Official History of the Church

[_Jason Bourne]

Is it trustworthy? What do you think?

Jersey Girl

For the last six years I have been working on a critical edition of the Documentary History of the Church, vols. 1-6 (DHC). The seventh vol. is excluded because it deals with the apostles after Joseph Smith's death. My project has two goals: tracing just how the History was put together and when, and determining the sources behind the History and how accurately used. Knowing these things will help researchers know how close the DHC is to Joseph Smith, or how authoritative any statement might or might not be. Most of it was written after Joseph Smith died, but nonetheless in first person as if Joseph Smith was speaking. Most of the sermons are composites of various journal entries, primarily Wilford Woodruff's, and fleshed out and expanded. Much of this work was done under Geo. A. Smith's supervision about 1854. Sometimes things are taken from sources such as the Times and Seasons, Nauvoo Neighbor, minutes of the Nauvoo High Council, or William Clayton Journal and changed to first person accounts of Joseph Smith. The compilers tended to write the new apostolic leadership into the History. Although this has been explained by apologists was not unusual for the times, still some of the changes are quite telling of the motivations of the compilers. One must keep in mind that the DHC is an official history of an institution, and like any "official" history of any organization, it is self-interested and self-preserving.

This is something I would leap at to have. And yes there are apparent problems. On the other hand, there does seem to be some good resources and a lot of events told in an accurate way. Letters to the various politcal leaders, attempts at redress for losses in Missouri and so forth all seem pretty reliable. Never the less, I have had concerns when I have found liberal editing that totally changed what was seemingly the original source said. But then one wonders how good the original source is.

[_Mercury]

Like cleavage and waffles, what is NOT included in teh official church history is the interesting part.

[_Dr. Shades]

What's hilarious about the "changing to first person was common" apologetic is that that's exactly what they use to destroy the credibility of the report that Joseph Smith gave a cursory evaluation of the Kinderhook Plates.

Oh man, that's a GREAT observation! I shudder to think of all the times I could've used that line of reasoning but didn't 'cause I simply didn't think of it!

I'm gonna have to earmark that one. Good call.

[_Dan Vogel]

Sometimes things are taken from sources such as the Times and Seasons, Nauvoo Neighbor, minutes of the Nauvoo High Council, or William Clayton Journal and changed to first person accounts of Joseph Smith. . . Although this has been explained by apologists was not unusual for the times, still some of the changes are quite telling of the motivations of the compilers.

Hi, Dan:

I've repeatedly heard the "changing things to first person was a common thing back then" apologetic, but please answer me this: Is that assertion true, or is it merely an urban legend the apologists cooked up to cover for the HoC?

Nineteenth-century standards were certainly lower than now. Joseph Smith employed his scribes as ghost writers of his history, and they did their best even after his death. Whether it was common or not, the effect is still the same. When one thinks Joseph Smith is speaking, he really isn't. That's frustrating for historians. So I want to make it easy for researchers to know more about what they are reading in the DHC. A 7th vol. will have a collection of various documents associated with the History.

[_Dr. Shades]

Nineteenth-century standards were certainly lower than now. . . Whether it was common or not, the effect is still the same.

Thanks for the above, but with all due respect it doesn't answer my question, to whit: Are the apologists right when they say, "switching-things-up-to-read-like-it's-first-person-was-common-in-the-Nineteenth-Century," or are they wrong?

[_Blixa]

A little of both, Shades. Either way its an evasion, especially if just tossed off to dismiss a counter argument, instead of being followed with a discussion of 19thC rhetoric and what we now can and can't tell about the document and the consequences thereof.

In other words, as scholarly commentary, it's an acceptable statement. As apologetic c***blocking, its business as usual.

[_Dan Vogel]

Jason,

Thanks for the above, but with all due respect it doesn't answer my question, to whit: Are the apologists right when they say, "switching-things-up-to-read-like-it's-first-person-was-common-in-the-Nineteenth-Century," or are they wrong?

I was gently trying to point you in a more fruitful direction. Yes, there is some indication that authors of historical works sometimes appropriated without notice the writings of others as their own, changing indirect discourse to direct. I don't know how common it was to do exactly that, although it is clear that editorial standards were very loose and quotation marks less frequently employed than today. Historians tend to be less concerned about indicting 19th century authors than with trying to access the reliability and sources of their accounts. Apologists have responded in this fashion largely because some critics have implied that there was a deliberate and systematic falsification of early Mormon history. I don't think so. Generally, given the standards of the time and Joseph Smith's untimely death, I think they did the best they could with the materials they had to work with. However, we still have an obligation to critically assess their work. A question overlooked by focusing on the method of composition is what was left out, namely polygamy and Council of Fifty minutes. Regardless of what license Willard Richards and Geo. A. Smith thought they had with the sources, we still need to know what motivated their choices. That is what I meant by the effect is the same regardless of whatever standards they thought they were following.

I realize that some critics (e.g., the Tanners) started down the path of falsification and cover-up, and the apologists followed. That was the wrong path in my estimation. The changes and borrowings were lined up as evidence for falsification without the least bit of analysis. What we should be doing is examining the history as a record that not only tells us about Joseph Smith, but also about the compellers. At Joseph Smith's death, the History had been written to 1838. After Joseph Smith's death, the project was taken over by BY and the apostles. By the time of the exodus in 1846, they were working on the first draft of March 1843. The remainder was composed in Utah beginning in 1854 under G A Smith's direction. What these men chose to put in or leave out is significant. They were not only concerned to present their founding prophet in the best light, but they wanted the History to reflect their importance as successors as well.

Now, B. H. Roberts needs closer scrutiny. He didn't just compile the previously published history from the Millennial Star, but he deleted, added, and changed things without notification. Most of his changes were of little consequence, but he rather systematically changed things he and potential readers would have found distasteful. Like Joseph Smith hitting someone in the nose or drinking an alcoholic beverage. But even Roberts was not alone in doing such things, as Dean Jessee has argued. Nonetheless, minus the accusation of malicious intent, the effect is still the same.

So, in summary, my advice is to avoid the argument over deliberate falsification and malicious intent of the compilers. Focus instead on the deconstruction of the text. Apologists will resist the ad hominal accusations quite successfully, but they will actually participate in the downgrading of what was once thought of as the "official" version of the past. Dean Jessee has been trying to do that for years, and the Joseph Smith Papers project will help a great deal. I hope my DHC project will help put the History in proper perspective.

[_Dan Vogel]

Did Joseph Smith prophecy that Brigham Young would lead the church?

Here is an interesting passaged from Joseph Smith's History as it was first published in the Times and Seasons on 15 October 1844,

The following paragraph from the MS History deals with Joseph Smith's first meeting BY about 8 November 1832. It did appear when the History was first published in the Times and Seasons, 15 Oct. 1844, three months after the Mormon prophet's death. Sometime between that date and when it was copied into Book A-2, 163, in 1845, this paragraph was added to the addenda that appear following page 553 of Book A-1 as Note A, which is in the handwriting of Thomas Bullock.

About the 8th of November I received a visit from Elders Joseph Young, Brigham Young, and Heber C. Kimball from Mendon, Munroe County, New York. They spent four or five days at Kirtland, during which we had many interesting moments. At one of our interviews, Brother Brigham Young, and John P. Greene spoke in tongues, which was the first time I had heard this gift among the brethren; and others also spoke, and I received the gift myself. Brother Joseph Young is a great man, but Brigham is a greater, and the time will come when he will preside over the whole Church.

When this was copied into A-2 in 1845, the following sentence was added:

And God never had a better servant in a man than that which is in brother Kimball.

Interestingly, the above was first published by B. H. Roberts, only he excluded the parts about the Youngs and Kimball (see DHC 1:295-97). Written well after Joseph Smith’s death, it is most certainly apocryphal.