I actually quite liked Inventing Mormonism (even if the title is unfortunate in my view), and viewed that as a strong step away from Tanner-style pamphleteering polemics towards genuine scholarship, together with his participation in Mormon studies conferences.

I don’t have either JS Revelations or the PB volume under review, and took Sam at his word that the former was still marred by some polemical flourishes while the latter is not.

So from this I saw a progression from a mere collector of documents and Tanner-style pamphleteering polemicist to legitimate, presenting-at-MHA and publishing substantive works of scholarship, scholar.

In other words, I see substantial maturation and growth in his work over time. I intended my comment as a genuine and warm–and well deserved-compliment.

Actually, I asked for proof, but was chastized for it.

I then saw “anonymous” comments and could not believe people would even acknowledge his presence. It is unfortunate that people can make this type of provocative claims anonymously.

Anonymous claims that Mike stole P.B.s, and an unnamed publisher has benefited from these stolen P.B.’s and damn them if they win some award for these stolen P.B.s. Anonymous also accuses Mike that he “knowingly made use of purloined records”. Has he followed Mike all over the country as Mike collected these records over the past thirty five years? It appears that there has been an unsophisticated willingness on this thread to take this information without too much critical thought. Anonymous makes these claims without anyone asking for proof of these P.B.s being stolen. I don’t recall ever reading or hearing about this theft. We know about Clayton’s journal and Fred Collier’s shenanigans, but where do I find authentic accusations of P.Bs theft and where is this microfilm and copies so that we can exposed this crime?

Someone tries to tie Mike’s P.B.’s in with the manuscripts Fred Collier is accused of smuggling out of archives. This does not make any sense. Fred had no interest in P.B.s. He was only interested in polygamy, revelations, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The innuendo is unfortunate.

Also, Kevin Barney’s writes that Michael was “a mere polemicist [but now he is] becoming an actual scholar” only because Mike has minimal commentary in this book. What a complement! If someone ever wants to give me this type of complement, kindly don’t. The implication is that Mike didn’t present a thoughtful and scholarly presentation in his earlier studies including “Inventing Mormonism”. I’m not sure anyone can fully grasp the origins of Mormonism without reading Bushman’s “Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism”, Marvin Hill’s “Quest for Refuge” and “Inventing Mormonism”. All of these works are groundbreaking in their own way.

Sam, writes that “Marquardt believes the (Mormon) church is a hoax”. Sam writes that he “respects” Michael. I find this difficult to believe since Mike has never claimed the church is a hoax. I’m sure he wouldn’t want his wife and children to be active Latter-day Saints if he thought so. Also, Mike’s private and public actions, which I have witnessed, would lead one to believe quite the opposite. Now maybe Sam and I have different definitions of what a hoax means. My understanding of hoax is it is something intended to deceive or defraud. I have never understood Mike’s beliefs to reflect this. Sam also claims “Joseph Smith Revelations” ‘is marred by petty polemics’ and ‘marred by a scholarly apparatus that is polemical rather than illuminating’. Yet, Sam gives no evidence, just accusation. My guess is that several people on this thread think the Community of Christ are a bunch of left wing wacko’s in Missouri, but I personally think it is impressive that they use Mike’s book in college courses and don’t consider it “marred by polemics”.

It is sad that such a good review was written and it went south by these kind of comments. I’m stunned.

Artifacts are unprovenanced when Bedouin or collectors or tourists (but most often Bedouin) show up at a museum with a scroll or a pot or some artifact that they found. The problem then is two-fold. Because it was not documented in-situ by archaeologists, its provenance (the site, layer, things it was found with, etc.), dating, and even authenticity are called in to question and, sometimes irredeemably so. the problem is not that the original artifact is unavailable (the situation with patriarchal blessings), but that the original archaeological context and data from the recovery process is forever lost.

Then you have the ethical issue. Bedouin turn things in because they are paid for them, and that payment is the value Bedouin attach to these objects. (Certain of the Dead Sea Scrolls were burned for heat when first discovered.) Payment encourages them to turn in these objects they stumble over (as they did, again, with the Dead Sea Scrolls.) On the other hand, once there is an established source of funding, it may encourage looting of sites or similar behavior.

So, there is both uncertainty about the reliability of the documents and a potential ethical issue in publishing them.

Consequently, some scholars, journals or associations (some significant ones) refuse to do or publish research on unprovenanced artifacts, regardless of the potential import of the artifact in question.

Okay, just so I know you’re guessing he’s guilty, rather than having actual information. I understand Marquardt actually details the process he went through to get these in the book. I don’t have mine, so I can’t read that yet.

This makes sense to me, since I personally have copies of three patriarchal blessings by Joseph Smith Sr. from 1838, all contained in Joseph Smith Sr.’s official patriarchal blessing books, but none of which ended up in Marquardt’s book. If he had a microfilm or full copies of JS Sr.’s patriarchal blessing books, the resulting compilation wouldn’t be missing the three blessings that I have copies of (and before someone accuses me of stealing, these were officially provided by the historical department, to a direct line descendant, who subsequently shared them with me for my specific research).

In theory, I certainly understand your point, and sympathize. In practice, however, this becomes rather difficult to apply. For example, Heber C. Kimball’s diary covering activity in the Nauvoo Temple (actually written for him by William Clayton, of course) was first published (page images, not typescript) from a stolen microfilm by the Tanners. Various typescripts surfaced, and the entirety was finally published in book form along with the rest of William Clayton’s journal writings. I doubt that we could easily track down every written work which has subsequently taken advantage of this journal, notwithstanding its availability seems to have stemmed from some person’s theft (even before the Tanners got it, or so it seems). How far do you take your stance? Can legitimate historians ever take advantage of the information provided in purloined manuscript copies?