From: Scot Denhalter Subject: [LDSR] FW: BOUNCE lds-research@xmission.com: Approval required: Date: 13 Aug 1997 10:00:49 -0600 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? > 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 (816) 795-8881 (800) 862-5667 http://www.Mormonism.com http://www.Restoration.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Scot Denhalter Subject: [LDSR] Apologies Date: 19 Aug 1997 11:35:04 -0600 Please accept my apologies for being so tardy with Clark Goble's thread. My brother died recently ( age 42, leaving behind a wife and six children [ages 4 to 15]) and I have only barely pulled myself out of the blue funk enveloping me. I will have that for you in about a week. Cordially, Scot Denhalter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clark Goble Subject: RE: [LDSR] FW: BOUNCE lds-research@xmission.com: Approval required: Date: 14 Aug 1997 11:45:57 -0600 ___ John ___ | The names were not "early on in church history," they were late in | church history--mostly from the 1860s to 1880s. ___ The ones I posted were from before that period. Certainly there were quite a lot of Mohonri Moriancumrs up to the turn of the century though. My point was that the names started in the Joseph Smith period and not the later period. That provides an other data point for the story of Mohonri Moriancumr Cahoon to be considered accurate. What I was more doing is asking if there was anything in the oral account (the later Juvenile Instructor account) that *contradicts* history. In other words, is there any indication that we ought not to assume it is accurate in the general picture - even acknowledging that there may be problems in the details. ___ John ___ | 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. ___ Which is fine. I certainly have no trouble with that as "historical style" is a fairly subjective judgement. My reasoning is that the name came from the period when Joseph was alive, has an addition not found in other sources (i.e. Cowdery) and the main source says that he was told about the event and didn't hear it through rumor. Most significant to me is not so much the historical data (which I agree is vague) but the reasoning. Why else would someone name their child Mohonri Moriancumr? I personally think that a significant question. Somewhere they had to have heard that Mohonri was a name to be attached to Moriancumr. But the whole issue isn't that significant. I suspect that the difference is that I put more weight on oral histories than you do. Which, as I mentioned, is an admittedly personal judgment. BTW - anyone know when the Kabbalah posts are coming? I sent them off more than a month and a half ago. This post I just responded to was the first post I've seen on the list for several weeks. Are posts just not making it to me? \\\ Clark Goble \\\\ cgoble@fiber.net \\\ You know what charm is: a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question. -- Albert Camus