Vote On The First Vision At Sunstone

[Dan Vogel]

SUNSTONE THEOLOGICAL SYMPOSIUM

Student Union, University of Utah, Salt Lake City

Friday, 27 July 2012, 5:00 p.m.- 6:30 p.m.

“Diagnosing the Seer: An Assessment of the First Vision”

Presenters: Dan Vogel, Mark Thomas, Todd Compton, and John-Charles Duffy

Abstract: Mormons consider Joseph Smith’s first vision one of the most significant events in religious history; it is by far the most controversial of his visions. many Mormons maintain that the accounts of the vision are historically accurate, while critics of Mormonism assert that different accounts are inconsistent and historically inaccurate. This session will summarize the various accounts and give an overview of the evidence for and against the historicity of various parts of the vision, including a summary of eight criteria for assessing historical authenticity. After hearing this summary of evidence, the session audience will vote on the historicity of each major section of the vision. The session will conclude with a tabulation of the voting results by the audience.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Forgive me for my cynicism, but I am having an extremely difficult time understanding what exactly a vote on the First Vision is supposed to accomplish.

[volgadon]

Forgive me for my cynicism, but I am having an extremely difficult time understanding what exactly a vote on the First Vision is supposed to accomplish.

I could be wrong, but it seems like an attempt to gather data showing the FV to be unbelievable.

[Dan Vogel]

Forgive me for my cynicism, but I am having an extremely difficult time understanding what exactly a vote on the First Vision is supposed to accomplish.

Nothing serious, of course. Audience participation, I suppose. It’s actually inspired by the Jesus Seminar, which is far more controlled and serious.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Dan Vogel

[blackstrap]

Will this vote be a show of hands or secret ballot?

Forgive me for my cynicism, but I am having an extremely difficult time understanding what exactly a vote on the First Vision is supposed to accomplish.

Maybe it's a nod to 'common consent'

[wenglund]

Forgive me for my cynicism, but I am having an extremely difficult time understanding what exactly a vote on the First Vision is supposed to accomplish.

Propaganda technique?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LoudmouthMormon]

Yeah. I graduated from the U. I remember the intellectual and theological caliber of the people who walked the campus. I occasionally spar with one or two of it's current residents.

Going to the U and voting on the first vision accounts, is about as relevant as coming here and voting on which U cheerleader is the hottest.

[Calm]

Propaganda technique?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Publicity stunt? 1) Attract more people to the session by giving them the feeling they can participate and therefore do something meaningful making them feel important 2) A new twist on the old will be more likely to attract reporters than just the old.

[Bill Hamblin]

SUNSTONE THEOLOGICAL SYMPOSIUM

Student Union, University of Utah, Salt Lake City

Friday, 27 July 2012, 5:00 p.m.- 6:30 p.m.

“Diagnosing the Seer: An Assessment of the First Vision”

Presenters: Dan Vogel, Mark Thomas, Todd Compton, and John-Charles Duffy

Abstract: Mormons consider Joseph Smith’s first vision one of the most significant events in religious history; it is by far the most controversial of his visions. many Mormons maintain that the accounts of the vision are historically accurate, while critics of Mormonism assert that different accounts are inconsistent and historically inaccurate. This session will summarize the various accounts and give an overview of the evidence for and against the historicity of various parts of the vision, including a summary of eight criteria for assessing historical authenticity. After hearing this summary of evidence, the session audience will vote on the historicity of each major section of the vision. The session will conclude with a tabulation of the voting results by the audience.

Gee, you've got all the interpretations from A to B represented on that panel.

[DBMormon]

reminds me of the Nicene Council. All those in favor of a trinitarian God raise your hand.... It is so.

[Bill Hamblin]

We all know, of course, that historicity is always determined by majority vote!

[Damien the Leper]

reminds me of the Nicene Council. All those in favor of a trinitarian God raise your hand.... It is so.

Hmmm...all those in favor of the 1838 FV account raise your hand.

This is ridiculous. Choosing one over the other is a game of childish semantics.

Here's a great idea! Let's VOTE on what we want to make canonical. No need for the Spirit at all!

[Chris Smith]

Here's a great idea! Let's VOTE on what we want to make canonical. No need for the Spirit at all!

Not sure if being ironic or not.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

We all know, of course, that historicity is always determined by majority vote!

I suspect the panelists would agree with you that historicity is not determined by a majority vote and that in many respects it's a silly exercise. It was probably proposed mainly for fun and comedic effect. However, as a pedagogical technique, it's not a bad approach. It requires a level of attention and thoughtful engagement from the audience that you wouldn't otherwise get.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Bill Hamblin]

I suspect the panelists would agree with you that historicity is not determined by a majority vote and that in many respects it's a silly exercise. It was probably proposed mainly for fun and comedic effect. However, as a pedagogical technique, it's not a bad approach. It requires a level of attention and thoughtful engagement from the audience that you wouldn't otherwise get.

Comedic effect. Right.

So this tells us something of the "level of attention and thoughtful engagement from the audience" at Sunstone we should expect without going for comedic effect?

[Bill Hamblin]

I really must say, this session represents the exaltation of nincompoopery that is the stock in trade at Sunstone.

[Damien the Leper]

Not sure if being ironic or not.

I'm not sure either.

[Chris Smith]

Comedic effect. Right.

Is it so hard to believe that someone who disagrees with you could have a sense of humor?

So this tells us something of the "level of attention and thoughtful engagement from the audience" at Sunstone we should expect without going for comedic effect?

If you've ever attended an academic conference, which I suspect you have, then you'll know that audience attention and engagement are not a foregone conclusion.

[The Nehor]

We all know, of course, that historicity is always determined by majority vote!

More specifically, by majority vote at fringe LDS events. I propose that we here hold a "yeah" or "vote" on the following:

1. The esteemed body at Sunstone's conclusions should be accepted by all people of good faith.

2. The participants at Sunstone are not a gaggle of idiots with delusions of intellectualism.

3. I should make a sandwich for lunch tomorrow rather then going out to eat.

My votes:

1. Nay

2. Navy

3. Yeah

[Bill Hamblin]

Is it so hard to believe that someone who disagrees with you could have a sense of humor?

Given the response to the Butthead joke, I have good reason to doubt it.

So you really think this session is a joke, and not serious? Really? So they're just mocking the First Vision? Is that supposed to be better?

[Chris Smith]

So you really think this session is a joke, and not serious? Really? So they're just mocking the First Vision? Is that supposed to be better?

More like parodying the Jesus Seminar.

Really, I don't understand the problem here. We all agree, surely, that not everything said in every First Vision account is historical. There are a couple of points at which they explicitly contradict each other. So as we seek to harmonize the accounts, why not have a little fun while we're at it? Is fun so sinful that one can't have it without being labeled an idiot or a nincompoop?

Edited July 11, 2012 by Chris Smith

[David T]

It would be interesting if it was serious, and was approached like Meier approached elements from the Gospels in his Marginal Jew series from his theoretical 'Unpapal Conclave'. Highly respectful and thoughtful, and very insightful, IMHO. And highly regarded.

Edited July 11, 2012 by David T

[Buzzard]

Given the response to the Butthead joke, I have good reason to doubt it.

So you really think this session is a joke, and not serious? Really? So they're just mocking the First Vision? Is that supposed to be better?

Not mocking like the anti-'s do, with hoots and hollers, but more along the lines of solemn mockery before God. One of the most important events in human history, and a gaggle of pseudo-intellectuals will take a vote and tell us what parts of it are real and what parts are made up? Glad I won't be there, I would probably have to shower thrice that night to feel clean again.

[Bill Hamblin]

More like parodying the Jesus Seminar.

Really, I don't understand the problem here. We all agree, surely, that not everything said in every First Vision account is historical. There are a couple of points at which they explicitly contradict each other. So as we seek to harmonize the accounts, why not have a little fun while we're at it? Is fun so sinful that one can't have it without being labeled an idiot or a nincompoop?

Fun is fun. That doesn't mean there's no such thing as nincompoopery.

[The Nehor]

Sunstone seems to me to be akin to King Saul after he fell. He recognized that the gospel had something and tried to keep Samuel around as a talisman against harm but wouldn't believe it enough to get any real protection.