The following was brought up in another thread but not explored more fully. I thought it was worth revisiting, if more appropriately in it’s own thread.

When the Joseph Smith RS/PH manual came out a few years ago, a poster on the MAD board pointed out an interesting occurrence where there was missing information in the manual - a portion of a paragraph from the Wentworth Letter.

The missing section, underlined within it's context, says this -

"The whole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction and much skill in the art of engraving. With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called "Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God. In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country. This book also tells us that our Savior made his appearance upon this continent after his resurrection, that he planted the gospel here in all its fulness, and richness, and power, and blessing; that they had apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists; the same order, the same priesthood, the same ordinances, gifts, powers, and blessings, as was enjoyed on the eastern continent, that the people were cut off in consequence of their transgressions, that the last of their prophets who existed among them was commanded to write an abridgment of their prophecies, history, &c., and to hide it up in the earth, and that it should come forth and be united with the bible for the accomplishment of the purposes of God in the last days. For a more particular account I would refer to the Book of Mormon, which can be purchased at Nauvoo, or from any of our travelling elders.”

I suspect that most participants on both this and the MAD board can understand why this would be controversial.

What makes this even more interesting is that, other than this section, the entire letter was quoted for use in the manual as one of it’s lessons.

My question, to those who are critical of the view that the church whitewashes it history, is what makes this acceptable to you? Is it because the entire letter is available in other places, for example online where I found the above? Is it that the missing material, potentially questioning whether or not Joseph Smith viewed all native americans as being Lamanites, is not important to the gospel overall?

If whitewashing is too strong a word, do you see at least some active attempt to hide something here, or is this just prudent editing on the part of the church?

Why didn't they edit this part out. It doesn't seem to be important to the gospel overall.

I see the whole concept of changing history (remember how many wives of Joseph were listed in his church manual? Or even Brigham's wives?) as dishonest at the core. And I think the motivation is fear. Rather than be proud of our church history, our leaders are ashamed of it. And becaue they are shocked and shamed by the behavior of our early church leaders, they think everyone would be. They don't trust the members, they don't trust God, and they sure as heck don't trust the public.

Having actually worked closely with folks in the History department, I think I can honestly say that it isn't so much intentionally changing history as it is not really knowing entirely the whole story and different folks employed by the FHD having different opinions.

I'm sure that some of what B.H. Roberts did was intentional, such as removing references to Joseph Smith having a beer, and the like. But the editorial standards back then are far, far different than they are now. One only has to look at the defects in Gibbons, Prescott, Bancroft and even as late as De Voto to know that what passed for a reasonable recitation of history then cannot possibly do so now. The FHD would not even remotely consider authorizing the writing and publishing of Robert's CHC and DHC today; instead, what we have, is something along the lines of the Encyclopedia and Turley's recent work.

As to the manuals themselves, they don't pretend to be expositions on history. They are to educate the Saints as to doctrine. They are necessarily edited down for easy consumption. I can't imagine most of the brothers in my quorum caring one way or the other as to whether the entire Wentworth letter was set forth or whether the amount of wives is correct. I doubt the accuracy of anybody's accounts of wives, anyway. Much is derived from Andrew Jenson and I think he was wrong.

Excising the last sentence of the passage, is quite astonishing.

Joseph Smith was vouching in the Wentworth Letter for what the Book of Mormon is. A testimony of it. He clearly set forth that the Indians in the United States are the remnants of Lehi's descendants, who were principally Israelites.

Is the excision of this passage in response to modern DNA work and studies?

Does this mean that either the Book of Mormon events occurred in what is now the United States or after the Book of Mormon events transpired, they migrated from MesoAmerica to what is now the United States?

Do LDS Inc/FAIR/FARMS just chalk this statement up to another instance of 'oh, that silly Joseph' (i.e., Joseph Smith wasn't talking as a prophet) when he wrote at least this part of the Wentworth Letter? Keep in mind, the Wentworth Letter was a serious exposition by Joseph Smith, including the 13 Articles of Faith that were later added to canon.

If it is the 'oh, that silly Joseph' apologetic, I wonder if the only line at which LDS Inc/FAIR/FARMS will hold fast in defending Joseph Smith, BY and successors is the circumference around the purely mythical, fanciful portions of the doctrine/teachings, those parts that definitely are unfalsifiable.

What if it was meant as damage control by the editor who wanted to not mention that part about Native American genetic ancestory. That it was missed elsewhere in the manual might have been an oversight. Besides, isn't this part of a new apologetic insight by the Church publications department?

"I can't imagine most of the brothers in my quorum caring one way or the other as to whether the entire Wentworth letter was set forth or whether the amount of wives is correct."

Says a lot about the level of intelligence of your quorum. That they don't care if what they are taught or teaching from is correct tells some of us that Truth doesn't matter to them.

If Truth doesn't matter what kind of crap passes as lessons they bear testimony of?

No. I'd say that most members of my quorum can sort out what is important and what is just whining and carping.

Amazing! So you admit that the excised portion of the Wentworth letter is just Joseph Smith's whining and carping?

As has been pointed out, the Joseph Smith Manuel is not a "history" book. It is a manual used to instruct Latter-day Saints in points of doctrine and principles of application as currently defined and believed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

From my perspective, the fact that there exist possible reasons to discount these specific comments as incorrect speculation on the part of the Prophet, clearly justified their removal from a manual intentionally designed, not as a reflection of Church history and/or Joseph's Smith's views, but simply for instructing Church members on correlated doctrines and principles.

That having been said, if I was an instructor teaching this lesson, I would absolutely point this removal out as an important side point for the class discussion.

" but simply for instructing Church members on correlated doctrines and principles."

How nice that The Brethren can pick and choose which of Joseph Smiths teachings they want to believe. This particular letter was written to give a clear and correct STATEMENT... of what Latter Day Saints believe. Knowing that current leadership doesn't believe it and that it is not important any longer makes sense. It explains a lot of confusion that many of us have in trying to piece together The Truth out of the BS that comes down from Salt Lake City. Makes it very easy to understand Sunday School and Priesthood lessons that use lies in attempting to teach "Truth".

Editing for clarity is one thing. You do it and indicate so. Editing and removing what is unpopular or unfashionable is lying. Just as Joseph Smith personally showed Josiah Quincy(a writer who must have been very important given his place in LDS history) the personal, hand done writings of Abraham, Moses and a few others he wrote the Wentworth Letter and identified the American Indians where he lived as Lamanites, descendants of Father Lehi.

Why doesn't LDSinc accept the words of The Prophet of the restoration?

What was the topic of the lesson in which the portion was edited out, and was there any comment on the removal other than elipses (which I assume they used)?

And what was the topic of the lesson in which the entire letter was quoted?

Proof number one that Mr. Shades's posts tend to be disingenuous.

Of course they can. Latter-day Saints believe in continuous revelation/clarification. This is a fundamental point within Mormonism. We do not follow deceased Prophets in terms of defining current doctrine and/or principles of application. Joseph's views expressed on this occasion are well worth noting in terms of historical analysis, but they do not necessarily represent the Church's present position.

Welcome to the cafeteria. What would you like to eat today?

Do you believe the Egyptian scribe who created the original papyrus known to us as Facsimile No. 3, knowingly drew the image of an African slave?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

Paul O

Whatever God is serving at the time by means of his authorized cafeteria workers.

I said before that reinterpretation is the life blood of religion, and the LDS religion is no exception. Any belief, doctrine or teaching can be reinterpreted, changed or discarded, although the way the church is set up only allows for very slow change, which is why the church tends to follow the mainstream society by many years to decades on different issues or knowledge. Other religion like the JW also tend to change very slowly.

It’s highly likely that any priesthood brother who denied the authorized Explanation given in scripture would have ever been called to serve in the Quorum of the Twelve. Brigham Young was a racist and he clearly would have defended the revelation regarding the African slave in Facsimile No. 3.

You, Enuma Elish, are forthwith banished from the kingdom of Brigham Young. That means no extra wives for you.

Paul O

The topic of the lesson was, incidentally, the Wentworth Letter. See here. And, yes, ellipses were used.



I couldn't find where the entire letter was quoted in the Joseph Smith manual, but the entire letter was printed in the July 2002 Ensign.

Hi beastie,

As Dwight Frye noted, the lesson was on the Wentworth Letter. While it is broken up through-out the lesson under a number of headings, it is quoted in it's entirety there with the exception of the paragraph cited in the OP.

Footnote 4 in the lesson provides some clarification as to where some changes had occured between the original and that quoted. These included grammar edits, quoting the articles of faith as they now are written in the PoGP rather than as Joseph Smith penned them, and a brief discussion on why the first vision account is not a verbatim quote of the one in the PoGP. It does not indicate anything about this missing paragraph.

The original is not hidden from members by any means. It is available in many places, such as here - http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/people/joseph_smith/wentworth_letter.html

Hi Enuma Elish,

I appreciate your answer as I think it is pretty straight forward and I wouldn't disagree.

I've wondered at times if the term, "white-wash" is pejorative and prevents dialogue on the manner in which this takes place within lesson manuals. I can see how the material removed would potentially lead to confrontation in the classroom or otherwise disrupt the purpose of the lesson. So I don't fault the decision maker in doing so from a practical perspective.

But from the perspective of Joseph Smith being the prophet - I just wonder. If that one aspect of the letter is suspect and not divinely inspired, can you assume safely that the rest was? I suspect we should let that topic go for now.

The bigger question is if what led to this edit is a form of censorship, a lack of trust in the maturity of the membership, that leads to these kind of edits? or just prudent, legitimate editing? Because I see in this the same motive that prevents legitimate discussions on the multiple first vision accounts occurring in RS/PH, or on Joseph Smith's polygamy as examples.