In an attempt to show that modern
Latter-day Saint historians are not to be trusted (e.g., Bushman; Arrington),
the Stoddards reference how many LDS historians (as well as LDS leaders)
accepted as authentic various forged documents by Mark Hoffman, and often
lampooning how some tried to reconcile the traditional narrative of the angel
Moroni and the white salamander appearing to Joseph Smith. Here is something
they do not mention in Faith Crisis Volume 1: We Were not Betrayed.
Question: who was a leading defender and
promoter of the article they make fun of on pp. 51-52, “Why
Might a Person in 1830 Connect an Angel with a Salamander?” was *drum roll
please*
President Dallin H. Oaks
On pp. 22-23 of a speech "Reading
Church History" presented at the 1985 CES Doctrine and Covenants
Symposium, BYU, August 16 1985, he said:
One wonders why so
many writers neglected to reveal to their readers that there is another meaning
of "salamander," which may even have been the primary meaning in this
context in the 1820s. That meaning, which is listed second in my Random
House Dictionary of the English Language, is "a mythical being thought
to be able to live in fire." Modern and ancient literature contain many
examples of this usage. For examples, see the research notes by F.A.R.M.S.,
circulated at this symposium.
A being that is able
to live in fire is a good approximation of the description Joseph Smith gave of
the Angel Moroni: a personage in the midst of a light, whose countenance was
"truly like lightning" and whose overall appearance "was
glorious beyond description." (Joseph Smith History 1:30, 32.) As
Joseph Smith wrote later, "the first sight [of this personage] was as
though the house was filled with consuming fire . . . " (History of the
Church, vol. 4, p. 536). Since the letter only purports to be Martin
Harris' interpretation of what he had heard about Joseph Smith's experience,
the use of the words white salamander and old spirit seem
understandable.
Commenting on the apologetic attempts to
harmonise the Salamander Letter (which would later be proven to be a forgery)
and the traditional LDS narrative, the Stoddards, on p. 10 of their book wrote:
In spite of desperate
apologetic attempts to explain otherwise, the salamander unmistakably
represented an occult icon. The striking salamander parallels of these accounts
contrasted with the Lord’s work and subsequent coming forth of the Bok of
Mormon, may have signified a counterfeit—a mockery intended to ridicule and
pervert the events and timing of the Lord’s Kingdom—but certainly not a friendly
advocate for the Restoration.
I will note here that the Stoddards, who
are amongst the most anti-intellectual, Fundamentalist members of the Church,
would attack as “apostate” and “unbelieving liberals” FairMormon or some other
apologetic group or individual apologist who would say this about a Latter-day
Saint leader’s work. However, when it comes to smearing the characters of
faithful Latter-day Saint historians like the late Leonard Arrington or Richard
L. Bushman, they engage in a blatant double standard (via deception). They have
no problem (silently and deceptively) throwing Church leaders under the bus
when it suits their agenda, as well as engaging in a hack job of historical
sources to defend their understanding of LDS history (on this, see, for e.g.,
Stephen Smoot, Yes,
Joseph Smith Really Did Use a Seer Stone in the Translation of the Book of
Mormon)
