Your Vision Of The First Vision

[Tacenda]

So I'm late to the party but I had a question about the idea of the FV being where the idea of God having a body of flesh and bone was revealed. I've seen that said elsewhere— including I think a quote by President Hinckley. Does any know where this idea started— the idea that it was revealed in the FV. Lectures on Faith (Lecture 5 I think) from 1835 talks of God being a personage of spirit and so I had though that the revelation of flesh and bone came later. Sorry is this is a derail but thought I'd address it.

Good question, I don't have the answer but someone on here might.

[cesc101]

Good question, I don't have the answer but someone on here might.

I want to believe that; even though JS saw and knew the True Nature of God in the FV, Lectures on Faith was greatly influenced by sectarian teachings aroun

[Robert F. Smith]

I was using "false memory" loosely. As you note, there is the syndrome in which "false memory" has a more narrow meaning. Anyway, I accept that a kind of creativity is involved with both false memories and even the storage and recall of true memories, and also that false memories as well as true memories can be discussed scientifically and explored using instruments. In fact, that (remembering as an unintentional act of creation) would be true of memory in general regardless of whether the origin of what Joseph Smith remembered was a hallucination and a lucid dream. This is actually important, because arguably there has to be a delay between the time *any* revelation is received and the time it is recorded in writing -- a delay during which memory may undergo scientifically explainable unintentional change. Would anyone then conclude that no revelation should be a basis a doctrine?

That ordinary memory can and does undergo changes through time is not in dispute. My point was that actual memory is formed during and accompanied by actual bodily motion not implicated in purely imaginary concoctions (whether by dreaming or by deliberate artifice), and one can inquire about such memories while undergoing an fMRI and watch which parts of the brain light up.

There is no necessary delay in recording some revelations, since we know that some were recorded immediately. In the case of Joseph's First Vision, he claims to have spoken of it shortly thereafter with a Methodist clergyman and to have been upbraided for it. In my case, I can recall vividly an event which happened when I was about 5 years old. I discussed it with no one until I was an adult. It had to do with me and a neighbor kid spreading old dynamite around on the rocks to watch it explode like firecrackers. Nothing happened so we left. When asked about it later at home, I blamed the entire affair on the other kid, and he got whipped good for it. I was believed. Problem was that my Dad had to gather up that dynamite and dispose of it. I told the truth about it to my Dad when I was full grown, and we both had a good laugh. I did not imagine it. My father well remembered disposing of that dynamite. In recording it now, I did not tell you all the details, and if I wrote a full account you might very well point to differences as though they indicated that I had lied. Good historiographers know that it is never so simple.

Similarly, *any* process of trying to reconstruct the visual using verbal language is prone to error or creation. Are we then not supposed to use the visual as a source of knowledge, and if so, on what basis does someone accept empirically based scientific "truths" (for instance, to diagnose Joseph Smith as having had sleep paralysis in April 1820 based on a 170+ year old description of an experience), but reject visions as sources of doctrine.

While it is true that any account might be subject to error or creative license (witnesses in court frequently make mistakes), it is not automatically true that all accounts are by nature inaccurate.

The diagnosis of "sleep paralysis" in the April or June 1820 context (since there was in fact a revival nearby in June) must be vetted by sleep experts, and seems very unlikely to me based on the normal cycles of REM sleep. And you seem to agree with me in some sense below.

Even if Joseph Smith's memory of whatever happened in the grove was to a limited degree and in some sense false, I raised the possibility of God determining or predetermining whatever about the memory that was false. Maybe God meant for us to have the words in Joseph Smith--History even if they do not describe what happened in April 1820. Maybe he meant for any changes that happened to Joseph Smith's memory to happen. I then asked, even if everything claimed about the First Vision and sleep paralysis, memory etc. was true, why couldn't the First Vision (or the memory or the record of it) be a source of doctrine, contrary to what the OP concluded?

I'm not sure that it makes any sense to make God a liar. How about Occam's Razor and simple parsimony?

But I don't believe Joseph Smith--History shows that Joseph Smith had a memory issue particularly related to sleep paralysis or a sleep attack, for the reasons I gave. I believe that everything does have a naturalistic basis, but it would be misleading, to my understanding, to use D&C 88 to support the idea that visions must be explainable in terms of our current understanding of neurology and neuroscience, and that if they cannot be then there has been intentional deception. There is an incomprehensibly big difference between the totality of natural laws and our current scientific theories.

I don't understand you here, either that neuroscience might have a problem with the First Vision, or that there is some sort of important difference between "the totality of natural laws" and "current scientific theories." What differences are you suggesting?

Focusing on sleep paralysis again, to say that the "thick darkness" etc. that Joseph Smith experienced is typical during sleep paralysis does take something away from the uniqueness of Joseph Smith's experience. It is not simply to say that the experience had a neurological basis. It denies that Joseph Smith struggled to pray vocally as he experienced actual evil. It is implied that Joseph Smith experienced essentially the same thing thousands of people experience every day, the legendary dark figure/entity of sleep paralysis. Nonetheless, even if Satan, anticipating the vision, caused what would otherwise be mundane sleep paralysis in Joseph Smith's case, wouldn't that, and the rest of Joseph Smith's experience, be remarkable? I think it would.

I would like to see a detailed and scientifically justified analysis of that part of the First Vision affirming those diagnostic points. What are your sources?

Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too?

[supersnail]

Since the OP no longer seems interested in pursuing, in this thread, his original argument, I am a little reluctant to continue this. I don't want anyone to feel like they have to double down on an argument they may not have had their heart in in the first place. I understand people might post unfinished ideas on this board and unintentionally present them as being more conclusive than they are meant to be. I do it, too.

My last post in this thread, #99, would be hard to understand in isolation from #71, #74, #78, and #82. I did not introduce this sleep paralysis/lucid dream interpretation of the First Vision. Indeed, I gave several reasons casting doubt on that pseudo-diagnosis (the sleep paralysis part or the implied sleep attack) as well as the dream part of the argument. I just meant that *even if* the analysis is correct (a big what-if that is generous to most of the OP's original argument), the conclusion -- that the First Vision should not be a used as a source of doctrine -- did not have to be true. Why? Because any memory changes or unintentionally creative processing that did happen may be viewed as being determined or predetermined by God, and if sleep paralysis did happen it could have been induced by someone other than Joseph Smith (Satan being the obvious candidate). In saying that, I did not mean to support the sleep paralysis, lucid dream hypothesis. I was interrogating the notion expressed that a scientifically explained First Vision could be "divine" yet not a good source of doctrine. It truly perplexed me. This may all sound convoluted or unwieldy, but I assure you it fits together.

1) I object to the idea that even a plausible scientific explanation of the First Vision description in Joseph Smith--History would invalidate traditional Mormon understandings of the text. 2) I object to the particular scientific explanation offered; it is unlikely to be true, and I have explained why in this thread. 3) The tertiary point is that even if the scientific explanation offered is true, the First Vision could still be a valid source of doctrine, contrary to the conclusion drawn in the blog post linked at the top of this thread.

An issue related to #1 and #2 is the insinuation that if Joseph Smith--History doesn't describe a "physical," "in-person" visitation, then somehow because of D&C 88 the alternative must be an explanation centering on our current neuroscientific theories.

I admit I didn't understand what you were getting at in your post mentioning fMRI. Since Joseph Smith is of course not available for a scan, I assumed you were making a comment about how false memory could still be scientifically explained, or just providing some information for everyone to consider. Since the transmission of revelations after they are received is arguably necessarily mediated by the brain, I raised the idea that the OP's intial argument, taken to its ultimate conclusion beyond what the OP intended, implies that *no* revelation should be a basis of doctrine -- including the Book of Mormon, by the way. What the OP was saying has an import that extends well beyond the First Vision, because conceivably *any* revelation can be "scientifically" explained in a similar way. Appending some disclaimer-like statement about nature, or visions explained using contemporary science, still being "divine" wouldn't substantively clarify the matter in the least bit or bring us back to revelation as the basis of doctrine.

This is now maybe neither here nor there, but the disclosure of a vision "some few days after" it is had actually involves information moved into, and retrieved from, long-term memory. Right now, I don't remember the details of a dream I had some nights ago, though it was kind of remarkable at the time. I didn't write it down. And it wasn't a lucid dream. It was an ordinary dream and not particularly indescribable.

More to the point, even if I had written it down right away and confined the record to only what I thought were major details, my interpretation could have been totally wrong. True, many people claim to remember dreams and past non-dream events vividly. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity at all (though, without imaging equipment, it may be difficult to determine whether a particular individual's memory, sincere though he or she may be, actually corresponds to reality or the real content of a dream, whatever that means, especially if they are not around to answer questions). But since Joseph Smith is not here for us to be able to interactively evaluate his reported experience (dream or not), this leaves us in a position of contemplating neurological mechanisms that are prone to error even at the scale of minutes, to say nothing of years or decades. That is the case whether the prophet experienced a sleep attack with sleep paralysis in 1820 or not.

Which is why I reject that whole line of thought. And the obsession with trying to justify faith using science, which actually leads to abandoning or revising beliefs. I would say "ironically," but that would not do justice to the fact that the approach has serious and sweeping implications. The reader can apply similar reasoning to other revelations and see where that takes them.

Apart from secondary questions, I feel we are agreeing with each other at this point. I can see how a thread can get so complicated that one post read in isolation can give a less than fully accurate impression of another's views, so I encourage readers to look over the whole thread if they are interested.

[Robert F. Smith]

Since the OP no longer seems interested in pursuing, in this thread, his original argument, I am a little reluctant to continue this. I don't want anyone to feel like they have to double down on an argument they may not have had their heart in in the first place. I understand people might post unfinished ideas on this board and unintentionally present them as being more conclusive than they are meant to be. I do it, too.

***********

Apart from secondary questions, I feel we are agreeing with each other at this point. I can see how a thread can get so complicated that one post read in isolation can give a less than fully accurate impression of another's views, so I encourage readers to look over the whole thread if they are interested.

In other words, you are not going to answer my questions.

[supersnail]

If you are referring to whether #3 ("The tertiary point is that even if the scientific explanation offered is true, the First Vision could still be a valid source of doctrine, contrary to the conclusion drawn in the blog post linked at the top of this thread.") makes God a liar, I am prepared to abandon that argument. It was secondary or tertiary anyway. I don't think it would make God a liar, though, because God might have shown Joseph Smith one thing and foreseen that Joseph Smith would perceive or interpret it a certain way, making the interpretation the intended one all along. (Yes, I realize this may sound like some fashionable ex-Mormon notion, but I thought it important to note nonetheless. If someone really wants to argue that the conclusion in the blog post is justified based on the rest of the argument, by all means.)

To the extent that traditional Mormon understandings of the First Vision are on trial here, it is reasonable to discuss weaknesses in opposing views *at multiple levels*. That's what I did. If someone focuses on #3 in isolation, of course that could give a wrong impression.

Regarding your last two questions, since I was not the one putting forward the diagnosis, I don't believe I need to give sources used in an analysis I didn't make in the first place, but merely assumed for the sake of discussing #3. I don't know what the sources were.

Am I trying to have my cake and eat it too? It was not my cake to begin with.

I don't understand you here, either that neuroscience might have a problem with the First Vision, or that there is some sort of important difference between "the totality of natural laws" and "current scientific theories." What differences are you suggesting?

I would agree there is no conflict between the First Vision and science unless someone wants there to be one, and it still wouldn't be an actual conflict between them themselves. Regarding differences, I believe it's possible there was a naturalistic process that gave the world the First Vision that did not involve sleep paralysis, hallucination, dreaming, or sleep. Just because one accepts D&C 88 (and D&C 131, D&C 93 etc.), does not mean "law" (in any verse) refers only to what is posited by our current scientific theories. I was suggesting no more or less than that.

[wayfarer]

Robert Smth: thanks for your comments in this -- very insightful.

supersnail, when you posted a response to me, you immediately equated my suggestion that the first vision might be explainable through natural phenomena as a tactic by anti-mormons. That, and other comments you have made were insulting to me, and I saw no reason in countenancing your responses.

I was mistaken in letting that get to me -- your comments have been very insightful as well.

My point is that many members of the church impute a doctrinal truth about the first vision, that god has a physical body, and while that may be the case, it is not something that is 'proven' by a 'Vision'. I suggested, perhaps too declaratively, that the "First Vision" was exactly that -- some sort of non-conscious event -- not physical. You have expanded and corrected my initial statement to explore that it need not involve sleep paralysis, hallucination, dreaming, or sleep, and I agree that other possibilities exist: a waking trance, 'transiguration' (whatever that means), or other things as well. I would not rule out, as you have done, the idea of a lucid dream, but I think we can both accept a number of possibilities.

Yes, I take as my base that God works through natural processes in this world. Thus, the First Vision should fit into a natural process, without denying in the least the importance and singularity of the event, or that it is in any way less than "what it says it is": a divine manifestation with a Message.

My personal view is that the First Vision is of immense import, and have just finished a blog on what I see as the Message of the First Vision.

peace, and cheers!

[supersnail]

wayfarer:

I see how my first sentence in #71 could have been casually read as implying anti-Mormonism and colored some later statements. I apologize for my unnecessary and careless remark. I thought about it later, but didn't want to edit after you had already responded. This has been a little learning experience for me, but it has been thought-provoking for sure.

[Nathair/|\]

this is one final insult to my testimony on this board. i have been patient and respectful when most hurl insults and malintent at my simple attempts at participating. Because i am known to come from a considered, middle way position, you and others seem to apply your prodigious confirmation bias to interpret that i believe or have said that the first vision is false in any way. i merely proposed one approach, consistent with my faith in Joseph's revelation in section 88, that god works through and is bound by natural law. I meant no criticism, but I do not see the need to make supernatural and magical the workings of God in this world.

the prejudice you "apologists" reflect toward those not cowtowing to your cabal is pathetic and wrong. absolutely wrong. insultingly wrong. i now know from personal experience why those facing faith crisis find this specific group of apologists to be a hostile voice and a dominant nail in the coffin of their remaining faith.

my testimony is secure, for i have my sure witness of the truth, and do not need literal belief to know god. for others who mistakenly wander here thinking they can get answers to their questions: your example, lack of charity, and choice of divisive polemics to ridicule those who question in good faith is an embarrassment to the church and puts a lie to the name "Latter-Day Saint".

"I say unto you be one, and if you are not one you are not mine".

Just for the record, Supernatural ≠ Magical. Magic can only do what nature can do, though sometimes faster or more efficiently. Magic can make an apple tree produce more apples or higher quality apples, but it can't make it produce oranges.

As for the OP. I do believe there was a physical manifestation, though as Prof. Dumbledore said, "Of course it's all in your mind, but why on earth should that mean it's not real?" I believe all three members of the Godhead were present, as well as angels (=earthly gods).

Yours under the sacred oaks,

Nathair /|\

[mfbukowski]

Has anyone noticed how this thread keeps recycling itself on the board without anybody adding anything?

The date of the last post has not changed, yet it keeps popping to the top of the list. Very mysterious! I am just posting this to see if this makes it recycle and go away or not.

The actual date of this post is Nov 16th, 2012, around 10: 35 Utah time. The times and dates are all messed up on the board. Let's see what happens...

[Tacenda]

Has anyone noticed how this thread keeps recycling itself on the board without anybody adding anything?

The date of the last post has not changed, yet it keeps popping to the top of the list. Very mysterious! I am just posting this to see if this makes it recycle and go away or not.

The actual date of this post is Nov 16th, 2012, around 10: 35 Utah time. The times and dates are all messed up on the board. Let's see what happens...

I thought it was people voting but not leaving a comment.

[mfbukowski]

I thought it was people voting but not leaving a comment.

When I clicked this comment it said you made it August 18th.

I bet you didn't know you were in a time warp did you?

But if we don't stop posting it will never get to the bottom and see if it recycles itself again!

Edited November 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

Maybe this discussion board is haunted.

[Calm]

With the number of old threads that have been resurrected or raised from the dead file lately, it just may be....

[ERayR]

Having been the recipient of some powerful spiritual experiences myself I can only say that I am utterly and completely convince JS experience was literal.

[why me]

I would have to agree. What we do have is the official version of the first vision which is quite literal. I don't see a reason to believe otherwise. However, if I were an early convert at the time of Joseph Smith I would have certainly asked him for more details about their faces, clothing, bodies, etc. I am sure that Emma asked him such questions but I don't think that we have anything from Joseph Smith about the facial and bodily characteristics of the Father and Christ.

Edited February 8, 2013 by why me

[Garden Girl]

Just my opinion, no concise evidence of it, I had read an article about it once and it stayed with me.

An article by whom Tacenda... Joseph was 14 at the time... so you're saying he used this drug as he commenced to pray about which Church to join... really?

GG

[Tacenda]

An article by whom Tacenda... Joseph was 14 at the time... so you're saying he used this drug as he commenced to pray about which Church to join... really?

GG

I read the link below, on "staylds.com" early in my faith crisis, but it has since been taken down. Apparently Joseph had a friend named "Black Pete", an indian who would use the hallucinagens for religious purposes. So at 14, is he too young to try this to help facilitate a vision? I don't know, but I've known some 14 yr.olds that were naive enough to try drugs.

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/holy-ghost.htm

[Calm]

First Vision occurred in 1820, Moroni started appearing in 1823, the website states: "in 1825 [black Pete] may have met the young Joseph Smith digging for buried treasure."

Edited February 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

First Vision occurred in 1820, Moroni started appearing in 1823, the website states: "in 1825 [black Pete] may have met the young Joseph Smith digging for buried treasure."

It's been so long since I read this and this didn't catch my eye. Maybe that's why anti's really don't use this much.

[Calm]

It's been so long since I read this and this didn't catch my eye. Maybe that's why anti's really don't use this much.

From where I read of the idea elsewhere, it is used more often for JS creating visions for others.

[Questing Beast]

I voted "the Lord" appeared to Joseph Smith. That is the only answer in the poll consistent with all the versions of the first vision.

It was clearly a metaphysical and not a literal, "awake in the daytime" experience, by his own description. Compare to the Kirtland temple appearance, where the curtains are dropped and the Lord appears standing above the pulpit, and a dramatic description of the audio-visual experience follows. Yet c. a thousand congregants are sitting just the other side of the curtains, and nothing is seen or heard by them, i.e. metaphysical....