Was Joseph Smith Persecuted For Sharing The First Vision

[Nevo]

See Lucy 1844/45 (p. 478)

From the link:

Lucy: 1844-45

[p.478]As they then returned to Pensyvania and remained <to Penn> untill the ensueing spring when

P David

<John> Whitmer and Oliver Cowdray went to Pennsylvania Joseph was then preaching to the people and was pleased to see the young men for the opposition which he had to contend with was so strong that the

hope

prospect of assistance

abcor

was very encourageing. but they were not much benefit to him in this respect for they only had Sufficient <time> to preach a few discourses and baptize some 8 or 9 persons <among whom was our old friend Newel Knight>

Not sure where you're going with this.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Nevo

[Jaybear]

Here is more evidence to ignore.

Lucy talking about Emma before (years before 1831) their official move to Kirtland.

The way this thread has headed, it will be decided that Emma suffered from persecution, but not Joseph Smith.

We are looking for evidence that Smith was persecuted for sharing the first vision story. This quote does not support that assertion, and can rightly be ignored as its not germane to the issue.

Likewise, I am sure you will disagree, but one could reasonably infer from these statements attributed to Lucy above, that she was not aware of this alleged extraordinary persecution agaisnt her son arising from the first vision story:

"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."

"...as we knew not the cause of it. Joseph being a remarkably quiet, well disposed child, we did not suspect that any one had aught against him."

If the first vision story had excited the public against young Smith, to the extent he later claims, then the reason for the shooting would not have been a mystery to his mother. Since one would expect that his mother would have known that he was being persecuted, and why, well....

[bookofmormontruth]

From the link:

Lucy: 1844-45

[p.478]As they then returned to Pensyvania and remained <to Penn> untill the ensueing spring when

P David

<John> Whitmer and Oliver Cowdray went to Pennsylvania Joseph was then preaching to the people and was pleased to see the young men for the opposition which he had to contend with was so strong that the

hope

prospect of assistance

abcor

was very encourageing. but they were not much benefit to him in this respect for they only had Sufficient <time> to preach a few discourses and baptize some 8 or 9 persons <among whom was our old friend Newel Knight>

Not sure where you're going with this.

This was from Lucy's original manuscript. "opposition which he had to contend with was so strong that the hope prospect of assistance abcor was very encourageing"

[Nevo]

This was from Lucy's original manuscript. "opposition which he had to contend with was so strong that the hope prospect of assistance abcor was very encourageing"

I am quite willing to concede that Joseph Smith had to contend with opposition in 1830.

[bookofmormontruth]

We are looking for evidence that Smith was persecuted for sharing the first vision story. This quote does not support that assertion, and can rightly be ignored as its not germane to the issue.

Likewise, I am sure you will disagree, but one could reasonably infer from these statements attributed to Lucy above, that she was not aware of this alleged extraordinary persecution agaisnt her son arising from the first vision story:

"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."

"...as we knew not the cause of it. Joseph being a remarkably quiet, well disposed child, we did not suspect that any one had aught against him."

If the first vision story had excited the public against young Smith, to the extent he later claims, then the reason for the shooting would not have been a mystery to his mother. Since one would expect that his mother would have known that he was being persecuted, and why, well....

Yes, which has been ignored. See post # 11, 23, 87, 115 and 145 and discuss those facts instead of relying on casual inferences.

All of theses accounts would be considered corroborating evidence so even though the persecution intensified after the plates were revealed, they were definitely familiar with persecution before the plates.

to the extent he later claims

Moving the goal posts I see. You are looking for evidence that he was tarred and feathered etc.. He simply said he was persecuted.

How is that so unreasonable to believe? We all know what this thread is really about. It is trying to lead that Joseph Smith made up the 1st Vision - these are the kind of tactics that the likes of Rob Bowman use (trying to ignore the corroborating evidence and make the desperate anti-Mormon claims that have been around for 100s of years). Regurgitation at its finest!

Edited June 8, 2011 by bookofmormontruth

[bookofmormontruth]

I am quite willing to concede that Joseph Smith had to contend with opposition in 1830.

1827.

And before the move to Pennsylvania, they lived in Palmyra. They had to leave Palmyra because of persecution.

Edited June 7, 2011 by bookofmormontruth

[Rob Bowman]

Jaybear,

You wrote:

Likewise, I am sure you will disagree, but one could reasonably infer from these statements attributed to Lucy above, that she was not aware of this alleged extraordinary persecution agaisnt her son arising from the first vision story:

"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."

"...as we knew not the cause of it. Joseph being a remarkably quiet, well disposed child, we did not suspect that any one had aught against him."

If the first vision story had excited the public against young Smith, to the extent he later claims, then the reason for the shooting would not have been a mystery to his mother. Since one would expect that his mother would have known that he was being persecuted, and why, well....

Quite right. But there is no need for the qualification "to the extent he later claims." If someone supposedly shot at Joseph in response to his First Vision story, that would be sufficient "persecution" for the cause to be known to Joseph's family. Lucy would have known about any other persecution, and if she hadn't, when someone apparently shot at Joseph one would think he would tell her that it was because of his First Vision, if indeed he was being persecuted at all for it. As it stands, this story actually constitutes evidence against the 1838 account's claim that Joseph was persecuted at age 14 for sharing his First Vision experience.

[Flyonthewall]

I think it has something to do with the fact that the First Vision is the foundation of the LDS Church.

I could understand that better if the foundation of the church was just days later, a week or a month, but it wasn't. The foundation of the church came years later. In between came a lot of learning and growing on the part of Joseph...there wasn't a brain dump at the First Vision.

So while the First Vision may have given people a reason to poke fun at Joseph, it could still be chalked up to the fantasies of a child.

It is only when a tangible object is claimed that the heat gets turned up...so it all may have started with the First Vision, but escalated with the gold plates.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is only when a tangible object is claimed that the heat gets turned up...so it all may have started with the First Vision, but escalated with the gold plates.

That is my take on what happened.

[Vance]

The statement is an editorial insertion derived from Joseph Smith's 1838 official history.

An unsupported conclusion. There are other possible sources for this "editorial insertion".

[Calm]

Hi David, it's nice to see you posting here.

Indeed it is and even better that both of you have popped in.

You make an interesting argument. Perhaps they knew about Joseph's claimed 1820 theophany but by 1833 thought it more important to attack the Book of Mormon, hence, the heavy emphasis on Joseph's money-digging activities. That's certainly a possibility.

To be clear, I'm not expressing skepticism that Joseph experienced a vision of God in 1820. I think the evidence for that is quite good. I simply question the accuracy of certain aspects of his 1838/39 narrative. I think there is a certain amount of exaggeration and conflation going on.

i would not be the least bit surprised if on the one side the memories of his youthful experiences were inflated while on the other side they were lost in later, more immediate focus...memory being what it is. Sensitive youths are likely to imagine bullying comments and actions as harsher than they were and those who are the bullies are more than likely to downplay just how bad they treated someone, dismissing it as simple teasing and the victim as someone who can't take a joke. I can also see a conflation in Joseph's mind of the cause of any ridicule to what was most important to himself--his encounter with God---while others would remember and connect their actions with what was then most uppermost in their mind...which would most likely be whatever they considered most unusual or weird or discrediting about him---after all that might help them justify to themselves and others any prior harsh treatment of him, which by the time the accounts were written was the Book of Mormon and how it came to be apparently.

Whether or not the persecution was at the level that Joseph believed it to be, those feelings of being persecuted would still affect his own behaviour and lead him to be more cautious in sharing what he believed was the primary trigger of the persecution.

Edited June 9, 2011 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

Your citation of Norbert Lohfink's "standard treatment" entitled The Conversion of Paul is problematic in more than one sense. A search of Lohfink's exhaustive bibliography of his works reveals no such publication (see here). Lohfink, an Old Testament scholar, did write one rather obscure article on the OT background of Paul's conversion in a 1965 issue of Biblische Zeitschrift, but the article did not have that title (not even translated into English). A search on Google and on the ATLA database found no such book by Norbert Lohfink. Gerhard Lohfink did write a book entitled in English The Conversion of St. Paul (a translation of his book Paulus vor Damaskus). This book at least exists, but it is not a "standard treatment." Shipp did write the book you mentioned (Paul the Reluctant Witness) but it is neither a standard nor a particularly cogent analysis of the Acts accounts (see the review by Ruben Dupertuis, or the one by C. Clifton Black in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70 [2008]: 393-94). Shipp's position assumes that the author of Acts did not know Paul (contrary to the author's explicit claim) and assumes that the Book of Acts portrays Paul as resisting the leading of the Spirit throughout the second half of Acts! Before you can have any gravitas, you have to have some basic facts straight.

If we're going to drop names, let's mention some whose works are standard on the subject of Paul's conversion: Martin Hengel (two books on the subject); the book The Road from Damascus edited by Richard Longenecker; Seyoon Kim (two books on the subject); at least a couple of essays by James Dunn; and (for a decidedly non-Christian perspective) Alan Segal's Paul the Convert.

You're right Rob. I shouldn't try winging it by sheer memory when trying to recall which Lohfink authored the work in question. And Hengel, Longenecker, and Dunn are certainly good recommendations. Thanks for that and for keeping things on the up and up.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

You wrote:

Robert F. Smith, on 07 June 2011 - 12:01 AM, said:

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.

And your appeal to the apparent discrepancies in the Acts accounts of Paul's conversion is not a mere debating point to defend a preconceived position?

No. I was merely pointing to a prime example of how apparent and/or real discrepancies in a first vision can be used in a negative and unfair way to cast doubt on the veracity of that vision. Such an approach often does great violence to real patterns of historiography.

Quote

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.

This is the only alleged discrepancy in the accounts, and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I won't bore you with the exegetical nuances that the criticism overlooks unless you tell me you would personally find such information helpful. The bottom line is that there is no valid or legitimate comparison between this apparent discrepancy and the discrepancies in Joseph Smith's accounts of his alleged First Vision. Here's why:

1. The apparent discrepancy in the Acts accounts of Paul's conversion experience is of miniscule importance. It has nothing to do with the who, what, where, when, or why of the event. By contrast, Joseph's accounts of his first visionary experience conflict as to the who, what, where, when, and why of that first experience:

• who (an angel; the Lord Jesus; the Father and the Son)
• what (a revelation of the Book of Mormon vs. a revelation of the apostasy and restoration)
• when (1820 or 1823)
• where (his room or the woods)
• why (because God simply chose to send an angel to Joseph; because Joseph thought true Christianity was not on the earth and needed forgiveness; because Joseph wanted to know which church to join)

Most of these suggested discrepancies depend on the anti-Mormon confusion of 1820 with 1823, which entail completely different events/visions. As D. Michael Quinn showed us in his 2006 Dialogue epaper "Joseph Smith's Experience of a Methodist 'Camp Meeting' in 1820," there is no question but that Joseph's claim of an 1820 First Vision fits very well into circumstances as described. It would make no more sense for us to confuse Paul's First Vision with another vision described by him at II Corinthians 12:2-4.

The other discrepancies (who confronted Joseph, and why he sought an answer to prayer) assume a one-dimensional nature of the inquiry. In real life that may not be the case, and Joseph may have had a number of matters on his mind simultaneously -- only magnified by personal reflection many years later. Who is to say that a more mature (adult) Joseph did not see many more implications in an event which had remained nearly unknown to those around him. It isn't hard to conceive how a harsh response from some outspoken minister could have wounded Joseph and kept him quiet for years.

2. The Book of Acts records all three accounts of Paul's conversion for all to see; none of these accounts was ever suppressed or buried. By contrast, Joseph's 1832 account of the First Vision was shelved and a conflicting account produced years later, with the 1832 account suppressed for many years.

Actually we do not know what versions or rough drafts of Paul's First Vision may have circulated. In the course of transmission of such accounts, it should not surprise us if some small discrepancies creep in over time -- particularly if we are emphasizing some particular aspect of such event now and another later. Like me, you may have written about or alluded to events in your life at various times, which if systematically compared now would not seem to be the same account or event. Is it fair to apply standards to Joseph which we would not want applied to ourselves, nor to the Bible?

3. The accounts of Paul's conversion experience do not grow larger with each telling (fish-story fashion). By contrast, the stories of Joseph's first visionary experience grew ever more impressive as the years went by, from an appearance of an angel (1820s) to an appearance of the Lord Jesus (1832) to a completely unprecedented appearance of the Father and the Son (1838).

In fact, Paul's earliest account is the briefest. Perhaps deliberately so based on the context. That doesn't mean that later accounts were deliberately enlarged -- like a "fish story." Using words like "shelved" or "suppressed" for Joseph's accounts only adds to the questions about the odd and inappropriate nature of insistence in some quarters that there are no real discrepancies in the Gospels nor in accounts of Paul's First Vision. You can't have it both ways. Otherwise, you might want to accuse me of deliberately mistaking Norbert for Gerhard Lohfink . . .

4. Skeptics naturally deny that Paul saw the risen Christ, but they rarely deny that he thought he saw the risen Christ, and they all agree that something happened that led Paul to change from a Pharisee who despised Christianity to a Christian apostle bent on converting Gentiles to Christianity. For example, skeptics often claim that Paul had a hallucination precipitated by his suppressed guilt over persecuting Christians. Paul's conversion requires some sort of personal crisis experience to make any sense of the facts. By contrast, the origins of Mormonism make perfectly good sense without the First Vision, and most non-Mormons (skeptics or not) see no reason to acknowledge that Joseph even thought he saw the Father and the Son.

5. In the case of Paul, we have no paper trail of documentation prior to our earliest references to his encounter with the risen Christ in which a different story is found. Paul's earliest writings tell the basic story that he was a Pharisee who persecuted the church until the risen Jesus appeared to him and made him an apostle (Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, and 1 Corinthians, all written AD 49-54). No earlier accounts from any source contradict this story (and for that matter nor do any later accounts from the first century contradict it). Paul's culture was literate but at a level far below that of the early nineteenth century. By contrast, we have a significant paper trail of statements from Joseph Smith, other Mormons, and non-Mormons throughout the 1820s and 1830s in which the appearance of the angel to Joseph regarding the Book of Mormon was Joseph's first religious or visionary experience.

No one should disregard the importance of the Book of Mormon event in early Mormonism. For most it was undoubtedly first in their minds. After all, few knew of the First Vision.

However, you are here substituting an unrealistic version of how events (and the accounting for events) takes place set over against the rough hewn way in which people actually account for their lives. In disclosing what is of significance to them, there is no more sequential nature to what people regard as important at various times in their lives than there is for a fully sequential nature of Holy Writ. Neither comports with reality.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Kevin Christensen]

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.

The criticism that Joseph reported was not of the theological content but of the experience of revelation. That is what Bushman discusses. The usual visionaries reported seeing God, and getting a message that the churches of the day were corrupt, neither message being welcomed by the clergy who accepted a closed canon, found the criticism awkward. Hairsplitting over theological distinctions was not the primary concern on either side. For that matter, the LDS themselves did not use the First Vision for theological purposes until the 1870s. See James B. Allen, "Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith's First Vision in Mormon Religious Thought," Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 43—61. And since Joseph Smith and Sidney Ridgon reported seeing Jesus at the right hand of God, the theological point regarding the Father and Son does not depend solely on Joseph's First vision. Reading that kind of theological fuss into early Mormon history is itself anachronistic. And I personally think that reading the Book of Mormon as an ancient document is the best way to discern it's theological content. Not selecting proof texts to then mis-contextualize.

Rob's cliche listing of "contradictions" (Angel, Jesus, Father and Son) ignores a lot of discussion going back at least as far as the Improvement Era article, and subsequent Ensign on the multiple accounts, as well as the recent book and FAIR essays by Matthew Brown.

Regarding Joseph Smith's accounts of the First Vision, I'm personally convinced that the 1832 account does refer to when Joseph received "firstly testamony from on high" which many of us see as a reference to the Father saying "this is my Beloved Son..." before the appearance of the Son. This is consistent with details reported in subsequent accounts, where the Father introduces the Son. The New Testament reports a testimony from on high before Jesus' baptism. The Book of Mormon reports one before the 3 Nephi post resurrection appearance.

As the 1832 account of the vision begins he says "the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord. Now the first <Lord> was written as an insert above the line. If Joseph (or a scribe) had written "the Father" instead of "Lord", we would have no controversy. For that matter, even as it stands, there is scriptural precedent for using "Lord" to refer to more than one being. And for that matter, for using "angel" to refer to God's visible presence. (See The Great Angel, for example.) The actions performed at that first moment, opening the heavens and giving testimony of Jesus are those consistently attributed to the Father in later accounts. Matthew Brown has also shown clearly that in the 1832 account that Joseph was striving to liken himself to Paul who "had seen an vision, and knew it, and knew that God knew it." And that accounts for his emphasis on his encounter with Jesus. Joseph's critics generally accepted Paul's report. He wanted to emphasize how much he felt his experience was like Paul's, so he emphasized the testimony of Jesus. I'm personally very impressed when I read all the Vision accounts in Opening the Heavens.

It's clear from Joseph's own account that he did not tell his Furst Vision story often, even to his own family. It was personal, sacred, and had been rejected the first time he did share it. He pointedly did not tell his Mother, so it does not appear in her history. But notice that she does not complain about his. It was Moroni who told Joseph to tell his Father. I've also noticed that modern studies of people who have had visionary experiences are affected in characteristic ways, and that Joseph Smith displays those characteristics, which are much harder to fake than just telling a story. If we have the effects, what caused them? (For instance, see my JBMS 2/1 essay and the Spiritual Experience essay linked in my profile.)

What is unaccounted for is that none of Joseph's contemporaries, especially those close enough to have seen, heard, transcribed, and sometimes used Joseph's vision accounts, that none of them made the complaints we hear so often now. Many were quite vocal when they had objections.

Incidentally, though Quinn's 2006 essay, which Robert Smith references, is no longer on the Dialogue site, it can be found here.

http://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/2006-joseph-smiths-experience-of-a-methodist-camp-meeting-in-1820-d-michael-quinn/

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Ariarates]

Hey Kevin, thanks for the informative and interesting reply. Not sure that it answers my question but still...

I'm not sure what you are saying. I agree that the 1832 version probably would not have been considered very remarkable by Joseph's contemporaries - but then it probably also wouldn't have raised much resistance or persecution (and that may be why the account is silent on that).

[Kevin Christensen]

Hey Kevin, thanks for the informative and interesting reply. Not sure that it answers my question but still...

I'm not sure what you are saying. I agree that the 1832 version probably would not have been considered very remarkable by Joseph's contemporaries - but then it probably also wouldn't have raised much resistance or persecution (and that may be why the account is silent on that).

Bushman's point regarding Reverend Lane's dismissal is that Lane offered a typical response by Enlightenment-influenced preachers to a typical conversion theophany. From their perspective, miracles, visions and angels were all in the past. They proved that the Bible was a unique, reliable source of truth, and now it is a matter of simply applying reason to the sacred text. But from Joseph's perspective, such criticism from Lane was a personal rejection of an overwhelming personal experience. And from Joseph's perspective, any such generic rejection of modern visions would feel intensely personal. His subjectivity should count. As Quinn points out, conflation of experiences is rather typical of human memory. The more Joseph Smith told, the more intense and violent the persecution became. And as William Smith recalled, the family was considered respectable until word of Joseph's visions got out.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Ariarates]

Thanks, Kevin.

[Mike Richards]

I don't have a source for them, but I seem to remember reading in one of the Hurlburt affidavits that a religious leader (minister, preacher, etc) called Joseph a liar as he and the affidavits author were together. For some reason, I though it was a recollection of Joseph's youth. This could be some evidence of early persecution, and thus more likely linked to the first vision rather than the visit from Moroni--depending on what it actually says of course. Is there an online source for the affidavits--or does anyone better remember/have access to what I'm describing?

[Rob Bowman]

Robert, I had written that “Joseph’s accounts of his first visionary experience conflict as to the who, what, where, when, and why of that first experience:

• who (an angel; the Lord Jesus; the Father and the Son)
• what (a revelation of the Book of Mormon vs. a revelation of the apostasy and restoration)
• when (1820 or 1823)
• where (his room or the woods)
• why (because God simply chose to send an angel to Joseph; because Joseph thought true Christianity was not on the earth and needed forgiveness; because Joseph wanted to know which church to join)"

You replied:

Most of these suggested discrepancies depend on the anti-Mormon confusion of 1820 with 1823, which entail completely different events/visions.

This comment oversimplifies the matter and obscures the problem, which is that for several years Joseph Smith began his narrative of his religious calling with the angel appearing to him in his room to tell him about the gold plates. If you want to leave out those accounts and focus only on those that might be identified as “First Vision” accounts in the usual LDS sense, we still have the following discrepancies. I will go into somewhat more detail here than previously. In what follows, 1832 represents the account from that year in Joseph’s handwriting; 1835 represents Joseph’s diary account recorded by Warren Cowdery; 1838 represents the account later included in Pearl of Great Price; and 1842 represents the Wentworth Letter.

• who: the Lord Jesus (1832); two unidentified personages (with the speaker implicitly not the Son) and many angels (1835); two personages, one identified as the Son, the other implicitly as the Father (1838); two unidentified, identical-looking personages (1842)
• what: a revelation assuring Joseph that his sins were forgiven and warning of an impending judgment (1832); a revelation assuring Joseph that his sins were forgiven (1835); a revelation that all of the churches were wrong and Joseph should join none of them (1838); a revelation that all of the churches were wrong, that Joseph should join none of them, and that at a later time “the fulness of the gospel” would be revealed to Joseph (1842)
• when: In 1821, Joseph’s 16th year (1832 account); in the spring of 1820, before Joseph’s 15th birthday (1838 account)
• where: no place mentioned (1832); the grove or woods (1835, 1838, 1842)
• why: because Joseph thought all the churches were wrong, that true Christianity was not on the earth, and that he needed forgiveness (1832); because Joseph didn’t know which of the Christian belief systems was right and he wanted to be right in matters of eternal importance (1835); because Joseph didn’t know which church was right and he wanted to know which of the existing churches to join (1838); because Joseph knew that the churches could not all be right and he wanted to investigate the matter more fully (1842)

There can be no plausible denial of the fact that these accounts differ substantially in more respects, and in far more important respects, than the three accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts. The differences with regard to the reason for Joseph’s prayer, the identity of the personage or personages that appeared to Joseph, and the substance of what the personage told Joseph, result in significant discrepancies pertaining to the very core of the story. The point of the 1832 and 1835 accounts is that Joseph was not an irreligious boy when the angel appeared to him but had already had the kind of visionary conversion experience that many people in his culture reported. The point of the 1838 and 1842 account is quite different: it is to establish that Joseph’s calling went beyond the translation of the Book of Mormon and was that of the Prophet of the Restoration.

You wrote:

The other discrepancies (who confronted Joseph, and why he sought an answer to prayer) assume a one-dimensional nature of the inquiry. In real life that may not be the case, and Joseph may have had a number of matters on his mind simultaneously -- only magnified by personal reflection many years later. Who is to say that a more mature (adult) Joseph did not see many more implications in an event which had remained nearly unknown to those around him.

This explanation does not engage the fact that the later accounts drop the essential purpose of the vision in the earlier accounts (seeking for and receiving forgiveness of sins) and replaces them with a different purpose (the announcement that all of the churches were wrong and Joseph was to be the one through whom the true church would be established). The problem is not that the later accounts add new details or “implications” but that the essence of the story changes. The accounts include at least one major contradiction: In the 1832 account Joseph claims that he had already decided before the vision that all of the churches were wrong, whereas in the 1838 account he explicitly denies that he had thought that all of the churches were wrong. Joseph was an adult of 26 and 29 years of age when he produced the earlier accounts (1832, 1835), so the change cannot be explained by saying that the differences in the later accounts resulted from a newly-found adult perspective.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Robert F. Smith]

we still have the following discrepancies. I will go into somewhat more detail here than previously. In what follows, 1832 represents the account from that year in Joseph’s handwriting; 1835 represents Joseph’s diary account recorded by Warren Cowdery; 1838 represents the account later included in Pearl of Great Price; and 1842 represents the Wentworth Letter.

• who: the Lord Jesus (1832); two unidentified personages (with the speaker implicitly not the Son) and many angels (1835); two personages, one identified as the Son, the other implicitly as the Father (1838); two unidentified, identical-looking personages (1842)
• what: a revelation assuring Joseph that his sins were forgiven and warning of an impending judgment (1832); a revelation assuring Joseph that his sins were forgiven (1835); a revelation that all of the churches were wrong and Joseph should join none of them (1838); a revelation that all of the churches were wrong, that Joseph should join none of them, and that at a later time “the fulness of the gospel” would be revealed to Joseph (1842)
• when: In 1821, Joseph’s 16th year (1832 account); in the spring of 1820, before Joseph’s 15th birthday (1838 account)
• where: no place mentioned (1832); the grove or woods (1835, 1838, 1842)
• why: because Joseph thought all the churches were wrong, that true Christianity was not on the earth, and that he needed forgiveness (1832); because Joseph didn’t know which of the Christian belief systems was right and he wanted to be right in matters of eternal importance (1835); because Joseph didn’t know which church was right and he wanted to know which of the existing churches to join (1838); because Joseph knew that the churches could not all be right and he wanted to investigate the matter more fully (1842)

There can be no plausible denial of the fact that these accounts differ substantially in more respects, and in far more important respects, than the three accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts. The differences with regard to the reason for Joseph’s prayer, the identity of the personage or personages that appeared to Joseph, and the substance of what the personage told Joseph, result in significant discrepancies pertaining to the very core of the story. The point of the 1832 and 1835 accounts is that Joseph was not an irreligious boy when the angel appeared to him but had already had the kind of visionary conversion experience that many people in his culture reported. The point of the 1838 and 1842 account is quite different: it is to establish that Joseph’s calling went beyond the translation of the Book of Mormon and was that of the Prophet of the Restoration.

the later accounts drop the essential purpose of the vision in the earlier accounts (seeking for and receiving forgiveness of sins) and replaces them with a different purpose (the announcement that all of the churches were wrong and Joseph was to be the one through whom the true church would be established). The problem is not that the later accounts add new details or “implications” but that the essence of the story changes. The accounts include at least one major contradiction: In the 1832 account Joseph claims that he had already decided before the vision that all of the churches were wrong, whereas in the 1838 account he explicitly denies that he had thought that all of the churches were wrong. Joseph was an adult of 26 and 29 years of age when he produced the earlier accounts (1832, 1835), so the change cannot be explained by saying that the differences in the later accounts resulted from a newly-found adult perspective.

All this reminds me of the joke about the Roman Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope: Roman Catholics don't believe it. And the Mormon doctrine that the Prophet is not infallible: Mormons don't believe it.

I suppose we could make a similar joke about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy in light of the thousands of substantial contradictions among biblical texts. However, I don't blame any particular author(s) or editor(s) for that vast assemblage of differences. I believe that Luke was very sincere and expended Herculean efforts in trying to put together an accurate account of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Acts of the Apostles, and that other biblical authors and editors had the same purpose in view. I believe that the scribes who have transmitted the biblical texts did the best job they could. That contradictions are now found in all such texts is neither surprising nor scandalous. It is what we should expect.

Thus, when mother Smith (Lucy Mack) cannot even correctly recall the year of birth of her eldest boy, I am not at all surprised or dismayed. That is the human condition, and Mike Quinn, Kevin Christensen, and others who have examined such records as you mention rightly put them into a proper historical context: People understandably telescope events, attribute other or additional meanings to them based on current interests or more mature understanding (which does not end with the 20s in one's life-experience). Real life ought to teach us this as fundamental.

How else could I account for the letters home written in my 20s seeming so strange to me now? Yes, it was really me, but I have changed in many respects since then -- hopefully for the better -- and any autobiography I would write now would approach many of the early events of my life far differently than I accounted for them at the time. Sometimes perspective is needed, and I don't think that we should be so ready to condemn surface differences. Particularly in Holy Writ.

More importantly, what sort of method do we apply to decide the authenticity of this or that truth claim? Do we depend on the witness of the Holy Spirit? Or do we simply apply the best in Enlightenment thinking and reasoning? Or do we face anthropological and historiographical reality?

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

The problems in Joseph Smith's various accounts of what is called the First Vision cannot be validly dismissed by a mere admission that he wasn't inerrant. You are obfuscating the issue by citing such minor mistakes as Lucy misremembering the date of her oldest son's birth. Although there is such a discrepancy in Joseph's accounts of the First Vision, it is the least significant such discrepancy. There are, as I have shown, two fundamentally different stories, the first found with some variations in the 1832 history and 1835 diary accounts, and the second found with some variations in the 1838 (PGP) and 1842 Wentworth Letter accounts. The fact that these two stories are so substantially different cannot be trivialized into a mere lack of inerrancy.

You wrote:

More importantly, what sort of method do we apply to decide the authenticity of this or that truth claim? Do we depend on the witness of the Holy Spirit? Or do we simply apply the best in Enlightenment thinking and reasoning? Or do we face anthropological and historiographical reality?

The real issue is how one should go about trying to show someone else why a particular truth claim should or should not be accepted. If you wish to ignore the facts and withdraw to an appeal to your private spiritual experience as the sole basis for your personal confidence in the First Vision story, that's your choice. I could just as easily choose to ignore the facts and withdraw to an appeal to my prior theological convictions as the sole basis for my personally rejecting the First Vision story. Neither approach does anything to contribute to public discourse on the subject, although at least my theological convictions have the advantage of being accessible to public examination while your private spiritual experience does not.

My own approach in historical matters is to try to determine which explanation best accounts for all the facts or observational information at our disposal--what epistemologists call inference to the best explanation. Such an approach need not accept Enlightenment rationalism or proceed from anti-supernatural assumptions. As a Christian, I believe that God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ exist, that God is omnipotent, and that God could manifest himself to human beings whenever, wherever, and however he chose. This means that from my general worldview framework the First Vision story may be viewed as hypothetically possible even though I do see theological problems with reconciling it to the Bible (as I understand the Bible, of course). I can then approach the question of the First Vision and ask whether the historical evidence supports the claim that this event took place, without begging the question or assuming that it is impossible. When I do so, I find a cluster of evidences that lead me to conclude that it is historically unlikely that the First Vision occurred. These evidences include the following observations:

• Joseph's earlier accounts of the origins of his prophetic work began with the angel in his room
• No one seems to have known about the First Vision prior to 1832 even though people knew about Joseph's other religious experiences
• Joseph told two fundamentally different stories that are irreconcilable except by the most ad hoc reasoning (the point you and I have been discussing here)
• Both of those First Vision stories appear to have been created to answer criticism Joseph was receiving at the time
• Joseph's official account contains claims that are almost certainly false, notably the claim about Joseph being persecuted for his First Vision story between 1820 and 1823 (the subject of this thread)
• The same account contains other historically impossible claims (such as his claim later in the PGP account that Charles Anthon had validated Joseph's translation of some characters copied from the plates) that further undermine the historical credibility of the account

These considerations seem quite sufficient to justify the conclusion that it is historically unlikely that the First Vision occurred. It is not necessary for me to be able to prove, on historical grounds alone, that the First Vision could not possibly have occurred. There are two reasons why this is unnecessary. (1) The issue is which hypothesis is the best historical explanation of the available facts, not whether this or that hypothesis is historically possible. (2) The burden of proof is clearly on the side of those who would argue historically that the First Vision occurred, not on the side of those who would deny its historicity. Thus, if I have sufficient evidence to conclude on historical grounds that the First Vision most likely did not occur, I am justified in accepting that conclusion--and so is anyone else who follows the argument and does not presuppose the truth of the First Vision on dogmatic religious grounds.

Now, having established historically that it is unlikely that the First Vision occurred, I note, as mentioned before, that there are theological difficulties in reconciling the official LDS account of the First Vision with the teachings of the Bible. These include the biblical teaching that God the Father does not appear visibly to earthly human beings (John 1:18) and that Christ promised that the church would not die (Matt. 16:18). (Yes, I know that Mormons have different understandings of these texts; I am simply summarizing my reasoning here, not trying to defend every point.) As an evangelical Christian, I view the Bible as the final court of appeal in theological matters. Therefore, as an evangelical, I view the First Vision as not only historically unlikely (for non-theological reasons, as explained above) but also as theologically unacceptable. From that perspective, I would assert not only that it is unlikely to have occurred but that it did not occur. The combination or synergy of historical and theological considerations produces a compelling case against the First Vision for someone who accepts the evangelical view of the Bible.

[Kevin Christensen]

Rob says

My own approach in historical matters is to try to determine which explanation best accounts for all the facts or observational information at our disposal--what epistemologists call inference to the best explanation.

I see an interesting tension between phrase "all the facts" and the necessary qualifier "at our disposal."

I see a very clear selectivity in deciding what matters in comparing and contextualizing Joseph Smith's accounts, in deciding what to notice, what to value. It's like looking at a balance scale in which the weights are all placed on one side, followed by a triumphant fanfare when the scale tilts. I've read all sorts of things from Richard L. Anderson, Richard Bushman, Quinn, James Allen, Matthew Brown, and several others regarding the accuracy of Joseph's recollections, the comprehensiveness of the 1832 account relative to the others that don't appear on this balance. You are free to select and value as you will, of course, but those of us who know these other facts also know what else is at our disposal and what has been disposed of without being weighed in this balance. If the whole meaning of the different accounts is contained a short bullet list of differences, why did the people who know Joseph Smith best, his family, and Oliver, and his scribes, for instance, not provide such lists? If Stephen reports seeing the Son of Man on the right hand of God, should he be stoned or should we listen?

I also see a clear tension between the value of "best explanation" versus a standard "evangelical view of the Bible." A judgement of not orthodox is not necessarily the same as a judgment of best paradigm. A true comparison of paradigms involves putting orthodoxy at risk. I believe that is it means to offer up the sacrifice of a contrite spirit. To be willing to risk what one thinks, what one expects, what one has been taught, what most people think, what the authorities think, against what is real. History's clearest lesson is of the danger in assuming that there is no difference between what is thought at any moment in time, and what is real. If an orthodox belief is really better, it should confront with risk and demonstrate "better than." It is not necessary to surrender given the existence of anomalous facts, but I think it better to acknowledge that paradigm choice always involves deciding which problems are more significant to have solved. I've found that I learn far more about the problems of LDS history and scripture from the LDS believers than I learn of the strengths of LDS history and scripture from the critics.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[David T]

I do find it interesting that someone like Dan Vogel - who has a definite rationalist and non-spiritual approach - aknowledges that Joseph at least had a profound religious experience, in which he may have believed he saw God. While Vogel clearly believes it was a subjective experience, and that Joseph continued to reinterpret and add to the event as time went on, he recognized that Joseph did understand himself to have had a powerful early experience.

Vogel does, however, as I read him, place most of the persecution as something being retrojected, and actually being mainly as a result of the post-1823 Gold Plates claims, which gave both the money diggers/seers and the Religious leaders reasons to dislike and discredit Joseph., making him a full-on exile.

While I want to make clear that I strongly disagree with many of Vogel's speculative interpretations and conclusions, I believe he does do a very admirable and respectable job of presenting tons of important contextual information.

Edited June 17, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You had a lot to say. Unfortunately, nothing you said actually engaged my arguments. I shall demonstrate.

You wrote:

I see an interesting tension between phrase "all the facts" and the necessary qualifier "at our disposal."

There is no tension between the phrase and the qualification if the qualification is, as you put it, necessary. Historians never have all the facts in the sense of knowing exhaustively everything that happened. That doesn't stop us from forming reasonable, justified beliefs about the past.

You wrote:

I see a very clear selectivity in deciding what matters in comparing and contextualizing Joseph Smith's accounts, in deciding what to notice, what to value. It's like looking at a balance scale in which the weights are all placed on one side, followed by a triumphant fanfare when the scale tilts. I've read all sorts of things from Richard L. Anderson, Richard Bushman, Quinn, James Allen, Matthew Brown, and several others regarding the accuracy of Joseph's recollections, the comprehensiveness of the 1832 account relative to the others that don't appear on this balance. You are free to select and value as you will, of course, but those of us who know these other facts also know what else is at our disposal and what has been disposed of without being weighed in this balance.

I see a lot of generalized assertions but no specifics. What are "these other facts"?

You wrote:

If the whole meaning of the different accounts is contained a short bullet list of differences, why did the people who know Joseph Smith best, his family, and Oliver, and his scribes, for instance, not provide such lists?

Perhaps you'd like to explain the point you are trying to make with that rhetorical question.

You wrote:

If Stephen reports seeing the Son of Man on the right hand of God, should he be stoned or should we listen?

Joseph Smith was no Stephen. That having been said, Stephen should not have been stoned, and Joseph Smith should not have been attacked by a mob. But your implicit appeal to pity is irrelevant to the historical question of whether Joseph's story is factual.

You wrote:

I also see a clear tension between the value of "best explanation" versus a standard "evangelical view of the Bible." A judgement of not orthodox is not necessarily the same as a judgment of best paradigm. A true comparison of paradigms involves putting orthodoxy at risk. I believe that is it means to offer up the sacrifice of a contrite spirit. To be willing to risk what one thinks, what one expects, what one has been taught, what most people think, what the authorities think, against what is real. History's clearest lesson is of the danger in assuming that there is no difference between what is thought at any moment in time, and what is real. If an orthodox belief is really better, it should confront with risk and demonstrate "better than." It is not necessary to surrender given the existence of anomalous facts, but I think it better to acknowledge that paradigm choice always involves deciding which problems are more significant to have solved.

More generalities that don't address the issue. You are apparently trying to imply that I am refusing to take an open and honest look at the evidence because it might put my orthodoxy at risk. That may be a comforting thought for you, but it's false. I am very self-conscious about putting my beliefs at risk on a daily basis in the interests of seeking the truth even if I might have to change my mind about something.

You wrote:

I've found that I learn far more about the problems of LDS history and scripture from the LDS believers than I learn of the strengths of LDS history and scripture from the critics.

Feel free to share some specifics of relevance to the present discussion. I'm quite willing to learn from you all that you know about the problems of LDS history and scripture. I'm also quite willing to learn from you of factual evidence that would strengthen the case for LDS historical and scriptural claims. But the sort of floating assertions and generalizations you presented here don't teach me anything.

[bookofmormontruth]

I don't want to hurt anyone's little feelings, but this is the third time I am posting this in regards to the OP.

Post # 11, 23, 87, 115 and 145 answers the OP's question. Do the critics want to address these facts or just keep ignoring them?