Vote On The First Vision At Sunstone

[Scott Lloyd]

The revival JS described occurred when he was 14 and included the conversion of his mother and sibling to the Presbyterian Church, which was after Alvin's death in 1823. The 1824-25 revivial matches JS's description.

To Robert F. Smith's excellent reply to this, I would add that the Joseph Smith--History account is ambiguous as to the timing of the family members joining the Presbyterian Church. It says that the family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith and that four of them joined the church. No time frame is given. It may have been that they were proselyted beginning in 1820 or before and didn't make the ultimate decision to join until later, after Alvin's death. That would still be consistent with Joseph's telling of the story.

There is enough ambiguity here that the charge of anachronism cannot be sustained, not without a more explicit time frame.

[Calm]

the 1826 trial did occur

You mean the examination, don't you?

http://www.fairlds.o...of-joseph-smith

Attempting to discredit her over the Jefferson bio fails because it seems the consenus is that Sally Hemmings was Jefferson's concubine.

If the methodology is bad, it doesn't really matter if the conclusion just happens to be right.

Zina:

Further, when Zina was given the choice of which of the Twelve she would marry in Joseph’s stead, she chose Brigham. While such a choice may be anathema to modern observers, it is apparently a choice made by Zina, accepted by Brigham, and approved by Henry....

When Henry and Zina were forced out of Nauvoo a week later as part of the general exodus from the city, they left as husband and wife. They, along with thousands of other Saints, endured extreme hardship as they traveled the plains of Iowa. During their travels, on March 22, 1846, Henry Chariton Jacobs was born on the banks of the Chariton River about half way across Iowa....

There is no doubt that the marriage of Henry and Zina dissolved at Mt. Pisgah; it was here for a very short time–just a matter of days–that they last lived together. Some authors and most critics see the dissolution of Henry and Zina’s marriage as a matter of imposing priesthood authority in the marital relationship, basing their conclusion–incorrectly, I believe–on a singular report that Brigham Young either commanded Henry to leave or made the leaving easier by calling him on a mission.

Today’s commonly accepted story traces its roots to one first told by William Hall and later by T.B.H. Stenhouse. Fawn Brodie recounted as history a story in Hall’s anti-Mormon book that Brigham forced Henry and Zina apart. This story was picked up and uncritically repeated a generation later by several other authors....

The immediate problem with such a statement is that there is no contemporary corroboration for it. Hall states that Brigham’s statement was made in the hearing of hundreds of people, yet there are no other diaries that indicate such a statement or, indeed, any statement from Brigham to Henry. The statement itself would need to have been made sometime between Henry’s arrival at Mt. Pisgah (May 18) and his departure on his mission (approximately June 1)....

That Henry suffered from poor health while on his way to his mission is not in question; what is pure fabrication is the folklore latched onto by some critics that a seriously ill Henry, incapable of standing up to Brigham Young, was hurried out of camp so that Brigham could take Zina to wife. Instead, Henry accepted his mission call and left under his own power......

Once Henry left for his mission, Zina and her children moved into the home of her father, William Huntington. It was at this time that Zina later recounted she “had parted with [my] husband [and] was then alone with my father to look after me until I should get to Winter Quarters.”....

Zina, however, was not an object, and neither were her children. Zina certainly had a choice in her marriages, and she showed on more than one occasion that she was willing and capable of exercising that choice. The fact that she chose to be married to Brigham in Nauvoo, chose to move into his housing in Winter Quarters, chose to not live with Henry in Winter Quarters after his mission, chose to go to Salt Lake and live in Brigham’s housing there, and finally to live publicly as Brigham’s plural wife all indicate that Zina played an active part in the dissolution of her marriage to Henry and the establishment of her marriage to Brigham.

While it is true that many of Henry’s post-1846 letters to Zina are heartbreaking, none of them indicate that he felt Brigham had stolen his family, and none of them indicate any animosity toward Brigham. While a modern reader, put it Henry’s place, might feel that Brigham had stolen his family, this does not change the fact that Henry

http://www.fairlds.o...obs-smith-young Edited July 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Brodie ended up (thanks to Wes Walters) being correct that the 1826 trial did occur. Attempting to discredit her over the Jefferson bio fails because it seems the consenus is that Sally Hemmings was Jefferson's concubine.(DNA, circumstantial evidence). At Monticello I understand they now accept the Sally Hemmings/Jefferson relationship. See the books by Annette Gordon-Reed.

Did Brigham Young take Zina Huntington off Brother Jacobs. How would u feel if Monson came and took your wife off you and said she was sealed to him for eternity. Go and find another for yourself and also go on a mission. The stretcher is available if this is all too much for you.

Baer showed that Nibley was not using sources correctly (see Chris Smith's site) in defending the BOA.

I can be certain that in ten or twenty years no evidence will be found for the cities of Nephi and Zarahelma.

While all of this could be answered point-by-point, it strikes me as a derailment of this thread and should be taken up in a thread (or perhaps more than one) of its own.

[Calm]

Sorry....

Having already posted, noel, if you care to actually deal with this stuff, please start another thread. Otherwise let us just let it stand as a testament to the accuracy of your comments......

[noel00]

I don't think I will bother. Not that I am afraid of any arguments you might put up. I have seen it all before. Reading Ronald Numbers bio of Ellen G White and talking to some conservatiive SDA friends I see the similiar kinds of approaches in their apologetics.

[Calm]

I see the similiar kinds of approaches in their apologetics

You mean presenting the actual facts?

Edited July 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think I will bother. Not that I am afraid of any arguments you might put up. I have seen it all before. Reading Ronald Numbers bio of Ellen G White and talking to some conservatiive SDA friends I see the similiar kinds of approaches in their apologetics.

I wonder if you use the same shotgun approach with them that you are using here; that is, if you can't make one attack stick, launch half-a-dozen others all at the same time, thereby wearing down the defenders with tedium until they tire of the whole exercise and abandon it in frustration.

[Calm]

I live in hope that one day noel will come up with a new lists of criticisms for me to play with. I have lost track of the number of times posters have responded to these claims....I am almost tempted to go and do a search and see how many similar posts he has made on the subject, completely ignoring the basic facts, continuing calling the examination a trial, claiming that Brodie is exonerated because others found evidence for her claims by using other methods....when Brodie can only be exonerated by using her own methods to effectively find evidence, rather than create it and not simply jump to the conclusion, and insisting on using poorly documented late claims that are contradicted by actual contemporary records.

[Scott Lloyd]

I live in hope that one day noel will come up with a new lists of criticisms for me to play with. I have lost track of the number of times posters have responded to these claims....I am almost tempted to go and do a search and see how many similar posts he has made on the subject, completely ignoring the basic facts, continuing calling the examination a trial, claiming that Brodie is exonerated because others found evidence for her claims by using other methods....when Brodie can only be exonerated by using her own methods to effectively find evidence, rather than create it and not simply jump to the conclusion, and insisting on using poorly documented late claims that are contradicted by actual contemporary records.

It's an old technique evoking memories of the un-dead encountered by Bill Hamblin and Dan Peterson in "Bill and Dan's Not-So-Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell".

[Calm]

Oh look, what a surprise, noel must be happy with his routine with such little variance in responses to the rebuttals given.:

1826 trial Rough Stone Rolling p. 51-52 My old friend the late Rev Wesley P Walters was the person who found the court documents. Some LDS tried to say he altered the documents but have not provided any evidence he did.

Jefferson's relationship is discussed in The Hemingses of Monticello by Annette Gordon-Reed. The author appears in a lot of youtube vidoes that you might like to check out. An earlier book deals with the weight given to the oral and written records of slaves or former slaves (little). Sally only fell pregnant when Jefferson was home on the plantation at Monticello. If it was his brother or some other Jefferson why did she not fall pregnant at another time. She was 16 when the relationship started in Paris.BTW was Temple work done for African Americans before 1978? If not you have a lot of slave registers to work through.

Timing of the joining of the Presbyterian church see RSR page 570 footnote 30.

Historians have now accepted the 1826 trial and polygamy, boths issues for which Brodie was castigated for. But then she was eventually proven also right in her argument that Jefferson had a relationship with Sally Hemmings, for which she received a lot of criticism from established Jefferson scholars. You just do not accept the oral history of an upstart negro who claims he was a son of Jefferson and his mother Sally.

Ronald Numbersd wrote a biography of Ellen G White where she comes off less than perfect as seen in the eyes of traditional SDA members. He was castigated for it. No insider likes their image of their founding prophet to be not quite what they have been told. LDS members point to Bushman's bio as an example of an effort to deal with the difficult issues. In a footnote he concedes that the Smith family joined the LDS church later after 1823 rather than in 1820. Now where was the revival in his vicinity? A couple of camp meetings suffice? Like the Jefferson scholars, LDS scholar's lives and academic reputation has been built up on accepting the legitimacy of Smith.

In any future assessments how do you see his research being considered in discussions of Smith's life. I know some here obsess about the handling of the 1826 trial documents somehow claiming he stole them.

I found them helpful as it made me aware of who Wes Walters was (I exchanged letters with him for a number of years), I was made aware of Dialogue and the articles on the First Vision, the Book of Abraham, 1826 trial.

[Scott Lloyd]

Heh.

Yep, it's the zombie invasion. Doesn't matter how many times you blast them, they just keep coming.

[Ares]

Accusations of sexual impropriety have been deleted and the poster who made them excused.

[rodheadlee]

Double-speak much there rod.

No. I'm just saying I'm an unperfected human and when my B.S. meter is blowing my eardrums out I might say or do un Christ like things. It's a problem I'm working on . No one should be surprised or worse yet, act surprised, when they push someone to the limit by the reaction they get.

[frederick44]

Since I have been banned for insulting the "prophet" I won't bother responding anymore, not because I think you have "won" but it's a waste of time. You are like a bunch of bots.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Since I have been banned for insulting the "prophet" I won't bother responding anymore, not because I think you have "won" but it's a waste of time. You are like a bunch of bots.

You did just respond. Troll

[mfbukowski]

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.

I'd know that style anywhere. Welcome back senor Droops.

[mfbukowski]

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

And it's a good thing. The point is no one CAN determine the "reality" of visions.

[mfbukowski]

Is it the case then that the historicity of something is not directly relevant to its actual existence in phenomenal reality? Is the term "historicity" related to an actual phenomena or event, or only to lingusitic, methdological concerns?

It is only related to memories and we all know how reliable they are. Subjective is subjective, so it doesn't much matter does it?

[ShawFanX]

I'd know that style anywhere. Welcome back senor Droops.

You must have heard my Tardis come in for a three point landing.

[mfbukowski]

Loran

Aha. I guess I was right

[mfbukowski]

You can't. It is left up to faith, in other words, believe but not because of evidence.

I am curious if you count testimony (spiritual confirmation) as spiritual "evidence" these days

[ShawFanX]

It is only related to memories and we all know how reliable they are. Subjective is subjective, so it doesn't much matter does it?

Well, what actually matters, in would appear, if one is trying to ascertain the historicity of an event - whether or not that event is actually historical in a phenomonological sense - is whether or not a specific phenomena, in this case, the actual appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith, which would have been, for Joseph, an empirical reality (and an empirical reality as a matter of its actual occurance within the actually existing universe), really occured or not.

If all one is after is subjective memories or perceptions of what was claimed to have occured, then one is not really doing history anymore but a kind of psychohistory or social history - looking at what people believe to have been the case based upon an in-group tradition that binds them together as a people, in this case a religious origin story that birthed a religious movement.

Whether the First Vision actually happened in a salient phenominal sense is the problem, and I have no idea what any historical-critical methodology would have to say about that, as Joseph was the only witness on earth to that event.

Edited July 13, 2012 by ShawFanX

[USU78]

You must have heard my Tardis come in for a three point landing.

[ShawFanX]

I am curious if you count testimony (spiritual confirmation) as spiritual "evidence" these days

It appears from a Backyard Professor video I recently viewed on Youtube that Kerry has now removed to a position of a cross between 19th century and a modern Saganesque style of scientistic positivism and rationalism, from which we must hope he will one day emerge and return to Zion, hopefully no worse for the wear.

Edited July 13, 2012 by ShawFanX

[mfbukowski]

Well, what actually matters, in would appear, if one is trying to ascertain the historicity of an event - whether or not that event is actually historical in a phenomonological sense - is whether or not a specific phenomena, in this case, the actual appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith, which would have been, for Joseph, an empirical reality (and an empirical reality as a matter of its actual occurance within the actually existing universe), really occured or not.

If all one is after is subjective memories or perceptions of what was claimed to have occured, then one is not really doing history anymore but a kind of psychohistory or social history - looking at what people believe to have been the case based upon an in-group tradition that binds them together as a people, in this case a religious origin story that birthed a religious movement.

Whether the First Vision actually happened in a salient phenominal sense is the problem, and I have no idea what any historical-critical methodology would have to say about that, as Joseph was the only witness on earth to that event.

There is an insurmountable epistemological problem here. For all practical purposes, what he said he saw was.... what he said he saw.

And yes, I think indeed there is no way out of the quandry. Of course SOMETHING happened, but it is pretty irrelevant to even worry about it because what DID happen is totally unknowable and always will be, unless of course the security camera tapes from the grove for that day ever come to light.