Amateurs...

[LDSGuy]

I think a crazy criticism is that because we teach baptism for the remission of sins that we are not Christian. That means that everyone from the time of Jesus (and before) to the beginning of the Evangelical movement were not Christians, because they all taught that baptism was for that purpose.

[Rob Bowman]

James,

You wrote:

Rob, do we know how Cheesman got a hold of the 1832 account? I don't know, so if you know feel free to tell us. Supposing Cheesman was given the account by LDS Church historians, how does that stack up against your theory of a nefarious plot by the LDS Church to hide the account? Would it make sense?

Supposing Cheesman independently discovered the 1832 account, is it possible that he was the first person in 100 years to find it?

As I stated in an earlier post to this thread, I have never seen any explanation as to how Paul Cheesman obtained a copy of the 1832 account. In his Acknowledgments page, Cheesman thanks William A. Lund, Eugene Olsen, and Lauritz Peterson of the Church Historian's Office "for their cooperation and help in making this study" ("An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith's Early Visions," iii). Cheesman presents the text of the 1832 account with a brief introduction in his appendix D (126-32), where he explains, "This account was found in a journal ledger in the Church Historian's office in Salt Lake City. The pages had been cut out but were matched with the edge of the journal to prove location. This was done in the presence and with the agreement of Earl Olsen and Lauritz Peterson of the Church Historian's office" (126). That is all Cheesman says about how he came into possession of the account.

One guess, from what little Cheesman says, is that he had been given permission to peruse some materials in the Church Historian's Office for the purpose of writing his master's thesis, was looking for accounts of the First Vision and the Moroni visions, and as a result found the document. This may suggest that Olsen and Peterson (at least) were unaware of the document before Cheesman found it. However, this doesn't mean no one had suppressed its existence. It isn't plausible that no one in the Church Historian's office for well over a century had leafed through Joseph's earliest records to see what was there. In the nature of the case, if anyone in the office knew about it and was suppressing it, we would not have any testimonies directly from them in support of that fact. The best we could hope for is multiple testimonies from outsiders to the suppression. This, we do have.

Lamar Petersen reported that he and his wife spent six sessions with Levi Edgar Young in 1952: "He told us of a 'strange account' (Young's own term) of the First Vision, which he thought was written in Joseph's own hand and which had been concealed for 120 years in a locked vault. He declined to tell us details, but stated that it did not agree entirely with the official version. Jesus was the center of the vision, but God was not mentioned. I respected Young's wish that the information be withheld until after his death" (The Creation of the Book of Mormon: A Historical Inquiry [salt Lake City: Freethinker Press, 1998], xii). After Young died in 1963, Petersen told the Tanners about this discussion with Young and provided his (Petersen's) notes from that discussion:

"His curiosity was excited when reading in Roberts' Doc. History reference to 'documents from which these writings were compiled.' Asked to see them. Told to get higher permission. Obtained that permission. Examined the documents. Was told not to copy or tell what they contained. Said it was a 'strange' account of the First Vision. Was put back in vault. Remains unused, unknown" (Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, 151).

The Tanners then wrote to Joseph Fielding Smith requesting a copy of this account of the First Vision. "Our letter was never answered, and we had almost given up hope of ever seeing this document" (ibid.). Then it surfaced in Cheesman's master's thesis. This is certainly an interesting coincidence. The Tanners requested from the Church Historian's Office a copy of the "strange account" in 1964 (Young died on December 13, 1963), and in 1965 it is made public, 122 years after it was written, for the very first time, in a BYU master's thesis, having been "found" in that same Church Historian's office (obviously, some time before the thesis was submitted). I'm afraid this does not look like a mere coincidence or happenstance. It may very well be that the Church Historian's Office decided it needed to control the release of the document and to make it appear that it was "found" by an enterprising young student. Look at the people involved in Cheesman's thesis: James B. Allen was his thesis advisor ("Analysis," ii, iii); two men from the Church Historian's Office are mentioned in the Acknowledgments page, but not Joseph Fielding Smith; and Cheesman also thanks Richard Anderson and Milton Backman, among others, "for their suggestions" (iii). As you may know, Allen, Anderson, and Backman went on to do almost all of the important scholarly writing on the First Vision over the following couple of decades.

This narrative does seem to create a fairly strong case for thinking that Joseph Fielding Smith did in fact know about the account for years prior to Cheesman's thesis (more than 13 years, at least) and tried to suppress knowledge of its existence. When he found out that the Tanners knew about the account, he appears to have arranged for the account to be made public quietly under the most favorable possible circumstances. There is even more to the story, but I have to stop for now, and I think the above information makes a coherent case for my position.

[Deborah]

This narrative does seem to create a fairly strong case for thinking that Joseph Fielding Smith did in fact know about the account for years prior to Cheesman's thesis (more than 13 years, at least) and tried to suppress knowledge of its existence.

Seriously, so what? And "suppress" is your assumption of what happened and only your assumption. It may not have been thought important, after all I still think it's one of the lamest arguments antis use.

[LDS Guy 1986]

What are your favorites?

The Revelation 22:18 accusation (and similar accusations from Deuteronomy and Galatians), no other accusation against the Church is as based in blind ignorance of the scriptures than to accuse that the Book of Mormon is false because Revelation 22:18 says no one can add to the Bible.

The verse clearly says that no one can add to or remove from the Book of Revelations, people simply do not understand how the Holy Bible was compiled and ignorantly assume that the 66 Books of the Holy Bible are 1 book and that the statement in Revelations 22:18 applies to all the books of the bible and officially closes the cannon forever!

[Scott Gordon]

Since I have your attention, I'd like to ask you about the following alleged references to the First Vision, cited on the FAIR site:

• D&C 20:5
• The Reflector, Feb. 1831
• The Fredonia Censor, 1832

I discuss these alleged First Vision references in a group of short articles, summarized here. I have written to FAIR and to others requesting feedback on them, and I have referred to the articles more than once on this forum. To date, I have not had any substantive response to the articles. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at them.

Hi Rob,

I'm sure we will continue this conversation. However, I don't have a lot of time to get involved in this at this time. But, we will see if we can get some of those issues you have concerns about untangled at some future time.

And, now that you have my attention, I will read the articles you wrote.

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You are entitled to your opinion, but your dismissive response does not come close to showing why anyone outside your religion should take your opinion seriously. That the document was suppressed until it became clear that the Tanners knew about it is not an "assumption," but a reasonable inference from the historical evidence I presented. You seem to be the one making an unfounded assumption here.

Seriously, so what? And "suppress" is your assumption of what happened and only your assumption. It may not have been thought important, after all I still think it's one of the lamest arguments antis use.

[Rob Bowman]

Scott,

I have nothing but sympathy for your lack of time. I'm overwhelmed myself and have been, even more than is usual for me, since August of last year. Thanks for your willingness to read my articles.

Hi Rob,

I'm sure we will continue this conversation. However, I don't have a lot of time to get involved in this at this time. But, we will see if we can get some of those issues you have concerns about untangled at some future time.

And, now that you have my attention, I will read the articles you wrote.

[Rob Bowman]

LDS Guy,

You wrote:

The Revelation 22:18 accusation (and similar accusations from Deuteronomy and Galatians), no other accusation against the Church is as based in blind ignorance of the scriptures than to accuse that the Book of Mormon is false because Revelation 22:18 says no one can add to the Bible.

The verse clearly says that no one can add to or remove from the Book of Revelations, people simply do not understand how the Holy Bible was compiled and ignorantly assume that the 66 Books of the Holy Bible are 1 book and that the statement in Revelations 22:18 applies to all the books of the bible and officially closes the cannon forever!

Fair enough. So, your position is that Revelation 22:18 forbids anyone from adding to or removing words from the Book of Revelation, period. Is that correct?

[ebeddoulos]

Deborah,

You are entitled to your opinion, but your dismissive response does not come close to showing why anyone outside your religion should take your opinion seriously. That the document was suppressed until it became clear that the Tanners knew about it is not an "assumption," but a reasonable inference from the historical evidence I presented. You seem to be the one making an unfounded assumption here.

Please allow me to tender another

[zerinus]

LDS Guy,

You wrote:

Fair enough. So, your position is that Revelation 22:18 forbids anyone from adding to or removing words from the Book of Revelation, period. Is that correct?

Yes, and I am sure one could legitimately argue from that basis that man is forbidden to add to or remove from any portion of sacred scripture. This, however, does not mean that a true prophet cannot do so, or add further material to the canon of scripture. That commandment also exists also in the book of Deuteronomy. If that argument was valid, then all subsequent scripture in the OT added after Deuteronomy would be invalid. Therefore that argument cannot be used against further addition to the canon of sacred scripture, such as we have in the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants.

Focusing specifically on the book of Revelation, although it says that it is forbidden to add to or remove anything from it, that does not mean that a true prophet cannot restore to it that which had been lost, or removed form it with malicious intent. The Book of Mormon tells us that such changes with malicious intent have in fact been made in the book of Revelation; therefore Joseph Smith restoring those parts by revelation is not acting contrary to that commandment.

[Vance]

That the document was suppressed until it became clear that the Tanners knew about it is not an "assumption," but a reasonable inference from the historical evidence I presented.

Not really.

To show "suppression" you need at least THREE things.

1) To show that the documents existence was known. (You have presented some evidence to support this.)

2) To show that there was an intentional effort to withhold the documents from the public. (This you haven't supported.)

3) To show that the reason for the intention was fear of damage to the Church. (This you haven't supported.)

Your argument for "suppression" is further weakened by the fact that, IF there was fear that the document would damage the Church, "the Church" had more than 100 years within which the document could have easily been DESTROYED with absolutely no knowledge of the public. That would have been REAL suppression.

[Vance]

Please allow me to tender another

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

The erudition and brilliance of your carefully researched, thoroughly documented, and analytically penetrating refutation has indeed blown me away. Hugh Nibley had nothing on you.

Please allow me to tender another

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Not really.

To show "suppression" you need at least TWO things.

1) To show that the documents existence was known. (You have presented some evidence to support this.)

Thanks for that much.

You continued:

2) To show that there was an intentional effort to withhold the documents from the public. (This you haven't supported.)

If the existence of the document was known, then it was withheld from the public either accidentally or deliberately. The evidence I presented supports the latter view.

You continued:

3) To show that the reason for the intention was fear of damage to the Church. (This you haven't supported.)

It is not necessary to show motive to show suppression. But if you have a better explanation for the decision to keep Joseph Smith's earliest account of the First Vision secret from LDS Church members until just after the Tanners asked for a copy of it, I'd like to hear it.

You wrote:

Your argument for "suppression" is further weakened by the fact that, IF there was fear that the document would damage the Church, "the Church" had more than 100 years within which the document could have easily been DESTROYED with absolutely no knowledge of the public. That would have been REAL suppression.

This argument assumes that the only real way to suppress the document was to destroy it. Keeping it under lock and key worked for over a century. The men running the Church Historian's Office probably felt that they could not justify destroying such a document, but they could justify withholding it from the public as long as its existence was not generally known. My claim is not that they were consciously conniving, knowingly deceitful men, but that they suppressed the document as long as they could for what they thought was a justifiable reason.

[Deborah]

You are entitled to your opinion, but your dismissive response does not come close to showing why anyone outside your religion should take your opinion seriously.

Which begs the question why should anyone outside my religion have an opinion on something that doesn't concern them?

[Vance]

If the existence of the document was known, then it was withheld from the public either accidentally or deliberately. The evidence I presented supports the latter view.

No it doesn't. You haven't shown that it was deliberate. You are simply inferring that.

It is not necessary to show motive to show suppression.

Ah, but it is. You have to show that the motive for it being withheld is fear. This you haven't done.

But if you have a better explanation for the decision to keep Joseph Smith's earliest account of the First Vision secret from LDS Church members until just after the Tanners asked for a copy of it, I'd like to hear it.

Well, unlike you, I don't claim to know why it wasn't made public earlier.

But I can speculate.

It might be simply that there were more pressing matters consuming their time.

Perhaps you have so much time on your hands that you don't realize the amount of time consumed with the administration of a multimillion person organization.

If you were busier, you might understand.

This argument assumes that the only real way to suppress the document was to destroy it.

Not so. But it does assume that only sure way to keep it suppressed is to destroy it. (And even then, knowledge of its existence could leak out).

Keeping it under lock and key worked for over a century.

Yup, and when the first college student requested access, they just opened up the super secret vault and gave him total access. Sounds like "suppression" to me

The men running the Church Historian's Office probably felt that they could not justify destroying such a document, but they could justify withholding it from the public as long as its existence was not generally known.

Reading minds again?

Oh come on!!! If the motive was nefarious "suppression", then destroying them would be on the table.

Also I notice that here you say "men running the Church Historian's Office" as opposed to "the church" or "the President of the Church". Walking it back a bit are you?

My claim is not that they were consciously conniving, knowingly deceitful men, . . .

Oh please, don't be coy. The use of the word "suppressed" conveys EXACTLY that. And YOU KNOW IT!

. . . but that they suppressed the document as long as they could for what they thought was a justifiable reason.

That is false on its face. If they had wanted to, it would still be unknown to the public, and YOU KNOW IT!

[Deborah]

This argument assumes that the only real way to suppress the document was to destroy it. Keeping it under lock and key worked for over a century. The men running the Church Historian's Office probably felt that they could not justify destroying such a document, but they could justify withholding it from the public as long as its existence was not generally known.

I see. The documents are so dangerous that we have to keep them under lock and key but not so dangerous we can finally liberate them and even publish them.

There were hundreds of documents in the archives many which were never looked at for years until individual scholars were allowed to peruse them. Even if certain things were known there was no inclination at the time to review every one and make sure it was authentic and what it purported to be. Fortunately with the assistance of the Larry Miller Foundation and the wonderful discovery of the Jefferson documents and their publication we had a means to finally do this. But of course the critics aren't satisfied because its Mormon scholars who are doing this work, even though they are carefully following the same procedures as that done for Jefferson's papers.

[sjdawg]

Likewise, and the details and emphasis varies depending on who I'm talking to and what I'm thinking about at the time.

The only part that really annoys me about the first vision accounts is that I had to memorize the official version on my mission and delivery it verbatim. It would have been nice to know that the version I was spouting was the spruced up, prepared for public consumption version and not a verbatim recap of Joseph's words. I take the blame for not knowing.

[sjdawg]

There were hundreds of documents in the archives many which were never looked at for years until individual scholars were allowed to peruse them. Even if certain things were known there was no inclination at the time to review every one and make sure it was authentic and what it purported to be. Fortunately with the assistance of the Larry Miller Foundation and the wonderful discovery of the Jefferson documents and their publication we had a means to finally do this. But of course the critics aren't satisfied because its Mormon scholars who are doing this work, even though they are carefully following the same procedures as that done for Jefferson's papers.

You are right. I'm sure the Church historians over the years had not interest in reviewing the historical documents.

[Deborah]

The only part that really annoys me about the first vision accounts is that I had to memorize the official version on my mission and delivery it verbatim. It would have been nice to know that the version I was spouting was the spruced up, prepared for public consumption version and not a verbatim recap of Joseph's words. I take the blame for not knowing.

And it was the official, full version, which Joseph wrote to dispel the rumors and misconceptions.

Does anyone seriously think that Joseph was thinking about how the future generations would parse his words and criticize him for not telling the whole story each time? Not likely. He was addressing a specific person or persons with each accounting and telling what needed to be told at the time.

[Deborah]

You are right. I'm sure the Church historians over the years had not interest in reviewing the historical documents.

I didn't use the word interest. I said inclination. I'm sure there was a great deal of interest but having an inclination to delve into the mass of documents with so many other things they had to do would be a different matter. It is and has been a very time consuming and detailed project. The project was begun in 2001 and is hoped to be finished in 2015.

[Rob Bowman]

I await serious rebuttals to my argument and will ignore responses that do not qualify as such.

[Deborah]

I await serious rebuttals to my argument and will ignore responses that do not qualify as such.

I'm waiting for a serious argument to rebut.

[Vance]

I'm waiting for a serious argument to rebut.

Please don't hold your breath, as that would not end well.

[mfbukowski]

I await serious rebuttals to my argument and will ignore responses that do not qualify as such.

LOL

I am still waiting for you to address my questions about the Trinity. Now that is an absurd belief.

So continue to ignore away, and I promise to do the same.