As I've shown, FairMormon usually takes a strong stance in support of the Mesoamerican theory. However, the times, they are a-changin'.
Now FairMormon is helping to help prove Joseph Smith did not write the 1842 Times and Seasons articles that spawned the Mesoamerican industry.
Right on this page, they cite a source in the Millennial Star that says Joseph had little to do with the Times and Seasons.
This is a huge step toward consensus.
Well done.
Here's the quotation from the source FairMormon cites:
"Sometime previous to the year 1842, Mr.Smith established a printing office in the city of Nauvoo, for the purpose of printing the various publications of the church, and executing job work for the convenience of the public. He placed a foreman over it to take charge of the printing department, and although the business was done in his name, it was frequently the case that he was not inside the office once in a month."
Here's the link to the original source in the Millennial Star.
Now that FairMormon acknowledges Joseph had nothing to do with the September/October Times and Seasons articles, we're one step closer to consensus.
Now I'm hoping someone at FairMormon will come out in support of what David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery said about Cumorah. Oliver Cowdery even said it was a fact that the Book of Mormon Cumorah was in New York. Every early Mormon leader and writer accepted Cumorah in New York.
It was so identified even in Orson Pratt's 1879 footnotes in the Book of Mormon. It wasn't until the 20th century when the limited Mesoamerican geography was proposed by scholars that the so-called Two Cumorah theory was developed.
So on the one hand, we have the people who met Moroni and translated the Book of Mormon saying Cumorah was in New York. On the other hand, we have scholars a hundred years later saying Oliver, David and Joseph were merely repeating a rumor or tradition some unidentified people started.
The choice between the two is easy for me.
Now FairMormon is helping to help prove Joseph Smith did not write the 1842 Times and Seasons articles that spawned the Mesoamerican industry.
Right on this page, they cite a source in the Millennial Star that says Joseph had little to do with the Times and Seasons.
This is a huge step toward consensus.
Well done.
Here's the quotation from the source FairMormon cites:
"Sometime previous to the year 1842, Mr.Smith established a printing office in the city of Nauvoo, for the purpose of printing the various publications of the church, and executing job work for the convenience of the public. He placed a foreman over it to take charge of the printing department, and although the business was done in his name, it was frequently the case that he was not inside the office once in a month."
Here's the link to the original source in the Millennial Star.
Now that FairMormon acknowledges Joseph had nothing to do with the September/October Times and Seasons articles, we're one step closer to consensus.
Now I'm hoping someone at FairMormon will come out in support of what David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery said about Cumorah. Oliver Cowdery even said it was a fact that the Book of Mormon Cumorah was in New York. Every early Mormon leader and writer accepted Cumorah in New York.
It was so identified even in Orson Pratt's 1879 footnotes in the Book of Mormon. It wasn't until the 20th century when the limited Mesoamerican geography was proposed by scholars that the so-called Two Cumorah theory was developed.
So on the one hand, we have the people who met Moroni and translated the Book of Mormon saying Cumorah was in New York. On the other hand, we have scholars a hundred years later saying Oliver, David and Joseph were merely repeating a rumor or tradition some unidentified people started.
The choice between the two is easy for me.
So because a quote that you use to further your theories happens to be in the same publication as another, entirely different quote that is used by FairMormon to support something completely different, you decide that FairMormon agrees with your theories?
ReplyDeleteShould we assume that all your research is similarly scrupulous?
The statement in the Millennial Star is correct, with the exception of the period between March 1842 and November 1842, when Joseph himself was the managing editor of the Times and Seasons, as he himself wrote in the 1 March 1842 edition, taking personal responsibility for the contents of the paper from that point forward.
ReplyDeleteYou are mistaken in taking a broad generalization of Joseph's involvement with the paper over its entire course and applying it strictly to all periods of time. There were times when he had direct management. The period in which the Mesoamerican editorials were published was one of them.
Let's look at the quote again: "Sometime previous to the year 1842, Mr. Smith established a printing office in the city of Nauvoo, for the purpose of printing the various publications of the church, and executing job work for the convenience of the public. He placed a foreman over it to take charge of the printing department, *and although the business was done in his name,* it was frequently the case that he was not inside the office once in a month."
DeleteWhen was the business of the printing office "done in [Joseph's] name," except for "the period between March 1842 and November 1842?" The Peace Maker was published by the printing office in Nauvoo in 1842. The quote from the Millennial Star is clearly referencing the 1842 period. And Joseph Smith's 1842 journal supports the Millennial Star (compare the entries beginning in March, which reference Joseph being in the printing office, examining the copy of the Times and Seasons, etc., with later entries).
The statement in the Millennial Star is correct. No exception needed.
Russ,
DeleteThere are two direct issues that have to be dealt with here if you're going to follow Neville's claim:
1) Joseph Smith's published statement: "This [issue of the Times and Seasons] commences my editorial career, I alone stand responsible for it, and shall do for all papers having my signature henceforward.” (“To Subscribers,” Times and Seasons 3/9 [1 March 1842], 710.) Joseph took direct responsibility for what was published in the Times and Seasons, but not for everything printed in that office. (Newspaper publishers frequently rented themselves out to publish books and other printed materials, like The Peacemaker.)
2) We have a clear example here, in The Peacemaker, of something that was printed at the Times and Seasons office that was claimed to be written by Joseph but was not, and Joseph going on the record in the Times and Seasons disclaiming any connection to it. And yet Mr. Neville would have us believe that black-hearted scoundrel Benjamin Winchester published **in the Times and Seasons itself, claiming to be the editor** a geographic theory amenable to Mesoamerica, and yet Joseph Smith never disclaimed that. If Joseph knew, by revelation, that the Book of Mormon took place exclusively in the American Midwest, why didn't he denounce these vile articles? (Easy answer: Because he didn't know, and he wrote the articles.)
So, Joseph Smith wrote the articles, but he didn't know if what he was writing was true ("Because he didn't know..."), but he published them anyway. We need more explanation on your conjecture, this isn't making sense.
DeletePlease re-read my statement in context, RJ:
Delete"If Joseph knew, by revelation, that the Book of Mormon took place exclusively in the American Midwest, why didn't he denounce these vile articles? (Easy answer: Because he didn't know, and he wrote the articles.)"
Joseph did not know by revelation the location of book of Mormon lands (contrary to the claims of many Heartland geography proponents).
All the evidence indicates that Joseph believed in a hemispheric geography, one in which the Book of Mormon took place across the North and South American continents. His reading of Incidents of Travel led him to conclude that the cities described in that book were Nephite cities, but that was his own personal belief, not one given to him by revelation from the Lord.
Uncle! Uncle! I give! I give! Man, you win, Mike. I'm down for the count. Man, conquered by italics. Please don't tell my friends, they'll make fun of me.
DeleteI'm perplexed by your response, RJ.
DeleteYou said you needed "more explanation" because I "wasn't making sense." I clarified my point, as you asked; I used italics because they focus attention on important key words. Instead of thanking me for the clarification or rebutting my claims, you fired off a sarcastic response about how I used italics.
Where did this discussion go off the rails?
I'm so sorry Mike. My apologies. I totally misunderstood what you were after with your comments-- not just in this thread either. My comment was sarcastic, you're right. I thought you were purposely trolling the blog. Now with your reply, I realize I was sorely mistaken, that's just the way you write and present arguments when you don't agree or are skeptical about something.
DeleteStill, I was defeated with italics. It's a painful way for one to realize where exactly the context broke down.
Getting back on the rails, I don't feel there is any way that we can conclude that Joseph Smith did/didn't write those articles if we depend on strict written and reprimands matching up. Could it be an OR, and not and AND?
I mean, how many over zealous people never get reprimanded but the consequences have lasting effects? How many people went un-chastized by Joseph Smith because he didn't have the time, nor could he concern himself with it? Also, How possible is it that Joseph Smith knew far more from revelation and heavenly visitation than he could ever divulge, or that people who heard didn't completely write down?
RJ,
DeleteWhat you're doing in your last paragraph (if you'll forgive the italics) is known as arguing from silence. This is a logical fallacy that doesn't actually provide evidence of anything, but merely questions the other person's argument by offering options for which there is no evidence at all.
Here's what we do know:
* Joseph Smith was editor of the Times and Seasons from March through November 1842, during which time he took personal responsibility for the items published in that newspaper.
* The stylometric evidence favors Joseph Smith over any other potential author of the Central American editorials. (See Roper, et al, in the most recent article published by Interpreter.)
* Joseph Smith could have disavowed anything he disagreed with that was published through that printing office, and in fact he did exactly that with a tract on marriage that was published in 1842. He did not disavow the editorials that were published in the newspaper itself under his editorship.
* Joseph Smith never made any direct or indirect claims to revelation about Book of Mormon geography.
That argument that maybe he did disagree with the Central American editorials or maybe he did know about Book of Mormon geography by revelation but just didn't say anything is meaningless. He could have believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy as well, and just never said so. He could have been a complete fraud who was in it for the money, but never revealed it.
All the "could haves" in the world mean nothing. Only evidence that can be examined matters.
Does this make sense?
I can see what you're getting at and I appreciate your time and attention to detail. Your reply is very clear, and I have no evidence to be examined. That's probably not my job anyway, but I still opened my big mouth!
DeleteI am descendent of the Shawnee, Delaware, with a smidgeon of Cherokee. I'm also a registered Caddo tribal member. I've also had the privilege of living in Central America for a few seasons. I've experienced the cultures of both natives in their respective geographic locations, and I can tell you some things that I've come to know and feel but there isn't a shred of evidence that I have to show for it other than my feelings on the matter, which are very important to me. I think that after a self examination, I'm fine with not having the evidence to be examined. All I have is feeling and it's terribly hard for me to debate when I don't know all that you guys know regarding history in Nauvoo. I don't think I'll try again for a while.
I believe that my ancestors are those the posterity of Lehi, and I am part of the promises being fulfilled that were promised to his posterity. I believe Joseph Smith knew it too. I have no physical evidence of myself for these conclusions, and that's okay for me. I appreciate the little debate in this thread. I think I learned something about myself I wouldn't have otherwise.
RJ,
DeleteWhether the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, or in the Great Lakes region, or in the "Heartland" of the American Midwest, or in Peru makes no difference to your DNA. Today, 2600 years after Lehi landed in the Western Hemisphere, every Native American is his descendant. That's how population genetics works.
In fact, all human beings on the planet are descended from a single individual who lived only 2000 to 4000 years ago. (Google "most recent common ancestor.")
It is incorrect to say that FairMormon usually takes a strong stance in support of the Mesoamerican theory. Neither the LDS Church nor FairMormon has an official position on the matter of geography
ReplyDelete