Another Faith Crisis Letter

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

I believe "church historian" means they work for the Church History Dept of the Church, not that they are historians connected to the Church in some way.  They either hold the calling of Church Historian and Recorder or work under him.

BYU professors don't fit that definition, even for the history dept there.

Assistant Church Hstorian is an ecclesiastical calling. James B. Allen, co-author of The Story of the Latter-day Saints, held that position, along with Davis Bitton, under Leonard Arrington. Currently that position is held by Reid Neilson. 

Allen was never addressed as “Elder” when he held that position. It is not a General Authority calling. Arrington was not a General Authority either, for that matter, when he was Church Historian and Recorder. . 

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

If someone were to bring up this letter or the CES letter to me, my response would be something like:  I can’t possibly answer the questions in here to your satisfaction.  Nobody can.  So what are you looking for?

Validation of doubt.  Of disbelief.  Of rejection of the LDS Church.

It's also an invitation by the author for other members to join him in his disbelief and rejection of the Church.

That he is doing these things anonymously, and with calculated and deliberate intent and effort, brings to mind Ephesians 4:

Quote

7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

...

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't think anyone who approaches someone with something this big should be taken seriously.   They really don't care about any answers. 

So do you mean such a person "should not be taken seriously"?

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

A serious person would just give maybe 5 questions or issues and desire those answered first rather than dumping a truckload of stuff on people.  It is kid of like a student going to his math professor and saying "I need help.  I have some questions about the stuff you are teaching."  The teacher responses "What questions" Then the student throws the whole math textbook on the desk and says "All of it".

Yep.  I call it "death by a thousand paper cuts."

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Let's see: Joseph's direct personal testimony: The Father and the Son appeared to him in 1820.

Your opinion: Joseph lied about that. Every.single.time.

Now I wonder which of those points rises to the level of evidence? Joseph's direct personal testimony, or your unsupported opinion?

Note also that the very brief Doctrine and Covenants excerpt follows the timeline of Joseph's subsequent history: First he receives a manifestation (the exact nature of which is not specified) then he subsequently fell into various sins, felt concern about that, prayed again and then Moroni appeared.

Funny, that.

Of course, there's nothing remotely anti-Mormon about your baseless accusation.

I'm happy to discuss history and evidence as long as there is mutual respectful dialogue.  With respect to the D&C 20 language, the reference to receiving a remission of sins could be a subtle reference to an earlier FV experience, but it doesn't say anything about deity or anything about a manifestation in any way.  So the theory by some that this is the first reference to a FV, is very difficult to prove because of the lack of evidence to support it.  

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Of course it is evidence of no such thing. The notion that Joseph would tell all his most intimate and closely held experiences to a total stranger when he hadn't even told his closest associates about it is nothing less than risible; but it's all you've got, so I suppose you pretty much have to use it.

One of the key reasons that I think we should distrust the idea that there was a powerful FV kind of experience is the fact that Joseph never told any of his close confidants, family, or friends.  We have no records of this event until over 12 years after the fact.  Joseph was sharing all kinds of experiences with everyone, we have no evidence that he held anything back, yet somehow this amazing experience with deity was kept a secret from everyone.  Also the way Joseph shared future experiences with deity and visions was very open and forthright.  This would have been an exception to what we see Joseph doing throughout his life.  

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Which, given the unquestioned existence of the 1832 account (which remains far more pesky for you than it is for us) merely shows that Joseph thought of that as a personal experience to him rather than as part of the history of the Church.

The 1832 account was recorded as an official church history, it was mostly in Joseph's hand, but it wasn't like this was a personal journal.  I suggest reading through the historical notes on the JSP site to better understand this.  It is a history of Joseph and the Church.  Why wasn't it given to Oliver when Joseph tasked him in 1834 with writing another history of the church?  The reason I propose is that Joseph hadn't decided which version of the founding events of the church was the best message for this founding narrative yet, so he was experimenting.  

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

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Really? And who was on this "committee?"

Kiwi,

Your whole response to my comments to Clark are somewhat frustrating.  Besides the tone being disrespectful, your lack of understanding about these historical events makes it hard to have a productive exchange because I have to educate so much in the process.  Consider this last part homework that I'm assigning you.  Go research who was involved in crafting the 1838/39 account of church history and you get back to me on the names of the individuals who were involved.  

 

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Huh?

And how was he supposed to know the difference? If Joseph had an experience that he didn't tell Bauder, how would Bauder know? By reading Joseph's mind?

Bauder apparently asked Joseph for a conversion experience and the experiences that Joseph gave him were about the angel and the plates, and Joseph wasn't able to give Bauder a conversion type experience.  

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Which version of the 1826 "trial" is that? The one in which Joseph was acquitted, or the one in which he was allegedly "convicted?"

Only one 1826 trail for glass looking that I'm aware of. 

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

And this is dated, is it?

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/48

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Thank you for linking them, but they don't actually support your interpretation. The missionaries are focusing on the Book of Mormon, so it's not at all surprising that they would start with that. If they even knew about the First Vision.

Lack of knowledge on the part of non-participants in an event is not evidence one way or the other about the reality of that event.

You must have missed it then, because the first two newspaper accounts go into details about the origins story of the church.  I'll quote a few of the passages since you must have overlooked them.  The last newspaper account was a Q&A, and goes over similar details, but no specific question was asked about whether a first vision happened, likely because that wasn't being talked about by anyone at this point in the church's history.  

Quote

They commenced by reading the first chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Galatians: also by giving an account of their founder, Joseph Smith, then an inhabitant of the state of New-York, county of Ontario, and town of Manchester. Having repented of his sins, but not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse prayer. After retiring to bed one night, he was visited by an Angel and directed to proceed to a hill in the neighborhood where he would find a stone box containing a quantity of Gold plates. 

Quote

We are commanded by the Lord to declare his will to effect his intended purpose.-In 1827 a young man called Joseph Smith of the state of New York, of no denomination, but under conviction, inquired of the Lord what he should do to be saved-he went to bed without any reply, but in the night was awakened by an angel, whiter and shining in greater splendour than the sun at noonday, who gave information where the plates were deposited

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by hope_for_things

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm happy to discuss history and evidence as long as there is mutual respectful dialogue.  With respect to the D&C 20 language, the reference to receiving a remission of sins could be a subtle reference to an earlier FV experience, but it doesn't say anything about deity or anything about a manifestation in any way.  So the theory by some that this is the first reference to a FV, is very difficult to prove because of the lack of evidence to support it.  

I think this is right. I suspect the comment about forgiveness is a reference to the first vision but it clearly isn't evidence for the more controversial parts of the first vision. 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

One of the key reasons that I think we should distrust the idea that there was a powerful FV kind of experience is the fact that Joseph never told any of his close confidants, family, or friends.  We have no records of this event until over 12 years after the fact.  Joseph was sharing all kinds of experiences with everyone, we have no evidence that he held anything back, yet somehow this amazing experience with deity was kept a secret from everyone.  Also the way Joseph shared future experiences with deity and visions was very open and forthright.  This would have been an exception to what we see Joseph doing throughout his life.

I'd disagree with both these claims. We simply don't know for sure if he told anyone else. We know that he said he told a Methodist preacher according to the 1838 account. According to that account he says he "was greatly surprised at [the preacher's] behavior" because the preacher "treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days." We simply don't have record of anyone mentioning that he told them at the time. However we do have The Reflector on February 14, 1831 claiming Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdom affirmed that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."  

Again to reiterate we have to be very careful with arguments from silence. I think it fair to say that the earlier the account the more trustworthy it is, but while that's a nice notion to keep in mind, it's very rarely a truth. That is sometimes the details of later accounts are accurate even when not in the original account and fairly regularly later accounts correct mistakes in earlier accounts. (Think Flynn's "memories" of Russian contacts for a good example of this)

Now given that claims of seeing Christ weren't uncommon at the time, it makes sense why the Methodist preacher would be contemptuous given his theological commitments. It also makes sense as to why Joseph might not want to recount what to him was the most sacred experience. You say Joseph shared future experiences forthrightly, but I really don't think that's true. There's strong reason to think the opposite. In the Dec 19, 1841 sermon Joseph says, "the reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us is because we do not keep them but reveal them, we do not keep our own secrets but reveal our difficulties to the world even to our enemies then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord Joseph says I can keep a secret till dooms day." Alma 12:9 says exactly the same thing. "It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him." While I don't think the Book of Mormon necessarily reflects Joseph's understanding, those who are arguing he wrote it have to assume it does.

We should also note that while we don't have pre-1832 accounts of the First Vision we do have people recollecting later that he told them about it prior to 1832, such as Lorenzo Snow claiming he heard it when 17. "[Joseph] testified that he had had a conversation with Jesus the Son of God, and talked with Him personally, as Moses talked with God upon Mount Sinai, and that he also heard the voice of the Father, he was telling something that he either knew to be false or to be positively true." ("The Grand Destiny of Man" (a discourse delivered by President Lorenzo Snow at the Mill Creek Ward Meeting House on July 14, 1901), Deseret Evening News (Jul 20, 1901)) That was during a sermon in Hiram, Ohio in front of around 250 people. Joseph Smith Sr talked with Martin Harris about the First Vision in 1824. (Willard Bean, A.B.C. History of Palmyra and the Beginning of Mormonism 35) Joseph Knight claims he heard it directly from Joseph Smith (Autobiography of Joseph Knight Jr, 71) That may be the same event that D&C 20:5-6 alludes to. Those obviously aren't strong evidence but I think they count for something.

Part of the problem is that we just don't have many texts from 1820 - 1830. So I'm not sure absence means much in that period. It seems clear that by 1831 he's claiming he's seen God although we don't have an account of the details. It's worth noting that documents of other heavenly visions from the period of the tent revivals in Joseph's area sometimes mention two beings. While that's not orthodox Trinitarianism, as I've mentioned the Trinity is a subtle doctrine most people misinterpret as either tritheism or modalism. So put an other way, given precedence, it's reasonable Joseph would see two individuals even if one thinks the vision wasn't real.

Edited December 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

My "aggressive search" amounted to spending two minutes on a website and copying and pasting the results here.

You just made my point.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Thinking said:

You just made my point.

No, I didn't.  There is nothing "aggressive" about a two minute search for publicly-available information.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

....................................... With respect to the D&C 20 language, the reference to receiving a remission of sins could be a subtle reference to an earlier FV experience, but it doesn't say anything about deity or anything about a manifestation in any way.  So the theory by some that this is the first reference to a FV, is very difficult to prove because of the lack of evidence to support it.  

One of the key reasons that I think we should distrust the idea that there was a powerful FV kind of experience is the fact that Joseph never told any of his close confidants, family, or friends.  We have no records of this event until over 12 years after the fact.  Joseph was sharing all kinds of experiences with everyone, we have no evidence that he held anything back, yet somehow this amazing experience with deity was kept a secret from everyone.  Also the way Joseph shared future experiences with deity and visions was very open and forthright.  This would have been an exception to what we see Joseph doing throughout his life.  

We do not in fact know whether Joseph told anyone about the event.  The fact that we have no record of it for many years does in no way show that Joseph did not tell anyone.  In fact, Joseph claims to have told people about it and to have gotten severe push-back.  We're talking about a kid here  In real circumstances, we cannot guarantee that a record (if any) would have survived at all.  Indeed, even after it became part of the official LDS history, it did not become well-known until the 20th century.  If it was so important, how can that be?

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The 1832 account was recorded as an official church history, it was mostly in Joseph's hand, but it wasn't like this was a personal journal.  I suggest reading through the historical notes on the JSP site to better understand this.  It is a history of Joseph and the Church.  Why wasn't it given to Oliver when Joseph tasked him in 1834 with writing another history of the church?  The reason I propose is that Joseph hadn't decided which version of the founding events of the church was the best message for this founding narrative yet, so he was experimenting.  

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

...........................................

Actual history and its historiography is not commonly as systematic, neat, and well-planned as you suggest.  Was Saint Paul "experimenting" with his divergent versions of his First Vision?  And why would anyone have been so dumb as to put those divergent accounts in one book -- the Acts of the Apostles?  Could it be that no one noticed the differences?  Could it be that real history is messy, and that the recording of it can be even messier?

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think this is right. I suspect the comment about forgiveness is a reference to the first vision but it clearly isn't evidence for the more controversial parts of the first vision. 

Since he could have easily asked for forgiveness of sins multiple times throughout his childhood, there is nothing about the D&C 20 statement that points directly to a first vision narrative. 

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd disagree with both these claims. We simply don't know for sure if he told anyone else. We know that he said he told a Methodist preacher according to the 1838 account. According to that account he says he "was greatly surprised at [the preacher's] behavior" because the preacher "treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days." We simply don't have record of anyone mentioning that he told them at the time. However we do have The Reflector on February 14, 1831 claiming Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdom affirmed that Joseph "had seen God frequently and personally."  

Again to reiterate we have to be very careful with arguments from silence. I think it fair to say that the earlier the account the more trustworthy it is, but while that's a nice notion to keep in mind, it's very rarely a truth. That is sometimes the details of later accounts are accurate even when not in the original account and fairly regularly later accounts correct mistakes in earlier accounts. (Think Flynn's "memories" of Russian contacts for a good example of this)

The snippets of evidence around Joseph seeing deity that started to come out in the 1830s, I believe support my idea that Joseph was experimenting with the official origins of the church narrative at this time period.  There are just too many early insiders to the church that didn't know about this vision of deity, if it was an important part of Joseph's story we would have some written evidence somewhere for it.  Again, its not to say Joseph didn't experience something of somekind somewhere along the way.  The timing of 1820 isn't right (doesn't fit the evidence), and the content and magnitude of the experience aren't right, and the mixing of elements of this story and the angel delivering the plates story don't fit either.  Too many problems.  

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Now given that claims of seeing Christ weren't uncommon at the time, it makes sense why the Methodist preacher would be contemptuous given his theological commitments. It also makes sense as to why Joseph might not want to recount what to him was the most sacred experience. You say Joseph shared future experiences forthrightly, but I really don't think that's true. There's strong reason to think the opposite. In the Dec 19, 1841 sermon Joseph says, "the reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us is because we do not keep them but reveal them, we do not keep our own secrets but reveal our difficulties to the world even to our enemies then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord Joseph says I can keep a secret till dooms day." Alma 12:9 says exactly the same thing. "It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him." While I don't think the Book of Mormon necessarily reflects Joseph's understanding, those who are arguing he wrote it have to assume it does.

Can you explain why visions of Christ being common during the burnt over district (I agree, they were very common), why would this make the Methodist preacher contemptuous towards Joseph?  Wouldn't it be the opposite?  

Joseph was sharing a multitude of spiritual visionary experiences throughout his life, he was free with this information.  But he liked to boast too, so he makes these hyperbolic statements about how if he shared everything he really knew it would blow the minds of people, or that people aren't ready to know what he truly knows.  Then he goes about sharing more visionary experiences. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Personages_who_appeared_to_him

The evidence shows how freely Joseph shared these experiences throughout his life.  The idea that this one experience was kept hidden for that long period of time just doesn't fit his behavior.  Also, that many insiders claim Joseph never told them about it during the early years, combined with the way the language is crafted and how it definitely looks like elements from other published narratives were borrowed, all these things point to my theory about experimentation around crafting a founding narrative for the church.   There is another pattern that we have and that is the pattern for exaggeration that many of these visionary experiences became more magnificent over time.  

35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Part of the problem is that we just don't have many texts from 1820 - 1830. So I'm not sure absence means much in that period. It seems clear that by 1831 he's claiming he's seen God although we don't have an account of the details. It's worth noting that documents of other heavenly visions from the period of the tent revivals in Joseph's area sometimes mention two beings. While that's not orthodox Trinitarianism, as I've mentioned the Trinity is a subtle doctrine most people misinterpret as either tritheism or modalism. So put an other way, given precedence, it's reasonable Joseph would see two individuals even if one thinks the vision wasn't real.

This isn't true for the years of 1828 - 1832, we have a plethora of records.  As for other visionary accounts having two beings, isn't that supportive of my comments on that other thread that Joseph's ideas before Nauvoo were very compatible with other protestant ideas in the environment.  It wasn't until the Nauvoo evolution that his concept for deity evolved to the point that it became distinctly different.  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We do not in fact know whether Joseph told anyone about the event.  The fact that we have no record of it for many years does in no way show that Joseph did not tell anyone.  In fact, Joseph claims to have told people about it and to have gotten severe push-back.  We're talking about a kid here  In real circumstances, we cannot guarantee that a record (if any) would have survived at all.  Indeed, even after it became part of the official LDS history, it did not become well-known until the 20th century.  If it was so important, how can that be?

There are no records to support the idea that he told anyone during those years.  Couple that with what Joseph was telling everyone about that we do have plentiful records to corroborate, the story of the angel and the plates, and we have reason to believe that Joseph had a story to tell, it just wasn't the story of a visit by deity.  The later 1838/39 narrative is evidence, but I believe its weaker than the theory that I've articulated.  

I don't understand your last point about the FV becoming important in the 20th century, how does that support your argument that this FV narrative actually is the correct version of the beginnings of the church?  

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actual history and its historiography is not commonly as systematic, neat, and well-planned as you suggest.  Was Saint Paul "experimenting" with his divergent versions of his First Vision?  And why would anyone have been so dumb as to put those divergent accounts in one book -- the Acts of the Apostles?  Could it be that no one noticed the differences?  Could it be that real history is messy, and that the recording of it can be even messier?

I said he was experimenting and I'm suggesting a trial and error process, precisely a non systematic or neat approach.  I keep mentioning that I think its possible that Joseph had some kind of experience, but I just believe the written versions we have are highly crafted and exaggerated.  I totally agree that real history is very messy.  I also think that memory is unreliable, and that Joseph couldn't possibly have accurately remembered a vision from 18 years earlier with any degree of specificity.  

[Kevin Christensen]

Hope says:

Quote

The 1832 account was recorded as an official church history, it was mostly in Joseph's hand, but it wasn't like this was a personal journal.  I suggest reading through the historical notes on the JSP site to better understand this.  It is a history of Joseph and the Church.  Why wasn't it given to Oliver when Joseph tasked him in 1834 with writing another history of the church?  The reason I propose is that Joseph hadn't decided which version of the founding events of the church was the best message for this founding narrative yet, so he was experimenting.  

In my response to Stephenson,  I had this:

Quote

This last runs directly into Matthew Brown’s 2009 book, A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision, which continues a line of thought dating at least to Richard L. Anderson in BYU Studies in 1969. Brown quotes Cowdery’s declaration that in producing his 1834–1835 histories, he would draw on assistance from Joseph Smith, and use “authentic documents now in our possession.”⁷¹ Brown then offers a careful comparison of what Cowdery produced in 1834 with what Joseph Smith and Frederick Williams had created in 1832 and shows that Cowdery actually used the 1832 account. This means, contra Stephenson, there is good evidence that Cowdery knew about Joseph’s 1820 vision, which also means, there is good evidence that the statement in the Reflector has an authentic source behind it. That source is most likely Cowdery, and therefore the report in the Reflector has a reason for existing.⁷²

These conclusions raise the question of why Cowdery did not expand on the vision in the 1834-35 articles.⁷³ Opinions differ on this of course, but Brown and Anderson, among others, have proposed sensible solutions.⁷⁴ Any argument that Cowdery knew nothing does not account for the content of Reflector’s report from the Painesville correspondent. Nor does it explain Cowdery’s consistent testimony even while out of the church. If a contradiction in Joseph’s accounts is so clear-cut to Runnells and Stephenson at two centuries’ removed, would it not have been even more clear to Oliver Cowdery? Why, then, did Oliver not expose the hoax once he was disaffected from the Church and Joseph?

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/image-is-everything-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/

So there is very good evidence that Oliver used the 1832 account in composing his 1834 history.   I also cite Don Bradley's presentation:

Quote

If Latter-day Saint belief about the First Vision is correct, Joseph’s narrative reports a memory of his early experience. If, on the other hand, Vogel, Palmer, and other skeptical interpreters were to be correct, Joseph’s narrative was created to meet his needs as a church leader in the 1830s, bolstering his authority as prophet.

These two radically different understandings of the First Vision lead us to two radically different predictions about how well Joseph’s First Vision accounts will align with the events of the early 1820s. On the first, the believing, view, Joseph’s narrative should match the 1820s context in some detail. On [Page 139]the second, skeptical, view, his narrative should match the claimed 1820s context poorly or only superficially.

Because these two views lead to such different predictions, we can determine which view is correct by testing those predictions. And this is what we’ll do today.⁷⁸

Bradley’s conclusion is that:

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 …

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.⁷⁹

The supposition that if Joseph had an experience in 1820 he would have immediately blabbed it to all and sundry does is itself testable against the experiences of many people who have had profound spiritual experiences and who did not and do not immediately blab them to all.  And while a rare person may write them down immediately many do not.  Even Ralph Waldo Emerson did not write about his mystical experience in his diary on the day it happened.  The time it takes for a person to share a profound spiritual is something I have had personal experience with thanks to the years when I was doing NDE research, and talking about it, and having people share personal and intimate accounts that they do not typically share. And I have had four different people, my wife, my sister, a mission companion, and a friend I have known from high school, all share profound spiritual accounts that were remarkably similar in terms of the emotional precursors, the physical environment (each climbed to a high place to pray). and the personal theophany they reported.  None of them immediately shared their experience with anyone, but only later in a moment when sharing was apt.  In three of these cases, the sharing came after years of knowing the person, the exception being a mission companion, who shared only after we'd been together a while.  They treated it as something sacred, to be treated with care and shared only when the moment to share was bounded by both earned trust and a shared moment of personal intimacy and vulnerability. 

In my essay I reported another experience where a man who had a profound NDE while in the military in the early 1960s, had been scoffed at by the first few he told it to, and sealed it up until decades later.   He had his experience before Moody's books came out and he did not have a supportive environment to interpret or share it.  When he heard me talking about my research, he got me alone and told me.  A week later, he told the quorum.  And the next Sunday, he spoke about it in Fast and Testimony meeting.   So if and when a community supports accounts, we can hear them more often.

And there are more accounts of Joseph telling his story to consider, along with no accounts by anyone who knew him before the publication of the 1838 account complaining that he had made it up or changed it.

http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2011/07/first-vision-in-formative-years-of.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Kevin Christensen

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

There are no records to support the idea that he told anyone during those years.  Couple that with what Joseph was telling everyone about that we do have plentiful records to corroborate, the story of the angel and the plates, and we have reason to believe that Joseph had a story to tell, it just wasn't the story of a visit by deity.  The later 1838/39 narrative is evidence, but I believe its weaker than the theory that I've articulated.  

We both agree that the records do not support a First Vision, but that assumes that such records would be likely.  In real history that is not a given.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't understand your last point about the FV becoming important in the 20th century, how does that support your argument that this FV narrative actually is the correct version of the beginnings of the church?  

I don't know what you mean by "correct version," since we do not in fact know what took place, if anything.  I did not argue that some particular version, or any version, is the correct one.  However, if your notion that the FV event is so significant were true, why did it not become important in the 19th century?  That reduces your claim to the absurd.  History is a complex process, and it may not follow your 20-20 hindsight assumptions.

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I said he was experimenting and I'm suggesting a trial and error process, precisely a non systematic or neat approach.  I keep mentioning that I think its possible that Joseph had some kind of experience, but I just believe the written versions we have are highly crafted and exaggerated.  I totally agree that real history is very messy.  I also think that memory is unreliable, and that Joseph couldn't possibly have accurately remembered a vision from 18 years earlier with any degree of specificity.  

So was Saint Paul engaging in trial and error in writing differing accounts of his First Vision?  Or were there intermediaries in writing those conflicting accounts?  Would it be correct for me to say that the Book of Mormon (or Bible) is a "highly crafted and exaggerated" account?  If you said "yes," then we are in agreement on some level.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

According to a purported friend of the author (see the above Reddit comments), the author's wife hadn't read the letter as of October.  It was apparently published online to the world first.

So it looks like getting the "letter" to the author's wife is more of an afterthought.  The intended audience is other members of the Church and anyone else interested enough to read a public declaration of disbelief from a nominal member of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Either you're being intentionally obtuse, or you've just totally missed the point.

 

It doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter that the guy got a web designer, or that the premise of the letter is probably contrived.  Or that the guy checked the "keep my details anonymous" box when he registered the URL.  Or that James B. Allen is the "Assistant to the Regional Manager" and not the "Assistant Regional Manager."

If this is the level of discussion at which you must discuss the "letter", then you've lost before you even started.  You're re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  

Back in the 1980s, when I was 14 or 15, I purchased the book "The Truth About the God-Makers" because I was interested in apologetics.  And it was real apologetics; it was a weighty, substantive critique that methodically destroyed the false claims made in that film.  Because those silly, obviously false claims deserved to be destroyed.  I don't recall the book discussing which name was on the copyright application for the film, or whether they pronounced each name of a general authority correctly.  They simply cited a claim from the film and then said "This isn't true" and presented the evidence from LDS teachings and scriptures.

Look where we are now.  There will be no "Truth about the CES Letter" or "Truth about 'A Letter to My Wife'."  There can't be.  If this thread is the pinnacle of defense that will be offered, then it would be best to just not bring extra attention to such things in the first place, because apparently hoped-for obscurity isn't just the best defense.  It will be the only defense.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

In my response to Stephenson,  I had this:

Quote

This last runs directly into Matthew Brown’s 2009 book, A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision, which continues a line of thought dating at least to Richard L. Anderson in BYU Studies in 1969. Brown quotes Cowdery’s declaration that in producing his 1834–1835 histories, he would draw on assistance from Joseph Smith, and use “authentic documents now in our possession.”⁷¹ Brown then offers a careful comparison of what Cowdery produced in 1834 with what Joseph Smith and Frederick Williams had created in 1832 and shows that Cowdery actually used the 1832 account. This means, contra Stephenson, there is good evidence that Cowdery knew about Joseph’s 1820 vision, which also means, there is good evidence that the statement in the Reflector has an authentic source behind it. That source is most likely Cowdery, and therefore the report in the Reflector has a reason for existing.⁷²

These conclusions raise the question of why Cowdery did not expand on the vision in the 1834-35 articles.⁷³ Opinions differ on this of course, but Brown and Anderson, among others, have proposed sensible solutions.⁷⁴ Any argument that Cowdery knew nothing does not account for the content of Reflector’s report from the Painesville correspondent. Nor does it explain Cowdery’s consistent testimony even while out of the church. If a contradiction in Joseph’s accounts is so clear-cut to Runnells and Stephenson at two centuries’ removed, would it not have been even more clear to Oliver Cowdery? Why, then, did Oliver not expose the hoax once he was disaffected from the Church and Joseph?

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/image-is-everything-pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain/

I'm not sure I completely follow what you mean by a response to Stephenson, or who that is.  I have read the comparison between the 1832 and the 1834 accounts that Brown writes, and I don't find it very convincing.  There are many differences between the two accounts, the comparisons don't seem to be appropriate to the specific context in some cases, and the 1834 version leaves out much of the 1832 account, so I really just didn't find the comparison to be persuasive.  I think its more likely that Joseph may have told Oliver some of these elements orally.  

So far, I haven't read any theories about possible solutions that seem to fit better than my theory that experimentation with the founding narrative of the church was happening during these years.  I haven't been reading the most recent CES letter vs apologists saga, so I'm just not close to those arguments.  I like to read books and essays, but I am less interested in *** for tat debates.  

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The supposition that if Joseph had an experience in 1820 he would have immediately blabbed it to all and sundry does is itself testable against the experiences of many people who have had profound spiritual experiences and who did not and do not immediately blab them to all.  And while a rare person may write them down immediately many do not.  Even Ralph Waldo Emerson did not write about his mystical experience in his diary on the day it happened.  The time it takes for a person to share a profound spiritual is something I have had personal experience with thanks to the years when I was doing NDE research, and talking about it, and having people share personal and intimate accounts that they do not typically share. And I have had four different people, my wife, my sister, a mission companions, and a friend I have known from high school, all share profound spiritual accounts that were remarkably similar in terms of the emotional precursors, the physical environment (each climbed to a high place to pray). and the personal theophany they reported.  None of them immediately shared their experience with anyone, but only later in a moment when sharing was apt.  In three of these cases, the sharing came after years of knowing the person, the exception being a mission companion, who shared only after we'd been together a while.  They treated it as something sacred, to be treated with care and shared only when the moment to share was bounded by both earned trust and a shared moment of personal intimacy and vulnerability. 

In my essay I reported another experience where a man who had a profound NDE while in the military in the early 1960s, had been scoffed at by the first few he told it to, and sealed it up until decades later.   He had his experience before Moody's books came out and he did not have a supportive environment to interpret or share it.  When he heard me talking about my research, he got me alone and told me.  A week later, he told the quorum.  And the next Sunday, he spoke about it in Fast and Testimony meeting.   So if and when a community supports accounts, we can hear them more often.

And there are more accounts of Joseph telling his story to consider, along with no accounts by anyone who knew him before the publication of the 1838 account complaining that he had made it up or changed it.

http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2011/07/first-vision-in-formative-years-of.html

I'm not saying Joseph must have immediately written down the FV experience in 1820, and I agree that many people don't handle things this way.  But when Joseph started translating the BoM and garnering followers and then later forming a church and sending out missionaries and telling everyone he knew the story of the beginnings of the church.  During these years 1827 - 1832 why wouldn't this story have come up if it was so foundational to Joseph?  That is a different argument than claiming he must have written the story down immediately, this is 7-12 years after the event and in the context of trying garner followers and preach the divine origins of the whole Mormon project.  

Also, what do you think about my comment that Joseph's pattern for sharing other visionary experiences was completely open, that he frequently shared a plethora of experiences and didn't hold anything back.  Also, what of the point by a Grant Palmer about creating and exaggerating visionary events to bolster his authority?  It seems pretty clear to me that this is what is happening with multiple narratives at the same time.  

Lastly the point about no-one complaining about the FV accounts, I'm thinking I have read some statements by David Whitmer or perhaps Warren Parrish bringing this into question, but I couldn't find anything on a quick search.  This could possibly be because the FV narrative wasn't actively promoted by the church and many members weren't even aware of its existence.  Lucy Mack Smith doesn't even bring it up in her history.  It wasn't really on the radar back then.  

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

My "aggressive search" amounted to spending two minutes on a website and copying and pasting the results here.

I was unaware that time was a factor in determining aggression.

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, Nevo said:

In the conclusion, the author professes an "obsession" with "truthful information. . . real truth, accurate historical facts."

Yet misstatements of fact start on page 1:

Actually, lots of periodicals from the 1830s mention Joseph Smith.

James B. Allen is not a General Authority and has never held the position of Church Historian. The First Vision was referred to (obliquely) in what is now D&C 20—which was published in the 1830s—and was "hand-recorded" in the 1832 History.

WHat do you mean that the first vision was referred to (obliquely) in what is now D&C 20?  I think I'm missing something there.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I didn't.  There is nothing "aggressive" about a two minute search for publicly-available information.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is not unusual to want to know the identity of the author of something you are reading, especially when it is an area where bias is well known to affect presentation, so knowing the author's personal views can help one pay attention to likely gaps and exaggerations, assumptions presented as facts. For Mormon topics, this would be important to know whether the author was a believer promoting the faith, an academic doing research, a curious outsider, a critic, or a full out antimormon...each position will have its strengths and weaknesses.

Identity is also very important when an author is using that identity to establish authority or POV.  If being an American and thus familiar with things American is part of a person's argument, then it becomes important to establish whether or not the person is actually American.

Checking ownership of a website is no more aggressive than turning to the first pages in a book to check for the author or publisher info.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We both agree that the records do not support a First Vision, but that assumes that such records would be likely.  In real history that is not a given.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm just saying that with the narrative changing, combined with the plethora of records during the early time period, there is reason to question the late recollections.  

You said: 

Quote

Indeed, even after it became part of the official LDS history, it did not become well-known until the 20th century.  If it was so important, how can that be?

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't know what you mean by "correct version," since we do not in fact know what took place, if anything.  I did not argue that some particular version, or any version, is the correct one.  However, if your notion that the FV event is so significant were true, why did it not become important in the 19th century?  That reduces your claim to the absurd.  History is a complex process, and it may not follow your 20-20 hindsight assumptions.

I didn't understand your point about the official LDS history not becoming well known until the 20th century.  Maybe you can explain that part to me.  

I'm not saying that the lack of evidence for the FV proves that it isn't true.  I am saying that the evidence for the FV as a later exaggerated narrative is strong, and the evidence for experimentation with respect to the founding narratives of the church is also strong.  100% confidence in historical accuracy isn't possible, but the likelihood of one version of events over another can be argued for and evaluated.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So was Saint Paul engaging in trial and error in writing differing accounts of his First Vision?  Or were there intermediaries in writing those conflicting accounts?  Would it be correct for me to say that the Book of Mormon (or Bible) is a "highly crafted and exaggerated" account?  If you said "yes," then we are in agreement on some level.

Yes, the bible and BoM are contain many highly crafted accounts, some more than others, but yes. 

As for St. Paul, the conversion accounts written by the author of Acts (whoever that was) was written 20 - 30 years after Paul's death, and who knows how historically accurate those accounts are, not to mention that they contradict each other in content.  I'm not a scriptural literalist by any stretch.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The 1832 account was recorded as an official church history, it was mostly in Joseph's hand, but it wasn't like this was a personal journal.  I suggest reading through the historical notes on the JSP site to better understand this.  It is a history of Joseph and the Church....

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

 

I think given what the JSP describes (a three page account that ends rather abruptly without completing the stated planned details***), that a more precise label would be 'an attempt of an official history'.  That it apparently wasn't shared extensively or published and the book it was written was repurposed with the account left ignored at the new back of the book (it was not in the index even though it was the first section written) heavily weights towards "attempt" rather than 'finished production'.

***"A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist . . . and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time.”...

"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.

 It is possible, however, that JS deliberately ended the history where he did, viewing it as part of a larger historical record that would include the work of others assigned as record keepers. Even though JS wrote his own history in about summer 1832, he continued to affirm John Whitmer’s role as church historian, demonstrating that JS’s historical venture did not relieve Whitmer of the responsibility to continue the church history.  For his part, Whitmer viewed his history as continuing work begun by Oliver Cowdery, whom he replaced as church record keeper.

 The question of whether JS expected Cowdery’s or Whitmer’s work to fit together with the account begun in his own history cannot be settled for certain; JS’s narrative does, however, cover only earlier history for which JS alone could provide a firsthand account, and it concludes just before Cowdery enters the scene."

----

If your point of using "official church history" is simply about intended audience and not actual usage, I would agree with you.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Calm

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If this thread is the pinnacle of defense that will be offered, then it would be best to just not bring extra attention to such things in the first place, because apparently hoped-for obscurity isn't just the best defense.  It will be the only defense.

The "pinnacle of defense" to this letter was offered and available before the letter was even written.  The apologetics have already been done.  By not addressing the previous treatments of these issues in the letter, he is essentially "gaslighting", to use a popular new word around these parts.  There are no new substantive arguments that I have seen.  The only thing left to do is to bag on the dude that wrote it, because what else is there to talk about?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Look where we are now.  There will be no "Truth about the CES Letter" or "Truth about 'A Letter to My Wife'."  There can't be.  

I am missing your point.  Why can't there be a "Truth about the CES Letter"?

I think the work of FairMormon extensively documents the problems with Runnells' work.  While not in book form, it provides tons of details and analysis of his claims, where they are outright wrong, where they are accurate, where they are overly slanted.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director

What is the difference between this work and the one you approve of, besides formatting? (Serious question, not a challenge)

Edited December 8, 2017 by Calm

[smac97]

19 hours ago, cinepro said:

Either you're being intentionally obtuse, or you've just totally missed the point.

Okay, I'll listen (I'm a sucker for Captain Picard memes).

Quote

It doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter that the guy got a web designer, or that the premise of the letter is probably contrived. 

Well, I disagree.  I think it matters.  Sincerity matters.  Good faith matters.

That the author is seeking help from ex-mormons to advance his "letter" to his "wife" matters.

Quote

Or that the guy checked the "keep my details anonymous" box when he registered the URL. 

Again, I disagree.  Anonymity can be a factor when gauging the sincerity and good faith of an author.

Quote

Or that James B. Allen is the "Assistant to the Regional Manager" and not the "Assistant Regional Manager."

I've made no comment on this point.

Quote

If this is the level of discussion at which you must discuss the "letter", then you've lost before you even started.  You're re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  

Malarky.  Good faith matters.  Sincerity matters.

There is no good faith here.  The "concerns" and "questions" here are not fairly posed, and are instead presented in a "death by a thousand paper cuts"-type of compendium.

They are intellectually dishonest in that they are cobbled-together complaints and criticisms from people hostile to the Restored Gospel being presented under the guise of "questions" or "concerns."

There is no evidence of a previous good faith effort to "study it out" and pray and ponder about these "questions" as we are commanded in D&C 9, or of a good faith effort to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith."

These "questions" and "concerns" are intellectually dishonest in that they do not engage or address the meaningful information that is already readily available and responsive.  These "questions" instead disregard such resources, or pretend they don't exist, or that they do not provide real and meaningful insights into the "questions" posed.

Again, the letter is a ploy.  It is not presented it good faith.  Sincerity matters.  Good faith matters.  None of these things are present.  The letter is not a genuine effort by the author to convey information to his wife.  He could have done that in any number of ways privately.  His intended audience is . . . struggling Latter-day Saints.  The purpose is to tear down faith.  To sow seeds of doubt and discord.  

Quote

Back in the 1980s, when I was 14 or 15, I purchased the book "The Truth About the God-Makers" because I was interested in apologetics.  And it was real apologetics; it was a weighty, substantive critique that methodically destroyed the false claims made in that film. 

And similar "real apologetics" are readily available as to virtually every issue raised in this "letter."

But the problem is that the copy n' paste, death-by-a-thousand-papercuts, is that a "methodical" response is very difficult.   Most of the points raised are short, facile ("appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial") questions/concerns designed to elicit long, complex answers and are presented with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information.  For example, take a look at FAIR's voluminous response to Runnells' letter.  It's difficult.  Massively time-consuming (by volunteers, no less).  Unwieldy. 

Short questions that require long, complex answers.  It's a tall order.  And an unreasonable one.  And in the apparent absence of sincerity and good faith, perhaps a fool's errand.

Quote

Because those silly, obviously false claims deserved to be destroyed.  I don't recall the book discussing which name was on the copyright application for the film, or whether they pronounced each name of a general authority correctly.  They simply cited a claim from the film and then said "This isn't true" and presented the evidence from LDS teachings and scriptures.

The same sorts of apologetic responses exist as to pretty much every point raised in the "letter."

Quote

Look where we are now.  There will be no "Truth about the CES Letter" or "Truth about 'A Letter to My Wife'."  There can't be. 

Maybe, maybe not.  Responding to huge lists of cobbled-together and disjointed criticisms is a very time consuming effort.  And since apologetic responses already exist, why not use those?

Quote

If this thread is the pinnacle of defense that will be offered,

Oh, c'mon.  Nobody is suggesting that.  

Quote

then it would be best to just not bring extra attention to such things in the first place, because apparently hoped-for obscurity isn't just the best defense.  It will be the only defense.

That's just not so.  There are already oodles of information and analysis and evidence and discussion publicly available about virtually every point raised in this letter.  

So I'm still not getting your point.  I am concerned for you.  Captain Picard memes are for obviously clueless or obtuse people.  I am neither.  People who misuse Captain Picard memes . . . it's risky.  Bad luck.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: As further evidence of the bad faith of this "letter," I will note that a significant portion of my remarks above are recycled from previous posts about Jeremy Runnells, which in turn were also comprised of recycled comments/analysis.  

Meanwhile, the substance of the supposedly unsatisfactory apologetic responses gets short shrift.  Again.

1. Critics present a complaint.

2. LDS scholar and apologists present a response.

3. Critics ignore the response, or pretend it doesn't exist.

4. Critics return to step one.

Rinse.  Lather.  Repeat.

Twenty years ago, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen made the following observation in their article, "Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?":

Quote

The title of this paper reflects five conclusions we have come to concerning Mormon-evangelical debates.

...

The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

I submit that this was true in 1997, and is significantly more true in 2017.  The substantive treatment of controversial issues involving the LDS Church by the LDS Church and its members has grown and improved significantly since then, in both quantity and quality.

We are getting better.  I don't think the critics are.  Instead, we get dreck like copy n' past compilations that are long on laziness and snark and short on thought and effort.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by smac97

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm happy to discuss history and evidence as long as there is mutual respectful dialogue.

Okay.

May I suggest that we start by respecting Joseph Smith enough to not simply assume he's lying every time he says something that conflicts with your assumptions?

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  With respect to the D&C 20 language, the reference to receiving a remission of sins could be a subtle reference to an earlier FV experience, but it doesn't say anything about deity or anything about a manifestation in any way.  So the theory by some that this is the first reference to a FV, is very difficult to prove because of the lack of evidence to support it.

1. It said that it was "truly manifested" that Joseph had received a remission of his sins. You said it doesn't say "anything about a manifestation in any way," but I humbly submit that "manifested" and "manifestation" are not just casual acquaintances, but the same word in different parts of speech.
2. It plainly is a reference to an earlier experience, following which Joseph "was entangled again in the vanities of the world," after which Moroni appeared to him. This is fleshed out more in JS-H 1:28-9.
3. So the chronology of events in D&C 20:5-8 is (a) an initial manifestation that included forgiveness of sins, (b) a relapse into "vanities," i.e. sins of a light and trivial nature, and (c) Moroni's visit and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.
4. Thus, D&C 20:5 is actually not a "subtle reference" but a straightforward, though very abbreviated, summary of Joseph's history beginning with the First Vision.
5. It is trivially easy to make a fuss about details a summary leaves out; but it does you no good. Summaries always leave things out. That's why they are called summaries; that's how you summarize things.

That's not a "theory," hft, but the most parsimonious reading of those verses.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The 1832 account was recorded as an official church history, it was mostly in Joseph's hand, but it wasn't like this was a personal journal.  I suggest reading through the historical notes on the JSP site to better understand this.  It is a history of Joseph and the Church.  Why wasn't it given to Oliver when Joseph tasked him in 1834 with writing another history of the church?  The reason I propose is that Joseph hadn't decided which version of the founding events of the church was the best message for this founding narrative yet, so he was experimenting.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I'm told that that, plus about $1.25, will buy you a coffee at Starbuck's.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Kiwi,

Your whole response to my comments to Clark are somewhat frustrating.  Besides the tone being disrespectful, your lack of understanding about these historical events makes it hard to have a productive exchange because I have to educate so much in the process.  Consider this last part homework that I'm assigning you.  Go research who was involved in crafting the 1838/39 account of church history and you get back to me on the names of the individuals who were involved. 

HFT, 

If my "tone" is "disrespectful," what are we to make of you arrogantly presuming to hand out "homework" assignments? Is that a sign of "respect," is it? When you make assertions, you get to back them up.

So, can you?

 

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Bauder apparently asked Joseph for a conversion experience and the experiences that Joseph gave him were about the angel and the plates, and Joseph wasn't able to give Bauder a conversion type experience.

"Wasn't able" or chose not to?

You're evading the question, hft. If it was the latter, how would Bauder know?

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Only one 1826 trail for glass looking that I'm aware of. 

Actually there was no "trail for glass looking," whether in 1826 or any other time. (There wasn't even a trial for glass looking.) There was an "examination," i.e a preliminary hearing. The charge was not "glass looking" since that wasn't a crime. The primary document shows "J Smith the glass looker" in the column that has the names of the accused, not the column that has the charges. The charge against him was simply "same," meaning same as above. The entry immediately above was "misdemeanour." The notation of "the glass looker" being in the name column rather than the charge column shows that it was for identification purposes, to distinguish the J Smith before the court from the "five thousand Smiths whose names are to be met with everywhere."

And, just so you know, Joseph was discharged.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/48

You must have missed it then, because the first two newspaper accounts go into details about the origins story of the church.  I'll quote a few of the passages since you must have overlooked them.  The last newspaper account was a Q&A, and goes over similar details, but no specific question was asked about whether a first vision happened, likely because that wasn't being talked about by anyone at this point in the church's history.  

 

No, I didn't miss it, because I read them. The newspaper accounts talk about events starting with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. To try to conclude that nothing happened prior to that, entirely on an argument from silence, looks rather desperate.