The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[Kenngo1969]

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. ...

 

When people report that Joseph Smith died at Carthage, we can go there ... see where it happened.  That takes no faith.  The faith comes when we have to have faith of WHY Joseph died ...

 

[UtahTexan]

Jerusalem exists, ergo, a donkey can talk?

 

 

Again....I understand the need for faith regarding miracles.  I should not need faith that historical/geographical places exist.  

 

I asked before for any other historical book where NONE of the places can be found and NONE of what happened can be verified.

[UtahTexan]

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.

 

I am not disagreeing.  But do your "different details"include being different ages?  Different people appearing?

 

And, no disrespect to your conversion, but are you claiming it was more incredible and memorable than God and Jesus appearing to you in a grove?

[UtahTexan]

When people report that Joseph Smith died at Carthage, we can go there ... see where it happened.  That takes no faith.  The faith comes when we have to have faith of WHY Joseph died ...

 

 

Exactly.  If it was reported that The LDS Church claimed the Joseph died in Carthage and there was NO evidence Carthage ever existed and no one could EVER find it, what would that do to the idea he was killed at Carthage?

 

On a different note, I loved visiting Nauvoo and Carthage.  

[Kenngo1969]

Again....I understand the need for faith regarding miracles.  I should not need faith that historical/geographical places exist.  

 

I asked before for any other historical book where NONE of the places can be found and NONE of what happened can be verified.

OK.  But the Book of Mormon is not such a book, since a portion of it also takes place at or near Jerusalem.

[mfbukowski]

OK. But the Book of Mormon is not such a book, since a portion of it also takes place at or near Jerusalem.

An excellent point!

Also further study, which country has not done, implies that the places mentioned in the BOM are now known by Mayan names.http://blog.fairmormon.org/2012/12/19/mormon-fair-cast-121a-mark-wright-and-mayan-mysteries/

The entire point of the BOM is that they left Jerusalem for parts unknown. Now we know of those places by other names.

If in the future New York is known in post apocalyptic world culture as Respuulik no one will think New York existed either.

And then there is NHM. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahom

Edited February 24, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Both of them insightful talks. I covered both in the Church News that year.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

We remember different events in different ways due to importance.  A regular, run of the mill event verses a profound life changing events.  If a kid sees their parents murdered, those images and what happened will stick with them to when they are old and gray.   If God and Jesus was to both appear to me and I had an experience like Joseph, that would be beyond a life changing event.  I would rehearse that event in my mind on an almost daily basis.  How could I ever think of forgetting any of it? Why should I think Joseph Smith would react any different than me. 

 

The fact that he retold it differently from time to time is no big deal to me.  Perhaps later in life he felt a little more compelled to give more than what he said earlier.  I can't get into his head but I have no doubt that this event transformed his life and it would be hard to forget even small details of it.  I don't believe Joseph ever said that any version was 100% accurate in every little detail or ever claimed that one version was completely comprehensive.  I believe those that nitpick his accounts would be the first to complain if their words were put under a microscope and picked apart for even the slightest difference in how they retell events that have happened them. 

 

Thank you for making my point.  The assumption that a shocking event (such as seeing someone murdered) makes the memory "stick with them to when they are old and gray" just hasn't been shown to be true anytime someone tries to test it.  Certainly the emotion of the situation sticks to you, but memories about details about the event (especially who did it) have been shown to be quite unreliable.

 

Again, I'm not arguing that the different version of the First Vision should be a "big deal" to anyone.  I'm just pointing out that some of the explanations we use to explain them run counter to everything we now know about how memory works, yet we treat it as if it's just common sense.

Edited February 24, 2015 by cinepro

[UtahTexan]

I read somewhere that, when we recall memory, we do not recall the actual event, but, instead, we recall the last time we recalled the event.

 

If that is true, it might be a good explanation for the versions.

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

Again, I'm not arguing that the different version of the First Vision should be a "big deal" to anyone.  I'm just pointing out that some of the explanations we use to explain them run counter to everything we now know about how memory works, yet we treat it as if it's just common sense.

And yet, we can find statements from General Authorities in Church publications

like the old Impovement Era, stating that the PGP version is (and must be) totally

accurate and reliable -- that to try and introduce ideas like an angelic first vision,

or a first vision account that is a composite of two or more separate experiences

is a doctrinal impossibility.

Joseph F. Smith went on the record as saying the "first vision" was the most

important event ever to befal humanity and that the account left of it in the

PGP is not only perfectly true, but upon its reliability rests the reliability of

Smith himself.

Thus, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the PGP version takes precedence, and

its 1820 date cannot be altered -- even though practically all existing

descriptions of events, persons, sequence, etc. establish the date of 1824

as being the great Palmyra revival -- with no other events between 1818

and 1830 even coming close to its level of widespread religious enthusiasm

and resulting record numbers of conversion baptisms.

Oh well...

UD

ps - Question for apologists -- if the 1820 PGP account is the immutable

word of God, and can never be changed, then why was the date of Alvin's

death, published in those same pages allowed a change, by human

hands, and without a sustaining vote from the Church's quorums?

 

pps - Anybody interested in my posting the Jan 15, 1825 Rochester

"Religious Advocate" account of the latter part of the Great Palmyra Revival

here in this thread?

Edited February 24, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[phaedrus ut]

A rule common among textual critics comes from Griesbach says.

 

Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori.

English: The shorter reading, if not wholly lacking the support of old and weighty witnesses, is to be preferred over the more verbose

 

Or as my grandfather would say about fishing stories: "the fish get bigger every time so believe the story with the smallest fish".

 

 

Phaedrus
 

[Scott Lloyd]

A rule common among textual critics comes from Griesbach says.

 

 

Or as my grandfather would say about fishing stories: "the fish get bigger every time so believe the story with the smallest fish".

 

 

Phaedrus

 

I'm not acquainted with Griesbach or your grandfather, but this strikes me as buncomb.

 

Obviously the shorter rendering is not always the best one, especially if it lacks nuance, explanation and illuminating detail.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Again....I understand the need for faith regarding miracles.  I should not need faith that historical/geographical places exist.  

 

 

Why? In terms of faith needed, I would think that nothing is off limits. And you really could not even begin to quantify your assumption, i.e., how much needs to be known and then it is OK to accept the rest as historical?

 

I suspect that as we delve into this a double standard will appear.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[UtahTexan]

Why? In terms of faith needed, I would think that nothing is off limits. And you really could not even begin to quantify your assumption, i.e., how much needs to be known and then it is OK to accept the rest as historical?

 

I suspect that as we delve into this a double standard will appear.

Explain, please.

 

Are you aware of any other purported historical book where  none of the locations can be found and no evidence exists of their existence?  

[phaedrus ut]

I'm not acquainted with Griesbach or your grandfather, but this strikes me as buncomb.

 

Obviously the shorter rendering is not always the best one, especially if it lacks nuance, explanation and illuminating detail.

 

The rules described by the early German textual critics like Griesbach and Bengel have been part of the methodology of biblical textual scholarship, philology, stemmology, and literary criticism for over 200 years.  At last I checked they weren't considered "buncomb" but universal guidelines for textual scholarship.

 

Of course just because you are unacquainted with something doesn't mean you shouldn't express your opinion. 

 

Cheers!

 

Phaedrus

[Scott Lloyd]

Explain, please.

 

Are you aware of any other purported historical book where  none of the locations can be found and no evidence exists of their existence?  

I think this question has already been responded to on this thread. Kengo1969 pointed out that the Book of Mormon is not such a book.

 

Is it too much to ask that you set aside your talking points long enough to take cognizance of answers that are given?

[Scott Lloyd]

The rules described by the early German textual critics like Griesbach and Bengel have been part of the methodology of biblical textual scholarship, philology, stemmology, and literary criticism for over 200 years.  At last I checked they weren't considered "buncomb" but universal guidelines for textual scholarship.

 

Of course just because you are unacquainted with something doesn't mean you shouldn't express your opinion. 

 

Cheers!

 

Phaedrus

Especially if your implied application of the thing is faulty on its face.

 

Or did you not mean to imply that a shorter rendition of a thing is always the better one? I say again, Buncomb! And I have given my reasoning.

 

You can continue to cite German textual critics as appeal to authority if you like, but be advised that, in itself, is a fallacy.

 

Double cheers!

Edited February 24, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[phaedrus ut]

Especially if your implied application of the thing is faulty on its face.

 

Or did you not mean to imply that a shorter rendition of a thing is always the better one? I say again, Buncomb! And I have given my reasoning.

 

You can continue to cite German textual critics as appeal to authority if you like, but be advised that, in itself, is a fallacy.

 

Double cheers!

 

Good point, I do suppose that relying on 200 years of scholarship and tens of thousands of scholars is bordering on fallacy.  We should probably correct the BYU scholars Carl W. Griffin,  Frank F. Judd and Carol Ellertson for using the failed methodology of brevior lectio at the BYU Religious Studies Center. These professors of ancient scripture should no better and I have half a mind to send them a link to this message board. In the future I'm going to use your method of expression strong opinions no matter what my ignorance of the source material may be.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Phaedrus

[Scott Lloyd]

Good point, I do suppose that relying on 200 years of scholarship and tens of thousands of scholars is bordering on fallacy.  We should probably correct the BYU scholars Carl W. Griffin,  Frank F. Judd and Carol Ellertson for using the failed methodology of brevior lectio at the BYU Religious Studies Center. These professors of ancient scripture should no better and I have half a mind to send them a link to this message board. In the future I'm going to use your method of expression strong opinions no matter what my ignorance of the source material may be.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Phaedrus

(Boldface mine for reference)

 

Compounding the appeal to authority fallacy with argumentum ad populum.

 

You're on a roll today, phaedrus ut. Would you like to try to make it three for three?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Explain, please.

 

Are you aware of any other purported historical book where  none of the locations can be found and no evidence exists of their existence?  

The funny thing is you think you are talking about the BoM. But you are not. As has been pointed out, Jerusalem is mentioned in the book. It is a place where Nephi lived. Why do you not believe the BoM? It has a historical place and yet you reject it. The bible like wise has many places that are not found and even many more people that history cannot verify. What is your standard?

 

How many places have to be found before we can assume that no faith is needed? How do you quantify that.

 

That is what it means to quantify your assumption.

[phaedrus ut]

(Boldface mine for reference)

 

Compounding the appeal to authority fallacy with argumentum ad populum.

 

You're on a roll today, phaedrus ut. Would you like to try to make it three for three?

 

I don't disagree with you.  Just because a scholarly theory is popular doesn't mean it's correct.  A perfect example is the misguided premise that the earth rotates and that it orbits the sun.  Just because that is the popular opinion doesn't mean it's the correct one as proven by this Muslim cleric in a recent video.  Let's reject the experts and lets most certainly reject the consensus of experts that has stood for centuries.  Our own speculation is all that matters.  

 

 

Phaedrus 

[Kenngo1969]

Explain, please.

 

Are you aware of any other purported historical book where  none of the locations can be found and no evidence exists of their existence?  

Again, whatever purportedly-historical books may exist for which none of the locations in which their events reportedly took place can be found, the Book of Mormon is not such a book: Part of it takes place at or near Jerusalem. 

[UtahTexan]

The funny thing is you think you are talking about the BoM. But you are not. As has been pointed out, Jerusalem is mentioned in the book. It is a place where Nephi lived. Why do you not believe the BoM? It has a historical place and yet you reject it. The bible like wise has many places that are not found and even many more people that history cannot verify. What is your standard?

 

How many places have to be found before we can assume that no faith is needed? How do you quantify that.

 

That is what it means to quantify your assumption.

 

Sorry...to me, Jerusalem does not count...especially since much was lifted from Isaiah.  We both know I mean the Book of Mormon lands where they landed.  Let us not be obtuse in our desire to help...please?

[Pahoran]

Explain, please.

 

Are you aware of any other purported historical book where  none of the locations can be found and no evidence exists of their existence?

I'm not aware of any such book, let alone any "other."

But I asked you this question once before, and you chose not to respond: Are you aware of any other purported historical book where proof of historicity is ipso facto proof of miraculous origin?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kenngo1969]

Sorry...to me, Jerusalem does not count...especially since much was lifted from Isaiah.  We both know I mean the Book of Mormon lands where they landed.  Let us not be obtuse in our desire to help...please?

I'm not being obtuse, CountryBoy.  It's an elementary rule of logic (with which you should be very familiar as an attorney) that if one person says, "No [x-es] are [y]," and another person finds at least one instance of [x] that is, in fact, [y], then the proposition is disproven because it was stated as an absolute.  If you want to move the goalposts and say that this particular instance of [x] that is, in fact, [y], doesn't count, that's your business.  I wasn't aware of the rules that apparently govern this particular discussion at its outset, so that's why I'm confused.  Please pardon me.

 

And by the way, aren't you essentially doing what you've accused Joseph Smith of doing (and what all of those witnesses have done in your 24.7 years of law practice, in which you've won every case in which a witness has changed his story)?

 

"We can't find anyplace mentioned in the Book of Mormon on a map, so it must not be true/must not be authentic history/etc."

 

"Well, actually, Jerusalem is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, so at least one place mentioned in the Book of Mormon can be found on a map."

 

"Oh, didn't I tell you?  Jerusalem doesn't count.  Joseph simply cribbed that from Isaiah."

 

An opposing attorney (not to mention a judge) would scream bloody murder if you tried this tactic while arguing a motion or a case, CountryBoy, and rightly so.  With due respect, why do you think we should put up with it?  And while we're on the subject of Isaiah, I'm willing to concede that at least one universe in an infinite number of possible universes in which the writings attributed to Isaiah being found in the Book of Mormon is problematic if you're willing to concede that the differences between Book of Mormon Isaiah and Bible Isaiah are intriguing.

 

I know, I know: "Joseph was simply cribbing from Isaiah when he wrote that, so he had to toss in something different every verse or two just to make it look good."

 

Sigh.