After my post yesterday, some people wondered if there are other examples of how Lucy Mack Smith's account has been censored.
One of the best-known books about Lucy's History of Joseph Smith was edited by Scot and Maurine Proctor.
Yesterday, we saw that Lucy quoted Joseph saying "As I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel of the Lord met me."
Recall, this was in early 1827, well before Joseph obtained the plates in September. The statement explains the true origin of the name Cumorah as applied to the hill in New York where Moroni put the plates in the stone box.
If you read the Proctors' book, pages 134-5, you will see that Joseph's statement is missing.
The Saints book also censored Joseph's statement, as have all the Church history accounts that I've checked lately, including Rough Stone Rolling, as we saw yesterday.
I realize this degree of censorship is difficult to believe. Such censorship is right out of George Orwell's 1984.
[That's a reference many younger people won't understand. Starting about ten years ago, my college students told me they had never heard of the book. Apparently it is no longer taught in high school, which helps explain why so many younger people are so easily fooled by fake news and hoaxes. Another topic for another day.]
Fortunately, censorship is difficult in today's world for those who seek the truth. You can verify what I'm reporting for yourself in the links to the Joseph Smith Papers and in the Proctors' book, as well as in Saints.
How do these revisionist historians get away with censoring Joseph's 1827 statement about Cumorah?
I'm going to show you.
_____
There are two versions of Lucy's history. The first one, the rough draft, she dictated to Martha Coray in Nauvoo in 1844-1845. Martha's husband Howard helped. Then, in 1845, Martha and Howard wrote a "fair copy" of the history under Lucy's direction. This was an updated, edited version.
The table below shows both versions of Lucy's history. If you look at the links to the Joseph Smith Papers, you can see where parts of the original 1844-1845 version were lined out and replaced.
The quotation of Joseph referring to the hill Cumorah in early 1827 is in the revised, 1845 version. The corresponding part of the old version was lined out.
But the Proctors, like the editors of Saints, used the older, deleted version instead of the updated one.
Why?
All we can do is infer from the editing decision.
Normally, we would expect a historian to use the original author's updated, edited version, especially when the author lined out the original and replaced it with more detail.
In this case, both the Proctors and the revisionist Church historians reject the New York Cumorah. Rather than include Lucy's updated, specific quotation, they just deleted so their readers will never know about it.
This table shows how they accomplished this. The left column is the rough draft (1844-1845). The right column is Lucy's updated 1845 version. The print in black and red is the unused original of each version.
The lines through the type represent the text that Lucy deleted when she updated and revised her account.
The print in blue is the Proctors' version, which is basically what we read in Saints as well. You can see that they switched back and forth between the accounts to compose a single version that you can read in their book on pages 134-5.
You'll also notice that much of the blue is lined out. That's because the Proctors (like the editors of Saints) used the material Lucy deleted rather than her updated, revised version that included the Cumorah statement.
The passage in red is the key point about Cumorah, which the editors censored.
Here's a photo of the pages in the Proctors' book so you can verify what I'm showing if you don't have a copy.
This could all be a simple misunderstanding, of course. But readers should know that Scot and Maurine Proctor are the publishers of Meridian Magazine (https://ldsmag.com/), which has the nickname of "Mesoamerican Magazine" because of the way it constantly promotes M2C.
Whether it's a coincidence or not, their careful editing of Lucy's history just happens to censor an important part of Church history that just happens to refute M2C.
Just the same way as the book Saints does, sadly.
Yesterday, we saw that Lucy quoted Joseph saying "As I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel of the Lord met me."
Recall, this was in early 1827, well before Joseph obtained the plates in September. The statement explains the true origin of the name Cumorah as applied to the hill in New York where Moroni put the plates in the stone box.
If you read the Proctors' book, pages 134-5, you will see that Joseph's statement is missing.
The Saints book also censored Joseph's statement, as have all the Church history accounts that I've checked lately, including Rough Stone Rolling, as we saw yesterday.
I realize this degree of censorship is difficult to believe. Such censorship is right out of George Orwell's 1984.
[That's a reference many younger people won't understand. Starting about ten years ago, my college students told me they had never heard of the book. Apparently it is no longer taught in high school, which helps explain why so many younger people are so easily fooled by fake news and hoaxes. Another topic for another day.]
Fortunately, censorship is difficult in today's world for those who seek the truth. You can verify what I'm reporting for yourself in the links to the Joseph Smith Papers and in the Proctors' book, as well as in Saints.
How do these revisionist historians get away with censoring Joseph's 1827 statement about Cumorah?
I'm going to show you.
_____
There are two versions of Lucy's history. The first one, the rough draft, she dictated to Martha Coray in Nauvoo in 1844-1845. Martha's husband Howard helped. Then, in 1845, Martha and Howard wrote a "fair copy" of the history under Lucy's direction. This was an updated, edited version.
The table below shows both versions of Lucy's history. If you look at the links to the Joseph Smith Papers, you can see where parts of the original 1844-1845 version were lined out and replaced.
The quotation of Joseph referring to the hill Cumorah in early 1827 is in the revised, 1845 version. The corresponding part of the old version was lined out.
But the Proctors, like the editors of Saints, used the older, deleted version instead of the updated one.
Why?
All we can do is infer from the editing decision.
Normally, we would expect a historian to use the original author's updated, edited version, especially when the author lined out the original and replaced it with more detail.
In this case, both the Proctors and the revisionist Church historians reject the New York Cumorah. Rather than include Lucy's updated, specific quotation, they just deleted so their readers will never know about it.
This table shows how they accomplished this. The left column is the rough draft (1844-1845). The right column is Lucy's updated 1845 version. The print in black and red is the unused original of each version.
The lines through the type represent the text that Lucy deleted when she updated and revised her account.
The print in blue is the Proctors' version, which is basically what we read in Saints as well. You can see that they switched back and forth between the accounts to compose a single version that you can read in their book on pages 134-5.
You'll also notice that much of the blue is lined out. That's because the Proctors (like the editors of Saints) used the material Lucy deleted rather than her updated, revised version that included the Cumorah statement.
The passage in red is the key point about Cumorah, which the editors censored.
1844-1845 (rough draft) | 1845 (revised by Lucy) |
But to return to the | But to return, he did not get home till the night was far spent. On coming in, threw himself into a chair, apparently much exhausted. My husband did not observe his appearance, and immediately exclaimed, “Joseph, why have you staid so late? has anything happened you? we have been much distressed about you these three hours. |
As Joseph made no reply, he continued his interrogations until I finally said: now, father, (as that was the manner in which I commonly addressed him) let him rest a moment— dont touble him now— you see he is home safe, and he is very tired; so pray wait a little. The fact is, I had learned to be a little cautious about matters with regard to Joseph; for I was accostomed to see him look as he did on that occasion, and could not easily mistake the cause thereof. | |
Presently he smiled, and said in a very calm tone, “I have taken the severest chastisement, that I have ever had in my life”. My husband, supposing it was from some of the neighbors, was quite angry; and observed, | |
“I would | |
“Stop, father, Stop.” said Joseph, “it was the angel of the Lord— as I passed by the hill of Cumorah, where the plates are, the angel | |
It <was> signified to him when he should make annother effort to obtain the plates which was september 22 but at this time he did not make this known to us | It was also made known to him at this interview, that he should make another effort to obtain the plates on the 22d. of the following September; But this he did not mention to us at that time. |
Here's a photo of the pages in the Proctors' book so you can verify what I'm showing if you don't have a copy.
Whether it's a coincidence or not, their careful editing of Lucy's history just happens to censor an important part of Church history that just happens to refute M2C.
Just the same way as the book Saints does, sadly.
No comments:
Post a Comment