Vote On The First Vision At Sunstone

[Chris Smith]

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

I want you to know that I'm exercising a great deal of self-restraint right now, Bill. But you're sure not making it easy. One doesn't just pass up an invitation like the above.

[kolipoki09]

More like parodying the Jesus Seminar.

Were I able to attend, I'd gladly bring colored beads, just for the heck of it.

Then afterwards we can all bead necklaces and bracelets in honor of Her. After all, it's Sunstone.

[CASteinman]

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.

Do the people who vote on the first vision also get to vote on the Hot Cheer Leaders? Might help attendance.....

Or does it matter what kind of people are voting?

Edited July 11, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

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.

I do not agree in multiple ways. I do not agree that not everything said is historical. I also do not agree that explicit contradictions would change that in the least.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 10 July 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

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.

The panel might be able to deal seriously and professionally with the First Vision if and only if it were composed of serious, knowledgeable members, such as historian D. Michael Quinn, and if it had carefully reviewed the flawed methods employed by the Jesus Seminar – as explained in detail by Seminar participant Bruce Chilton, as well as by Birger Pearson, both of whom have been harsh critics of the Seminar procedures and conclusions.

One might want to begin the discussion with Mike Quinn’s very important and much neglected paper, “Joseph Smith’s Experience of a Methodist ‘Camp-Meeting’ in 1820,” first posted on the Dialogue website July 12, 2006 as E-paper #3, and revised December 20, 2006, and now available online at http://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/2006-joseph-smiths-experience-of-a-methodist-camp-meeting-in-1820-d-michael-quinn/ .

One might follow that up with careful attention to legitimate standards of historiography, as applied for example to the differences among the four Gospels, and among other parallel accounts of the same events in contexts where professional historians and biblical critics have long had the opportunity to study them and exchange ideas about them.

If, on the other hand, the panel has merely been assembled to have fun (as suggested by Chris Smith, no doubt with tongue in cheek), then it and this thread are merely an exercise in futility.

[Calm]

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

Depends on the sandwich (I chose to answer only the most important question....)

[Calm]

Were I able to attend, I'd gladly bring colored beads, just for the heck of it.

Then afterwards we can all bead necklaces and bracelets in honor of Her. After all, it's Sunstone.

I've got a ton of beads sitting in my craft drawer just looking to be used, just can't resist the pretty things. Feel free next time you can attend to drop by and pick some up.

[rameumptom]

When I gave a paper at the Kirtland Sunstone Symposium earlier this year, Mary Ellen Robertson (Director of Outreach and Symposia) expressed the desire to have more TBMs involved in the symposiums. I don't see where this will help. When you look at the panel, it is not the most LDS friendly group. I consider Dan Vogel a friend, but definitely do not think he's on the right track on some of his claims. John-Charles Duffy is a nice guy, but definitely has a very liberal axe to grind with the LDS Church. If it is the Mark Thomas I'm aware of, he's an atheist that has written against the Book of Mormon in the past. Perhaps Todd Compton would be the closest we would come on the panel to someone who may not have an axe to grind. Still, no one on the panel is a strong LDS-believing scholar. They don't have a Richard Bushman or Terryl Givens on the panel. So, I just don't see how this could even approach credible. That most who attend will be those with an interest in Mormonism, but only inasmuch as they can have Mormonism knocked down a notch or two, means the vote will be just a publicity stunt to get into the papers.

I'm really disappointed that the Sunstone leadership would do such a stunt. No wonder most conservative LDS scholars do not bother speaking at their symposiums. After this, perhaps I will not, either.

Edited July 11, 2012 by rameumptom

[Nevo]

If it is the Mark Thomas I'm aware of, he's an atheist that has written against the Book of Mormon in the past.

Oh, you mean like here?

I see some "liberal" Mormon types on the panel, but as far as I can tell, Vogel is the only unbeliever. And even Vogel states: "Based on passages in the Book of Mormon which appear to contain fragments of Joseph Smith's first vision experience, I suspect the vision, or at least the claim to a vision, may be traced to 1820-21. I therefore reject the suggestion that Smith invented the vision in the 1830s" (Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 30).

[Robert F. Smith]

Oh, you mean like here?

No, more like here http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/thomas_20_1.htm .

[thesometimesaint]

All sound and fury signifying nothing.

Edited July 11, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Such as?

[David T]

I mentioned Meier's approach in Marginal Jew earlier. WhatI didn't mention is that his approach was designed not to declare which sections were most likely historical, but to determine the common ground areas that all, no matter what one's religious confession is, can and should with confidence agree on. It creates a beautiful template from which additional faith-based claims can be layered upon without loss.

I will say, the Marginal Jew series has had a tremendous beneficial impact on my views of Jesus of Nazareth, and my approach to the New Testament - and it has had a fascinating, unexpected, and hand-in-hand relationship to Restoration history as well. (I utilized one of Meyer's insights - combined with my approach to Restoration history - in this blog post I wrote, The First Vision of Jesus of Nazareth).

Vogel actually takes a pretty helpful approach from this from a sympathetic-secular perspective. (IE, he believes Joseph did have a life-defining religious experience, and doesn't believe it was made-up from wholecloth )While I certainly don't agree with all of his conclusions, I did find his book to be very useful.

I'm reading Meier's section on Miracles now, and how he approaches them in this book - not to determine if an event was a God-driven miracle, but if reports of unexplained events coming from Jesus are more than just beefed up literary apologia. It's quite fascinating.

Edited July 11, 2012 by David T

[mfbukowski]

.... the exaltation of nincompoopery.....

:rofl:

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a thought:

At the next Sunstone confab, let the anti-Mormons hash out the various contradictory naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon and then vote on the one they like the most.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Chris Smith]

I'm really disappointed that the Sunstone leadership would do such a stunt.

You do realize, of course, that "the Sunstone leadership" doesn't assign the topics. People design their own sessions, and Sunstone just says yes or no. Being the good-natured folk they are, they almost never say no. Especially to a group as distinguished as the presenters on this panel. If TBMs aren't proposing faith-promoting sessions, they have only themselves to blame for missing a tailor-made missionary opportunity with a captive audience.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Chris Smith

[Chris Smith]

I just want to say, for the record, that the bigotry on display in this thread is an embarrassment to the Church, the board, and the entire enterprise of Mormon Dialogue & Discussion. It's a helpful reminder of why I stopped posting here. I think I'll return to that policy starting right now.

[Nevo]

No, more like here http://secularhumani...thomas_20_1.htm .

Is that article supposed to support rameumptom's claim that Thomas is "an atheist that has written against the Book of Mormon in the past"? If Thomas is an atheist, this is the first I've heard of it. Here are some of his comments on his allegedly anti-Book of Mormon book, Digging in Cumorah:

I give plenty of examples of the language and the theological setting of the Book of Mormon's nineteenth-century audience in my book. (I also give plenty of examples of ancient literary forms and phrases.) If one is serious about interpreting the text, one must account for and understand the significance of both the ancient and modern in the Book of Mormon. . . .

While my book relies on a variety of disciplines to analyze the Book of Mormon, its most significant contribution is literary. I spend a great deal of time discussing Book of Mormon literary forms and symbolism. All revelation is symbolic. It therefore cannot be proved either true or false by historical research. It can only be proved "true" by its adequacy to express the human condition in light of the Holy. . . .

I wholeheartedly accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. Let me explain. What is scripture? I like the ancient rabbis' definition best: scripture is a book that defiles the hands with sacred power. Heft the text. If it defiles the hands, then you are a Mormon, whether you are baptized or not. And whether it defiles the hands or not, its symbolism of the Holy allows us a duet with this sorrowful song of the Nephites. (source)

[Scott Lloyd]

I just want to say, for the record, that the bigotry on display in this thread is an embarrassment to the Church, the board, and the entire enterprise of Mormon Dialogue & Discussion. It's a helpful reminder of why I stopped posting here. I think I'll return to that policy starting right now.

Whoah. Before you leave, please answer my question posed a few posts ago. On what points do the First Vision accounts contradict each other? Consider it a CFR, if you like.

Hint: Not mentioning this or that detail in one or more of the accounts does not amount to a contradiction of that detail.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

I just want to say, for the record, that the bigotry on display in this thread is an embarrassment to the Church, the board, and the entire enterprise of Mormon Dialogue & Discussion. It's a helpful reminder of why I stopped posting here. I think I'll return to that policy starting right now.

What was that you said about a sense of humor?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

The last time I had historicity I didn't ask anyone to vote on it. I got a new prescription from my doctor.

[KevinG]

I just want to say, for the record, that the bigotry on display in this thread is an embarrassment to the Church, the board, and the entire enterprise of Mormon Dialogue & Discussion. It's a helpful reminder of why I stopped posting here. I think I'll return to that policy starting right now.

This from a man who posts on Mormon boards with a monkey in a mortar board.

[wenglund]

The last time I had historicity I didn't ask anyone to vote on it. I got a new prescription from my doctor.

Might you be conflating histrionics with historicity? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nevo]

This from a man who posts on Mormon boards with a monkey in a mortar board.

That's ad hominid!

[wenglund]

That's ad hominid!

Don't you mean ad hominoid? LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-