Jonathan Grimshaw Redux

The first of the review posts.

An unsung hero of Mormon history: Jon Grimshaw. Grimshaw was born in England and converted to Mormonism in the early 1850s. Honest, respected by the people who knew him best for his solid integrity, he embraced Mormonism with the typical enthusiasm we all hear about in oft repeated conversion stories of the period. For our purposes, his story is important because of the research time I put into it, just to have the proper glossary entry in the book! No, seriously, he is a fascinating man and I believe the same is true for his wife, though as usual, we know less about her.
Read more of this post

It’s Summer – Time for Review

Since it’s summertime, and I’m stuck at home taking care of my wife-of-the-broken-leg I think it’s time for a review of some of my favorite posts over the last year or so. So get ready for some repeats coming up!

Joseph F. Smith, John Pack and the High Priesthood, Part 1.

Joseph F. Smith was the son of Hyrum Smith, brother to Joseph Smith the Prophet. JFS was an independent thinker. Growing up in Utah, he became more or less a street urchin following his mother’s death in 1852. At age 15 he was called on a mission to Hawaii to redirect his life. The contacts and experience he had there would color his future. Smith led an interesting and provocative life, divorcing his first wife but becoming a successful and prolific polygamist.
Read more of this post

Early Polynesian Traditions and Mormon Ideas About the Origin of Man

Traditional language among Latter-day Saints regarding preexistence has sometimes been vague, romantic and non-specific. Observe Ruth Fox’s remarks at the beginning of her June 1912 YLMIA conference address: “Man’s intellect is God-given and is a spark of that eternal intelligence which governs all things.”[1] I can’t be certain, but perhaps this is a reference to D&C 88:7-13 or something similar.
Read more of this post

Joseph Smith and the Taxonomy of Intelligence(s), part 4. Text and Context for the King Follett Discourse

You should be righteous, and read parts one, two and three, first. You will at least need to read part three.

The two most important reporters of KFD2 were Thomas Bullock and William Clayton. In the construction of a critical text for KFD2, one important piece of information that the manuscripts of Bullock and Clayton give are their failure points. That is, the points where they failed to tell us what was said. In the other extant reports, this information can often only be inferred by reference to other texts. Bullock and Clayton show us their failures by adding a “-” a dash at certain points. Bullock in particular apparently tried to keep up with the speaker, but when he fell far enough behind, he left a – and then continued with what was currently being said. Some dashes of course may mean other things. For example, a pause by the speaker from fatigue. When the early editors of the Joseph Smith speeches worked them over, they often treated the dashes as commas or periods, or simply ignored them.
Read more of this post

Personal Savior: Change and Confluence in Religious Rhetoric

Glen Leonard observed (somewhere in his Nauvoo: A Place of Peace, A People of Promise I think) that in 1985 the LDS Church consciously altered course in both its public persona and public rhetoric. In a way, outwardly fathered by the correlation idea, the Church moved to focus its message more simply and more on Christ. I observed the results of this effort in a number of ways.
Read more of this post

Joseph Smith and the Taxonomy of Intelligence(s), Part 3.

In this part (click for parts one and two) we give three short excerpts from the critical text[1] for the King Follett Discourse, (in the book it receives the designation, “KFD2″). Here we are looking at lines 163-166, then lines 172 to 176, followed by lines 180 to 184. There is some variation from the actual critical text, because of the limitations of HTML. Some of the actual critical text appears in over/under style in cases where there are multiple witnesses who do not precisely agree.[2] In the version that appears here, instead of over/under text, the form is overunder in succession rather than simultaneous display of text above and text below. Further, there is a color coding employed which shows the source of the text. There is some clear-texting here, but not much.
Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30 other followers