Bushman Says 1832 Sounds Like An "authentic Visionary Experience." The 1838 Author Is Unknown, But "unlike" Joseph

[canard78]

Richard Bushman did a recent "Ask Me Anything" on the exmormon sub-reddit. I won't link direct out of respect for forum rules but if you google ""Richard Bushman AMA" you'll find it.
 
In answer to a question about his beliefs in the foundational events, the following jumped out at me (emphasis mine):
 

I have read through the imposing array of questions posed over the past week and hardly know how to begin. They are pointed, relevant, sincere, and deserve more of a reply than I can possibly manage. I will do what I can during our open chat hour on Monday, but for now I would like to say something about my beliefs as I have been currently voicing them.A few weeks ago during one of the seminars that Terryl and Fiona Givens and I have been offering for people working through their doubts and questions, an old friend sat me down during the lunch break, looked me in the eye and asked, “Richard, do you believe Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son in the grove?” I said of course and the moment passed, but his question lingered on and moved me to think again about what I do believe about the founding stories.
 
I am very much impressed by Joseph Smith’s 1832 History account of his early visions. This is the one partially written in his own hand and the rest dictated to Frederick G. Williams. I think it is more revealing than the official account presumably written in 1838 and contained in the Pearl of Great Price. We don’t know who wrote the 1838 account. Joseph’s journal indicates that he, Sidney Rigdon, and George Robinson collaborated on beginning the history in late April, but we don’t know who actually drafted the history. It is a polished narrative but unlike anything Joseph ever wrote himself. The 1832 history we know is his because of the handwriting. It comes rushing forth from Joseph’s mind in a gush of words that seem artless and uncalculated, a flood of raw experience. I think this account has the marks of an authentic visionary experience. There is the distance from God, the perplexity and yearning for answers, the perplexity, and then the experience itself which brings intense joy, followed by fear and anxiety. Can he deal with the powerful force he has encountered? Is he worthy and able? It is a classic announcement of a prophet’s call, and I find it entirely believable.
 
... (snip section on his belief in Gold Plates etc)...
 
So what it comes down to is that I believe in the founding events. I think of them as the foundation of my faith. But they are the foundation, and I do not live in the cellar. I live in the rooms built on these events, the way of life, the attitudes, the institutions, the relationships, the experiences they support. This is what I meant when I spoke to Anselm Min, the Catholic theologian at Claremont Graduate School where Claudia and I taught for three years. Anselm took me to lunch soon after we arrived at Claremont and bluntly asked me how I could believe in Joseph Smith. My immediate response was that when I lived in the Mormon way I became the kind of man I wanted to be. Those words summed up a lot—my sense of having God’s spirit when I needed it, the salutary discipline of Mormon life, the friendships and commonalities of a Mormon ward, the requirement of unselfish service, the valuation of family, the tempering of pride and fear—a host of things. Like many people, I wrestle with demons. I frequently feel inadequate to my responsibilities. At the same time, I know I can be better, and when I live the Mormon way, I am lifted up. I see things more clearly. I can figure out how I really feel. I know how to relate to my wife and children and colleagues. I am temperate, incisive, generous, and focused. On bad days, Claudia and I often say we are out of sync with the universe. Over the many years I have been in the Church, I find that following the Mormon path puts me back in sync. I don’t use the word “know” a lot, but I do know I am a better person for being a Mormon.

 

The 1838 version was not canonised in Joseph's lifetime. It was published elsewhere in his lifetime and a similar version was repeated in the Wentworth letter, so I'm not saying Joseph was unaware of it. 

 

Maybe one day the church will change the version we tell our children and investigators to the more "authentic" version that is known to have actually been written by Joseph. Do you think the 1832 version will eventually gain greater currency as the default version?

 

I really appreciate his attitude of not living in the basement and "true because it makes me a better person." I hold onto that principle. In the turmoil of uncertainty it's what keeps me going.

[canard78]

Also from Bushman (emphasis mine):
 

Joseph Smith was very eclectic. He drew upon ideas from all over, including Masonic ritual. I am not aware of source criticism of Rigdon’s influence, but I am inclined to think it was fairly large. It is quite possible that the idea of Restoration came from him. Restoration in the Book of Mormon refers to the restoration of Israel, the return of Israel to its favored place in God’s eyes, not the restoration of the New Testament church. Rigdon who was a restorationist along with Campbell could very well have turned Joseph’s thinking in that direction. I also think he may have been responsible for the phrase “creeds are an abomination.” That was hobby horse of Alexander Campbell’s. Since Rigdon was involved in writing Joseph Smith’s 1838 history, he may have been one to introduce that language into the account of the First Vision.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

That part stood out to me as well. I think it would be a long time before we see any change at church. From the December ensign:

Joseph’s mission as a prophet began in the spring of 1820 in a grove near his family’s log home, south of Palmyra, New York, USA. There, filled with the Holy Ghost, he plainly learned that the Father and the Son are separate beings. It is no surprise that the Articles of Faith also begin where Joseph began.

[Buckeye]

I find it perplexing that members are very often instructed to keep their personal visions secret, to not speak of them over the pulpit, and maybe not even to family, and yet the first thing missionaries teach an investigator is Joseph's personal vision.  The vision was meant for Joseph, not us. 

[longview]

I find it perplexing that members are very often instructed to keep their personal visions secret, to not speak of them over the pulpit, and maybe not even to family, and yet the first thing missionaries teach an investigator is Joseph's personal vision.  The vision was meant for Joseph, not us.

I strongly disagree with your last statement (bolded and struck through). How could Joseph Smith have proceeded with the work of the restoration if he did not cite the reason and authority for setting up a new church for the latter days? None of the churches had the priesthood from God. Their creeds were abominations. That December Ensign article had it right, the world in JS day had it wrong concerning the nature of the Godhead. Therefore it was entirely appropriate to associate the First Vision with the First Article of Faith.

[Kevin Christensen]

There is also Arthur Henry King's response to the 1838 account to consider.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/3164/arthur-henry-king

To get a sense of the kind of mind King brings to his conclusions, you should also look at his way of reading character in Shakespeare:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1129&index=15

Whether the opposition to creeds was a hobby horse of Campbell, Joseph Smith himself described the problem with creeds. I recently cited the key quotes in Sophic Box and Mantic Vista.

Joseph Smith opposed creeds, not because they are false teachings (“all of them have some truth”), but because “creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.”55 Joseph Smith also explained that “the most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was that the latter were all circumscribed by some particular creed, which deprived its members of the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter-day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.”56

Ralph Waldo Emerson, born within 100 miles and two years of Joseph Smith also criticized creeds. Campbell is not the only possible source, or the only one who rode that hobby horse.

I think the best approach to the first vision accounts is to read them all in 19th century context. Read all the LDS scholars. And read about other conversion theophanies and NDE accounts.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Scott Lloyd]

I find it perplexing that members are very often instructed to keep their personal visions secret, to not speak of them over the pulpit, and maybe not even to family, and yet the first thing missionaries teach an investigator is Joseph's personal vision. The vision was meant for Joseph, not us.

Though it is evident that Joseph was initially circumspect in how he shared his vision, it is not true that it was meant just for him. As the opening event in the Disensation of the Fullness of Times, it very much concerns not only Latter-day Saints but every individual who has ever lived or ever will live on this earth.

And to address the opening post, it is a quibble to question the authorship of the 1838 account. If I collaborate with an author on my own autobiographical work, and if I allow it to be published under my name, for all intents and purposes I have authored it, regardless of who may have drafted the wording.

U.S. presidents commonly employ speech writers. This is widely known and understood, yet the words they deliver are regarded as their own.

[Buckeye]

I strongly disagree with your last statement (bolded and struck through). How could Joseph Smith have proceeded with the work of the restoration if he did not cite the reason and authority for setting up a new church for the latter days? None of the churches had the priesthood from God. Their creeds were abominations. That December Ensign article had it right, the world in JS day had it wrong concerning the nature of the Godhead. Therefore it was entirely appropriate to associate the First Vision with the First Article of Faith.

 

In my reading, Joseph did not cite the first vision as the basis for his authority or calling.  For those things, he cited Moroni's visit, the BOM translation, and visits by John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elias, Elijah, and others.  The first vision was a personal experience for him.  Not the basis of his call.  That's why he didn't take any steps to form a church or act in God's name until Moroni showed up 4 years after the vision.

[Buckeye]

And to address the opening post, it is a quibble to question the authorship of the 1838 account. If I collaborate with an author on my own autobiographical work, and if I allow it to be published under my name, for all intents and purposes I have authored it, regardless of who may have drafted the wording.

 

So why does the author of RSR seem to think it important?

Edited December 19, 2013 by Buckeye

[Scott Lloyd]

For me, Joseph Smith's association with Sidney Rigdon and his Campbellite thinking is not a problem when I regard Rigdon as a vessel chosen by God, as was Joseph. Who is to say Rigdon's exposure to Campbell's "hobby horse" regarding creeds was not God's way of preparing Sidney for the role he would eventually play in the bringing forth of the restoration of the gospel?

[Scott Lloyd]

So why does the author of RSR seem to think it important?

So when Bushman speaks, the thinking has been done?

If that's your view, you're welcome to it. Just trying to ascertain where you're coming from.

For the record, I too hold Bushman in high regard as a scholar and thinker. But his is only one voice among many that I consider.

Besides, is Bushman disparaging the validity of the 1838 account? That might be your take but I don't see that it's Bushman's, necessarily.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

I like Sidney just fine.  I also think he was called of God for a work.  I think Bushman is merely pointing out that some of the first vision account discrepancies may be due to the views of persons other than Joseph, however correct those views may be.  It's not an indictment of Rigdon.  Just an opinion as to which of the accounts is more trustworthy.

[Buckeye]

So when Bushman speaks, the thinking has been done?

If that's your view, you're welcome to it. Just trying to ascertain where you're coming from.

For the record, I too hold Bushman in high regard as a scholar and thinker. But his is only one voice among many that I consider.

 

Of course not.  But when Bushman speaks it's more than a "quibble." 

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course not. But when Bushman speaks it's more than a "quibble."

It's not necessarily Bushman doing the quibbling so much as those drawing implications from what he says.

[Scott Lloyd]

I like Sidney just fine. I also think he was called of God for a work. I think Bushman is merely pointing out that some of the first vision account discrepancies may be due to the views of persons other than Joseph, however correct those views may be. It's not an indictment of Rigdon. Just an opinion as to which of the accounts is more trustworthy.

So you do regard the 1838 account as less "trustworthy" then, for whatever input or influence Rigdon may have had.

I say: 'Tain't necessarily so.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

In my reading, Joseph did not cite the first vision as the basis for his authority or calling. For those things, he cited Moroni's visit, the BOM translation, and visits by John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elias, Elijah, and others. The first vision was a personal experience for him. Not the basis of his call. That's why he didn't take any steps to form a church or act in God's name until Moroni showed up 4 years after the vision.

But in hindsight, it is extremely important, so we emphasize it as part of the whole glorious panorama of divine communication experienced by Joseph. It would be odd to marginalize it in our teaching just because Joseph did not organize the Church immediately after it occurred. Edited December 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

So you do regard the 1838 account as less "trustworthy" then, for the whatever input or influence Rigdon may have had.

I say: 'Tain't necessarily so.

 

Frankly, I haven't studied the accounts enough to render an opinion.  But I do have a high view of Bushman from reading RSR and his other works.  So his comments force me to take seriously the question as to whether the 1832 account is the most accurate.  Were I to conclude that the "creeds and abominations" language was Rigdon's insert rather than Joseph's memory, that would not harm my testimony of the church or of either man.  At the same time, I have no desire to defend the creeds.  I've been excluded from the enough christian groups because of I don't fully adhere to them.

[Scott Lloyd]

Frankly, I haven't studied the accounts enough to render an opinion. But I do have a high view of Bushman from reading RSR and his other works. So his comments force me to take seriously the question as to whether the 1832 account is the most accurate. Were I to conclude that the "creeds and abominations" language was Rigdon's insert rather than Joseph's memory, that would not harm my testimony of the church or of either man. At the same time, I have no desire to defend the creeds. I've been excluded from the enough christian groups because of I don't fully adhere to them.

Again, it seems to me you are jumping to the conclusion that the 1838 account (the only one of the accounts that is part of the scriptural canon) is less than accurate or is unreliable just because it may have been a collaborative work.

Your adoration of Bushman is touching but not probative.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[daz2]

I trust the 1832 account more than the 1838 account because it is closer in time--in fact the closest in time (except for D&C 20: which refers to his experience as one of receiving a remission of sins, and does not mention seeing God).  Memory is a funny thing.

 

Joseph did not begin widely (at least in writing) proclaim the experience of the First Vision until the 1838 account, which was not pubished until 1840 in Scotland.  It was not published in the United States until 1842, two years before Joseph's death.  It was published in Great Britain as part of the Pearl of Great Price in 1851, and became canonized in 1880.

 

The First Vision was not emphasized or frequently mentioned at all until the late 1800s.  Kathleen Flake theorizes that the First Vision became emphasized in LDS discourse after plural marriage ended (or began to end) as a distinguishing teaching of LDS. 

 

Until Joseph wrote, or collaborated in writing the 1838 account, there is not much evidence that the First Vision was a key part of the Restoration narrative for him.  It is not what missionaries routinely taught (if at all), and it is not clear how many members even knew about it until it was published in 1840 and 1842.

Edited December 19, 2013 by daz2

[Coreyb]

I have had a life changing spiritual event which is responsible for my belief in God, Christ, and Mormonism. As I have reflected on the events over the (few) years, the story has changed, due mostly to my increase in gospel knowledge. I have only told the story a few times, but each time the narrative of my life leading up to the event has been different. It has adapted to the audience, and adapted as I have remembered many details (big details at that) that I had previously 

forgotten. Recently, I had a serious talk with my younger brother who was a witness to the event and my life before and after. His, memories were vivid, and they changed some of my thoughts about my experience. I do not think that I have ever been dishonest when telling the story, yet if you were to review a transcript of each retelling, you would find major discrepancies. I guess my point is that, having had a similar experience to Joseph (to me, my experience is just as important as I 

believe his was to him, though mine didn't help open a dispensation), having so many differing versions to the story makes it seem more valid. I do like the 1832 edition a lot as it seems the most raw, but the canonical one seems like what 

a more experienced religious leader, having been influenced by later experiences and colleagues like Rigdon, would tell. I have no problem at all with the foundation stories. Maybe someday there will be a celestial video by an angelic cameraman of the event that I can watch, but until then, I believe God communicated to a fourteen year old.

[longview]

In my reading, Joseph did not cite the first vision as the basis for his authority or calling.  For those things, he cited Moroni's visit, the BOM translation, and visits by John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elias, Elijah, and others.  The first vision was a personal experience for him.  Not the basis of his call.  That's why he didn't take any steps to form a church or act in God's name until Moroni showed up 4 years after the vision.

I agree that JS needed to follow a progression of steps to restore the Church.  However, the First Vision was an important step where God informed him to join none of the churches.

 

His first step was to question why there were different contesting churches, to study which of the churches he should join (maybe to find out which is the most correct).  The second was to "ask of God" (having been powerfully prompted after reading James 1:5).  The First Vision came as a result.

 

I disagree with two more of your statements (which I have bolded and struck through).  Joseph Smith was bearing testimony of his experience.  He could not refrain from doing so,  Otherwise it would be like denying God.  The little child Samuel was called of God at a tender age.  Did he become the chief judge of Israel at that time?  NO.  He was prepared over time with the tutelage of God and His angels.  The same for the boy Joseph.  He went through a continuous progression of refinements and empowerment until he became VERY magnificent Seer in the remainder of his "short" life.

 

In JS account, he said this:  "He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. "  What "many things" did God say to him?  No doubt God let him know of many things to come.  Of course, the visitation by the Angel Moroni brought more "pressing knowledge" for JS to act upon.

[Buckeye]

I agree that JS needed to follow a progression of steps to restore the Church.  However, the First Vision was an important step where God informed him to join none of the churches.

 

His first step was to question why there were different contesting churches, to study which of the churches he should join (maybe to find out which is the most correct).  The second was to "ask of God" (having been powerfully prompted after reading James 1:5).  The First Vision came as a result.

 

 I disagree with two more of your statements (which I have bolded and struck through).    :vader:Joseph Smith was bearing testimony of his experience.  He could not refrain from doing so,  Otherwise it would be like denying God.  The little child Samuel was called of God at a tender age.  Did he become the chief judge of Israel at that time?  NO.  He was prepared over time with the tutelage of God and His angels.  The same for the boy Joseph.  He went through a continuous progression of refinements and empowerment until he became VERY magnificent Seer in the remainder of his "short" life.

 

In JS account, he said this:  "He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. "  What "many things" did God say to him?  No doubt God let him know of many things to come.  Of course, the visitation by the Angel Moroni brought more "pressing knowledge" for JS to act upon.

 

 

Just any fyi.  Some on this board may take offense with your practice of bolding and striking through statements you disagree with.  This is a discussion board.  Not an exercise in proof-reading.  I'm not personally offended, but I also don't understand why you feel the need to do that.  To help you see, I have bolded, underlined, italicized, colored red, changed to 18 pt font, and added disapproving smiley characters to your post.

[Scott Lloyd]

I trust the 1832 account more than the 1838 account because it is closer in time--in fact the closest in time (except for D&C 20: which refers to his experience as one of receiving a remission of sins, and does not mention seeing God).  Memory is a funny thing.

 

 

I’ve seen the argument of memory decay raised before. Here is why it doesn’t give me a moment’s pause:

 

Joseph was a man of abundant spiritual gifts, not the least of which was the ability, under divine power, to reproduce ancient text that he had never laid eyes on (see Moses 1 in the Pearl of Great Price; see also Doctrine and Covenants 7).

 

If, assisted by God, he could accomplish that, it is no great stretch for me to believe that the Holy Ghost could aid his recall to the point that he could reconstruct with cogent detail relevant portions of an experience that had happened years earlier; that he could do this as well as or better than if he had experienced it only days or even moments prior to recording it. Nor does it strike me as incredible that the Lord would be inclined to so augment his recall in producing an account that was destined to influence millions yet unborn and to be included in the scriptural canon of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

The 1838 account, unlike others, was directed to a general audience. Some people might think this works against its credibility. For me, the opposite is the case. I presume it was carefully crafted, under divine inspiration, to give attention and emphasis to those specific elements of the vision that are necessary for men and women to know and understand as they receive the message that the gospel has been restored in its fullness and purity in latter days.

 

Joseph did not begin widely (at least in writing) proclaim the experience of the First Vision until the 1838 account, which was not pubished until 1840 in Scotland.  It was not published in the United States until 1842, two years before Joseph's death.  It was published in Great Britain as part of the Pearl of Great Price in 1851, and became canonized in 1880.

 

 

We discussed on a thread here some weeks ago how Joseph (according to the observations of Ron Barney and other scholars) was by nature reticent about disclosing spiritual experiences and would have been reluctant to boldly proclaim them, especially one with the sublime magnitude of his theophany in the Sacred Grove. With that understood, it is hardly remarkable that he would not have publicized this experience widely in the early stages of his prophethood.

 

The visitation from Moroni and the other sacred experiences associated with the Book of Mormon are another matter. An account of its origins was integral to the publication of the book itself at the time the book was published.

 

The important thing is that the 1838 account does exist, clearly indicating that eventually Joseph did wish to have it widely disseminated. You say he only lived two years after its publication. It is not difficult at all for me to believe that, had he lived longer, Joseph would have been just as eager as were his successors in the leadership of the Church to have the 1838 account published far and wide.

 

The First Vision was not emphasized or frequently mentioned at all until the late 1800s.  Kathleen Flake theorizes that the First Vision became emphasized in LDS discourse after plural marriage ended (or began to end) as a distinguishing teaching of LDS.

 

 

I’m not acquainted with this theory from Flake, but it’s the first time I’ve seen plural marriage cast as a selling point, as it were, for Mormonism, such that Church leaders would see the need, after plural marriage had been discontinued, to cast around for a substitute, namely the First Vision, to make the Church seem distinctive to the public.

 

The idea strikes me as odd.

 

Until Joseph wrote, or collaborated in writing the 1838 account, there is not much evidence that the First Vision was a key part of the Restoration narrative for him.  It is not what missionaries routinely taught (if at all), and it is not clear how many members even knew about it until it was published in 1840 and 1842.

 

 

This was addressed above. It is reasonable to believe that Joseph initially regarded the First Vision as too sacred to share widely. That, of course, changed after 1838.

[Kevin Christensen]

On when the First Vision began to be emphasized as fundamental, see James Allen here:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23285962?uid=3739840&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103148618687

This is one of the essentials. Not the only one, but it helps a lot. The same issue of the Journal of Mormon History has another essential.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Grudunza]

 It is reasonable to believe that Joseph initially regarded the First Vision as too sacred to share widely. That, of course, changed after 1838.

Well, and/or he felt reticent to share it after his initial experience sharing it with the Methodist minister and the negative reactions and persecution he got from him and others in town.  That would certainly make him cautious about sharing it again for a while.  So I'm not entirely sure that the sacredness of it would be the main factor.  He did share it several times later in writing when he felt more comfortable to do so, and he may have shared it to others verbally now and then when it wasn't likely to have any backlash (i.e., people who he knew would receive it well).  There are some indications of that.  I think that by 1838, though, he did feel more empowered and perhaps some greater sense of responsibility to make that story known more widely.  And further persecution wasn't likely to matter much at that point, considering all the Saints were already experiencing.