Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Problem With The First Vision Accounts


Recommended Posts

Everyone by now is familiar with the fact that over the course of his life, Joseph Smith shared the story of the "First Vision" several times.  The different versions are summarized in the LDS essay here.

 

Much has been made about the differences between these accounts.  LDS have canonized a later version, and it is this version that is taught in the Church, so some members become disturbed when they read the other versions.  In order to explain these differences, different (supportive) theories have been put forth.  The most popular one seems to be this one (as described in the essay):

 

Joseph’s increasingly specific descriptions can thus be compellingly read as evidence of increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience. In part, the differences between the 1832 account and the later accounts may have something to do with the differences between the written and the spoken word. The 1832 account represents the first time Joseph Smith attempted to write down his history. That same year, he wrote a friend that he felt imprisoned by “paper pen and Ink and a crooked broken scattered and imperfect Language.” He called the written word a “little narrow prison.”12 The expansiveness of the later accounts is more easily understood and even expected when we recognize that they were likely dictated accounts—an, easy, comfortable medium for Joseph Smith and one that allowed the words to flow more easily.

 

The problem with this explanation is that it relies on a totally discredited (but almost universal) assumption about how memory works.  It assumes that Joseph Smith had a memory of the First Vision stored away in his brain, as if on videotape, and that each time he told the story, he was recalling this original, same memory and describing it using different words.  We just assume this is how memory works. 

 

But it seems that any time memory is actually studied, this theory fails.

 

I recently read about one of the original researchers into "memory", Frederic Bartlett.  In the early 1930's, Bartlett performed studies with people to try and see just what was going on in their minds when they recalled memories.  Other researchers have continued his work, and what they've learned totally contradicts the "videotape" theory of memory.  There are many places that summarize what they've found, but this essay provides a good summary:

 

Reconstructive Memory

 

n. Reconstructive memory refers to the idea that remembering the past reflects our attempts to reconstruct the events experienced previously. These efforts are based partly on traces of past events, but also on our general knowledge, our expectations, and our assumptions about what must have happened. As such, recollections may be filled with errors when our assumptions and inferences, rather than traces of the original events, determine our recollections. Errors—false memories—constitute the prime evidence for reconstructive processes in remembering. Several different sources of error (inferences during encoding, information we receive about an event after its occurrence, our perspective during retrieval) exist. Contrary to popular belief, memory does not work like a video-recorder, faithfully capturing the past to be played back unerringly at a later time. Rather, even when our memories are accurate, we have reconstructed events from the past.

 

This is why "Joseph's increasingly specific descriptions" of the First Vision are hugely problematic.  It's possible that his recollections were getting increasingly detailed while at the same time getting increasingly more accurate, but if so, that would totally fly in the face of how everyone else's memory seems to work.  It's also possible that Joseph's memory didn't operate using the usual functions when he was recalling the First Vision, and that supernatural intervention was involved, but that assumption should at least be stated to explain this unusual ability.

Link to comment

Everyone by now is familiar with the fact that over the course of his life, Joseph Smith shared the story of the "First Vision" several times.  The different versions are summarized in the LDS essay here.

 

Much has been made about the differences between these accounts.  LDS have canonized a later version, and it is this version that is taught in the Church, so some members become disturbed when they read the other versions.  In order to explain these differences, different (supportive) theories have been put forth.  The most popular one seems to be this one (as described in the essay):

 

 

 

 

The problem with this explanation is that it relies on a totally discredited (but almost universal) assumption about how memory works.  It assumes that Joseph Smith had a memory of the First Vision stored away in his brain, as if on videotape, and that each time he told the story, he was recalling this original, same memory and describing it using different words.  We just assume this is how memory works. 

 

But it seems that any time memory is actually studied, this theory fails.

 

I recently read about one of the original researchers into "memory", Frederic Bartlett.  In the early 1930's, Bartlett performed studies with people to try and see just what was going on in their minds when they recalled memories.  Other researchers have continued his work, and what they've learned totally contradicts the "videotape" theory of memory.  There are many places that summarize what they've found, but this essay provides a good summary:

 

Reconstructive Memory

 

 

 

 

This is why "Joseph's increasingly specific descriptions" of the First Vision are hugely problematic.  It's possible that his recollections were getting increasingly detailed while at the same time getting increasingly more accurate, but if so, that would totally fly in the face of how everyone else's memory seems to work.  It's also possible that Joseph's memory didn't operate using the usual functions when he was recalling the First Vision, and that supernatural intervention was involved, but that assumption should at least be stated to explain this unusual ability.

 

Wasn't there a time, and if this is false someone feel free to correct me, where Joseph Smith recited an entire section of the D&C from memory as he received it. I am not sure if this speaks to your point or not, but maybe there are supernatural forces in play.

Link to comment

For decades the Lectures on Faith were printed in the

sacred Mormon scriptures -- then one day (nobody seems

to recall precisely when) back in the 1920s they were

de-canonized. A "monogamy" section suffered the same

fate. Why not the "History of Joseph Smith" in the PGP?

 

The RLDS/CoC scholars have long been puzzled as to why

the Mormons made one of the many (many, counting some

others set down second-hand and seldom referred to)

Joseph Smith vision accounts Holy Writ.

 

The Josephites (having not gone that far) were free to compare

one account against another, and not have to always go back

to the PGP for the "one true tale" of angels, gods, plates, etc.

And that fact has made "first vision" studies a much less daunting

proposition amongst those "other" Latter Day Saints.

 

Why not remove the Joseph Smith History from Sacred Scripture,

and let it stand "upon its own two feet"?

 

When I ask Mormons why their removal of the "monogamy" section

from the D&C presented no problems for them -- the answer I

receive is that there "was no revelation" authorizing or requiring

the inclusion of that particular text in God's Standard Works.

 

Is there any revelation, commanding that the Smith History must

forever remain included in the PGP (or, for that matter the BoA

facsimiles as well)?

 

UD

Edited by Uncle Dale
Link to comment

A good argument for continued church and personal revelation.

I've seen a harmony of the first vision accounts and there are not substantive contridictions, as much as details missing from some that are in others.

Edited by KevinG
Link to comment

Everyone by now is familiar with the fact that over the course of his life, Joseph Smith shared the story of the "First Vision" several times.  The different versions are summarized in the LDS essay here.

The explanation you posted is not about memory at all, but about the infusion of insight based on experience, and about his preference and ability to use the two modes of communicating his thoughts.

Insight based on experience helps someone realize the total experience they may have been too overwhelmed or underdeveloped at a less experienced stage to properly register, process and retain into memory. Insight still works with the same data, but allows for improved and more effective mnemonics to be introduced over time, permitting a form of enhanced recall that is every bit as legitimate as eidetic memory alone (which can be a challenge to get “out” under any circumstance).

It's like restoring film not only to the original, but into a hologram that offers a more accurate or meaningful rendering of the subject.

Link to comment

The explanation you posted is not about memory at all, but about the infusion of insight based on experience, and about his preference and ability to use the two modes of communicating his thoughts.

Insight based on experience helps someone realize the total experience they may have been too overwhelmed or underdeveloped at a less experienced stage to properly register, process and retain into memory. Insight still works with the same data, but allows for improved and more effective mnemonics to be introduced over time, permitting a form of enhanced recall that is every bit as legitimate as eidetic memory alone (which can be a challenge to get “out” under any circumstance).

It's like restoring film not only to the original, but into a hologram that offers a more accurate or meaningful rendering of the subject.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are actually saying here, CV75 (are you related to an aircraft carrier?), but it does sound like part of the larger phenomenon of the social construction of reality -- which Mark Bukowski repeatedly argues is the true basis for our understanding and insight on any given question.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment

For decades the Lectures on Faith were printed in the

sacred Mormon scriptures -- then one day (nobody seems

to recall precisely when) back in the 1920s they were

de-canonized. A "monogamy" section suffered the same

fate. Why not the "History of Joseph Smith" in the PGP?

 

The RLDS/CoC scholars have long been puzzled as to why

the Mormons made one of the many (many, counting some

others set down second-hand and seldom referred to)

Joseph Smith vision accounts Holy Writ.

 

The Josephites (having not gone that far) were free to compare

one account against another, and not have to always go back

to the PGP for the "one true tale" of angels, gods, plates, etc.

And that fact has made "first vision" studies a much less daunting

proposition amongst those "other" Latter Day Saints.

 

Why not remove the Joseph Smith History from Sacred Scripture,

and let it stand "upon its own two feet"?

 

When I ask Mormons why their removal of the "monogamy" section

from the D&C presented no problems for them -- the answer I

receive is that there "was no revelation" authorizing or requiring

the inclusion of that particular text in God's Standard Works.

 

Is there any revelation, commanding that the Smith History must

forever remain included in the PGP (or, for that matter the BoA

facsimiles as well)?

 

UD

I would go in the opposite direction and say let's canonize them all! :)

Link to comment

................................................................  

This is why "Joseph's increasingly specific descriptions" of the First Vision are hugely problematic.  It's possible that his recollections were getting increasingly detailed while at the same time getting increasingly more accurate, but if so, that would totally fly in the face of how everyone else's memory seems to work.  It's also possible that Joseph's memory didn't operate using the usual functions when he was recalling the First Vision, and that supernatural intervention was involved, but that assumption should at least be stated to explain this unusual ability.

Of course memory is reconstructive in the same way that our perceptions of reality are social constructions.  In modern times we may supplement our fallible perceptions with videocam evidence (more police are wearing them now), but even then our interpretive abilities and predilections come into play.  For we are very much prisoners of our senses, recalling better and far longer whatever was accompanied by multiple stimuli (auditory, visual, smell, taste, tactile, etc.), especially if accompanied by fear, ecstasy, or other strong emotions which may release endorphins, oxytocin, and adrenaline.

 

In one of Joseph's First Vision accounts, for example, he expresses great fear in his encounter with what we perceive to be Satan just as the Vision is about to begin (JSH 1:15-16).  Unlike the cold, clinical lab experiments with memory, this sort of event may be far more recollectable (is that even a word).  The same applies to the power of repetition:  Why else would Moroni come to Joseph four times during one night and morning, to repeat what he had already been told about the reliquary in that hill convenient to Manchester? (JSH 1:33-49).

 

In more ancient times, memory was aided by mnemonic devices widely used within oral cultures (especially in poetic epic tales), as well as by formulae for every occasion in life, from oath & covenant formulae, to the liturgy of sacrifice and worship.

 

Of course all accounts are reconstructive, as with the four Gospels, and the three accounts of Paul's Vision on the road to Damascus, and the Deuteronomic reconstruction of the acts of Moses and the Children of Israel.  We all know that something happened, the only question being what.  Accounts differe so markedly that it is sometimes difficult to be sure.  And even if we received an accurate answer, we would immediately begin to misremember the event.  Our lives are filled with fallibility and doubt, with only the assurance of the Spirit to keep us focused on "reality."

 

The LDS Essay does a good job and reflects calm, scholarly thinking put into terms which we can all understand.  We do not need to worry about the deeper historiographical or historiosophical questions, because we are powerless to resolve them anyhow.

Link to comment

I would go in the opposite direction and say let's canonize them all! :)

 

Of course, if there were a "revelation" commanding this change,

then that course of action would be entirely understandable.

 

Minus such a determination, however, I vote for the inclusion

of Smith's June 1, 1844 laundry list and the June 3rd sales

receipt for three bushels of oats, delivered to Joe Duncan's

livery stable.

 

UD

Link to comment

Wasn't there a time, and if this is false someone feel free to correct me, where Joseph Smith recited an entire section of the D&C from memory as he received it. I am not sure if this speaks to your point or not, but maybe there are supernatural forces in play.

I agree, but most critics will see this as a cop-out.

Link to comment

I guess I am one of those who resembles more the willow that freely is blown by the wind, but remains firmly planted in the soil rather than the grand oak that stands straight and true....except when the wind blows and knocks off its limbs or blows down the tree.  

 

Some people are rather bothered by what I see as inconsequential "facts".  I don't see these perceived conflicts as being problematic.  More importantly, I don't find the work of Bartlett as being foundational i.e. the absolute standard to review all forms of memory.  This effort to bow completely at the singular alter of science to evaluate the spiritual is self-defeating.  Faith and Reason are companions; if there is a conflict between the two I generally allow faith to rule on topics of faith.  Not because I must accept blind faith, but because I recognize my own lack of information regarding history, topics of faith, and science. 

Link to comment

I just go by the notion that Joseph Smith remembered the experience his whole life but simply did not feel the need to retell it exactly the same every time.  He retold events to the level he felt was required to satisfy the point he was making at the time he made it.  Personally I could see myself doing the same thing as Joseph if it happened to me.   I never feel the need to retell something that happened to me the same way over and over again.

Link to comment

I'm not sure that I understand what you are actually saying here, CV75 (are you related to an aircraft carrier?), but it does sound like part of the larger phenomenon of the social construction of reality -- which Mark Bukowski repeatedly argues is the true basis for our understanding and insight on any given question.

(I’m a cross between that and a guitar speaker… LOL.)

 

I don’t think the quote in the OP has anything to do with explaining Joseph Smith’s memory; it only addresses the impact of two things on the increasing specificity of his accounts: 1) his “increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience;” and 2) assistance from others and his own developing skill with writing.

 

A teenager may write that 12 years ago his mother taught him to tie his shoes and patted him on the head. Later, the insight and experience gained by teaching his own children and grandchildren triggers in his account the inclusion of her facial expressions, tone of voice, touch and the associated feelings of love, tenderness, patience, pride, etc. she demonstrated—not that he didn’t correctly remember these all along, only that he is now willing and able and has the leisure, frame of mind and wherewithal (a captive audience, LOL) to talk about it more fully. Then a biographer helps him write his memoirs and offers him what he concludes are better ways to capture what he was actually trying to relate.

 

I take insight and experience as authentic and not the same as imagination, coping, and reconstruction, the stuff of which false memories and unreliable and false accounts are made. Taking it further than that gets into the realm of “how do you know you know…” and "if you were wrong then, you are wrong now..."

 

I think that often the fuller experience and meaning of an event, or our capacity to tell it accurately, can be unveiled over decades through insight and experience. We see through a glass darkly: which is the real deal, what we saw then, or what we see now?

Link to comment

Wasn't there a time, and if this is false someone feel free to correct me, where Joseph Smith recited an entire section of the D&C from memory as he received it. I am not sure if this speaks to your point or not, but maybe there are supernatural forces in play.

 

 

I agree, but most critics will see this as a cop-out.

 

No, that's completely missing the point. The brain works in lots of different ways. You can memorise something that is captured in words. Or memorise an image that you describe and recreate. I memorised Jabberwocky 20+ years ago. A mid-length poem made up of a mix of English and nonsense words. If needed I could recite it, with no need to check the original, right now.

 

That doesn't, however, mean that I could describe, with perfect accuracy, an event that also happened 20 years ago. Memory of events (which are made up of multiple sensorial experiences) are much more fluid and changeable.

 

As a quick illustration do two things for me (timed if possible):

 

1) Recite your current address. 

2) How many windows are there in your house?

 

Comments:

1) You've learned that and, like most people, will be able to repeat back the entire thing (perfectly) with complete accuracy. In fact, if I asked you to tell me the address of your house at the age of 10, you'd probably be able to recite that one too (I know I can... all 5 lines of it... it was a country house).

 

2) How long did it take to answer the second one? A very small proportion of people will have been able to answer just as quickly as the first question. But they're almost certainly people who have recently got a building or window cleaning quote!

The majority of you will have done what I did... taken a visual tour around your house (inside or outside) and counted the windows. If I asked you to do the same to your house when you were 10 years old, you'd have had to do something similar and would have had an increased likelihood of inaccuracy... especially if it was a big house. There's probably a small side window in a porch that you've forgotten even exists. There might be a window you've invented that wasn't even there at all.

 

Recalling memorised "lines" is possible and reasonable (and Joseph certainly seemed very adapt at quoting verbatim from the Bible in some sermons). But that's very different to being able to accurately recall an event from 20+ years ago.

Edited by canard78
Link to comment

I just go by the notion that Joseph Smith remembered the experience his whole life but simply did not feel the need to retell it exactly the same every time.  He retold events to the level he felt was required to satisfy the point he was making at the time he made it.  Personally I could see myself doing the same thing as Joseph if it happened to me.   I never feel the need to retell something that happened to me the same way over and over again.

 

FWIW... Richard Bushman's preference seems to be for the 1832 version:

 

I am very much impressed by Joseph Smith’s 1832 History account of his early visions. This is the one partially written in his own hand and the rest dictated to Frederick G. Williams. I think it is more revealing than the official account presumably written in 1838 and contained in the Pearl of Great Price. We don’t know who wrote the 1838 account. Joseph’s journal indicates that he, Sidney Rigdon, and George Robinson collaborated on beginning the history in late April, but we don’t know who actually drafted the history. It is a polished narrative but unlike anything Joseph ever wrote himself. The 1832 history we know is his because of the handwriting. It comes rushing forth from Joseph’s mind in a gush of words that seem artless and uncalculated, a flood of raw experience. I think this account has the marks of an authentic visionary experience. There is the distance from God, the perplexity and yearning for answers, the perplexity, and then the experience itself which brings intense joy, followed by fear and anxiety. Can he deal with the powerful force he has encountered? Is he worthy and able? It is a classic announcement of a prophet’s call, and I find it entirely believable.

 

 

(Emphasis added)

Reddit "Ask Me Anything," December 16, 2013.

(I won't direct link as it was an AMA he did on an exmormon sub-reddit... Google it if you want to see it in context).

Link to comment

I'm not sure that I understand what you are actually saying here, CV75 (are you related to an aircraft carrier?), but it does sound like part of the larger phenomenon of the social construction of reality -- which Mark Bukowski repeatedly argues is the true basis for our understanding and insight on any given question.

PART 2:

Sorry, I neglected to comment on the social construction of reality, but I see Joseph Smith’s versions of the First Vision as independently driven. I don’t believe that as he developed Mormonism the resulting society in turn informed his reality to the point that he gave his followers an account befitting eh give-and-take expected between a prophet of the restoration and the elect of God. It would be like, in the example I gave, that toddlers, mothers, teenagers, grandfathers and biographers in the shoe-tying society are prescribed to see things a certain way. But we see a great deal of variety in people's experience of learning to tie their shoes.

 

Speaking of toddlers learning to tie their shoes, I think it is interesting that as we become as little children our experience with the Lord becomes more mature. This is where I believe Joseph Smith was, and it often contradicts the cooperative reality “natural” society relies upon. At least that has been my experience to the degree I’ve been able to practice that attribute. I believe this maturity offers an authentic reality.

Link to comment

A quote from the article (which in my opinion should have been supported by examples other than scriptural ones to be more convincing):

 

Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details.

 

Is that so? Then it's a good thing Joseph eventually remembered that he saw more than just one person in his vision. Sorry for the snark, but it is quite an impression the "other guy on the right" must have made...

Link to comment

I just go by the notion that Joseph Smith remembered the experience his whole life but simply did not feel the need to retell it exactly the same every time.  He retold events to the level he felt was required to satisfy the point he was making at the time he made it.  Personally I could see myself doing the same thing as Joseph if it happened to me.   I never feel the need to retell something that happened to me the same way over and over again.

I do not retell my own “conversion experience” the same way every time.  Not only do I retell it only to the level I feel appropriate to the point I am making (and the degree of receptivity I sense in my listeners),  there are some parts I have never told anyone.  And my experience was not even close to that of Joseph Smith.  Had I seen God the Father in a vision (which I haven‘t), I cannot imagine ever mentioning it to anyone, short of a direct commandment to do so.  

Link to comment

I just go by the notion that Joseph Smith remembered the experience his whole life but simply did not feel the need to retell it exactly the same every time.  He retold events to the level he felt was required to satisfy the point he was making at the time he made it.  Personally I could see myself doing the same thing as Joseph if it happened to me.   I never feel the need to retell something that happened to me the same way over and over again.

 

That was kind of my point in starting this thread.  Obviously, we can look at it any way we want to.  But your post makes my point in that when we theorize that Joseph Smith "remembered the experience his whole life", we are drawing on a very inaccurate model of memory, but acting as if it is an accepted and rational model.

 

If that is your preferred theory, it would at least be helpful to acknowledge that what you're describing is something very unusual and counter to what would be expected.

 

But ironically, the changes to the story over time are exactly what would be expected according to the normal operation of memory without supernatural intervention.  So there is no need to theorize unusual or miraculous powers of memory in order to explain the different version that we have.  What is needed is a theory of unusual or miraculous powers of memory in order to believe that the later versions are more accurate (or even just as "accurate") as the earlier versions.

Edited by cinepro
Link to comment

I don't believe Joseph had a super memory. Obviously, he got a least one fact wrong in the different accounts - his age. In the first account he said he was 15; in all the others he said he was 14. So he was wrong at least once, though I can't see anyone caring much about this error.

 

I don't have a great theory to offer you. But have you considered that Joseph's later accounts may reflect multiple visions that had morphed together over the years. Karl Anderson has documented several appearances of both the Father and the Son in Ohio (see http://mormonhistoricsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MHS2.1McClellan.pdf). Maybe the first vision was just the son (or son + angels as attested to in the 2nd account), but that in Joseph's mind the Father also appeared because in recent manifestations he'd seen both the Father and the Son.

Link to comment

FWIW... Richard Bushman's preference seems to be for the 1832 version:

...

 

This makes sense -- the account comes from a period closer to

Smith's pre-Mormon days and it probably better matches what

he (and his close associates) had been telling people, verbally,

during those early days.

 

None of which means that the 1832 account is any more "true"

(or any less so) than other stories originating with Smith, or

authorized by him.

 

There was a time (not so long ago) when Mormon polemicists

would defend to the death the Zelph account and the "more good"

exposition as Divine revelation, passed through the unfailing oracle

of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s enlightened mind. But today I see equally

faithful LDS scholars passing off the Zelph story as the muddled,

second-hand scribblings of inattentive frontier secretaries -- and

the "Mormon = mor(e)+good" doctrine as the probable creation of

a G. J. Adams or a W. W. Phelps, creating Times & Seasons filler,

based upon hazy recollections of what the prophet once said, etc.

 

Stuff actually in Joseph's own handwriting merits our special

attention. The fact that it was preserved, and not thrown away,

also deserves consideration.

 

On the other hand, how did troubled Mormons themselves view

such "evolutions" in Smith's literary and religious compositions?

 

For the Whitmerites, Smith's fall to false prophet status began

at Far West -- For the Hedrickites, anything after 1833 was the

production of a fallen oracle. For the Rigdonites, part of the

Nauvoo period was "kosher," but Smith fell in 1842 or 1843. And

those few examples do not even begin to catalog the many

conclusions offered by Saints of the Latter Days, who retained

their testimony of Church and Scripture, while rejecting Smith's

later productions.

 

Among the RLDS I was taught not to trust any doctrine or

revelation advanced after the exodus from Far West -- so,

among those Saints, at least, the PGP account is suspect:

 

>"Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me,

>almost in my infancy?"

 

Come on, Brother Joseph, nobody persecuted you as a toddler, 

because you were pre-destined to hold the keys to the seventh

and final dispensation of the everlasting gospel. Even Satan

himself is not that mean-spirited.

 

No wonder Bushman feels more comfortable with earlier stuff.

 

UD

Link to comment

That was kind of my point in starting this thread.  Obviously, we can look at it any way we want to.  But your post makes my point in that when we theorize that Joseph Smith "remembered the experience his whole life", we are drawing on a very inaccurate model of memory, but acting as if it is an accepted and rational model.

 

If that is your preferred theory, it would at least be helpful to acknowledge that what you're describing is something very unusual and counter to what would be expected.

 

But ironically, the changes to the story over time are exactly what would be expected according to the normal operation of memory without supernatural intervention.  So there is no need to theorize unusual or miraculous powers of memory in order to explain the different version that we have.  What is needed is a theory of unusual or miraculous powers of memory in order to believe that the later versions are more accurate (or even just as "accurate") as the earlier versions.

We remember different events in different ways due to importance.  A regular, run of the mill event verses a profound life changing events.  If a kid sees their parents murdered, those images and what happened will stick with them to when they are old and gray.   If God and Jesus was to both appear to me and I had an experience like Joseph, that would be beyond a life changing event.  I would rehearse that event in my mind on an almost daily basis.  How could I ever think of forgetting any of it? Why should I think Joseph Smith would react any different than me. 

 

The fact that he retold it differently from time to time is no big deal to me.  Perhaps later in life he felt a little more compelled to give more than what he said earlier.  I can't get into his head but I have no doubt that this event transformed his life and it would be hard to forget even small details of it.  I don't believe Joseph ever said that any version was 100% accurate in every little detail or ever claimed that one version was completely comprehensive.  I believe those that nitpick his accounts would be the first to complain if their words were put under a microscope and picked apart for even the slightest difference in how they retell events that have happened them. 

Link to comment

We remember different events in different ways due to importance.  A regular, run of the mill event verses a profound life changing events.  If a kid sees their parents murdered, those images and what happened will stick with them to when they are old and gray.   If God and Jesus was to both appear to me and I had an experience like Joseph, that would be beyond a life changing event.  I would rehearse that event in my mind on an almost daily basis.  How could I ever think of forgetting any of it? Why should I think Joseph Smith would react any different than me. 

 

The fact that he retold it differently from time to time is no big deal to me.  Perhaps later in life he felt a little more compelled to give more than what he said earlier.  I can't get into his head but I have no doubt that this event transformed his life and it would be hard to forget even small details of it.  I don't believe Joseph ever said that any version was 100% accurate in every little detail or ever claimed that one version was completely comprehensive.  I believe those that nitpick his accounts would be the first to complain if their words were put under a microscope and picked apart for even the slightest difference in how they retell events that have happened them. 

 

My experience is a little different. To offer just one example, I used to have vivid memories or the birth of each of my children. But over the years, and through multiple tellings of stories, some of my memories have turned hazy and some of them merge together. In fact, some of my recollections differ from my wife's.

 

I've certainly never had a visit from deity, but if I did, I'm not sure that my memories of that event wouldn't also turn hazy over the years.

Link to comment

I have lost recall of a number of memories, but there are a few that were imprinted like a photo on my mind.  One is a very vivid dream from the age of 3 or so, possibly earlier as I was not able to tell my mom what it was about.

 

At the time I of course could not describe it or even understand why I had it, but now I can describe it in terms of having everyone turn into zombielike creatures around me and psychologically in terms of fear of abandonment or other issues kids of that age have (everyone is looking towards something I cannot see and moving towards it even though I am trying to get their attention).

 

This is a separate issue from whether or not I've added or lost detail from the dream memory over the years.

 

I am not sure how one can separate out the two in JS's recitations of his vision---surely his understanding of what it meant would mature overtime as well as his vocabulary so he would naturally describe it differently just for that reason.  There is also the issue of the purposes for the recitation being different each time or so it appears from the way it was written.  I think there is a good case made by Don Bradley iirc that Joseph was reluctant in many cases to share what he saw as personal sacred experiences and only need pushed him into doing so (from a FairMormon Conference talk a few years back in case someone is interested).  

 

I do not out rule some differences being related to the way memory plays out (I can certainly see future visions of Christ and the Father adding details to their appearances if the image was not that well remembered to begin with or possibly superimposing on even a wellremembered experience as I would think any appearance of God would be overwhelming and not something one gets blasé about no matter how often it occurs), but I think one needs to be cautious as to how much one applies that principle when there are others around that explain the differences as well and in some cases, imo, much better.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...