One evidence of the hijacking of history is found in the removal of the terms Banks of the Susquehanna from the introduction to Section 13 of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Historians’ explanation for the change is summarized as follows:
D&C 13, sect. intro.—Revised the first sentence, deleting “along the bank of the Susquehanna River”: “An extract from Joseph Smith’s history recounting the ordination of the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery to the Aaronic Priesthood near Harmony, Pennsylvania, May 15, 1829.”
In referring to the reasons for the change the Church website links the reader to the Joseph Smith Papers project, which should cause any familiar with that project some immediate concern as many of its supporters have evidenced flesh reliance for years. The Joseph Smith Papers project states the following as grounds for the removal of the reference to the river:
Section 13
This change is based on recent research by the historic sites group of the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery described this ordination as occurring in a “woods” some distance from the river. Nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint descriptions of this ordination consistently noted that the event occurred in the “woods.” Evidence indicates that the land near the river had been cleared of trees at the time of the ordination. In contrast, there was a grove of sugar maples on Joseph Smith’s property some distance from the river. This is where the ordination likely occurred. In the early twentieth century, some Latter-day Saint sources began erroneously introducing the notion that the ordination occurred along the banks of the Susquehanna River, evidently in large part because of an unsourced statement made in a caption of a photograph of the river. For more information, see Mark Lyman Staker, “Where Was the Aaronic Priesthood Restored? Identifying the Location of John the Baptist’s Appearance, May 15, 1829,” Mormon Historical Studies 12 (Fall 2011): 143–159. (Emphasis Added)
Before going into the source for their claims, it seems clear on the surface that the project quickly assumes omniscience. After accurately relating that “evidence” indicates the river had been cleared of trees, and then legitimately asserting that another location was likely, the next line assumes absolute knowledge by claiming that other views were erroneous. It is a fallacy of logic to use language of possibility, followed by an absolute conclusion based on that possibility. Worse, the arrogant conclusion or error, is based on an article written by a historian, with neither keys nor calling, whose supporting scholarly work is filled with illogical conclusions, faulty reasoning, and supposition. By that means an obscure historian, based on a human work that is filled with flaws and assumptions, becomes elevated to an authority on the location of one of the most significant events of the restoration. No prayer, no revelation, no inspired direction, just human reliance. I will outline some of the flaws in the supporting article which formed the basis for this change.
Human weaknesses in the source article:
1. The author writes:….Seeking to understand the setting for this event, historians have focused on Joseph’s description of the visit by John as occurring “at the Susquehanna River when I retired in the woods.”2 His use of the phrase “at the Susquehanna river” and its companion “on the Susquehanna river” (D&C 128:20), used to describe a later visit from additional heavenly messengers, led historians almost a century later to assume this initial visit of John the Baptist took place near the water’s edge on the banks of the river.
--While the author goes on to dispute that conclusion I quote it here to note that in his quote “on the Susquehanna river” which refer to D & C 128:20 he leaves out the word “banks?” Given the long paragraphs of distinguishing after the claim, it seems almost impossible to suppose that the oversight was unintended. If the quote was properly rendered one might say, yeah, it makes sense to assume it was on the banks, since that is the word used in scripture to describe a subsequent visit. The whole article is cast into doubt as it evades the prominent question, if he is accepting that Peter James and John visited on the Banks of the Susquehanna, why does he then go to such lengths to show that John did not?
2. The Author:...Because Joseph and Oliver also described going to “the woods” or “the bush” to pray when this event happened, this setting of John the Baptist’s appearance was usually placed in a grove of trees.
--The author goes on to provide a plethora of evidence that the ordination took place in a grove of trees. Missing in the entire flesh based summary of evidence is the obvious fact that the two claims are NOT necessarily mutually exclusive. There remains the possibility that it was grove on trees on the banks of the river. While it is true that the author later tries to show why the trees could not be on the banks of the river, that conclusion is based on flawed evidence and reasoning as I will demonstrate.
3. The Author:…When discussing northeastern Pennsylvania, Joseph’s contemporaries used the idiomatic phrases “at the river” and “on the river” to describe the Susquehanna Valley, the larger Susquehanna River valley drainage region, or villages scattered along the river instead of to describe a specific locations.--This paragraph suffers from many errors. For example, the already noted error of the use of the words ‘bank” which was left out, and would cause a sincere truth seeker to wonder what Joseph’s Contemporaries would mean when they used the words “banks” of the Susquehanna.
--We are left without citation or proof that Joseph’s contemporaries would use the language in that manner, not to mention that we do not even know who is meant by the term “his contemporaries.”
--Had the author provided evidence there is still no possible way the author could accurately have asserted that every single person who lived on the Susquehanna River would use that language to mean exactly the same thing. Common usage, is a helpful concept for general knowledge, but it is woefully inadequate in supposition to absolute truth.
4. The Author: …Nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints never assumed this location was the same one connected with the visit of John, however; they focused on the word “woods” in Joseph’s account when discussing this event.
--This claim is ridiculous prima fascia. There is no way the author could ever prove that not one single saint ever assumed that the banks mention in D & C 128:20 was the same location mentioned by Joseph Smith with regards to the visit of John.
5. The Author goes on to spend some time illustrating how a prominent LDS Author and photographer perpetuated what he has declared to be myth, as a sort of backward argument to prove it was a myth. The argument still suffers from faulty reasoning in that the author sets up a straw man of the uninformed LDS authors propagating a myth, without ever even exploring why it was that those prominent men, assumed that the event took place on the “Banks of the river.” If they were really the 20th century source of the myth, what did they rely upon to become that source, to make their claims? It couldn’t have been the myth itself, because the author is arguing they are the ones who started it.
6. The next detailed accounting of possible, even plausible reasoning for why the event took place on the Joseph Smith farm are filled with suppositions, that at best can be declared to be possible scenarios, but in no logical way can be said to provide evidence that no other interpretation or understanding of the events was possible. Dismissed out of hand are possibilities that, there actually were “fallowwoods” on the land, that simply were not recorded, that he was too busy to use every bit of his land no matter what the common practice was, that the adjacent land owners may not have fenced or kept close watch on his property and so visiting those portions of their land was a distinct possibly, etc.
7. The author provides us with a map labeled as “possible locations for the event, but the map itself and the highlighted locations are based on the author’s suppositions and flawed reasoning as already outlined. In essence he does with his privately produced map and conjecture, what he accused the earlier photographer and author of doing in claiming the event happened on the banks of the river.
8. Flooding of the river. The rest of the author’s arguments about the flooding river and no tree stands are filled with straw man arguments too numerous to outline here. However one claim merits further review. The author tries to set up that fact, after declaring no trees were near the bank, to then claim that Joseph would not have received that sacred ordinance in view of the many enemies who would witness it. The bizarre thing is the author makes that argument immediately after arguing that Joseph would have “retired to the river” to perform baptism. It is logically inconsistent to argue he would not want an ordination observed by neighbors, after arguing that he didn’t care that they witness a baptism?
9. The author concludes: When Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery “retired” in the “woods” away from the “abodes of men” to pray, and then “repaired” to the river to perform baptisms as commanded by an angel, the evidence suggests….” If the author were honest the best he could actually claim is that the evidence as interpreted by him “suggests.” His article seems to be a case of determining what he want to believe, and then presenting and interpreting the data to arrive at that conclusion. An all too common approach of modern historians. Thankfully the author ends his article with the non-absolute language of “suggests”, which then leads one to question why the Joseph Smith Project aficionados lost that admission of non-omniscience and chose to embrace the terminology “the evidence indicates.”
Summary: Generations of church leaders, men who were key holders and inspired in their teachings have recounted that the event in question took place on the banks of the Susquehanna. Now it could be that they were all just deceived and were robotically repeating the common myth promulgated by an LDS photographer, but it could also be that they were inspired and knew whereof they spoke. The point is that given the choice between and obscure historian, and servants, even apostles, of God, I would choose the Apostles view. It is pure fleshy arrogance for historians to assume that the only way the church could come to know the truth about the place of the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood was through historical analysis. I can see the Joseph Smith Paper project adherents thanking God for enlightened historians, who came forth to set the record, and God’s servants, straight.