New First Vision Video

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

How do you reconcile the differences between the 1832 account and the 1838 account?  (i.e. JS seeing just Christ in 1832; and seeing both Christ and God in 1838)?  

A past post of mine on this topic might bear repeating:

As I've indicated several times before in this forum (see here, here and here), as a professionally trained historian, I find nothing odd or troubling whatsoever in the accounts of the First Vision. To paraphrase myself:

Retellings are always tailored to fit a specific audience and a unique narrative context. As a consequence, when multiple accounts of an event exist, as is not infrequently the case, this is a bonus for the historian because such accounts tend to be mutually complementary and help in the construction of a fuller retelling. And it's an added bonus when the accounts don't contain any genuine contradictions or mutually exclusive details because very often they do, though thankfully usually only of the minor kind -- incorrect names and/or discrepancies in age, date, or other numbers, as a few examples.

Over the past decade, much of my research has involved the personal writings of Catholic priests/missionaries serving in the East/Pacific in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. One of the hallmarks of this research has been work with multiple accounts of events. In preparation for the annual arrival of European ships, it was not at all unusual for a single Jesuit priest to compose separate letters or reports for the Society's headquarters in Rome, for the provincial superior in India, and for one or more of his fellow missionaries elsewhere in the East and/or in Europe. These texts would provide a summary of events from the past year, and unsurprisingly they tend to differ strongly in content and degree of detail -- despite in some cases being composed over the course of a single day -- simply because each retelling served a different purpose.

Details included in one letter may not appear at all in another. In other cases, what earns a passing mention in one report forms the central focus in a different report. Retellings of conversations with, for example, local chiefs often differ from one text to the next, not because the priest made up all these accounts but because choosing which parts of a (sometimes long) interaction to report -- and who exactly was involved -- depended on audience and context. Reports to superiors tend to be more cautious and less detailed in some cases than reports to peers. I can think of a few cases where comparing the former with the latter clearly shows how carefully missionaries picked and chose details to give a completely honest report whilst still holding back the more complete picture.

This is what real history looks like, and Joseph's narratives fit perfectly into the pattern. If there is anything even remotely noteworthy about the existence of or the content in the various accounts of the First Vision, it is how consistent and lacking in contradictions they are.

*****

I maintain that there is nothing uniquely or tellingly dissonant about the various First Vision accounts. Consider the following hypothetical (inspired by my own research):

• In 1562 a Jesuit missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the ruler told him that he was happy to have the priest in his island.
• In 1565 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met first one and then another ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; a number of local chiefs were also present during this audience.
• In 1568 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the queen and king of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the king told him that he hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting his island.
• In 1572 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the rulers of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the rulers told him that they hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting their island.

If I were to present the above in a seminar and express concern over the dissonance caused thereby, I would be met with quizzical, probably embarrassed looks. And yet these hypothetical accounts exactly parallel the supposedly difficult-to-reconcile differences in the First Vision accounts.

*****

I personally think we are doing people an enormous disservice -- at minimum, on an intellectual level -- by not pointing out (lovingly and patiently, of course) when their 'historical concerns' are based on false assumptions and/or historiographical naivety.

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

People are complex, predicting an individual's behaviour by others' behaviour is usually quite worthless.

All my parents and siblings got up at 6 AM and went running for an hour...and swore by it.

Dad would come into my room where I was oblivious to the alarm swaddled in my blankets and rip them off...thinking he was helming to toughen me up rather than weaken the sad excuse for an immune system his genetics doomed me with.  I not only didn't run, I didn't jog and I got back after the obligatory 1/2 hour sick as a dog.

And even though this happened daily for many years, not once did I share with my parents the reason why it was hell and that is I rarely got to sleep before midnight even though they would send us to bed at 7 and 8 once in high school.  My mom didn't know I wasn't sleeping at age 10 and would get up and walk around the house at least until I was married with kids.  My siblings probably didnot learn until I was diagnosed in my early 40s.  The most life affecting thing that was happening to me from my childhood and I never told anyone until I had to.  At the time it made me feel special and it wasn't a problem and I didn't want it to be a problem.  It was the only time I really had control of my life.  Lots of reasons I wanted to keep the knowledge my own.

There are many uniqueness among my siblings even though Mom and Dad were very consistent bringing us up save for the first year of the oldest when Dad was in Korea, and just that year impacted his relationship with the rest of the family once we started showing up to distract Mom.

My mother, my sister, and myself write tons of materials...yet none of us have ever been able to create journals.  I have never written anything about the most memorable days of my life, the birth of my children, my marriage, the puppy almost dying in my lap as I willed her to live, the three  days that changed our family completely when my daughter was diagnosed with diabetes and she and her father both plunged into depression in the next month.  I have written about some minor spiritual experiences, even given talks about them...they are all in some landfill by now.

My dad is the only one who wrote an autobiography of the family.  If someone reads it to discover what my childhood was like, they will get the completely wrong idea, though Dad really thought he got most of it right.  He got nothing right once I started thinking for myself because he never understood it took time to understand a person, we were not broken machines needing to be fixed (he was a mechanical engineer, that was his world view).  I wouldn't be surprised if my siblings feel the same way, but I can't tell because they don't talk about what happened between him and them.  We aren't interested in it.  So even though Dad was consistent over time with the stories he told and he documented it all, his history of the family is the most inaccurate out there.

where are all his siblings' journals from that time period?  His father's writings?

People are complex, Occam's Razor is more wrong then right when it comes to individual group behaviour.  A person's behaviour can predict his own future behaviour to some extent, but not much more.

My point is that expecting a journal entry and a certain degree of accuracy between multiple accounts does not derive from presentism. Those are both reasonable expectations, given their times, culture, and circumstances. 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A past post of mine on this topic might bear repeating:

As I've indicated several times before in this forum (see here, here and here), as a professionally trained historian, I find nothing odd or troubling whatsoever in the accounts of the First Vision. To paraphrase myself:

Retellings are always tailored to fit a specific audience and a unique narrative context. As a consequence, when multiple accounts of an event exist, as is not infrequently the case, this is a bonus for the historian because such accounts tend to be mutually complementary and help in the construction of a fuller retelling. And it's an added bonus when the accounts don't contain any genuine contradictions or mutually exclusive details because very often they do, though thankfully usually only of the minor kind -- incorrect names and/or discrepancies in age, date, or other numbers, as a few examples.

Over the past decade, much of my research has involved the personal writings of Catholic priests/missionaries serving in the East/Pacific in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. One of the hallmarks of this research has been work with multiple accounts of events. In preparation for the annual arrival of European ships, it was not at all unusual for a single Jesuit priest to compose separate letters or reports for the Society's headquarters in Rome, for the provincial superior in India, and for one or more of his fellow missionaries elsewhere in the East and/or in Europe. These texts would provide a summary of events from the past year, and unsurprisingly they tend to differ strongly in content and degree of detail -- despite in some cases being composed over the course of a single day -- simply because each retelling served a different purpose.

Details included in one letter may not appear at all in another. In other cases, what earns a passing mention in one report forms the central focus in a different report. Retellings of conversations with, for example, local chiefs often differ from one text to the next, not because the priest made up all these accounts but because choosing which parts of a (sometimes long) interaction to report -- and who exactly was involved -- depended on audience and context. Reports to superiors tend to be more cautious and less detailed in some cases than reports to peers. I can think of a few cases where comparing the former with the latter clearly shows how carefully missionaries picked and chose details to give a completely honest report whilst still holding back the more complete picture.

This is what real history looks like, and Joseph's narratives fit perfectly into the pattern. If there is anything even remotely noteworthy about the existence of or the content in the various accounts of the First Vision, it is how consistent and lacking in contradictions they are.

*****

I maintain that there is nothing uniquely or tellingly dissonant about the various First Vision accounts. Consider the following hypothetical (inspired by my own research):

• In 1562 a Jesuit missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the ruler told him that he was happy to have the priest in his island.
• In 1565 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met first one and then another ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; a number of local chiefs were also present during this audience.
• In 1568 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the queen and king of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the king told him that he hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting his island.
• In 1572 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the rulers of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the rulers told him that they hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting their island.

If I were to present the above in a seminar and express concern over the dissonance caused thereby, I would be met with quizzical, probably embarrassed looks. And yet these hypothetical accounts exactly parallel the supposedly difficult-to-reconcile differences in the First Vision accounts.

*****

I personally think we are doing people an enormous disservice -- at minimum, on an intellectual level -- by not pointing out (lovingly and patiently, of course) when their 'historical concerns' are based on false assumptions and/or historiographical naivety.

No, they are not parallel events. And we're talking about recounting a visit from God the Father and/or Jesus Christ, each time to believers or potential believers, not about political leaders.

You can be assured that a missionary, even in the 16th century, would not find a visit to Pacific island rulers as comparable to a visit from God Himself.

By the way, would you like to share the prevailing historiographical appraisals by experts of 1800s America of the dependability of the claims Joseph Smith made during his lifetime?

Edited March 5, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Johnnie Cake]

16 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

https://history.lds.org/story/first-vision?lang=eng

I'm sure some have seen this already, but the church released a new first vision video (see link above).  

A few questions came up after I watched this video:

- How do you reconcile the differences between the 1832 account and the 1838 account?  (i.e. JS seeing just Christ in 1832; and seeing both Christ and God in 1838)?  

- Why would JS wait 12 years to record such an important event, along with so many varying accounts (the church admits to nine)?  

- Did JS join and/or attend a Methodist church following the 1st vision when he was commanded not to (as stated below)?  

Joseph Smith History 
Chapter 1:

 "19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches

Finally, the article below, IMO, highlights many of the problems with the first vision accounts.  How do you make the different accounts harmonize, given the many inconsistencies?  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_47.pdf

 

It's a beautifully produced, powerful movie vignette, it even brought a tear to my eye.  I only wish I could believe that such an event actually occurred 

[ksfisher]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

But Joseph's family were journal writers. His aunt had a near death experience and shared it with others and it was recorded.  It is reasonable to expect a trail more close to when the first vision occured and it is reasonable to expect a certain degree of accuracy in any account. 

You, living almost 200 years after the event, are expecting Joseph Smith to act in a way that you would.  How is this reasonable?

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

You, living almost 200 years after the event, are expecting Joseph Smith to act in a way that you would.  How is this reasonable?

No, please don't mistate or ignore what I've said. I am talking about the norms of his time.

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Benjamin:

Joseph Smith, as recounted in the 1838 account we have today--stated he saw two personages in the vision. That, IMO--violates nothing in Trinitarian doctrine. That they were two separate Gods does--but that doctrine was not really associated with the first vision during Joseph Smith's mortality. Neither did Joseph Smith associate the flesh and bone doctrine during his life--to the first vision--in a definitive manner.

Personally--I don't see anything in the first vision which violated Trinitarian doctrine, in appearance--and I believe Joseph Smith walked in the grove a Trinitarian, and walked out of the grove a Trinitarian.

In the Lectures on Faith, in 1834(printed with the D&C in 1835, I believe)--Joseph Smith testified God the Father was a Personage of Spirit, Jesus Christ a Personage of flesh and bone--which was one of the reasons Talmage suggested they remove it from the D&C, and not canonize it, as it would cause confusion within the membership.

As for me--I believe the events happened just like I would expect them to--line upon line, precept upon precept--here a little, there a little. What we now associate with the first vision is a redaction, not what was commonly held during the two decades following the first vision. The art and music following 1880 era is usually associated with the prominence placed on the first vision, following that era.

This issue is discussed in the thread I linked to. To sum it up, JS may have understood the implications of seeing two beings as at odds with trinitarian doctrine, whether it is or not, and there is a statement from one of his sermons that illustrates that. In the end, it's not the vision that may have been controversial, it's the doctrine that it represented or came to represent that is controversial.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

it even brought a tear to my eye. 

CFR. Selfie or it didn't happen.

[Freedom]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, please don't mistate or ignore what I've said. I am talking about the norms of his time.

Can you please produce the journal of his Father and all of his siblings? Norms of his time? Sorry, but this is a ridiculous claim. Can you honestly prove that all people in the 1830's recorded voluminous and detailed journals? 

[Freedom]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, they are not parallel events. And we're talking about recounting a visit from God the Father and/or Jesus Christ, each time to believers or potential believers, not about political leaders.

You can be assured that a missionary, even in the 16th century, would not find a visit to Pacific island rulers as comparable to a visit from God Himself.

By the way, would you like to share the prevailing historiographical appraisals by experts of 1800s America of the dependability of the claims Joseph Smith made during his lifetime?

This is a classic argument from silence. What evidence do you have to support such a claim. Essentially you are arguing that a visit from God would fundamentally change how a record is kept. Can you please explain why this argument does not apply to the gospels. You are creating an impossible standard without any evidence to support it. 

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Can you please produce the journal of his Father and all of his siblings? Norms of his time? Sorry, but this is a ridiculous claim. Can you honestly prove that all people in the 1830's recorded voluminous and detailed journals? 

My point is that it is not presentism to expect a journal account or to expect a certain degree of accuracy in recountings.

[dberrie2000]

22 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

This issue is discussed in the thread I linked to. To sum it up, JS may have understood the implications of seeing two beings as at odds with trinitarian doctrine, whether it is or not, and there is a statement from one of his sermons that illustrates that. In the end, it's not the vision that may have been controversial, it's the doctrine that it represented or came to represent that is controversial.

Hi Benjamin:

What "doctrine" are you referring to, specifically?

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Freedom said:

This is a classic argument from silence. What evidence do you have to support such a claim. Essentially you are arguing that a visit from God would fundamentally change how a record is kept. Can you please explain why this argument does not apply to the gospels. You are creating an impossible standard without any evidence to support it. 

I'm not creating an impossible standard by refusing to compare a missionary's reports to a direct encounter with the Divine, such that is to be subsequently reported to all humanity and then used as a foundation to establish the one true Church to bring about the salvation of the entire human family.

Come on, folks. This is important stuff.

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

My point is that it is not presentism to expect a journal account or to expect a certain degree of accuracy in recountings.

There is Lucy Mack Smith's history that she wrote right after Joseph's death.  She did not write about the first vision even though she specifically wanted a record of Joseph's history and the history of the church.

Here's some info on this I found on here from an older thread doing a search:

"The history was written (dictated) by Lucy Mack Smith beginning in 1844 as she remembered Joseph's life and the events up until his death:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Joseph_Smith_by_His_Mother

From the Joseph Smith Papers:

"In June 1844, the church suffered the loss of its president and prophet, JS, and his brother, church patriarch Hyrum Smith. The Smith family, already devastated, endured another heartbreak a few weeks later with the death of JS’s brother Samuel.

That fall their widowed mother, Lucy Mack Smith, perhaps in part as a salve to her grief, began recording her family’s story.

Writing to her only surviving son, William, on 23 January 1845, Smith informed him, “I have by the council of the 12 [Apostles] undertaken a history of the family, that is my Fathers Family and my own.”

She added:

People are often enquiring of me the particulars of Joseph’s getting the plates seeing the angels at first and many other thing which Joseph never wrote or published I have told over many things pertaining to these matters to different persons to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure—"

And yet, Lucy did not mention or write about what we now call the first vision in this history.  I'd have to read it again, but iirc, Lucy only wrote about the angel appearing to Joseph in his room for the first time."

So, even though Lucy specifically states that she's writing the history of the church to relate "Joseph's getting the plates and seeing the angel at first", no mention of his experience in the sacred grove by his own Mother?  I find that odd.

Edited March 5, 2017 by JulieM

[Meadowchik]

34 minutes ago, JulieM said:

There is Lucy Mack Smith's history that she wrote right after Joseph's death.  She did not write about the first vision even though she specifically wanted a record of Joseph's history and the history of the church.

Here's some info on this I found on here from an older thread doing a search:

"The history was written (dictated) by Lucy Mack Smith beginning in 1844 as she remembered Joseph's life and the events up until his death:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Joseph_Smith_by_His_Mother

From the Joseph Smith Papers:

"In June 1844, the church suffered the loss of its president and prophet, JS, and his brother, church patriarch Hyrum Smith. The Smith family, already devastated, endured another heartbreak a few weeks later with the death of JS’s brother Samuel.

That fall their widowed mother, Lucy Mack Smith, perhaps in part as a salve to her grief, began recording her family’s story.

Writing to her only surviving son, William, on 23 January 1845, Smith informed him, “I have by the council of the 12 [Apostles] undertaken a history of the family, that is my Fathers Family and my own.”

She added:

People are often enquiring of me the particulars of Joseph’s getting the plates seeing the angels at first and many other thing which Joseph never wrote or published I have told over many things pertaining to these matters to different persons to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible and if those who wish to read them will help me a little they can have it all in one piece to read at their leasure—"

And yet, Lucy did not mention or write about what we now call the first vision in this history.  I'd have to read it again, but iirc, Lucy only wrote about the angel appearing to Joseph in his room for the first time."

So, even though Lucy specifically states that she's writing the history of the church to relate "Joseph's getting the plates and seeing the angel at first", no mention of his experience in the sacred grove by his own Mother?  I find that odd.

She also recorded a dream she herself had that she believed revealed to her the dispositions of her husband and brother-in-law, comparing them to trees, one teachable and the other stubborn.

Lucy also recorded the dream her husband, the Prophet Joseph's father,  had concerning a field and tree with fruit and partaking of it and wishing the same joy for his family whilst two members would not partake.

Her sister had a near-death experience and retold it to others afterwards for two years until succumbing to consumption. Obviously it was recorded.

This was a family and subculture quite accustomed to spiritualism and experiencing the Divine, very open to visions and "second sight" and to sharing and recording such experiences. All of the above three experiences would obviously pale in comparison to God visiting her son for the benefit of all humankind, past, present, and future.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm not creating an impossible standard by refusing to compare a missionary's reports to a direct encounter with the Divine, such that is to be subsequently reported to all humanity and then used as a foundation to establish the one true Church to bring about the salvation of the entire human family.

Come on, folks. This is important stuff.

Please provide evidence that the degree of impact an event has alters the nature of journal writing. You should be able to demonstrate that there is direct correlation between how impactful an event is and how consistent the retelling is. By your argument, there should be a point in this correlation that retelling becomes identical word for word. Your argument from silence does not impress me. It just makes me wonder if you have ever recounted anything. Is seeing God more impactful than seeing your first child born? Can you provide a scientific study that suggests there is an 'ultimate' experience that rewires our brain? 

You are trying desperately to find holes in the history but in order to do so, you must suspend science and psychology. 

I will ask again - how do you explain the gospels? 

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

She also recorded a dream she herself had that she believed revealed to her the dispositions of her husband and brother-in-law, comparing them to trees, one teachable and the other stubborn.

Lucy also recorded the dream her husband, the Prophet Joseph's father,  had concerning a field and tree with fruit and partaking of it and wishing the same joy for his family whilst two members would not partake.

Her sister had a near-death experience and retold it to others afterwards for two years until succumbing to consumption. Obviously it was recorded.

This was a family and subculture quite accustomed to spiritualism and experiencing the Divine, very open to visions and "second sight" and to sharing and recording such experiences. All of the above three experiences would obviously pale in comparison to God visiting her son for the benefit of all humankind, past, present, and future.

No, this is a person. A single person. What exactly is this sub-culture? Did 19th century Americans build secret bunkers where they meticulously record special events over and over again word for word? You seem to be making this up as you go. As I asked earlier, what evidence do you have that there is a correlation between the impact of the event and the consistency of the retelling. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, please don't mistate or ignore what I've said. I am talking about the norms of his time.

The norms of his time were the norms...meaning average, even if a majority of people did something, there were still many people who didn't (save for extreme behaviour, which .I am assuming you don't see not journal keeping as).

Even in our world with the ease of computer journaling, days planners, bullet journals, scrap booking, high literacy, and easy and cheap access to pen and paper, do you believe the majority of people keep journals or keep track of their writings effectively?

I have a huge container of my uncle's letters to my mom, he must have written hundreds.  He has been dead for many years, when my mom dies, chances are those letters will be tossed unread because all the ones I have seen have little to no family history value, but are his musings about life and faith and the nature of the Universe.

There may be a nugget of wonder in there, perhaps he shares a religious experience I might value, but the chance of that happening is low enough I likely won't push myself to read them.  He doesn't even engage with what my mom writes, but just navelgazes so I am seriously not interested.

I am not equating Joseph Smith to my uncle, though he equated himself that way in my view at times (he had a bit of a messiah complex).  I am just using him as an example of how things can be lost even if the person journaled.  I can guarantee all the equally numerous letters my mom sent him have gone into landfills, if not by his own hand, those who cleaned out his belongings.  I don't think appealing to norms are that useful unless one establishes the person and those around him abide by them.

A better argument is to point to the obsessive record keeping that took place later, but what do we have of the Smith family pre1832?  Do we have any of Joseph Smith, Sr's writings?  Did he keep a journal?  What do we have of Lucy's writings beyond the memoirs she dictated? late in her life?  What about Joseph's siblings, what writings do we have of theirs?

For patterns of behaviour, I would first look at different time periods in a person's life, including did he do any personal writing that we know of as opposed to dictation?  How were the record keeping behaviour of his family and extended family, especially considering how poor they were through much of the time period and how much they moved around (records get lost in moves, we couldn't find either the marriage or the birth certificate of my mom or the family history book with original writings she put together of her grandparents even though we all saw it before the second to last move)..  I don't think for stuff like journals and personal accounts I would look much at a community unless it was a vast majority characteristic as from what I have seen, early life record keeping---both the writing and the saving---is most influenced by family.  If your parents don't save your letters, school reports, etc., you don't bother to do so either.  My uncle who spent hours every day of his older life writing in journals, letters, and such and trying to get them published, we don't have any of his stuff from his youth (I am the keeper of the records for the extended family, so got everything my grandparents had as well as my parents) or up to his thirties (and I doubt his exwife or his kids do either since they had no contact with him since he decided they had no value in his life back in his thirties).

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

She also recorded a dream she herself had that she believed revealed to her the dispositions of her husband and brother-in-law, comparing them to trees, one teachable and the other stubborn.

Lucy also recorded the dream her husband, the Prophet Joseph's father,  had concerning a field and tree with fruit and partaking of it and wishing the same joy for his family whilst two members would not partake.

Her sister had a near-death experience and retold it to others afterwards for two years until succumbing to consumption. Obviously it was recorded.

This was a family and subculture quite accustomed to spiritualism and experiencing the Divine, very open to visions and "second sight" and to sharing and recording such experiences. All of the above three experiences would obviously pale in comparison to God visiting her son for the benefit of all humankind, past, present, and future.

When did she record these?  Do we have a record from Joseph, Sr. himself or anyone else in the family?

Edited March 5, 2017 by Calm

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Benjamin:

What "doctrine" are you referring to, specifically?

The eventual Mormon doctrine that the Father and the Son were not one in the trinitarian sense, something that was being discussed as early as 1833-34 (or maybe earlier).

[Calm]

"There is Lucy Mack Smith's history that she wrote right after Joseph's death.  She did not write about the first vision even though she specifically wanted a record of Joseph's history and the history of the church."

This is an important aspect to consider.  I do believe this needs to be addressed, but this is independent of whether or not Joseph would have written something early on or if he wrote something, but it was lost.

It seems strange she did not include it.  One possible answer is that she understood it to be well known enough not to write about, given there were official and other accounts out there that perhaps she felt provided enough detail and she could not provide anything additional.   JulieM quotes:

"any other thing which Joseph never wrote or published"

It would be necessary to compare what she wrote about with what was published beforehand.

We also don't know if Joseph was as open about this with his family as he was the Moroni visits.  He relates was commanded to share the Moroni visits.  This may be the reason he shared them and then once shared, the family pressed him for more details so he related other things Moroni had showed him about the Lehites as related by Lucy.  Just as LDS may email the least bit of rumor to the ends of the earth, but refuse to say a word about the temple, Joseph may have seen the experiences and purposes of the experiences dramatically different and therefore talked about one with his family, but not the other.  I will find and add a FM conference talk analyzing Joseph's attitude to relating sacred experiences in general.  Iirc, it addresses this issue as well.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Perhaps there might be something that interests you in this response:

http://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/ask-the-apologist-did-early-lds-leaders-misunderstand-the-first-vision

a list of criticisms and responses for those interested in the topics:

http://pt.fairmormon.org/First_Vision/Accounts

Edited March 5, 2017 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

35 minutes ago, Freedom said:

No, this is a person. A single person. What exactly is this sub-culture? Did 19th century Americans build secret bunkers where they meticulously record special events over and over again word for word? You seem to be making this up as you go. As I asked earlier, what evidence do you have that there is a correlation between the impact of the event and the consistency of the retelling. 

Those areas of the country where Joseph's family and he lived, among spiritualists who gravitated away from a church home, are the places of this subculture...And instead of addressing what I actually say you're creating strawmen:

I did not say there must be such and such, I spoke about certain expectations NOT being examples of presentism.

I did not presume to create some absolute history rules out of thin air, I simply described how his family was and what could be reasonably expected of them.

Now why would Lucy Mack Smith omit the seminal event of the Restoration from her retelling of his life?

Edited March 5, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

Directly relating to Lucy, an analysis of a letter she wrote in 1831:

http://pt.fairmormon.org/First_Vision/Accounts/Prophet's_mother_said_First_Vision_was_of_an_"angel"

 

[Meadowchik]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

When did she record these?  Do we have a record from Joseph, Sr. himself or anyone else in the family?

I have to look that up, but you already zeroed in on the relevant question in your post subsequent to this one.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Meadowchik