Sherlock Holmes Vindicates Fv Accounts?

[Grudunza]

In the recent episode of Elementary, Holmes has interviewed a potential murder suspect and listens to a different recorded interview where the suspect gives the exact same account.

Holmes: "There's virtually no variance in each of his accounts. His story never changes. Ergo, lying."

Watson: "Well, if he was telling the truth, then why would you expect it to change?"

Holmes: "Our meeting today brought to mind this recent study by a group of psychologists. They found that counting the number of unique words used by witnesses was an exceptional lie detection technique. Liars stick to streamlined stories. They don't deviate from the linguistic avenues they've already mapped out in their original telling. They use fewer words and particularly ones that evoke sense memory."

Watson: "Because they're not drawing from memory."

Holmes: "Tallying singular words may be the best way to root out liars..."

I've always felt that JS absolutely believed what he experienced, that there is a sincerity about his accounts, and that the differences in FV accounts may have made them more confusing to know for sure exactly what happened, sure, but also make them more believable that *something* of that nature happened. Another example being how Moroni came to visit him four times that night, recounting the same thing each time. A peculiar detail to include if it was made up.

So is there a FAIR apologist on the Elementary writing staff? I'd' be curious to see an analysis of the FV accounts through that method (tallying singular words), but certainly they have several different details and don't have much in the way of sense memory description beyond the general feeling of dread expressed in the main account before the light descends.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Grudunza

[Calm]

We can never get away from the issues...I was watching it while eating lunch today and had that exact thought.

If I hadn't been leaving, I would have paid close attention to the journal and see if it was for real and if not, if there was an actual study or it was just their version of technobabble.

[Grudunza]

I looked up the title of the book and couldn't find it, but the study and technique is definitely real, or at least, being studied and considered to have some probable validity.

Here's an article that touches on that: http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/pennebaker/reprints/Deception.pdf

And there are several other similar articles I glanced at.

[canard78]

Given it's not even established that Joseph was the author of the official (1838) account, I'm not sure this really helps.

I like this quote from Richard Bushman:

I am very much impressed by Joseph Smith’s 1832 History account of his early visions. This is the one partially written in his own hand and the rest dictated to Frederick G. Williams. I think it is more revealing than the official account presumably written in 1838 and contained in the Pearl of Great Price. We don’t know who wrote the 1838 account. Joseph’s journal indicates that he, Sidney Rigdon, and George Robinson collaborated on beginning the history in late April, but we don’t know who actually drafted the history. It is a polished narrative but unlike anything Joseph ever wrote himself. The 1832 history we know is his because of the handwriting. It comes rushing forth from Joseph’s mind in a gush of words that seem artless and uncalculated, a flood of raw experience. I think this account has the marks of an authentic visionary experience. There is the distance from God, the perplexity and yearning for answers, the perplexity, and then the experience itself which brings intense joy, followed by fear and anxiety. Can he deal with the powerful force he has encountered? Is he worthy and able? It is a classic announcement of a prophet’s call, and I find it entirely believable.

[Grudunza]

Given it's not even established that Joseph was the author of the official (1838) account, I'm not sure this really helps.

 

Good point, and great quote.

[Senator]

In the recent episode of Elementary, Holmes has interviewed a potential murder suspect and listens to a different recorded interview where the suspect gives the exact same account.

Holmes: "There's virtually no variance in each of his accounts. His story never changes. Ergo, lying."

Watson: "Well, if he was telling the truth, then why would you expect it to change?"

Holmes: "Our meeting today brought to mind this recent study by a group of psychologists. They found that counting the number of unique words used by witnesses was an exceptional lie detection technique. Liars stick to streamlined stories. They don't deviate from the linguistic avenues they've already mapped out in their original telling. They use fewer words and particularly ones that evoke sense memory."

Watson: "Because they're not drawing from memory."

Holmes: "Tallying singular words may be the best way to root out liars..."

 Another example being how Moroni came to visit him four times that night, recounting the same thing each time.

 

 

Hmmm.........

 

Maybe Moroni was lying

[hope_for_things]

This is interesting and I think you’re on to something when it comes to this being some validation for Joseph telling a truthful story that he did experience a vision of some kind. 

 

What this doesn’t explain for us, is what did Joseph actually experience?

·         Was it a vision he experienced in a dream like state, or was it a literal visitation of a tangible nature?    

·         Did he experience a forgiveness of sins, or did he receive a strong answer that all church’s were evil and that he should establish a new church?

·         How many heavenly beings showed up, one or two or a multitude?

 

The big problem we have in my opinion, is not whether Joseph actually had a vision of some nature that was profoundly influential to him.  But that we are trying to draw clear doctrinal proofs from this experience.

·         FV = God is distinct and separate from Jesus.  

·         FV = All other churches are fallen, and authority has been lost.

·         FV = Joseph was called to lead the modern restoration of all things

 

All of these proofs come later 20^th century emphasis on the 1838 account.  This emphasis tells us that the FV is the founding event of the restoration, but none of this was in the earliest account or were a part of the early narrative.  Why should we accept these are the true version of the what the FV means?  I think the 1832 account by all standards is probably the most accurate and shouldn’t we get away from the later doctrinal evolution around what the FV means and get back to the original experience as being the most pure?  

[Calm]

I looked up the title of the book and couldn't find it, but the study and technique is definitely real, or at least, being studied and considered to have some probable validity.

Here's an article that touches on that: http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/faculty/pennebaker/reprints/Deception.pdf

And there are several other similar articles I glanced at.

 

Appreciate you taking the time to look that up.

[HappyJackWagon]

Great points Hope_For_Things!

[Duncan]

This is interesting and I think you’re on to something when it comes to this being some validation for Joseph telling a truthful story that he did experience a vision of some kind. 

 

What this doesn’t explain for us, is what did Joseph actually experience?

·         Was it a vision he experienced in a dream like state, or was it a literal visitation of a tangible nature?    

·         Did he experience a forgiveness of sins, or did he receive a strong answer that all church’s were evil and that he should establish a new church?

·         How many heavenly beings showed up, one or two or a multitude?

 

The big problem we have in my opinion, is not whether Joseph actually had a vision of some nature that was profoundly influential to him.  But that we are trying to draw clear doctrinal proofs from this experience.

·         FV = God is distinct and separate from Jesus.  

·         FV = All other churches are fallen, and authority has been lost.

·         FV = Joseph was called to lead the modern restoration of all things

 

All of these proofs come later 20^th century emphasis on the 1838 account.  This emphasis tells us that the FV is the founding event of the restoration, but none of this was in the earliest account or were a part of the early narrative.  Why should we accept these are the true version of the what the FV means?  I think the 1832 account by all standards is probably the most accurate and shouldn’t we get away from the later doctrinal evolution around what the FV means and get back to the original experience as being the most pure?  

 

 

Just to be clear though those things came though  without the FV, and the kernels of which may have been as a result. The early leaders of the Church pre-1838 were teaching an apostasy, the distinct personages is debatable ( I think it was clear) but the idea they were were also pre 1838 and a restoration was in progress. All these ideas you're right take time develop but they were in the theological oven pre 1838

Edited March 18, 2015 by Duncan

[HappyJackWagon]

 

All these ideas you're right take time develop but they were in the theological oven pre 1838

 

But if the FV occurred as reported there would be no need for development in a theological oven. The truths would be known from the physical witness if the FV were a physical visitation. If it was a dreamlike vision then understanding and interpretation would be more likely over time.

[hope_for_things]

Just to be clear though those things came though  without the FV, and the kernels of which may have been as a result. The early leaders of the Church pre-1838 were teaching an apostasy, the distinct personages is debatable ( I think it was clear) but the idea they were were also pre 1838 and a restoration was in progress. All these ideas you're right take time develop but they were in the theological oven pre 1838

 

Yes, I agree that the concepts were starting to take shape pre 1838, but are not fully developed.  The problem exists where we use the FV as proof that these theological perspectives are literal and established true doctrines.  When we ignore the line upon line development of doctrine and use the FV as proof that our developed perspectives are in fact a reality that has always existed.  We Mormons are very good at thinking that everything we believe today has always been this way and always will be.  I just think that it’s much more nuanced and it sounds like you agree as well.  

[Duncan]

But if the FV occurred as reported there would be no need for development in a theological oven. The truths would be known from the physical witness if the FV were a physical visitation. If it was a dreamlike vision then understanding and interpretation would be more likely over time.

 

 

dreamlike vision? not like a dream but what is the something else? To me it's clear that Joseph saw two distinct personages but others don't think so. One thing to know as well and who knows what he meant by it is reported in the 1838 recollection, in verse 20 "many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. "

 

So, it's anybody guess what he meant that but he knew in the vision that no church was true. You are right though he didn't walk outta the grove that day knowing everything and certaintly as he later learned what import his telling these things would have

Edited March 18, 2015 by Duncan

[Grudunza]

Hmmm.........

 

Maybe Moroni was lying

Ha.  Touché.

[oremites]

Hmmm.........

 

Maybe Moroni was lying

 

Except Moroni wasn't remembering an experience that had happened to him.  He was teaching a lesson.

[Rivers]

Has anybody ever tried writing a harmony of the FV accounts?

[lithpblithh]

Here's a podcast episode I recommend on the topic of polygraphs and the "unique words" detection method. They talk about asking someone to tell the story backwards (IIRC), or tell what one would have smelled or heard if they had been there, etc. to try to elicit more details.

 

http://thisiscriminal.com/episode-two-pants-on-fire/

 

Episode one of that podcast is also quite good, IMO.

[Senator]

Except Moroni wasn't remembering an experience that had happened to him.  He was teaching a lesson.

 

I wonder if angels have memory.

[UtahTexan]

The various FV accounts have always bothered me.  In fact, discovering them in 1989 is one of the things that led me to lose my testimony.

 

But then, the other day, I was telling my wife (who lives for awhile in SLC) a story about something that happened to me earlier in the day.  She kept interrupting me asking me questions about the story.  It bothered me.  She was asking for details that seemed unimportant to me in telling the story to HER.

 

Then, it hit me.  I really DO tell the story differently to depending on the audience.  There are details that did not seem relevant in telling the story to HER.  

 

It was just another, "I coulda had a V8" moment......

[oremites]

I wonder if angels have memory.

 

It never occurred to me that they wouldn't, but I'm always curious to hear a different perspective on things.  Why wouldn't they have memory?

[Duncan]

One thing to always remember is we are responsible to get our own testimony via the Holy Ghost, to have basically our own sacred grove moment. I don't think God and Jesus are going to come and visit with us personally but we can have our own witness that they are real and they are interested in our welfare. Joseph Smith and all the others are witnesses and witness share that witness to us so we can get our own witness and not be dependant on others testimonies (that works for awhile but it can only get you so far). 

[HappyJackWagon]

One thing to always remember is we are responsible to get our own testimony via the Holy Ghost, to have basically our own sacred grove moment. I don't think God and Jesus are going to come and visit with us personally but we can have our own witness that they are real and they are interested in our welfare. Joseph Smith and all the others are witnesses and witness share that witness to us so we can get our own witness and not be dependant on others testimonies (that works for awhile but it can only get you so far). 

So what happens when the promised witness doesn't come? What happens when the heavens seem to be closed?

 

Couldn't silence be reasonably interpreted as an answer to reject the claim?

[UtahTexan]

So what happens when the promised witness doesn't come? What happens when the heavens seem to be closed?

 

Couldn't silence be reasonably interpreted as an answer to reject the claim?

 

I used to think that.  But now, after so many years of silence, I realize that sometimes, you need to persevere to get your answers just has hard as you should once you have them.

[HappyJackWagon]

I used to think that.  But now, after so many years of silence, I realize that sometimes, you need to persevere to get your answers just has hard as you should once you have them.

Thanks for that perspective CountryBoy. I'm curious though, why God would be so insistent on masking his existence to his children who are seeking him. Why would he make his answers so difficult to recognize and discern? Does that sound like any positive relationship you've ever had?

[UtahTexan]

Thanks for that perspective CountryBoy. I'm curious though, why God would be so insistent on masking his existence to his children who are seeking him. Why would he make his answers so difficult to recognize and discern? Does that sound like any positive relationship you've ever had?

 

I am not sure about you.  For me, I think I was truly ready.  Because I had been and then left, I think God needed to be totally sure I was ready.  So, God kept the pull in my heart...but did not give all the answers I needed.  Till now.  Or maybe, I had not humbled myself enough.  

 

I just know that our time is not His time.  He did not give up on me...and those praying for me never gave up....and everytime I gave up, He gave me a little push

Edited March 19, 2015 by CountryBoy