Comments on: Joseph Smith Papers Redux

By: Observer

Observer — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:55:56 +0000

I went back and (very quickly) looked at Quinn’s article again. He doesn’t seem to have said explicitly either way whether he’d seen them. I thought he implied that by talking about their length, and the fact that they paint Joseph Smith as our “greatest Constitutionalist”. But not so from these accounts of Quinn’s comments. His article suffers from more than a little unintended irony, IMO.

Also, author David Foster Wallace has been known to use footnotes to footnotes in both his essays and fiction. Maybe JSP editors have been reading Infinite Jest.

By: Timburriaquito

Timburriaquito — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:40:47 +0000

I just found the Book of the Law of the Lord here online: http://www.mormonbeliefs.com/book_of_the_law.htm

Of course, this is the James J. Strang translation of the plates of Laban, so maybe it’s not the same book that is sitting in the First Presidency vault.

You can even buy a copy for yourself from a guy in Louisiana.

By: Mark Ashurst-McGee

Mark Ashurst-McGee — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:54:52 +0000

MHA Snowbird 1996: Ehat announced that he gave Qs to G. Homer Durham, who then came back to him with researched answers. But I doubt Durham did the research himself.

By: BTD Greg

BTD Greg — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 04:13:46 +0000

Thanks for the clarifications everyone. I think I understand it better now.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:57:06 +0000

If I remember correctly, I think that Ehat’s biggest fault in his C50 article was he relied on Johnson a little too much. Might be a faulty memory, though.

By: Sam MB

Sam MB — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:25:03 +0000

re: 38, you should read Peterson’s account of his access to the vault for his Book of Abraham book. Sounds a lot like Ehat’s account.

By: David G.

David G. — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:22:15 +0000

Re: 31 and 33, I’ve heard a story about an MHA panel on which both Quinn and Ehat participated. Someone in the audience asked Quinn a question about the Q50 minutes and Quinn turned to Ehat and said, “Let’s ask the man who’s actually seen them.” Ehat in turn replied that he hadn’t seen them, and that he had to write down specific questions about the document and someone in the hierarchy would then go to the vault, look up the answer, and then tell Ehat what he wanted to know.

The details of this story have probably been blurred with each re-telling, but my guess is that the core is pretty reflective of what was said.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:50:08 +0000

Fascinating discussion, everyone. Thanks.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 02:36:26 +0000

Johnson is a fascinating character, but his somewhat famous letter to Gibb, which states the JS taught the C50 that all countries would eventually adopt the God-given US Constitution was written in 1903. Quinn suggests that both Johnson and John D. Lee, both zealous promoters of C50 grand theology, were mostly out of the loop. I haven’t done the analysis to weigh in on that, but I have seen certain groups take Johnson’s letter as authoritative, which from a historiagraphical perspective is folly. I’d be happy to have the C50 minutes vindicate him, though.

By: kris

kris — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:19:41 +0000

Thanks for the great post and also the link to the MHA Presentation.

(P.S. The word “toenotes” makes me feel queasy)