Vote On The First Vision At Sunstone

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Passage? I hope we wiln the election.

[noel00]

Bushman in RSR says in a footnote that there is circumstantial evidence that Smith family joined the PC in 1823-24. Smith Snr did not of course because a preacher had said his son Alvin who had died in 1823 had gone to hell. . Just how many miles away from where one lives can be referred to place where one lived. Lucy Smith's history says they flocked to the church. One can hardly 'flock" for several miles.

[Calm]

One can hardly 'flock" for several miles.

On the contrary. People flock to conference every six months from around the world as well as locally.

Flock means to gather together:

flock

^1.....noun

2.

a large number of people; crowd.....

verb (used without object)

6.

to gather or go in a flock or crowd: They flocked around thefootball hero.

http://dictionary.re...rowse/flock?s=t

Just how many miles away from where one lives can be referred to place where one lived.

I know people who tell others they live in San Francisco if they live pretty much anywhere in Northern California. Edited July 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Bushman in RSR says in a footnote that there is circumstantial evidence that Smith family joined the PC in 1823-24. Smith Snr did not of course because a preacher had said his son Alvin who had died in 1823 had gone to hell. . Just how many miles away from where one lives can be referred to place where one lived. Lucy Smith's history says they flocked to the church. One can hardly 'flock" for several miles.

Please clarify: Are you questioning that a religious revival occurred in 1820, as Joseph Smith reported?

If so, here is a selection from an article I wrote in 2007:

Criticism: The 1838-39 account describes a religious revival, yet no such movement can be documented in the town of Palmyra, N.Y., in the spring of 1820.

Response: The account doesn't mention Palmyra specifically, but rather, refers to "the place where we lived" (Manchester township) and the "whole district of country," which could be interpreted broadly. And it says the religious excitement took place "in the second year after our removal to Manchester," which could have been in 1819 or 1820.

"Professor Milton Backman has demonstrated conclusively that there was considerable religious excitement in the general area of the Burned-over District of western New York in 1819 and 1820, and that 'spiritual quickenings' were particularly intense in 1819," [Professor James B. Allen] wrote in his 1970 article.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On the contrary. People flock to conference every six months from around the world as well as locally.

Flock means to gather together:

http://dictionary.re...rowse/flock?s=t

I know people who tell others they live in San Francisco if they live pretty much anywhere in Northern California.

"Birds of a feather flock together."

Flocks of migratory birds move together hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles.

[Bernard Gui]

"Birds of a feather flock together."

Flocks of migratory birds move together hundreds, perhaps thousands, of miles.

JS Bach walked over 250 miles (each way) to learn from the organist Dietrich Buxtehude.

Today we are not used to flocking over long distances that would seem minuscule to earlier generations.

Bernard

[KevinG]

So is General Conference an invitation for the whole world to "get flocked"?

[noel00]

" As to Backman's revised footnote, it presents to me clear evidence that he is basically a dishonest man. Mark Twain once spoke of lies, damn lies and statistics, with statistics being the biggest lie of all. Backman certainly confirms this judgement. In the first place, even through I wrote him and pointed out to him that the statistics are for the conference years and not the calendar years, he is still putting forth the same old misinformation, The Methodist Conference met July 1, 19819, July 20, 1820 and July, 19, 1821, and the statistics reported under the date of 1819 are for the year beginning in July, 1818 and ending July1st 1819. The same is the case for 1820and 1821. What his figures show is that in the spring of 1820, as reflected in the 1820 report the whole district was having a poor year." letter WPW 25/9/1974

[Kerry A. Shirts]

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!

Actually that is precisely how we got the Bible in the first place. There is nothing of a revelation of any sorts about its current condition. Voting on it as scripture as we do no more makes it authentic scripture than voting the moon is made of cottage cheese.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

" As to Backman's revised footnote, it presents to me clear evidence that he is basically a dishonest man. Mark Twain once spoke of lies, damn lies and statistics, with statistics being the biggest lie of all. Backman certainly confirms this judgement. In the first place, even through I wrote him and pointed out to him that the statistics are for the conference years and not the calendar years, he is still putting forth the same old misinformation, The Methodist Conference met July 1, 19819, July 20, 1820 and July, 19, 1821, and the statistics reported under the date of 1819 are for the year beginning in July, 1818 and ending July1st 1819. The same is the case for 1820and 1821. What his figures show is that in the spring of 1820, as reflected in the 1820 report the whole district was having a poor year." letter WPW 25/9/1974

As Matthew Roper has written:

Joseph Smith never claimed that the religious excitement was confined to 1820. 1820 was the year given for Joseph's initial vision, but the religious excitement which had influenced him clearly occurred before that time. Joseph described this religious excitement as occurring "some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester" (Joseph Smith-History 1:5), in other words, sometime between 1819 and 1820. The Smiths moved to Manchester in 1818.¹ Walters's work is largely irrelevant in light of the works of more responsible historians, of whom Langfield seems to be unaware.² Milton Backman has demonstrated that in the summer of 1819, Methodists held a significant conference in Vienna just a few miles from Joseph's home. The meeting was attended by more than a hundred ministers of the Methodist faith, including the Reverend George Lane.³ Backman also provided evidence of substantial increases in church membership among Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist congregations in the regions surrounding Palmyra and Manchester.

[Dan Vogel]

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

Here's the kicker, Bill. I'm not one who denies the historicity of the First Vision!

[ShawFanX]

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.

It rather doesn't surprise me that the argumentum ad populum model of ascertaining the truth of metaphysical propositions such as "The Father and Son appeard to Joseph Smith" is now de rigueur at Sunstone. I'm also at a loss to understand how the historicity of a purly personal, individual experience of this kind, could be analyzed for its actual empirical content.

[Dan Vogel]

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?

It's not a joke but Mark is attempting to follow what happens at the Jesus Seminar.

[ShawFanX]

Mike Quinn is a believer...

In what, precisely?

[ShawFanX]

There seems to be this endemic sentiment of late that to vigorously defend the Church and its doctrines is to embarrass it. The notion is not in the least self-evident to me. In fact, it strikes me as extremely weird.

I have taken note of this tendency myself, as certain recent events have made it more explicit.

[ShawFanX]

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.

Sounds like the typical post in the comments section of the SLT on any subject dealing with the Church and "apologetics." Its also the now well developed meme of the NOM LDS counter-culture.

[Dan Vogel]

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://ldsfocuschris...-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.

Quinn will be discussed in a very serious way, but there isn't enough time in a session to do all you suggest.

[Bill Hamblin]

Here's the kicker, Bill. I'm not one who denies the historicity of the First Vision!

I know! The world is a stranger place than we can possibly imagine.

On the other hand, you don't believe JS really saw God and Christ, do you? Which, practically speaking, is not much different than believing he was lying. Both are not-true-prophet.

[Bill Hamblin]

It's not a joke but Mark is attempting to follow what happens at the Jesus Seminar.

Mark has been pushing his Jesus-Seminar-for-the-Book-of-Mormon for years in various ways. As far as I can tell he's completely serious about this, far from the joke Chris seems to think it is.

[Dan Vogel]

My attempt at "legitimate discussion" was to challenge his assertion that the First Vision accounts contradict each other. So far, the challenge has been ignored. If Chris has indeed left us for good, I feel at liberty to conclude that he has no good response to that challenge.

You don't know of any contradictions? Perhaps you should come and hear the answer to that.

[Dan Vogel]

It rather doesn't surprise me that the argumentum ad populum model of ascertaining the truth of metaphysical propositions such as "The Father and Son appeard to Joseph Smith" is now de rigueur at Sunstone. I'm also at a loss to understand how the historicity of a purly personal, individual experience of this kind, could be analyzed for its actual empirical content.

The same as any claimed event. We are discussing the historicity not the reality of the vision.

[KevinG]

You don't know of any contradictions? Perhaps you should come and hear the answer to that.

There are differences but real contradictions only exist where people read far too much into the different tellings.

[Robert F. Smith]

Bushman in RSR says in a footnote that there is circumstantial evidence that Smith family joined the PC in 1823-24. Smith Snr did not of course because a preacher had said his son Alvin who had died in 1823 had gone to hell. . Just how many miles away from where one lives can be referred to place where one lived. Lucy Smith's history says they flocked to the church. One can hardly 'flock" for several miles.

This is irrelevant and late. Of much greater interest is the first-hand report of Orsamus Turner, History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham's Purchase (Rochester, 1852), 214, that Joseph was a Methodist exhorter in his mid-teens, which is verified by Joseph himself at JS-H 1:7-8. Once again, you really need to read Mike Quinn's paper.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[volgadon]

Sounds like the typical post in the comments section of the SLT on any subject dealing with the Church and "apologetics." Its also the now well developed meme of the NOM LDS counter-culture.

Chris isn't LDS, and it is a shame if he stops posting, as he always brings something to the table.