Criticism of Mormonism/Books/The Changing World of Mormonism/Chapter 13

Chapter 12

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: Jerald and Sandra Tanner

Chapter 14

Claims made in Chapter 13: Changes in Joseph Smith's History

Page	Claim	Response	Author's sources
398	Mormon leaders claim that "Joseph Smith's" 'History of the Church' is the "most accurate history in all the world."	Authorship of History of the Church See Quote mining—Doctrines of Salvation 2:199 to see how this quote was mined.	Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, p.199
400-401	The History of the Church was not written by Joseph Smith himself. Many instances in original documents which referred to Joseph in the third person were changed to first person to make it appear as if Joseph wrote them.	Presentism or anachronism: This technique of historical writing was standard for the time period. There was no secret that this is how it was done. The Tanners count on their audience not knowing this, and do not disclose it even though they cite an article which discusses it in detail (see BYU Studies (1971) on p. 405 below. Authorship of History of the Church	[ATTENTION!]
403-404	Much of the History of the Church was completed after Joseph Smith's death. This means that Joseph Smith's history is not "authentic."	Presentism or anachronism: This technique of historical writing was standard for the time period. There was no secret that this is how it was done. The Tanners count on their audience not knowing this, and do not disclose it even though they cite an article which discusses it in detail (see BYU Studies (1971) on p. 405 below. Authorship of History of the Church	Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1971, pp.466, 469, 470, 472 Letter from George A. Smith to Woodruff, April 21, 1856, as cited in Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1971, pp.470-72"
405	The "Rocky Mountain prophecy" was added to the history of the Church sometime after the original was written.	Misrepresentation of source: None of these sources support the argument: The BYU Studies article from 1971 is Dean Jessee's account of the authorship of the History of the Church. It says nothing about adding a "Rocky Mountain Prophecy," and the Tanners neglect to provide the perspective on authorship practices in 19th century history that Jessee provides. They thus hide the material that answers their objection. Readers can fortunately access it here. The History of the Church article contains the prophecy mentioned, and has a footnote about the source for it.[1] Davis Bitton's article specifically says that "Two errors have been made regarding this Rocky Mountains prophecy. The first is to reject it out of hand as a later invention of the Utah Mormons." This use of sources is dishonest and misleading. Tanners' use of sources Forged Rocky Mountain prophecy?	History of the Church 5:85 Joseph Smith's Manuscript History, Book D-1, page 1362 Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1971, p.469 Davis Bitton, Joseph Smith in the Mormon Folk Memory, The John Whitmer address, delivered at the Second Annual Meeting of the John Whitmer Historical Association, Lamoni, Iowa, September 28, 1974, unpublished manuscript, p.16" [This article is now available in "Joseph Smith in the Mormon Folk Memory," in Restoration Studies, ed. Maurice L. Draper, vol. 1, (Independence, Missouri, 1980).]
408	The angel that gave Joseph Smith the plates was originally identified as "Nephi" rather than "Moroni." History of the Church changed it to "Moroni."	Misrepresentation of source: Nephi or Moroni	Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p.753 History of the Church, vol. 1, p.11 Millennial Star, vol. 3, p.53 1851 edition of the Pearl of Great Price
415	Most of Joseph Smith's history was written by his scribes and modified to read as if it were written in the first person, therefore this history must be a forgery.	Presentism or anachronism: This technique of historical writing was standard for the time period. There was no secret that this is how it was done. The Tanners count on their audience not knowing this, and do not disclose it even though they cite an article which discusses it in detail (BYU Studies (1971).  Misrepresentation of source: The Dialogue (1972) article is a critical review of Fawn Brodie by Davis Bitton. Davis nowhere says that the History must be a forgery. By contrast, he writes: There are in the Church archives hundreds of manuscripts by or about Joseph Smith which Brodie did not see and which are now generally available to scholars. In none that I have examined is there a hint that Smith thought of himself in any other terms except those manifest in his published writings--that he was a man called of God to lead a movement and start a church. When one has read through and noted carefully this vast miscellany of material, it becomes impossible to believe Brodie's original thesis. Joseph Smith played out his role not only before his wife and all his friends every minute of every day, of which we have record, beginning in 1829, but also in the few personal diaries which he wrote himself.... One reason that Brodie concluded that Joseph had veiled his personality behind a "perpetual flow of words" in his history may be that she assumed he had actually dictated most of it. We now know that large portions of that history were not dictated but were written by scribes and later transferred into the first person to read as though the words were Joseph's. That fact makes what few things Joseph Smith wrote himself of great significance. These confirm that during his most intimate personal moments he thought about the same things he spoke of publicly--his relationship to God and his calling as the religious leader of his people. It is also unlikely in the extreme that Cheesman, a practicing Latter-day Saint, would accuse the History of being a forgery. Authorship of History of the Church	Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1972, p.76 Paul R. Cheesman, An Analysis Of The Kinderhook Plates, March, 1970, Brigham Young University Library.

Endnotes

1. [note]  B.H. Roberts notes in the History of the Church footnote: It is thought important that the following statement from a biography of Anson Call, by Edward Tullidge, should be made part of the history of this prophetic incident, as doubtless the testimony of Brother Call relates to the same incident as that described in the Prophets text of the History, notwithstanding some confusion of dates that exists in the Call testimony. It will be seen that the Prophet fixes the date of his prophecy on Saturday, the 6th of August, 1842. In Whitney's History of Utah, Vol. 4. (Biographical section of the history, p. 143), the date on which Call heard the prophecy, is given as the 8th of August, 1842. While in Tullidge's biography of Call the date is given as the 14th of July, 1843, evidently an error. There is no entry in the Prophet's journal for the 8th of August, 1842, and the entries for the 8th of August, 1843, and the 14th of July, 1843, relate to matters of quite a different character. Tullidge, in relating Anson Call's recollection of the incident also says that J. C. Bennett was present on the occasion, which must also be an error, as the rupture between Bennett and the Church and its authorities occurred and he had left Nauvoo previous to the 6th of August, 1842. In the Call statement as published by Tullidge, the name of Mr. Adams, the Deputy Grand Master Mason in charge of the ceremonies, is given as George, it should be James. [The Call statement then follows.]