Joseph Smith’S First Vision Accounts: More Mormon Church Suppression And Cover-Up

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think anybody who is a legitimate historian would argue that MM was covered up. How can you cover up something that does not exist? The church leadership was not involved in the event. It was local paranoid residents who were given bad advice and over reacted.

The only obvious cover-up would be by the perpetrators themselves and their associates. But that doesn't constitute a cover-up by the institutional Church.

[Storm Rider]

MMM and cover-up. Oh, you mean when BY visited the site; no that is not a cover-up. Hummm; you must mean when it was written about in the newspapers of the day; not that is not a cover-up. Let's see; holding a trial and sending Lee to his death; no, not that; it is just a touch to public. Oh, I know, it is the 506 articles written about it in journals around the world prior to 1900; no that cannot be it.

This myth is similar to the myth that LDS temple ceremonies are secret. If we repeat it over and over again does it make it true? How many times much it be repeated to make it true? And the clencher; how many anti-Mormons does it take to repeat something before it becomes an undeniable fact?

[Log]

Here's an online source, the FAIR Wiki entry, drawn from Dean Jesse's The Papers of Joseph Smith.

So that's not the whole thing? But what's there is awesome! And it even specifies the fire which impressed me most about the 1832 account. Thanks!

[Scott Lloyd]

And the clencher; how many anti-Mormons does it take to repeat something before it becomes an undeniable fact?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

The answer is blowin' in the wind.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes. Former BYU President Ernest Wilkenson played the sinister "Grasscutter" character in the BYU produced movie "The Great Grasscutter." No known copies of that movie are available to the public. Critics attribute this to the crackdown on LDS freedom of expression and the purge of LDS intellectuals and artistic types several decades ago.

Officials refuse to account for the disappearance of the film. Some have even denied its existence. it is rumored to be hidden in a cold storage box in the BYU Creamery.

Bernard

Didn't Wilkinson sing background on the Crystals' early '60s hit "Da Doo Ron Ron"?

I've never been able to pin that down; must be a cover-up afoot.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd love if we canonized all of Joseph's First Vision accounts. They're all beautiful and they all testify of Jesus Christ and the truthfulness of the event.

Some are not the Prophet's own words but are filtered through the recollection and interpretation of others. That may be a good reason not to canonize every single one.

[altersteve]

I agree.The 1832 one is my favorite.

Mine as well.

[altersteve]

Some are not the Prophet's own words but are filtered through the recollection and interpretation of others. That may be a good reason not to canonize every single one.

I know, I just meant the ones written by the Prophet himself.

[Cobalt-70]

And Acts gives contradictory accounts of Paul's vision. That some explain it away with handwaving does not take away the fact. Not enough to leave the faith, but I'm so darn sick of the misdirection.

There are always going to be differences between any two accounts of the same event. In the case of Paul's vision, the differences are easily explainable. The accounts told by Paul in his own letters don't really say much about the event, and the three accounts in the book of Acts were written much later, based on earlier sources that may or may not be reliable. Paul was not around at that time to correct any of it.

In the case of Joseph Smith, a standard historical analysis would give the earlier accounts more credibility than the later accounts. But the differences between the accounts are very valuable as an indicator of Smith's historical exigencies at the time each account was given. Smith gave each account for a definite reason, and what he added or subtracted from each account, or changed, is historically important. But for anyone attempting to find out what "really" happened, that is a lost cause. It doesn't matter what "really" happened. All that matters is the text that Smith left behind, which is not univocal. Smith is dead; the First Vision lives in text, but will forever suffer from a dissociative personality.

[Scott Lloyd]

In the case of Joseph Smith, a standard historical analysis would give the earlier accounts more credibility than the later accounts.

It occurs to me that earlier accounts may not necessarily be the best or most reliable.

When I prepare a news story of an event, my note-taking at the time the event is occurring is, at best, disjointed, fragmentary, even cryptic. Only later, when I have the time, am I able to construct from my notes a coherent narrative that more closely reflects my actual recollection of the event.

One of the scholars who has studied the First Vision accounts, Milton Backman, posits that the 1832 version was something of a "first draft" that was refined in later accounts.

The perspective of hindsight, maturity and knowledge, it seems to me, can actually make for a truer narrative in some ways than one that is constructed closer to the event.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

For those who feel the Church didn't "cover up" the different accounts of the First Vision, is there anything that you do feel that the Church has "covered up" in the past?

I won't say covered up, but took a proactive approach in not being forthright with info.

till recently =

Mountain Meadows

Racism by leaders

Adam/God at times in church history

Joseph's treasure digging and use of a seer stone long before the plates

[cinepro]

It occurs to me that earlier accounts my not necessarily be the best or most reliable.

When I prepare a news story of an event, my note-taking at the time the event is occurring is, at best, disjointed, fragmentary, even cryptic. Only later, when I have the time, am I able to construct from my notes a coherent narrative that more closely reflects my actual recollection of the event.

One of the scholars who has studied the First Vision accounts, Milton Backman, posits that the 1832 version was something of a "first draft" that was refined in later accounts.

The perspective of hindsight, maturity and knowledge, it seems to me, can actually make for a truer narrative in some ways than one that is constructed closer to the event.

Why would a draft written 18 years after an event be expected to be more reliable than one written 12 years after the event?

Obviously, the First Vision is an exceptional and universe-changing event, but even had such an event occurred to me in 2000, I can't see how an account I would write in 2018 should be considered more reliable than an account I would write in 2012.

People's memories of events get worse over time, not better. In order for Joseph to have a better recollection in 1838 than 1832, it would require new input (such as a "refresher" revelation reminding him of what happened). Unless we want to theorize something along those lines, we also need to take into account other factors that could change the story.

Edited June 12, 2012 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

Long time, no see.

Sure, I still think Smoot is snot-nosed, possibly bratty; but I'm glad he's back from his mission intact. And I liked the turns of phrase in this article enough to highlight it, despite my own long absence.

Good stuff.

Hey man, good to see ya!

[mfbukowski]

I personally prefer the "pillar of fire" reading myself.

Good thing that was not in California, it would be strictly illegal.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why would a draft written 18 years after an event be expected to be more reliable than one written 12 years after the event?

I thought I had already explained that in terms of a first and subsequently refined draft, hindsight reflection and perspective, maturity, increased knowledge, etc.

But alas, if the message is not coming through, perhaps I must throw up my hands in frustration and abandon the effort.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.

The answer is blowin' in the wind.

[cinepro]

I thought I had already explained that in terms of a first and subsequently refined draft, hindsight reflection and perspective, maturity, increased knowledge, etc.

I agree that all of those can be factors in the development of the story. I'm just not sure any of them would be factors towards making the story more "accurate" (to the degree that the word can be applied to a religious experience in the first place).

Ironically, I think this discussion has critics treating the First Vision as Mormons pretend to view it: as an objectively real event for which there is only one valid physical "reality".

The defensive explanations for the different versions shift the perspective to one that most LDS usually reject, where the actual event is more ethereal and its meaning is in the "eye of the reteller". To the point that the vision isn't what actually happened in the spring of 1820, it's whatever Joseph Smith thought happened at any particular time in his life.

Edited June 13, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Long time, no see.

Sure, I still think Smoot is snot-nosed, possibly bratty; but I'm glad he's back from his mission intact. And I liked the turns of phrase in this article enough to highlight it, despite my own long absence.

Good stuff.

Wow, he's back already!? Missions go by way faster when you're not on them!

[Cobalt-70]

It occurs to me that earlier accounts may not necessarily be the best or most reliable.

When I prepare a news story of an event, my note-taking at the time the event is occurring is, at best, disjointed, fragmentary, even cryptic. Only later, when I have the time, am I able to construct from my notes a coherent narrative that more closely reflects my actual recollection of the event.

One of the scholars who has studied the First Vision accounts, Milton Backman, posits that the 1832 version was something of a "first draft" that was refined in later accounts.

The perspective of hindsight, maturity and knowledge, it seems to me, can actually make for a truer narrative in some ways than one that is constructed closer to the event.

The 1832 telling was not a contemporary note-taking exercise, but was rather a recollection of a subjective experience that occurred 12 years earlier. I can remember some rather momentous things that happened to me about 12 years ago in the year 2000, but frankly, my memory is a little foggy on a lot of the details, and I can perceive an even greater fogginess within my recollection of events 18 years ago in 1994. Memory is a strange thing. I do believe that something happened to Smith while he was in the woods in 1820, but I would not be surprised if he elaborated the story, and added meaning and elements to it, and things that he heard, and background context, that had not occurred to him years earlier, and may have been tied less to actual events than to his later contemplation on the vision's meaning.

[mfbukowski]

I agree that all of those can be factors in the development of the story. I'm just not sure any of them would be factors towards making the story more "accurate" (to the degree that the word can be applied to a religious experience in the first place).

Ironically, I think this discussion has critics treating the First Vision as Mormons pretend to view it: as an objectively real event for which there is only one valid physical "reality".

The defensive explanations for the different versions shift the perspective to one that most LDS usually reject, where the actual event is more ethereal and its meaning is in the "eye of the reteller". To the point that the vision isn't what actually happened in the spring of 1820, it's whatever Joseph Smith thought happened at any particular time in his life.

Fortunately, of course you are the only one who has that little known security cam video footage of what really happened.

[zerinus]

I agree that all of those can be factors in the development of the story. I'm just not sure any of them would be factors towards making the story more "accurate" (to the degree that the word can be applied to a religious experience in the first place).

Ironically, I think this discussion has critics treating the First Vision as Mormons pretend to view it: as an objectively real event for which there is only one valid physical "reality".

The defensive explanations for the different versions shift the perspective to one that most LDS usually reject, where the actual event is more ethereal and its meaning is in the "eye of the reteller". To the point that the vision isn't what actually happened in the spring of 1820, it's whatever Joseph Smith thought happened at any particular time in his life.

The First Vision was such and experience that the details of it would have been indelibly etched in anybody's mind who should have received it. Also, by all accounts, it was a much more extensive (and intensive) event that Joseph Smith never told the full extent of it in any of the accounts that he recorded. Things happened and words were spoken the full extent of which Joseph Smith never revealed. That is one of the reasons for the differences between the stories. In each account, Joseph is simply cherry picking the bits which he thinks he should tell, while leaving the rest (the greater part) unsaid. Another factor to bear in mind is that most of the earlier accounts were not attempts by Joseph Smith at creating a thoughtful, carefully prepared, written (for publication) statement. They were occasional remarks told to someone else, which they casually jotted down. The official version seems to be the only one in which Joseph Smith made a serious attempt at creating what can indeed be called an "official" version. That does give it greater credibility than all the other versions. Here is an interesting "harmony" of the various different versions which has been available online for many years, and shows that while there are indeed differences between them, there are no contradictions.

[Scott Lloyd]

The defensive explanations for the different versions shift the perspective to one that most LDS usually reject, where the actual event is more ethereal and its meaning is in the "eye of the reteller". To the point that the vision isn't what actually happened in the spring of 1820, it's whatever Joseph Smith thought happened at any particular time in his life.

If you're suggesting here that God could, at any point, cause or inspire Joseph to add elements to the vision that weren't originally there, is it not just as likely that God, when it came time for Joseph to write the official account, could augment his memory to recall elements that were? A scripturally defined mission of the Holy Ghost is to bring things to one's remembrance.

Once one accepts that Joseph did experience a genuine theophany and thereafter was divinely guided through the instrumentality of the Holy Ghost, all the protestations about fallible memory and the human tendency to embellish, cease to be compelling.

(And it's devilishly hard to get an iPod spell checker to accept a word like "theophany".)

Edited June 13, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[zerinus]

(And it's devilishly hard to get an iPod spell checker to accept a word like "theophany".)

When it makes you a suggestion that you don't want, you can tap on the little cross next to it, and it will go away. Another nice trick: when you reach the end of a sentence, give it a quick double space, and it will put in the period for you automatically.

[Scott Lloyd]

When it makes you a suggestion that you don't want, you can tap on the little cross next to it, and it will go away. Another nice trick: when you reach the end of a sentence, give it a quick double space, and it will put in the period for you automatically.

Thanks.

I'm aware of how to make the suggested word go away. In practice, however, I often get writing so feverishly I neglect to do so.

The trick with the double space forming a period is one I use quite often.

[Cobalt-70]

The First Vision was such and experience that the details of it would have been indelibly etched in anybody's mind who should have received it....

Why do you think so? Smith hardly even thought his first vision significant enough to mention until the mid-1830s. When listing the major visions and events leading to the founding of Mormonism in 1830, the first vision was hardly even a footnote (D&C 20:5), especially in comparison to the must more significant and momentous (from the 1830 perspective) revelation of Moroni (D&C 20:6-12). Smith wasn't bashful about telling people about his visions; it's just that his first one did not have much significance, other than as a remission of his sins, until 1838. In that year, the first vision needed to became his "road to Damascus" experience that verified to then-skeptical Mormons that he had indeed been called as an apostle.