I really have enjoyed the last few articles on the Project. This one is outstanding as it really explains the process and quality of the work being done. I look forward to the first volume in December. It will be a great volume for those that wish to study and understand the aspects of Joseph Smith.

I wonder if the Church is able to include documents that are not in their possession? For example, it would be wonderful if the break off churches such as the Reorganized could add their Joseph Smith documents to this project. We know that when the Saints left for Utah many documents stayed with the Smith family or others who stayed behind. If the common goal is simply to compile as much as possible as accurately as possible you would think different sources could work together to make this project as complete as possible.

I do not attribute bad intentions but do wonder what would happen if something truly negative was discovered. Negative in the sense that it would cause some to doubt the Gospel. I wonder if there is a process of running that sort of thing by GAs before just adding it?

When the project is finished, will the papers be available online to non-historians?

I am really looking forward to getting my hands on the fruits of this work. I am glad the producers are going through such a painstaking process to ensure precision and correctness.

Having the literal source of Joseph Smith's writing on hand will go a very long way in dispelling myths about early church history.

All of the Presidents of the United States have their "papers" archived, indexed, and put in libraries. Due to issues of national security, much of what is included in those papers is sealed for a minimum of 50 years.

The Church leaders are trying the same thing with Joseph Smith. It is presumptuous to treat Joseph Smith in any way similar to a President of the United States. He was a small, cult leader whose megalomaniacal lust for power and young women destroyed him. His papers are no more valuable than David Koresh's papers, or the papers of Rev. Jim Jones. They are an historical curiosity and that is all.

Documents Elsewhere?:
"I wonder if the Church is able to include documents that are not in their possession?"

Check out the Joseph Smith Papers website. Here's the answer to your question from their site:

"Have any documents been excluded?

This comprehensive project will publish all known, accessible documents that meet the project’s criteria as Joseph Smith documents. The project has complete access to the archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Community of Christ. Some documents are in the possession of families or individual collectors, and all will be published for which permission and access can be obtained. Some documents are routine or repetitive, such as forms or certificates, and only samples of those will be published in paper, but all will be listed in a calendar of documents and all will eventually be published online. For example, Joseph Smith signed hundreds of missionary licenses, but only a few samples will be included in the published volumes."

I hope there will be no editing which will remove 'controversial' discoveries. I would really like to see the Council of Fifty meeting notes finally released, for example.

I hope they are authentic. I wonder how much has been destroyed?

Will any of his papers from the Kirtland Bank be included? Maybe a copy of one of hius $3 bills.

The JS Papers will never be published, not because the Church doesn't want to publish them, but because the people working on them will never get it done. They're incredibly slow. We will all be dead before they get anything done. (I used to be a project manager for them.)

To: Anonymous 9:11: Man, you are a pathetic person. All anyone can do is feel sorry for you.

I am suspicious of what will be cleared for release. For many years the church has obtained documents and archived them, presumably for the purpose of removing controversial ones from public circulation. Even looking at what we have now, it is clear that controversial ones have been deleted from official church histories, yet they can be found in publications by other historians, some who are members of the church. In other words, to be blunt, the church carefully manages information, keeping important stuff from us. Now this is absolutely true and I know it will cause many of you to be angry. Sorry about that.

How about his polygamous wedding records to young girls and other mens' wives? Will they be included? If he didn't have the cajones to tell Emma Smith about them, is the Church going to do so now?

do the papers expound on Mr. Smith's thoughts f why he wanted to craft the BOM?

For all of you asking if the JS Papers will include "X" damning evidence, I ask you this:

What if those "damning papers" are never published because they never existed or cannot be found, will you still claim the LDS Church is hiding something?

At what point do you draw the line and admit that the LDS Church is being forthcoming about it's history? If an NHPRC endorsement of the project isn't enough, when do you look in the mirror and ask yourself if you are being fair in your judgements?

Just a gut check...

Nice try Thinker.

Joseph was the prophet of the restoration! He didn't craft the BOM he translated it.

Read it. I dare you! You'll find out.

I did read it.

I remember something someone said once about Joseph Smith's name being had for good and evil. I guess they were correct.

I read it, too, actually several times. And the more I read it the "goofier" it got. Me and Mark Twain could never really get into it.

I read it, too.

And just like the Baptist Church's sign said...
"Don't pray about the Book of Mormon, that's how they get you."

They got me, and I've never been happier. The BOM is a wonderful book of TRUTH.

The rest is history.

I read it too, and the rest is history. If you believe in it then that is fine, but i don't. However, it was quit a story, but a bit confusing.

The Joseph Smith Papers, while viewed as a positive thing by faithful LDS members, will not prove the truthfulness of Joseph being called by God to be His prophet.

Nor will the papers do anything to disprove his claims.

99% of people will see only what they want to see.

For me the thing about religious books and texts is that people present it as TRUTH. That's fine, that is what faith is. However, I've also noted that there are a lot of belief systems, and they all want to claim TRUTH. Capitalised or not, a lot of these beliefs vary wildly and often contradict one another and at least some of them must therefore be wrong. My take on it is that, even though many claim proof none really offers more proof than another so I think that faith might be more important than the message. I also think it's why I so dislike pretty much any person or religion that gets all up as if they have exclusivity.

I hope they will give more details about the Zelph prophecy, you know the one about the great white Lamanite warrior known from coast to coast. I would also like to read the translation of the Kinderhook plates he started translating before he was told they were a fake, created by the locals.

The papers will never be accepted as credible outside of mormon church because of who is doing the research and editing; futhermore all (controversy) that will be ommitted will make this a mockery. Try and try as you might but nothing will make the church legitimate. This is much the same as why the Smithsonian has rejected the Mormon Book as a historical text; as the facts just don't stand being the text no matter how much you have been coherst and dubt into believing in it.

First to Jeff: Already the Papers are widely anticipated by the religious studies community throughout the US and elsewhere. There are members and non-members working on this project, including on the advisory committee that gives final approval for publishing.

Now for a little side note- I attended a lecture by a lead member of the Project. He stated just after the project began, they approached the First Presidency (then Pres. Hinckley) to ask what the scope of the project was. The asked if it was going to be an academic work or a work for members, President Hinckley instructed them it was a scholarly work, though members may benefit from them.
I also wanted to point out, the Project will be of great importance. JS is quite the topic of interest among many in the religious studies field. The Library of Congress hosted a conference on him where leading scholars explored the life and times of JS. Rather then attacking the program, why don't we just look forward to these insights from JS and his life and writings.

I hope that the papers will include all of Joseph Smith's statements, not just a sanitized and carefully edited version of his statements. Church members need to know all of his history--including his polygamous unions--not just part of it,

This is a great (inspired) undertaking. It is wonderful news for most of us, but not for everyone!The good news for most of us is that we have further light and knowledge to enlighten our minds and souls. The bad news for a few is that it will now be less likely to re-invent and spin inaccuracies about church history and then complain about "coverups" when not evidence of "mischeif" is not found. More light and knowledge is not a good thing for some! The light only blinds them further and brings them under further comdemnation (modern Pharasees)!

As an active LDS father, I have become increasingly perplexed by the tendency of church historians to exclude materials about Joseph Smith that are not complementary to him. I hope that these papers will present an honest and factual history of the prophet so that as Church members we can better understand this complex man.

As an active LDS woman and former ward and stake Relief Society president, I enjoy studying the history of our church leaders. However, I have some concerns about Joseph Smith's polyandry, his Masonic ties, and his authoritarian use of power in Nauvoo. I am hopefully that these papers will better help me understand these issues.

There are many people who don't believe the Bible to be true, and so I am not surprised that some who read the Book of Mormon do not believe it. ---- It is interesting to me that the verses at the end of the Book of Mormon say this "Moroni 10:3-4 3.Behold I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, ... (some deleted here) 4.And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the Power of the Holy Ghost."
---- So I wonder if those who "read" and didn't feel they were true, followed all the directions? I also wonder if they have heard or read about the translator of the BofM into Hebrew, who was SO amazed at how it went perfectly back into Hebrew, and he ended up LDS. It's not for sale now though.

Any historian who would exclude any verifiable factual material that was not complimentary would be a fraud.

I for one have no "fears" about some "dark secret" coming out about J.S. or the early history of the church. No one ever tried to convince me that J.S.was perfect, but I have found consistent truth in the revelations he received! Peter denied Christ 3 times and we somehow easily forgive him for being "human". I wonder if anyone would forgive J.S. if he had made the same "mistake"? If the B of M contained some of the same things that the Bible contains, no one would believe it (B of M). Why is that? I have learned we should not take counsel from our fears, it leads nowhere is evidence of the absence of faith!

Yeah, we want to hear all about the polygamy garbage. Open up the history. Quit hiding the guys dirty laundry. We know all about the wives Joseph Smith took behind Emma's back without her knowledge. Let's not cover that one up---- You know the Partridge woman who was his maid?

Folks - maybe the Church denied a lot in the past but go to FARMS or FAIR and there is a lot of "explaining" but no one denies that Joseph Smith took married wives, or wrote several different first vision versions, or translated the BofA pictures incorrectly, or said the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, etc etc etc. I have read a lot of articles that try to frame things postively or put the full context into view but I think the denying is over. So I'm not sure what folks think could be covered up or excluded in this work.

And by the way - I personally believe that the Savior is perfectly fine if with a pure heart and intention we simply say we don't know if the BofM is a factual history. But I do think he expects us to learn from its pages and come closer to Him and His atonement.

I hear a lot from the anti's about Joseph Smiths Polygamy.

Yet it is nothing but hearsay, baseless claims, empty assertions, and cetainly nothing to back it up.

It you have problems with polygamy maybe you should take it up with God th Father, and maybe he can give you peace about it.

Just because the church doesn't publish or extoll some alledged document, doesn't mean it is covering it up or hiding it! The church obviously has to be very careful in what it publishes or not due to unproven authenticity. Remember the "salamader letters"? Bottom line: We all believe what we want the truth to be and we can usually find reasons to believe whatever we want the truth to be! I guess it goes both ways! I believe in the integrity of the people doing this project! I expect them to find that JS was the man most of us believe him to have been. A man with faults and a person who made mistakes, just like all the other prophets who have walked this Earth but who did and said what they were commanded to do and say!

I'm a nonmember, and hear a lot of anti this and anti that from Mormon's, so what is an anti? Is it someone who doesn't agree with you? Or someone who doesn't have the same point of view as you? Or is it someone who is not Mormon? What is an anti? I do not know.

I really know nothing about your Joseph Smith, so does that mean I am anti because I don't believe in him? .....JUST WONDER ABOUT ALL THE ANTI STUFF?

Oh yeah, and I don't believe in polygamy--so does that make me anti?

On my mission, I foolishly wasted too much of my time standing on people's doorsteps trying to defend the church's early practice of polygamy. My mistake was that I wasn't supposed to defend it. For those of you who struggle with it, I recommend reading Jacob 2:24-30. Reading and pondering the Lord's explanation of polygamy spoke peace to my soul and I am no longer troubled by it. How I wish I had those day back as a missionary. I would simply hand the people a copy of the B of M and ask them to read what the Lord has said about polygamy and ask them to pray about it. Maybe a few of them would have and they would be members today! I wish I had been wiser in my youth.

Maybe the documents will cast some negative light on actions by Joseph Smith himself, and his history.

But cause some to doubt the Gospel? You mean Christ suffering, dying for us and rising so we can be forgiven of sins? Faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost?

No one's personal failings, no matter how bad, can make me doubt that.

The term anti-mormon is generally used by believing members of the church to describe those who are vigorously and adamantly opposed the church. Not just that they do not accept it's teachings but those who aggresively oppose it like in the early days of the church when anti-mormon mobs murdered and drove members from their homes. Those who esteem themselves enemies of the LDS church are those whom we call anti-mormons not just anyone who happens to not like our teachings.

Anti- Mormons attempt to persecute the church not just disagree with it. For the same reasons some persecuted early Christians of ancient (or modern) times.

I have a strong testimony of the Church and of the Book of Mormon. However, I find nowhere in any of the revealed scriptures of the Church that justify a man taking another man's wife and marrying him.
I hope these papers will explain polyandry. FARMS has not.

What if there are no "suspicious" ones? Wouldn't that be disappointing? What's left for us to do then? Invent some? That has been tried already.

.
the BoM. And, I had an amazing experience !

I prayed to the Father to take away my misconceptions. That I place in His Holy hands...my life. To teach me...to point the Way to His Truth, not my desires. And, He did in the wonderful gentle and very surprising way. In the name of Jesus Christ.
" I AM the Way, and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jo. 14:6 WoW !!
His Word spoke to me in a new way; and at the right time. Thank you, Lord!!
.

It's usually men who feel a warm feeling in their chest for polygamy. NOT WOMEN!!!...I don't believe in such practices! Flds are not normal people! Most polygamy cults are quit abusive to women. I don't think Emma Smith was jumping up and down about it either.

Yep, Poor Emma,

I don't believe in polygamy. Polygamy is a MAN made up deal to benefit a mans sexual needs and worldly pleasures.

No sob stories PLEASE! Don't want to hear it!

For a little truth and perspective, try studying the writtings and teachings of Wilford Woodruff. He was with Brother Joseph through Zion's camp, then led the Church until nearly the turn of the century. He perhaps had more firsthand knowledge than anyone about the Church's history. Polygamy, was sanctioned by the Lord anciently. The 12 tribes of Isreal are descended from 12 brothers, all son's of Jacob from 4 different wives. How can you have the restoration of all things and not include polygamy.