Lucy's Diaries? Cal?

[srm]

There are several dates or time periods that have been refered to. One would be Pre-Moroni, one would be Pre-Golden plates, and one would be Pre-Book of Mormon and of course, Post-BoM. If I'm not mistaken, Lucy was talking Post-Moroni, but not necessarily, Post-golden plates or Post-BoM. I believe I said, Pre-BoM, which is still consistent with Lucy's story, which was simply Post-Moroni.

No Cal, you specifically said before the visitations from Moroni. Here's your quote

"wrong about the story telling--this comment was from Lucy Mack Smith's diary and was refering to a time BEFORE JS claimed to have the BoM or visitations from Moroni."

I suspect that Albanes may  be correct in that even if the stories were told after JS supposedly encountered Moroni, JS's own story says he didn't get the plates until 4 years later, so Albanes may have been right, since you are claiming that it happened after JS had been visited by Moroni, and got the stories from him.

No he is incorrect. According to the account Joseph found the plates the day after Moroni's first visit.

To me, it doesn't really matter whether it was pre-Moroni, pre-Golden plates or Pre-Book of Mormon. The fact is that JS had the ability to relate Indian stories, INDEPENDENT of what he wrote in the book of mormon. We can argue all day about HOW he got the ability. You will say it was from God, I am more inclined to believe it was an unusual talent, and leave it at that.

But you made it an issue with your inacurate claims. You said that according to Lucy he could and did make up stories. This is incorrect. By using Lucy as your proof text you are either in error or trying to deceive. You have every right to believe that Joseph 'made up the stories' but you should not try to skew Lucy's words to prove you point. It is time to come clean, admit that you were wrong so we can move on. It really is the best thing for you.

[Cal]

srm--If Lucy was right about being Post-Moroni, then I should have dropped the Pre-Moroni part of my comment. I stand by the Pre-Book of Mormon part.

But you made it an issue with your inacurate claims. You said that according to Lucy he could and did make up stories. This is incorrect. By using Lucy as your proof text you are either in error or trying to deceive. You have every right to believe that Joseph 'made up the stories' but you should not try to skew Lucy's words to prove you point. It is time to come clean, admit that you were wrong so we can move on. It really is the best thing for you.

There is only a minor inaccuracy, and that is only if Lucy was correct, herself, about the timeline. The fact remains that Lucy DID claim that JS told (I didn't say she said he "made them up") stories about Indians. Second, I did not try to "skew" Lucy's words, and either did Albanes. I hope you are not suggesting that she didn't say what she did. That is a different issue. Other than the Pre- of Post Moroni thing, I have no idea what you want me to "come clean" about. My main point from the beginning was that JS was heard telling stories about Indians. I agree that it could have a different meaning depending upon whether he got them before or after his supposed visit from Moroni. I still maintain that Lucy's account says nothing about them being post-BoM. You seem to think that if he told them after a supposed Moroni visit then he MUST have got them from Moroni---maybe so, maybe not. But the fact remains---he did have the ability to tells stories about Indians. Give it any spin and meaning you want. By the way, BH Roberts came to the same conclusion I have about the meaning of JS's ability to tell stories about the Indians.

Btw--I'll decide what is "best thing" for me, you decide what is best for you.

[srm]

Originally posted by Cal@Oct 15 2004, 06:01 AM

srm--If Lucy was right about being Post-Moroni, then I should have dropped the Pre-Moroni part of my comment. I stand by the Pre-Book of Mormon part.

You are correct here. it was pre-book of Mormon

There is only a minor inaccuracy, and that is only if Lucy was correct, herself, about the timeline.

yes, but a number of "minor inaccuracies" really add up. Especially when You stand by and defend the inaccuracy literally for months.

The fact remains that Lucy DID claim that JS told (I didn't say she said he "made them up") stories about Indians.

Yes she did. I did notice that you have finally admited your error. I'm proud of you.

Second, I did not try to "skew" Lucy's words, and either did Albanes.

yes you both did. IMSHO, you are in error simply because you trusted Albanes word. he is the one that is being disceptive. But you both tried to use Lucy's word to try to prove that Joseph was making up stories, yarns and tall-tales. This is the exact opposite of what Lucy was really saying. From the context Lucy said that Joseph received revelation and that is what he related to the family. it is as clear as can be..I don't think that Albanes could have missed it.

I hope you are not suggesting that she didn't say what she did. That is a different issue. Other than the Pre- of Post Moroni thing, I have no idea what you want me to "come clean" about. My main point from the beginning was that JS was heard telling stories about Indians. I agree that it could have a different meaning depending upon whether he got them before or after his supposed visit from Moroni.

No, I'm agree Lucy DID said that Joseph related information re: Book of Mormon peoples and yes it was before tha translation of the Book of Mormon. No, your main point was that Joseph made up stories. that even his mom said it. I realize that you are changing your tune a little now. But that was your original premise.

I still maintain that Lucy's account says nothing about them being post-BoM.  You seem to think that if he told them after a supposed Moroni visit then he MUST have got them from Moroni---maybe so, maybe not. But the fact remains---he did have the ability to tells stories about Indians. Give it any spin and meaning you want. By the way, BH Roberts came to the same conclusion I have about the meaning of JS's ability to tell stories about the Indians.

Of course, Lucy's account clearly says that it was before the translation of the Book of Mormon...or even received the plates.

Btw--I'll decide what is "best thing" for me, you decide what is best for you.

OK...sheesh

[Cal]

yes you both did. IMSHO, you are in error simply because you trusted Albanes word. he is the one that is being disceptive. But you both tried to use Lucy's word to try to prove that Joseph was making up stories, yarns and tall-tales. This is the exact opposite of what Lucy was really saying. From the context Lucy said that Joseph received revelation and that is what he related to the family. it is as clear as can be..I don't think that Albanes could have missed it.

You MISS the point. Sure Lucy thought that JS's stories were from revelation. But, the simple fact that he related them shows that he HAD the ability to do so. It doesn't prove that they came from revelation--that is simply your and Lucy's belief. There is a difference between fact and inference. The fact is that JS told indian stories. One inference is that they came from God. That is YOUR inference. Mine is that he may or may not have made them up. However, the simple fact that he related them is really not proof either way, since there are people who have such abilities who don't automatically claim they are from God. By the way, I didn't "trust" Albanes' word, I simply cited his complilation of her memoirs. Albanes may have had his own opinion of the meaning of JS's indian stories. Do you get it now?

yes, but a number of "minor inaccuracies" really add up. Especially when You stand by and defend the inaccuracy literally for months.

Actually, my inaccuracy makes little difference to my main point--that JS told indian stories. You seem to think that because he told them after claiming to see Moroni that this some how proves that is where he got them. It proves nothing of the kind, simply because you have yet to prove that he ever even saw Moroni. The only way it could prove anything was if JS's indian stories could ONLY have come from a divine source--but as is pointed out, JS is not the first person in history to be gifted with a story telling ability. So your huffing and puffing about what Lucy really meant and what Albanes thought is really irrelevant. The bottom line issue is: Could JS have made up the book of mormon? In other words is there any evidence that he had the ability to make up stories? Well, first we have to see if he ever TOLD such stories? That doesn't prove he made it up, but it does prove that he had the ability to relate such stories. Of course you and Lucy claim it was supernatural---others may not think so. And further, there is no logical way to prove that anything ISN'T supernatural simply because it is impossible to prove a negative. But if you are going to address the question logically, at all, one place to start is to ask, "Did JS ever display the ability to tell indian stories?" The answer is Yes.

QUOTE 

The fact remains that Lucy DID claim that JS told (I didn't say she said he "made them up") stories about Indians. 

Yes she did. I did notice that you have finally admited your error. I'm proud of you.

Now, this response is quite nonsensical.......Yes SHE did? Are you now admitting she said they were made up? If you meant yes YOU did, I have no knowledge whether he made them up or not. I tend to think he did, but I DID NOT say LUCY SAID HE MADE THEM UP... I said she reported that he related stories.

No, I'm agree Lucy DID said that Joseph related information re: Book of Mormon peoples and yes it was before tha translation of the Book of Mormon. No, your main point was that Joseph made up stories. that even his mom said it. I realize that you are changing your tune a little now. But that was your original premise.

You are simply skewing the details. The meaning of what I was saying was that, Yes, JS told indian stories and that Lucy confirmed the fact. Whether Lucy thought he was making them is a different point. Please quote where I definitively said "Lucy said he "made them up". I don't think that is actually what I said.

[srm]

You  MISS  the point. Sure Lucy thought that JS's stories were from revelation. But, the simple fact that he related them shows that he HAD the ability to do so. It doesn't prove that they came from revelation--that is simply your and Lucy's belief. There is a difference between fact and inference. The fact is that JS told indian stories. One inference is that they came from God. That is YOUR inference. Mine is that he may or may not have made them up. However, the simple fact that he related them is really not proof either way, since there are people who have such abilities who don't automatically claim they are from God. By the way, I didn't "trust" Albanes' word, I simply cited his complilation of her memoirs. Albanes may have had his own opinion of the meaning of JS's indian stories. Do you get it now?

yes, I get it now. You have painted yourself into a corner...now you're trying to dance you without getting too much paint on you shoes. You know what Albanes is saying and that he uses Lucy as proof. Even she said that he made up stories.

yes, but a number of "minor inaccuracies" really add up. Especially when You stand by and defend the inaccuracy literally for months.

Actually, my inaccuracy makes little difference to my main point--that JS told indian stories. You seem to think that because he told them after claiming to see Moroni that this some how proves that is where he got them. It proves nothing of the kind, simply because you have yet to prove that he ever even saw Moroni. The only way it could prove anything was if JS's indian stories could ONLY have come from a divine source--but as is pointed out, JS is not the first person in history to be gifted with a story telling ability. So your huffing and puffing about what Lucy really meant and what Albanes thought is really irrelevant. The bottom line issue is: Could JS have made up the book of mormon? In other words is there any evidence that he had the ability to make up stories? Well, first we have to see if he ever TOLD such stories? That doesn't prove he made it up, but it does prove that he had the ability to relate such stories. Of course you and Lucy claim it was supernatural---others may not think so. And further, there is no logical way to prove that anything ISN'T supernatural simply because it is impossible to prove a negative. But if you are going to address the question logically, at all, one place to start is to ask, "Did JS ever display the ability to tell indian stories?" The answer is Yes.

Of course I agree that this doesn't prove that he received revelation. But Albanes and you both were clear in saying that lucy felt that he was relating tall tales. You were wrong now you trying to wriggle out of it.

Now, this response is quite nonsensical.......Yes SHE did? Are you now admitting she said they were made up? If you meant yes YOU did, I have no knowledge whether he made them up or not. I tend to think he did, but  I DID NOT say LUCY SAID HE MADE THEM UP... I said she reported that he related stories.

Again, you were clearly saying that lucy felt he was making up stories. You said, "What she DID apparently witness was JS making up stories!"

You cite Albane as your proof. he says,that joseph loved "...telling, tall-tales about American Indians. According to Joseph's mother, her son skillfully composed yarns about Native Americans..."

You are simply skewing the details. The meaning of what I was saying was that, Yes, JS told indian stories and that Lucy confirmed the fact. Whether Lucy thought he was making them is a different point. Please quote where I definitively said "Lucy said he "made them up". I don't think that is actually what I said.

No Cal, that was the point and you know it. Now you've tried to change the point when you backed into a corner.

Cal

2/12/04

"It is well documented that he, from a young age, had great powers of story telling AND of persuasion. His mother recalls in her diary of how he, as a young man, would keep the family spell bound for hours telling tales of the native american indians. "

2/13/4

"srm--wrong about the story telling--this comment was from Lucy Mack Smith's diary and was refering to a time BEFORE JS claimed to have the BoM or visitations from Moroni. "

2/16/4

"What I have shown is that JS did INDEED have a creative talent and imagination for story telling INDEPENDENT of the BoM."

2/18/4

"By the way, that JS was a great story teller is no my opinion, it is the opinion of his MOTHER--read her diary!"

2/24/4

"The Quote

One Nation under Gods, page 64

Joe Smith . . . . loved hearing, as well as telling, tall-tales about American Indians. According to Joseph's mother, her son skillfully composed yarns about Native Americans while still just a teen; long before any golden plates had been found:

Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals which could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare, and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.24

The Reference

Endnote 24, page 511

24. Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for many Generations [Liverpool: S.W. Richards, 1853), 85, reprinted in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996], vol. 1, 296."

2/24/4

"Why would JS know the details of the BoM before he translated it? You are simply making an assumption. And, you are wrong about Albanes--he is quoting LMS's diaries directly."

2/24/4

"Where do you get that Lucy claimed it was from 'revelation"?"

2/24/4

"Not only that, but where is the connection between the supposed "revelations" and the stories of the native americans? Where does it say what the revelations were supposed to be about? You are only assuming they were connected to the stories. It certainly doesn't say that."

2/24/4

"Yeah, Peace--I'm sure LMS was totally unbiased! Quite the credible witness!

What she DID apparently witness was JS making up stories!"

10/12/4

"I don't ever remember saying that lucy said that Joseph was "just" making up stories."

[Matt]

And, of course, it is a well known fact (sic) that anyone who wrote anything critical of the claims of or about Joseph Smith must have been wrong.

Why?

Well... because they just are, see?

[srm]

Originally posted by Matt@Oct 17 2004, 01:17 PM

And, of course, it is a well known fact (sic) that anyone who wrote anything critical of the claims of or about Joseph Smith must have been wrong.

Why?

Well... because they just are, see?

Come now matt. That is not what I'm saying. In this case Albanes is wrong AND I think, knowingly lying.

Why not address the issue at hand rather than just hit and runs...

You know that I said nothing of tghe sort.

[Matt]

SRM you would, then, have evidence that Albanes was wrong and lying?

I'd be very interested to see what your evidence is for that claim.

Of course, other sources do relate the Lucy Mack Smith praise of her son for being able to relate stories about the Aboriginal inhabitants of the area in which the family lived. For example, I think No Man Knows My History mentions this.

Unless you have problems with NMKMH, too?

[srm]

SRM you would, then, have evidence that Albanes was wrong and lying?

I'd be very interested to see what your evidence is for that claim.

Go back through this thread. The evidence is repeated over and over. To summarize...Albanes makes the claim that Joseph made up stories about the nativge americans. before the plates had been found. he uses Lucy as proof. This is incorrect on two counts.

1. Lucy did not think that Joseph was making up stories.

2. it was not before the plates were found.

Of course, other sources do relate the Lucy Mack Smith praise of her son for being able to relate stories about the Aboriginal inhabitants of the area in which the family lived. For example, I think No Man Knows My History mentions this.

yes but Cal uses Albanes for his proof. ergo; It is Albanes that we discussed.

Unless you have problems with NMKMH, too?

Yes I do.

[Matt]

Could you please say what problems you have have with No Man Knows My History? It seemed a well-researched, well-written book to me.

Though I do recall that back when I was a very young Mormon it was mentioned in hushed tones and the author's name was worse than mud. Though strange to say nobody who criticised it (this was in England) had even seen a copy, let alone read it! :)

But, gosh! We were told in no uncertain terms about what we were to think of it and the author!

[srm]

Originally posted by Matt@Oct 18 2004, 11:43 AM

Could you please say what problems you have have with No Man Knows My History? It seemed a well-researched, well-written book to me.

Though I do recall that back when I was a very young Mormon it was mentioned in hushed tones and the author's name was worse than mud. Though strange to say nobody who criticised it (this was in England) had even seen a copy, let alone read it! :)

But, gosh! We were told in no uncertain terms about what we were to think of it and the author!

Sure. It's been a long time since I've read it. so it may be a while. But, do you agree now that I am right about Albanes?

[Matt]

Albanes? I'll reserve judgement. I'll hold fire until you tell me your problems with Fawn Brody.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Matt@Oct 18 2004, 11:43 AM

But, gosh! We were told in no uncertain terms about what we were to think of it and the author!

Hmmm,

Correct me if I am wrong but you are an ex-mormon and if you posted or hosted at the exmo board then you are a disaffected Mormon, at least to some extent...

I see that kind of thinking (We were told in no uncertain terms about what we were to think) all the time in disaffected Mormons. Why is that? I am Mormon as is all my family and many of my friends. I/we don't feel that way. If I think or want to think something about Brodie or anything else, then I think it. First, I doubt that many people in the Church would dare to tell me what I am to think and second, if they did, what on earth would I care? After all, I am the one doing the thinking, who cares what they think.

[srm]

Originally posted by srm+Oct 18 2004, 05:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Oct 18 2004, 05:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Matt@Oct 18 2004, 11:43 AM

Could you please say what problems you have have with No Man Knows My History? It seemed a well-researched, well-written book to me.

Though I do recall that back when I was a very young Mormon it was mentioned in hushed tones and the author's name was worse than mud. Though strange to say nobody who criticised it (this was in England) had even seen a copy, let alone read it! :)

But, gosh! We were told in no uncertain terms about what we were to think of it and the author!

Sure. It's been a long time since I've read it. so it may be a while. But, do you agree now that I am right about Albanes?

Why should we flip, flop to another issue? IYHO am I right about Albeanes or not?

[Matt]

These are two issues running at the same time. I am not familar with Albanes, however, I have read No Man Knows My History, so am familiar with that work. My copy is packed away, as we should be moving to a new house, soon.

[srm]

Originally posted by Matt@Oct 22 2004, 05:59 PM

These are two issues running at the same time. I am not familar with Albanes, however, I have read No Man Knows My History, so am familiar with that work. My copy is packed away, as we should be moving to a new house, soon.

Well golly Matt here's the quote again.

"Joe Smith . . . . loved hearing, as well as telling, tall-tales about American Indians. According to Joseph's mother, her son skillfully composed yarns about Native Americans while still just a teen; long before any golden plates had been found:"

This is wrong in a number of places. Do you or do you not agree?

[Matt]

I have told you that I am not familar with Albanes. As in not familar with. Familar with not. Not with familar. OK?

You say you have problems with No Man Knows My History.

Any specifics you'd care to share?

From what I recall of the book it was well-researched and well-written.

[srm]

Originally posted by Matt@Oct 25 2004, 04:40 PM

I have told you that I am not familar with Albanes. As in not familar with. Familar with not. Not with familar. OK?

You say you have problems with No Man Knows My History.

Any specifics you'd care to share?

From what I recall of the book it was well-researched and well-written. 

Yeah but matt you're trying to dance away. You don't need to be familiar with Albanes. I provided the quote. Do you or do you not agree with the interpretation?

here it is one more time.

"Joe Smith . . . . loved hearing, as well as telling, tall-tales about American Indians. According to Joseph's mother, her son skillfully composed yarns about Native Americans while still just a teen; long before any golden plates had been found:"