Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

1835 First Vision Account and Lehi's Vision in 1 Ne 1


Recommended Posts

 

Quote

 I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me head, and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and I saw many angels in this vision 

 

 

 

Quote

6 And it came to pass as he prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him; and he saw and heard much; and because of the things which he saw and heard he did quake and tremble exceedingly.

7 And it came to pass that he returned to his own house at Jerusalem; and he cast himself upon his bed, being overcome with the Spirit and the things which he had seen.

8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.

9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.

10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.

11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read.

12 And it came to pass that as he read, he was filled with the Spiritof the Lord.

13 And he read, saying: Wo, wo, unto Jerusalem, for I have seen thine abominations! Yea, and many things did my father read concerning Jerusalem—that it should be destroyed, and the inhabitants thereof; many should perish by the sword, and many should be carried away captive into Babylon.

14 And it came to pass that when my father had read and seen many great and marvelous things, he did exclaim many things unto the Lord; such as: Great and marvelous are thy works, O Lord God Almighty! Thy throne is high in the heavens, and thy power, and goodness, and mercy are over all the inhabitants of the earth; and, because thou art merciful, thou wilt not suffer those who come unto thee that they shall perish!

15 And after this manner was the language of my father in the praising of his God; for his soul did rejoice, and his whole heart was filled, because of the things which he had seen, yea, which the Lord had shown unto him. [/quote]

 

I was reviewing Lehi's preaching in Jerusalem for Gospel Doctrine prep on Jeremiah and it hit me that Lehi's vision in 1 Ne 1 has similarities with the 1835 First Vision Account.

--God appears first in a somewhat distant, unapproachable manner

--Christ appears and approaches and communicates (possible Modalism?)

--concourse of angels

 

I posted this on my FB wall but wanted to get some feedback here on whether a) this has been discussed previously b) is there enough similarity to warrant more discussion on this.

Benjamin Seeker added this comment on my FB wall, since he posts here I'm reposting:

I hadn’t noticed the similarity between the staggered appearance of the Father and Son in both of those. Very cool. Besides the pillars there is also the aspect of joy. I always thought it was interesting that this is the primary emotion reported in contrast to the message of doom and gloom Lehi receives. Also in the 1832 account, JS’s concern for confusion and strife among various religious adherents helps inspire JS’ vision similar to Lehi’s concern for his people. I agree that there are some significant links between the two experiences.

 

 

Edited by churchistrue
Link to comment

On Lehi, see

Brant Gardner here:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2003/monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book

Barker here [ a preview of the definitive treatment in The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God ]

https://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf

Even me here:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1081&index=15

Welch here:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1081&index=14

And on Modalism here:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Link to comment

I'm not seeing a strong correlation between the two.  The imagery of the Lord appearing flame is clearly similar to the Moses story, and since Joseph borrowed from the Moses story for so much of the Lehi exodus story, thats the first influencing factor I would consider.  

Also, if you look at the many different stories about visions that could have influenced his first vision narratives, there are two others of interest that use similar language.  The first is from Norris Stearns in 2015 published in Greenfield Massachusetts close to where the Smith family lived in Vermont at that time.  

Quote

“At length, as I lay apparently upon the brink of eternal woe, seeing nothing but death before me, suddenly there came a sweet flow of the love of God to my soul, which gradually increased. At the same time, there appeared a small gleam of light in the room,above the brightness of the sun, then at his meridian, which grew brighter and brighter: As this light and love increased, my sins began to separate, and the Mountain removed towards the east. At length, being in an ecstasy of joy, I turned to the other side of the bed, (whether in the body or out I cannot tell, God knoweth) there I saw two spirits, which I knew at the first sight. But if I had the tongue of an Angel I could not describe their glory, for they brought the joys of heaven with them. One was God, my Maker, almost in bodily shape like a man. His face was, as it were a flame of Fire, and his body, as it had been a Pillar and a Cloud. In looking steadfastly to discern features, I could see none, but a small glimpse would appear in some other place. Below him stood Jesus Christ my Redeemer, in perfect shape like a man—His face was not ablaze, but had the countenance of fire, being bright and shining. His Father’s will appeared to be his! All was condescension, peace, and love!!”

The second is from Lorenzo Dow in 1814, and according to Wikipedia his autobiography at one point was the second best selling book in the USA exceeded only by the bible.  

Quote

“When past the age of thirteen years… I went out of doors, and was taken up by a whirlwind and carried above the skies : at length I discovered, across a gulph as it were through a mist of darkness, a glorious place, in which was a throne of ivory overlaid with gold, and God sitting upon it, and Jesus Christ at his right hand, and angels, and glorified spirits, celebrating praise — Oh ! the joyful music !”

I personally think Joseph was experimenting during this time period (1832 - 1839), with creating a foundational narrative for the story of Mormonism.  I think the push back he got from early Mormon critics around his treasure seeking activities and scrying influenced his desire to elevate the early story of a vision of deity precisely because it preceded the angel and the plates story that was too entangled with treasure seeking.  

Link to comment
11 hours ago, churchistrue said:

I was reviewing Lehi's preaching in Jerusalem for Gospel Doctrine prep on Jeremiah and it hit me that Lehi's vision in 1 Ne 1 has similarities with the 1835 First Vision Account.

--God appears first in a somewhat distant, unapproachable manner

--Christ appears and approaches and communicates (possible Modalism?)

--concourse of angels

As others like Kevin noted those are common elements in many accounts throughout history. Reading from a heavenly book is pretty common particularly in the apocalyptic and heavenly ascent literature that's in place by the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Not sure how you get modalism out of Lehi's vision though. I'd say that Lehi's vision has a lot of elements of The Ascension of Isaiah, minus the seven heavens. These pop up in other apocalypses like 2 Enoch as well. The Ascension of Isaiah has some elements in common with Nephi's vision as well. It's interesting that the Ascension of Isaiah teaches subordinationism much like Mormons accept. (The vision starts in chapter 6) 

I'd add that if Joseph had an authentic visitation or vision of God and Jesus that might well have affected the shape of the Book of Mormon translation and/or expansions to the underlying text.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As others like Kevin noted those are common elements in many accounts throughout history. Reading from a heavenly book is pretty common particularly in the apocalyptic and heavenly ascent literature that's in place by the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Not sure how you get modalism out of Lehi's vision though. I'd say that Lehi's vision has a lot of elements of The Ascension of Isaiah, minus the seven heavens. These pop up in other apocalypses like 2 Enoch as well. The Ascension of Isaiah has some elements in common with Nephi's vision as well. It's interesting that the Ascension of Isaiah teaches subordinationism much like Mormons accept. (The vision starts in chapter 6) 

I'd add that if Joseph had an authentic visitation or vision of God and Jesus that might well have affected the shape of the Book of Mormon translation and/or expansions to the underlying text.

I agree with your last sentence. I am interested in intertextuality in Joseph's works, but I never view of it as evidence that it's not inspired.

When we see God and then we see Jesus, but they're not together, I think that might be evidence of an underlying modalistic understanding of God, but I agree this isn't strong evidence of it.

The idea of modalism has been a highly charged criticism, due to the heretical nature of it, and that it is deemed to come from an ignorant mind that doesn't fully understand Christian theology. Malarkey. I think God is still a mystery for humans, despite the revelations we have. We don't need to consult with centuries old Christian theologians to make sure our doctrine checks out. I kind of like the concept of modalism. I think a lot of Mormons/Christians view God this way, because it's the easiest way to connect emotionally with God. 

 

 

 

Edited by churchistrue
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are many such accounts assembled in the Michael Marquardt Manuscript collection in the Special Collections of the UofU Library.  Your fallacy here is to assume that these guys generated vision accounts on their own, while Joseph merely copied some of their ideas, as though he could only copy someone else's original account.  By the same fallacy, we would have to assume that St Paul merely copied someone else's account in his own multiple versions of his visions, influencing Stearns, who then was the influence on Joseph Smith -- as though Joseph could not use the Bible just as well as Stearns.  If skulduggery is afoot, we need to go whole hog, amigo.

One has to be very careful not to gullibly accept Dow's age of 13, and at the same time reject Joseph's early age (double standard), only because it does not fit the apriori theory that Joseph had to be experimenting later (1832-1839).  One can always formulate a theory.  The question, however should be far more basic:

What are the typical elements of the Call of a Prophet?  Even outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition, we know that they involve certain important elements -- which just happen to be present in Joseph's combined Visions, and there is no way he could have known of those basic elements (some of the sources were listed for you by Kevin Chistensen) :

See also Geo Widengren, The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book (King and Saviour III) (1950), for a look at the relevant motifs throughout the ancient Near East; similarly, non-Mormon scholar Willis Barnstone, ed., The Other Bible (1984), 537, was quite taken with the strong parallels he adduced in comparison of the Apocalypse of Paul and the story of Joseph’s obtaining the Book of Mormon (cited by Kevin Barney in FARMS Review of Books, 13/1 [2001]:16; cf. Blake Ostler, "The Throne-Theophany and Prophetic Commission in 1 Nephi," FARMS Preliminary Report OST-82 (published in BYU Studies, 26/4 [Winter 1986]:67-95). 

In ancient Babylonian rites (as demonstrated by Geo Widengren), the one receiving the formal call as king (or prophet) receives the numinous heavenly tablets (dupšīmatī), along with lot-casting equipment (nadū parṣē).[1]  In ancient Mesopotamian religion, these heavenly tablets were central to the annual royal enthronment ritual, the king receiving the book at his ascension into the “assembly of the gods” (puḫru ilani), and also receiving the cedar staff (symbol of the Tree of Life) and oracles.[2]  These tablets are the tablets of destiny, wisdom, of the mystery of heaven & earth, etc.[3]  In the Babylonian Enuma elish IV, 121-122, for example, the assembly of the gods under Marduk meets at the New Year Festival in the Chamber of Destiny and "decides the fate of the coming year," having conquered Kingu (the husband of Tiamat) and taking the tablets from him (cf. Laban) and affixing them to Marduk's breast.[4]  The numinous tablets are carried thus in a pouch or bag (takāltu), in which they are sealed (kunukku).[5]  All rulers receive the cosmic relics at enthronement,[6] as with Mosiah II (Mosiah 1:16).  The ruler is thereby commissioned to slay the enemy, even Labbu.[7]  Again the ritual association of the slaying of Laban by Nephi is inescapable, even including the similarity of name of the evil entity!  All of this likewise is part of the call of a prophet, as John W. Welch has shown in his study of the call of Lehi.[8]

 

Thanks for the info on the Marquardt collection, I imagine I've read quite a few of the accounts, but that might be interesting to check out sometime up at the U.  

I also recognize that people are always borrowing from those that preceded from them, I'm not sure why you say I'm ignoring this fact and assuming that Joseph was the only one borrowing and that the others somehow had a pure experience in isolation from the rest of their setz im leben.  

As for Joseph experimenting during the 1832 - 1839 period, I think there is evidence to support my theory.  It started with the 1832 account of the church and its beginnings using a first vision narrative, but then diverged when he partnered with Oliver Cowdery to write the 1834 story of the church which excluded any first vision experience and used the angel and the plates story as the founding narrative.  Remember that 1834 was also the time of Mormonism Unvailed and some challenges to authority, and the priesthood narrative was anachronistically written back into earlier revelations and the structure of the church started to evolve more leading into 1835.  Then later when the church experienced the huge shift at end of the Kirtland period and many left the church and after they were driven from Missouri then Joseph and committee crafted the 1838 & 1839 version that is canonized today, largely in response to all these issues.  

What little I've read about that call of a prophet idea didn't persuade me that this is anything significant.  If there are similarities between how the church narrates the history of Joseph's life and how biblical authors narrated their stories, then wouldn't that also be similar to your earlier point about borrowing from the stories that preceded and influenced them?  I imagine you could compare the FLDS narrative about Warren Jeffs or a multitude of other religious narratives for important figures in their faiths and it would line up fairly well with the call of the prophet template.  

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

I agree with your last sentence. I am interested in intertextuality in Joseph's works, but I never view of it as evidence that it's not inspired.

When we see God and then we see Jesus, but they're not together, I think that might be evidence of an underlying modalistic understanding of God, but I agree this isn't strong evidence of it.

The idea of modalism has been a highly charged criticism, due to the heretical nature of it, and that it is deemed to come from an ignorant mind that doesn't fully understand Christian theology. Malarkey. I think God is still a mystery for humans, despite the revelations we have. We don't need to consult with centuries old Christian theologians to make sure our doctrine checks out. I kind of like the concept of modalism. I think a lot of Mormons/Christians view God this way, because it's the easiest way to connect emotionally with God. 

Look at just about every doctrine in the church, and they all evolve over the course of Joseph's life.  I don't think there is any question that the concept of the Godhead had significant evolution from the BoM in 1828/29 to the Nauvoo period.  Whether that concept fits perfectly with modalism or trinitarianism or some blend of 19th century protestant ideas isn't as important to me. 

For one, Joseph was shooting from the hip and constantly innovating, not following a strict systematic approach.  Why else do passages in the BoM that are clearly copied from the Bible, differ substantially from passages he translated when working on the JST just a couple year later.  Heck, there are even some passages in the JST that he translated twice because he didn't realize that he had already done those verses, and the two versions are significantly different.  

Joseph was smart, but uneducated formally, and he didn't have a photographic memory or any kind of elaborate master plan.  He was playing it by ear and letting the creative juices flow and sometimes he came up with some really inspirational ideas in the process, and other times he didn't.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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

I also recognize that people are always borrowing from those that preceded from them, I'm not sure why you say I'm ignoring this fact and assuming that Joseph was the only one borrowing and that the others somehow had a pure experience in isolation from the rest of their setz im leben. 

If so, why would you single out Joseph for special treatment?  To be fair, your assumptions must not differ from one set of visions to another.  Yet that is precisely what you do -- Joseph's work is entirely derivative and could not possibly be authentic.  The scenario must be made to fit all other considerations, no matter what.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

As for Joseph experimenting during the 1832 - 1839 period, I think there is evidence to support my theory.  It started with the 1832 account of the church and its beginnings using a first vision narrative, but then diverged when he partnered with Oliver Cowdery to write the 1834 story of the church which excluded any first vision experience and used the angel and the plates story as the founding narrative.  Remember that 1834 was also the time of Mormonism Unvailed and some challenges to authority, and the priesthood narrative was anachronistically written back into earlier revelations and the structure of the church started to evolve more leading into 1835.  Then later when the church experienced the huge shift at end of the Kirtland period and many left the church and after they were driven from Missouri then Joseph and committee crafted the 1838 & 1839 version that is canonized today, largely in response to all these issues.  

This is not your theory, but rather has been around for a long time.  Dan Vogel may be one of the most assertive about that.  The problem he and you have is that you leave everything else out in order to support that single-minded approach.  Your notion on priesthood, for example, is belied by the Book of Mormon influence on both Joseph and Oliver, leading them to immediately go out and baptize each other on May 15, 1829, by Aaronic Priesthood authority.  They had just come to that point in III Nephi and went out to inquire about it.  Indeed, there was nothing mysterious at all about the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods -- both were the standard in the Anglican/Epiccopal and Roman Catholic churches.  Yet you insist on placing that later in LDS tradition.  This is the usual method used to force an apriori evolutionary view of LDS development.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

What little I've read about that call of a prophet idea didn't persuade me that this is anything significant.  If there are similarities between how the church narrates the history of Joseph's life and how biblical authors narrated their stories, then wouldn't that also be similar to your earlier point about borrowing from the stories that preceded and influenced them?  I imagine you could compare the FLDS narrative about Warren Jeffs or a multitude of other religious narratives for important figures in their faiths and it would line up fairly well with the call of the prophet template. 

I think not.  Just making bald assertions is no substitute for actually doing the systematic comparisons.  It is the difference between by-gosh-and-by-golly assumptions and actual scholarship.  If the actual work had been done, you'd be able to cite it.  You'll note that I always back my assertions.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If so, why would you single out Joseph for special treatment?  To be fair, your assumptions must not differ from one set of visions to another.  Yet that is precisely what you do -- Joseph's work is entirely derivative and could not possibly be authentic.  The scenario must be made to fit all other considerations, no matter what.

Your earlier post talks about how all of these experiences have some level of borrowing from each other, and I agreed with you.  I don't understand how this borrowing is being labeled not "authentic" as I'm not saying that Joseph didn't have some kind of experience that was authentic to him.  I grant that as my baseline assumption.  Rather, I'm commenting on some of the contributing factors that I believe shaped the founding narrative of Mormonism that wasn't crafted in isolation, but instead was influenced over many years by numerous experiences.  

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is not your theory, but rather has been around for a long time.  Dan Vogel may be one of the most assertive about that.  The problem he and you have is that you leave everything else out in order to support that single-minded approach.  Your notion on priesthood, for example, is belied by the Book of Mormon influence on both Joseph and Oliver, leading them to immediately go out and baptize each other on May 15, 1829, by Aaronic Priesthood authority.  They had just come to that point in III Nephi and went out to inquire about it.  Indeed, there was nothing mysterious at all about the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods -- both were the standard in the Anglican/Epiccopal and Roman Catholic churches.  Yet you insist on placing that later in LDS tradition.  This is the usual method used to force an apriori evolutionary view of LDS development.

I didn't say these theories originated exclusively with me, of course not.  I've been influenced by all the authors I've read over the years and I couldn't even begin to pinpoint which authors and which data points have influenced me the most.  Its sad to me that you keep taking my comments and seemingly attributing poor motives on my part.  

If you think I'm leaving out important historical data points then please make the case for that.  With respect to the baptisms in 1829, the "Aaronic Priesthood" is anachronistic to that story, and I suspect that you know this already.  Do you need me to produce the evidence that shows how its anachronistic?  

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I think not.  Just making bald assertions is no substitute for actually doing the systematic comparisons.  It is the difference between by-gosh-and-by-golly assumptions and actual scholarship.  If the actual work had been done, you'd be able to cite it.  You'll note that I always back my assertions.

I just don't see the whole prophet motif comparison to be substantive.  It strikes me as selective bias emphasizing the similarities and discounting the differences.  Its also based on someone's assumptions that there is a formula for how God selects prophets and that if you can figure out this formula you can use that to distinguish between the real prophets and the fake ones.  Strikes me as similar to all the people predicting the end of the world time by following the clues in the bible.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Your earlier post talks about how all of these experiences have some level of borrowing from each other, and I agreed with you.  I don't understand how this borrowing is being labeled not "authentic" as I'm not saying that Joseph didn't have some kind of experience that was authentic to him.  I grant that as my baseline assumption.  Rather, I'm commenting on some of the contributing factors that I believe shaped the founding narrative of Mormonism that wasn't crafted in isolation, but instead was influenced over many years by numerous experiences.  

I didn't say these theories originated exclusively with me, of course not.  I've been influenced by all the authors I've read over the years and I couldn't even begin to pinpoint which authors and which data points have influenced me the most.  Its sad to me that you keep taking my comments and seemingly attributing poor motives on my part.  

It has nothing to do with "poor motives," but simply an unsophisticated approach to real history.  We don't even need to assume that Joseph had any sort of authentic experience.  We need to be neutral, even as we take into account the full Sitz im Leben.

Quote

If you think I'm leaving out important historical data points then please make the case for that.  With respect to the baptisms in 1829, the "Aaronic Priesthood" is anachronistic to that story, and I suspect that you know this already.  Do you need me to produce the evidence that shows how its anachronistic?  

We know that Oliver & Joseph were working on III Nephi 11-12 when the baptism question arose via the text in May 1829, and we have official records in 1830 &1831 of priesthood ordinations (Far West Record, June 9, 1830, page 1; "Articles of the Church of Christ," June 1829, copied early 1830, online at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-3-articles-of-the-church-of-christ-june-1829/1 ; Painesville Telegraph, Apr 1831 etc., online at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/priesthood-restoration ); mind you, in April 1829 they had already read Mosiah 18:18, 25:19 on ordination of priests and teachers (and elsewhere in the BoM).  So we cannot date priesthood later than that, even though many of our records are later recollections.  As I have pointed out already, both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods were common knowledge as applied in RC and Anglican tradition as the lesser and greater priesthoods.  The circumstances are clear, and real history is never systematic (a fallacy Vogel could not understand, even though he has a degree in history).

Quote

I just don't see the whole prophet motif comparison to be substantive.  It strikes me as selective bias emphasizing the similarities and discounting the differences.  Its also based on someone's assumptions that there is a formula for how God selects prophets and that if you can figure out this formula you can use that to distinguish between the real prophets and the fake ones.  Strikes me as similar to all the people predicting the end of the world time by following the clues in the bible.  

The pattern has nothing to do with fake and real prophets.  After all, I gave you prime exemplars (via Widengren) of prophets in the Assyro-Babylonian tradition, and I could have included Egyptian ones as well.  You apparently believe them to have been pretend "authentic" prophets, which was not my point at all.  The point was that all these prophets are selected the same way, accompanied by the same motifs.  Every royal court in the ancient Near East had prophets on staff, all had temples, all had priests and offerings in those temples, all had complex liturgies and primeval origin stories -- very similar to the biblical ones.  This was simply not known in Joseph's day.  Yet he fits every set of ancient parameters and motifs, which our friend Vogel always ignores.

Vogel would be better off dealing with the fact that Israelite and Canaanite liturgy, festivals, and gods were nearly identical in every way.  Certainly the language (Hebrew) was actually just Canaanite.  Why is it that pagan idols have been found in profusion in ancient Israelite homes?  Vogel could reasonably claim that the Hebrew Bible contains a mere variant of Canaanite religion, and that it differs little from Assyro-Babylonian religious practice. How could the authentic and pagan practices have so much in common?  Wouldn't it be merely an accident of history that the Israelite religion survived and therefore seemed "authentic"?  A quandary which at least follows real history, even though it can give us no final answer on authenticity.

The upshot is that the Book of Mormon as an English document (Early Modern English) comes from several centuries before Joseph -- he simply reads it to his scribes.  How to explain that?  Too many enigmas.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It has nothing to do with "poor motives," but simply an unsophisticated approach to real history.  We don't even need to assume that Joseph had any sort of authentic experience.  We need to be neutral, even as we take into account the full Sitz im Leben.

I think various people would interpret neutrality differently based on their perspective.  Looking back at both of our posts, I think your comments are less neutral than mine.  I'm not accusing you of "unsophisticated" approaches to history.  Seems like the shoe is on the other foot from my vantage point.  

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We know that Oliver & Joseph were working on III Nephi 11-12 when the baptism question arose via the text in May 1829, and we have official records in 1830 &1831 of priesthood ordinations (Far West Record, June 9, 1830, page 1; "Articles of the Church of Christ," June 1829, copied early 1830, online at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-3-articles-of-the-church-of-christ-june-1829/1 ; Painesville Telegraph, Apr 1831 etc., online at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/priesthood-restoration ); mind you, in April 1829 they had already read Mosiah 18:18, 25:19 on ordination of priests and teachers (and elsewhere in the BoM).  So we cannot date priesthood later than that, even though many of our records are later recollections.  As I have pointed out already, both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods were common knowledge as applied in RC and Anglican tradition as the lesser and greater priesthoods.  The circumstances are clear, and real history is never systematic (a fallacy Vogel could not understand, even though he has a degree in history).

The linked evidence actually supports my point, that "priesthood" was not a part of the narrative.  There was a sense of authority in both the BoM and in the early revelations, but this concept of authority wasn't developed using these labels of Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood until the 1834/1835 period and development was unique to the context of that time period and challenges to authority that the church was going through both internally and externally.  In addition to clothing authority with more explicit terms was the development of more miraculous stories to describe the way this authority was transferred from angels that earlier were unnamed and less tangible and later evolved into encounters with important biblical figures who were named and became more tangible.  These experiences conveyed a message that transactions granting power and unique divine authority occurred and that this authority shouldn't be questioned. 

Actually, I think Vogel is more critically aware of early Mormon history than most paid professional church historians and I've come to highly respect the rigor of the scholarship that he has done.  I know of respected believing church historians who also highly respect Dan Vogel and his research, even though they obviously disagree from a belief perspective.  I've seen no legitimate reason to question the integrity of the research he's done up to this point.  I would question your perspective way before I'd question Dan's.  His work has earned a great deal of respect with me.   

As for the concepts of Aaronic and Melchizedek being "common knowledge" and existing in the greater Christian ether of the 19th century, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that.  We both agreed that the environment was an influencing factor on early Mormon innovation.  

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The pattern has nothing to do with fake and real prophets.  After all, I gave you prime exemplars (via Widengren) of prophets in the Assyro-Babylonian tradition, and I could have included Egyptian ones as well.  You apparently believe them to have been pretend "authentic" prophets, which was not my point at all.  The point was that all these prophets are selected the same way, accompanied by the same motifs.  Every royal court in the ancient Near East had prophets on staff, all had temples, all had priests and offerings in those temples, all had complex liturgies and primeval origin stories -- very similar to the biblical ones.  This was simply not known in Joseph's day.  Yet he fits every set of ancient parameters and motifs, which our friend Vogel always ignores.

Vogel would be better off dealing with the fact that Israelite and Canaanite liturgy, festivals, and gods were nearly identical in every way.  Certainly the language (Hebrew) was actually just Canaanite.  Why is it that pagan idols have been found in profusion in ancient Israelite homes?  Vogel could reasonably claim that the Hebrew Bible contains a mere variant of Canaanite religion, and that it differs little from Assyro-Babylonian religious practice. How could the authentic and pagan practices have so much in common?  Wouldn't it be merely an accident of history that the Israelite religion survived and therefore seemed "authentic"?  A quandary which at least follows real history, even though it can give us no final answer on authenticity.

The upshot is that the Book of Mormon as an English document (Early Modern English) comes from several centuries before Joseph -- he simply reads it to his scribes.  How to explain that?  Too many enigmas.

I reject the basic premise that the pattern seeking is built on.  I've seen so many religious pattern seekers apply this kind of methodology to numerous apologetic enterprises.  Humans everywhere have been able to find what they believe are interesting patterns in the random chaos of all kinds of data sets.  Religions have evolved so much over the thousands of years.  I suspect that if some pattern does exist it is more than likely due to the evolutionary selected similarities in how humans who are religiously inclined respond to their environment.  As for EmodE, I don't even want to go down that rabbit hole of apologetic craziness.  

Link to comment
On 11/20/2018 at 3:17 PM, hope_for_things said:

I think various people would interpret neutrality differently based on their perspective.  Looking back at both of our posts, I think your comments are less neutral than mine.  I'm not accusing you of "unsophisticated" approaches to history.  Seems like the shoe is on the other foot from my vantage point.  

You are using "neutrality" as a weapon.  It is supposed to be the dispassionate analysis of actual facts.  One is supposed to come to the facts without already having decided what they must mean.  Sophistication is not based on "tis so, tis not" argumentation, but rather upon avoidance of the fallacy post hoc, propter hoc.  You and Vogel fairly revel in that fallacy.

Quote

The linked evidence actually supports my point, that "priesthood" was not a part of the narrative.  There was a sense of authority in both the BoM and in the early revelations, but this concept of authority wasn't developed using these labels of Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood until the 1834/1835 period and development was unique to the context of that time period and challenges to authority that the church was going through both internally and externally.  In addition to clothing authority with more explicit terms was the development of more miraculous stories to describe the way this authority was transferred from angels that earlier were unnamed and less tangible and later evolved into encounters with important biblical figures who were named and became more tangible.  These experiences conveyed a message that transactions granting power and unique divine authority occurred and that this authority shouldn't be questioned. 

I notice that you carefully avoid the actual word "ordain" in quoting the BofM passages on priesthood, while I included it.  That was also true of real documents from 1829 through 1831.  What do you imagine they were being ordained to if not priesthood?  How do you imagine that Jacob, Nephi's younger brother, was consecrated as a priest (2 Ne 5:26, 6:2, Jacob 1:18), and "called of God and ordained after...his holy order" (Jacob 6:2).  In Joseph's time, "holy orders" was synonymous with ordination to Anglican/Episcopal priesthood.  And how is that Alma the Elder is a "high priest" (Mosiah 23:6; cf. Alma the Younger in Alma 13, which makes the equation with the priesthood of Melchizedek explicit)? What can it mean in the BofM to specify the same laying on of hands as required in Num 8:10 for setting apart the Levites as priests?

Quote

“...they laid their hands upon them, and said: ‘In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a priest (or if he be a teacher, I ordain you to be a teacher) to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end. Amen.’ And after this manner did they ordain priests and teachers, according to the gifts and callings of God unto men; and they ordained them by the power of the Holy Ghost, which was in them” (Moroni 3:2–4).

Take a gander at the Bible.  Then ask whether one has actually to say the words "Aaronic" for it to be strongly implied.

Quote

Actually, I think Vogel is more critically aware of early Mormon history than most paid professional church historians and I've come to highly respect the rigor of the scholarship that he has done.  I know of respected believing church historians who also highly respect Dan Vogel and his research, even though they obviously disagree from a belief perspective.  I've seen no legitimate reason to question the integrity of the research he's done up to this point.  I would question your perspective way before I'd question Dan's.  His work has earned a great deal of respect with me.

Vogel (whom I know and have conversed with many times) has gathered a lot of early 19th century documentation and published it.  He has spoken to us also on this board many times.  His analytic skills as a historian are, however, woefully inadequate.  I know of no serious historians who would give him the respect you offer.

Quote

As for the concepts of Aaronic and Melchizedek being "common knowledge" and existing in the greater Christian ether of the 19th century, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that.  We both agreed that the environment was an influencing factor on early Mormon innovation.  

A neutral observer is always interested in the information environment available to any religious or socio-political leader.  You, Vogel, and nearly all Mormons are totally unaware of those two priesthoods being part of the RC, Anglican/Episcopal, and Eastern Orthodox traditions.  Ignorance of the true information environment leads many observers astray.

Quote

I reject the basic premise that the pattern seeking is built on.  I've seen so many religious pattern seekers apply this kind of methodology to numerous apologetic enterprises.  Humans everywhere have been able to find what they believe are interesting patterns in the random chaos of all kinds of data sets.  Religions have evolved so much over the thousands of years.  I suspect that if some pattern does exist it is more than likely due to the evolutionary selected similarities in how humans who are religiously inclined respond to their environment.

The non-Mormon scholars I cited do not have religious motives for seeking answers.  Many, such as Bill Dever, are atheists.  You impose your desired apriori patterns, while they use inductive logic to recognize the obvious patterns.  Archeology doesn't lie, which is why all those pagan idols found in Israelite houses were a surprise, leading Dever to reach obvious conclusions.  You and Vogel ignore that ancient world, and so fully miss the main point -- which is the authentic mise en scene.  One doesn't create a pattern.  That wouldn't be real science.  Indeed, you as much as admit that the patterns are real in saying "that if some pattern does exist it is more than likely due to the evolutionary selected similarities in how humans who are religiously inclined respond to their environment."  Many scholars might reasonably agree with you there. 

Quote

  As for EmodE, I don't even want to go down that rabbit hole of apologetic craziness.  

As promising as that above recognition is, you again miss the point entirely in rejecting standard, non-religious (secular) research on the EModE BofM as a "rabbit hole of apologetic craziness."  In fact, I cannot think of any rational reason why any so-called "apologist" would want to find EModE dominating the BofM.  That is a preposterous notion.  How is it any advantage to a pretended "apologist"?  Perhaps you have a rational scenario to account for those basic facts.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:
17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think various people would interpret neutrality differently based on their perspective.  Looking back at both of our posts, I think your comments are less neutral than mine.  I'm not accusing you of "unsophisticated" approaches to history.  Seems like the shoe is on the other foot from my vantage point.  

You are using "neutrality" as a weapon.  It is supposed to be the dispassionate analysis of actual facts.  One is supposed to come to the facts without already having decided what they must mean.  Sophistication is not based on "tis so, tis not" argumentation, but rather upon avoidance of the fallacy post hoc, propter hoc.  You and Vogel fairly revel in that fallacy.

Not sure what to say here, other than you sound very convinced that you're correct and that those with different opinions are on a much lower intellectual plane than yourself.  Makes for a difficult mutually respectful exchange.  

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I notice that you carefully avoid the actual word "ordain" in quoting the BofM passages on priesthood, while I included it.  That was also true of real documents from 1829 through 1831.  What do you imagine they were being ordained to if not priesthood?  How do you imagine that Jacob, Nephi's younger brother, was consecrated as a priest (2 Ne 5:26, 6:2, Jacob 1:18), and "called of God and ordained after...his holy order" (Jacob 6:2).  In Joseph's time, "holy orders" was synonymous with ordination to Anglican/Episcopal priesthood.  And how is that Alma the Elder is a "high priest" (Mosiah 23:6; cf. Alma the Younger in Alma 13, which makes the equation with the priesthood of Melchizedek explicit)? What can it mean in the BofM to specify the same laying on of hands as required in Num 8:10 for setting apart the Levites as priests?

I said all along that these ideas evolved/developed, which actually supports your other point about no ideas being created out of thin air, but rather the environment influencing Joseph and his FV experience, which is clear to both of us.  Seems obvious to me that the earlier Mormon ideas of authority were naturally evolving and being influenced by other environmental factors.  Many believe the Sidney Rigdon had a large influence on the priesthood theology because of his earlier background and some of the ideas that were important to him.  

Terminology like the word ordain, also evolved as well, and it had a different meaning in the late 1820s than it did in the mid 1830s.  

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Take a gander at the Bible.  Then ask whether one has actually to say the words "Aaronic" for it to be strongly implied.

Implication isn't how critical textual analysis works.  It wasn't there, it developed over time, that is clear, other scholars have pointed it out as well.  If you're doing apologetics, then you can find all kinds of creative explanations, but I'm not interested in that.  

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Vogel (whom I know and have conversed with many times) has gathered a lot of early 19th century documentation and published it.  He has spoken to us also on this board many times.  His analytic skills as a historian are, however, woefully inadequate.  I know of no serious historians who would give him the respect you offer.

Probably as we've discussed before, you seem to be swimming in different waters when it comes to the diet of Mormon material that you consume.  Which is fine, but it doesn't make your experience representative of the whole spectrum of Mormon studies.  Different strokes for different folks.  

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A neutral observer is always interested in the information environment available to any religious or socio-political leader.  You, Vogel, and nearly all Mormons are totally unaware of the those two priesthoods being part of the RC, Anglican/Episcopal, and Eastern Orthodox traditions.  Ignorance of the true information environment leads many observers astray.

Its odd to me that you're trying to say my lack of awareness of something that I said I wouldn't be surprised if it existed, is somehow a negative for me and akin to ignorance leading me astray.  I said that I wouldn't be surprised if these things about Melchizedek and Aaron priesthood were in the 19th century Christian environment, and I am interested in learning more if you have any essays or books you can point me towards.  

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The non-Mormon scholars I cited do not have religious motives for seeking answers.  Many, such as Bill Dever, are atheists.  You impose your desired apriori patterns, while they use inductive logic to recognize the obvious patterns.  Archeology doesn't lie, which is why all those pagan idols found in Israelite houses were a surprise, leading Dever to reach obvious conclusions.  You and Vogel ignore that ancient world, and so fully miss the main point -- which is the authentic mise en scene.  One doesn't create a pattern.  That wouldn't be real science.  Indeed, you as much as admit that the patterns are real in saying "that if some pattern does exist it is more than likely due to the evolutionary selected similarities in how humans who are religiously inclined respond to their environment."  Many scholars might reasonably agree with you there. 

I'm open to new information, but I'm not as interested in the ancient world as other topics.  Funny again how you've stereotyped me into a "you and Vogel" bucket as if this were a slander of some kind.  I've never met Dan Vogel in person, never spoken with him or anything and I'm absolutely no scholar myself, just a regular Joe Schmoe that is interested in Mormon studies and is a participating member. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

I said all along that these ideas evolved/developed, which actually supports your other point about no ideas being created out of thin air, but rather the environment influencing Joseph and his FV experience, which is clear to both of us.  Seems obvious to me that the earlier Mormon ideas of authority were naturally evolving and being influenced by other environmental factors.  Many believe the Sidney Rigdon had a large influence on the priesthood theology because of his earlier background and some of the ideas that were important to him.  

Rigdon  was certainly very sophisticated, and was the primary author of the "Lectures on Faith."  And Joseph was learning as he went.  Milk before meat (1 Cor 3:2).  That does not, however, mean that there is a neat process from simple to complex, because we have too many instances in which that neat sequence is broken.  One example, which I pointed out to you, is that the Melchizedek priesthood was already in full force in Alma 13 (even if Joseph did not recognize it, and even if it remains unrecognizable to Mormons today).  The fallacy of post hoc, propter hoc still applies, yet you apply it recklessly.

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Terminology like the word ordain, also evolved as well, and it had a different meaning in the late 1820s than it did in the mid 1830s. 

So-called "apologists" often have their own meanings for words, instead of carefully examining the actual sources, and Mormons often live in a bubble of their own devising, oblivious to the much broader world and the true information environment.  That is one consequence of not having a professional clergy.  The lack of real seminary training is painfully evident, and CES cannot make up for it.

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Implication isn't how critical textual analysis works.  It wasn't there, it developed over time, that is clear, other scholars have pointed it out as well.  If you're doing apologetics, then you can find all kinds of creative explanations, but I'm not interested in that. 

That's like ignoring the Bible and only allowing the sort of biblical illiteracy which dominates the scene today.  The Levites and the entire Mosaic enterprise is simply swept away as irrelevant.  No Aaron, no worries.  Really?

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Probably as we've discussed before, you seem to be swimming in different waters when it comes to the diet of Mormon material that you consume.  Which is fine, but it doesn't make your experience representative of the whole spectrum of Mormon studies.  Different strokes for different folks.  

Its odd to me that you're trying to say my lack of awareness of something that I said I wouldn't be surprised if it existed, is somehow a negative for me and akin to ignorance leading me astray.  I said that I wouldn't be surprised if these things about Melchizedek and Aaron priesthood were in the 19th century Christian environment, and I am interested in learning more if you have any essays or books you can point me towards.  

I'm open to new information, but I'm not as interested in the ancient world as other topics.  Funny again how you've stereotyped me into a "you and Vogel" bucket as if this were a slander of some kind.  I've never met Dan Vogel in person, never spoken with him or anything and I'm absolutely no scholar myself, just a regular Joe Schmoe that is interested in Mormon studies and is a participating member. 

You'd like Vogel in person.  He's a nice guy.  He and I both went to the same University (CSULB), though at different times.  It is no slander to point out that he and you focus only on the 19th century materials, thus leaving you both ignorant of any alternative POVs.  That is true generally for so-called "Mormon Studies" scholars.  Specialists need to be open to broader concerns.

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

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