Comments on: Book Review: Shall Millions Now Know Brother Joseph Again? (Post Script)

By: Juvenile Instructor » From The Archives: Posts You Might Have Missed, March-April 2008

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 07:22:01 +0000

[...] Book Review: Millions Shall Know Brother Joseph Again (The Joseph Smith Photo Book) Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. [...]

By: Jared T

Jared T — Mon, 19 May 2008 18:58:35 +0000

Thank you for your comments, John. I have your email and will contact you.

Regarding the provenance that you asked about on the other page, well, there’s nothing to discuss and the author admits that outright. An intriguing piece of information is that the family also had a first Emma hymnal which was inscribed (if I remember correctly, I’m away from the book at this time) by a family member who was contemporary with Joseph. However, the book also admits that there is no record of how either of these relics got to the family or when. So, intriguing yes, provenance? No.

By: John Hamer

John Hamer — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:53:14 +0000

Well, Jared, it looks like you are going to get any more free books out of publishers…j/k

Actually, at John Whitmer Books we finally sent The Mormon Quest for the Presidency to the printer last week. The book is a series of biographies of 10 Mormons* who ran for president from Joseph Smith to Mitt Romney along with a discussion of how the “Mormon question” affected their campaigns. (*The book takes “Mormon” in the broad sense to include cultural Mormons like Mo Udall and Parley P. Christensen who were lapsed LDS and also Sonia Johnson who had been excommunicated. Also included is Eldridge Cleaver whose 3rd-party bid occured to his conversion.)

Anyway, I’d love to send you a copy to review, if you’re interested. Will you be at MHA? I’m pretty excited about the book, but I’m still eager to put it through your wringer. If you uncover lots of flaws, you may find me taking up your suggestion and sending you manuscripts prior to their publication.

By: Jared T

Jared T — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:34:38 +0000

Thanks for stopping in, Mark. Good luck in future endeavors.

By: mark

mark — Wed, 07 May 2008 15:59:16 +0000

RThomas-I have to say you are making assumptions about “those” who contributed to the writing of this book. It may not meet the agendas that others have or be liked by all, this to be expected. The research that went into this project was/is sincere and has drawn those in the project closer to Joseph. We all know that drawing closer to Joseph is not salvation but I sure can not wait to meet the man who has done more, save Jesus Christ. Thinking of Joseph on a daily basis causes one to think of his teachings of Christ and want to be better and then share, though not to salvation, the things they have had experiences in with others. If you do not like it and it does not give you information you feel is valuable then do not read it. I was not involved with this project for money, As to your money comment,I have received nothing of financial gain, in fact it has cost a goodly amount to do this research. Is there money to be made, very likely but speaking from my part of the project that was not the motivation factor. Yes, emotions are tied to it but who does a project without being tied in after the research comes back so positive from different sources.
Thanks to those who feel to be the saviors on mount zion and save everyone from reading and formulating their own opinions. This comment is not to stir anger in those who have written but to maybe have them evaluate why they feel the need to be the self appointed critics. I am grateful for the helpful critics for I will refine my research with it but when that happens there will always be someone else on the otherside of that see/saw that will voice a more weighty critique of the first critique.
Thank you Jared for not having anything to say about the motives, for you have never met me and know nothing of my motives and this would be a judment that you would have to render after knowing me.
I feel all need to evaluate their “OWN” motives for what they research and write (even on blogs). I know Patrick very well and have spent many, many hours with him on and offthis project and will tell you that the motives are pure.
We invite all to do the research and share positive or negative about it, but do the research! If it proves to not by Joseph then wonderful and if it proves to be Joseph then wonderful.
I am sure those who feel inclined to read between these lines and make more of what I said will and that is ok, I am a big boy and will take it.

By: Jared T

Jared T — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:31:54 +0000

Thanks for your perspective R. Thomas. I think you've put everything very well, though as I mentioned over in part 1, I, personally, have nothing to say about the motives for this project. What I've been concerned with is what it is, and, well, you can read what I think it is.

By: R. Thomas

R. Thomas — Tue, 06 May 2008 03:27:01 +0000

As an avid reader of the many fine books that Eborn Books has published over the years, I find it hard to believe that Bret has stamped his name on this book, a work I believe is clearly aimed at making a quick buck from the faithful followers of Joseph Smith. Books like this are very much like a Pepsi from a Wendy’s drive-thru — full of filler and rarely satisfying. As we saw with the Da Vinci Code craze a few years back, capitalizing on people’s interest is paramount. Throw a product out there and, no matter how lame it is, claim it’s the greatest thing since Star Wars. That’s business. I get it. But then there is this, and this happens far too often. Taking that which is sacred to so many and, like a cheap house (or hotel), flipping it for a profit. This book, in my opinion, does just that. The purchaser is left with very little for their money. It disturbs me that the majority of the book’s defenders, who swear that it’s just fantastic, are those who have a financial interest in it’s success. It feels like ravenous wolves with overdrawn bank accounts have come upon us. Attempting to conceal their names as fiercely as their motives, their goal seems to be relatively simple: fleece the unsuspecting saints of their hard earned cash. I applaud Jared for exposing yet another selfish attempt to peddle us a book which is lacking in so many ways. The book appears to have been written with a sinister and arrogant assumption — that our love of the Prophet would somehow make up the balance left to us by the author. Unfortunately for those who have already been taken in by it, no love can transform the book into something it is not, and what this book is not is worthwhile. Brother Joseph must be spinning circles in his grave. He, along with many others now are left helpless to watch as Tracy and his partners count their cash while they trample on Joseph’s memory, and, in my opinion, the faith and dreams of many of his followers. It’s been said many times that the saints are suckers. Many of those involved with this book are clearly banking on it.

By: David G.

David G. — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:52:04 +0000

Blair, lol.

By: BHodges

BHodges — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:43:48 +0000

The vague names are interesting. Joe and Nick. Maybe his friends Bill and Rod will drop by, too, complete with giant American flag lapel pins.

By: Ardis Parshall

Ardis Parshall — Mon, 05 May 2008 20:38:50 +0000

Reading that link to Joe/Nick’s earlier comments reminded me of a detail in Tracy’s book that I *was* interested in reading — his evidence that the CoC’s daguerreotype was a copy rather than the original. When they took the image out of its case and disassembled all the parts, they discovered that some of the damage — some of the fingerprints and scratches — was not damage on this image itself. Rather, it was damage to an earlier iteration of the image that was photographically reproduced when the extant image was copied.

Two remarks:

1. This is an example of some really important information that was not really exploited by the author. That is, this evidence of reproduction successfully deals with the problem of the maker’s mark on the plate that indicates the extant daguerreotype was made in the 1850s. The information was there, but the dots weren’t really connected.

2. I don’t understand Joe/Nick’s claim that the fact that the CoC’s image was a reproduction puts it in the public domain. That would be like saying that only the original manuscript of my Great American Novel is under copyright, and that if you sneak into my house and successfully photocopy the manuscript, your photocopy puts my novel into the public domain. At least that is how I read his statement; if that’s not what he intended, and if he can be civil, perhaps Joe/Nick will clarify.