Was Joseph Smith Persecuted For Sharing The First Vision

[ELF1024]

Why not simply say directly to me that you despise me, since this is clearly your point? And perhaps you'd like to give me your name, so I can know what a "big scholar" you are. I have a lot of respect for honest Mormons who don't claim to know more than they really do, who have their sincerely held views but can acknowledge that others might disagree. I have a hard time respecting people of any religion, or none, who hide behind pseudonyms while attacking the scholarship of those who put their name on the line.

Whoops, now Rob has his feelings hurt and he's going to derail the thread for hours on end... Joy...

Edited June 2, 2011 by ELF1024

[Bob Crockett]

According to this account, "men of high standing," "the great ones of the most popular sects of the day," excited "the public mind against" Joseph, so much so that all of the denominations "united to persecute" him. This isn't describing scuffles in the school yard with a handful of mean kids picking on the Mormon. What Joseph describes should have left some historical mark, some imprint, that would be recoverable. After all, there are stacks and stacks of extant statements from Joseph Smith's contemporaries, including many, many people who disliked Joseph and rejected his religion. Yet none of them have anything to say about Joseph claiming to have seen the Father and the Son as a teenage boy. These contemporaries were not shy about criticizing and even ridiculing Joseph on all sorts of other issues, but they don't mention this one. That doesn't fit with Joseph's account in JS-H 1:22-23.

All true, but there are some good rebuttal points.

One should not expect an antagonist to a new religious claim to get the claims right in the criticism. I don't know how many times I've read how difficult it is to understand the heretical sects of Christianity in the early days given the fact that the only writings we have about them are from the orthodox who are critics. Is there significance to the fact the Egyptian inscriptions don't mention Goshen or the occupation by the Israelites?

In this case, we have more than a complete absence of mention of the Land of Goshen. We have marked and steep criticism of the prophet Joseph Smith with the most malicious stuff. Observing in a newspaper that Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God isn't going to have the same press interest as that he has a golden bible and peeps for a living.

And then there's the complete absence of Jesus Christ in the historical record for three decades after his crucifixion, and then Josephus appears to be a fraud. I don't accept the argument that it is universally accepted by scholars and Christians that Paul's account is accurate. I think that is kind of a hand-wave. I mean, when do we first hear in the record of the existence of the Book of Acts? It seems the first fragments start appearing in ANF writings in the second decade of the second century C.E. Isn't it astounding the monumental events of the crucifixion and of Peter's ministry has no mention in any writing for decades? Is this proof that it just never occurred and is a mystery religion fabricated long after the point?

In Joseph Smith's case, the details of the First Vision came out pretty quickly, but not quickly enough in the observations of his critics.

[Ariarates]

Why not simply say directly to me that you despise me, since this is clearly your point? And perhaps you'd like to give me your name, so I can know what a "big scholar" you are. I have a lot of respect for honest Mormons who don't claim to know more than they really do, who have their sincerely held views but can acknowledge that others might disagree. I have a hard time respecting people of any religion, or none, who hide behind pseudonyms while attacking the scholarship of those who put their name on the line.

Rob, please take the name calling and ad hominem attacks to the other thread. And that goes for those who wish to trash Rob as well. I was really hoping to have a mature conversation here, that's why I started this thread.

[Vance]

2, June, 1820.

Dear Diary,

Today, me and my pals had an opportunity to throw rocks at that crazy Joe. What a dork. He says he had a vision. HAH! We know that those don't happen any more.

PS. Don't tell mom, she would be upset.

Is that the kind of evidence you were looking for?

Or how about.

Palmyra Rag

Letters to the Editor,

Dear Editor,

Be it known to all your readers that crazy Joe Smith claims to having had a vision.

What a NUT job. We all KNOW that visions are no more. And that anyone that claims one is a total freak.

Reverend Dewright.

Do you really think that, considering the time and the place, that you SHOULD expect find anything of the kind?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

(especially when 12 year olds are forced to recite them in front of the congregation).

This is false. You are not forced to do it. I was never forced and in fact declined and nothing ever happened to me.

[Rob Bowman]

Ariarates,

I re-read my post and saw no name-calling or ad hominem attacks. But I will try to keep things in check on my end.

Rob, please take the name calling and ad hominem attacks to the other thread. And that goes for those who wish to trash Rob as well. I was really hoping to have a mature conversation here, that's why I started this thread.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You claim is easy enough to prove. Take a video of a 14 year old boy, claiming to have seen Christ, put it up on Youtube, and lets see if he is "persecuted."

I would guess that the clip would be widely ignored.

In fact David Mitchell walked around the streets of SLC claiming to have spoken to God. Most people either ignored him, or pitied him. I am not aware of anyone persecuting him.

Yes you speak of our day where any nut with a computer can say or do anything on YouTube. We are completely desensitized to such things. Now let’s look back to a small town in upper New York, were gossip is the only discussion board, and superstition reigns supreme…get the picture?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It really is a no brainer.

Just this week I had an Evangelical, rather vehemently I might add, tell me that there is no more revelation in our day.

The intense hatred for Joseph Smith continues today, and we are to somehow doubt that it didn't start with the first vision?

No brainer indeed.

Correct, it still has not ended and will not. He is put on trial daily on the various hate sites.

[Ariarates]

Do you really think that, considering the time and the place, that you SHOULD expect find anything of the kind?

Well, I don't know enough about the time and the place to know what to expect. Maybe something like this:

Palmyra, Oct. 15, 1820

Another meeting of the heads of all the churches in the area was held last month to determine what to do about Joseph Smith's claim that he saw God and Jesus in a vision. Smith first started telling this story in the spring but soon stopped sharing it because nobody would believe him. He stuck to his story, though, which he says he can't deny. Soon after, the various churches and sects in the area got together to determine what to do about young Joseph's vision. After they organised, they increasinly applied all kinds of pressure on Smith and his family to recant his story. While at first the tone of the various priests was reproving but benevolent, antagonism has been steadily growing more bitter, leaving the young man to wonder what he did to deserve such treatment from so many men of high standing. With religious fervor running very high in this area at times, we wouldn't be surprised to see some of the more zealous members of the public, who have been excited to great heights by their spiritual leaders, take matters into their own hands.

Or something to that effect...

Edited June 2, 2011 by Ariarates

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

You wrote:

I'm sure some people would make fun of you. And yes, people ridiculed Joseph Smith for many things, including claiming to have seen God. But they didn't do this until after he started making the claim; that is also a "no-brainer." The fact is that Joseph did not start publicly claiming to have seen God until very late in his life. There are hints of the story by the mid-1830s, and Joseph dictated the official account in 1838, but it wasn't published until 1842. Prior to 1842, non-Mormons could not have made fun of Joseph for claiming to see God because they didn't know he had made such a claim. There is one reference in an 1831 Reflector article that reports fourth-hand (!) that Joseph Smith claimed to have "seen God frequently and personally," but this unreliable report doesn't indicate when these visions supposedly occurred, so as far as we can tell it might be referring to visions in 1830. Nor does this article indicate that Joseph Smith was the object of derision or persecution for those alleged claims, even in 1831. We never hear even this much again publicly until the 1840s. The fact is that we have absolutely no evidence, apart from Joseph's claim in his 1838 account, that anyone even knew about this supposed First Vision in the 1820s, let alone that he was persecuted for it during that period.

“Publicly”, how are defining this word? Something does not have to be in print to be made “public” it merely needs to be spoken. You are seriously reaching on this, and each time proving my point…you cannot concede a single point. You have subscribers at CRI, who would persecute you for throwing any Mormon a bone. Each time you (or your peers) cannot concede even the smallest point you lose any creditability and run the risk to the dismissal of any point you “might” have made.

Paul did not write of his Road to Damascus event for decades…but he was on the Jews hit list within weeks.

[ELF1024]

Well, I don't know enough about the time and the place to know what to expect. Maybe something like this:

Palmyra, Oct. 15, 1820

Another meeting of the heads of all the churches in the area was held last month to determine what to do about Joseph Smith's claim that he saw God and Jesus in a vision. Smith first started telling this story in the spring but soon stopped sharing it because nobody would believe him. He stuck to his story, though, which he says he can't deny. Soon after, the various churches and sects in the area got together to determine what to do about young Joseph's vision. After they organized, they increasingly applied all kinds of pressure on Smith and his family to recant his story. While at first the tone of the various priests was reproving but benevolent, antagonism has been steadily growing more bitter, leaving the young man to wonder what he did to deserve such treatment from so many men of high standing. With religious fervor running very high in this area at times, we wouldn't be surprised to see some of the more zealous members of the public, who have been excited to great heights by their spiritual leaders, take matters into their own hands.

Or something to that effect...

I would suggest that more than likely the best source of information on the subject would be the personal journals of the people of the area at the time.

[Rob Bowman]

rcrocket,

Thanks for your respectful and thoughtful comments.

The big difference between the First Vision account and the biblical accounts of the Exodus and Christ is that the First Vision supposedly took place in a culture that was text-media rich by a factor of a hundred or thousand times greater than the time of Jesus. There were no newspapers 3500 years ago and still none 2000 years ago. Ordinary men did not keep daily journals; it was a rare individual who wrote anything autobiographical. The printing press was still more than a millennium away when Jesus lived; in fact, what we call books (though still produced by hand) really began to emerge only about a century or so after Jesus. A time lag of twenty years or so between even a stupendous event and the first written record was perfectly understandable in that technological context. The very earliest Christian writings that are extant today date from 16 to 20 years after Jesus' crucifixion, and even in those earliest writings (Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians) we have the basic facts of the Christian message: Jesus was God's divine Son, come to redeem humanity, dying on the cross and rising from the dead, exalted to heaven, and coming again. There is no period during which relevant literature was being produced that still exists and that reflects a different story than the one Christians now accept.

By contrast, Joseph Smith himself produced reams of text between 1827 and 1831 but never said anything in those writings about the First Vision. Joseph lived in a community with multiple newspapers and other periodicals being published, read, and circulated. The earliest known, extant accounts of Joseph's religious experiences and the events leading to the founding of the LDS Church say nothing about Joseph seeing God or Christ. We have a paper trail of documents from the late 1820s through the 1840s that show the First Vision story gradually being developed beginning in 1832 and attaining public status only by 1842. It is in the context of that text-rich stream of material that the lack of any mention of the First Vision takes on its significance to anyone investigating the matter historically.

I could and perhaps will comment later on some of the specific issues you raised about the NT, but I'll have to do so later.

All true, but there are some good rebuttal points.

One should not expect an antagonist to a new religious claim to get the claims right in the criticism. I don't know how many times I've read how difficult it is to understand the heretical sects of Christianity in the early days given the fact that the only writings we have about them are from the orthodox who are critics. Is there significance to the fact the Egyptian inscriptions don't mention Goshen or the occupation by the Israelites?

In this case, we have more than a complete absence of mention of the Land of Goshen. We have marked and steep criticism of the prophet Joseph Smith with the most malicious stuff. Observing in a newspaper that Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God isn't going to have the same press interest as that he has a golden bible and peeps for a living.

And then there's the complete absence of Jesus Christ in the historical record for three decades after his crucifixion, and then Josephus appears to be a fraud. I don't accept the argument that it is universally accepted by scholars and Christians that Paul's account is accurate. I think that is kind of a hand-wave. I mean, when do we first hear in the record of the existence of the Book of Acts? It seems the first fragments start appearing in ANF writings in the second decade of the second century C.E. Isn't it astounding the monumental events of the crucifixion and of Peter's ministry has no mention in any writing for decades? Is this proof that it just never occurred and is a mystery religion fabricated long after the point?

In Joseph Smith's case, the details of the First Vision came out pretty quickly, but not quickly enough in the observations of his critics.

[Ariarates]

Joseph lived in a community with multiple newspapers and other periodicals being published, read, and circulated.

Does anyone have a link to any such newspapers or periodicals of the time, so I can get a feel for the kind of things that were written back then?

[bookofmormontruth]

I sure hope the next topic is: "Did Joseph Smith really have the 1st Vision in the forest?" And if so, wouldn't the trees and animals perish in their presence?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Do you really think that, considering the time and the place, that you SHOULD expect find anything of the kind?

Even that would not do.

[Ariarates]

I sure hope the next topic is: "Did Joseph Smith really have the 1st Vision in the forest?" And if so, wouldn't the trees and animals perish in their presence?

You can always start your own ;-)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This would make sense, assuming the 1820 persecution really took place. On the other hand, it can be taken as a decent argument for concluding that Joseph's claim in 1838 of persecution in 1820 was part of a tall tale.

This seems like trying to prove a negative. JS claims that X happens. We only have his word. You come in and try to say that X did not happen. Prove that something did not happen.

[Vance]

Well, I don't know enough about the time and the place to know what to expect. Maybe something like this:

Palmyra, Oct. 15, 1820

Another meeting of the heads of all the churches in the area was held last month to determine what to do about Joseph Smith's claim that he saw God and Jesus in a vision. Smith first started telling this story in the spring but soon stopped sharing it because nobody would believe him. He stuck to his story, though, which he says he can't deny. Soon after, the various churches and sects in the area got together to determine what to do about young Joseph's vision. After they organised, they increasinly applied all kinds of pressure on Smith and his family to recant his story. While at first the tone of the various priests was reproving but benevolent, antagonism has been steadily growing more bitter, leaving the young man to wonder what he did to deserve such treatment from so many men of high standing. With religious fervor running very high in this area at times, we wouldn't be surprised to see some of the more zealous members of the public, who have been excited to great heights by their spiritual leaders, take matters into their own hands.

Or something to that effect...

1) I doubt that the heads of all (or even part) of the churches would be meeting together, let alone discuss JS. They were in competition for converts.

2) I doubt that the persecution was as organized as you might expect. Rumors and gossip spread the news and I suspect that the persecution was more of the different ministers taking opportunistic pot shots from the pulpit to build themselves up in the eyes of the audience, and individuals taking opportunistic pot shots at JS when passing.

But hey, keep looking. If you DO find something it would be fantastic. But collecting and looking through all available letters and diaries of the time and place would be a tremendous task.

[Vance]

Even that would not do.

You are right. One more piece of evidence wouldn't satisfy the critics.

[ELF1024]

This seems like trying to prove a negative. JS claims that X happens. We only have his word. You come in and try to say that X did not happen. Prove that something did not happen.

It's only proving a negative if you don't believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was a liar and making it up.

[Vance]

Joseph lived in a community with multiple newspapers and other periodicals being published, read, and circulated.

Yup, with all those rich, literate and flush with time farmers, made for a large and profitable market for anything and everything that could be published. Each of those "multiple newspapers" had "numerous" reporters scouring the community for any and all tidbits. Why even the construction of an outhouse home school was newsworthy and didn't go unrecorded in those "multiple newspapers".

Why I bet you can even find the discussion of Aunt Mayble's losing her wooden teeth incident!

Edited June 2, 2011 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's only proving a negative if you don't believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was a liar and making it up.

Indeed, I guess.

[Vance]

This would make sense, assuming the 1820 persecution really took place.

Well, by all means, let's NOT take a man at his word, even when there is no contrary evidence.

[Deborah]

1) I doubt that the heads of all (or even part) of the churches would be meeting together, let alone discuss JS. They were in competition for converts.

That was my first thought on reading his statement.

I think the persecution was probably more in the form of throwing rocks and slander at the young boy prophet. We need to remember that he was just a teen when he had his first visions and such action would have been very serious to him, especially when brought up in a loving and close family.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Well, by all means, let's NOT take a man at his word, even when there is no contrary evidence.

Heaven forbid!