The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[readstoomuch]

I am entering this a little late and I am not following what UD is doing, but I read all of the accounts when Milton Bachman`s book came out.  Then I read James Allens article in BYU studies, followed by miscellaneous reviews over the years.  It is an important exercise to actually read all of the versions, at least the 4 or 8 major versions.  Bachman`s book or Allens article with the account discuss this all well.  I felt like they could be understood as an understandable whole once I realized that Joseph didn`t constantly look at his watch, iPhone, calendar, etc. to know the times and seasons perfectly.  There was elasticity in his memory and it was personal at first, especially since he sought salvation and thought of the experience differently as  Church leader of later years.  

 

Edited to add that it is Milton Backman, not Bachman.

Edited February 23, 2015 by readstoomuch

[Uncle Dale]

By all means.  ..

 

hmmm....

 

Our old pals, the reliable fellows at FAIR say:

"...anti-Mormon arguments are constantly recycled and requoted by their successors,"

 

and then direct me to this guy:

 

>Cited in Dale Broadhurst, "Uncle Dale's Readings in Early Mormon History: Misc. New York Newspapers," note 2.

 

It's late, and I'm not sure just what the FAIR folks are trying to tell us.

I'll take a look after a night's sleep.

 

UD

[Kenngo1969]

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

 

In what sense is that evidence "true"?

Cannot and will not speak for Country Boy, but, for me, the "evidence" is true because it bears abundant good fruit in my life.  (I know that is true of many people who adhere faithfully to other religious traditions as well: more power to them; if, however, they are not content with their thirty-fold or sixty-fold, there are ways to remedy that.)  

[mfbukowski]

Cannot and will not speak for Country Boy, but, for me, the "evidence" is true because it bears abundant good fruit in my life.  (I know that is true of many people who adhere faithfully to other religious traditions as well: more power to them; if, however, they are not content with their thirty-fold or sixty-fold, there are ways to remedy that.)

Yes, we agree completely.  That was my original point that got misunderstood- religious truth has nothing to do with scientific or historical "evidence".

 

What makes religion "true" is exactly what is shown in Alma 32- living the principles is found to be "sweet" in our lives.  Historical evidence becomes irrelevant because it cannot ultimately be proven.  I do not want to base my eternal salvation on historical conjecture- does anyone??

 

I personally believe- in a religious sense- in the historicity of the Book of Mormon because such a belief, as you say so well, "bears abundant good fruit in my life".

 

But in the final analysis, I realize that it is the "fruit in my life" that makes the belief RELEVANT to my life.

 

I believe that the Egyptians built the pyramids, but that bears absolutely NO "fruit in my life".  It is a historical "fact" yet has no relevance in my life whatsoever.  If it was discovered tomorrow that some other group built the pyramids, it would not matter in my life at all.

 

Similarly, what is important in my life are the teachings in the Book of Mormon, not the history, if indeed there IS any history in the BOM.  What people do not understand is that the seeds of most of our doctrine can be found in the BOM, perhaps the most important principles being the priesthood and personal revelation, and the physicality of God.  One could take just those principles and deduce the rest of our doctrine from those principles alone.

 

And to make this post on topic, the same is true for the first vision accounts.

 

The historicity of the first vision is not the important point.   The important point is that the physicality of God as a principle completely turns creedal Christianity on its head.

 

THAT is the theological importance of the first vision.  The concept that God is human is a paradigm-shattering concept.  That principle makes the body holy, not debased as is believed in creedal "christianity".   It does away with original sin making the body corrupt.  It implies that humans can become like God.  It does away with a transcendent God and makes Him immanent.  It makes Him our Father, not an abstract spirit in the sky.

 

It gives humanity a divine spark which is eternal.  THAT is the importance of the first vision.  It's historicity becomes irrelevant.  The concept is everything.

Edited February 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

Yes, we agree completely.  That was my original point that got misunderstood- religious truth has nothing to do with scientific or historical "evidence".

 

What makes religion "true" is exactly what is shown in Alma 32- living the principles is found to be "sweet" in our lives.  Historical evidence becomes irrelevant because it cannot ultimately be proven.  I do not want to base my eternal salvation on historical conjecture- does anyone??

 

I personally believe- in a religious sense- in the historicity of the Book of Mormon because such a belief, as you say so well, "bears abundant good fruit in my life".

 

But in the final analysis, I realize that it is the "fruit in my life" that makes the belief RELEVANT to my life.

 

I believe that the Egyptians built the pyramids, but that bears absolutely NO "fruit in my life".  It is a historical "fact" yet has no relevance in my life whatsoever.  If it was discovered tomorrow that some other group built the pyramids, it would not matter in my life at all.

 

Similarly, what is important in my life are the teachings in the Book of Mormon, not the history, if indeed there IS any history in the BOM.  What people do not understand is that the seeds of most of our doctrine can be found in the BOM, perhaps the most important principles being the priesthood and personal revelation, and the physicality of God.  One could take just those principles and deduce the rest of our doctrine from those principles alone.

 

So, if I can find God as much through "The Lord of the Rings" as you find through the Book of Mormon, then I can believe the Lord of the Rings is historical enough for me?

 

See, The Bible is real to me because the places exist.  We know exactly where they are.  We do not have to speculate or use conjecture.  Now, does that mean the miracles in the Bible are true?  No.  I do not mind needing faith for the Religious things of the Bible.  I should not need faith for the things are supposed to be historical.

 

I know of no other purported history book that requires you to have faith about its history or geography.

[Storm Rider]

So, if I can find God as much through "The Lord of the Rings" as you find through the Book of Mormon, then I can believe the Lord of the Rings is historical enough for me?

 

See, The Bible is real to me because the places exist.  We know exactly where they are.  We do not have to speculate or use conjecture.  Now, does that mean the miracles in the Bible are true?  No.  I do not mind needing faith for the Religious things of the Bible.  I should not need faith for the things are supposed to be historical.

 

I know of no other purported history book that requires you to have faith about its history or geography.

 

How many of those "history books" were written about lands that have no other history books for a subset of the population?  How many history books do we have about any of the peoples on the North, Central, or South American regions of the Western Hemisphere?  I seemed to have missed them, but I am sure you can point them out.  

 

While we are at it, can you guess exactly how many of the Biblical locations that are mentioned are known today?  I would like to hear your answer.  Do you think it is 80% of them or over 90% of them?

[Pahoran]

So, if I can find God as much through "The Lord of the Rings" as you find through the Book of Mormon, then I can believe the Lord of the Rings is historical enough for me?

 

See, The Bible is real to me because the places exist.  We know exactly where they are.  We do not have to speculate or use conjecture.  Now, does that mean the miracles in the Bible are true?  No.  I do not mind needing faith for the Religious things of the Bible.  I should not need faith for the things are supposed to be historical.

 

I know of no other purported history book that requires you to have faith about its history or geography.

Good point.

Now, do you know of any other purported history book for which proof of historicity would constitute proof of miraculous origin?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncle Dale]

Ah! a decent night's sleep is more to be valued than a

free vacation to Hawaii --- but, what am I saying? I already

live here and a free vacation would have no value at all.

 

But, getting back to the 1824 revival.... er, uh -- the 1820

camp-meeting that some latter day polemicists are inclined

to call a great revival, let's re-visit the FAIR web-page:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Religious_revivals_in_1820/Gordon_B._Hinckley_cited_false_information

 

hmmmm...

 

So Elder Willard Bean discovered that the Rochester periodical,

entitled the Religious Advocate, had re-cycled some correspondence

or verbal reports of remarkable religious excitement round about

the town of Palmyra, New York.

 

And then Elder Bean re-cycled that old (a century old) "news" in

his 1930s newspaper articles and in a history book about Palmyra.

 

So far so good.

 

And then Elder Preston Nibley re-cycled New York historian's old

"news" of the "revival" in a 1946 volume entitled Joseph Smith.

 

So much the better.

 

And then Elder (as in "one of The Brethren" variety of Elder)

Gordon B. Hinckley re-cycled Nibley's (I always wondered if

that famous family of scholars came from Nibley Ward up in

Cache Valley -- but no matter that) 1946 faith-promoting "news"

inside the pages of his own What of the Mormons?

 

The best is yet to come.

 

And then the Utah Saints, having enjoyed What of the Mormons?

so well, were treated to a re-play (dare I call it re-cycling) of the

same very, very old (1820 they say) Religious Advocate "news"

in a widely-sold (big display at Deseret Books sort of promotion)

exposition entitled Truth Restored.

 

Which brings us up to now (almost).

 

But, it seems that two more fellows took it upon themselves to

do even more re-cycling -- and Walter Martin (or was it Wes Walters,

I always get those two writers mixed up in my thoughts) re-cycled

the very, very very old "news," adding a twist of his own. At which

point, the last of these re-cyclers (somebody named Bringhurst,

or Broadbent, I forget which) added even more twists and turns.

 

Or, as they say: "anti-Mormon arguments are constantly recycled and

requoted by their successors, with little heed given to LDS responses."

 

Well, far be it from my wonts, to re-cycle this stuff yet again, without

heeding "LDS responses," so I'll break for lunch.

 

Maybe a "Dan C. Peterson Special" box of Krispy Kremes, topped off

with a caramel sundae and a cherry (I'll need the calories to continue).

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

If the first vision never happened- if it was "all in Joseph's head" we would be no worse off than Protestants who came up with new biblical interpretations.

 

All they have is ideas.  Without historicity, all we have are ideas.  That makes us even.

[mfbukowski]

So, if I can find God as much through "The Lord of the Rings" as you find through the Book of Mormon, then I can believe the Lord of the Rings is historical enough for me?

 

See, The Bible is real to me because the places exist.  We know exactly where they are.  We do not have to speculate or use conjecture.  Now, does that mean the miracles in the Bible are true?  No.  I do not mind needing faith for the Religious things of the Bible.  I should not need faith for the things are supposed to be historical.

 

I know of no other purported history book that requires you to have faith about its history or geography.

You are very naive if you think the bible is history.

 

I would never base any belief on the bible based on history.  It is fables and legends with historical place names.  A naive lawyer?  Hard to imagine.

 

Protestants have no historical evidence that their biblical interpretations are different that the Catholics, and yet their whole religion is based on ideas and interpretations alone.

 

If you can create a religion out of Lord of the Rings- more power to you.  Lots of people do that with Star Wars and "the Force".   Who cares?   Not me!

 

I would and have- in the past- based my religious beliefs on the philosopher Kant and others who came after him.   It is the philosophy that matters, not the history.   This is about ideas, not legends.

 

You could base a religion on Sherlock Holmes- that would make more sense.  He was a supernatural figure in his ability to deduce evidence, and the placenames are real and still there

Edited February 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

How many of those "history books" were written about lands that have no other history books for a subset of the population?  How many history books do we have about any of the peoples on the North, Central, or South American regions of the Western Hemisphere?  I seemed to have missed them, but I am sure you can point them out.  

 

While we are at it, can you guess exactly how many of the Biblical locations that are mentioned are known today?  I would like to hear your answer.  Do you think it is 80% of them or over 90% of them?

Clearly Jesus died for my sins because Jerusalem exists. 

 

[mfbukowski]

Ah! a decent night's sleep is more to be valued than a

free vacation to Hawaii --- but, what am I saying? I already

live here and a free vacation would have no value at all.

 

But, getting back to the 1824 revival.... er, uh -- the 1820

camp-meeting that some latter day polemicists are inclined

to call a great revival, let's re-visit the FAIR web-page:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Religious_revivals_in_1820/Gordon_B._Hinckley_cited_false_information

 

hmmmm...

 

So Elder Willard Bean discovered that the Rochester periodical,

entitled the Religious Advocate, had re-cycled some correspondence

or verbal reports of remarkable religious excitement round about

the town of Palmyra, New York.

 

And then Elder Bean re-cycled that old (a century old) "news" in

his 1930s newspaper articles and in a history book about Palmyra.

 

So far so good.

 

And then Elder Preston Nibley re-cycled New York historian's old

"news" of the "revival" in a 1946 volume entitled Joseph Smith.

 

So much the better.

 

And then Elder (as in "one of The Brethren" variety of Elder)

Gordon B. Hinckley re-cycled Nibley's (I always wondered if

that famous family of scholars came from Nibley Ward up in

Cache Valley -- but no matter that) 1946 faith-promoting "news"

inside the pages of his own What of the Mormons?

 

The best is yet to come.

 

And then the Utah Saints, having enjoyed What of the Mormons?

so well, were treated to a re-play (dare I call it re-cycling) of the

same very, very old (1820 they say) Religious Advocate "news"

in a widely-sold (big display at Deseret Books sort of promotion)

exposition entitled Truth Restored.

 

Which brings us up to now (almost).

 

But, it seems that two more fellows took it upon themselves to

do even more re-cycling -- and Walter Martin (or was it Wes Walters,

I always get those two writers mixed up in my thoughts) re-cycled

the very, very very old "news," adding a twist of his own. At which

point, the last of these re-cyclers (somebody named Bringhurst,

or Broadbent, I forget which) added even more twists and turns.

 

Or, as they say: "anti-Mormon arguments are constantly recycled and

requoted by their successors, with little heed given to LDS responses."

 

Well, far be it from my wonts, to re-cycle this stuff yet again, without

heeding "LDS responses," so I'll break for lunch.

 

Maybe a "Dan C. Peterson Special" box of Krispy Kremes, topped off

with a caramel sundae and a cherry (I'll need the calories to continue).

 

UD

Enjoy your free vacation, and I will value your opinion equally

 

That's what happens when you live in different "places"

Edited February 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

How many of those "history books" were written about lands that have no other history books for a subset of the population?  How many history books do we have about any of the peoples on the North, Central, or South American regions of the Western Hemisphere?  I seemed to have missed them, but I am sure you can point them out.  

 

While we are at it, can you guess exactly how many of the Biblical locations that are mentioned are known today?  I would like to hear your answer.  Do you think it is 80% of them or over 90% of them?

 

No idea of the %.  I would be happy if the same % of Book of Mormon cities existed.  Do they?

 

As to books about from Central or South America, it only shows that not only do you no know where the cities are, you have no idea even what country.....and I LIVED in Central America for five years.  If the cities existed, they would have been found.

 

And you ignored my questions.

 

Look, I have no real desire to debate.  I want the LDS to be true.  I want to come home.  I keep thinking something will happen.

[mfbukowski]

 I want to come home.  I keep thinking something will happen.

It will.

 

Read Alma 32 again and again until it gels in your heart.  That is the only remedy.   This is about theology, not fables if they ARE fables.  Donkeys don't talk, people do not get swallowed by whales and live to bear their testimonies.  Plug in your lawyer instincts on the veracity of those stories and learn that religious truth is different.

 

The read Alma 32 some more.   AND DEFINITELY READ THIS.  This is the basis of my view of everything.

 

http://educ.jmu.edu//~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html

Edited February 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No idea of the %.  I would be happy if the same % of Book of Mormon cities existed.  Do they?

 

As to books about from Central or South America, it only shows that not only do you no know where the cities are, you have no idea even what country.....and I LIVED in Central America for five years.  If the cities existed, they would have been found.

 

And you ignored my questions.

 

Look, I have no real desire to debate.  I want the LDS to be true.  I want to come home.  I keep thinking something will happen.

I think you are missing the point. This is not about trying to prove the BoM because we found out were zarahelma is. What it is is how does knowing that Jerusalem is real prove that Jesus died for my sins? You guys seem to not be able to grasp this. Once you do you will see how silly your arguments are.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Uncle Dale]

Enjoy your free vacation, and I will value your opinion equally

 

That's what happens when you live in different "places"

Had to settle for brown rice, lentil soup and a side dish of

spinach for lunch -- so I'm more in vacation mode at the

moment than in argue-with-the-Mormons mode. What's

more, Bushman seems to agree with me on this whole

Rochester "Religious Advocate" controversy.

Maybe a stroll on the beach, under the palms, will refresh

my show-em-how-wrong-they-are juices.

UD

[UtahTexan]

I think you are missing the point. This is not about trying to prove the BoM because we found out were zarahelma is. What it is is how does knowing that Jerusalem is real prove that Jesus died for my sins? You guys seem to not be able to grasp this. Once you do you will see how silly your arguments are.

 

When Jesus says He died in Jerusalem, we can go there..see where it happened.  That takes no faith.  The faith comes when we have to have faith of WHY He did it.

 

I would be happy to be able to do the same with the Book of Mormon...go to WHERE it happened then use faith as to the WHY

[mfbukowski]

When Jesus says He died in Jerusalem, we can go there..see where it happened.  That takes no faith.  The faith comes when we have to have faith of WHY He did it.

 

I would be happy to be able to do the same with the Book of Mormon...go to WHERE it happened then use faith as to the WHY

I cannot even put myself in your place long enough to imagine this.  I take what God tells me happened over what some unknown writer of an ancient manuscript of dubious historicity tells me any day of the week.

[mfbukowski]

Had to settle for brown rice, lentil soup and a side dish of

spinach for lunch -- so I'm more in vacation mode at the

moment than in argue-with-the-Mormons mode. What's

more, Bushman seems to agree with me on this whole

Rochester "Religious Advocate" controversy.

Maybe a stroll on the beach, under the palms, will refresh

my show-em-how-wrong-they-are juices.

UD

An excellent place we all should visit more often.

[Uncle Dale]

 

...refresh my show-em-how-wrong-they-are juices.

 

 

OK -- back for a brief moment.

 

Since I couldn't come up with anything more succinct (in arguing why the

Mormon writers in the past were dead wrong, in attempting to document

the sort of area revival sketched out by Joseph Smith, Jr. in the last of

his three major versions of a "first vision") than what that fellow mentioned

by the FAIR writers said, I'll simply paste in one of Mr. Bringhurst's web items

below. That should put an end to at least the "well documented 1820" talk.

(Maybe it was Broadbent -- if so, my apologies to Bringhurst).

 

 

 

 

Vol. 375.                         Salt Lake City, Utah,  Saturday, July 29, 1944.                        No. ?

 

Today's Story

The Smith Family In New York

-- V. They Turn to Religion

BY PRESTON NIBLEY

 

During the entire year of 1819 the members of the Smith family were busily engaged in improving their farm and supporting themselves by their own labor.

...

It was sometime during this year, 1819, that the thoughts of several members of the Smith family began to turn towards religion.

 

... The interest in religion which was exhibited by members of the Smith family soon to be stirred to the boiling point by a 'revival' which was beginning to manifest itself in the churches of Palmyra. The Presbyterian, the Baptist and the Methodist ministers were particularly active; they were partaking of a movement which was sweeping over the country; a movement which was inviting people to lake more interest in religion and unite themselves with one of the prevailing sects. It was an old-fashioned religious revival....

(To be continued)

 

 

Note 1: Elder Nibley reprised his account of the Smith family's relocation to Palmyra in his 1946 Joseph Smith, the Prophet. However in writing this fifth episode in his Deseret News article series, he temporarily suspended his previous reliance upon Willard Bean's 1938 A. B. C. History of Palmyra and the Beginning of Mormonism. In Nibley's 1946 text he unwisely resumed his dependence upon Bean for accurate historical information, and cited "Beginning of Mormonism," pages 21-22 as his authority for evidence in support of a remarkable religious revival occurring in and around Palmyra in the year 1820.

 

 

Either Mr. Bean misunderstood the dates on the old New York newspaper clippings he consulted or (perhaps even worse) knowingly left that information out of his historical reporting. The quotes he provided, supposedly documenting a local religious excitement roughly contemporary with "the second week in May" of 1820, actually were printed in two January 1825 issues of the Presbyterian Religious Advocate, published at Rochester, New York (first article reprinted in the Boston Zion's Herald of Feb. 9, 1825). Mr. Bean either copied his quotes directly from the Rochester periodical, or (more likely) from the Palmyra Wayne Sentinel of Mar. 2, 1825. Whatever the proper explanation might be, the result was that Preston Nibley relied upon incorrectly dated news reports to substantiate claims for a notable religious excitement in Palmyra, which did not occur until after another four to five years had passed.

Note 2: In his 1944 article Preston Nibley mistakenly refers to a "Rev. McLane" -- an error which he corrected in his 1946 book.

 

 

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/utahmsc3.htm#072944

 

 

 

 

UD

Edited February 24, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Scott Lloyd]

I have lost recall of a number of memories, but there are a few that were imprinted like a photo on my mind.  One is a very vivid dream from the age of 3 or so, possibly earlier as I was not able to tell my mom what it was about.

 

At the time I of course could not describe it or even understand why I had it, but now I can describe it in terms of having everyone turn into zombielike creatures around me and psychologically in terms of fear of abandonment or other issues kids of that age have (everyone is looking towards something I cannot see and moving towards it even though I am trying to get their attention).

 

This is a separate issue from whether or not I've added or lost detail from the dream memory over the years.

 

I am not sure how one can separate out the two in JS's recitations of his vision---surely his understanding of what it meant would mature overtime as well as his vocabulary so he would naturally describe it differently just for that reason.  There is also the issue of the purposes for the recitation being different each time or so it appears from the way it was written.  I think there is a good case made by Don Bradley iirc that Joseph was reluctant in many cases to share what he saw as personal sacred experiences and only need pushed him into doing so (from a FairMormon Conference talk a few years back in case someone is interested).  

 

I do not out rule some differences being related to the way memory plays out (I can certainly see future visions of Christ and the Father adding details to their appearances if the image was not that well remembered to begin with or possibly superimposing on even a wellremembered experience as I would think any appearance of God would be overwhelming and not something one gets blasé about no matter how often it occurs), but I think one needs to be cautious as to how much one applies that principle when there are others around that explain the differences as well and in some cases, imo, much better.

I recall that talk being given by Ron Barney. Maybe Don gave a similar talk at some time or other.

[why me]

An interesting book is The Keystone of Mormonism: early visions of the prophet Joseph Smith by Dr. Paul R. Cheesman, published by eagle The book was publised in 1988.

 

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/MSR/article/view/34327/32151

 

I think that it is amazing just what was available for members to read in the past in order to get to know lds history more. This seems like a decent book to get to know the early visions of JS and their early accounts by members of the lds church at that time.

[Antoni]

I think we have to cut Prophet Joseph some slack to be honest.

 

My conversion story I have told many times - it has some miracles in it and some mundane details to. I've never told it in exactly the same way - sometimes I've left out key details (due to memory, time or not wishing to share them with audience).

 

If you were to ask people I've told my conversion story to they would not have the same story. Does this invalidate my experience or mean I'm a liar? Certainly not.

 

I see Joseph's accounts in same way I see my conversion account. One day I'll sit down and write my "definitive" story but for now the various accounts will suffice I'm sure.

 

Light, Love and Peace.

[Calm]

I recall that talk being given by Ron Barney. Maybe Don gave a similar talk at some time or other.

You are correct.  The next day Don gave a talk about the First Vision:

 

As our examination shows, the First Vision fits its reported 1820s context hand in glove.

The argument that Joseph Smith crafted the First Vision narrative to address church problems of the 1830s thus fails.  Had he invented the story at that time, he would have tailored its details to actually address the problems of the 1830s, rather than faithfully reflect the 1820s.  And if Joseph did take pains to make his story details satisfying to far off future historians, might I suggest that his biggest problem was too much time on his hands.

The original context that gave rise to Joseph Smith’s First Vision was not the church he created but the family that created him.  And the First Vision was not a product of his prophetic role, but the source of that role.  Joseph Smith entered the Sacred Grove a boy and left it a prophet and seer.

Edited February 24, 2015 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

So, if I can find God as much through "The Lord of the Rings" as you find through the Book of Mormon, then I can believe the Lord of the Rings is historical enough for me?

 

See, The Bible is real to me because the places exist.  

Jerusalem exists, ergo, a donkey can talk?