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

[Grudunza]

having so many differing versions to the story makes it seem more valid.

Yes, but there can come a point when you have so many different versions of something that the core starts to be questioned.  But JS' versions are consistent enough, and you're right about remembering things differently over time, and how each of us forges our own versions of what happened.  Somewhere, the actual truth of what happened exists... which I believe someday will be part of the reckoning and judgement of all things, via the "spiritual cameramen" that have been there all along... but once something is in the past, to our practical experience it only now exists in our minds.  And our minds can be very creative, confused and agenda-driven places.  I recognize where I have embellished some stories that I've told many times, sometimes to further some self-serving agenda... but they are still true stories, in essence, even if some parts of them have been exaggerated over time.  I'm not saying JS exaggerated, though.  I think that as someone else said, things came into better focus over the years, pertaining to that experience.

[longview]

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.

Thank you for pointing that out.  It does seem heavy handed.  Thanks also for your whimsical emoticons.  It made me chuckle.  I just wanted to be unambiguous about what parts I agreed or disagreed with.

[bdouglas]

I like Bushman, I liked RSR (read it twice), but I think he is dead wrong here. I can't imagine Sidney Rigdon or anybody else writing the 1838 account, or even participating in the writing of it. An earlier poster referenced an Arthur Henry King link, and I reference it again because I think King is right. Among other things King says:

 

 

When I was first brought to read Joseph Smith’s story, I was deeply impressed. I wasn’t inclined to be impressed. As a stylistician, I have spent my life being disinclined to be impressed. So when I read his story, I thought to myself, this is an extraordinary thing. This is an astonishingly matter-of-fact and cool account. This man is not trying to persuade me of anything. He doesn’t feel the need to. He is stating what happened to him, and he is stating it, not enthusiastically, but in quite a matter-of-fact way. He is not trying to make me cry or feel ecstatic. That struck me, and that began to build my testimony, for I could see that this man was telling the truth.

 

Joseph Smith begins his story in his matter-of-fact way, setting out carefully the reason that he is writing this history and the facts about his birth and family. Then he moves from the matter-of-fact to the ironical, even the satirical, as he describes the state of religion at the time—the behavior of the New England clergy in trying to draw people into their congregations. He tells about reading the Epistle of James. He doesn’t try to express his feelings. He gives a description of his feelings instead, which is a very different thing.

 

Later in same essay he says, "I am not good enough to write a passage as good as that." JS 1838 first vision account is in my opinion a narrative masterpiece––aside from any religious value it has––and I can't believe that a committee of JS, Sidney Rigdon et al came up with it.

 

P.S. - Can someone tell me how to get my pic to post? It posts fine when I go into my profile but otherwise not. How do I contact support about this? Or is there support?

Edited December 20, 2013 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

Just thinking...

 

One of the interesting things about the 1838 account is the understatement contained in it. It is a masterpiece of understatement. I can't think of anything to even compare to it unless it might be certain bits of the Old Testament. But Sidney Rigdon was not given to understatement, rather just the opposite. As for the other guy, Robinson, I can't say. But it would have taken an extraordinary individual to write about something like the first vision without resorting to bold metaphor and hyperbole––but in fact the account contains nothing of the sort.

Edited December 20, 2013 by bdouglas

[canard78]

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.

 

I agree. The striking out was annoying, distracting and not needed.

 

Bolding perhaps to be able to reference it, but striking out is just a bit rude.

[Storm Rider]

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

 

Bushman is saying that it was foundation; I think it was foundational for Joseph, but I agree withe another poster that Joseph responded differently to the visitations from John the Baptist, Moroni, Peter, James and John, etc. The First Vision was a very personal experience for Joseph as it would be for almost everyone else also. 

[cinepro]

I like Bushman, I liked RSR (read it twice), but I think he is dead wrong here. I can't imagine Sidney Rigdon or anybody else writing the 1838 account, or even participating in the writing of it.

 

Could you imagine someone else writing the Articles of Faith?

[bdouglas]

Could you imagine someone else writing the Articles of Faith?

 

It seems to me the two are very different. In the case of the 1838 account it is a first person narrative of personal experiences...whereas the Articles Of Faith is a statement of principles. It is not hard for me to imagine someone else writing the AOF (if that is in fact what happened). Joseph Smith provides the input, these are our first principles, etc., and somebody else puts it down in writing. Anybody could have written them, it was the coming up with them in the first place that was important.

 

But for me, trying to imagine someone other than Joseph Smith writing the 1838 account is like trying to imagine Solomon Spaulding or whoever writing the Book Of Mormon. "Show me this transcendent genius, this person who could produce such a work," I say, "because I would like to see what else he produced!"

Edited December 20, 2013 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

P.S - This reminds me a little bit of the people who say Shakespeare didn't really write King Lear and all the rest but the Earl-of-whatever. And I guess such people can make a convincing case of it. But if this were really so, then I'd have the same question for them that I have of the people who say Joseph Smith didn't write the BOM or his own first person 1838 account, i.e., the founding narrative of the church. "Show me this man who authored these marvelous works! And what else did he write? I want to see it."

 

But whatever the provenance of King Lear, etc., I think it's a safe bet to say that a committee of actors did not write it, or the Earl-of-whatever together with 2-3 household servants. In other words it was not a collaboration. Collaboration might produce Inherit the Wind but it does not produce King Lear, and likewise it is impossible for me to imagine collaborators producing the 1838 account.

Edited December 20, 2013 by bdouglas

[Storm Rider]

For me it is irrelevant who actually wrote it i.e. used a pen to write what they were directed to write and used a degree of license to adjust the form, grammar, and sentence structure. What is clear is that Joseph supported and approved the statement. This will always be Joseph's official statement of the first vision. It makes no sense whatsoever for the Church to put it aside in favor of another of his recordings. Why would they do that? What is the objective?

 

I don't think there is any problem with Bushman feeling that one is more genuine or more personal than another. That is his prerogative as an individual, but it has no bearing on how anyone else values each of the recordings of the first vision. 

[bdouglas]

Could you imagine someone else writing the Articles of Faith?

 

P.S. - You could also tell me that Joseph Smith did not write the Lectures On Faith, rather Sidney Rigdon (or someone else) wrote them, and it would make sense to me. I have never been able to imagine Joseph Smith as author of the Lectures. But not so with the 1838 account.

[canard78]

I like Bushman, I liked RSR (read it twice), but I think he is dead wrong here. I can't imagine Sidney Rigdon or anybody else writing the 1838 account, or even participating in the writing of it.

So because you can't imagine it you simply dismiss the research of perhaps the most credible living historian of Joseph Smith's life?

 

Do you dismiss everything you can't imagine?

[bdouglas]

So because you can't imagine it you simply dismiss the research of perhaps the most credible living historian of Joseph Smith's life?

 

Do you dismiss everything you can't imagine?

 

All I said is that I think he is wrong and I gave my reasons for thinking so. That's all.

[canard78]

All I said is that I think he is wrong and I gave my reasons for thinking so. That's all.

 

I've not seen his evidence for the 1838 collaborative writing, but I know he's thorough with other research. Do you have any evidence, beyond your imagination, that he wrote it alone?

[Scott Lloyd]

So because you can't imagine it you simply dismiss the research of perhaps the most credible living historian of Joseph Smith's life?

 

Do you dismiss everything you can't imagine?

When I read this post, I went back and re-read your opening post, thinking that perhaps I had missed something in the words you quoted from Bushman.

 

You refer here to his "research," implying that there is something in the quoted passage that establishes, if not definitively, at least persuasively, that Joseph Smith was not the sole author of the 1838 account. But all I see in the quote is Bushman's own opinion. A considered and educated opinion, yes, but an opinion notwithstanding.

 

Bushman is saying, in effect, that he doesn't think Joseph authored the text of the account because the wording doesn't sound like Joseph's. That strikes me as quite subjective. In effect, Bushman is offering the same sort of reasoning that you are here criticizing bdouglas for using.

 

Bushman may well be right. But I see no "research" in what you have presented here that objectively or empirically establishes it.

 

I'll say to you what I said to Buckeye: Your adoration for Bushman is touching but not probative.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[bdouglas]

I've not seen his evidence for the 1838 collaborative writing, but I know he's thorough with other research. Do you have any evidence, beyond your imagination, that he wrote it alone?

 

I've spoken to Bushman personally and I like him. I'm sure he is very thorough with his research. What I think regarding the 1838 account is based on internal evidences in the account itself. I don't see Sidney Rigdon in it anywhere, or anybody else for that matter besides JS. As I said in my earlier post, aside from any religious value it may have it is a masterpiece of first person narrative, and such masterpieces are usually not the result of collaboration––and certainly not in the case of one with such unique subject matter. I quoted Arthur Henry King's opinion of this narrative, and King, in his own way, is at least the equal of Bushman (or was, since I think he died). No historian is infallible in his conclusions, no matter how thorough his research, and Bushman would be the last person to claim such a distinction for himself.

 

But it doesn't bother me in the least if you disagree with me about this. It's okay. You seem to take it very personally, I don't know why. Maybe it was the way I came across. I was probably too positive in the way I pronounced my views. I tend to dislike people who are like that and so I usually try not to be that way myself, but maybe I failed here.

Edited December 20, 2013 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

P.S. - Talking about Bushman....

 

There are actually a lot of conclusions in RSR that Bushman comes to that I disagree with...although I recognize that he probably knows more about JS than any man living. But still there are as many opinions and conclusions about JS as there are historians who are looking at him.

 

But having said that, I like Bushman very much. One of the things I like most about him is the way he can engage non-believers, even people who strongly dislike JS, without getting angry and antagonistic and losing his cool. He always comes across as very gentlemanly and reasonable, the opposite of dogmatic, and if I had my way he would be church historian. So I like him very much, and I hope he lives long enough to finish another book or two on JS.

Edited December 20, 2013 by bdouglas

[Buckeye]

Thank you for pointing that out.  It does seem heavy handed.  Thanks also for your whimsical emoticons.  It made me chuckle.  I just wanted to be unambiguous about what parts I agreed or disagreed with.

 

No hard feelings at all.  And I should have welcomed you to the board before beating you with it.  I hope you stick around.

[canard78]

When I read this post, I went back and re-read your opening post, thinking that perhaps I had missed something in the words you quoted from Bushman.

You refer here to his "research," implying that there is something in the quoted passage that establishes, if not definitively, at least persuasively, that Joseph Smith was not the sole author of the 1838 account. But all I see in the quote is Bushman's own opinion. A considered and educated opinion, yes, but an opinion notwithstanding.

Bushman is saying, in effect, that he doesn't think Joseph authored the text of the account because the wording doesn't sound like Joseph's. That strikes me as quite subjective. In effect, Bushman is offering the same sort of reasoning that you are here criticizing bdouglas for using.

Bushman may well be right. But I see no "research" in what you have presented here that objectively or empirically establishes it.

I'll say to you what I said to Buckeye: Your adoration for Bushman is touching but not probative.

Spare me the patronising condescension.

I didn't claim to present evidence, just quoted someone who has a lot of credibility. I found it odd that another poster dismissed what he said because they "can't imagine" it happening that way.

[Calm]

Thank you for pointing that out.  It does seem heavy handed.  Thanks also for your whimsical emoticons.  It made me chuckle.  I just wanted to be unambiguous about what parts I agreed or disagreed with.

Always nice seeing a good sport.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[bdouglas]

Interesting. What other works did these geniuses George Robinson and Sidney Rigdon produce? The 1838 account is a masterwork (see Arthur Henry King link), and I am anxious to see what else they wrote, either individually or as a committee.

 

But seriously ... Joseph Smith was very egalitarian, he wanted everyone to share in his visions, and he was always anxious to delegate and spread the work around. And so I have no problem with his taking input from the First Presidency——in fact I would have expected him to since the narrative in question was to be THE founding narrative of the church, the one to send out to the world. At some point we know, or I have read, that Parley P. Pratt tinkered with one of the FV accounts, and maybe it was this one, softening the bit where JS talks about his youthful indiscretions. But taking input from others, or even allowing others to tinker with is not the same thing as collaboration. A author may submit a piece of writing (or dictation) to an editor and that editor may make changes, cut out bits here and there, tighten this here, even re-write a sentence here or there. But still that's not collaboration. The work remains the author's own. And so it is with this 1838 account. The experiences described in the account are uniquely Joseph's own, and so it would seem that the account of these experiences is also.

 

As for Bushman's contention that the voice is not Joseph's voice——

 

Well, to me it sounds like Joseph's voice. But even if it doesn't, neither does section 1 of the Book Of Commandments sound like Joseph's voice, i.e., Joseph the man. I realize that I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but in a way I'm not. Sec. 1 is the introductory revelation to the Book Of Commandments, a revelation to the world; and the 1838 FV account is the founding narrative of the church, told in the first person by the man who actually had the visions and experiences. It is also similar to section 1 (and other sections as well) in that it reads like a revelation, a revelation in the sense that in it, 18 years after the first vision and 15 years after the visit of Moroni it is all finally coming together for Joseph, crystallizing in a coherent, straightforward story that will form the founding narrative of the church. So of course I see the First Presidency participating in the drafting of this narrative, or providing input, but still the end product is uniquely Joseph Smith's own.

 

(Or at least this is what I think. I'm just a Utah businessman who likes to read church history and is fascinated by Joseph Smith.)

Edited December 21, 2013 by bdouglas

[Bernard Gui]

 

Joseph Smith's 1838 account of his first vision was part of a history that was written over a period of six days in Far West, Missouri. George W. Robinson recorded in Joseph Smith's journal for 27 April 1838: "This day was chiefly spent in writing a history of this Church from the earliest perion [period] of its existance up to this date, By Presidents, Joseph Smith Jr  & Sidney Rigdon, myself also was engaged in keeping this record." On 30 April 1838 he recorded: "This day was spent by the first Presidency, in writing the history of the Church." On 1 May 1838: "This day was also spent in writing Church History, by the first Presidency." On 2 May 1838: "This day was also spent in writing history, and <receiving> lectures on grammer. by President  [sidney] Rigdon." On 3 May 1838: "This day also was spent in Writing & parsing." And, finally, on 4 May 1838: "This day also was spent in studying, & writing history, by the presidency."

 

Robinson gives no indication that the history was anything other than a collaborative effort of the First Presidency. Smith, Rigdon, and Robinson worked on it together. The Joseph Smith Papers editors note in their introduction to the Histories series that "No manuscript of their 1838 work is extant, but the work was incorporated into the later surviving history manuscripts"—namely, Draft 2 (see JSP, H1:xxii–xiii, 195, 203). The editors subsequently refer to "JS and his collaborators" when describing the authorship of the 1838 narrative (see, e.g., JSP, H1:197).

 

That Joseph Smith used assistants in drafting his 1838 account of his first vision should not be surprising. When he described his vision in letters to John Wentworth and Daniel Rupp in 1842 and 1843 he relied heavily on wording used in an 1840 tract by Orson Pratt, recasting it in the first person (an appendix in JSP, Histories, vol. 1, shows the full extent of the borrowings). For example:

• Orson Pratt, Interesting Account, 1840: "He was informed, that his sins were forgiven. He was also informed upon the subjects, which had for some time previously agitated his mind, viz.--that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines; and, consequently, that none of them was acknowledged of God, as his church and kingdom. And he was expressly commanded, to go not after them; and he received a promise that the true doctrine--the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him; after which the vision withdrew."

   

• Joseph Smith, Letter to John Wentworth, 1842: "They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to 'go not after them,' at the same time receiving a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me."

   

• Joseph Smith, Letter to Daniel I. Rupp, 1843: "They told me that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to 'go not after them,' at the same time receiving a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me."

 

 

I see nothing in the journal quotes that would preclude Joseph from writing his own story during those meetings, nor do they suggest that he was assisted by them in composing his story.

 

Is it not possible it was Pratt recasting Joseph's story in the third person? 

By 1840, I would assume Joseph had written and retold the story enough times,

especially in the company of intimate friends like Pratt, that they could write it virtually in his words.

 

Edited December 21, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[canard78]

<p>

Joseph Smith's 1838 account of his first vision was part of a history that was written over a period of six days in Far West, Missouri. George W. Robinson recorded in Joseph Smith's journal for 27 April 1838: "This day was chiefly spent in writing a history of this Church from the earliest perion [period] of its existance up to this date, By Presidents, Joseph Smith Jr & Sidney Rigdon, myself also was engaged in keeping this record." On 30 April 1838 he recorded: "This day was spent by the first Presidency, in writing the history of the Church; and in resitation of grammer lessions, which ressitations is attended to, in the <each> morning previous to writing." On 1 May 1838: "This day was also spent in writing Church History, by the first Presidency." On 2 May 1838: "This day was also spent in writing history, and <receiving> lectures on grammer. by President [sidney] Rigdon." On 3 May 1838: "This day also was spent in Writing & parsing." And, finally, on 4 May 1838: "This day also was spent in studying, & writing history, by the presidency."

Robinson gives no indication that the history was anything other than a collaborative effort of the First Presidency. Smith, Rigdon, and Robinson worked on it together. The Joseph Smith Papers editors note in their introduction to the Histories series that "No manuscript of their 1838 work is extant, but the work was incorporated into the later surviving history manuscripts"—namely, Draft 2 (see JSP, H1:xxii–xiii, 195, 203). The editors subsequently refer to "JS and his collaborators" when describing the authorship of the 1838 narrative (see, e.g., JSP, H1:197).

That Joseph Smith used assistants in drafting his 1838 account of his first vision should not be surprising. When he described his vision in letters to John Wentworth and Daniel Rupp in 1842 and 1843 he relied heavily on wording used in an 1840 tract by Orson Pratt, recasting it in the first person (an appendix in JSP, Histories, vol. 1, shows the full extent of the borrowings). For example:

• Orson Pratt, Interesting Account, 1840: "He was informed, that his sins were forgiven. He was also informed upon the subjects, which had for some time previously agitated his mind, viz.--that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines; and, consequently, that none of them was acknowledged of God, as his church and kingdom. And he was expressly commanded, to go not after them; and he received a promise that the true doctrine--the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him; after which the vision withdrew."
• Joseph Smith, Letter to John Wentworth, 1842: "They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to 'go not after them,' at the same time receiving a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me."
• Joseph Smith, Letter to Daniel I. Rupp, 1843: "They told me that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to 'go not after them,' at the same time receiving a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me."

I'm do glad you participate in this forum Nevo. Your knowledge of history and balance in telling it is refreshing.

[mfbukowski]

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.