The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[canard78]

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.

If Richard Bushman is right and the official version wasn't even written by Joseph then it probably goes a long way to explaining the difference. If the people who wrote the later version weren't there then it would explain some of the differences from the 1832 version.

[UtahTexan]

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.

 

I am not sure I understand.

 

It would seem to me that truth is truth, no matter the context.

[Kenngo1969]

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

I believe I understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree with it.  But I wouldn't say evidence has nothing to do with religion. After all, even Paul said (though I realize this is a translation of a transcription) that faith is "the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).  The nice thing (though, perversely, perhaps it is frustrating to many) is that each of us is his own trier of fact with respect to faith claims: Each of us decides what evidence he will admit, what evidence he will exclude, how much weight to give to any particular piece of evidence, how credible any piece of evidence is, and so on.  As I've said so many times before, questions are inevitable, but doubt and faith are choices.

 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/of-doubt-faith-questions-and-choices/

[Kenngo1969]

I am not sure I understand.

 

It would seem to me that truth is truth, no matter the context.

Yes, but, as you know, my friend, there are different standards of proof depending on what kind of case it is.  (For the uninitiated, I'm referring to the "beyond-a-reasonable-doubt" standard in criminal cases, the "preponderance-of-the-evidence" standard in civil cases, another type of case might have a "clear-and-convincing-evidence" standard, et cetera.  It would take a legal treatise to explain each of the different standards in detail, but there they are (some of them, anyway. )

[ALarson]

I am not sure I understand.

 

It would seem to me that truth is truth, no matter the context.

I agree.

 

The truth regarding the first vision exists.  It either occurred as the official account states or it didn't.  Either Joseph Smith went into the sacred grove to pray and God the Father & Jesus Christ appeared to him or this didn't take place.  We have the different accounts that evolved over the years and it's up to each one of us to determine what we think happened or didn't happen.

 

When I studied these accounts a few years ago, it was very troubling for me.  I have come to a good place with all of this and have been able to remain active in the church now, but it was a difficult time for me.

 

One of the things that is still puzzling to me is that Lucy Smith did not include anything about the first vision in her first personal history (it was later inserted. IIRC).  She only writes about a visit from an angel in Joseph's bedroom and that Joseph was "pondering which of the churches were the true one."  Then the angel answered "there is not a true church on Earth. No not one".  I feel it's very odd that Lucy would have left out a visit from God and Jesus Christ to her son.

 

 

[Uncle Dale]

If Richard Bushman is right and the official version wasn't even written by Joseph then it probably goes a long way to explaining the difference. If the people who wrote the later version weren't there then it would explain some of the differences from the 1832 version.

 

 

The problem with that deduction is that the PGP version was published

by the Mormon press while Joseph was yet alive. While he may not have

studied each and every word thus printed and affirmed that such agreed

perfectly with his own recollection, Joseph obviously did not take the

trouble to change the document as a whole -- nor to issue a correction

of so much as a single phrase or clause.

 

Then again, we might say that he must have exactly approved of the

published mor(e)+good explanation of where the name for the Forest

of Mormon came from, or the Waters of Mormon, or whatever. Smith

could look at his own newspaper's columns and see no oddity meriting

further elucidation in the notion that there was an ancient Egyptian

word "mon" which, translated into English, signifies "good" and was

increased by the Egyptians when they prefixed it with an English "more,"

which the Nephites (or somebody) shortened to "mor" -- thus Mormon.

 

Now perhaps I've misunderstood that particular example and President

Smith truly meant for it to be broadcast to the world just as worded,

and requiring no further explanation. Perhaps he scrutinized and give

his approval to all such communications bearing his name as author,

proprietor and/or publisher.

 

If we go down that expository road, then Smith also must have read

and approved those lines delivered to a large Far West audience, on

the 4th of July, 1838 -- and published on the same press as the

Elders Journal, which he then edited -- and sent across Missouri

and the nation, threatening a war of extermination upon the Gentiles,

should they attempt to enforce the laws of that state and sustain the

judiciary of that state within the borders of Caldwell and Daviess counties.

 

Mormon leaders in Nauvoo would later point to Rigdon's rhetoric in

Caldwell, as one of the causes of there having been so much friction

with the Missourians. And yet Joseph and Hyrum were seated next

to President Rigdon, on that same Far West reviewing stand, when

the First Counselor voiced his extermination decree. Either we assume

that Smith agreed with Rigdon's every word, or that any verbal lapses

were corrected when set in type upon the Church printing press.

 

That -- or, perhaps there were instances during the late 1830s and

early 1840s when Joseph Smith, Jr. let a few errant words go uncorrected,

and sent out to the world's readers, with his seeming oversight and

approval.

 

But, no -- on a matter so terribly important as that "first vision," it must

be agreed that the Mormon leader pondered each and every word,

before giving his approval to the pre-publication proof sheet. It reads

as he wanted it to read, down to the very last comma and semicolon.

 

And therein lies what I perceive to be the problem. God Almighty also

must have approved the Times and Seasons proof sheets, on a matter

so central to Mormonism as His, and His son's physical description.

 

That is -- if the LDS Eloheim and Jehovah really did stop by the

northwest corner of Manchester township in the year 1820.

 

UD

[Uncle Dale]

 

...I feel it's very odd that Lucy would have left out a visit from God and Jesus Christ to her son.

 

 

 

Which is why Ms. Anderson was so careful in her re-creation of what

the original manuscript, approved by her son, must have looked like,

prior to his death. Parts of her history are copied from existing LDS

sources, and much of the text was in draft form prior to Joseph's

death. He may not have inspected each page of the draft then extant,

but neither was he so aloof from her writing project, as to have never

looked over a single chapter.

 

Either Lucy left the first vision out, because there was a longstanding

agreement among the Smith themselves, not to speak to others of

events so terribly sacred -- or else her own experience of the family's

past did not include the details of that thrice emended theophany.

 

I favor the latter explanation, but, as my LDS landlord told me, way

back in 1963: "Dale, you do not understand. These things are not

secret, they are sacred -- and we do not speak of them."

 

Perhaps Lucy left out the first vision for the same reason my landlord

left out a description of his daughter's wedding in the Idaho Falls Temple.

 

UD

[ALarson]

Which is why Ms. Anderson was so careful in her re-creation of what

the original manuscript, approved by her son, must have looked like,

prior to his death. Parts of her history are copied from existing LDS

sources, and much of the text was in draft form prior to Joseph's

death. He may not have inspected each page of the draft then extant,

but neither was he so aloof from her writing project, as to have never

looked over a single chapter.

 

Either Lucy left the first vision out, because there was a longstanding

agreement among the Smith themselves, not to speak to others of

events so terribly sacred -- or else her own experience of the family's

past did not include the details of that thrice emended theophany.

 

I favor the latter explanation, but, as my LDS landlord told me, way

back in 1963: "Dale, you do not understand. These things are not

secret, they are sacred -- and we do not speak of them."

 

Perhaps Lucy left out the first vision for the same reason my landlord

left out a description of his daughter's wedding in the Idaho Falls Temple.

 

UD

Yes, I have thought that may be the case too (all of the above).  But, if you've studied Lucy and her writings, etc., she was not one to leave anything spiritual (visions, visitations, and so on) out of any accounts she told.  We can do all of the "well, perhaps", or "maybe she", but we just honestly do not know why she didn't write about the first vision.

 

Only she would truly know why she didn't write anything about a visit to her son from God or Jesus or anything about the sacred grove.  Either she knew about it and didn't include it (for whatever reason) or she had not heard about it prior to her writing her history.  Those are the 2 explanations that make the most sense to me.

Edited February 22, 2015 by ALarson

[UtahTexan]

Yes, but, as you know, my friend, there are different standards of proof depending on what kind of case it is.  (For the uninitiated, I'm referring to the "beyond-a-reasonable-doubt" standard in criminal cases, the "preponderance-of-the-evidence" standard in civil cases, another type of case might have a "clear-and-convincing-evidence" standard, et cetera.  It would take a legal treatise to explain each of the different standards in detail, but there they are (some of them, anyway. )

 

Ok.  But even given the lowest standard, I have won every case I have tried in 24.7 years where the witness has more one version of an event.  

 

I have no problem believing the vision occurred......at least if there was only one version of it.  The multiple different versions make the issue more problematic

[Tacenda]

I agree.

The truth regarding the first vision exists. It either occurred as the official account states or it didn't. Either Joseph Smith went into the sacred grove to pray and God the Father & Jesus Christ appeared to him or this didn't take place. We have the different accounts that evolved over the years and it's up to each one of us to determine what we think happened or didn't happen.

When I studied these accounts a few years ago, it was very troubling for me. I have come to a good place with all of this and have been able to remain active in the church now, but it was a difficult time for me.

One of the things that is still puzzling to me is that Lucy Smith did not include anything about the first vision in her first personal history (it was later inserted. IIRC). She only writes about a visit from an angel in Joseph's bedroom and that Joseph was "pondering which of the churches were the true one." Then the angel answered "there is not a true church on Earth. No not one". I feel it's very odd that Lucy would have left out a visit from God and Jesus Christ to her son.

Also, there is no place in the grove marking where it happened. Kind of a dissappointment to me when visiting Palmyra.

[Uncle Dale]

Also, there is no place in the grove marking where it happened. Kind of a dissappointment to me when visiting Palmyra.

Nobody seems to know exactly where that grove was located,

back in the 1820s. Possibly it extended all around the fence

line of the Smith farm -- since one old source says that they

did not clear off all of the land.

Joseph once said he left his ax, or hatchet, near the sacred

spot -- so, look for a spot suitable for firewood chopping, back

before the Smiths got kicked off the propery. Probably some

distance away from Stafford Road. Maybe not far from Hathaway

Brook. -- That is, if the abandoned hatchet merits a memorial.

UD

[UtahTexan]

Also, there is no place in the grove marking where it happened. Kind of a dissappointment to me when visiting Palmyra.

 

For me, it was no disappointment that the exact location was not marked.  I have visited Palmyra three times.  Each time, I was led, perhaps by the Spirit, to the location that just felt "right".  I knelt and prayed.  

 

Had there been a "marker", the place would have been spoiled.  It would have concrete and markers.  It would not have been the quiet, serene place it was.

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

Evidence certainly has its place, but the question is always whether one has a penchant for negative or positive information.

...

 

 

Oh, I certainly agree with that statement. Clear-headed objectivity

and intellectual discernment are worth their weight in Unobtainum.

 

Now and then I read the collected wisdom voiced by past sages.

For example:

http://www.lds4u.com/History/ch1.htm

 

>A crusade was begun to "convert the unconverted." It was carried over a vast area from the

>New England states to Kentucky. In 1820 it reached western New York. The ministers of the

>various denominations united in their efforts, and many conversions were made among the

>scattered settlers. One week a Rochester paper noted: "More than two hundred souls have

>become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Lyons, and

>Ontario since the late revival commenced."

 

 

Perhaps I've been too hasty in my penchant for negative information. This 1820 reporting

bears closer scrutiny -- and, especially so since it comes from a highly respected member

of an august institution, dedicated to articulating and spreading the truth.

 

Is it too soon for me to start carving up my fedora, and

adding the mustard and seasonings?

 

A real, get-down-in-the-dirt-and-dig-for-the-truth sort of guy supplies my wavering

mind with a healthy does of disinterested objectivity. Not an armchair historian

pontificating from his ivory castle academic office, but a true resident of Palmyra,

New York, and my own role model in searching the dusty library stacks:

 

>"In the year 1819 a sort of religious awakening... spread... After reaching New York it

>spread to the rural districts upstate, reaching Palmyra and vicinity in the Spring of 1820....

>The revival started the latter part of April [1820]... which gave the farmers a chance to

>attend the meetings... By the first of May, the revival was well under way with scores of

>people confessing religion... The revival had been even more successful than the

>ministers had anticipated. I quote from the 'Religious Advocate' of Rochester: 'More

>than 200 souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon,

>Manchester, Lyons and Ontario since the late revival commenced. This is a powerful

>work. It is among young as well as old people.... A week later [also from the'Religious

>Advocate' of Rochester]... 'It may be added that in Palmyra and Macedon, including

>Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist churches, more than 400 have already confessed

>that the Lord is good. The work is still progressing. In neighboring towns, the number

>is great and still increasing. Glory be to God on high; and on earth peace and good

>will to all men.'"

 

 

Well then, there you have it.

Add a garnish of crow to my hat on a plate supper.

 

How could have I been so blind?

 

When we've been there

 -- ten thousand years

Bright shining as the sun....

 

UD

Edited February 22, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

I am not sure I understand.

 

It would seem to me that truth is truth, no matter the context.

Well indeed there are many philosophical theories of truth I guess they do not teach in law school.

When I am Dictator of the World, I will be sure to correct that. I would start with some Wittgenstein, but maybe starting with an encyclopedia would be a better start.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

 

The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true. But this simple statement masks a great deal of controversy. Whether there is a metaphysical problem of truth at all, and if there is, what kind of theory might address it, are all standing issues in the theory of truth. We will see a number of distinct ways of answering these questions.

• 1. The neo-classical theories of truth
  • 1.1 The correspondence theory
  • 1.1.1 The origins of the correspondence theory
  • 1.1.2 The neo-classical correspondence theory
  • 1.2 The coherence theory
  • 1.3 Pragmatist theories
• 2. Tarski's theory of truth
  • 2.1 Sentences as truth-bearers
  • 2.2 Convention T
  • 2.3 Recursive definition of truth
  • 2.4 Reference and satisfaction
• 3. Correspondence revisited
  • 3.1 Correspondence without facts
  • 3.2 Representation and Correspondence
  • 3.3 Facts again
  • 3.4 Truthmakers
• 4. Realism and anti-realism
  • 4.1 Realism and truth
  • 4.2 Anti-realism and truth
  • 4.3 Anti-realism and pragmatism
  • 4.4 Truth pluralism
• 5. Deflationism
  • 5.1 The redundancy theory
  • 5.2 Minimalist theories
  • 5.3 Other aspects of deflationism
• 6. Truth and language
  • 6.1 Truth-bearers
  • 6.2 Truth and truth conditions
  • 6.3 Truth conditions and deflationism
  • 6.4 Truth and the theory of meaning
  • 6.5 The coherence theory and meaning
  • 6.6 Truth and assertion

• •  

[Tacenda]

For me, it was no disappointment that the exact location was not marked. I have visited Palmyra three times. Each time, I was led, perhaps by the Spirit, to the location that just felt "right". I knelt and prayed.

Had there been a "marker", the place would have been spoiled. It would have concrete and markers. It would not have been the quiet, serene place it was.

You're right.

[mfbukowski]

I believe I understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree with it.  But I wouldn't say evidence has nothing to do with religion. After all, even Paul said (though I realize this is a translation of a transcription) that faith is "the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).  The nice thing (though, perversely, perhaps it is frustrating to many) is that each of us is his own trier of fact with respect to faith claims: Each of us decides what evidence he will admit, what evidence he will exclude, how much weight to give to any particular piece of evidence, how credible any piece of evidence is, and so on.  As I've said so many times before, questions are inevitable, but doubt and faith are choices.

 

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/of-doubt-faith-questions-and-choices/

That's an excellent point that I need to remember when I bring this point up- indeed spiritual witnesses are "evidence" in this context.

 

Of course what I meant was scientific evidence which is observable and can be confirmed by others- Sherlock Holmes "evidence" as opposed to burning in the bosom evidence.

 

The very language in speaking of "evidence of things unseen" tells the tale- typically in a court of law such would not be "evidence" at all.

 

"Your honor, here is the evidence, unfortunately, it is invisible" would not work too well. 

 

But the point is well taken- I should have specified that as the context I was speaking about- the context of scientific evidence.

[mfbukowski]

Ok.  But even given the lowest standard, I have won every case I have tried in 24.7 years where the witness has more one version of an event.  

 

I have no problem believing the vision occurred......at least if there was only one version of it.  The multiple different versions make the issue more problematic

24.7??  Really?  Only one decimal place?

[mfbukowski]

For me, it was no disappointment that the exact location was not marked.  I have visited Palmyra three times.  Each time, I was led, perhaps by the Spirit, to the location that just felt "right".  I knelt and prayed.  

 

Had there been a "marker", the place would have been spoiled.  It would have concrete and markers.  It would not have been the quiet, serene place it was.

OK NOW I see you understand "evidence" of the spirit as well.

 

In what sense is that evidence "true"?

[Robert F. Smith]

Ok.  But even given the lowest standard, I have won every case I have tried in 24.7 years where the witness has more one version of an event.  

 

I have no problem believing the vision occurred......at least if there was only one version of it.  The multiple different versions make the issue more problematic

Does this principle also apply to the Four Gospels (or Five with the Gospel of Thomas), to the three versions of Paul's Vision on he Damascus Road, etc.?

 

The great William F. Albright (in discussing the Gospels) commented that any leader anywhere will always be described differently by his followers, as in the case of Socrates, for example.  Moreover, even with modern documentary historiography, we get various versions of the lives of any number of famous figures in modern culture.  With such multiple versions of reality, is it possible to know anything, or am I misapplying your scientific principle, Counselor?

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

 

 

How could have I been so blind?

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, I've heard that "haste makes waste," so allow me

to step back a little and not be so hasty, in pondering this 1820 report

in the Rochester "Religious Advocate." I'll put that one on the shelf

for just a while, and follow through with my previous offer to cut and

paste a few interesting items here in this thread.

 

Going back to the first "American Baptist" piece shared in this thread,

I see a link that takes me forward a couple of months in the year 1825.

I want to refresh my memory as to where that link might lead us...

 

 

 

 

 

THE

AMERICAN

BAPTIST  MAGAZINE.

Vol. V.                                     Boston, Ma.,  April, 1825.                                     No. 4.

 

REVIVALS OF RELIGION.

 

_____

 

LETTER  FROM  REV.  SOLOMON  GOODALE, TO  A  FRIEND,  DATED.

 

                                               Bristol, (N. Y.) March 9, 1825.

Dear Brother,

In many places in this region, the Lord is giving samples of what omnipotent grace can do, in bowing stout hearted sinners to the sceptre of Jesus Christ. In Geneva, there is a precious work of grace in Dr. Axtel's congregation. That good man is "reaping in joy from the seed he has sown in tears." Numbers have recently professed their faith in Christ, and the work is yet in progress. The town of Gorham, is now sharing largely in the shower of Divine mercy. Many have already united with the people of God, and many more are expected soon to come forward, and "subscribe with the hand unto the Lord, and surname themselves by the name of Israel." -- In Manchester, a good work has recently commenced in Elder Sha's congregation. Appearances are flattering.

There has been for some time past, a very powerful revival in Palmyra. All ages and descriptions of people, are among the subjects of this blessing. Multitudes have abandoned their false hopes, and false schemes, to trust for salvation in that "grace, which reigns by righteousness unto eternal life." About three hundred have united with the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches; and to each in about equal numbers. I am told that the good work, though subsiding in Palmyra, is spreading in some of the adjacent towns. In Genessee, the Lord is pouring out his Spirit, and both the Baptists and Pedobaptists are sharing in the blessed effusion. The Baptist church in Bloomfield has enjoyed a refreshing from the presence of the Lord. About twenty have hopefully been turned from darkness to light.

A brother in the ministry writes me under date of Jan. 17, from Westward, that the Lord is doing wondrous things for Ohio. A reformation commenced in the north part of that State, in October last, and still continues. Ten or twelve towns have been visited, and most of them destitute of the stated ministry of the word. This is the work of Him "who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." We ought to be encouraged to pray, "Father, thy will be done."

            Very sincerely yours,

                                    SOLOMON GOODALE.

Note: Compare the above letter with a similar account written by Rev. George Lane, (a Methodist minister in the same region of the country at the same time) as published in the April, 1825 issue of the New York Methodist Magazine. See also the Palmyra, New York Wayne Sentinel for Mar. 2, 1825 and the Providence Hopkinsian Magazine for March, 1825. See also an earlier mention of the great Palmyra revival in the Feb., 1825 issue of the American Baptist Magazine.

 

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/ne/miscne00.htm#040025

 

 

 

 

 

REVIVALS  OF  RELIGION, eh?

 

What is it that I see, regarding a remarkable number of conversions occurring

in a certain Manchester congregation, pastored by a certain Elder Shay?

Why does that name ring a bell in my fading memory?

 

And what's this about the Baptists? Why should they even merit mention

in a discussion of the young Joseph's religious career and concerns? Did

not the erudite Mike Quinn direct us to the Methodists, instead?

 

But, now I recall that Joseph's father was reported to have said something

or another to a neighbor, once.... what was it? Something about Baptists.

 

Ah! Here it is:

 

Our friends over at FAIR were talking about this:

 

 

 

Question: Did Joseph Smith become a baptized member of the Baptist Church in 1822? Fayette Lapham claimed to have learned this from Joseph Smith, Sr. 50 years after the First Vision had occurred

Fayette Lapham claimed to have interviewed Joseph Smith Sr. in 1829-30, and published a report forty years later. In it, he reported:

There are no records to support the claim that Joseph joined the Baptist Church

About this time [1822, perhaps as late as 1824] he [Joseph, Jr.] became concerned

as to his future state of existence, and was baptized, becoming thus a member of

the Baptist Church.^[1]

The Lapham source is secondhand at best—putting forward information that reportedly came from the Prophet's father.

There are no records beyond this late, second-hand recollection to support this claim.

 

 

 

So, Fayette Lapham recalled Joseph's father talking about his son andthe

local Methodists... er, I mean Baptists -- but, as the FAIR experts reassure us,

there isnothing else in the "records" to support Lapham's aged memories.

 

Or is there?

 

Mr. Lapham says:

 

>Joseph, whom he [the father] called the illiterate, when about fourteen years of age,

>happened to be where a man was looking into a dark stone and telling people,

>therefrom, where to dig for money and other things....

>

>After this, Joseph spent about two years looking into this stone, telling fortunes...

>About this time he became concerned as to his future state of existence, and was

>baptized, becoming thus a member of the Baptist Church.

 

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1870s/Laph1870.htm#may

 

Thus, if the younger Joseph was born "about" the beginning of 1806,

at "about" 14 years of age (thus "about" 1820) was interested in

seer-stones, and "about" 2 years later became concerned about 

his eternal welfare -- the concern must have arisen "about 1822."

That is, if Mr. Lapham's aged memory in 1870 was getting any of

these purported dates "about" correct. So, I'll add a plus or minus

two years in either direction in time. Thus, I'll be interested in the

period of "about" 1820 to "about" 1824.

 

Where shall I look in what the FAIR folks call the "records?"

 

How about the testimony of Sarah Fowler, a friend of one of

young Joe's sisters. Sarah (later married to Mr. Anderick) then

lived a couple of miles north of the Smith, in the adjoining

township of Palmyra. She recalled:

 

>When Jo joined the Presbyterian Church, in Palmyra village,

>it caused much talk and surprise, as he claimed to receive

>revelations from the Lord.d

 

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA/natruths.htm#010088-2d2

 

Well, that's no big help. But the memory thus conveyed was that

of young Smith joining up temporarily with the Calvinists -- and

not with Methodists.

 

Let me pour through the "records" for something less Palmyra-ish.

The Calvinist church-goers immediately south of the Smith farm

were the pious members of Elder Shay's Manchester Baptist Church.

Yes -- the same Shay mentioned at the beginning of this posting.

 

Looking into that congregation's history, we find this:

 

>the Smith family lived in our town. They traded at Manchester and Shortsville.

>Joe's amanuensis, Oliver Cowdery, had taught the Manchester school. What

>more concerns us here, however, is the fact that Joe occasionally attended

>the stone church; especially the revivals, sitting with the crowd -- the "sinners"--

>Up in the gallery. Not a little of Mormon theology accords with the preaching

>of Elder Shay. It is significant that immersion became the form of baptism

>practiced by the Saints. It should be pointed out that in the 1820's the

>Manchester area was experiencing an unusual amount of religious

>excitement -- excitable religion.

 

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYS4.htm#020448

 

Nothing wrong about a young lad stopping by the local Baptist

church on Sundays -- If nothing else, he might meet a pretty

girl coming out of the stone meeting-house after services.

 

But what was that enthusiastic Elder Shay preaching, that led 

to flattering appearances there? No doubt, some sort of popular

religion -- maybe a whiff of Campbellism was in the air, and

the convert-immersing, Calvin-quoting Shay was also echoing

Campbell's denunciation of creeds as an abomination.

 

This delving into the "records" has gone on long enough, I'd say.

Perhaps Joseph Smith, Jr. was interested in Methodists, and

Presbyterians, and Baptists. Perhaps scattered recollection of

his pre-conversion days lingered on in Palmyra and Manchester.

 

Who knows?

 

But, since the Rochester "Religious Advocate" tells us that the

really big local religious excitement happened in 1820, it little

matters that the Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists in and

around Palmyra were experiencing a "very powerful revival"

in 1824, and on into the beginning of 1825.

 

Besides which, January 1, 1825 onwards falls outside of my

self-limitation to investigate 1820-1824, and what might have

then gone on, to influence a young farmboy's "concerns."

 

Have I trounced my steed to death, and am now applying the

whip needlessly? Or, can the old gray mare take one more

beating?

 

What, exactly did the Rochester <i>Religious Advocate</i>

have to say -- and what was the exact date?

 

Dare I look?

 

UD

Edited February 23, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[UtahTexan]

24.7??  Really?  Only one decimal place?

 

 

lol..was gonna say 25 years...but it will not be 25 till June 1....so I guessed...was too lazy to be totally accurate

[UtahTexan]

OK NOW I see you understand "evidence" of the spirit as well.

 

In what sense is that evidence "true"?

 

I said "perhaps" the Spirit.  And when that happened, I was LDS, so I was speaking as I was then.

 

Some things are Spiritual.  Some things are historical.

 

Some are scientific.  Some are geographical.

 

They do not often mix.

 

I wish I believed now what i did then....

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Dare I look?

 

UD

By all means.  Recreating the mise en scene is essential to understanding the Zeitgeist.

 

Still, I wonder Dale:  When someone (perhaps you) is writing my history a few years hence, what will they conclude from the time I once spent years ago studying Roman Catholicism in Old St. Mary's in Frisco, or at nearly the same time studying Judaism at the Bureau of Jewish Education, not far from Golden Gate Park.  I can imagine the rank speculation now about how I was ready to convert, and such.  Will fact come out of mere impressions and a will to believe this or that?  Not to mention the tabloid tendency in journalism.

[Pahoran]

Everyone by now is familiar with the fact that over the course of his life, Joseph Smith shared the story of the "First Vision" several times.  The different versions are summarized in the LDS essay here.

 

Much has been made about the differences between these accounts.  LDS have canonized a later version, and it is this version that is taught in the Church, so some members become disturbed when they read the other versions.  In order to explain these differences, different (supportive) theories have been put forth.  The most popular one seems to be this one (as described in the essay):

 

 

 

 

The problem with this explanation is that it relies on a totally discredited (but almost universal) assumption about how memory works.  It assumes that Joseph Smith had a memory of the First Vision stored away in his brain, as if on videotape, and that each time he told the story, he was recalling this original, same memory and describing it using different words.  We just assume this is how memory works. 

 

But it seems that any time memory is actually studied, this theory fails.

 

I recently read about one of the original researchers into "memory", Frederic Bartlett.  In the early 1930's, Bartlett performed studies with people to try and see just what was going on in their minds when they recalled memories.  Other researchers have continued his work, and what they've learned totally contradicts the "videotape" theory of memory.  There are many places that summarize what they've found, but this essay provides a good summary:

 

Reconstructive Memory

 

 

 

 

This is why "Joseph's increasingly specific descriptions" of the First Vision are hugely problematic.  It's possible that his recollections were getting increasingly detailed while at the same time getting increasingly more accurate, but if so, that would totally fly in the face of how everyone else's memory seems to work.  It's also possible that Joseph's memory didn't operate using the usual functions when he was recalling the First Vision, and that supernatural intervention was involved, but that assumption should at least be stated to explain this unusual ability.

You are arguing against a point that was not made. The essay doesn't say that his memory of the event improved over time; it says that his insight into what was significant about it did. This, in fact, is actually supported by your other quote about "reconstructive memory." Given that Joseph wasn't just "pressing play," but mentally reconstructing a past event, greater insight means better understanding.

It also said that he spoke better than he wrote, and therefore a dictated account would be superior to a written one. Your source doesn't mention that at all.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

A quote from the article (which in my opinion should have been supported by examples other than scriptural ones to be more convincing):

 

 

 

 

Is that so? Then it's a good thing Joseph eventually remembered that he saw more than just one person in his vision. Sorry for the snark, but it is quite an impression the "other guy on the right" must have made...

That's an old chestnut. Did you come up with it all by yourself?

Regards,

Pahoran