tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post8634196975631317666..comments2024-01-17T03:54:39.225-05:00Comments on Hieing to Kolob: History of Joseph Smith by his MotherBored in Vernalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14016611721544251941noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-52683244806901279092008-12-20T14:50:00.000-05:002008-12-20T14:50:00.000-05:00Jean, thanks for your comments. I can never recom...Jean, thanks for your comments. I can never recommend Quinn's Magic World View enough--it was an eye-opener to me. So often we have no idea what our predecessors' actions meant when we don't place ourselves into their world view. The times in which Joseph Smith lived were full of the supernatural and magic, and they interpreted daily events vastly differently than we do.Bored in Vernalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016611721544251941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-41387243371220612192008-12-20T14:18:00.000-05:002008-12-20T14:18:00.000-05:00I forgot to mention that the triangle that the wor...I forgot to mention that the triangle that the word makes when written/typed in this fashion is one of the most potent of all magical symbols. This is Hermeticism and that practice also involves the turning of mercury and sulpher into gold. Gold plates, magic!! Hermetic practices also have sexual connotations. Please check out Wikipedia for Hermeticism. Joseph and Brigham and many other of the church leaders did lead very unusual sex lives.Jeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11564546517972104958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-41810217876582771322008-12-20T14:07:00.000-05:002008-12-20T14:07:00.000-05:00I have read three different versions of the book a...I have read three different versions of the book and found the Ingleton one the most eye opening. It is interesting to me that the book was found to be so distasteful to Brigham Young that he actually had the nerve to destroy most copies of it. What was hi problem? Didn't like the truth? The Ingleton version is the one that helped me to research the 'faculty of Abrac' that Lucy commented on. I always wondered what that meant. When reading D Michael Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View; it was right there for all to see that it was a magical practise that the Smiths were engaged in.<BR/>If you center then type the word Abracadabra, then type right under it the same word but leave out the last letter, go down a line and leave out the last letter until you get to the bottom which is just the first letter - that being A; you will find that the 7th line is Abrac. 7 being a magical number and the faculty of Abrac and drawing cirlces that Lucy talked about is exposed. It is magic; plain and simple. There is really no dividing line between magic and religious supernatural beliefs such as holy oil etc. That was a part of Lucy's book that Brigham ensured was omitted. The church has tried to hide the magic beliefs of the early church, but if true history is exposed then so is the magic. Why do church members need false history? Why the cover up? Quinn still believes in Joseph Smith as a prophet despite his findings.Jeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11564546517972104958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-87697127730628518702008-12-07T01:12:00.000-05:002008-12-07T01:12:00.000-05:00This is a great blog. Keep up the good work! I'll ...This is a great blog. Keep up the good work! I'll be checking back and forth for updates! God bless!Seth Adam Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11404644644184200881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-84949185764289352292008-12-04T23:55:00.000-05:002008-12-04T23:55:00.000-05:00I will give you my thoughts, but you must realize ...I will give you my thoughts, but you must realize they are a bit different than the reactions of many Mormons. I have heard that Rough Stone Rolling was eye-opening to many Mormons, and that they discovered difficult things about Joseph that they never knew. I did not have the same experience. I have read probably 10 biographies of Joseph Smith, and I didn't find anything new in Bushman's. I enjoyed his style and appreciated his expertise with history. But the book held no fireworks for me.<BR/>Personally, I love the John Henry Evans <A HREF="http://www.amazon.ca/Joseph-Smith-American-Prophet-Henry/dp/0875792154" REL="nofollow">biography</A> of Joseph Smith. It's unapologetically faith-promoting, written before our current exacting historical standards, but it somehow has a spark to it that brings Joseph to life.Bored in Vernalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016611721544251941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-6240827254152778882008-12-04T23:19:00.000-05:002008-12-04T23:19:00.000-05:00"The Revised and Enhanced History of Joseph Smith ..."The Revised and Enhanced History of Joseph Smith by His Mother." by the Proctors, I currently have on my book shelf- I liked the footnotes and that was one of the reasons that i purchased that book-But I'm also thinking of picking up JOSEPH SMITH - Rough Stone Rolling A Cultural Biography Of Mormonism’s Founder by Richard Lyman Bushman...<BR/><BR/>Any thoughts on this particular title?Written In Earthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15490068619416239575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-50319865928614923942008-12-03T19:26:00.000-05:002008-12-03T19:26:00.000-05:00Here’s a million dollar question – If you were to ...Here’s a million dollar question – If you were to die right now, would you qualify for the celestial kingdom? If you’re like most Mormons, you’re not sure. You try hard to be as good as possible, but you still don’t know if you’ve done enough. If the Book of Mormon is really scripture, this hope will always elude you. Alma 11:37 says God cannot save you in your sins. Are all of your sins forgiven? Moroni 10:32 says you must be perfected in Christ, which can only be done by denying yourself of “all ungodliness”. Have you done that? Do you repent on a regular basis? Is so, then it is clear that you sin on a regular basis, since only those who break the commandments need to repent. 1 Nephi 3:7 states that you are able to keep His commandments. In fact according to D&C 25:15, you are required to keep them continually! Since you haven’t done this so far, why assume you will in the future? Of course, we should all try to be holy; but if you think that sinning less will qualify you to live in God’s presence, you are mistaken (Gal 3:1-11). The assumption that good works are required for forgiveness only cheapens Christ’s atonement, making it nothing more than a partial payment. God chooses to justify us by faith. Jesus alone does the “perfecting” (Heb 10:14). God gives peace to those who trust in Him alone. If you don’t have this peace, it’s probably because at least a part of you trusts in yourself. Questions? Visit us at www.gotforgiveness.comTheist Think Tankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09533774201947853681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-72392583094709678462008-12-02T15:17:00.000-05:002008-12-02T15:17:00.000-05:00J and Kevin, I didn't include Vogel in my piece be...J and Kevin, I didn't include Vogel in my piece because I thought that _Early Mormon Documents_ only had portions of Lucy's history. I just noticed <A HREF="http://www.irr.org/mit/early-mormon-documents-br.html" REL="nofollow">this review</A> which states: "The complete typescript of the original handwritten manuscript is available and footnoted, and is arranged in parallel columns with the 1853 edition published in Liverpool, England by LDS Apostle Orson Pratt." <BR/><BR/>If this is the case, Dan Vogel's vol. 1 of _Early Mormon Documents_ should definitely be included along with these other publications. It came out in 1996, which is the same year as the Proctor edition. I am not sure which was first.Bored in Vernalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016611721544251941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-91852582725724936622008-12-02T14:35:00.000-05:002008-12-02T14:35:00.000-05:00To clarify: Pratt obtained one of the copies of th...To clarify: Pratt obtained one of the copies of the Coray revision which he published in 1853. So these two are essentially the same, (with Pratt's added preface in the 1853 publication).<BR/><BR/>Both Lavina and Dan use the Preliminary Manuscript and compare it to the 1853 edition.Bored in Vernalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14016611721544251941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-57895199984093147692008-12-02T14:25:00.000-05:002008-12-02T14:25:00.000-05:00This is a terrific overview and will be a useful r...This is a terrific overview and will be a useful reference for the future.<BR/><BR/>(I too was going to mention the substantial extracts published by Dan Vogel in vol. 1 of Early Mormon Documents, but I see J. Stapley beat me to it. As I recall Dan uses a two-column format; I think the first column is the original ms. and the second is 1853, but I may be misremembering that.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-85408465568487290492008-12-02T12:14:00.000-05:002008-12-02T12:14:00.000-05:00Great review! Personally, I always use Anderson's ...Great review! Personally, I always use Anderson's volume. If I remember correctly, I think in her preface she states that she originally desired to do 3 columns with the Preliminary Manuscript, Coray revision, and the 1853 edition, but was not able to get permission to publish the first of the three.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-13266503346889437712008-12-02T10:36:00.000-05:002008-12-02T10:36:00.000-05:00Nice Round-up. There is also sections (I forget h...Nice Round-up. There is also sections (I forget how much of it) included by Vogel in his <EM>Early Mormon Documents.</EM> Volume 1 if I remember correctly. I like Anderson's versions. I was happy to see it cited in the intro of the JSP, <EM>Journals, Volume 1: 1832-1839.</EM>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-38035744477466656642008-12-01T12:55:00.000-05:002008-12-01T12:55:00.000-05:00The Proctor edition is the only one I've read so f...The Proctor edition is the only one I've read so far, and I only got around to it this year. I really appreciated the footnotes. I am definitely a footnote person. If I make make it into a footnote of a history one day, I will consider myself a success! <BR/><BR/>The Ingleton edition sounds interesting and could be worth the while. Well, once Walker et.al.'s MMM is out of the way in the history department...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-83674593238816407682008-12-01T08:27:00.000-05:002008-12-01T08:27:00.000-05:00Thank you! After having my own children, reading ...Thank you! After having my own children, reading Lucy's story suddenly took on a whole new meaning for me. I thought I could just go buy her book, but when I tried...it wasn't so simple. I really appreciate this post.Christinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11050630762421604324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2035557836022548249.post-14160668111314754412008-12-01T07:42:00.000-05:002008-12-01T07:42:00.000-05:00*sigh* .... and we wonder why the Bible was so m...*sigh* .... and we wonder why the Bible was so messed up with everybody picking it to pieces. However....this is a very interesting post. Thanks so much. I'm printing it out and keeping it.RoeHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131723337404316867noreply@blogger.com