ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/lds-research/archive/lds-research.9707

Internet Message Format | 1997-08-18 | 59KB

From: Scot Denhalter <[e-mail]>
Subject: [LDSR] RE: Etymology of Eve
Date: 01 Jul 1997 13:47:09 -0600

Gen 3:20  "And Adam called his wife's name Eve"
Gen 4:1  "And Adam knew his wife Eve"

In the OT, the word Eve appears in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text.  In
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the word is referenced as entry 2332 in
the Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.  Here it is pronounced as "Chav vah"
 The "ch" stands for the Hebrew letter "Het" and is pronounced like an
aspirant "h" (as if your were clearing your throat to spit, much like the
German pronunciation of Johann Sebastian's last name: Bach). Some posts
have used the English letter "w" in place of the "v", but this can be
misleading.  The Hebrew letter "Vav" is sometimes designated by the English
letter "w", but it should,  in fact, be pronounced as the "v" in the
English word "vine".

The name here is defined as a causative from the root word "chavah" meaning
"to live", thereby indicative of "life-giver".


2Cor 11:3  "beguiled Eve through his subtlety"
1Ti 2:13  "For Adam was the first formed, then Eve"

In the Greek test of the New Testament, the name "Eve" is not translated to
the Greek word for "life" or "life-giver" but is merely transliterated from
the original Hebrew to "Eua" (pronounced "you-wah")

From these two extant texts extant anciently, the Latin Vulgate was later
written and rather than translating the name "Eve" into a Latin equivalent
meaning "life" or "life-giver", it was again transliterated from the
original Hebrew to "Evae".









-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Kurt Neumiller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings
Date: 01 Jul 1997 11:10:56 -0400

D&C 20:70 (April 1830)
Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto
the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the
name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name.

>From the context it seems pretty likely that this was reactionary to
infant baptism.




On Jun 30,  4:28pm, AEParshall wrote:
> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:18:17 -0400 (EDT)
> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings (fwd)
>
>
> >This question was asked by a member of the RLDS church.  Anybody have an
> >answer?  When did the practice of blessing babies start?
>
> Unless someone has a definitive answer, maybe we could work together to come
> up with an "at least by this date" kind of answer (what's the Latin term for
> that?)  My contribution:
>
> The LDS membership record books that were being used by the 1880s had a
> column to record blessings, as well as baptism and confirmation, rebaptism,
> and so on.  So, baby blessings were well established at least by that date.
>  The books used earlier than that did not have printed headings, and wards
> varied greatly in what information they recorded.  (You can easily see
> examples of these books by checking the Family History Library catalog for
> any locality, under the heading for "Church Records".)
>
> Earlier evidence?
>
> Ardis Parshall
> [e-mail]
>
>
>
>
>-- End of excerpt from AEParshall



--
Kurt Neumiller

[e-mail]








-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ROY SCHMIDT[SMTP:[e-mail]]
Subject: [LDSR] Baby Blessings (fwd)
Date: 01 Jul 1997 14:48:31 -0600

Doctrine and Covenants (LDS) Section 20:70 states "Every member of
the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders
before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of
Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name."

As that revelation was given when the organization of the Church
occurred, it would seem that the blessing of children has been in effect
from that time.

Roy

>>> [e-mail]> 06/30/97 03:28pm >>>

This question was asked by a member of the RLDS church.  Anybody have an answer?  When did the practice of blessing babies start?

Unless someone has a definitive answer, maybe we could work together to come
up with an "at least by this date" kind of answer (what's the Latin term for
that?)  My contribution:

The LDS membership record books that were being used by the 1880s
had a column to record blessings, as well as baptism and confirmation,
rebaptism, and so on.  So, baby blessings were well established at least by that
date.  The books used earlier than that did not have printed headings, and
wards varied greatly in what information they recorded.  (You can easily see
examples of these books by checking the Family History Library catalog
for any locality, under the heading for "Church Records".)

Earlier evidence?

Ardis Parshall
[e-mail]











-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alex-c Lopez[SMTP:[e-mail]]
Subject: [LDSR] Re.: Etymology of "Eve" -Reply
Date: 01 Jul 1997 14:48:38 -0600

** High Priority **

If you wouldn't mind, could you provide a source for the perticular
dictionary, dictionaries from which you have retrevied this folk etymology.
I have a few etymological dictionaries and am always interested in
referencing what ever is extant and to discover some obscure edition. If you
have the time it would be appreciated. Thank you

>>> Richley Crapo  To [e-mail]  - 6/25/97 11:40 AM >>>
The Hebrew for Eve is Chaw-wa" or "Chavah". By folk etymology, this name is
said to be related to the adjective "living", which is "chay" in Hebrew, or
rather "chaya" or "chayah" rather than "chay". "Chayah" is the word in
verse 20. It means "life". "Chay" is merely the adjective form meaning
"living".

By "folk etymology", I basically had in mind that the author of Genesis
3:20
claims that the two words are related: "And Adam called his wife's name
Chawwa
_because_ she was the mother of all "chaya" but the etymology is not
accepted
as a valid one by modern linguists. So, you are not likely to find
it supported in a lexicon. However, your might check for a note in the New
Revised Standard Version of the Bible. It may comment on the folk-nature of
the verse's assertion.

Richley


 Vanetten.Edward wrote on 6/24 8:22a...

 "How is it that the word _EVE_ came to be the English translation of the
 Hebrew word for the name of Adam's wife? How does the name _EVE_ have
anything
 to  do with the expression _mother of all living_?:"

 Ed Van Etten Ontario, California [e-mail]

















-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scot Denhalter <[e-mail]>
Subject: [LDSR] FW: BOUNCE [e-mail]: Approval required:
Date: 01 Jul 1997 14:39:22 -0600

Encoding: 65 TEXT

Kurt,

What do you mean by "reactionary to infant baptisms"?

Scot

----------
Sent:     Tuesday, July 01, 1997 9:10 AM
Cc:     [e-mail]

D&C 20:70 (April 1830)
Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto
the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the
name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name.

>From the context it seems pretty likely that this was reactionary to
infant baptism.




On Jun 30,  4:28pm, AEParshall wrote:
> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:18:17 -0400 (EDT)
> From: [e-mail]
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings (fwd)
>
>
> >This question was asked by a member of the RLDS church.  Anybody have an
> >answer?  When did the practice of blessing babies start?
>
> Unless someone has a definitive answer, maybe we could work together to come
> up with an "at least by this date" kind of answer (what's the Latin term for
> that?)  My contribution:
>
> The LDS membership record books that were being used by the 1880s had a
> column to record blessings, as well as baptism and confirmation, rebaptism,
> and so on.  So, baby blessings were well established at least by that date.
>  The books used earlier than that did not have printed headings, and wards
> varied greatly in what information they recorded.  (You can easily see
> examples of these books by checking the Family History Library catalog for
> any locality, under the heading for "Church Records".)
>
> Earlier evidence?
>
> Ardis Parshall
> [e-mail]
>


--
Kurt Neumiller

[e-mail]










-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From:     ROY SCHMIDT[SMTP:[e-mail]]
Subject: [LDSR] RE: Baby's Blessings (fwd)
Date: 01 Jul 1997 15:04:32 -0600

Doctrine and Covenants (LDS) Section 20:70 states "Every member of
the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders
before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of
Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name."

As that revelation was given when the organization of the Church
occurred, it would seem that the blessing of children has been in effect
from that time.

Roy


>>> [e-mail] 06/30/97 03:28pm >>>



>This question was asked by a member of the RLDS church.  Anybody
have an
>answer?  When did the practice of blessing babies start?

Unless someone has a definitive answer, maybe we could work
together to come
up with an "at least by this date" kind of answer (what's the Latin term
for
that?)  My contribution:

The LDS membership record books that were being used by the 1880s
had a
column to record blessings, as well as baptism and confirmation,
rebaptism,
and so on.  So, baby blessings were well established at least by that
date.
 The books used earlier than that did not have printed headings, and
wards
varied greatly in what information they recorded.  (You can easily see
examples of these books by checking the Family History Library catalog
for
any locality, under the heading for "Church Records".)

Earlier evidence?

Ardis Parshall
[e-mail]















-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Kurt Neumiller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby blessings
Date: 01 Jul 1997 17:39:03 -0400

On Jul 1,  2:39pm, Scot Denhalter wrote:
>
> Kurt,
>
> What do you mean by "reactionary to infant baptisms"?


The text surrounding D&C 20:70 is talking about baptism and explicitly
states that baptism is only to be performed upon those who are
accountable.  That this blessing of children (and I would assume that
means anyone < 8 yrs old) is imbedded right in the middle of a
discourse on baptism.  Infant baptism was, and still is, a common
practice.  I see this text as being reactionary to the practice of
infant baptism, i.e. it is saying "Don't practice infant baptism,
rather practice infant blessings."





> From:     Kurt Neumiller[SMTP:[e-mail]]
> Sent:     Tuesday, July 01, 1997 9:10 AM
> To:     Scot Denhalter
> Cc:     [e-mail]
> Subject:     Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings
>
> D&C 20:70 (April 1830)
> Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto
> the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the
> name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name.
>
> From the context it seems pretty likely that this was reactionary to
> infant baptism.


--
Kurt Neumiller

[e-mail]








-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings
Date: 02 Jul 1997 09:56:20 -0400 (EDT)

A couple of readers have pointed out the D&C scripture instructing parents to
bring their children to the elders for a blessing.  While I am certain this
is the authority for the LDS practice of blessing and naming babies, is there
any evidence that this was practiced "from the beginning" as a regular,
routine ordinance in a form that would be familiar to us today?

Here is an easy example to illustrate why the question may be worth asking
this way:  While the Word of Wisdom was given very early, it was not
practiced routinely and expectedly for many, many years.  (Coffee and tea
were on the list of supplies required for emigrant trains;  Franklin D.
Richards felt it necessary to suggest to his European missionaries in 1867
that it would be a good idea to avoid alcohol, with no suggestion that
disobedience was an automatic disciiplinary offense.)  We had the instruction
almost "from the beginning", but it took patience and the development of our
understanding to bring the Word of Wisdom to the "obvious" place it holds in
our culture today.

I think this is closer to the intent of the original question:  At what point
did it become routine and expected that all babies or young children be
blessed in a formal, more or less public, rite expected of all active
families?

Ardis Parshall
[e-mail]







-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Vanetten.Edward)
Subject: [LDSR] Book of Abraham
Date: 02 Jul 1997 08:20:37 -0700

     Two questions:

     1. The Book of Abraham seems to stop abruptly
     with Adam naming all the animals.  Is there
     any indication in LDS History records that
     imply there was actually more to the record,
     but Joseph Smith published only what we
     currently have in the book?

     2. The Book of Moses accounts the following
     order of events (Moses 3:19-23):
       a. Adam created
       b. Adam names animals
       c. Eve created
     The Book of Abraham (5:14-21) accounts as follows:
       a. Adam created
       b. Eve created
       c. Adam names animals
     I'm curious as to why a difference in the order
     of events.  The Moses account seems to teach
     Adam that of all creation there is none like
     him, hence, a new creation, the source of which is
     Adam, is needed.  The Abraham account perhaps
     teaches Adam that his wife is indeed
     unique in all of God's creations.

     Ed Van Etten
     Ontario, CA
     [e-mail]







-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Kurt Neumiller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [LDSR] Book of Abraham
Date: 02 Jul 1997 14:45:38 -0400

On Jul 2,  8:20am, Vanetten.Edward wrote:
> Subject: [LDSR] Book of Abraham
>      Two questions:
>
>      1. The Book of Abraham seems to stop abruptly
>      with Adam naming all the animals.  Is there
>      any indication in LDS History records that
>      imply there was actually more to the record,
>      but Joseph Smith published only what we
>      currently have in the book?

I havent ever heard anything that would indicate this was the case.

>      2. The Book of Moses accounts the following
>      order of events (Moses 3:19-23):
>        a. Adam created
>        b. Adam names animals
>        c. Eve created
>      The Book of Abraham (5:14-21) accounts as follows:
>        a. Adam created
>        b. Eve created
>        c. Adam names animals
>      I'm curious as to why a difference in the order
>      of events.  The Moses account seems to teach
>      Adam that of all creation there is none like
>      him, hence, a new creation, the source of which is
>      Adam, is needed.  The Abraham account perhaps
>      teaches Adam that his wife is indeed
>      unique in all of God's creations.

I suspect that in the case of Abraham the creation of Eve was
dislocated deliberately to emphasize the unity the two were
ideally to experience (i.e. the twain shall be one flesh),
as well as to present Eve as superior to the animals.
However, note in the Abraham account the creation of Eve is
placed in the Genesis/Moses order after the animals in v. 21
where it says "there was found an help meet for him" (i.e. Eve).

--
Kurt Neumiller

[e-mail]








-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Clark Goble <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [LDSR] Mormonism and Kabbalism
Date: 02 Jul 1997 12:46:44 -0600

Just to add a few more comments to our moderator's prelude to
my post.

I actually have in my archives the entire debate between Lance
Owens, Bill Hamblin, myself and others.  In some places Lance
responds to several of Hamblin's charges.  Specifically he
points out the gematria connections between Adam and God in
Kabbalism.  However the debate also points out many of the
glaring errors, misquotes and so forth that Lance used to provide
parallels.  The one off the top of my head that was really bad
was the use of Orson Hyde's drawing of a family lineage for God
in a description of the nature of God.  This was tied to the
Kabbalistic tree of life which represents the Serifot.

If anyone wishes, I can go through and take excerpts from the
discussion and post it here.  I can also post the commentary
on Genesis 1:1 from the Zohar that supposedly Joseph was
"inspired by" to do his translation in the King Follet Discourse.

\\\ Clark Goble \\\\ [e-mail] \\\

Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of
character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a
society has generally been proportional to the amount of
genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained.
   -- John Stuart Mill

*********
[Note from owner-lds-research]

Clark,
Rather than just excerpts, I personally would like to see the entire debate
you have archived.  If you can obtain permission from those involved in the
debate, I have no problem with re-posting the entire debate to this list.
 If you can get those involved to agree with our publishing it, send the
archive to me personally.  I could serialize it, thus giving everyone the
enitre debate in a number of manageable portions.  It might even be a good
addition to the web site I am creating for this list. I would be interested
to hear what others think about this.  Send your comments to
[e-mail].

Thanks

Scot







-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Clark Goble <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [LDSR] Book of Abraham
Date: 02 Jul 1997 16:17:17 -0600

 ___ Ed ___
| The Book of Abraham seems to stop abruptly with Adam
| naming all the animals.  Is there any indication in
| LDS History records that imply there was actually
| more to the record, but Joseph Smith published only
| what we currently have in the book?
 ___

Yes there is.  I'll hopefully start posting a few excerpts
on this from my archives either tonight or next week.
Right now I've got to reinstall my system on my Mac, but
I don't have my system CD anymore.  As soon as I get it
reinstalled I'll post lots of stuff, serialized over the
next few weeks.

I'd like to try and organize it by topic, so let me know
what you want to see.  I can't promise I'll have everything,
but I should have a fair bit.  I'll try to be fairly even
handed in things too.

Oh - for evidence that there was more on the Papyri, we
have the following:

   Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland
   purchased the mummies and papyrus, a description of
   which will appear hereafter, and with W. W. Phelps
   and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the
   translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics,
   and much to our joy found that one of the rolls
   contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings
   of Joseph of Egypt, etc.,-a more full account of which
   will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or
   unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to
   reveal the abundance of peace and truth. (DHC 2:236)

Obviously things get a little trickier when you deal with
who really knew what.

There is quite a bit of information in the Egyptian Alphabet
and Grammar that appears to deal with the Book of Abraham but
is not part of any completed text we have.  However different
people view all these quotes, texts, and the like in very
different ways.  Many people believe they were "working"
documents as Joseph worked towards a correct translation.
Thus they of themselves may be incorrect, uninspired or the
like.  There are plenty of other theories as well.


\\\ Clark Goble \\\\ [e-mail] \\\

The past is another country; they do things differently there.
        -- H. E. Bates












-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Clark Goble <[e-mail]>
Subject: [LDSR] Islam and Mormonism
Date: 02 Jul 1997 17:25:05 -0600

On an other list (LDS-Phil), someone pointed out an other religion
that had numerous parallels to Mormonism.  This person felt that
the Isma'ili branch of Shia Islam was very similar to early Nauvoo
theology.  The inner circle of disciples are even called "The Holy
Order."  He references a book called _Isma'ili Gnosis and Cyclical
Time_ by Henri Corbin on the subject of this branch of Islam.  Does
anyone know anything about this?  I've heard of parallels to the
Oenida Indian tribe, but never of parallel to Islam.


\\\ Clark Goble \\\\ [e-mail] \\\

There is no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed.
        -- H. L. Mencken









-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Morgan Adair <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings
Date: 02 Jul 1997 18:13:09 -0600

>>> <[e-mail]> 07/02/97 07:56AM >>>
>A couple of readers have pointed out the D&C scripture instructing parents
to
>bring their children to the elders for a blessing.  While I am certain
this
>is the authority for the LDS practice of blessing and naming babies, is
there
>any evidence that this was practiced "from the beginning" as a regular,
>routine ordinance in a form that would be familiar to us today?

I believe the baby blessing where Joseph Smith named Reynolds Cahoon's son
"Mahonri Moriancumr" was given in 1841. At least it was reported in the
Times & Seasons in 1841.

Any records of baby blessings given earlier? And what about the practice of
blessing babies in F&T meetings? When did that start?

MBA

 [Note from owner-lds-research]
Morgan,
This is good information.  Can you give us the actual reference to the T&S
report (or at least a secondary reference from some other work)?
JSD





















-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Clark Goble <[e-mail]>
Subject: [LDSR] Islam and Mormonism
Date: 03 Jul 1997 13:53:02 -0600

I asked Bill Hamblin about the Islamic connection to Mormonism
and he kindly responded.  He is very familiar with the subject
as that is his main field of study and the discipline he got
his doctorate in.

He said that the Isma'ilis were a very syncretist branch of
Islam, adopting many gnostic ideas from earlier Jewish, Christian,
Zoroastrian, and pagan sources.  Thus quite a few of the parallels
to Mormonism from this branch are the same parallels that can
be found with gnosticism and various Jewish texts.  However there
apparently are many interesting parallels with Isma'ilis teachings
and many LDS ideas.

He also pointed out that while Corbin's work was very interesting,
he is fairly speculative.  Thus many of the supposed parallels
may actually be more parallels with Corbin's thought rather than
the Isma'ilis themselves.

\\\ Clark Goble \\\\ [e-mail] \\\

There is no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed.
        -- H. L. Mencken










-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Hajicek <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [LDSR] Baby Blessings
Date: 04 Jul 1997 09:00:24 -0500

Morgan Adair wrote:

> >any evidence that this was practiced "from the beginning" as a regular,
> >routine ordinance in a form that would be familiar to us today?
>
> I believe the baby blessing where Joseph Smith named Reynolds Cahoon's son
> "Mahonri Moriancumr" was given in 1841. At least it was reported in the
> Times & Seasons in 1841.

Thee is no event in the Times and Seasons naming anyone Moriancumer
except the brother of Jared.  The Reynolds Cahoon folklore was not in
print until 1892 (Juvenile Instructor, April 1892).  If Cahoon so named
his son, it was doubtlessly the result of Oliver Cowdery's letters
calling the brother of Jared "Moriancumer," reprinted in the Times and
Seasons on April 1, 1841--the only mention of Moriancumer in the Times
and Seasons.

I did find the following from 1830, 1838, and 1851:

D&C 20:70
 70 Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring
them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon
them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name.

Elders' Journal (July 1838) p.47
The sacrament will then be administered and the blessing of infants
attended to.

http://www.mormonism.com/law.htm
CHAPTER 10

BLESSING OF INFANTS

1. When the Lord thy God in multiplying blesseth thee, and giveth thee a
child in thine own image; thou shalt bring him before the Lord thy God,
in his house, or in the assembly of the
Elders; and they shall lay their hands upon him, and bless him. Thou
shalt not delay to do it; and though thou be far away, yet shalt thou
bring him before he is eight years old: that the
blessing of the Lord thy God may be put upon him; and his heart shall
seek to the Kingdom of God, and its righteousness: for of such is the
Kingdom. If he die, yet shall he live therein
forever. He shall be thine. (117, 450)

2. And the child of thy servant also, and of thy bondman, shalt thou
bring to receive this blessing: and the stranger that dwelleth with thee
shall bring his child also, to receive his
blessing: for thus shall the power of the Kingdom be a shield unto him,
and his heart shall cleave unto its righteousness; that he may be
established therein forever. (62, 279)

3. And whosoever shall bring a child to be blessed; whether it be
father, or mother; or master, or mistress; the same shall teach the
child this law to keep it. Thus shall ye be honoured as
fathers and mothers in Israel: but, if ye do it not, and evil befall the
child, his blood be upon you. (57, 222)

4. The Apostles, High Priests, and Elders, in their assemblies; and the
Priest thereunto appointed in the Temples of God, shall bless with this
blessing: for, behold, it is a great sacrament.
(31, 149)

--
     John Hajicek
     [phone]     [phone]
     http://www.Mormonism.com
     http://www.Restoration.org
     http://www.Strangite.org









-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scot Denhalter <[e-mail]>
Subject: [LDSR] FW: BOUNCE [e-mail]: Approval required:
Date: 12 Jul 1997 18:42:42 -0600


>>> John Hajicek <[e-mail]> 07/04/97 08:00AM >>>
>Thee is no event in the Times and Seasons naming anyone Moriancumer
>except the brother of Jared.  The Reynolds Cahoon folklore was not in
>print until 1892 (Juvenile Instructor, April 1892).  If Cahoon so named
>his son, it was doubtlessly the result of Oliver Cowdery's letters
>calling the brother of Jared "Moriancumer," reprinted in the Times and
>Seasons on April 1, 1841--the only mention of Moriancumer in the Times
>and Seasons.

Oops. That's what I get for not checking references. I was looking at the
Encyclopedia of Mormonism's entry for the Brother of Jared, which appears to
refer to T&S for the Reynolds Cahoon story:

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.1, BROTHER OF JARED
Although the Book of Mormon does not give this prophet's name, Joseph Smith
later identified it as Mahonri Moriancumer (T&S 2 [1841]:362; Juvenile
Instructor, Vol. 27 [May 1, 1892]:282)

The T&S reference is, as you said, to letters published under the title "The
Gospel" from Oliver Cowdery. Vol 2, p.362 refers to the Brother of Jared as
Moriancumer:

"It is said, and I believe the account, that the Lord showed the brother of
Jared [Moriancumer] all things which were to transpire from that day to the
end of the earth, as well as those which had taken place."

I don't have the Juvenile Instructor, but McConkie quotes from the 1892
article:

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.463 MAHONRI MORIANCUMER
Elder George Reynolds has left us this account of the circumstances under
which the full name was revealed to the Prophet: "While residing in
Kirtland, Elder Reynolds Cahoon had a son born to him. One day when
President Joseph Smith was passing his door he called the prophet in and
asked him to bless and name the baby. Joseph did so and gave the boy the
name of Mahonri Moriancumer. When he had finished the blessing, he laid the
child on the bed, and turning to Elder Cahoon he said, the name I have given
your son is the name of the Brother of Jared; the Lord has just shown (or
revealed) it to me. Elder William F. Cahoon, who was standing near, heard
the Prophet make this statement to his Father; and this was the first time
the name of the Brother of Jared was known in the Church in this
dispensation." (Juvenile Instructor vol. 27, p. 282; Improvement Era, vol.
8, pp. 704-705.)

Although this account is 50 years removed from the events, it has Joseph
Smith doing the naming and blessing.

MBA


























-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scot Denhalter <[e-mail]>
Subject: [LDSR] FW: BOUNCE [e-mail]: Approval required:
Date: 12 Jul 1997 18:44:22 -0600


(Sorry for the delay on this - we're in the process of
moving offices and things have been chaotic to say the
least)


 ___ John ___
| There is no event in the Times and Seasons naming anyone
| Moriancumer except the brother of Jared.  The Reynolds
| Cahoon folklore was not in print until 1892 (Juvenile
| Instructor, April 1892).  If Cahoon so named his son, it
| was doubtlessly the result of Oliver Cowdery's letters
| calling the brother of Jared "Moriancumer," reprinted in
| the Times and Seasons on April 1, 1841--the only mention
| of Moriancumer in the Times and Seasons.
 ___

I'm not sure the "doubtless" epithet is warranted.  There
are other early people named Mahonri Moriancumr other than
the Cahoon's child.


  Steele, Mahonri Moriancumer, first counselor to Pres.
  David Cameron, of Panguitch Stake, is the son of John
  Steele and Catharine Campbell, and was born May 1,
  1849, in Salt Lake City, Utah.  (LDS Biographical
  Encyclopedia, Andrew Jenson, Vol. 1, p.543)

So there certainly was an early tradition.  (There are
numerous other children by this name as a quick scan
of the infobase will illustrate)  It is significant that
Cowdery doesn't mention the Mahonri part of the brother
of Jared's name.  That, to me, means that there is an
other source.

While Moriancumr is a good Book of Mormon name, Mahonri
is a little more unique.  Moriancumr could easily be
guessed as the name from various events in the Book of
Mormon.  (Such as the naming of their resting place by
the sea)  Mahonri exists only as the proper name of
individual Mormons (with the second name always as
Moriancumer or some variant).

Here is the full quote from the Juvenile Instructor.  I
think we ought to at least give William Cahoon the
benefit of the doubt.

   While residing in Kirtland, Elder Reynolds Cahoon
   had a son born to him. One day, while the Prophet
   Joseph Smith was passing by his door, he called the
   Prophet in and asked him to bless and name the baby.
   Joseph did so and gave the baby the name of Mahonri
   Moriancumer. When he had finished the blessing he
   laid the child upon the bed, and turning to the
   father, Elder Cahoon, he said, "The name I have
   given your son ,is the name of the Brother of Jared;
   the Lord has just shown (or revealed) it to me. Elder
   William F. Cahoon, who was standing nearby, heard the
   Prophet make this statement to his father; and this
   was the first time the name of the Brother of Jared
   was known in the Church in this dispensation.
   (Juvenile Instructor, Volume 27, p. 282)

Given the combination of names, the occurrence of many
names early on in church history identical to Cahoon,
the lack of sufficient information in the Cowdery account,
and so forth, I think we ought to assume that the account
has a basis in fact.

\\\ Clark Goble \\\\ [e-mail] \\\

There is no truth to be discovered; there is only error to be exposed.
        -- H. L. Mencken










-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scot Denhalter <[e-mail]>
Subject: [LDSR] Clark Goble's Thread
Date: 13 Jul 1997 15:19:32 -0600

Dear LDS-Research Subscribers,

Clark Goble has been kind enough to compile and submit an e-mail thread
that originated on another LDS-related mailing list.  The thread in its
entirety represents 86 pages when printed and Clark is to be commended for
the amount of labor he has expended in organizing it.

Although, at first glance, Clark's work may not appear to fit within the
guidelines of this list's charter (i.e.: It is not a question nor an answer
to another subscriber's query.), I yet intend to post it to this list in
its entirety.  My reason is simply that the thread contains material which
addresses several questions I had intended to pose to the subscribers of
this list.

The basic content of the thread considers a theme popular of late among
Mormon and non-Mormon scholars: that of Joseph Smith as the inheritor and
purveyor of occult traditions.  This theme has been explored in depth by D.
Michael Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" (1987), John L.
Brooke's "The Refiners Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844
(1994), a review of Brooke's work in FARMS "Reviews of Books on the Book of
Mormon" by William Hamblin, Daniel C.  Peterson, and George L. Mitton (Vol.
6, No. 2, 1994), Lance S. Owens's article in Dialogue "Joseph Smith and
Kaballah: The Occult Connection" (Vol. 27, No. 3, 1994), and William J.
Hamblin's review of Owens's work in FARMS "Reviews of Books" (Vol.8, No.2,
1996).  Although addressing another subject entirely, Harold Bloom's "The
American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation" (1992)
touches briefly, but provocatively on this theme as well.

The word "occult" here and in the works cited above does not possess the
connotation of "evil" or "Satanic", a notion propounded by Christian
Fundamentalists.  Rather the word means "hidden", and occult traditions are
simply teachings intended to be revealed only to worthy initiates and to
bed hidden from the profane, those who would mock and/or persecute.   There
are many such traditions, some very ancient, many only partially preserved,
which come to us from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well as from
pagan sources such as the Greek Mystery Religions, Neo-Platonic Gnosticism,
Roman Stoicism, Persian Zoroastrianism, and Egyptian Osirianism.

In comparatively more modern times, aspects of these occult traditions
found a home in Jewish Kabbalah, Christian Cabala, Hermeticism,
Rosicrucianism, and Freemasonry.  The works cited above and the thread
Clark Goble has compiled both compare and contrast aspects of these
traditions with aspects of Mormon theology.  They also explore the three
theories which explain how Joseph Smith may have come to be seemingly
familiar with these occult traditions: the first being that Joseph Smith's
doctrines were influenced through dissemination, that is direct contact
with human teachers of those traditions;  the second being that his
doctrines were influenced by personal inspiration through mystical contact
with something like the Jungian "collective unconscious" or perhaps the
Hegelian "zeitgeist"; and, the third being that Joseph's doctrines were
revealed to him by contact immortal beings, if you will, a supernal form of
dissemination.

Given the traditional Mormon view of the nature of revelation, the
traditional Mormon could feel quite comfortable with the assertion that all
three theories could be simultaneously true.  There is, of course, the
possibility that all three theories are untrue, that Joseph Smith has been
misunderstood by these writers and that his doctrines do not reflect a
theology in any way similar to that of any of the aforementioned occult
traditions

Now that I have, I hope,  wet your appetite, I must prepare you for some
delay in posting this thread.  Clark's work has come to me in ten separate
posts.  Some of them contain the remarks of a single person while others
contain the remarks of several persons.  I, therefore, intend to break
Clark's thread down into one post per contributor and then to mail them one
day at a time in the order that they were written.

As the lion's share of Clark's thread is comprised of a debate between
Lance Owens and William Hamblin, I would like to post both Lance Owens's
Dialogue article and William Hamblin's FARMS response to that article
before posting Clark's thread.  I am presently engaged in acquiring
permission to do this.

So please be patient.  Clark, your work will not be ignored.  I only hope
to apportion the meal into bites more easily chewed and swallowed that it
may be  more salubriously digested and the savor endure.

Scot








-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "John D. Hays" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [LDSR] Aaronic Priesthood Age
Date: 14 Jul 1997 17:23:30 -0700

In William Hartley's paper "The Priesthood Reform Movement, 1908-1922" he comments that
it was a common practice by the year 1877 to ordain boys to the office of deacon at age 12.  He
did not cite where that information was documented.

I am interested in the history of Aaronic Priesthood offices, duties, and ordination ages.  I am
also interested in how the various duties and ordination ages were determined (i.e. by revelation,
by practice, by committee, etc.) ...

Any research materials or pointers would be appreciated.

John
[e-mail]








-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [LDSR] Aaronic Priesthood Age
Date: 16 Jul 1997 09:17:48 -0400 (EDT)

>Any research materials or pointers would be appreciated.
>
>John
>[e-mail]

One of my favorite (and underused) research sources may help you.  The church
membership records for a generation each side of 1900 are easily available,
and provide space for recording ordinations.  You may have to hunt around a
while to locate records for wards with good clerks who actually recorded this
information (like census enumerators, clerks varied greatly in their
attention to detail)..  Check both the records for individual members (where
you will also find birthdates to easily check boys' ages), and the pages in
the back of the volumes where there are lists of ordinations (as well as
other types of ordinances).

Almost complete runs of these records are available at the family history
libraries in Salt Lake and Provo (BYU), with limited runs available at many
other FHCs.  Check the catalog for Utah counties and towns, under the "Church
Records" subdivision.  Most of them are found in the 24,XXX, 25XXX, 26XXX
range.  You'll probably only want to extract statistical information;  these
records are not supposed to be copied, except for the single membership
record of your ancestor.  If you do want to make copies, avoid using the
films at the main library in Salt Lake -- many of them are on red reels which
alert library personnel.  Use the ones in Provo which are on plain gray
reels.

Many Utah wards started using the then-new membership records with printed
columns for ordinations in 1877.  I wonder if that is why Mr. Hartley used
that date?

Of course this doesn't help you with "why", but could provide a lot of
evidence to confirm or refute a hypothesis on ages.  Good luck.

Ardis
[e-mail]







-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Austin <[e-mail]>
Subject: [LDSR] Attitudes towards Mormons
Date: 16 Jul 1997 12:27:26 -0700 (PDT)

I'm currently working on a paper about attitudes towards Mormonism in
several key strains of contemporary genre fiction and I wonder if anyone
out there in LDS-research land could point me towards any concrete data
about attitudes towards Mormon in American culture in general. I'm looking
for survey-type data, rather than various opinions of how LDS are
perceived. Opinions I got. Its facts I need.

Regards,

Dr. Michael Austin
Department of English and Modern Lanugages
Shepherd College, Shepherdstownb, West Virginia








-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Keith Irwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [LDSR] Aaronic Priesthood Age
Date: 16 Jul 1997 16:05:42 -0700

Check Hartley's paper, "From Men to Boys, LDS Aaronic Priesthood Offices
1829-1926" in Journal of Mormon History, Vol 22, No 1, (Spring 1996).  In
this article, Hartley seems to say that the priesthood reorganization of
1877 did not specify ages for aaronic priesthood offices, just that it would
be good for youth to be apprentices to experienced teachers and priests.
The circular for that reorganization is in James R. Clark's "Messages of the
First Presidency, Vol II, pp 283-295.  He cites examples of different wards
and stakes setting different policies about the age of ordination as well as
the duties given the youth.


Duties seemed to evolve between 1877 and 1908 as stakes and wards sought
ways to involve young men in the aaronic priesthood.  In 1908, The General
Priesthood Committee on Outlines was tasked to look at curriculum but went
significantly farther and recommended the progression of youth through the
offices at specific ages, created "Ward Teaching, and over the next few
years defined the duties of the three AP offices.  The first comprehensive
list for all three offices that Hartley cites is in the July 1916
Improvement Era.


Keith





At 05:23 PM 7/14/97 -0700, John Hays wrote:

>In William Hartley's paper "The Priesthood Reform Movement, 1908-1922" he
comments that
>it was a common practice by the year 1877 to ordain boys to the office of
deacon at age 12.  He
>did not cite where that information was documented.
>
>I am interested in the history of Aaronic Priesthood offices, duties, and
ordination ages.  I am
>also interested in how the various duties and ordination ages were
determined (i.e. by revelation,
>by practice, by committee, etc.) ...
>
>Any research materials or pointers would be appreciated.
>




Keith Irwin
Tanner-Irwin Consulting Group
Internet:[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]


"We want to know that the little things are little and the big things big
before it is too late."  -Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy.








-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Douglas W Cahoon)
Subject: [LDSR] MM Cahoon
Date: 16 Jul 1997 19:30:41 EDT


On Wed, 02 Jul 1997 18:13:09 -0600 Morgan Adair <[e-mail]>
writes:
>I believe the baby blessing where Joseph Smith named Reynolds Cahoon's
>son
>"Mahonri Moriancumr" was given in 1841. At least it was reported in
>the
>Times & Seasons in 1841.
>

> [Note from owner-lds-research]
>Morgan,
>This is good information.  Can you give us the actual reference to the
>T&S
>report (or at least a secondary reference from some other work)?
>JSD

Sorry about the note I sent earlier. I have been out of town and should
have read all my mail before responding.
Reynolds Cahoon did have Joseph Smith bless his son. Mahonri was
born in 1835 in Kirtland. I tried to name my own son after uncle Mahonri
-
the bride didn't like that idea.

see Juvenile Instructor 27:282

BTW, Mahonri Moriancumer Cahoon never married - went to Utah - and
died a drunk - he is buried in Murray.

John - you mention this is as "Reynolds Cahoon Folklore".Is that because
it wasn't reported until later. I doubt that he would have had to wait
for the
T&S since Moriancumer (sp) is mentioned as a place in the BofM.

--Doug Cahoon







-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scot Denhalter <[e-mail]>
Subject: [LDSR] Stan Larson
Date: 17 Jul 1997 12:06:15 -0600


Can anyone give me Stan Larson's e-mail address?

Scot








-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Scot Denhalter <[e-mail]>
Subject: [LDSR] RE: Clark Goble's Thread
Date: 25 Jul 1997 12:13:08 -0600

Dear LDS-Research Subscribers,

I will shortly post Clark Goble's entire thread as an ASCII attachment.
 Before I do this, I want to post it first to Clark and get his approval.
 In the meantime, I highly recommend that you read the following articles
and/or books on the King Follett Discourse in order to get a good
foundation in the document which the debate addresses:

1. Donald Q. Cannon & Larry E. Dahl, "The Prophet Joseph Smith's King
Follett Discourse: A Six Column Comparison of Original Notes and
Amalgamations" (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1983)

2. Stan Larson, "The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text" (BYU
Studies 18/2; 1978; pp. 193-208)
[I have Stan's permission to post this article to LDS-Research, in the
meantime it can also be found in InfoBase's "LDS Collector's Library '97.]

3. Donald Q. Cannon, "The King Follett Discourse: Joseph Smith's Greatest
Sermon in Historical Perspective" (BYU Studies 18/2; 1978; pp. 179-192)
[This article is also in InfoBase's LDS Collector's Library '97, but I
would like to contact Donald to get his permission to post this article to
LDS-Research.  Does anyone have his e-mail address?]

4. Van Hale, "The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse" (BYU
Studies 18/2; 1978; pp. 209-225)
[This article is also in InfoBase's LDS Collector's Library '97, but I
would like to contact Van to get his permission to post this article to
LDS-Research.  Does anyone have his e-mail address?]


5. The standard text of the King Follett discourse:

a.  "Times & Seasons" (15 August 1844) [This is the discourse's first
      publication]

b.  "Documentary History of the Church" (Vol. 6; pp. 302-317)

c.  Joseph Fielding Smith, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith"
(342-362)

It is also imperative that you read both Lance Owens's article and William
Hamblin's review of that article.  These two articles comprise the original
debate over the King Follett discourse.  I have permission from both Lance
Owens and William Hamblin to post these articles to LDS-Research
subscribers, but I, as yet, do not have an ASCII copy of either of them.  I
am busy trying to acquire one of each at this moment.  In the meantime,
Lance Owens's article, along with the original illustrations, can be found
at the following URL:

    http://www.gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm

If you have no way of web-surfing, you can read this article in the Fall
issue of "Dialogue" (1994; pp. 117-194).

You can read William Hamblin's review of this article in the 1996 "FARMS
Review of Books" (Vol. 8, No. 2; pp. 251-325)  Unfortunately InfoBase's
"LDS Collector's Library '97" ends its "FARMS Review of Books" collection
at Vol. 8, No. 1.  Nevertheless, I do have Bill's permission to post this
article to you as soon as I can acquire an ASCII copy of it.

This is a provocative, though not compelling debate.  I recommend that
everyone read the King Follett discourse, Lance Owens's Dialogue article,
and William Hamblin's FARMS review first and in that order to prepare for a
better understanding of Clark Goble's thread.

Best Wishes,

Scot

PS:  I need the e-mail address of Donald Q. Cannon and Van Hale so that I
may garner their permission to post their respective articles to this
mailing list.  Can anyone help with the supply of those addresses?



-----Original Message-----
Sent:    Sunday, July 13, 1997 3:20 PM

Dear LDS-Research Subscribers,

Clark Goble has been kind enough to compile and submit an e-mail thread
that originated on another LDS-related mailing list.  The thread in its
entirety represents 86 pages when printed and Clark is to be commended for
the amount of labor he has expended in organizing it.

Although, at first glance, Clark's work may not appear to fit within the
guidelines of this list's charter (i.e.: It is not a question nor an answer
to another subscriber's query.), I yet intend to post it to this list in
its entirety.  My reason is simply that the thread contains material which
addresses several questions I had intended to pose to the subscribers of
this list.

The basic content of the thread considers a theme popular of late among
Mormon and non-Mormon scholars: that of Joseph Smith as the inheritor and
purveyor of occult traditions.  This theme has been explored in depth by D.
Michael Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" (1987), John L.
Brooke's "The Refiners Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844
(1994), a review of Brooke's work in FARMS "Reviews of Books on the Book of
Mormon" by William Hamblin, Daniel C.  Peterson, and George L. Mitton (Vol.
6, No. 2, 1994), Lance S. Owens's article in Dialogue "Joseph Smith and
Kaballah: The Occult Connection" (Vol. 27, No. 3, 1994), and William J.
Hamblin's review of Owens's work in FARMS "Reviews of Books" (Vol.8, No.2,
1996).  Although addressing another subject entirely, Harold Bloom's "The
American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation" (1992)
touches briefly, but provocatively on this theme as well.

The word "occult" here and in the works cited above does not possess the
connotation of "evil" or "Satanic", a notion propounded by Christian
Fundamentalists.  Rather the word means "hidden", and occult traditions are
simply teachings intended to be revealed only to worthy initiates and to
bed hidden from the profane, those who would mock and/or persecute.   There
are many such traditions, some very ancient, many only partially preserved,
which come to us from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well as from
pagan sources such as the Greek Mystery Religions, Neo-Platonic Gnosticism,
Roman Stoicism, Persian Zoroastrianism, and Egyptian Osirianism.

In comparatively more modern times, aspects of these occult traditions
found a home in Jewish Kabbalah, Christian Cabala, Hermeticism,
Rosicrucianism, and Freemasonry.  The works cited above and the thread
Clark Goble has compiled both compare and contrast aspects of these
traditions with aspects of Mormon theology.  They also explore the three
theories which explain how Joseph Smith may have come to be seemingly
familiar with these occult traditions: the first being that Joseph Smith's
doctrines were influenced through dissemination, that is direct contact
with human teachers of those traditions;  the second being that his
doctrines were influenced by personal inspiration through mystical contact
with something like the Jungian "collective unconscious" or perhaps the
Hegelian "zeitgeist"; and, the third being that Joseph's doctrines were
revealed to him by contact immortal beings, if you will, a supernal form of
dissemination.

Given the traditional Mormon view of the nature of revelation, the
traditional Mormon could feel quite comfortable with the assertion that all
three theories could be simultaneously true.  There is, of course, the
possibility that all three theories are untrue, that Joseph Smith has been
misunderstood by these writers and that his doctrines do not reflect a
theology in any way similar to that of any of the aforementioned occult
traditions

Now that I have, I hope,  wet your appetite, I must prepare you for some
delay in posting this thread.  Clark's work has come to me in ten separate
posts.  Some of them contain the remarks of a single person while others
contain the remarks of several persons.  I, therefore, intend to break
Clark's thread down into one post per contributor and then to mail them one
day at a time in the order that they were written.

As the lion's share of Clark's thread is comprised of a debate between
Lance Owens and William Hamblin, I would like to post both Lance Owens's
Dialogue article and William Hamblin's FARMS response to that article
before posting Clark's thread.  I am presently engaged in acquiring
permission to do this.

So please be patient.  Clark, your work will not be ignored.  I only hope
to apportion the meal into bites more easily chewed and swallowed that it
may be  more salubriously digested and the savor endure.

Scot








-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Douglas W Cahoon)
Subject: [LDSR] Baby Blessings
Date: 27 Jul 1997 18:09:54 EDT

A few weeks ago some one asked about baby blessings. I mentioned
the JS blessing of Mahonri M. Cahoon in Kirtland. I had forgotten about
diary entries of Reynolds Cahoon on November 26, 1831,
"Saturday evening held a meting with the Brth at Mr. Reeds & Blest the
children in the name of the Lord & sealed the church unto eternal life."


--Doug







-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: [LDSR] Access to RLDS library?
Date: 27 Jul 1997 20:20:43 -0400 (EDT)

Flake lists an item I am interested in reading:

Gibbs, Josiah Francis
   "An Open Letter to Mormons Who Think"

He indicates that a copy of this can be found at the RLDS library in
Independence.  I have not been able to find this anywhere locally (Utah),
and
don't know how to go about requesting it from Independence.

Can someone help me with that -- or, just as good, know some other source
for this item?  I am interested only in a photocopy, or even a reliable
transcription, not in purchasing an original.

Many thanks for your suggestions.

Ardis Parshall
[e-mail]







-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: wlbagley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [LDSR] Access to RLDS library?
Date: 27 Jul 1997 20:19:21 -0600 (MDT)

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 [e-mail] wrote:

> Flake lists an item I am interested in reading:
> Gibbs, Josiah Francis
>    "An Open Letter to Mormons Who Think"

> Can someone help me with that -- or, just as good, know some other source
> for this item?  I am interested only in a photocopy, or even a reliable
> transcription, not in purchasing an original.

You're in luck, Ardis. RLDS Archives is a joy to work with, and Ron Romig
is a first rate fellow.

His address:

Ron Romig, Archivist
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
The Auditorium
River and Walnut
Independence MO  64951

Even better: email!

[e-mail]
Ron Romig, RLDS Archives, Independence, Missouri

Of course, I'll ask for a copy of Josiah's immortal prose in return.

Will Bagley








-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Hajicek <[e-mail]>
Subject: [LDSR] Re: Moriancumer
Date: 23 Jul 1997 23:13:14 -0500

Regarding the name Mahonri from the 1892 Juvenile Instructor,

Somebody wrote:

> So there certainly was an early tradition.  (There are
> numerous other children by this name as a quick scan
> of the infobase will illustrate)  It is significant that
> Cowdery doesn't mention the Mahonri part of the brother
> of Jared's name.  That, to me, means that there is an
> other source.

That, to me, means there is NO known primary source.  By definition,
that makes it folklore.  Perhaps it is true, but it is known only
through legend or tradional belief.

> Here is the full quote from the Juvenile Instructor.  I
> think we ought to at least give William Cahoon the
> benefit of the doubt.

Hey, how about giving James J. Strang the benefit of the doubt?  <g>

> Given the combination of names, the occurrence of many
> names early on in church history identical to Cahoon,
> the lack of sufficient information in the Cowdery account,
> and so forth, I think we ought to assume that the account
> has a basis in fact.

The names were not "early on in church history," they were late in
church history--mostly from the 1860s to 1880s.

I cannot make such an assumption of a "basis in fact"--it may serve fine
as part of your folk history and oral tradition, but I do not find the
evidence compelling enough for my historical style.

Doug Cahoon wrote:

> John - you mention this is as "Reynolds Cahoon Folklore". Is that because
> it wasn't reported until later?

Folklore is not not a pejorative word.  It means that it part of oral
history rather than contemporary written history.  An 1892 account about
an 1834 event, taken from a third-hand account, and printed in the
Juvenile Instructor, IS folklore.  It does not matter what subject.  I
do know Oliver Cowdery said that Moriancumer was the brother of Jared.
I do know that he said it in 1834 because it was printed in 1834.  I
just do not know about the Mahonri part, since it is first documented in
1892 when Cowdery and Cahoon were both dead--so I could not use it as
reliable history, or at least I would assign a low quantitative weight
to the evidence.

--
     John Hajicek
     [phone]     [phone]
     http://www.Mormonism.com
     http://www.Restoration.org