The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[stemelbow]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I already addressed this. Did you not get that it was not Joseph saying this, but rather, an insertion in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams? An insertion, by the way, whose handwriting is illegible, as Calm noted in a very recent post on this thread?

I think there are a few posts you need to catch up on if you have not already done so.

 

I'm confused are we throwing out anything that isn't in the handwriting of JS?   I saw Calm's post.  It certainly does not do away with the contradiction.  I get people prefer the age 14.  But again, that doesn't make the contradiction go away.  Are we saying that the Williams assertion was rejected by JS?  

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't mind talking about such issues. I'm not necessarily it's the appropriate focus for church lessons which are more devotional, motivational and doctrinal. It seems just a fact that the '32 version isn't that useful pedagogically. The elements it has are also had in the other accounts. So beyond mentioning it's existence and dealing with purported implications from it, I guess I just don't see why it'd be used rather than the '38 or even '35 version.

Even if you're focused on what changed for Joseph, it's not at all clear that the '32 text is the ideal text to discuss that. It simply doesn't deal with most of the major changes in theology.

 

I'd say it's plenty appropriate.  I'm also not suggesting that in using the '32 account to explore the development of belief for Joseph is done in a vacuum.  There are plenty of resources and it'd be just one.  

[clarkgoble]

To be clear, I'd love to see more lessons that have more of a focus on scriptural hermeneutics or history. While I understand the focus on basic doctrine and devotion, especially during the era of rapid conversions into the church, I think something was lost. So even if I think the criticisms for not having a focus on hermeneutical interpretive issues or history are strained and hyperbolic, I suspect we all agree in what we'd like to see more of.

The tricky issue which I think gets short shrift is dealing with the capabilities of teachers. The typical teacher just doesn't have the background to teach such things. The people who do often are needed in other callings. Making a lesson that could be taught by the typical teacher of Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society without making things worse is non-trivial.

[Jeanne]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

To be clear, I'd love to see more lessons that have more of a focus on scriptural hermeneutics or history. While I understand the focus on basic doctrine and devotion, especially during the era of rapid conversions into the church, I think something was lost. So even if I think the criticisms for not having a focus on hermeneutical interpretive issues or history are strained and hyperbolic, I suspect we all agree in what we'd like to see more of.

The tricky issue which I think gets short shrift is dealing with the capabilities of teachers. The typical teacher just doesn't have the background to teach such things. The people who do often are needed in other callings. Making a lesson that could be taught by the typical teacher of Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society without making things worse is non-trivial.

I would understand your concern for the capabilities of teachers...but isn't that what the Bishop's discernment is for?

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

To be clear, I'd love to see more lessons that have more of a focus on scriptural hermeneutics or history. While I understand the focus on basic doctrine and devotion, especially during the era of rapid conversions into the church, I think something was lost. So even if I think the criticisms for not having a focus on hermeneutical interpretive issues or history are strained and hyperbolic, I suspect we all agree in what we'd like to see more of.

The tricky issue which I think gets short shrift is dealing with the capabilities of teachers. The typical teacher just doesn't have the background to teach such things. The people who do often are needed in other callings. Making a lesson that could be taught by the typical teacher of Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society without making things worse is non-trivial.

Not sure where you are going with this.  Are you suggesting that it takes special teaching talents to teach that Joseph Smith stuck his head in a hat and read what appeared on the stone in writing the Book of Mormon?  That often the plates were no where near where the dictation was occurring?

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm confused are we throwing out anything that isn't in the handwriting of JS?   I saw Calm's post.  It certainly does not do away with the contradiction.  I get people prefer the age 14.  But again, that doesn't make the contradiction go away.  Are we saying that the Williams assertion was rejected by JS?  

It's added later by a different person, so while it can't be quickly dismissed it definitely strongly undermines its trustworthiness especially when JS gives a different date elsewhere.

The issue of when the first vision exactly happened was a reasonable topic of debate in the early 90's. Some anti-Mormons raised the issue but also historians who were more critical of the traditional narrative such as Michael Quinn. Part of the issue is of course assuming that because something wasn't widely known that it didn't happen or that a more limited audience may not have heard it. Likewise the paucity of early records in the 1820's more likely simply reflects the Smith's poverty. So there's a certain argument from silence that I think is deeply problematic on the part of some critics. So for instance, critics often raise the Palmyra Reflector saying, "it is well known that Joe Smith never pretended to have communication with angels, until a long period after the pretended finding of his book." (Feb 1831) That seems fairly problematic though for a variety of reasons, the argument from silence being only one problem. The other being that we have records of him talking about such things. such as the June 1830 account that was then later printed in The Painesville Telegraph April 19, 1831. This confuses when sometime was published with when it was recorded. It doesn't mention the classic elements of the First Vision but talks about a "manifestation" that tells Joseph he'd received a remission of sins and that after his repentance he was visited by an angel. 

The main problem is that there are various accounts. Typically there are two revivals that are used to date the event. The first was a revival of 1816 & 17 and then an other one in 1819 and 20. There's a Methodist tent meeting in 1818 near Joseph that can be dated exactly. There's some evidence for a tent meeting in Palmyra in June 1820 which is around when Milton Backman thinks the first vision happened. Lucy Smith dated it as after the death of Alvin which would make it in 1824 although she may just be conflating similar events. (Which is what Quinn argued she did)

There are contradictions of course, but again that's typical with such accounts. There are compelling reasons to think the late spring 1820 date was correct although we certainly don't know for sure. 

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I would understand your concern for the capabilities of teachers...but isn't that what the Bishop's discernment is for?

My point was less the issue of inspiration than desperation. i.e. inspiration can't give you people qualified for teaching that particular lesson.

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not sure where you are going with this.  Are you suggesting that it takes special teaching talents to teach that Joseph Smith stuck his head in a hat and read what appeared on the stone in writing the Book of Mormon?  That often the plates were no where near where the dictation was occurring?

I'm saying that many teachers simply aren't good with nuance and would have trouble controversial issues. Even if the 1832 account was in the manual most wouldn't teach it but would just briefly summarize things in terms of their expectations. If you have lessons focused on controversies with a focus on why they're controversial, then yeah, I'm saying most teachers would do a lousy job.

It seems given the focus this year that the Church recognizes this and is attempting to solve it by getting Bishops and/or Stake Presidents to assign people to teach just a single lesson. How well that works I guess we'll see over the coming year. I'm a bit skeptical myself. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's added later by a different person, so while it can't be quickly dismissed it definitely strongly undermines its trustworthiness especially when JS gives a different date elsewhere.

The issue of when the first vision exactly happened was a reasonable topic of debate in the early 90's. Some anti-Mormons raised the issue but also historians who were more critical of the traditional narrative such as Michael Quinn. Part of the issue is of course assuming that because something wasn't widely known that it didn't happen or that a more limited audience may not have heard it. Likewise the paucity of early records in the 1820's more likely simply reflects the Smith's poverty. So there's a certain argument from silence that I think is deeply problematic on the part of some critics. So for instance, critics often raise the Palmyra Reflector saying, "it is well known that Joe Smith never pretended to have communication with angels, until a long period after the pretended finding of his book." (Feb 1831) That seems fairly problematic though for a variety of reasons, the argument from silence being only one problem. The other being that we have records of him talking about such things. such as the June 1830 account that was then later printed in The Painesville Telegraph April 19, 1831. This confuses when sometime was published with when it was recorded. It doesn't mention the classic elements of the First Vision but talks about a "manifestation" that tells Joseph he'd received a remission of sins and that after his repentance he was visited by an angel. 

The main problem is that there are various accounts. Typically there are two revivals that are used to date the event. The first was a revival of 1816 & 17 and then an other one in 1819 and 20. There's a Methodist tent meeting in 1818 near Joseph that can be dated exactly. There's some evidence for a tent meeting in Palmyra in June 1820 which is around when Milton Backman thinks the first vision happened. Lucy Smith dated it as after the death of Alvin which would make it in 1824 although she may just be conflating similar events. (Which is what Quinn argued she did)

There are contradictions of course, but again that's typical with such accounts. There are compelling reasons to think the late spring 1820 date was correct although we certainly don't know for sure. 

Sure I get ya, for the most part, I agree.  

I find this all the more fascinating as I contemplate the issues raised with this.  If Joseph dreamed, synonymous with vision according to Lehi, the first vision, then it likely he did multiple times.  If so, then it's also likely as he tried to describe it years later, he mixed up the details with the various dreamed events.  It also means nailing down the exact time is like nailing jello to a wall.  Thus, it is just as likely that Joseph thought it was one year, at one time and another year at a different time.  Of course none of that suggests the dream or vision didn't happen, necessarily.  Also, it is quite easy to convince ourselves of the details of our dreams perhaps even easier than it is to recount the details of them.  Details in dreams are often murky.  This also explains the contradiction found in the descriptions of why and what took place.  

Quoting those in the dream, differently in the various accounts, also tells us a few things about the dream/vision.  I doubt he'd be able to quote what was told him decades later in full, particularly since, like, in the '32 account there is much more said and much differently said, then in later accounts.  That he has said that his dreams/visions often had them quoting from the Bible is quite interesting on this line of thinking if you ask me.  It is possible and perhaps likely he convinced himself of what was said as he read the scriptures before and after.  it certainly makes it all the more personal, and as if God is in his mind, telling me what he wants to hear.  

His vision/dream is an awesome topic to discuss.  I doubt there is an end to using it to figure out our own lives.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm confused are we throwing out anything that isn't in the handwriting of JS?   I saw Calm's post.  It certainly does not do away with the contradiction.  I get people prefer the age 14.  But again, that doesn't make the contradiction go away.  Are we saying that the Williams assertion was rejected by JS?  

Obviously it undercuts the validity of accusations of a contradiction if it's a matter of someone else doing a linear insertion within the handwriting of the original author. Ergo, it's not a matter of Joseph Smith contradicting himself, but rather, of Joseph contradicting someone else who obviously is less an authority on the event than Joseph, since it was Joseph himself who experienced it.

I think it important for people to know these circumstances. Which raises the question: In the future, if and when you raise the matter of this alleged contradiction, will you be transparent enough to note that it was not a matter of Joseph contradicting himself?

 

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

My point was less the issue of inspiration than desperation. i.e. inspiration can't give you people qualified for teaching that particular lesson.

I'm saying that many teachers simply aren't good with nuance and would have trouble controversial issues. Even if the 1832 account was in the manual most wouldn't teach it but would just briefly summarize things in terms of their expectations. If you have lessons focused on controversies with a focus on why they're controversial, then yeah, I'm saying most teachers would do a lousy job.

It seems given the focus this year that the Church recognizes this and is attempting to solve it by getting Bishops and/or Stake Presidents to assign people to teach just a single lesson. How well that works I guess we'll see over the coming year. I'm a bit skeptical myself. 

I guess I am not sure what nuances you are referring to.  What more is needed to be said other than the BoM that we have today came from Joseph Smith looking in a hat at a rock that he used for treasure hunting that he believed had magical powers.  Words would appear on the rock and Joseph would dictate those words.  For most of the receiving of the BoM the plates were not used.  Maybe some discussion of the U&T as well and how much of the BoM was translated using them.  I am not sure how much the U&T were used.  That certainly could be clarified.  Are there other nuances that need special teaching skills?

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Obviously it undercuts the validity of accusations of a contradiction if it's a matter of someone else doing a linear insertion within the handwriting of the original author. Ergo, it's not a matter of Joseph Smith contradicting himself, but rather, of Joseph contradicting someone else who obviously is less an authority on the event than Joseph, since it was Joseph himself who experienced it.

I think it important for people to know these circumstances. Which raises the question: In the future, if and when you raise the matter of this alleged contradiction, will you be transparent enough to note that it was not a matter of Joseph contradicting himself?

 

Wasn't Joseph Smith in charge of what he dictated to Williams?  If I ask that a letter go out to a client and my assistant signs the letter instead of me, I still am responsible for the content because I told my assistant what to write.  You seem obsessed with exculpating Joseph Smith

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Wasn't Joseph Smith in charge of what he dictated to Williams?  If I ask that a letter go out to a client and my assistant signs the letter instead of me, I still am responsible for the content because I told my assistant what to write.  You seem obsessed with exculpating Joseph Smith 

It wasn't dictated to Williams. The rest is all in Joseph's hand. So sometime after Joseph wrote it Williams added the date. There's no reason to assume Joseph told him to do so. I'm not sure what you're argument is that Williams should be trusted here when it contradicts other accounts. It just comes off as really wanting the contradiction.

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess I am not sure what nuances you are referring to.  What more is needed to be said other than the BoM that we have today came from Joseph Smith looking in a hat at a rock that he used for treasure hunting that he believed had magical powers.  Words would appear on the rock and Joseph would dictate those words. 

Well I was speaking more broadly than just the first vision issue but addressing these controversies in a faithful apologetic fashion. 

But if you want to get into nuance, look at the accusations for there being a contradiction. Do you think the average teacher is familiar with how memories work or how historians judge competing testimonies? Can the average teacher deal with questions regarding external evidence such as the tent revivals? Has the average teacher read the many criticisms attempting to problematize the accounts thereby anticipating problems and/or objections. Does the average teacher have an understanding of hermeneutics so as to explain people who adopt a simple "literalist" reading of all sacred texts? Can the average teacher handle a class which might have McConkie styled traditionalists and liberal Sunstone types and the conflicts that may well manifest?  Does an average teacher understand comparative religion enough to contextualize why folk magic isn't as problematic as it may appear due to people's expectations based on contemporary Mormonism and protestantism? Are they familiar with the history of such things not only in post-Renaissance Europe and American but also the Ancient Near East?

Just imagine roll playing a person with questions or objections with the problematic teacher you have in Sunday School. It can't be hard to come up with many ways it becomes a disaster. 

 

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It wasn't dictated to Williams. The rest is all in Joseph's hand. So sometime after Joseph wrote it Williams added the date. There's no reason to assume Joseph told him to do so. I'm not sure what you're argument is that Williams should be trusted here when it contradicts other accounts. It just comes off as really wanting the contradiction.

Well I was speaking more broadly than just the first vision issue but addressing these controversies in a faithful apologetic fashion. 

But if you want to get into nuance, look at the accusations for there being a contradiction. Do you think the average teacher is familiar with how memories work or how historians judge competing testimonies? Can the average teacher deal with questions regarding external evidence such as the tent revivals? Has the average teacher read the many criticisms attempting to problematize the accounts thereby anticipating problems and/or objections. Does the average teacher have an understanding of hermeneutics so as to explain people who adopt a simple "literalist" reading of all sacred texts? Can the average teacher handle a class which might have McConkie styled traditionalists and liberal Sunstone types and the conflicts that may well manifest?  Does an average teacher understand comparative religion enough to contextualize why folk magic isn't as problematic as it may appear due to people's expectations based on contemporary Mormonism and protestantism? Are they familiar with the history of such things not only in post-Renaissance Europe and American but also the Ancient Near East?

Just imagine roll playing a person with questions or objections with the problematic teacher you have in Sunday School. It can't be hard to come up with many ways it becomes a disaster. 

 

Ah, I get where you are coming from now.  I though we were just talking about the BoM.  I agree that other issues are more complicated.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Wasn't Joseph Smith in charge of what he dictated to Williams?  If I ask that a letter go out to a client and my assistant signs the letter instead of me, I still am responsible for the content because I told my assistant what to write. 

That's an assumption on your part. There's no way to know how things were done at that time and in that setting.

But it's of little moment anyway, because we have the 1838 account from Joseph himself pinning down the time frame and his age at the time.

Quote

You seem obsessed with exculpating Joseph Smith.

In fulfillment of prophecy by Moroni, Joseph is frequently vilified. I'm not ashamed to do my part to defend him when I can.

 

[Exiled]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It wasn't dictated to Williams. The rest is all in Joseph's hand. So sometime after Joseph wrote it Williams added the date. There's no reason to assume Joseph told him to do so. I'm not sure what you're argument is that Williams should be trusted here when it contradicts other accounts. It just comes off as really wanting the contradiction.

Well I was speaking more broadly than just the first vision issue but addressing these controversies in a faithful apologetic fashion. 

But if you want to get into nuance, look at the accusations for there being a contradiction. Do you think the average teacher is familiar with how memories work or how historians judge competing testimonies? Can the average teacher deal with questions regarding external evidence such as the tent revivals? Has the average teacher read the many criticisms attempting to problematize the accounts thereby anticipating problems and/or objections. Does the average teacher have an understanding of hermeneutics so as to explain people who adopt a simple "literalist" reading of all sacred texts? Can the average teacher handle a class which might have McConkie styled traditionalists and liberal Sunstone types and the conflicts that may well manifest?  Does an average teacher understand comparative religion enough to contextualize why folk magic isn't as problematic as it may appear due to people's expectations based on contemporary Mormonism and protestantism? Are they familiar with the history of such things not only in post-Renaissance Europe and American but also the Ancient Near East?

Just imagine roll playing a person with questions or objections with the problematic teacher you have in Sunday School. It can't be hard to come up with many ways it becomes a disaster. 

 

Of course there is reason to assume that the leader of an organization has control over an official history.

[Calm]

"There's no reason to assume Joseph told him to do so."

Or perhaps even if Joseph knew it was there.  The letterbook seems to have existed for record keeping purposes as the rest of it was mainly copies of letters.****  If there was no reason for Joseph to consult the attempt at putting together a history, why would he look?  And since he didn't go on to publish the account, is there any evidence indicating he had a reason to look?

We apparently know Oliver used the account, but he used the same age that Joseph referred to elsewhere rather than repeating William's likely error, so that wouldn't have brought Joseph's attention to the insertion.

"Two years later, Oliver Cowdery had Joseph's 1832 history in his possession when he began publishing history of the Church in late 1834 in the Latter-day Saints' Messenger and Advocate. Oliver clearly established Joseph's age as 14 ("the 15th year of his life") during the period of religious excitement (although Oliver ultimately never described the actual First Vision at this time). Once the date of the First Vision was correctly established it remained steady throughout all subsequent recitals as the "15th year" or "age 14.""

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Accounts/1832/Different_age_provided

****Beginning on the recto of the fourth leaf in the front of the book (immediately following the history) are ninety-three pages of copied outgoing letters, dated 14 June 1829 through 4 August 1835, in the handwriting of Williams, JS"

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1#source-note

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

"There's no reason to assume Joseph told him to do so."

Or perhaps even if Joseph knew it was there.  The letterbook seems to have existed for record keeping purposes as the rest of it was mainly copies of letters.****  If there was no reason for Joseph to consult the attempt at putting together a history, why would he look?  And since he didn't go on to publish the account, is there any evidence indicating he had a reason to look?

We apparently know Oliver used the account, but he used the same age that Joseph referred to elsewhere rather than repeating William's likely error, so that wouldn't have brought Joseph's attention to the insertion.

"Two years later, Oliver Cowdery had Joseph's 1832 history in his possession when he began publishing history of the Church in late 1834 in the Latter-day Saints' Messenger and Advocate. Oliver clearly established Joseph's age as 14 ("the 15th year of his life") during the period of religious excitement (although Oliver ultimately never described the actual First Vision at this time). Once the date of the First Vision was correctly established it remained steady throughout all subsequent recitals as the "15th year" or "age 14.""

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Accounts/1832/Different_age_provided

****Beginning on the recto of the fourth leaf in the front of the book (immediately following the history) are ninety-three pages of copied outgoing letters, dated 14 June 1829 through 4 August 1835, in the handwriting of Williams, JS"

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1#source-note

I don't think we know what happened here.  But usually leaders of organizations are consulted in these matters of official histories, especially when it concerns their own personal history.  However, if it is necessary in defending Joseph Smith to say otherwise, then .....

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think we know what happened here.  But usually leaders of organizations are consulted in these matters of official histories, especially when it concerns their own personal history.  However, if it is necessary in defending Joseph Smith to say otherwise, then .....

Yeah, but the 1832 account was never made official, was it?  It was an incomplete project.

"It is not clear why JS ended his earliest history before completing his stated intentions. Some of his other documentary endeavors, including the journal he began the same year, are similarly incomplete, perhaps indicating that other activities simply took precedence...

Only when JS expanded his focus to include historical records did he write down a detailed account of the theophany he experienced as a youth. The result was a simple, unpolished account of his first “marvilous experience,” written largely in his own handwriting. The account was not published or widely circulated at the time, though in later years he told the story more frequently."

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1#historical-intro

Is there any evidence that anyone besides Oliver referenced it?

Edited December 7, 2017 by Calm

[Danzo]

20 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not everyone returned from their missions to find access to stacks of old Ensigns.

I have a hard time shaming good and faithful church members for not knowing what to even look for or ask.

 

but you seem to have a very easy time shaming church leaders for not spoon feeding you.

[Exiled]

Just now, Calm said:

Yeah, but the 1832 account was never made official, was it?

It was written to be an official history but wasn't finished.  Look, one doesn't know what happened those many years ago but the percentages say one thing and I think you are arguing for an exception to what normally happens.  That doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened as you say and the subsequent correction shows there is plausibility to your position.  However, what does it say if Joseph Smith approved of the writing?  Couldn't you simply say that Joseph Smith might have forgotten the date, momentarily, and then corrected it?

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It was written to be an official history but wasn't finished.  Look, one doesn't know what happened those many years ago but the percentages say one thing and I think you are arguing for an exception to what normally happens.  That doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened as you say and the subsequent correction shows there is plausibility to your position.  However, what does it say if Joseph Smith approved of the writing?  Couldn't you simply say that Joseph Smith might have forgotten the date, momentarily, and then corrected it?

I don't have a problem with anyone saying that is a possibility.  I myself am only suggesting him not seeing it as a possibility.  My problem is with people insisting it had to be a certain way if the evidence isn't there to support that.

Is there any evidence that the letterbook history was used by anyone but Oliver?  Were the letters themselves referred to a lot or was this similar to the practice of carbon copies that were filed away just in case they needed to be consulted, but rarely were?

What are the "percentages" you are referring to?

Why would an incomplete history that was abandoned for the purpose of publication (unless I am misunderstanding the info provided by the JSP) be proofed by Joseph?  Wouldn't that simply be a waste of time?

Edited December 7, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, Danzo said:

but you seem to have a very easy time shaming church leaders for not spoon feeding you.

False.

Where have I shamed leaders?  CFR please.

Where have I asked to be spoon fed?  CFR please.

[Exiled]

History interpretation is based on probabilities or percentages of what likely occurred. If you see a couple together all the time and one of them turns up pregnant, one certainly includes the other in the paternity test because it is likely that that person is the father.

As for the incomplete history, one could assume that Joseph Smith was intimately involved in it (a more likely scenario since it involved his personal history directly). It seems more likely still that he stayed involved until abandonment as it was his project to begin with. Nevertheless, it is still possible that he abandoned it and FGW continued on. It just doesn't seem probable that FGW did so without JS knowing about it and authorizing it. Nevertheless, historical analysis is never foolproof imo and people do things different than the usual practice all the time.

[Exiled]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't have a problem with anyone saying that is a possibility.  I myself am only suggesting him not seeing it as a possibility.  My problem is with people insisting it had to be a certain way if the evidence isn't there to support that.

Is there any evidence that the letterbook history was used by anyone but Oliver?  Were the letters themselves referred to a lot or was this similar to the practice of carbon copies that were filed away just in case they needed to be consulted, but rarely were?

What are the "percentages" you are referring to?

Why would an incomplete history that was abandoned for the purpose of publication (unless I am misunderstanding the info provided by the JSP) be proofed by Joseph?  Wouldn't that simply be a waste of time?

My previous post meant to quote you but it didn't work for some reason

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Obviously it undercuts the validity of accusations of a contradiction if it's a matter of someone else doing a linear insertion within the handwriting of the original author. Ergo, it's not a matter of Joseph Smith contradicting himself, but rather, of Joseph contradicting someone else who obviously is less an authority on the event than Joseph, since it was Joseph himself who experienced it.

I think it important for people to know these circumstances. Which raises the question: In the future, if and when you raise the matter of this alleged contradiction, will you be transparent enough to note that it was not a matter of Joseph contradicting himself?

 

I think it's a nice try to dismiss the contradiction like this, but it also raises a few other problems.  Perhaps since Joseph's own handwritten version has his scribe insert the year, it is more accurate than the one in which he did not write, years later.  Of course if Joseph objected to the dating offered by his scribe in the '32 account he could have said so and your point would carry at least some weight.  But without it, it's really just an effort to pretend the obvious is not true, which is a really weird way to go about this.  

Whatever the case, I'm feeling more settled in my own ideas previously shared.  The attempts to address this issue by those who are pretending no contradiction are really quite bankrupt. 

Of course, on your last point though, if we are pretending that his scribes are not speaking for him in his writings, then it's not Joseph contradicting himself but one scribe contradicting another.  Either way, I'm happy to note the accounts show contradiction, which was really the point I was commenting on (not that Joseph contradicted himself).