
I agree with Pete and James and the lone LDS writer(s)
who have said it was far from admirable to change the
wording of quotations from Joseph Smith's diaries. There
is some possibility that the original quotations weren't
directly from the diary, but this hardly seems likely.
So it seems there was revision made and made in a
deceitful way that just makes people believe that the
editor of the History of the Church was ashamed of his
history. I think someone should write to the editor, in
the nicest way possible, and ask why the changes were made
and share with the editor the negative effects which the
revision has had. I would take this upon myself, and
might still someday, but I have many things I must get
done now and don't have time to look up the materials.
I don't think I even have the particular "History"
under discussion.
Thanks for listening,
Stephanie
James
(Message sent to Woody and to s.r.m.)
Woody Brison wrote:
<snip>
> Neither, I daresay, were you. How do you know which account is
> correct?
I believe that the account of Joseph Smith drinking "a glass of
beer at Moissers" is correct. I have verified it with an
independent source, "An American Prophet's Record,
the Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith", edited by Scott
H. Faulring, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989,
page 486.
> How do you know that the first account wasn't simply
> sabotaged by the printer's anti-mormon assistant or something
> like that?
I look at the evidence. Was there any evidence to support that
there was sabotage? I do not find any. Also, if an "anti-Mormon"
could sabotage the Millennial Star I think they could have made
statements much more damning. Finding the statement in
Joseph Smith's own journal does indicate that the original
statement was accurate and that the LDS Church "rewrote" history
in leaving it out.
> How do you know that good honest men didn't spend a
> long time interviewing people, and found eyewitnesses to the
> event, so that they could correct the account in the newer
> edition truthfull and faithfully?
The statement was taken from Joseph Smith's own journal.
There would certainly be little motive for Joseph Smith to
write that he "[d]rank a glass of beer at Moissers." (ibid.)
when he did not.
> That would be far more
> consistent with the character of the Latter-Day Saints.
I think you may be surprised to learn that there are many
Mormon misconceptions of Joseph Smith and early Mormon
history. I encourage you to take an interactive early Mormon
history quiz at my web site:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/quiz/histquiz.htm
You may also want to take a look at common Mormon misconceptions:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/misconce.htm
After you visit my web site I encourage you to conduct your
own research to either verify or disprove my evidence or
interpretation. I can respect a man or woman that researches
cautiously.
<snip>
> The character of the LDS people is
> part of the facts, and your story here, that the Church has
> rewritten history, doesn't match the known character of the
> leaders of the Church.
You are correct that the "rewriting" of history does
not match YOUR perception of the LDS Church leaders. I
encourage you to challenge this perception by looking
at LDS history and conducting your own research. The example
I presented is a very clear case of where the LDS Church
rewrote it's history (IMO).
Sincerely,
James
_____________________________________________________________
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
_____________________________________________________________
Tom Huber
To: ALL
Subject: Re: Rewriting History?
J>> One of the things that
>> you seem to have a hard time grasping is that the Church of Jesus
>> Christ of Latter-day Saints, like the people who comprise it
>> (including, yes, Joseph Smith, and other prophets as well) is still
>> learning and growing--has not yet reached a state of perfection.
J>It appears that Mormons are much more forgiving of their past
>leaders than they would be of their own family. How would
>you feel if your son/daughter/brother/sister/mother/father
>went out for a beer at the local bar?
If they were not members, there is no question. I would remain (and do)
neutral. For me to condemn something that they do not consider to be a
religious obligation in them is neither loving, nor forgiving.
The point being that when the material was written, the Word of Wisdom
was not considered a commandment by the church. It still is not stated
in the Doctrine and Covenants that it is a commandment, and some members
today take issue with the church's position that it is now a
commandment.
Secondly, the idea of going out for a beer at a local bar is something
entirely different than being social within the home of another
member of the church. Furthermore, we have no idea what kind of beer it
was that the prophet partook of - as far as we know, it could have been
made from roots - i.e., root beer, and not been alcoholic to the least
degree. However, I wouldn't attempt to teach that idea - but it is a
possibility.
Frankly, I'm not sure what the point is that you are attempting to make.
If you are attempting to vilify the Prophet Joseph Smith, you aren't
doing a very good job of it. If anything, you are being somewhat
annoying in your persistence that there was something wrong with the
practice.
I think it is a little like condemning the children of Adam and Eve for
marrying each other, since there wasn't anyone else around to marry.
While their children (for the most part) were sinful, there were some
that were not, and still these, too, had little choice in whom they
could marry.
J>You are certainly free to choose what you may. However, when
>a person comes to research Mormonism, I think they
>should have at least the opportunity or availability of both
>sides of Mormon history -- the history Mormons want to ignore, and
>the history Mormons perceive.
J>I think that the interpretation of history must be left up
>for us personally to decide. BUT, I think that the rewriting
>of historical facts is both unethical and immoral. There is a
>difference.
Unfortunately, historians don't see that difference, including yourself.
And there is a lot of history that is constantly being rewritten. Your
use of the terms "drinking habit" is a clear indication that you want to
rewrite it for Joseph Smith.
Raymond Bingham
I guess I misread you. I might mention that those informed with
english understand that when one paraphrases anything (using the
English term paraphrase in the correct connotation) that there is
an assumed interpretation by the person who is paraphrasing.
I don't know about you, but I typically assume that the representation
of historical accounts is interpretted and frequently used to prove
a point and less accurate in context. My point being that if we took
forever to give all the context we would never get around to making
any points.
Further a paraphrase (in the english sense) requires no historical
reference, nor does it require the use of elipsis.
>> brave fathers with love and we want to tell their tale. So pardon
>> us if occasionally a traditionally accepted abridgement of our
>> history is sometimes innaccurate. Like I said ANY historical
>O I do where it is genuine mistake, or as a result of incorrect
>information. However I do not accept that changing the evidence is the
>way forward. Likewise I also believe that where obvious problems exist
>they should be openly admitted and corrected as nessessary, this would
>do a lot more to enhance the credibility of the church. Unfortunatly
>IMHO too many people try to ignore/minimize/deny the facts and this only
>exagerates the problem.
This is a religion, not a historical society. Occasionally, however
the Ensign does indeed do scholarly articles that present the "facts"
in the given contexts. But the majority of the time, the primary
concern would be to teach or a point.
I am not certain to what percentage is hearsay and to what is genuine
mistake, but I doubt it is a malicious attempt to alter the past.
Sorry, I just don't accept that. If that were so, then there would
probably be some sort of coverup involved in hiding the original
documents, and that isn't so, since historical documents are available
for perusal (and have been for a long time) from the church.
Hal Leifson
James wrote:
>
> (Message sent to Woody and to s.r.m.)
>
> Woody Brison wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Neither, I daresay, were you. How do you know which account is
> > correct?
>
> I believe that the account of Joseph Smith drinking "a glass of
> beer at Moissers" is correct. I have verified it with an
> independent source, "An American Prophet's Record,
> the Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith", edited by Scott
> H. Faulring, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989,
> page 486.
>
> > How do you know that the first account wasn't simply
> > sabotaged by the printer's anti-mormon assistant or something
> > like that?
>
> I look at the evidence. Was there any evidence to support that
> there was sabotage? I do not find any. Also, if an "anti-Mormon"
> could sabotage the Millennial Star I think they could have made
[ Mucho stuff deleted ]
Below you will find some text that I extracted from a FAQ by Willard C.
Smith wherein upfront he attempts to qualify the sources that are
often used as original sources of information. Maybe it will/won't
help contribute to the discussion regarding the sources that tend
to be held up as original.
Beginning-of-extracted-text-from-FAQ-document
Journal of Discourses. A periodical of twenty-six volumes.
The JD was originally put together by a group of Mormon
entrepreneurs NOT
by the general church officers. At the time, the majority of Mormons
were
actually in England, not in the United States, and this
group of
entrepreneurs got the brilliant idea to follow the general church
officers
around, take down their sermons in phonography (an early
version of
Pitman's Shorthand), and publish these sermons in 16 page
semi-monthly
installments in England (NOT UTAH).
To encourage subscriptions, the editors decided to select the
most
controversial sermons of the lot. This was all proper when one
considers
the culture (that Mormons will often speculate, brain storm, or
whatever
wildly in public without anyone considering it authoritative).
This
tradition has been carried on today in the form of _Sunstone_,
_Dialogue_,
and _BYU Studies_, all of which are published independently and
none are
considered authoritative. This attitude is clearly evident by the
time one
gets to the second sermon in the very first volume of the series:
Parley
P. Pratt spends a lot of time speculating about the hereafter and
where
the spiritualists' spirits come from. No one in the LDS church
would
consider Pratt's remarks as authoritative.
Finally, after about half a dozen years of independent
editorialship,
there was a falling out among the editors, a lack of funds to
continue the
project, and subscriptions were rather low. The LDS church took
over the
publication for several decades before discontinuing it in the
mid-1880s.
End-of-extraction-from-Willard C. Smith-FAQ-document
Regards,
Hal.
Craig Anderson
> >Personally, I wouldn't define it that way. "Historical" accounts are,
> >pretty much by definition, subjective. Therefore, I don't find your
> >contention that the HofC is not "accurate" wholly convincing.
>
> Yep I agree that history is subjective which is why accuracy in quoting
> primary sourse material is important. However I also have no doubt that
> you feel that this is unimportant.
"Unimportant"? Not at all. However, whether it is truly important in each
and every instance may be another matter.
Craig
Raymond Bingham
I uncovered clues pointing to James (enginee...@mindspring.com) having written:
>I think you may be surprised to learn that there are many
>Mormon misconceptions of Joseph Smith and early Mormon
>history.
Well considering that the majority of us find it not too surprising
that there are many misconceptions of Joseph Smith propagated by
nonLDS as well. In fact, many of these nonLDS are as agenda driven
as they claim we uninformed LDS are.
So though you might suggest to us to go take your history quiz on your
website for Mormon history, I might suggest that anyone that go there
not make the presumption that this historical account is ANY more
accurate than any others. Quite frankly, regardless of your credentials,
each account given and each account will be distorted and show at
least some historical bias.
There is no such thing as an unbiased historian.
Once again, we are left with the question "Who do we believe?"
And once again, the LDS answer in kind, "Ask of God, trust not
in the arm of the flesh."
Pete Russell
In article <5f1dsm$n...@q.seanet.com>, Raymond Bingham
<ra...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com> writes
>Well considering that the majority of us find it not too surprising
>that there are many misconceptions of Joseph Smith propagated by
>nonLDS as well. In fact, many of these nonLDS are as agenda driven
>as they claim we uninformed LDS are.
I agree with those sentiments but would also point out that James does
try to simply point out things which are not openly promoted by the LDS.
EG the loss of 116 pages of the BoM which was then never re-translated.
I have found that some mormons are not aware of that. And yes you can
state that it is not important, however JS did consider it important
enough to put it into a preface of the 1830 BoM.
>Once again, we are left with the question "Who do we believe?"
>And once again, the LDS answer in kind, "Ask of God, trust not
>in the arm of the flesh."
I think the point of James's test over the normal anti one is that he
trys as far as possible to us LDS documentation, yes you can argue that
they are no more accurrate than anyone else but I doubt that you would
want to. <G>
Nevertheless obviously there is a bias in the collection of such
material, however I think that obvious enough to anyone who wants to
look at it.
David Bowie
Okay--i'm somewhat late on the reply, but...
Once upon a time, James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: Peggy Rogers wrote:
: <snip>
: > Okay, probably some Latter-day Saints would freak out if they saw
: > the passage you cite below in a History of the Church which is an
: > official church publication.
: Thank you for admitting that Joseph Smith's drinking habit
: is not common knowledge among Mormons...
Two problems with this statement of yours:
(1) As others have pointed out, you use of "drinking habit" is
misleading. Until and unless you have evidence of Joseph Smith being an
alcoholic, you should really stick to the less loaded "drinking."
(2) Your reply relies on a misreading of what Peggy wrote. She said
*some* Mormons would probably freak out, she did not say most Mormons,
which is what your reply implies. It's just a difference of degree, but
it's an important difference of degree.
: ...On the other hand, Joseph
: Smith's abhorance of alcohol during a childhood surgery probably
: is common known knowledge ( I recall hearing it repeated a couple
: times in LDS Sunday School and by LDS friends).
Actually, i've heard the story a couple of times, but the only time i've
ever seen it really stressed was in one of those (utterly horrid, but
that's another thread) animated church history videos. Generally, the
bit about that story i've heard most stressed is that he was afraid his
mother would freak out when he screamed.
: > (This is probably the same impulse that
: > encourages Primary leaders to teach children that the wine used
: > at the Last Supper was actually pure grape juice.
: Why do you think the Primary leaders resort to teaching something
: that they know is not true?
Once again, two problems with this statement of yours:
(1) It assumes that these particular Primary leaders know it's not true,
when in fact they may just have been misinformed. (Or who knows, maybe
they're right and you and i are wrong. :-] )
(2) This one's a problem with both your response and Peggy's original
phrasing--you assume that Peggy was saying *most* Primary leaders do
this. She says no such thing, although admittedly her phrasing is not
entirely unambiguous about it.
<snip>
: > Honestly, James, I really don't understand why you bother to dwell on
: > such a non-issue as this one. How often do you bring it up?
: You are corret that a couple of weeks ago I brought up the issue of
: the Word of Wisdom and Joseph Smith's drinking habit. However,
: this thread focuses on what appears to be an attempt to "cover up"
: Joseph's drinking habit.
Please define "drinking habit." If you define it as "occasionally
having an alcoholic beverage, say every couple days or with dinner,"
please explain why most people would take that to mean alcoholism.
Please refrain from using such loaded terminology in the future,
particularly when the loading of the terms gives a false reading.
In any event, i see no attempt to "cover up" anything--i just see
editing down of extraneous details. I would argue that you see it as
covering up because of your underlying assumptions that the Mormon
church reqrites its history with malicious intent (just as my view that
there is no such cover-up is from my own underlying assumptions).
<snip non-sequitur attempt to create a wider-issue debate>
: > It could simply be that the editors of the more recent History of
: > the Church considered Joseph's beer-drinking to be an unimportant
: > detail, and it probably would be, even in your opinion, if he had eaten
: > a cupcake at Moessers instead of drinking beer.
: I think this particular "editing" was done to remove an embarrassing
: fact...
Yes, you think so, that is clear--it is also clear that (for example)
Peggy and i do not. Please note that just because any of us *thinks*
something does not make our opinions correct.
: ...My posts and web page try to focus on these same facts, the
: facts I think the LDS Church may not want you to know.
Why wouldn't they?
I know all of them--knew 'em before your page ever went up, in
fact--don't agree with most of them, find others to be non-issues, and
i'm a faithful Mormon.
So why do you imply that the Mormon church itself might somehow find
these things dangerous?
: So you see no problem in the rewriting of the LDS history to make it
: more palatable? What happened to the truth?
I see all history as relative (see below).
: The History of the Church is supposed to be a historical document
: by itself. However, it appears that at least parts of it are
: not representative of the original historical facts. I think this
: alteration of the historical document is unethical.
Please note that the above paragraph shows that you are missing one of
the key elements underlying the modern study of history.
Basically, there is no such thing as neutral history--all history shows
the leanings of those who collected or wrote or interpreted said
history. (And if you disagree with me, i challenge you to come up with
some neutral history.) Therefore, in saying that the _History_of_the_
_Church_ is a historical document, you and i are both admitting that it
will have some leanings in one direction or the other--for example, in
the other direction, i recently read a history of Joseph Smith that
eliminated all reference to him bringing forth the Book of Mormon, and
as a result, he came off looking like a figure who started a church out
of thin air with nothing at all underlying it; even if you agree with
its conclusions, i daresay that you have to admit that that particular
bit of history showed its leanings by what it left out.
Therefore, the question becomes not one of whether absolutely everything
is left in a historical document--after all, if that were done the
history of a particular person's single day would take up several
volumes, what with thoughts, words, actions, what they saw, the way the
wind played in their hair at various times, &c.--but whether those
things left out are problematic for the history as a whole.
And leaving out most (yes, most--there *are* still references in there,
after all) references to Joseph Smith drinking is IMO *not* problematic
for the history as a whole. You may still disagree, but you have not
shown why your position should be taken seriously--all you have shown is
that items were left out, and that in itself is not problematic.
David, who actually understands how histories are compiled
--
David Bowie dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
PhD student in Sociolinguistics http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbowie
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
James
(Message sent to David and to s.r.m.)
David Bowie wrote:
> Please define "drinking habit." If you define it as "occasionally
> having an alcoholic beverage, say every couple days or with dinner,"
> please explain why most people would take that to mean alcoholism.
There is substantial evidence that Joseph Smith drank alcohol
on numerous occassions. Here are some specific references
found in LDS sources:
May 3, 1843 - "drank a glass of wine with Sister Janetta Richards,
made by her mother in England". (History of the Church, vol. 5,
pg. 380).
January 29, 1844 - Capt[ain] White of Quincy was at the Mansion
last night and this morning drank a toast" The Diaries and
Journals of Joseph Smith, edited by Scott H. Faulring, Signature
Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989, pg. 443).
June 1, 1844 - "Drank a glass of beer at Mooessers"
(The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, edited by Scott
H. Faulring, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989, pg. 486).
June 27, 1844 - "Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and presented
a glass to Joseph, who tasted, as also Brother Taylor,
and the doctor,..." (History of the Church, vol. 6, pg. 616)
In the last six months of Joseph Smith's life LDS records
indicate that he drank at least three times. In the last
month, he drank at least twice.
Other references that indicate that Joseph Smith did not object
to alcohol:
March 7, 1843 - "Reconed with Theodore, who enquired what
was wisdom concerning a brewery in this place?" (The Diaries
and Journals of Joseph Smith, edited by Scott H. Faulring,
Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989, pg. 443).
March 10, 1843 - "Joseph decided that he had no objection
to having a brewery put up by Theodore Turley." (The Diaries
and Journals of Joseph Smith, edited by Scott H. Faulring,
Signature Books, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989, pg. 329).
There was a bar in the Joseph Smith's own house as indicated
by Joseph Smith's statement, "I read my letter to H[enry] Clay
to many strangers in the bar room among whom was advocated for
H[enry] Clay." (The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith,
edited by Scott H. Faulring, Signature Books, Salt Lake City,
Utah, 1989, pg. 488).
Joseph Smith even obtained a liquor license to distribute alcohol
from his home. Take a look at History of the Church, vol. 6,
pg. 111, "Section 1 - Be it ordained by the City Council of Nauvoo,
that the Mayor [Joseph Smith] of the city is hereby authorized to
sell or give spirits of any quantity as he in his wisdom shall
judge to be for the health and comfort, or convenience of such
travelers or other persons as shall visit his house from time
to time."
> Please refrain from using such loaded terminology in the future,
> particularly when the loading of the terms gives a false reading.
I think the words "drinking habit" are not out of line. LDS
historical records at one point have Joseph Smith drinking
at least twice in less than one month. Joseph Smith had a bar
in his home (Mansion House), and a liquor license to distribute
and sell alcohol. This information supports a conclusion that
Joseph Smith enjoyed drinking alcohol. The evidence is very clear
that he drank on numerous occasions and that he did not object
to a bar in his home (Mansion House), selling and distributing
alcohol from his home, having a brewery nearby, or going for
a beer at the local tavern. So from this I think it is reasonable
to conclude that Joseph Smith had a "drinking habit", not to
be confused with an extrement habit, such as "alcoholism".
Sicnerely,
James
________________________________________________________________
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
________________________________________________________________
Raymond Bingham
><ra...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com> writes
>>Well considering that the majority of us find it not too surprising
>>that there are many misconceptions of Joseph Smith propagated by
>>nonLDS as well. In fact, many of these nonLDS are as agenda driven
>>as they claim we uninformed LDS are.
>I agree with those sentiments but would also point out that James does
>try to simply point out things which are not openly promoted by the LDS.
If I was an antimormon (not saying that James is) I would do my best
to look credible. Anything that is blatant will be disregarded by
most sensible people, thus those of the anti persuasion will typically
try to look as rational as possible. What I find interesting is the
large number of anti types that have NO credibility whatsoever. It
seems to be an awfully easy thing to make disagreement with the LDS
church into an obsession, where nothing matters, not even the truth, if
it makes the LDS church look bad.
>EG the loss of 116 pages of the BoM which was then never re-translated.
>I have found that some mormons are not aware of that.
I find very few LDS that AREN'T aware of this story. In particular
because the Book of Mormon makes brief reference to it.
>And yes you can
>state that it is not important, however JS did consider it important
>enough to put it into a preface of the 1830 BoM.
It's STILL referenced in the BoM. (See Words of Mormon, further there
is reference in the D&C) Seems that even rational critics are good at
constructing stawmen.
>I think the point of James's test over the normal anti one is that he
>trys as far as possible to us LDS documentation,
The best critics have a facade of credibility, which is why they
are known as the "best critics."
>Nevertheless obviously there is a bias in the collection of such
>material, however I think that obvious enough to anyone who wants to
>look at it.
My point was that there is an obvious bias in EVERY collection no
matter what the aparent intent toward neutrality. I think it foolish
to hold people to an imaginary standard of neutrality (and even a bit
dishonest), when there simply exists no such thing.
(Ironically, I once heard commentary praising Joseph Smith's first vision
account (the one in the PoGP) because it holds an incredible amount of
neutrality in explaining the events of the vision and circumstances
following.)
James
(Message sent to Raymond and to s.r.m.)
Raymond Bingham wrote:
> If I was an antimormon (not saying that James is) I would do my best
> to look credible. Anything that is blatant will be disregarded by
> most sensible people, thus those of the anti persuasion will typically
> try to look as rational as possible.
How are we to interpret the above passage. Are you suggesting that
I am rational and credible, or just trying to appear so? I would
really like to know your viewpoint.
<snip>
> >EG the loss of 116 pages of the BoM which was then never re-translated.
> >I have found that some mormons are not aware of that.
>
> I find very few LDS that AREN'T aware of this story. In particular
> because the Book of Mormon makes brief reference to it.
Where in the Book of Mormon does it make reference to it?
> >And yes you can
> >state that it is not important, however JS did consider it important
> >enough to put it into a preface of the 1830 BoM.
>
> It's STILL referenced in the BoM. (See Words of Mormon, further there
> is reference in the D&C) Seems that even rational critics are good at
> constructing stawmen.
Talk about strawmen! I read the Words of Mormon, it takes a few
seconds, it's around two pages long and there is no mention of
the lost manuscript. There is no dicussion of Martin Harris or
the missing 116 pages there. You are correct that the D&C 3
mentions the story, but then missionaries do not distribute the
Doctrine and Covenants to potential converts. I wonder why????
> >I think the point of James's test over the normal anti one is that he
> >trys as far as possible to us LDS documentation,
>
> The best critics have a facade of credibility, which is why they
> are known as the "best critics."
Wow! You consider me one of the "best critics"?
Should I be honored? ;-)
<snip>
> My point was that there is an obvious bias in EVERY collection no
> matter what the aparent intent toward neutrality. I think it foolish
> to hold people to an imaginary standard of neutrality (and even a bit
> dishonest), when there simply exists no such thing.
There is a difference between a collection of historical references
and altering historical references. For instance, if one were to
come across a source document that states, "I Joseph Smith am NOT
a prophet. [signed] Joseph Smith". This would certainl have
historical value. However, if the LDS Church changes the
document, and rewrites this in it's published form, "I
Joseph Smith am a prophet. [signed] Joseph Smith." then
there is an obvious problem, the document loses a significant
amount of its historical and usable content by altering it.
Simply put, I think the LDS Church selectively rewrote history
in reference to Joseph Smith's drinking alcohol at the local bar
on June 1, 1844.
<snip>
Sincerely,
James
Akash Jayaprakash
James wrote:
> The evidence is very clear
> that he drank on numerous occasions and that he did not object
> to a bar in his home (Mansion House), selling and distributing
> alcohol from his home, having a brewery nearby, or going for
> a beer at the local tavern. So from this I think it is reasonable
> to conclude that Joseph Smith had a "drinking habit", not to
> be confused with an extrement habit, such as "alcoholism".
I see your point, James. The trouble is that many people, not just LDS,
find the term "drinking habit" synonymous with alcoholism, and the
suggestion that J.S. was an alcoholic would probably make the average
Mormon a bit stymied.
As for myself--I am of the opinion that the Word of Wisdom was made a
commandment (it was only "optional" until about 1856, if I recall)
because we Saints were too incontinent in following the Gospel. I
personally still cook with alcohol, and I sure do miss drinking it, not
for "partying" or "getting drunk," but just as an occasional indulgence
which hurts no-one.
And so if you say that :
>I think the words "drinking habit" are not out of line. LDS
>historical records at one point have Joseph Smith drinking
>at least twice in less than one month.
I say--SO? :) If only everyone in the world drank only twice a month.
If only *I* could still drink twice in four weeks. Darn them prophets
for being concerned about our health and well-being. Darn them to heck!
<bwg>
Akash
Who is Not a Wine-Bibber (but sure would like to be)
P.S. I'm curious James--what do you think of the WoW from your point of
view? That's one of Mormonism's big selling points for me: I am
inclined to think that the only way that a backwater farm-boy with a
third-grade education could come up with a health code that pre-dated
the U.S. Surgeon General's by over 150 years is if God had told him.
Thomas Richard Dibble
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> writes:
> In the last six months of Joseph Smith's life LDS records
> indicate that he drank at least three times. In the last
> month, he drank at least twice.
[ ... ]
> I think the words "drinking habit" are not out of line. LDS
> historical records at one point have Joseph Smith drinking
> at least twice in less than one month.
Okay, James. JS drank, we'll say twice a month every month to assume the
extreme case. Two drinks, one month. Thrity days. Once every fifteen
days. Once in more than two weeks.
Okay, you say this is a "drinking habit". First, "drinking habit" is
generally synonymous (no matter that you now claim no such intent) with
alcoholism, which is defined as:
alcoholism (alke holizem, -hal-)
n.
1 the habitual or compulsive consumption of alcoholic liquor to
excess
2 a chronic diseased condition marked by psychological and
nutritional disorders, caused by the compulsive consumption of and
dependence on alcoholic liquor
(Webster's Dictionary)
Twice? In *one month*?!? That caused psychological or nutritional
disorders? Or, perhaps you don't mean "alcoholism" when you say "drinking
habit". Let's look at "habit":
habit (habit)
n.
[ ... snip costume definitions ... ]
3 habitual or characteristic condition of mind or body; disposition
4 a) a thing done often and hence, usually, done easily; practice;
custom b) a pattern of action that is acquired and has become so automatic
that it is difficult to break
5 a tendency to perform a certain action or behave in a certain way;
usual way of doing
6 an addiction, esp. to narcotics
7 Biol. the tendency of a plant or animal to grow in a certain way;
characteristic growth [a twining habit]
(ibid)
Often? Twice in one month? A pattern, even? Again, you've proven that he
had a drink every once in a while. You have in no way established a
pattern or, much less, a compulsion, to drink alcohol.
James, you have no, repeat, *NO* reason to call Joseph Smith an alcoholic.
You have *NO* justification for saying he had a "drinking habit". The most
you can support with facts is that he had a drink once in a while. If you
define this as a "drinking habit" you've labeled about 95% of the non-LDS
population of having this "habit". The words are too loaded for this
conclusion. You could likewise say that I have a Robotussin habit since
I've taken that medication several times in the last three months
(averaging to more like five or six times a month!). Or, I have a chicken
habit since we've had chicken twice in the last *week*!
If you want to use the phrase "drinking habit" in some way the rest of the
english-speaking world doesn't, I strongly suggest you make note of this in
the posts containing this misusage of the term. Until then, expect a
barrage of replies from people who are quite insulted by your (claimed
unintentional) assertions. In other words, use words however you like, but
don't be surprised that your credibility goes down the drain in the
meantime.
---- Tom Dibble
--
/"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""\
/| Tom Dibble \ / Master View 2.0c, Online Resume, and More: |\
\| tom...@wpi.edu / \ http://members.aol.com/MstrView/ |/
\.........................................................................../
James
(Message sent to Akash and to s.r.m.)
Akash Jayaprakash wrote:
<snip>
> >I think the words "drinking habit" are not out of line. LDS
> >historical records at one point have Joseph Smith drinking
> >at least twice in less than one month.
>
> I say--SO? :) If only everyone in the world drank only twice a month.
> If only *I* could still drink twice in four weeks.
Notice what I said above, "LDS historical records at one point
have Joseph Smith drinking at least twice in less than one month."
Now, think about it.... how often when you were drinking occassionaly
was it ever recorded in your personal journal or records? I
personally think that Joseph Smith drank on more than the occassions
documented in the LDS Church records. This seems reasonable considering
that Joseph Smith had a liquor license and a bar in his own home.
<snip>
> P.S. I'm curious James--what do you think of the WoW from your point of
> view?
Personally, I am not an alcohol drinker. However, I see nothing wrong
with the occassional drink. I think it is a personal choice.
> That's one of Mormonism's big selling points for me: I am
> inclined to think that the only way that a backwater farm-boy with a
> third-grade education could come up with a health code that pre-dated
> the U.S. Surgeon General's by over 150 years is if God had told him.
The temperance movement in the United States started long before
Joseph Smith. The temperance movement even hit Joseph Smith's
neck of the woods. A "Temperance Society succeeded in elimating a
distillery in Kirtland on February 1, 1833, just twenty-seven
days before the Latter-day Saint revelation counseling the abstinence
was announced...." (BYU Studies, Winter 1959, pp. 39-40).
drum...@aol.com
>There is substantial evidence that Joseph Smith drank alcohol
>on numerous occassions. Here are some specific references
>found in LDS sources:
And your point is: ? ? ?
John T.
Q: What's the difference between a duck?
A: One of it's feet are both the same..
James
(Message sent to Thomas and to s.r.m.)
Thomas Richard Dibble wrote:
<snip>
> Okay, James. JS drank, we'll say twice a month every month to assume the
> extreme case. Two drinks, one month. Thrity days. Once every fifteen
> days. Once in more than two weeks.
The LDS Church historical records indicate that Joseph Smith drank
alcohol at least twice during the last month of his life.
This only gives us the bear minimum of what Joseph Smith may have
drank during that month. When analyzing the situation one should
consider that we are looking at personal diaries and accounts.
How often does one record that they drank alcohol, or that they
went to a local bar in their diary? I personally think that
Joseph Smith drank a lot more than twice a month. Joseph Smith's
own liquor license and bar in his own home tend to indicate that he
drank alcohol more than occasionally.
> Okay, you say this is a "drinking habit". First, "drinking habit" is
> generally synonymous (no matter that you now claim no such intent) with
> alcoholism, which is defined as:
I think that there is a big difference between those that drink
habitually and those that are alcoholics. There is certainly a
pattern of drinking in Joseph Smith's historical records. I
agree that the pattern is weak. But, one must consider the
source. We are looking at LDS historical diaries and accounts,
some of which have conveniently edited out Joseph Smith's
drinking alcohol. (The History of the Church edited out Joseph Smith
going to a bar for a beer on June 1, 1844, when the source document,
his diary, says otherwise.)
<snip>
> James, you have no, repeat, *NO* reason to call Joseph Smith an alcoholic.
I have NOT called Joseph Smith an alcoholic.
<snip>
> If you
> define this as a "drinking habit" you've labeled about 95% of the non-LDS
> population of having this "habit".
I think most Mormons would think someone who drank alcohol
occassionally as having a drinking habit. Now when Joseph Smith
drinks, owns a liqour license, and has a bar in his house,
Mormons tend to "change" the definition and rules (in my view).
> The words are too loaded for this
> conclusion. You could likewise say that I have a Robotussin habit since
> I've taken that medication several times in the last three months
> (averaging to more like five or six times a month!).
How many times did you record your Robotussin "habit" in your
own personal diaries? ;-) Although Joseph Smith's diaries only
show a handful of cases where he drank alcohol, I think one can
conclude that he drank more frequently.
<snip>
If my use of certain words alienates my audience, I am willing to
learn from the experience. If Joseph Smith's drinking "habit" is
too harsh for you to hear, then I am willing to qualify what I mean.
In the original post, I presented my reasoning for making such
a statement. You obviously disagree. I can respect your opinion.
Regardless of whether Joseph Smith had a drinking "habit" we should
be able to agree on these assertions:
1). Joseph Smith drank alcohol occassionaly (atleast twice in one
month at one period of time).
2). Joseph Smith did not object to the locating of brewery nearby.
3). Joseph Smith obtained a liquor license from the Nuavoo City Council.
4). Joseph Smith had a bar in his home.
5). Joseph Smith did not object to having a beer in a local bar.
Sincerely,
James
________________________________________________________________
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
________________________________________________________________
James
(Message sent to John and to s.r.m.)
drum...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <5fa4rf$g...@q.seanet.com>, James <enginee...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >There is substantial evidence that Joseph Smith drank alcohol
> >on numerous occassions. Here are some specific references
> >found in LDS sources:
>
> And your point is: ? ? ?
I started this particular thread after showing that the
LDS Church rewrote history by editing out one of Joseph
Smith's drinking of alcohol. The History of the Church
selectively passed over the sentence in Joseph Smith's
own diaries, the source document, "Drank a glass of beer
at Moissers." on June 1, 1844. While keeping the rest of
the diaries account intact.
This post tried to define what I meant by the words "drinking
habit", which apparently to many here on s.r.m. means
"alcoholism".
So what is my point?
Joseph Smith drank alcohol on numerous occasions -- showed
references to this fact.
Also, for those not aware of the other thread, the LDS Church
historians attempted to cover this up at least on one occasion.
Sincerely,
James
*************************************************************
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
*************************************************************
Roger K. Denison
James wrote:
>
> So what is my point?
>
> Joseph Smith drank alcohol on numerous occasions -- showed
> references to this fact.
>
> Also, for those not aware of the other thread, the LDS Church
> historians attempted to cover this up at least on one occasion.
Many moons ago, on a.r.m., there was a discussion involving health
benefits from alcohol. This lead to drinking non-alcoholic "strong
drinks" such as Sharps or Odouls. (yeah, yeah, I know, some people
don't classify beer as a strong drink. That's not the point.) I made
mention of the "Perception" deal:
Hey, isn't that Bro Johnson sitting at the bar with a drink? Oh, wait,
it's just an Odouls.
My, my, look at Sis Peterson sitting in her kitchen with a coffee mug.
Oh, wait, it's just Pero (or Postum).
Why do the bretheren counsel us to stay away from
tobacco/alcohol/coffee?
(of which only alcohol has been shown to have any positive effects)
Perhaps it is to protect the image of ourselves from those outside the
church (antis/critics, particularly) who peer through microscopes to
detect the imperfect ameobas of our human nature. A microsope makes
something bigger than it really is.
For example, Joseph Smith had a beer at Mossiers. Was he meeting
someone there? Was he 'sitting with sinners' to do missionary work? If
so, why don't missionaries today sit in bars, have a drink, and discuss
eternal truths with their pub mates?
Apparently, complete abstinence is set forth to protect the church and
its members from those who fanatically seek evil in that which is good
as can be evidenced in this thread.
--
Roger.
...True religion is the creator of scripture,
not the interpreter thereof...
drum...@aol.com
> the LDS Church
>historians attempted to cover this up at least on one occasion.
The words "attempted to cover this up" imply sinister intent on
the part of "the LDS Church historians". What in your view was that
sinister inent, and, where is your proof ?
Thanks,
Yist&Feog
James wrote:
>
> Notice what I said above, "LDS historical records at one point
> have Joseph Smith drinking at least twice in less than one month."
> Now, think about it.... how often when you were drinking occassionaly
> personally think that Joseph Smith drank on more than the occassions
> documented in the LDS Church records. This seems reasonable considering
> that Joseph Smith had a liquor license and a bar in his own home.
>
James, what you are doing is pure specultation. If you can only show the ocasional
instance where Joseph Smith drank (1-2/month), you have NAY evidence that he had a
drinking habit. None whatsoever. Now, if you could provide testimonies that describe
Joseph Smith Jr. as a drunkard, that would be much more convincing (though we do have to
consider the source of the testimony). You are making a big leap here. And I have
known people who had liquor licenses and bars in their home, and they did not have a
drinking habit (to my knowledge).
> James
Geoff Matthews
Thomas Richard Dibble
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> writes:
> (Message sent to Thomas and to s.r.m.)
(BTW, James, why do I always get *two* copies of your post in my mailbox?
Something's mis-configured with your mailer, I think)
> Thomas Richard Dibble wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Okay, James. JS drank, we'll say twice a month every month to assume the
> > extreme case. Two drinks, one month. Thrity days. Once every fifteen
> > days. Once in more than two weeks.
>
> The LDS Church historical records indicate that Joseph Smith drank
> alcohol at least twice during the last month of his life.
> This only gives us the bear minimum of what Joseph Smith may have
> drank during that month. When analyzing the situation one should
> consider that we are looking at personal diaries and accounts.
> How often does one record that they drank alcohol, or that they
> went to a local bar in their diary?
It depends on how good they are at record-keeping. Things which I do less
often actually appear in my journal *more* often than those which I do
constantly (like breathe; I don't think I've mentioned that I breathe a
*whole* lot every day for quite some time!). But if I go out with friends
for Pizza, I usually put that in there (pizza's a somewhat rare thing).
I'm not a great record-keeper, of course (it's been weeks since my last
entry!), but when I *do* keep records its these things which I write down.
Before I joined the Church, the few times I *did* keep a journal, I *did*
mention every time I drank a beer or whatever.
The point is, we don't really have any idea how much Joseph drank. The
fact that he mentioned it at all shows that it wasn't something he took for
granted. And we know that he probably didn't write it down if it didn't
happen, so we have a minimum. But where the truth lies, between two a
month and ten a day, who knows but Joseph and Father? In fact, who cares?
This whole thing started with you saying we are more critical of ourselves
than our dear Prophet Joseph and his "drinking habit". How can we be
"critical" of something for which there is no evidence? And, yes, as a
matter of fact, I do *not* criticize my parents or siblings (all non-LDS)
for their drinking (and they drink on average probably three or four times
a week). They don't live by the Word of Wisdom because they have not
accepted the Church. Yeah, I wish they would accept the Church, but until
they do, I have no reason nor right to expect them to live by laws they
have no knowledge of. The same is true of Joseph Smith. In his lifetime,
this was not laid down as a law. I really couldn't care less if he *did*
have a "drinking habit". It just doesn't matter. But I for one would
*not* be the one to step forward and point that finger when there is
absolutely *no* evidence to back it up!
> I personally think that
> Joseph Smith drank a lot more than twice a month. Joseph Smith's
> own liquor license and bar in his own home tend to indicate that he
> drank alcohol more than occasionally.
>
> > Okay, you say this is a "drinking habit". First, "drinking habit" is
> > generally synonymous (no matter that you now claim no such intent) with
> > alcoholism, which is defined as:
>
> I think that there is a big difference between those that drink
> habitually and those that are alcoholics. There is certainly a
> pattern of drinking in Joseph Smith's historical records.
A pattern? It says he went out every night, or every friday night, or
something like this? A "pattern" is not "he drank this day, and then
several days later, then the next month, then two months later, then the
next day". A *pattern* implies a regular time of the day, week, month,
whatever, where the individual would drink, or a specific situation. For
many, for instance, their "pattern" is that they have a drink every night
after work. For others, it is at every social gathering. For others,
every friday night they get hammered. These are patterns. I see none in
the records you've shown.
I
> agree that the pattern is weak. But, one must consider the
> source. We are looking at LDS historical diaries and accounts,
> some of which have conveniently edited out Joseph Smith's
> drinking alcohol. (The History of the Church edited out Joseph Smith
> going to a bar for a beer on June 1, 1844, when the source document,
> his diary, says otherwise.)
The diaries haven't been edited. Do they show this "pattern"? I think
not, else you would have brought them up already.
> > James, you have no, repeat, *NO* reason to call Joseph Smith an alcoholic.
>
> I have NOT called Joseph Smith an alcoholic.
James, I'm not sure where you're from, but in this part of the country (New
England) and where I grew up (Texas, Arizona, and California) "drinking
habit" is a "kind" way of saying "alcoholic". When you say someone has a
"drinking habit" you don't mean he's sorta-alcoholic; you mean he's
addicted to alcohol, but you have too much respect for him (real or
feigned) to say he's an "alcoholic". Word games, that's the only
difference between the two terms.
I know you mean them differently (at least, *now* I do; when I read your
first several posts talking about JS's "drinking habit" I assumed you were
using the term the only way I've ever heard it used, as party-ettiquette
for "alcoholic"). But I hope you can understand why your use of the term
has raised such an uproar.
> > If you
> > define this as a "drinking habit" you've labeled about 95% of the non-LDS
> > population of having this "habit".
>
> I think most Mormons would think someone who drank alcohol
> occassionally as having a drinking habit. Now when Joseph Smith
> drinks, owns a liqour license, and has a bar in his house,
> Mormons tend to "change" the definition and rules (in my view).
As I've said, I certainly wouldn't say that someone (outside of the Church)
who drinks has a "drinking habit", even by your definition of the term.
I'd say they drink alcohol. Unless there is a pattern, and a strong one
(once a year at New Year's is a "habit", but hardly worth mentioning!), and
unless I have *proof* of this pattern, I would *not*, to them or to others,
suggest that this person has a drinking habit. I would expect the same
courtesy extended to Joseph Smith as to anyone else on this matter.
> > The words are too loaded for this
> > conclusion. You could likewise say that I have a Robotussin habit since
> > I've taken that medication several times in the last three months
> > (averaging to more like five or six times a month!).
>
> How many times did you record your Robotussin "habit" in your
> own personal diaries? ;-) Although Joseph Smith's diaries only
> show a handful of cases where he drank alcohol, I think one can
> conclude that he drank more frequently.
Actually, I usually *do* record having taken medicine. As I said above,
this is something I don't do a lot, so I take note of it when I *do* take
medicines. Now, "Tums" (which I fear *is* a "habit"!) I haven't recorded
in my journal once. But, yup, there's several entries noting Robotussin.
> Regardless of whether Joseph Smith had a drinking "habit" we should
> be able to agree on these assertions:
>
> 1). Joseph Smith drank alcohol occassionaly (atleast twice in one
> month at one period of time).
>
> 2). Joseph Smith did not object to the locating of brewery nearby.
>
> 3). Joseph Smith obtained a liquor license from the Nuavoo City Council.
>
> 4). Joseph Smith had a bar in his home.
>
> 5). Joseph Smith did not object to having a beer in a local bar.
Yup, on those points we can agree. Where we differ is that I sy to those
things "so what" while you appear to think they are a resounding statement
on his character and willingness to follow Father's commandments.
James
(Message sent to Thomas and to s.r.m.)
Thomas Richard Dibble wrote:
<snip>
> This whole thing started with you saying we are more critical of ourselves
> than our dear Prophet Joseph and his "drinking habit".
No, this thread started from another thread which indicated that
the LDS Church was rewriting history by editing out Joseph Smith's
beer drinking from the History of the Church. Joseph Smith's diary/
journal indicated that he drank a beer on June 1 1844, yet when the
diary was used as a source document for History of the Church, the
account is edited out.
> How can we be
> "critical" of something for which there is no evidence?
I think the problem that we have come to in this thread is over
interpretation of a the words "drinking habit". I certainly do
not see it as being an "alcoholic", yet many people on s.r.m. do.
> And, yes, as a
> matter of fact, I do *not* criticize my parents or siblings (all non-LDS)
> for their drinking (and they drink on average probably three or four times
> a week). They don't live by the Word of Wisdom because they have not
> accepted the Church.
Is it the Word of Wisdom that commands Mormons not to drink alcohol,
or is it some guidance from another LDS prophet? The WofW makes
it clear that it is only a "greeting" and "not a commandment".
<snip>
> I know you mean them differently (at least, *now* I do; when I read your
> first several posts talking about JS's "drinking habit" I assumed you were
> using the term the only way I've ever heard it used, as party-ettiquette
> for "alcoholic"). But I hope you can understand why your use of the term
> has raised such an uproar.
I now have a better idea of why my statement of "drinking habit"
has caused an uproar. Thank you for making your feelings and
beliefs known to me. In my attempt to clarify my definition of
"drinking habit", most readers have lost my definition, and
used their own.
<snip>
> As I've said, I certainly wouldn't say that someone (outside of the Church)
> who drinks has a "drinking habit", even by your definition of the term.
> I'd say they drink alcohol.
Good enough compromise. Joseph Smith drank alcohol on a number of
occasions.
<snip>
> > Regardless of whether Joseph Smith had a drinking "habit" we should
> > be able to agree on these assertions:
> > 1). Joseph Smith drank alcohol occassionaly (atleast twice in one
> > month at one period of time).
> > 2). Joseph Smith did not object to the locating of brewery nearby.
> > 3). Joseph Smith obtained a liquor license from the Nuavoo City Council.
> > 4). Joseph Smith had a bar in his home.
> > 5). Joseph Smith did not object to having a beer in a local bar.
>
> Yup, on those points we can agree. Where we differ is that I sy to those
> things "so what" while you appear to think they are a resounding statement
> on his character and willingness to follow Father's commandments.
I think each person should interpret the facts for themselves, to come
up with their own conclusions. I am glad that we can at least agree
on these points. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue
ad nauseam with you. I appreciate the discussion and your time.
Sincerely,
James
******************************************************************
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm
******************************************************************
Test your knowledge by taking an early Mormon history quiz here:
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/quiz/histquiz.htm
******************************************************************
James
(Message sent to John and to s.r.m.)
drum...@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
> The words "attempted to cover this up" imply sinister intent on
> the part of "the LDS Church historians". What in your view was that
> sinister inent, and, where is your proof ?
Proof of editing out drink of beer:
The History of the Church used Joseph Smith's diaries and
journals in reconstruting the history of the LDS Church.
For June 1, 1844, the History of the Church records (vol. 6,
pg. 424): "At home. Some gentle showers. At one, p.m., I rode
out with Dr. Richards and Orrin P. Rockwell. Called on Davis
at the boat. Paid Manhard $90. Met George J. Adams, and
paid him $50. Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him
and another brother $200. Called at William Clayton's,
while Dr. Richards and Orrin P. Rockwell called at the doctor's
new house. Returned home at 4:30 p.m."
Now this is what Joseph's diaries record for the same day:
"At home. Some gentle showers. [several lines left blank]
1 P.M., Rode out with Dr. Richards and O[rrin] P.[orter]
Rockwell called on Davis at the boat. /Paid Manhard $90.00/
Met G[eorge] J. Adams and paid him $50.00 to J[ohn] P. Green
paid him and another bro[ther] $200.00 to [blank]. Excha[nge]d
$100 Gold and check. ** Drank a glass of beer at Moissers. **
Called at W[illia]m Clayton's while Dr. R[ichards] and [Orrin P.]
Rockwell called at Dr. New House. Home 4 1/2 [P.M.]. [several
lines left blank]."
("An American Prophet's Record, The Diairies and Journals of
Joseph Smith", edited by Scott H. Faulring, Signature Books,
Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989. empahsis added **)
The History of the Church selectively edited out Joseph Smith's
drinking of a beer at Moissers, so there is certainly proof
that "rewriting" of history occured. I think we each need to
look at the facts and decide the "intent" ourselves.
Murray Ceff
James wrote:
>
> (Message sent to Peggy and to s.r.m.)
>
> Peggy Rogers wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Okay, probably some Latter-day Saints would freak out if they saw
> > the passage you cite below in a History of the Church which is an
> > official church publication.
>
> is not common knowledge among Mormons. On the other hand, Joseph
> Smith's abhorance of alcohol during a childhood surgery probably
> is common known knowledge ( I recall hearing it repeated a couple
> times in LDS Sunday School and by LDS friends).
>
> > encourages Primary leaders to teach children that the wine used
> > at the Last Supper was actually pure grape juice.
>
> Why do you think the Primary leaders resort to teaching something
> that they know is not true?
>
> > a break--grapes were harvested in the fall, right? And Passover
> > is usually about April, and they didn't have either refrigeration or
> > canning tehcnology. So I think it's pretty obvious that it must have
> > been _real_ fermented wine.)
>
> I would agree here.
>
You have brought up something here that is possibly worth starting
another thread about. some years ago I was passing an antique book shop
where I stumbled across a book title The Bible and Wine, by Ferrar
Fenton and John Abbey. These two Anglican gents had an axe to grind
regarding the use of alcoholic wine in their church, and this book
contains a series of essays or letters written to their Church leaders,
condemning the use of such.
Their arguments thoroughly support the LDS notion that Christ used
unfermented grape juice in the sacrament, just as the Jews had used for
hundreds of years in the Passover.
I think it was James (the engineer not the Apostle) who assumed that if
grapes were harvested in fall and the Passover was in April, then juice
thereof must have been fermented. Not so, according to Ferrar and Abbey.
Apparently the Jews had a couple of methods of having fresh unfermented
grape juice all year round. In one method they made a sort of syrup by
boiling grape juice, then they stored it in sheeps bladders. (dead ones
of course) This stored syrup became almost jelly like, and was then
diluted with water to reconstitute grape juice. Much like our modern
practice of reconstituting friut juice.
In the other method they simply soaked raisins in water, let it simmer
in the oven, separated the juice from the skin etc, and hey presto,
fresh grape juice. I've tried this myself and never got drunk yet!
Three of the four accounts of the last supper in the new testament all
talk of "the fruit of the vine" being used. The fourth account in 1st
Corinthians only mentions "cup", no mention of what was in the cup.
The key point here is that the greek word for fermented grape juice
(wine)oinos, does not appear at all.
It was absolutley forbidden under Jewish law to have any fermented
substance in the houselhold at Passover. I doubt whether Christ would
have broken the very law that her instituted.
An interesting fact from the Bible & Wine. Of the 14 different words
used in the Greek, Hebrew and Chaldean to describe various beverages,
the European translators came up with two phrases - Wine or Strong
Drink.
If anyone would like me to quote directly from the Bible & Wine, I would
be happy to do so as long as I have the time to type it.
--
Regards
Murray Ceff
Managing Director
Health Trek - for healthy Net Surfing
http://www.melbourne.net/htrek
Peggy Rogers
On 9 Mar 1997, Murray Ceff wrote:
> I think it was James (the engineer not the Apostle) who assumed that if
> grapes were harvested in fall and the Passover was in April, then juice
> thereof must have been fermented.
No, that was me--James only agreed.
<Snip accounts of methodology>
This is very interesting, Murray. I appreciate you sharing it with
us. It's true that we often underestimate the technological capabilites
ancient civilizations--just because they couldn't have done things the
same way that we do now.
> It was absolutley forbidden under Jewish law to have any fermented
> substance in the houselhold at Passover. I doubt whether Christ would
> have broken the very law that her instituted.
Makes sense--in a way. I thought that prohibition only applied to
bread--because they didn't have time on the first Passover to wait
for the bread to rise. If they didn't have time for that, they also
wouldn't have time to reconstitute raisins into grape juice, I would
think. They would have just used the fermented wine that was already
sitting around.
> An interesting fact from the Bible & Wine. Of the 14 different words
> used in the Greek, Hebrew and Chaldean to describe various beverages,
> the European translators came up with two phrases - Wine or Strong
> Drink.
> If anyone would like me to quote directly from the Bible & Wine, I would
> be happy to do so as long as I have the time to type it.
I'd like to see a little of what they have to say about this issue in
relation to Jewish law.
(This is on topic, you might remember, because I started by questioning
the way I've heard Primary children taught that the wine used in the
Last Supper was unfermented.)
| We all begin with simple rules, only to
Peggy Rogers | discover that almost any rules can have
kro...@xmission.com | valid exceptions, or be in conflict with
| another, equally valid rule. --J. Martin
Yist&Feog
> James <enginee...@mindspring.com> writes:
> > I think most Mormons would think someone who drank alcohol
> > occassionally as having a drinking habit. Now when Joseph Smith
> > drinks, owns a liqour license, and has a bar in his house,
> > Mormons tend to "change" the definition and rules (in my view).
I couldn't help but say that I, being a lifetime Mormon, do NOT view someone who drinks
alcohol occasionally as having a drinking habit. I view them as someone who drinks
alcohol. Where you got this information, I have no idea. And if you say that it is
your personal experience, well that is not acceptable proof to support your claim.
Geoff Matthews
D G Satterwhite
>Is it the Word of Wisdom that commands Mormons not to drink alcohol,
>or is it some guidance from another LDS prophet? The WofW makes
>it clear that it is only a "greeting" and "not a commandment".
The Word of Wisdom was first given to Joseph Smith as a "greeting," or a
principle of advice and counsel that would be good to obey but did not
have to be. Later, God revealed to President Brigham Young that it was
time to make this "greeting" a "commandment" and so it was canonized and
deemed as such. So, yes, it is the Word of Wisdom that commands Mormons
not to drink alcohol but must be coupled with the revelation given to
Brigham Young in order to be viewed as a commandment.
Personally, I do not see your problem over this whole "Joseph drank"
thing. As a Saint who was living before the Word of Wisdom was made a
commandment he was entitled to an occasional beer. As far as Church
historians covering up the fact that he drank - so what? One incidence of
a "cover-up" is not enough to convince me of a conspiracy. Anyone can go
back and look at Joseph's journals and find out he drank. Considering how
little bearance that fact has on Church doctrine and history, I don't see
why a person would feel there would be a need for a conspiracy. We don't
really know why the historians would have edited that reference out - it
was most likely something to do with the fact it had nothing to do with
the point they were making. I feel petty nit-picking like this is
juvenile - it has no import on Church doctrine, history, and culture and
is thus a waste of bandwidth on this board.
Life's tough, pray hard,
Amber Satterwhite
oile...@juno.com
drum...@aol.com
>drum...@aol.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> The words "attempted to cover this up" imply sinister intent on
>> the part of "the LDS Church historians". What in your view was that
>> sinister inent, and, where is your proof ?
>
>
<snippo>
>The History of the Church selectively edited out Joseph Smith's
>drinking of a beer at Moissers, so there is certainly proof
>that "rewriting" of history occured. I think we each need to
>look at the facts and decide the "intent" ourselves.
When I asked for proof, I was referring to proof of sinister intent.[on the
part of "the LDS Church historians"]
I thought that would be obvious in light of the structure of the sentence.
Sorry if I was in any way unclear.
IMO,The problem with this and many of your posts is that you make
statements of opinion as if they were fact, and combine fact with
opinion until the casual reader might mistake one for the other.
Let me give some examples:
"attempted to cover this up"
"selectively edited out"
" "rewritng" of history"
All these phrases imply intent without stating that it is your opinion
and ONLY your opinion. The only point of fact is that "History of the
Church" does not quote 100% verbatim every word from the Diary of
Joseph Smith in this and other instances. That's it!!!
There is no dispute that "Drank a beer at Moissers" was omitted. No
one ever attempted to deny it. But,You have in addition to stating this fact,
inserted an opinion about the fact without stating that it is only an
opinion. With all due respect, this is at best bad form, at worst,
disingenuous.
I agree with you that we each need to
"look at the facts and decide the "intent" ourselves."
But, please allow people the benefit of knowing where the facts end,
and the opinions begin. . .
James
(Message sent to Murray and to s.r.m.)
Murray Ceff wrote:
<snip>
> I think it was James (the engineer not the Apostle) who assumed that if
> grapes were harvested in fall and the Passover was in April, then juice
> thereof must have been fermented. Not so, according to Ferrar and Abbey.
> Apparently the Jews had a couple of methods of having fresh unfermented
> grape juice all year round. In one method they made a sort of syrup by
> boiling grape juice, then they stored it in sheeps bladders. (dead ones
> of course) This stored syrup became almost jelly like, and was then
> diluted with water to reconstitute grape juice. Much like our modern
> practice of reconstituting friut juice.
I wonder if Ferrar and Abbey had any real knowledge of the processes
of fermentation? What were their backgrounds and expertise on the
concepts of fermentation? Speaking for myself, I have a couple science
degrees, with coursework in biology and chemistry which covered
fermentation.
You see fermentation occurs quite readily with grapes. For those that
have a scientific background, here is the chemical equation for the
fermentation of carbohydrates (sugars or starch):
GLUCOSE --------> ETHANOL (alcohol) + CARBON DIOXIDE
(yeast)
C6H12O6 --------> 2C2H5OH + 2 CO2
Alcohol can be easily produced, and occurs naturally in many cases
when there is a soluble sugar and yeast present. Wild yeast is
present on the grapes themselves when harvested, so even making
grape juice from fresh grapes could very easily create alcohol
in low concentrations. However, wild yeasts can only tolerate
about 4 percent alcohol and when the alcohol reaches this concentration
the fermentation stops. Wine that you may purchase in the store
is produced from specially cultured yeast which can tolerate about
12 to 14 percent alcohol.
I think Mormons and others that think that alcohol was not present in
the "grape juice" of the ancients are entirely disregarding the
principles of chemistry and biology, and also the technology available
at the time.
> In the other method they simply soaked raisins in water, let it simmer
> in the oven, separated the juice from the skin etc, and hey presto,
> fresh grape juice. I've tried this myself and never got drunk yet!
The concentration of alcohol would be very low in your concoction,
so your body would not be able to detect it. The heating
of the solution would certainly provide a poor environment for the
yeast to produce the ethanol (alcohol). However, scientifically
alcohol would be present in some minute concentrations because of
the presence of yeast and a soluble sugar. The methods available
to ancients would have made removal of the microscopic yeast next
to impossible.
> Three of the four accounts of the last supper in the new testament all
> talk of "the fruit of the vine" being used. The fourth account in 1st
> Corinthians only mentions "cup", no mention of what was in the cup.
> The key point here is that the greek word for fermented grape juice
> (wine)oinos, does not appear at all.
No matter which way you look at it, the ancients did not have the
technology to purify grape juice in my scientific opinion. Yes,
they may have used crude methods to preserve grape juice, but I
scientifically do not see how they could have purified the grape
juice of "all" alcohol. I wouldn't be surprised to find even alcohol
in low concentrations (<0.01%) in normal grape juice purchased at a
grocery store today. Although you won't get drunk from store bought
grape juice, there certainly may be a great chance of drinking
"alcohol" in some very minute concentrations. Even "non-alcoholic"
beer contains alcohol.
The components necessary to make wine are inherently in harvested
grapes, therefore it is expected that grape juice made from these
grapes would have some concentration of alcohol.
Sincerely,
James
James
(Message sent to Matthews and to s.r.m.)
Yist&Feog wrote:
<snip>
> I couldn't help but say that I, being a lifetime Mormon, do
> NOT view someone who drinks alcohol occasionally as having
> a drinking habit.
Thank you for providing your opinion. We disagree on this point,
which is obviously a matter of opinion.
> I view them as someone who drinks alcohol.
You are certainly entitled to your viewpoint, but so am I. ;-)
>Where you got this information, I have no idea.
Are you referring to the accounts of Joseph Smith drinking alcohol,
having a liquor license, having a bar in his house, approving a
brewery nearby, etc, OR are you referring to my opinion?
The accounts are all from LDS sources, mainly Joseph Smith's
own diary and the History of the Church by B.H. Robers. I will
be glad to repost the references if you so request.
> And if you say that it is
> your personal experience, well that is not acceptable proof
> to support your claim.
You are using your "personal experience" to justify your own
interpretation of "drinking habit" should this be acceptable
proof to me?
Sincerely,
James
****************************************************************
* For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at: *
* http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/index.htm *
****************************************************************
David Bowie
<snip>
: > The words "attempted to cover this up" imply sinister intent on
: > the part of "the LDS Church historians". What in your view was that
: > sinister inent, and, where is your proof ?
: Proof of editing out drink of beer:
<snip texts--we've seen 'em before>
: The History of the Church selectively edited out Joseph Smith's
: drinking of a beer at Moissers, so there is certainly proof
: that "rewriting" of history occured. I think we each need to
: look at the facts and decide the "intent" ourselves.
But the question remains--where is the proof of this supposed sinister
intent? You see it and see sinisterness, i don't--so where's the proof
that's supposed to prove me and those who side with me wrong?
David "Dexter" Bowie
David Bowie
James--i really have to say that you'd save yourself a lot of
credibility if you'd just admit you're wrong and give up on this one.
But that's just me.
Once upon a time, James <enginee...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: Thomas Richard Dibble wrote:
<snip>
: > If you
: > define this as a "drinking habit" you've labeled about 95% of the non-LDS
: > population of having this "habit".
: I think most Mormons would think someone who drank alcohol
: occassionally as having a drinking habit...
Call for references, please.
Or at least a call for an attempt to back up this (over)generalization.
And FWIW, i'm Mormon, and i define alcoholics as having a drinking
habit. Full stop. Someone has a glass of wine every night with dinner?
Not what i'd do--but not a drinking habit.
<snip>
: If my use of certain words alienates my audience, I am willing to
: learn from the experience...
Then stop trying to defend your use of those words.
: ...If Joseph Smith's drinking "habit" is
: too harsh for you to hear, then I am willing to qualify what I mean...
I think the problem with the use of the words "drinking habit" in this
case is simply that they were used in a manner that was inappropriate
for them. A drinking habit is alcoholism; meanwhile, no proof--even
anecdotal evidence!--was presented to show that Joseph Smith was
anything close to an alcoholic. Therefore, since (as has been
demonstrated on this forum) most people equate the term "drinking habit"
with alcoholism, the usage was wrong.
<snip>
: Regardless of whether Joseph Smith had a drinking "habit" we should
: be able to agree on these assertions:
: 1). Joseph Smith drank alcohol occassionaly (atleast twice in one
: month at one period of time).
Yes, as did many Mormons in those days when the Word of Wisdom was not
in place as a commandment.
: 2). Joseph Smith did not object to the locating of brewery nearby.
Yes, and i for one Mormon have no problem with breweries being located
near where i live (as long as they take steps to abate the smells
emitted).
: 3). Joseph Smith obtained a liquor license from the Nuavoo City Council.
Yes.
: 4). Joseph Smith had a bar in his home.
Yes.
: 5). Joseph Smith did not object to having a beer in a local bar.
And yes--once again, as was apparently the case for many Mormons before
the Word of Wisdom was taken as a commandment.
IOW, there is no problem for anyone here, whether Mormon or non-Mormon.
David, who has an oxygen habit
David Bowie
Once upon a time, "Roger K. Denison" <a045...@dshs1.itg.ti.com> wrote:
<snip>
: For example, Joseph Smith had a beer at Mossiers. Was he meeting
: someone there? Was he 'sitting with sinners' to do missionary work? If
: so, why don't missionaries today sit in bars, have a drink, and discuss
: eternal truths with their pub mates?
Some do.
<snip>
David, who has taught missionary discussions in bars
Thomas Richard Dibble
James <enginee...@mindspring.com> writes:
> Murray Ceff wrote:
> I think Mormons and others that think that alcohol was not present in
> the "grape juice" of the ancients are entirely disregarding the
> principles of chemistry and biology, and also the technology available
> at the time.
The "point" is, though, that these drinks were not made for the purposes of
intoxication. From what has been presented, the drinks during the Passover
were made especially so that they would *not* intoxicate (or, perhaps, to
minimize this effect).
Your point about there being alcohol in "regular" grape juice is quite
true. If you want to go to absurd ends, however, note that most drinking
water likewise contains alcohol (this is almost unavoidable, given the
azeotrope of an alcohol-water mixture!), in fact, I'm drinking a
caffiene-free orange soda which likely contains *both* alcohol *and*
caffiene! Ahh, the wonders of micro-fraction chemistry! Virtually every
compound known has some statistical probability of existing in the next
gasp of air you breath!
Akin to alcohol, eating a brick of lead would not do our body much good.
Our bodies use *extremely* small quantities of lead (they produce alcohol
in much more significant quantities; no need to consume it, as it is built
up from raw materials in our bodies), and these small quantities we absorb
and consume inadvertently, in various manners. If Father had to tell us
"don't eat lead", do you think He would be speaking to the buffoon chewing
on a lead pipe, or to the person eating the apple which had through natural
processes absorbed a few atoms of lead into itself?
Likewise, if Father commands us to not partake of alcohol, does this mean
we should not drink water either? Of course not. We are to avoid these
things, which have no redemptive value, as best we possibly can. I think
you would agree it's not too difficult for us to not have a beer after
work.
In the end, it's an academic question if Christ offered fermented wine or
"non-alcoholic" grape juice at sacrament. The evidence appears to at least
offer the possibility that it was specially formulated for low alcohol
content. The only possible consequence this has is with those who say that
sacrament must be partaken of with the *exact* materials of the first
sacrament (which is, IMHO, *completely* missing the point of the
sacrament!) We LDS don't hold such a position. We use water and wonder
bread hereabouts. I doubt Christ had Wonder Bread that particular evening!
So, did Christ drink wine? I'm sure he did at several points in his life.
The Word of Wisdom was not in force as a commandment, although of course of
the underlying truth Christ was well aware. I also strongly suspect he
avoided it where doing so would not harm his more important purposes (wine
*is* bad for a body, then as it is now, but I think Christ had more
important things on his mind than preserving His body in perfection). But
that's speculation, and on a subject hardly worth speculating about.
> > In the other method they simply soaked raisins in water, let it simmer
> > in the oven, separated the juice from the skin etc, and hey presto,
> > fresh grape juice. I've tried this myself and never got drunk yet!
>
> The concentration of alcohol would be very low in your concoction,
> so your body would not be able to detect it. The heating
Exactly. This is the point. Raisins are preserved grapes. I do believe
they were around in the time of Christ. *Someone* thinks they were used
this way to make "wine" for Passover. No, the alcohol would still be
there, just as it is in everything. But, it would be there in significantly
lower quantities than it would be in a wine specifically formulated for
alcohol content.
I would think the more likely process for removing the alcohol would be
directly boiling fermented wine (alcohol boils off the mixture until you
get to the water-alcohol azeotrope I mentioned earlier). But what do I
know about the technology of that time? :->
---- Tom Dibble
(BS in Chemical Engineering 1995, just got through TA'ing Chem Eng
Thermodynamics, in which vapor-liquid equilibrium was of course a well-worn
topic)
Dennis Albright
> >
> > Thank you for admitting that Joseph Smith's drinking habit
> > is not common knowledge among Mormons. On the other hand, Joseph
> > Smith's abhorance of alcohol during a childhood surgery probably
> > is common known knowledge ( I recall hearing it repeated a couple
> > times in LDS Sunday School and by LDS friends).
A couple of things here. First, I don't remember the revelation
stating that a prophet must be perfect. Second, at the risk of sounding
negative, just because some in the church think it is in everyone's best
interest to hide certain incidents, doesn't take away from the
credibility of Joseph Smith. It takes away from the credibility of the
men hiding the truth. And if it so be that it's the church leaders
hiding this information from it's members, I'm back to my first point. I
don't remember the revelation stating.....
Dennis Albright
Charlie
All justification and condemnation aside, there is no way of knowing
whether fruit of the vine for sacrament use was fermented of not. It is
plain however, that Christ did not condemn wine, only intoxication. At
the wedding feast where he changed the water to wine, we know for a
surety, that the wine was fermented. We know that, because the guests
were astounded by the quality of the wine. The custom was to present
the good quality wine at the beginning of the feast. When the quality
wine was gone and the guests were somewhat inebriated, the poorer wine
was brought out.
Roger K. Denison
David Bowie wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, "Roger K. Denison" <a045...@dshs1.itg.ti.com> wrote:
>
> : For example, Joseph Smith had a beer at Mossiers. Was he meeting
> : someone there? Was he 'sitting with sinners' to do missionary work? If
> : so, why don't missionaries today sit in bars, have a drink, and discuss
> : eternal truths with their pub mates?
>
> Some do.
>
Well, it looks like we will just have to edit out that little portion
from the next issue of Church History. Stoke up the Black Helicopters.
Roger 'who has taught missionary discussions to bare-breasted women'.
James
(Message sent to drumchops and to s.r.m.)
drum...@aol.com wrote:
<snip>
> IMO,The problem with this and many of your posts is that you make
> statements of opinion as if they were fact, and combine fact with
> opinion until the casual reader might mistake one for the other.
> Let me give some examples:
>
> "attempted to cover this up"
> "selectively edited out"
> " "rewritng" of history"
>
> All these phrases imply intent without stating that it is your opinion
> and ONLY your opinion. The only point of fact is that "History of the
> Church" does not quote 100% verbatim every word from the Diary of
> Joseph Smith in this and other instances. That's it!!!
Here is again the passages in question of Joseph Smith drinking
of beer being edited out:
The History of the Church used Joseph Smith's diaries and
journals in reconstruting the history of the LDS Church.
For June 1, 1844, the History of the Church records (vol. 6,
pg. 424): "At home. Some gentle showers. At one, p.m., I rode
out with Dr. Richards and Orrin P. Rockwell. Called on Davis
at the boat. Paid Manhard $90. Met George J. Adams, and
paid him $50. Then went to John P. Greene's, and paid him
and another brother $200. Called at William Clayton's,
while Dr. Richards and Orrin P. Rockwell called at the doctor's
new house. Returned home at 4:30 p.m."
Now this is what Joseph's diaries record for the same day:
"At home. Some gentle showers. [several lines left blank]
1 P.M., Rode out with Dr. Richards and O[rrin] P.[orter]
Rockwell called on Davis at the boat. /Paid Manhard $90.00/
Met G[eorge] J. Adams and paid him $50.00 to J[ohn] P. Green
paid him and another bro[ther] $200.00 to [blank]. Excha[nge]d
$100 Gold and check. ** Drank a glass of beer at Moissers. **
Called at W[illia]m Clayton's while Dr. R[ichards] and [Orrin P.]
Rockwell called at Dr. New House. Home 4 1/2 [P.M.]. [several
lines left blank]."
("An American Prophet's Record, The Diairies and Journals of
Joseph Smith", edited by Scott H. Faulring, Signature Books,
Salt Lake City, Utah, 1989. empahsis added **)
I can certainly argue that the LDS Church historians "rewrote"
the history for this particular day. They were obviously using
Joseph's diaries/journals as the source and "selectively" decided
to edit out Joseph's drinking a beer at Moissers. Look at the
passages listed above. The historians kept Joseph Smith's financial
records to a the dollar for that day, but decided to edit out
the beer drinking. This certainly does provide evidence of intent.
The other information that the historians decided to keep is even
more mundane than Joseph Smith going to get a drink of beer.
> There is no dispute that "Drank a beer at Moissers" was omitted. No
> one ever attempted to deny it. But,You have in addition to stating this fact,
> inserted an opinion about the fact without stating that it is only an
> opinion. With all due respect, this is at best bad form, at worst,
> disingenuous.
I encourage you to evaluate the facts in the manner you see fit,
however, my interpretation and opinion should be equally heard
in this forum. Your suggestion that the historians just left it
out because they were not quoting the diaries verbatim does not
really match with the facts. The historians spent enough ink
to tell us about Joseph Smith's other activities during that
day, leaving out the drinking of the beer is very telling, in my
opinion. I also have full confidence that people that read my posts
will understand what is my opinion. I ususally add "IMO" to many
of my statements when my opinion is used.
You were so quick to point out that "... this is at best bad form,
at worst, disingenuous."
Is this a fact or your opinion?
I would rather think it is your opinion, but you certainly didn't
qualify it. ;-)
Sincerely,
James
******************************************************************
For "A Close Look at Mormonism" please visit my web site at:
James
(Message sent to Roger and to s.r.m.)
David Bowie wrote:
> David, who has taught missionary discussions in bars
Roger K. Denison wrote:
> Roger 'who has taught missionary discussions to bare-breasted women'.
Hmmmm... the missionaries never told me this! ;-)
Now is anyone holding back here, did any missionary teach
the LDS discussions to bare-breasted women in bars?
With all kidding aside, Joseph Smith's visit to Moissers
where he drank a beer was not recorded as any "proselytizing"
tactic.
Joseph Woodbury
>>Drank a glass of beer at Moissers
A friend of my has a journal from his great-grandfather (or
great-great-grandfather) where he states that he was in that bar with
Joseph Smith having a drink. They did so because they were thirsty.
Brigham Young kept some fine Scotch in his office that he served to guests
and himself as well, on occasion. Noah got drunk and Jesus turned water
into wine. So what.
The modern Mormon code of health wasn't codified as a commandment until
President Grant almost a hundred years later, so what's the big deal? I
dare say there are many things we do today which would absolutely shock
Joseph Smith et. al.
I don't think such references should be excerpted, but if it does stop one
person from drinking excessivly using JS as a excuse, why not? It doesn't
really matter any more than knowing whether Brigham Young wore Levi's (and,
no, I have no idea whether he did or not, but it is an interesting
question.)
Joe Woodbury
Don Sherwood
Joseph Woodbury <cin...@fiber.net> wrote in article
<5gcr4r$6...@q.seanet.com>...
<snip>
: It doesn't
: really matter any more than knowing whether Brigham Young wore Levi's
(and,
: no, I have no idea whether he did or not, but it is an interesting
: question.)
Considering Levi's are a 20th century invention, I would have to postulate
that he didn't. ;)
--
Don Sherwood
gre...@holly.colostate.edu
Robert Craig Harman
Don Sherwood wrote:
> Joseph Woodbury <cin...@fiber.net> wrote:
> : It doesn't really matter any more than knowing whether Brigham
> : Young wore Levi's (and, no, I have no idea whether he did or not,
> : but it is an interesting question.)
>
> Considering Levi's are a 20th century invention, I would have to
> postulate that he didn't. ;)
Actually, this is not correct. The first copper-riveted Levi's were
made in 1873; however, Levi Strauss opened his first dry-goods store
in San Francisco in 1853.
In any event, as the program I was watching last night on KUED 7 (SLC)
indicated, Brigham Young at one point encouraged members not to
patronize non-LDS merchants and for the women to make their own home-
spun clothing. As to whether that extended to making their husbands'
work clothes too, I don't know.
--
Robert Craig Harman En France, appelez 01 34 80 04 83 pour
BYU Chemical Engineering recevoir un Livre de Mormon gratuit...
Master's Candidate
LDS France Paris Mission http://www.et.byu.edu/~harmanr/mission.html
Jason Roberts
In article <5ge8ij$e...@q.seanet.com>, "Don Sherwood"
<gre...@holly.colostate.edu> wrote:
> Joseph Woodbury <cin...@fiber.net> wrote in article
> <5gcr4r$6...@q.seanet.com>...
> <snip>
> : It doesn't
> : really matter any more than knowing whether Brigham Young wore Levi's
> (and,
> : no, I have no idea whether he did or not, but it is an interesting
> : question.)
> Considering Levi's are a 20th century invention, I would have to postulate
> that he didn't. ;)
My Levi's say Patented in US May 20 1873.
Btw, are there any missions where missionaries are encouraged to wear jeans
in regular proselytizing activities?
--
Jason Roberts
Bill Braskey Fan Club
Jeffry L. Crews
THE MONKEY LIVES!!!!
On 15 Mar 1997, Don Sherwood wrote:
>
> Considering Levi's are a 20th century invention, I would have to postulate
> that he didn't. ;)
> --
>
> Don Sherwood
> gre...@holly.colostate.edu
>
Actually levi's were invented in the late 1800's
sorry.
Joseph Woodbury
> Considering Levi's are a 20th century invention, I would have to
postulate that he didn't. ;)
Sorry, but Levi's are an 19th century invention. Mr. Levi made his fortune
selling his pants to the gold miners in California. If I'm not mistaken
Levi's were invented circa 1850.
Joe Woodbury
NelsBaker
As far as this thread goes you are all forgetting one thing. Beer is not
against the WofW at the time. Reread it, it does mention that it is okay
to use Barley in mild drinks. D&C 89:17. Beer would be a mild drink.
Also from reading those transcripts from the journal, they also omitted
the rain among other things. Is it not standard to omit the commonplace?
Just a couple of points from an "unenlightened" member
Best Sellers
James thought hard about this before writing:
>Thomas Richard Dibble wrote:
><snip>
>> The words are too loaded for this
>> conclusion. You could likewise say that I have a Robotussin habit since
>> I've taken that medication several times in the last three months
>> (averaging to more like five or six times a month!).
>How many times did you record your Robotussin "habit" in your
>own personal diaries? ;-) Although Joseph Smith's diaries only
>show a handful of cases where he drank alcohol, I think one can
>conclude that he drank more frequently.
If Joseph recorded the drinking of a glass of beer, it
rather indicates precisely the opposite of what you would
like to see in it. I do not record the mundane, repetitive
events of life (which explains my limited diaries). Rather,
I record the anomolies, the divergences from the norm. So,
were I to record a glass of beer, you can be very certain
that it was not a regular event. Look at the other
activites of the record: payment of debts (keeping in mind
that the Smith family had had very bad encounters with
persons who claim non-payment of debts after having recieved
the money), and a ride with friends/acquaintances. Not
common (at least not habitual) activities.
At home. Some gentle showers. [several lines left
blank] 1 P.M., Rode out with Dr. Richards and O[rrin]
P.[orter] Rockwell called on Davis at the boat. /Paid
Manhard $90.00/ Met G[eorge] J. Adams and paid him
$50.00 to J[ohn] P. Green paid him and another
bro[ther] $200.00 to [blank]. Excha[nge]d $100 Gold
and check. Drank a glass of beer at Moissers.
Called at W[illia]m Clayton's while Dr. R[ichards] and
[Orrin P.] Rockwell called at Dr. New House. Home
4 1/2 [P. M.]. [several lines left blank].
So, while it is clear that Joseph had a glass of beer, it is
equally obvious that it was out of the ordinary. There is
no record of his morning breakfast (which you imply he would
have entered because it was a habit), no record of his
attire (another habit (-: ), nor of his horse (assuming he
rode on one and not in a carriage), all habits.
>Regardless of whether Joseph Smith had a drinking "habit" we should
>be able to agree on these assertions:
>1). Joseph Smith drank alcohol occassionaly (atleast twice in one
>month at one period of time).
But you attribute sinister motives or at least hypocrisy to
his doing so. There is no basis for this assertion.
>2). Joseph Smith did not object to the locating of brewery nearby.
I can't verify that he had "no objections". Even if he did
not, what difference does it make? The Word of Wisdom was
not a commandment in 1840, and did not then, nor does it
now, apply to non-LDSs.
>3). Joseph Smith obtained a liquor license from the Nuavoo City Council.
The Church, as owner of the Hotel Utah, had a liquor license
from the Utah State Commision.Board/whatever of Alcohol,
too. One of the reasons for building the "Mansion House"
was to entertain non-LDS visitors, visitors who would expect
alcohol at a first class hotel. Even so, the license was
for Porter Rockwell, a man who could only ply his prefered
trade in times of trouble. Joseph let "Port" use the bar as
a means of support.
>4). Joseph Smith had a bar in his home.
His home was the city's best hotel. Besides, when Emma
objected, Port had to move accross the street to the barber
shop.
>5). Joseph Smith did not object to having a beer in a local bar.
And, again, the not-so-subtle hints of hypocracy. The Word
of Wisdom was not a commandment in 1840.
Lehi
I'll educate my children, you educate yours, and let's not
force the neighbors to pay for it, okey? See
www.sepschool.org.
______
If the state monopolizes the philosophy of its citizens, it is
not significant that it does so in the classroom rather than
in the chapel.
(1996) Moi
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of
opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
(1777) Thomas Jefferson
Whenever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found
state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure
implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.
(1874) Benjamin Disraeli
David Bowie
NelsBaker (nels...@aol.com) wrote:
: As far as this thread goes you are all forgetting one thing. Beer is not
: against the WofW at the time. Reread it, it does mention that it is okay
: to use Barley in mild drinks. D&C 89:17. Beer would be a mild drink...
Although this is correct in that drinking beer was not breaking a
commandment at the time--the Word of Wisdom did not have commandment
status at the time--claiming that beer is necessarily a "mild drink" is
open to question. Although beer is (generally, but not always) made from
barley, the simple fact that it is made from barley does not make it a
"mild drink." There are, after all, non-fermented drinks made from
barley which could be the intent of the phrase.
David "Karamalz" Bowie
--
David Bowie dbo...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
PhD student in Sociolinguistics http://babel.ling.upenn.edu/~bowie
Jackson Stephens
Wednesday, March 26, 1997
Derek Snow <ds...@zebra.net> wrote:
> I just wanted to set the record straight that Joseph Smith did drink
> alcohol after the Word of Wisdom had been given. This is not the point
> however if Joseph Smith was a Prophet and led by divine inspiration, though
> I doubt the above dairy entries would be brought out in a church meeting or
> class, because it does not portray the image that the church wants people
> to have of Joseph Smith. Of course if any of you Mormons would like to
> comment on this post please do I would love to hear what you have to say.
That's correct; it does give a poor picture of Joseph. At the same time, it
doesn't negate his being a prophet of God. As far as I know, the Word of
Wisdom was not a commandment until after Joseph's death. Yes, Joseph could
have set a better example by following the revelation completely. That's
certainly true. But Joseph wasn't perfect either, nor did he ever claim to
be.
"I have never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the
revelations which I have tought." (Teachings, page 368.)
If he wanted to sit around and drink alcohol, then why did he come up with
the Word of Wisdom in the first place? Answer: He didn't come up with it;
the Lord did.
> I add the following as a
> polite jest. You can always say that the above diary entries were not
> written by Joseph Smith. . . .
That's a cop out, I agree. Besides, Joseph isn't incriminated to a great
enough point in those wine entries to even warrant such a drastic (and
probably untrue) retaliation. So he drank some wine. Big deal; he could
still be a prophet and have done what he did. There's never been any
biblical stipulation that prophets are perfect and never do anything wrong.
> . . . just like the church did with the Ensign article
> about the kinderhook plates in the early 80's. They said that those
> entries were written by William Clayton, but do not add that William
> Clayton was Joseph Smith's personal clerk "scribe". As far as I know
> William Clayton was always a member in good standing with the church, and
> would not have had any reason to have made those few lines of translation
> of the kinderhook plates.
I've pondered about this, too, but you must wonder: If Joseph made a
translation, why do we not have any other evidence other than a sentence or
two from a second-hand source? From what I have seen, there is absolutely
*no* other evidence to indicate that Joseph ever translated the work.
Perhaps he began to try -- and told his scribe about it -- but perhaps he
then discovered that the plates were fake. The scribe still could have
misinterpreted something, or written before the fact. There are so many
variables to consider. I, for one, cannot take a single, secondary source
as historical fact.
> The account of the First Vision that is used as the official
> version by the church today was not written by Joseph Smith.
What? I'm not saying I know the answer to this -- I've always assumed it to
be Joseph -- but how do you know that? Where do you get your evidence?
Prove this to me! Or were you just joking?
God bless,
Jackson
+| Living in Indianapolis, Indiana
+| Also: born SLC UT, sCA, FL, OH (23 houses and counting!)
+| Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
+| Also known as "Mormonism." Leaving for two-year mission in May.
Woody Brison
was: Re: Joseph's Alcohol Drinking Habit?
The very spiritual ja...@ix.netcom.com (Jackson Stephens) wrote:
>Derek Snow <ds...@zebra.net> wrote:
>> . . . just like the church did with the Ensign article
>> about the kinderhook plates in the early 80's. They said that those
>> entries were written by William Clayton, but do not add that William
>> Clayton was Joseph Smith's personal clerk "scribe". As far as I know
>> William Clayton was always a member in good standing with the church, and
>> would not have had any reason to have made those few lines of translation
>> of the kinderhook plates.
>
> I've pondered about this, too, but you must wonder: If Joseph made a
> translation, why do we not have any other evidence other than a sentence or
> two from a second-hand source? From what I have seen, there is absolutely
> *no* other evidence to indicate that Joseph ever translated the work.
> Perhaps he began to try -- and told his scribe about it -- but perhaps he
> then discovered that the plates were fake. The scribe still could have
> misinterpreted something, or written before the fact. There are so many
> variables to consider. I, for one, cannot take a single, secondary source
> as historical fact.
The fact that people came forth claiming a hoax only after many,
many years had passed indicates something wrong with their story.
I have been pondering the Kinderhood thing, and wonder, how do
we know it's a fake? Somebody said that Bell Labs analyzed the
one plate that turned up in a museum and pronounced it a hoax.
Were they called in because of the bell shape of the plate, or
what?
You will remember that Marco Polo said the great Khan gave him
and his companions four small plates, free passes essentially,
with free board and room wherever they went, plus a guarantee,
that if anyone failed to provide them with horses, armies, or
whatever they needed, the great Khan would not fail to provide
/them with armies and they would know it were a mistake to cross
him or his diplomats. The description given of these plates
was not far in appearance to the K plates.
You really ought not to miss Marco Polo. He also gives an
interesting story about the 3 Wise Men. Place of origen, tombs,
all that. Plus there's lots of great geography. Has anyone
taken a whirl with it? Correlating mountains, deserts, cities
with known geography, like with the Book of Mormon, for
comparison purposes.
Could it be that the K's were real? The total corrosion of the
iron rings was a nice touch, hard to make that happen in a year
or two. Hmmm...
Wood
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visitors are always welcome at LDS services. In the U.S,
check the Phone Book (business section!) under "Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". Or just ask around!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Ping
In article <5hf9kc$q...@q.seanet.com>,
Woody Brison <william....@ast.lmco.NO.SPAM.PLEASE.com> wrote:
}I have been pondering the Kinderhood thing, and wonder, how do
}we know it's a fake? Somebody said that Bell Labs analyzed the
}one plate that turned up in a museum and pronounced it a hoax.
}Were they called in because of the bell shape of the plate, or
}what?
>From the August 1981 Ensign:
"These tests, involving some very sophisticated analytical techniques, were
performed by Professor D. Lynn Johnson of the Department of Materials
Science and Engineering at Northwestern University.
"Dr. Johnson used a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to examine the
grooves that form the characters on the plate to determine whether they were
cut or scratched with a tool or whether they were etched with acid." [the
hoaxters claimed that they had formed molds out of beeswax and used acid to
burn the marks into the plates]
The tests showed that the plates really were a hoax.
}Could it be that the K's were real? The total corrosion of the
}iron rings was a nice touch, hard to make that happen in a year
}or two. Hmmm...
Actually it's quite easily done with the right acid. The perpetrators
claimed to use nitric acid.
The Ensign article is very well written and presents the historical
background very well. I suggest you read it in its entirety (I don't want
to type the whole thing out). Perhaps the ward/stake/institute library has
a copy of you don't.
It very clearly illustrates the point that we as Mormons shouldn't
automatically assume that any archealogical find which might corroborate
Joseph Smith's story is true. We should seek the truth carefully.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@cory.eecs.Berkeley.EDU
The Shoe
I don't understand why anybody, other than anti-Mormons, would think they
have an issue over The Prophet's occasional imbibe of wine and/or beer. As
late as 1921, there were cuspidors in the tabernacle. Does that prove the
church is not true? The Word of Wisdom was given as a suggestion, not a
commandment. The only reason the church stopped using wine for the
sacrament was because the antis of the time poisoned the wine they bought.
Applying today's standards to the early church founders is ridiculous.
And what about Christ? Not only did he imbibe, he "brewed" it when his
mother asked. One of the guests at that famous wedding made a comment
about saving the best wine for last. They used to serve the good wine
first then move to the bad wine as the party progressed. My father used to
do the same thing with Scotch. He would serve the two dogs brand until
everybody had on a glow then he would go to the cheap stuff.
There are any number of arguments about why the W of W became a
commandment. (including the one that says it was always a commandment for
all but the leaders who took it up before the Revelation) The one I
embrace is simply that we as a people could not live with it as a
suggestion. It is not unlike Jehovah giving the Israelites a stricter law
because they could not live with the correct one. It is a principle AA
employs when they call for total abstinence for those who cannot handle it.
My daughter and her husband applied it to my grandson who became hooked on
nintendo games. No mystery. No issue.
Frederick
The Shoe wrote:
>
> My daughter and her husband applied it to my grandson who became hooked on
> nintendo games. No mystery. No issue.
>
>
books, magazines, newspapers, bibles, BOM, etc. In my teens my
stepmother (who bragged about never graduating from highschool) would
forbid me to read. Over summer (no school) she would totally stop
any reading of the above materials. She thought it was unnatural and
ill of me. I was not asocial, just threatening to her.
Where is your principle here?
--
f. martin mcneill programmer, owner
f u z z y s y s t e m s e n g i n e e r i n g
12223 Wilsey Way, Poway, CA 92064
Tel. # : (619) 748-7384 Web : http://www.fuzzysys.com
The Shoe
I do not see the connection. One subject involves a Prohet of God who
lived during a time when the wine was safer to drink than the water. I
further extended the discussion by suggesting that Saints could not live
the principle without the discipline of the temple recommend. My grandson
became hooked on the nintendo game, stopped doing his school work, told the
teacher to shut up, completely changed his personality. His parents
applied the principle that you cannot live with a suggestion not to play
nintendo so much. We have to help you with a lower law. YOU come back
with some story about an idiotic step mother and, by implication, a
spineless father who would not let you read. There is a vast difference
between lovingly controlling your son's access to a silly game that has
provoked abberant behavior and dysfunctional parents who prohibit a child
from reading in an attempt to salvage the inferiority complex of a high
school drop out step mother.
I stand by my belief that the WofW had to be made a commandment for our own
good. As the son of an alcoholic father, I know where I would be if I did
not have to trade that vice for a temple recommend. It is almost a
standing expression in my prayers: "Thank thee for the Word of Wisdom. If
thou gavest me nothing else, I would have no excuses".
Frederick
Shoe,
You are right. I was just pulling at your shoe strings. :-)
I respect you and just wanted some attention from you. Thanks.
I was not raised in the LDS church (Methodist/Presbyterian/Atheist).
BTW I am becomming an elder tomorrow. What does this mean to you?
What should it mean to me? I feel it is significant.
I always have been and always will be a "trouble maker". So I need
considerate centering friends. I have several of these in my ward whom
I love. I think they love me!
The Shoe
Frederick: I hope my response did not come across as hostile. Sometimes I
get a little zealous in my replies. I've been termed a "trouble maker"
myself during my 38+ years in the church.