Was Joseph Smith Persecuted For Sharing The First Vision

[bookofmormontruth]

Please explain how Satan put "animus" into someone's heart, without infringing on their free will?

The concept/doctrine of Mormonism that I hold in highest regard is the doctrine of free agency. We are and should be solely responsible for the choices we make in this life.

What you are suggesting is that Satan has some special power to manipulate our emotions, causing humans to do things that, they would not otherwise do, such as persecuting a young man who claims to have a vision.

As for the money digging. The people who "persecuted" Smith for engaging in this business, are those like me, who don't believe that you can find buried treasure by looking a stone in your hat (or communicate with the dead, or read fortunes from palm, tea leaves,etc), and believe that those who pretend to have such a talent(s), and take money from people on that pretense are criminals. How were they supposed to know that unlike all others who have falsely pretended to have such a supernatural talent, Smith actually had such a gift? After all he never led anyone to any buried treasure. Why shouldn't they have run Smith out of town?

You are making it way too complicated.

It is called temptation which isn't destroying our free agency. If a person struggles with homosexual tendencies (temptations), he/she still has a choice to wether to follow the commandments or not. Temptation is not a sin.

And correction: Joseph Smith definitely led people to treasure, eternal treasure (eternal life and exaltation).

Edited June 6, 2011 by bookofmormontruth

[bookofmormontruth]

I do not understand that, Satan cannot force anyone to do anything they otherwise would not, if he can then free agency does not exist

Let me help you out too. It really isn't that complicated.

It is called temptation which isn't destroying our free agency. If a person struggles with homosexual tendencies (temptations), he/she still has a choice to wether to follow the commandments or not. Temptation is not a sin and we still keep our free agency (choices).

Edited June 6, 2011 by bookofmormontruth

[fatherofone]

Let me help you out too. It really isn't that complicated.

It is called temptation which isn't destroying our free agency. If a person struggles with homosexual tendencies (temptations), he/she still has a choice to wether to follow the commandments or not. Temptation is not a sin and we still keep our free agency (choices).

sarcasm is not required, this is not what the thread is about, so I am out

[Jaybear]

You are making it way too complicated.

It is called temptation which isn't destroying our free agency. If a person struggles with homosexual tendencies (temptations), he/she still has a choice to wether to follow the commandments or not. Temptation is not a sin.

Believe me, I understand temptation. That wasn't the question.

I was asking how Satan puts animus in one's heart without infringing on one's free agency.

[LeSellers]

I do not understand that, Satan cannot force anyone to do anything they otherwise would not, if he can then free agency does not exist

He doesn't force anyone except those who have sold themselves into his service to do anything. They put themselves in that position by repeatedly and continually using their agency unwisely. There comes a time when, mirroring those who have truly become servants of the Lord, those who are now willing servants of the evil one can no longer choose to do anything but that which their master wants.

You could say they are still exercising agency, and that is true if you do not believe that the exercise of agency requires two (or more) viable choices. At that point, however, no "good" choice is viable to them.

Lehi

[bookofmormontruth]

sarcasm is not required, this is not what the thread is about, so I am out

Sarcasm is definitely required, but that is not what I was doing.

Lehi explained it perfectly, yet you didn't like the answer. Nor do you like mine since you have already formed your own conclusion and belief set. So what does that make your question? Insincere.

Edited June 6, 2011 by bookofmormontruth

[bookofmormontruth]

Believe me, I understand temptation. That wasn't the question.

I was asking how Satan puts animus in one's heart without infringing on one's free agency.

animus in one's heart = temptation

[Jaybear]

animus in one's heart = temptation

No it isn't. While one can lead to the other, they are separate concepts.

Thanks for the effort, but pehaps we should just let Deborah explain how she thinks Satan put animus in the hearts of those who she believes persecuted Smith, without violating their free agency.

[bookofmormontruth]

No it isn't. While one can lead to the other, they are separate concepts.

Thanks for the effort, but pehaps we should just let Deborah explain how she thinks Satan put animus in the hearts of those who she believes persecuted Smith, without violating their free agency.

You are correct.

You clearly are the "expert" on LDS doctrine. No matter how many times we (as faithful members) can say (one way or the other) that satan or G-d cannot destroy our free agency in any way - you will just say "nuh uh".

Good luck Deborah!

Edited June 6, 2011 by bookofmormontruth

[Deborah]

1 Nephi 22:

15 For behold, saith the prophet, the time cometh speedily that Satan shall have no more power over the hearts of the children of men; for the day soon cometh that all the proud and they who do wickedly shall be as stubble; and the day cometh that they must be burned....

26 And because of the righteousness of his people, Satan has no power; wherefore, he cannot be loosed for the space of many years; for he hath no power over the hearts of the people, for they dwell in righteousness, and the Holy One of Israel reigneth.

Satan has no power but what we give him. However we choose whether to listen to his promptings or those of the Spirit. That is how he can influence us. One who is ignorant or bitter or already full of hate or living in sin is an easy target for the promptings of Satan.

[Mars]

Alma 12 seems relevant here.

[Jaybear]

You are correct.

You clearly are the "expert" on LDS doctrine.

Good luck Deborah!

No need to be snide. I was simply asking Deborah to clarify how, specifically, she believes Satan played a role in the widespread and fervent persecution of a 14 year old boy claiming to have spoken to Christ.

I find the belief in a literal Satan to be a fascinating aspect of modern religious thought.

[fatherofone]

1 Nephi 22:

Satan has no power but what we give him. However we choose whether to listen to his promptings or those of the Spirit. That is how he can influence us. One who is ignorant or bitter or already full of hate or living in sin is an easy target for the promptings of Satan.

appreciate that

[bookofmormontruth]

No need to be snide. I was simply asking Deborah to clarify how, specifically, she believes Satan played a role in the widespread and fervent persecution of a 14 year old boy claiming to have spoken to Christ.

I find the belief in a literal Satan to be a fascinating aspect of modern religious thought.

I was only mocking your "expertise" in LDS doctrine so no worries.

You stated: "Believe me, I understand temptation" yet don't believe that there is a satan? Interesting.

Edited June 6, 2011 by bookofmormontruth

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

Lucy Mack Smith (mother to the prophet) records the following in her history of Joseph:

"From this time until the twenty-first of September, 1823, Joseph continued, as usual, to labor with his father and nothing during this interval occurred of very great importance---though he suffered every kind of opposition and persecution from the different orders of relogionists." (History of Joseph Smith by his mother Lucy Mack Smith, pp74)

I am reposting this here because the other thread appears to be devoted to calling eachother names. So while the kids play over there, I thought I'd ask the question in a new thread.

The issue at hand was whether or not Joseph Smith was persecuted for telling people about the first vision. Now I am not well informed on the issue or the contemporary sources, but a while ago I did do some searching on the various first vision stories. I came up with the following references to persecution:

• The 1832 account merely states that nobody believed Joseph's heavenly vision;
• The 1835 account doesn't mention anything about the reception of Joseph's vision;
• The 1838/39 version is, of course, the canonized version and is quite detailed about the persecution.
• Pratt's 1840 "Interesting account" doesn't mention any persecution;
• Joseph's 1842 Wentoworth letter doesn't mention persecution in connection with the first vision, only with the deiscovery of the gold plates (including being shot at muliple times);
• Hyde's 1842 German account doesn't mention any persecution (it leans heavily on Pratt's "Interesting account");
• Joseph's 1843 interview with the Pittsburgh Gazette mentions that they persecuted him after he shared his vision like they persecuted him ever since (paraphrasing here).

So there is some mention of persecution, but Joseph seems to have taken it in stride and didn't dwell on it much. I think the canonized version is the most interesting one because one would expect to find evidence of a coordinated, sustained effort by men of high standing of all sects as described in verse 22. Are there any history buffs here who can confirm this? Thanks!

[bookofmormontruth]

Lucy Mack Smith (mother to the prophet) records the following in her history of Joseph:

"From this time until the twenty-first of September, 1823, Joseph continued, as usual, to labor with his father and nothing during this interval occurred of very great importance---though he suffered every kind of opposition and persecution from the different orders of relogionists." (History of Joseph Smith by his mother Lucy Mack Smith, pp74)

This evidence will also be ignored.

From the other numerous posts that were ignored. It is clearly evident that the answer to the OP is a definitive YES!

[Jaybear]

I was only mocking your "expertise" in LDS doctrine so no worries.

You are mocking a claim I have not made.

You stated: "Believe me, I understand temptation" yet don't believe that there is a satan? Interesting.

What is your point? Desire/temptation are emotions that all humans experience.

[Nevo]

This evidence will also be ignored.

The problem with this evidence is that it probably doesn't originate with Lucy Smith. The phrase—"From this time until the twenty-first of September, 1823, Joseph continued, as usual, to labour with his father, and nothing during this interval occurred of very great importance—though he suffered, as one would naturally suppose, every kind of opposition and persecution from the different orders of religionists"—appears to have been added by editor Howard Coray in his 1853 revision of Lucy's preliminary manuscript. It isn't in the original manuscript (source).

Jan Shipps has noted that Coray often "simply substituted a part of [the] official history, at times placing in Mother Smith's mouth a remark such as 'Here I extract from my son's history'" (Jan Shipps, Mormonism: Story of a New Religious Tradition [urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985], 104). I suspect that is the case here (you will note that the remark comes at the end of a long excerpt from Joseph Smith's official history.) In short, this source is problematic.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Nevo

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

The problem with this evidence is that it probably doesn't originate with Lucy Smith. The phrase—"From this time until the twenty-first of September, 1823, Joseph continued, as usual, to labour with his father, and nothing during this interval occurred of very great importance—though he suffered, as one would naturally suppose, every kind of opposition and persecution from the different orders of religionists"—appears to have been added by editor Howard Coray in his 1853 revision of Lucy's preliminary manuscript. It isn't in the original manuscript (source).

Jan Shipps has noted that Coray often "simply substituted a part of [the] official history, at times placing in Mother Smith's mouth a remark such as 'Here I extract from my son's history'" (Jan Shipps, Mormonism: Story of a New Religious Tradition [urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985], 104). I suspect that is the case here (you will note that the remark comes at the end of a long excerpt from Joseph Smith's official history.) In short, this source is problematic.

Well, that is interesting. But how well do you think Joseph Smith's vision is received today among the various religionists throughout the world? I think it is self-evident to accept the history Joseph relates that there was persecution. Every time he relates his story does not need to be a carbon-copy of the others.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Fig-bearing Thistle

[Vance]

The problem with this evidence is that it probably doesn't originate with Lucy Smith. The phrase—"From this time until the twenty-first of September, 1823, Joseph continued, as usual, to labour with his father, and nothing during this interval occurred of very great importance—though he suffered, as one would naturally suppose, every kind of opposition and persecution from the different orders of religionists"—appears to have been added by editor Howard Coray in his 1853 revision of Lucy's preliminary manuscript. It isn't in the original manuscript (source).

Jan Shipps has noted that Coray often "simply substituted a part of [the] official history, at times placing in Mother Smith's mouth a remark such as 'Here I extract from my son's history'" (Jan Shipps, Mormonism: Story of a New Religious Tradition [urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985], 104). I suspect that is the case here (you will note that the remark comes at the end of a long excerpt from Joseph Smith's official history.) In short, this source is problematic.

Didn't Lucy Mack Smith live until 1856?

[Nevo]

Didn't Lucy Mack Smith live until 1856?

Yes, she did, but that doesn't mean she was responsible for every word that appeared in the 1853 publication of Biographical Sketches.

I should have researched my last post a bit better. I was relying entirely on a chapter in Jan Shipps's book, Mormonism and I got a couple of things wrong. Now that I have read Lavina Fielding Anderson's essay, "The Textual History of Lucy's Book," and browsed the relevant sections in Howard Searle's dissertation on early Mormon historiography, I should correct a couple of points. Although Orson Pratt's 1853 publication of Lucy's history was based on Howard (and Martha Jane) Coray's revisions of the preliminary manuscript, those revisions took place in 1845—shortly after the initial manuscript was produced—not in 1853.

Anderson writes: "There is, to my knowledge, no information extant on how Howard, primarily, but to some extent Martha Jane, produced the intermediate manuscript. Scenarios of possibilities may begin, on the one hand, with Lucy’s closest attention and constant supervision—perhaps even with the Corays working in the same room, pausing to ask her about the possible rephrasing of a sentence or proposing a wording change and receiving her permission before it was written down. At the other extreme Lucy may have simply told the Corays to do what they thought best. Obviously decisions had to be made about material that appears in Lucy’s rough draft but not in the Coray fair [finished] copy or, conversely, material in the Coray fair copy which has no counterpart in Lucy’s rough draft. (Most cases of added material are uncomplicated—mere quotations from already existing material, such as extracts from Joseph Smith’s history published in the Times and Seasons.) Unfortunately, we have no indication of how these decisions were made."

So Lucy may have had some input into the Corays' reworking of her original reminiscences. However, the long excerpt from Joseph Smith's history describing his first vision, together with the appended statement about him suffering "every kind of opposition and persecution from the different orders of religionists," first appears in Pratt's 1853 publication. It is not found in the Corays' 1845 finished manuscript, or in Lucy's 1844-45 "preliminary manuscript" (on which the finished manuscript was based). Presumably it was added when the Coray manuscript was being prepared for publication. I think we can conclude with reasonable certainty, then, that the words aren't Lucy's—since Lucy wasn't involved with the 1853 publication in Liverpool. The statement is an editorial insertion derived from Joseph Smith's 1838 official history.

[Robert F. Smith]

I am reposting this here because the other thread appears to be devoted to calling eachother names. So while the kids play over there, I thought I'd ask the question in a new thread.

The issue at hand was whether or not Joseph Smith was persecuted for telling people about the first vision. Now I am not well informed on the issue or the contemporary sources, but a while ago I did do some searching on the various first vision stories. I came up with the following references to persecution:

• The 1832 account merely states that nobody believed Joseph's heavenly vision;
• The 1835 account doesn't mention anything about the reception of Joseph's vision;
• The 1838/39 version is, of course, the canonized version and is quite detailed about the persecution.
• Pratt's 1840 "Interesting account" doesn't mention any persecution;
• Joseph's 1842 Wentoworth letter doesn't mention persecution in connection with the first vision, only with the deiscovery of the gold plates (including being shot at muliple times);
• Hyde's 1842 German account doesn't mention any persecution (it leans heavily on Pratt's "Interesting account");
• Joseph's 1843 interview with the Pittsburgh Gazette mentions that they persecuted him after he shared his vision like they persecuted him ever since (paraphrasing here).

So there is some mention of persecution, but Joseph seems to have taken it in stride and didn't dwell on it much. I think the canonized version is the most interesting one because one would expect to find evidence of a coordinated, sustained effort by men of high standing of all sects as described in verse 22. Are there any history buffs here who can confirm this? Thanks!

Rob Bowman said in response, June 2, 2011,

Ariarates,

To the best of my knowledge, every documented reference to Joseph being persecuted in the 1820s because of the First Vision is dependent on the 1838 account found in JS-H. We have no evidence apart from that account, and statements dependent on that account, for any "persecution" of Joseph at all (even interpreting that term broadly) prior to 1827.

The argument here is not merely an argument from absence of evidence. We do have evidence of Joseph being ridiculed in the late 1820s for his "gold bible," his story of the angel appearing to him, etc., all of which is consistent with the fact that Joseph's story in the late 1820s and early 1830s consistently began with the angel appearing to him to reveal the gold plates, not with an appearance of Christ. In 1832 Joseph wrote an account of Christ appearing to him but shelved it and said nothing about it publicly to anyone for several years after that. It would be difficult to be persecuted for something if no one knew about it.

Given the vagaries of real historiography (historywriting: the way in which people actually recall and record events), none of these above observations carry much weight -- except as they are used as debaters points to satisfy preconceived positions.

For example, those who reject the testimony of St Paul often rest their case on the very clear differences among the various accounts of his First Vision:

1. Acts 9:3-9

2. Acts 22:6-11

3. Acts 26:12-18

4. Galatians 1:15-17

According to them, not only are certain crucial details left out of some accounts, but important, canonical details are in conflict, e.g., in Acts 9:7 those with him heard the voice versus 22:9 in which they didn't hear the voice. Should we ask which account is correct, just as we sometimes do when confronted with very different accounts of the life of Christ in the four Gospels? Or should we face the fact that in the real world there are always going to be differences in accounts, depending both on the point of view of the recorder, as well as on the immediate purpose and concerns of the person relating personal events. Emphases regularly differ and some bits of information are included or omitted depending on memory and/or the circumstances.

As a matter of Formgeschichte (form criticism), one places such phenomena under the heading of "Apparition Dialogue form" and looks to see whether the common elements are present (see for example Gen 18:1 - 19:1, 46:1-3, Dan 10:7, II Cor 12:1-4, etc.). Other diagnostic tools can also be brought to bear. See the standard treatment by Norbert Lohfink, The Conversion of Paul; or Blake Shipp, Paul the Reluctant Witness for examples of how scholars dispassionately deal with such questions. It is not fair or credible to approach such matters without a certain amount of sincere gravitas, something which has been notably lacking in discussion elsewhere on this board.

The late William F. Albright was moved to say, for example, of the obvious differences among the NT Gospels, that disciples of very important men often write accounts which are quite divergent only because it reflects their own personalities and concerns -- not because their master was a liar or deceptive, as the polemicists would have it. Surely, for example, the assembly in Athens condemned Socrates to death for reasons which were quite unjustified -- according to his disciples Plato and Xenephon, both of whom wrote differing accounts of their beloved master.

One likewise finds very different versions of Buddhism being taught today by the followers of the Buddha -- Mahayana and Theravada. Which is the more correct version, if any? Or are they merely "different expressions" of the same teaching?

[Ariarates]

Bushman made the point that it was not novel and unusual but typical enlightment response to reports of visions, which themselves were not especially novel and unusual either. Just not acceptable to the elites of the day. See discussions in Rough Stone Rolling and "The Visionary World of Joseph Smith."

Kevin, did Bushman make this point regarding the 1832 or the 1838/39 version of the first vision? It would make sense if he was referring to the 1832 version. If he was referring to the canonized version, it's hard to see how a vision of deity that directly contradicts the immaterial, trinitarian understanding of God would not be considered unusual or novel.

[Ariarates]

I think it is self-evident to accept the history Joseph relates that there was persecution.

If it were self-evident, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Fact is, we only have Joseph's words for it as related in JS-H v. 22. While a lot of interesting and creative theories have been proposed in this thread, contemporary corroborating evidence is still severely lacking.

Whether or not Joseph Smith was persecuted for sharing his first vision in the 1820s and early 1830s cannot be determined from this thread with any degree of certainty. However, there appears to be no independent evidence that he was.

[Flyonthewall]

I wonder how many Junior High schoolers there are that are bullied(persecuted), and 250+ years later, proof of it can be found.

Many kids simply suffer it in silence while going about their life.

I wonder why this is so readily tossed aside, and proof is demanded to verify his claims?

Edited June 7, 2011 by Flyonthewall