The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[mfbukowski]

this has always been an issue for me.  As an attorney, I have always had problems with people who have different stories about how something happened.  I have been able to discredit many witness on the stand who had more than one version of a incident.

 

One would think that something as incredible as a visit from God would be so memorable as to not forget who was there, when it happened, and what was said.

How well do you remember dreams?

When you are dreaming, is it "real"? Is there such thing as a "real dream" that gives you a breakthrough insight?

Have you ever cross examined yourself about your a memory of a dream?

[mfbukowski]

Or... maybe just the reserve.

 

A lot depends upon whether we are talking actual event,

or "vision" here.

 

For example, what if Joseph had later mentioned that any

other person standing beside him in the grove that day,

would NOT have seen and heard what he had? (Think of

Saul's traveling companions on the road to Damascus,

when another remarkable Christophany was reported)

 

What if it were understood that no camera or sound recorder

(had they then existed) could have preserved the theophany?

 

Then what?

 

Put a witness on the stand and have him or her describe the

most vivid dream ever recalled -- how consistent would such

a memory be (of a vision)?

 

I suppose that even St. John on Patmos, might have set down

a second draft of Revelation in different terms.

 

UD

Didn't see this before my post.

Exactly. I can't even give my wife a completely coherent description of an important dream an hour after it happens, much less days weeks or months later. I once had a lengthy conversation with my dead father in a dream and afterwards could remember only the general feeling and the gist of what he told me.

I have had many fully waking religious experiences where I have felt intelligence flowing into my mind, and I remember always the general message and the feeling, but not the exact words. And feelings are not describable anyway unless one has already felt the same thing. I don't suppose many of us would claim to have seen God.

How much sense does poetry make in a literal sense? How does the description of "love flowing into your soul like a warm river" make any sense at all? I have felt that and that was my attempted description.

Can anyone describe the sound of a trumpet to a deaf person? How do you know it is a trumpet and not a trombone? How do you describe hearing two trumpets in harmony as opposed to one or three trumpets to a deaf person?

I would wager that anyone who would question Joseph's description has never had a spiritual experience. That's not a bad thing- just that one should not criticize what one does not understand.

Edited February 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

Didn't see this before my post.Exactly. I can't even give my wife a completely coherent description of an important dream an hour after it happens, much less days weeks or months later. I once had a lengthy conversation with my dead father in a dream and afterwards could remember only the general feeling and the gist of what he told me.I have had many fully waking religious experiences where I have felt intelligence flowing into my mind, and I remember always the general message and the feeling, but not the exact words. And feelings are not describable anyway unless one has already felt the same thing. I don't suppose many of us would claim to have seen God.How much sense does poetry make in a literal sense? How does the description of "love flowing into your soul like a warm river" make any sense at all? I have felt that and that was my attempted description.Can anyone describe the sound of a trumpet to a deaf person? How do you know it is a trumpet and not a trombone? How do you describe hearing two trumpets in harmony as opposed to one or three trumpets to a deaf person?I would wager that anyone who would question Joseph's description has never had a spiritual experience. That's not a bad thing- just that one should not criticize what one does not understand.

In one version of Saul's conversion experience his traveling

companions realized something remarkable was happening.

Unfortunately two versions of the event were recorded; one

consistent with a shared, physical interaction -- the other,

more like an hallucination, delusion, dream, or epiphany,

I wish the Smith event had not been called a "vision,"

but it's too late now to remedy that ambiguity.

UD

[mfbukowski]

In one version of Saul's conversion experience his traveling

companions realized something remarkable was happening.

Unfortunately two versions of the event were recorded; one

consistent with a shared, physical interaction -- the other,

more like an hallucination, delusion, dream, or epiphany,

I wish the Smith event had not been called a "vision,"

but it's too late now to remedy that ambiguity.

UD

You mean that for you a "vision" is an event that, had others been there at the time, they would have seen the same thing that the one reporting the vision had?

I have never understood it that way. I was raised Catholic and visions are understood- I think always- as not being available to anyone but the viewer, but now that you brought it up, I will have to check it out.

There were instances of miracles seen at Fatima which were viewed by thousands at once, but no one but the three children saw Mary.

Note edit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima

Edited February 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

You mean that for you a "vision" is an event that, had others been there at the time, they would have seen the same thing that the one reporting the vision had?I have never understood it that way. I was raised Catholic and visions are understood- I think always- as not being available to anyone but the viewer, but now that you brought it up, I will have to check it out.There were instances of miracles seen at Fatima which were viewed by thousands at once, but no one but the three children saw Mary.Note edit:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Fátima

Had David Whitmer, Martin Harris, or Oliver Cowdery been

around in 1823, or 1824, or whenever that remarkable revival

hit the Palmyra churches, I'm convinced they would have

agreed fully with what Brother Joseph claimed to have seen.

But they were not there to see and hear.

So, the vision of one individual. Not the sort of event that

leaves footprints in the Manchester mud.

But Sister Katherine was certain of the angel, at least--

so we have that much to go on. That is, unless it was

a different seraph who visited her with a revelation

direct from the Lord God Almighty.

Oh, I'll believe that the Smiths had visions -- and

even shared visions, as Sidney at Hiram and

Oliver in the Kirtland Temple can attest to.

I suppose a shared vision is almost as good as a

physical event, when it comes to proving things.

If Oliver says that Christ has a beard (white or not)

then that testimony would naturally double my

reliance upon Brother Joseph's report of an

earlier encounter. And, if the Brother of Jared

concurs, then who am I to spit against the wind?

Who knows? Had I been at Fatima, I might have

seen St. Anne myself, and added my testimony to

those professing the immaculate conception.

But, if I could offer such a report, it would be

difficult for an investigator not to conclude that

the St. Anne of my ecstasies (or her daughter)

was anything more substantial than misfiring

neurons in an aged brain.

Oh well...

UD

Edited February 22, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[strappinglad]

Fortunately, it is not my job to CONVINCE anyone of Joseph's vision. I am to present to story and it is up to the Spirit to do the convincing. If you are not convinced then there is little to nothing I can do except wish you well and move on. Those who have been warned are to warn their neighbors not beat them with a stick until they give in.

[Uncle Dale]

Fortunately, it is not my job to CONVINCE anyone of Joseph's vision. I am to present to story and it is up to the Spirit to do the convincing. If you are not convinced then there is little to nothing I can do except wish you well and move on. Those who have been warned are to warn their neighbors not beat them with a stick until they give in.

It's those who have been convinced by the Spirit,

but who even so reject some other aspect of

Mormonism that present the real headaches.

How does one deal with an Amasa Lyman,

who fully accepts the visions, the Standard

Works -- even the migration to Utah and

nearly every single doctrine of the Church;

but still has visions (or seances) of his own?

Such troubles seem to have run in that family's

bloodstream; for I'm sure that Richard Lyman

accepted every single word in the PGP and

the Book of Mormon, and every syllable

from Brigham, Heber, and Grant recorded in

the JoD, and yet differed on some small

matter, enough so to be judged "unworthy."

So, being convinced of the visions is not even

half the fare...

Oh well...

UD

Edited February 22, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[carbon dioxide]

this has always been an issue for me.  As an attorney, I have always had problems with people who have different stories about how something happened.  I have been able to discredit many witness on the stand who had more than one version of a incident.

 

One would think that something as incredible as a visit from God would be so memorable as to not forget who was there, when it happened, and what was said.

I really don't see a different story in the versions.  I see the same story told but each time some parts are emphasized more than others.  I see Joseph Smith being sincere in what he says without having some rehearsed script.  I am sure he remembered far more than we will ever know but just because he does not retell it exactly the same each time does not mean he was making things up.

[mfbukowski]

It's those who have been convinced by the Spirit,

but who even so reject some other aspect of

Mormonism that present the real headaches.

How does one deal with an Amasa Lyman,

who fully accepts the visions, the Standard

Works -- even the migration to Utah and

nearly every single doctrine of the Church;

but still has visions (or seances) of his own?

Such troubles seem to have run in that family's

bloodstream; for I'm sure that Richard Lyman

accepted every single word in the PGP and

the Book of Mormon, and every syllable

from Brigham, Heber, and Grant recorded in

the JoD, and yet differed on some small

matter, enough so to be judged "unworthy."

So, being convinced of the visions is not even

half the fare...

Oh well...

UD

Christianity is not a doctrine, not, I mean, a theory about what has happened and will happen to the human soul, but a description of something that actually takes place in human life. For 'consciousness of sin' is a real event and so are despair and salvation through faith. Those who speak of such things (Bunyan for instance) are simply describing what has happened to them, whatever gloss anyone may want to put on it.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Culture and Value, p 28e

Translated by Peter Winch

Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1980

I take it both ways since there's no way to determine which is right anyway.

Edited February 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

I really don't see a different story in the versions.  I see the same story told but each time some parts are emphasized more than others.  I see Joseph Smith being sincere in what he says without having some rehearsed script.  I am sure he remembered far more than we will ever know but just because he does not retell it exactly the same each time does not mean he was making things up.

 

Maybe.  But in some versions, he is one age.  In other versions, a different age.  In some versions, it was only one visitor, in others two, in others angels.  In some versions he said God said one thing and in others other things.  For an attorney, those differences are significant.

[Uncle Dale]

 

...in 1823, or 1824, or whenever that remarkable revival

hit the Palmyra churches...

 

 

Not just the Protestants in Palmyra, but the Baptists in Manchester,

a couple of miles south of the Smith farm -- and those in other

neighboring towns.

 

Not in 1820, of course -- but Wes Walters tracked down the baptism

records for dozens of the area congregations and the big spike in

new conversions was....

 

 

just what Brother William Smith said it was -- 1823-25.

 

 

Since I didn't trust Rev. Walters on such a controversial topic, I did

research of my own -- going back to Palmyra twice -- spending hours

in the Wayne County newspaper files and the Ontario newspapers.

Then, I took that on-the-ground news-copying home and used the

stack to begin my secondary searches via microfilm (and later web)

searches. Thousands of hours, as can be seen reflected in my

online postings of such 1820s upstate New York clippings.

 

 

If anything remarkable happened in 1820, I haven't found it --

at least not spreading into Palmyra/Manchester and catching the

attention of Protestant baptizers, revival conductors and reporters.

 

Luckily the RLDS did not canonize 1820 * as the immutable, perfect

word of the God of Israel, entered into the Standard Works on a

level equal to the Torah and the the Gospels -- so, we could take

Brother William, Mother Lucy, and all that historical evidence a

little more seriously (not fearful of having failed to live by every

word issued from the mouth of God, including pages of the PGP).

 

UD

 

* What might be the result -- if the scholars now working on the

Church's Joseph Smith Papers project were to come across a

scrap of paper in the archives (overlooked for decades) on

which Smith's own handwriting gave the emendation -- 

"in the year 1820, or thereabouts, as best I recollect..." ???

Edited February 22, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[UtahTexan]

Or... maybe just the reverse.

A lot depends upon whether we are talking actual event,

or "vision" here.

For example, what if Joseph had later mentioned that any

other person standing beside him in the grove that day,

would NOT have seen and heard what he had? (Think of

Saul's traveling companions on the road to Damascus,

when another remarkable Christophany was reported)

What if it were understood that no camera or sound recorder

(had they then existed) could have preserved the theophany?

Then what?

Put a witness on the stand and have him or her describe the

most vivid dream ever recalled -- how consistent would such

a memory be (of a vision)?

I suppose that even St. John on Patmos, might have set down

a second draft of Revelation in different terms.

UD

 

You cannot compare the accounts of Paul.  They were related by Luke...Luke told the story....not Paul.

 

And I just believe that though some differences are expected, your age, who appeares and what was said should be consistent.  lol...I know....I need to not wear my attorney hat........but...it is what it is

[Uncle Dale]

You cannot compare the accounts of Paul.  They were related by Luke...Luke told the story....not Paul.

 

And I just believe that though some differences are expected, your age, who appeares and what was said should be consistent.  lol...I know....I need to not wear my attorney hat........but...it is what it is

 

 

Well, it would interesting if we could see a panel of jurors

review the evidence in such a case.

 

Then again, I'm told that the Corporation of the President and

the Corporation of the Bishop have some of the best attorneys 

in the world on retainer (and the second best bunch employed

directly, on salary) -- so, maybe the jurors could be swayed

"by the Spirit"

 

UD

[UtahTexan]

Well, it would interesting if we could see a panel of jurors

review the evidence in such a case.

 

Then again, I'm told that the Corporation of the President and

the Corporation of the Bishop have some of the best attorneys 

in the world on retainer (and the second best bunch employed

directly, on salary) -- so, maybe the jurors could be swayed

"by the Spirit"

 

UD

 

[mfbukowski]

You cannot compare the accounts of Paul.  They were related by Luke...Luke told the story....not Paul.

 

And I just believe that though some differences are expected, your age, who appeares and what was said should be consistent.  lol...I know....I need to not wear my attorney hat........but...it is what it is

Unfortunately the truth theory which works for attorneys does not work for religious discourse.

Different language games and all that.

Evidence has nothing to do with religion. If it did, only fools would be believers.

Edited February 22, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

Evidence has nothing to do with religion. If it did, only fools would be believers.

 

 

Then again, we might ask what the purpose of church courts might be,

if not to examine evidence for or against a brother or sister charged

with unChristlike conduct.

 

If the presented evidence obviously clears such a suspect member of

all wrong doing; but even so a Bishop, or High Council, or some other

ecclestico-judicial body decides that the poor soul should nevertheless

be disfellowshiped and excommunicated, what then?

 

Might Oliver Cowdery stand up to Tom Marsh and crew, saying "the

evidence here presented should clear me of all wrongdoing --" and 

The Brethren sitting in judgment then reply: "Evidence has nothing to

do with religion. If it did, only fools would be believers." -- What then?

 

Poor Oliver could testify to having met Jesus Christ face-to-face in

the Kirtland Temple, not many months before -- of being entrusted

to go to Monroe, Michigan and salvage the Church's finances -- of

saving the One True Church from the unlawful relations Fanny had

entered into with a top-ranking member of the High Priesthood, in

total violation of the Law of the Church, as set down and previously

administered unto all members, out of the pages of the Doctrine

and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

 

And Tom Marsh could reply: "Evidence has nothing to do with religion.

If it did, only fools would be believers. -- We would be fools to believe

you. We knew by the Spirit before you were ever called to this Church

Court that you must be found guilty. That was decided before President

Smith ever dismissed the standing High Council in Zion, and sent us

down here to rid the Saints of God of apostates like you, the Whitmers,

W. W. Phelps and John Corrill."

 

At least I suppose that is precisely what went through Oliver's mind,

at Far West, as he sipped his forbidden cup of tea and contemplated

whether or not it would be worth while to present his evidence, to

remain the Second Elder of the restored Church of Christ.

 

"Evidence has nothing to do with religion. If it did, only fools would be believers."

 

Indeed!! And that is precisely why the Prophet James J. Strang's four

witnesses to the sacred record dug out of the dust of Voree never made

a believer out of me. I would be a fool to be a believer based upon the

published testimony of such witnesses to preColumbian metal plates.

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

Then again, we might ask what the purpose of church courts might be,

if not to examine evidence for or against a brother or sister charged

with unChristlike conduct.

 

If the presented evidence obviously clears such a suspect member of

all wrong doing; but even so a Bishop, or High Council, or some other

ecclestico-judicial body decides that the poor soul should nevertheless

be disfellowshiped and excommunicated, what then?

 

Might Oliver Cowdery stand up to Tom Marsh and crew, saying "the

evidence here presented should clear me of all wrongdoing --" and 

The Brethren sitting in judgment then reply: "Evidence has nothing to

do with religion. If it did, only fools would be believers." -- What then?

 

Poor Oliver could testify to having met Jesus Christ face-to-face in

the Kirtland Temple, not many months before -- of being entrusted

to go to Monroe, Michigan and salvage the Church's finances -- of

saving the One True Church from the unlawful relations Fanny had

entered into with a top-ranking member of the High Priesthood, in

total violation of the Law of the Church, as set down and previously

administered unto all members, out of the pages of the Doctrine

and Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

 

And Tom Marsh could reply: "Evidence has nothing to do with religion.

If it did, only fools would be believers. -- We would be fools to believe

you. We knew by the Spirit before you were ever called to this Church

Court that you must be found guilty. That was decided before President

Smith ever dismissed the standing High Council in Zion, and sent us

down here to rid the Saints of God of apostates like you, the Whitmers,

W. W. Phelps and John Corrill."

 

At least I suppose that is precisely what went through Oliver's mind,

at Far West, as he sipped his forbidden cup of tea and contemplated

whether or not it would be worth while to present his evidence, to

remain the Second Elder of the restored Church of Christ.

 

"Evidence has nothing to do with religion. If it did, only fools would be believers."

 

Indeed!! And that is precisely why the Prophet James J. Strang's four

witnesses to the sacred record dug out of the dust of Voree never made

a believer out of me. I would be a fool to be a believer based upon the

published testimony of such witnesses to preColumbian metal plates.

 

UD

Nevermind, that's ok.

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................................................    

 

At least I suppose that is precisely what went through Oliver's mind,

at Far West, as he sipped his forbidden cup of tea and contemplated

whether or not it would be worth while to present his evidence, to

remain the Second Elder of the restored Church of Christ.

 

"Evidence has nothing to do with religion. If it did, only fools would be believers."

 

....................................................................................    

So-called "evidence" has too much to do with preconceptions which are then conveniently proved.  If we put our trust in sophistry (good lawyering) then only the side with the best advocates would win.  Perhaps some put their faith in a "dream team" of shysters, but I don't think that either you or Bukowski really want that.  Hence, the need for something more sure than flattering words and eloquent pettifogging.  True religion requires testimony of the Holy Spirit.  Anything less is mere puffery.

 

At least Oliver Cowdery finally realized how wrong he had been, and sought forgiveness and rebaptism before he died of pneumonia in 1850.

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................................    

 

Not in 1820, of course -- but Wes Walters tracked down the baptism

records for dozens of the area congregations and the big spike in

new conversions was....

 

 

just what Brother William Smith said it was -- 1823-25.

 

 

........................................................................................................  \

If anything remarkable happened in 1820, I haven't found it --

at least not spreading into Palmyra/Manchester and catching the

attention of Protestant baptizers, revival conductors and reporters.

 

Luckily the RLDS did not canonize 1820 * as the immutable, perfect

word of the God of Israel, entered into the Standard Works on a

level equal to the Torah and the the Gospels -- so, we could take

Brother William, Mother Lucy, and all that historical evidence a

little more seriously (not fearful of having failed to live by every

word issued from the mouth of God, including pages of the PGP).

 

UD

 

* What might be the result -- if the scholars now working on the

Church's Joseph Smith Papers project were to come across a

scrap of paper in the archives (overlooked for decades) on

which Smith's own handwriting gave the emendation -- 

"in the year 1820, or thereabouts, as best I recollect..." ???

How odd, Dale:  You were able to find nothing, and were otherwise fully dependent on the deliberate failure of my friend Wes Walters to find anything in 1820, as though nothing else had been found on that issue.

 

Yet Wes was fully aware that he was leaving out crucial information which completely destroyed his partisan claim (after all, Wes was a Presbyterian minister and the most capable anti-Mormon of his time).  How could he have done such a dishonorable thing?  Perhaps the same way he justified to himself the surreptitious recording of an interview with an LDS Apostle, and then publishing it without permission.  It took an hour for the Tanners to convince Wes to undo the damage and deceit.

 

That is why Mike Quinn excoriated Wes for his deliberate exclusion of that crucial information, which is available online at http://ldsfocuschrist2.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/2006-joseph-smiths-experience-of-a-methodist-camp-meeting-in-1820-d-michael-quinn/ , “Joseph Smith's Experience of a Methodist Camp-Meeting in 1820," Dec 20, 2006.

 

Evidence certainly has its place, but the question is always whether one has a penchant for negative or positive information.  The same applies to any given Bible-bash, which can go either way depending on how skilled the partisans, and not upon the actual validity of the information.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

No big deal -- unless you consider 3000 years of Judeo-Christian

teachings, telling us that man cannot look upon the face of God

and live.

......................................................................

This is indeed a frequent claim of normative, Platonisiic Judeo-Christianity, but it is completely false and pagan.

 

As the Israeli biblical scholar Yohanan Muffs has rightly pointed out “[T]he biblical God is anthropomorphic.  Whoever strips God of his personal quality distorts the true meaning of Scripture.”  However, he adds, “only the most holy people are spared death in the presence of God.”  Just so, as in the Bible, the Book of Mormon speaks of God with the same sort of flesh and blood anthropomorphisms (Ether 2:4-5,14, 3:4-19).  If you don't understand what the typical Israelite believed about God, perhaps you need to ask someone like Bill Dever.

 

Indeed, non-Mormon scholars go so far as to say, as does Ernst Benz:

 

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith’s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.

 

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................   

One would think that something as incredible as a visit from God would be so memorable as to not forget who was there, when it happened, and what was said.

Then you would be subject to endless and eternal disappointment.  The Bible is filled with thousands of discrepancies in descriptions of the same events, both internal to the Bible as well as external to it.  How is that possible where the mighty acts of God are concerned?  Shouldn't we expect perfect consistency every time?  Or are we, after all, just fallible humans?

[Robert F. Smith]

................................................................    

Who knows? Had I been at Fatima, I might have

seen St. Anne myself, and added my testimony to

those professing the immaculate conception.

But, if I could offer such a report, it would be

difficult for an investigator not to conclude that

the St. Anne of my ecstasies (or her daughter)

was anything more substantial than misfiring

neurons in an aged brain.

.......................................................................................   

Elsewhere in this thread you pooh-pooh the notion of visions being normative in mainstream Christianity.  Yet here you hit upon an instance of which there are many within Roman Catholicism.  And they are accepted by that Church as authentic.  Roman Catholic writers like to publish thick tomes on revelation, and find it quite acceptable.  And not just in old folks . . .

 

Like the Mormons, Roman Catholics distinguish between public revelation (which is applicable to everyone), and private revelation (which is applicable only to the party receiving it).

[Uncle Dale]

 

Elsewhere in this thread you pooh-pooh the notion of visions being normative in mainstream Christianity.

...

 

 

I don't recall having used those words anywhere.

What I did say -- is that there has been a longstanding

understanding, tradition and theology relating to

YHWH and theophany. It has developed over time,

but it is a whole, with hundreds of thousands of voices

professing it over the centuries. It is what my RLDS

brethren used to call "The Great Apostasy" and

"The Abominable Church" in their profound ignorance.

 

You cannot simply point your finger to any spot in

many hundreds of years of history an say "this is

the biblical God" -- the "Lord" of 2000 BCE was not

the "Lord" of 1000 BCE -- and certainly not of 500

BCE either. Perception and testimony regarding the

God of Israel developed over time.

 

But I've seen Mormons constantly point back to the

religion they think existed prior to the Deuteronomic

reform -- prior to Jeremiah and Isaiah -- and say

THAT is normative -- the henotheism of Canaan.

 

But I'll not argue with that -- Mormons are free to

exalt Dagon or Baal Hadad, if they wish. El of

Tyre and Sidon can be orthodox to some modern

sect -- I'll not object. I will object to the notion that

perception and explanation of YHWH did not 

change over time -- and that there is one, single

Israelite-Jewish profession of the Biblical God,

unchanged save for some alleged apostasy.

 

But, getting back to visions -- where have I said

that altered states of consciousness have had no

positive place in Judeo-Christian history? Or that I

regard that phenomenon as something to be discarded

or ridiculed?  Show me.

 

And, while looking for an example, I believe you'll

discover a profession of theophany posted in this

very thread -- the last words I ever penned before

leaving my mainland USA home, forever.

 

You misunderstand me. But that's OK. I'm not seeking

a personal spotlight -- just a place at the table with

others who feel as though they have something of

interest to contribute.

 

UD

[Uncle Dale]

 

...Joseph Smith's Experience of a Methodist Camp-Meeting in 1820,"

...

 

 

Nobody I know of ever said that there were no camp-meetings,

here and there. Turner (I believe it was) mentioned one held

once down on the road to Ontario's Vienna. They were a

common annual occurrence all through the 1810s and 1820s.

 

What I do say is that Mormons have locked themselves so

tightly into the 1820 date that they cannot typically even

consider other possibilities as being logical and rational. 

Once a person has a testimony of the Pearl of Great Price, 

then there can be no other year but 1820.

 

If Walters faked his data, I'd appreciate somebody providing

me with scans of the baptismal records of the Protestant

congregations in upstate New York between say, 1815

and 1825. Show me the great 1820 revival -- and show me

how its supposed effects correspond more closely with the

recollections of Mother Smith and her son William.

 

At the same time, show me all the newspaper clippings

that I somehow missed seeing. I doubt that anybody can

come up with more than 1 or 2 for a noticeable revival 

in 1820.

 

And, if anybody cares to ask me, I can start cutting and

pasting into this thread the news reports from 1823,

1824, and part way into 1825, which show when the really

remarkable series of revivals and conversions happened.

 

As I said in passing, RLDS and CoC writers have been free

to say, yes, perhaps Joseph's conversion experience began

as early as 1820 and intensified in the following years --

and that the PGP canonized vision account was a melding

together of several experiences, from Alvin's death, to

Lucy's joining the Presbyterians, to the type of preaching

Lucy described from a wandering parson who advocated

uniting the various sects into one Church (pure Walter

Scott style Campbellism, of the "creeds are an abomination" 

flavor of 1820s restorationism).

 

But no -- every Mormon I've ever spoken to has jumped to

a defense of 1820, as though his/her life depended upon

it, and the whole fabric of anthropomorphic structured

polytheism and eternal families depended solely upon

that date being the One True Revelation -- greater, even

than the so-often capitalized "Vision" of 3 degrees of glory.

 

You're doing very little to convince me to come over to

your side in any of the contentions -- but, then again,

perhaps your basic purpose is something other than that,

 

UD

Edited February 22, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Uncle Dale]

 

...if anybody cares to ask me, I can start cutting and

pasting into this thread the news reports from 1823,

1824, and part way into 1825, which show when the really

remarkable series of revivals and conversions happened.

...

 

 

 

Here's a good starting point, since it leads the reader to

Elder Joshua Bradley -- who was something of an authority on

contemporary revivals -- his mentioned "1000" conversions

in part of upstate New York seems a likely figure -- at least

Bradley took the trouble to write about the revivals of that

period (from the mid-1810s onward -- see Google Books).

Bradley was also Sidney Rigdon's replacement in the Regular

Baptist Church in Pittsburgh -- brought in to restore a good

spirit and enthusiasm after Rigdon and Scott's 1824 experiment

with a restored "Church of Christ" there had morphed into

just another Campbellite congregation.

 

 

 

THE

AMERICAN

BAPTIST  MAGAZINE.

Vol. V.                                     Boston, Ma.,  February, 1825.                                No. 2.

 

REVIVALS  OF  RELIGION.

_____

LETTER  FROM  REV.  Mr.  WINCHELL, TO  DR.  BALDWIN --  DATED.

                                          Avon, Dec. 20th, 1824.

Dear Sir,

I with Brother Savage of Rochester, and Brother Griswold of Fabius, attended the Upper Canada Association, which sat last June at Clinton....

We have some good tidings to communicate from this region. I have preached recently a part of the time in West Bloomfield, where God has poured out his Spirit. About 20 entertain hopes, and 12 have been baptized and added to the church. The work continues Oh! may it continue until hundreds are made to rejoice in the Lord!! -- A letter from the Rev. Mr. Curtis of Ashtabula, says, "About 200, in this vicinity, are recent trophies of rich and victorious grace." Another, from the Rev. Joshua Bradley, dated Nov. 28th, at Ellisburgh, (Black River country) says, "About 1000 in this region, sinch March or February last, are rejoicing in a good hope through Christ." In Palmyra, a town about 30 miles North East of this, God has triumphed gloriously. About 200, as I am informed, are sharers in this great and precious work.

Yours, in the bonds of the Gospel Ministry.    

REUBEN WINCHELL.   

Note 1: For further information on the great Palmyra revival of 1824-25, see a subsequent mention in the Apr., 1825 issue of the American Baptist Magazine, as well as Mitchell Bronk's Jan. 1948 article in The Chronicle: A Baptist Historical Quarterly, II:1 entitled, "The Baptist Church at Manchester, New York."

Note 2: Elder Joshua Bradley (who replaced Elder Lawrence Greatrake in Sidney Rigdon's old pastoral office in Pittsburgh) was still conducting his ministry in upstate New York during 1825 -- ranging as far afield as Jefferson County. See pp. 400-407 of the 1860 edition of William Buell Sprague's Annals of the American Pulpit, where he says: "In 1827, he [Joshua Bradley] was invited to visit Pittsburg, Pa.; and finding the Baptist church there much distressed, he commenced a school for his support. He divided his labours on the Sabbath between Pittsburg and Alleghany City, and his influence in resuscitating the Baptist interest in that neighbourhood soon became perceptible.... In 1827, he was earnestly solicited by the Rev. John M. Peck to go to Illinois, to take charge of a new Seminary at Rock Spring..." This chronology accords with the published "Minutes" of the Redstone Baptist Association, which list Elder Bradley as the official representative of the Pittsburgh First Baptist Church, in his attending the Sept. 1-3, 1826 annual meeting of the Association; however, a year later Bradley was not present for the next annual meeting.

Note 3: Elder Joshua Bradley still resided in Pittsburgh as late as Apr. 30, 1827, when he wrote a letter from that place, (published in the Montpelior Vermont Watchman of May 22, 1827), in which he said: "This land is covered with darkness, and filled with crimes -- yet the Lord is gracious to some souls. -- About 25 have been added to the first Baptist Church since I came here last May." By May 19, 1827, Elder Bradley was in Louisville, Kentucky (perhaps on his way west to Rock Spring, Illinois) where he announced a preaching service for the following day, to be held at "the Baptists new Meeting House," (see the Louisville Public Advertiser for May 19th).

 

 

 

UD

Edited February 22, 2015 by Uncle Dale