Joseph Smith’s Last Dream?–A Lesson in Historical Processes & Representation
Joseph Smith Jr. Dec. 23, 1805 – June 27, 1844.
Some past thoughts/remembrances are here, here, and here.
There have been many dramatic accounts of those final days and hours, produced in form of text, stage and film production. One recently has emerged from Seth Adam Smith about what is purported to be Joseph Smith’s last dream. I just want to direct readers to Ardis’ excellent review of the video, it’s story, and the potential problems with how the historical account and the video’s contributors have been represented.
Ardis makes some extensive historical points that I’ll recommend to you on her blog. Of particular concern to me in reviewing the video and others that Seth has on his Youtube channel about this purported dream are the problematic ways that Seth has chosen to represent those who he uses as talking heads. In this specific case, as Ardis points out, Paul Thomas Smith, this project’s principal explanatory figure, is identified as “Author & Church Historian.” I think Ardis rightly points out that “Church Historian” is rightly the title of one person–Elder Marlin K. Jensen. SEAS misleadingly uses this title all over his blog as well, [which can be misleading]. In addition, the credits of the principal video lists “Paul Thomas Smith, LDS Church Archives” which I find blatantly [may also be] misleading[read] as PT Smith, a career CES educator, is not an employee of the LDS Church “Archives” (I assume he means “LDS Church History Library”) but does some volunteer work there a few days a week. It is clear that [It would appear that] Seth’s purpose in doing this is [could be interpreted as wanting] to lend undue authority to PT Smith’s words and interpretations [though I acknowledge and appreciate his claim that this was unintentional--see comment #15]. That PT Smith, who would have seen the final videos , did not correct him at production, raises my eyebrows a bit [He apparently did not see the final videos, see comment #15]. These [presumed] grasping appeals to authority [and i still think they are present and that the presentation and defense of the video are problematic as Ardis deftly argues], in my view, speak volumes about the project as a whole. [Update: See comment #14 and #15]
I think this is unfortunate, because the type of work done there is not, to me, worthy of being identified with the type of rigorous, responsible, and thoughtful scholarship that the professionals at the Church History Library and Museum do on a daily basis. Hopefully SEAS will be responsible in correcting these points and be more careful in the future in how he chooses to represent history and historical commentary. [Stand by this 100% with encouragment by comment #15]
Though you raise some very valid points regarding the work of Seth Adam Smith and P.T. Smith regarding “Joseph’s Last Dream,” I think our thoughts on this day, the anniversary of his death, should focus on the life and mission of the Prophet, not criticizing others who, despite the flaws of their work, are trying to do the same.
Comment by UJ3212 — June 27, 2011 @ 11:53 am
*Sigh*
I knew that posting my evaluation today risked drawing the kind of criticism offered by UJ3212. I elected to post anyway, because the video deserves a timely response and this was the first weekday slot open at Keepa since the video was posted.
An alternate view of Jared’s posting today is that he honors the Prophet Joseph Smith and thinks so highly of his life and mission that he believes Joseph deserves the best scholarship, the most careful study. We offer our best gifts to the people we love best, and we make our greatest efforts for the causes we think are the most worthy — anything less than that is insufficient for the purpose. As a historian, Jared calls for the best, most honest, most accurate historical work. It’s what he demands of himself, and it’s not at all out of character for him to call for it from other people.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 27, 2011 @ 12:08 pm
UJ3212, if I make “valid” points, what difference does it make what day I give them? Give me a break.
Also, did you not notice the links I provide at the very beginning? Also, what Ardis said.
Comment by Jared T — June 27, 2011 @ 12:08 pm
It strikes me that the “Church Historian” thing likely has more to do with sloppy capitalization of the man’s hobby than it does with any attempt to usurp Marlin Jensen.
Comment by matt b — June 27, 2011 @ 12:09 pm
Matt, no doubt, but that doesn’t lessen the critique, methinks or the need for correction/clarification. Plus, what does “church historian” even mean aside from as a formal title? That should rightly be interrogated as I’ve seen it used far too often as a cover-all for sloppy historical work.
Comment by Jared T — June 27, 2011 @ 12:11 pm
The best service we can do to honor the Prophet Joseph Smith and his work is to seek the truth regarding his life and his teachings, and to ferret out untruths. To the extent PT Smith and Seth Adam Smith are perpetuating rumors and unsubstantiated history of Joseph Smith, we do the Prophet a dishonor if we mindlessly accept such questionable pablum as history. So, shut it UJ3212, you’re basically subjecting the prophet to a second death by accepting sketchy history about the man.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2011 @ 12:17 pm
Jared, jsut relax a moment and let me explain what I’m thinking. I strongly agree with the points you and Ardis raise, especially using the term “Church Historian.” I believe this is a sacred calling and the term shouldn’t be used to describe a person’s hobby or interest. I was disappointed not seeing a thoughtful remembrance of the Prophet. I’ve enjoyed reading your past post. Simply put, I was suprised by not seeing what is usually done on this day. That’s all.
No need to take offense.
Comment by UJ3212 — June 27, 2011 @ 12:25 pm
“You’re basically subjecting the prophet to a second death by accepting sketchy history about the man.”
Really . . .come on now. That is a little over-the top.
First, I didn’t accept the sketchy history. Second, I agree with the points raised by Jared and Ardis.
Comment by UJ3212 — June 27, 2011 @ 12:32 pm
UJ3212, offense? Cuz I said, “give me a break”? Give me a break.
If the points are strongly made, it doesn’t matter what day of the week they’re given and Ardis’ follow up gave very good reason why THIS day would be a good day for it at any rate.
Comment by Jared T — June 27, 2011 @ 12:37 pm
Yeah, that was over-the-top. But so is some romanticized insistence that today be some sacralized day of veneration for Joseph Smith. He would have resented it and insisted that any anniversary of his martrydom be used as a day where truth is declared and the Saints move forward without the chains of creeds or venerated saints.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 27, 2011 @ 12:40 pm
Appearantly my comments and explaination have been ignored or grossly misunderstood.
I apologize for causing such a stir. However, I am surprised at the sharp and disrespectful responses which are uncharacteristic of JI writers and followers.
My experience with JI, up until today, has been nothing but positive. This has been a blog where interested parties could discuss and even disagree about points related to the history of the Church we all love, honor, and respect. Obviously, as a first time commentor, I’ve cross a “line in the sand” that I am not aware of.
Comment by UJ3212 — June 27, 2011 @ 12:50 pm
UJ3212, enough already. You’re point is duly noted (and counter points are also duly noted), and you seem to be finding/applying offense in places it is not. Further, for as kindly as I am elsewhere on this blog, in person, and amongst colleagues, one shouldn’t be surprised if I don’t have a strong sense of collegiality with a totally anonymous persona on a blog who says something I find ridiculous. That’s just life.
But you’re far from a first time commenter, unless someone else has been using your ip address and email to leave past comments under different names. Whatever.
Suffice it to say that I disagree with your idea that this is not appropriate for this day, and as to your expectations about what I would be posting today, while I appreciate your words about past stuff, I hope your expectations have broadened.
Comment by Jared T — June 27, 2011 @ 1:00 pm
UJ, thanks for the kind words about the blog and your desire to participate. We all have to keep in mind the blogging is an unusual way to communicate and therefore misunderstanding happen all the time. Flare ups like these are not uncommon but we hope this can get smoothed over and that you’ll continue to participate.
Comment by Steve Fleming — June 27, 2011 @ 1:01 pm
Always in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, here is SES’s comment on Ardis’ blog. From what he says, putting Paul’s name next to Church History Archives means they are two separate objects of thanking, not to tie them together. That’s comforting to know, and maybe that could be a little more explicit. He’s also looking to clarify things on his blog, and hopefully there is a way to clarify “Author & Church Historian” as well.
Interestingly, though, there is still this idea that the extent of the “validity” of the account is whether WWPhelps actually wrote it or whether someone wrote it in his name–that the account is “real.” As you’ll see from Ardis’ post, it really goes much deeper than that. And therein is the lesson in the historical process.
Comment by Jared T — June 27, 2011 @ 1:18 pm
Jared T,
My apologies in not doing a better job at the historical process. I really gave this project my all and worked my hardest to make my best (and most accurate) work. I clearly made some mistakes.
As I pointed out in my comment to Ardis, I believe that most of the problem is in semantics. When I wrote “Paul Thomas Smith Author & Church Historian” I did not mean to imply that Paul Thomas Smith is THE Church Historian. It is simply how I’ve recognized him: as a church historian; someone who has studied church history for forty years of his life. The error, for me, was as simple as you repeatedly referring to me as “SES” when my initials are “SAS.”
Me writing “Church Historian” was not an attempt to mislead. It was what I thought was the best, and easiest way to credit Brother Smith. As it turns out, Brother Smith was not able to see the final videos until AFTER they were published. I will make the necessary corrections on my blog and within the videos.
As I will correct my videos and my blog to reflect what i’ve learned about the historical process, I hope that you’ll update your blog post to include my comments about it, and that I’ve tried to make corrections to the video to reflect that.
http://youtu.be/wtcuM11prtg
Thank you.
Comment by Seth Adam Smith — June 27, 2011 @ 5:36 pm
Seth, thanks for coming on and responding. I have made changes to the original post to reflect this comment. I’m encouraged by what I see. I hope that one point to take away is that except in a few specific cases, “church historian” is a phrase that obscures more than it clarifies in much the same way as phrases like “gospel scholar” do, both of which, in my experience, are meant to ascribe nebulous authority to a person when simpler and more accurate references are more helpful.
Comment by Jared T — June 27, 2011 @ 6:16 pm
Bloggernacle types have jumped on this quickly — we take a different approach to what we post and publish, and don’t want to be associated with online Mormons who make questionable claims. That seems a little harsh on Seth Adam Smith, but anyone who posts or publishes is responsible for their own credibility, and ought to expect correction and criticism.
I wonder if CES is going to post a disclaimer distancing CES from this project? At least there was a disclaimer at the front end of the video, but Paul Thomas Smith was identified as a “Former CES Instructor.”
Comment by Dave — June 27, 2011 @ 6:18 pm
I guess I’m just flabbergasted that this went as far as to have a a painting by the veritable McNutton, oh, McNaughton commissioned and all this work put into such a questionable tale. I’m particularly ticked off because a friend of mine who has been struggling with his faith emailed this to me asking what I thought. For a person already in a tough place faith-wise, having his heartstrings tugged, as it were, perhaps having mistaken emotionalism for the spirit (which I’ve had happen to me before-I can remember some now dubious CES-led stake Youth Firesides playing on our emotions and teaching questionable doctrines), it was difficult for me to tell him what I thought of it, but I did. I hope this doesn’t leave him any worse off as I felt he was beginning to sort some things out. So if I seem particularly testy about this specific incident, it’s not for nothing.
Comment by Jared T — June 27, 2011 @ 6:31 pm
Jared,
I’m sorry. My intent was not to offend, mislead or gain notoriety. I simply read a beautiful story and did my best to present the story as accurately as I could. It is a beautiful story that I wanted to share with others.
In many ways I feel like a first grader showing off his first science project to the school…while it’s not perfect, it’s my best work. However, I do realize that this project has more far reaching implications than a an elementary school project. So I will do my best to make corrections as needed. Would you be willing to answer some of my questions and help me along the way?
Jon McNaughton is a good friend of mine and was kind enough to take time out of his busy schedule to paint this for me. I’m grateful for his friendship and help.
And thank you for taking the time to make the corrections on your blog post. That means a lot to me. Really, it does! I will begin working on all of my corrections, and I will keep you updated.
Thanks again!
-Seth
Comment by Seth Adam Smith — June 27, 2011 @ 8:24 pm
I don’t know what to say other than there will be people that love it, people who don’t care and people who think it should never have been made. No amount of corrections would satisfy that latter group. Good luck, and may any future historical efforts take advantage of wider historical consultation and awareness.
Comment by Jared T — June 27, 2011 @ 9:43 pm
Maybe I should have watched the video before I read many of the comments about it because when I watched it, I found it very interesting (and very well done (Seth)!). However, with a historian’s mindset (like Ardis), it’s one of those things that’s not “doctrine,” yet is cool to stick in my brain until further information becomes available (whether spiritual or physical). To me, the information presented seems like it could be true, yet we just don’t know and we have to keep that in mind. I don’t believe it’s wrong to share these stories we find, but like Ardis is suggesting, the general population needs to know how to interpret history. So, thanks to Seth for creating a lovely video, and thanks to Ardis for giving us all a history lesson.
Comment by Emily — June 28, 2011 @ 12:30 am
Ardis has posted an addendum to her previous post which is also excellent and shares reservations I have with the idea that “it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not, it’s an inspiring story” approach. I’ll refer you to her post for anything further. Best of luck, Seth, and thank you for your responses.
[As I will be unavailable over the next few days, comments are directed to Ardis' page. Thank you.]
Comment by Jared T — June 28, 2011 @ 11:47 am