1838 Vision Account, Personages'

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

21 hours ago, Duncan said:

In Joseph Smith's 1838 account of the 1st Vision he doesn't identify God the Father and Jesus Christ , he just says "The Personages" or the Light, and the fact that one is clearly the father of the other one but it doesn't ever say who the personages are. Does anyone have thoughts as to why Joseph didn't identify who they were?

When it comes to life changes Spiritual experiences, we often times lack the vocabulary in our youth to fully explain it. My first experience with the Book of Mormon, left me so “taken aback”, that early on I could not explain what I was feeling. In the instant that my (later to be very good fried) handed me the book, I was almost breathless, and barely able to ask what it was. In fact, I knew in that instant that it was going to change my life, but had no idea how. As I sat up all night reading it, I was even frightened at the drastic change that was coming over me. Only as I have grown older have I been able to put it into words, and depending on whom I am telling the story, there are differences in my conversion story. Although key elements do not change, the depth and detail do, the more I tell it, and the more expressive my language and vocabulary changes with life experiences. Now, I do understand that I am speaking to my experiences, but I am doing so to  draw a parallel to Joseph’s differences in content and differences to those to whom he is speaking. His last account was (I believe) the account that he knew and intended to be the lasting and published one.    

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

... depending on whom I am telling the story, there are differences in my conversion story. Although key elements do not change, the depth and detail do ...

I'm exactly the same ... and with nearly all of my most sacred/spiritual personal experiences.

It seems to me that people who have been in Joseph's proverbial shoes will interpret his accounts quite differently to those who never have been.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It would be hard to conclude that any one of the accounts include all the details and qualify as a "full rendition" of the First Vision event.  This is a natural thing to do in normal retelling of a true story.  The 1835 account says that Joseph also "saw many angels" in his first vision, a detail missing from the 1832 and 1838 and 1842 accounts, for example.

More accounts are always better.  I like that we have the Wentworth Letter account of the visit of the angel Moroni to Joseph, for example, because it includes additional details about things that Joseph was shown concerning the people in the Book of Mormon. 

Were you part of the below? I heard the same thing come out of the mouth of church historians being interviewed on the latest Mormon Land podcast. Maybe Duncan will get answers if he takes a listen to these podcasts put out by those in charge of the Joseph Smith's Paper Project podcast on the FV. 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/the-first-vision-a-joseph-smith-papers-podcast

Edited February 3, 2020 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Were you part of the below? I heard the same thing come out of the mouth of church historians being interviewed on the latest Mormon Land podcast. Maybe Duncan will get answers if he takes a listen to these podcasts put out by those in charge of the Joseph Smith's Paper Project podcast on the FV. 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/the-first-vision-a-joseph-smith-papers-podcast

I listened to the first one! I should take a listen to the other ones

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

Do you think when Joseph wrote his 1838 he wrote with the understanding that his readers would know who the Personages were? I mean he talks before about God the Father and Jesus visiting but I wonder what his assumptions were when he wrote it

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.  Especially when the observer is untrained and unsystematic.  An experienced cop, on the other hand, has a descriptive blueprint in his mind, making him an excellent reporter.

We can reasonably assume that, decades later, Joseph recalled his 1820 experience at age 14 with an almost ethereal state of mind.  He would not be reporting on it objectively, but instead partially reliving it, and providing only the details which stood out at that moment of recall.  He wasn't trying to give testimony so much as he was conveying a taste of the experience -- which he himself could not quite grasp.  The emotion of the moment may have been too much to permit him to provide a professional description.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He wasn't trying to give testimony so much as he was conveying a taste of the experience -- which he himself could not quite grasp

This describes it well. Smell and taste are among the most evocative sense experiences, and the most powerful, and the most difficult to express.

[hope_for_things]

On 2/1/2020 at 8:24 PM, Duncan said:

In Joseph Smith's 1838 account of the 1st Vision he doesn't identify God the Father and Jesus Christ , he just says "The Personages" or the Light, and the fact that one is clearly the father of the other one but it doesn't ever say who the personages are. Does anyone have thoughts as to why Joseph didn't identify who they were?

I think we should read that account in the context of the turmoil that Joseph and the remaining church leaders were experiencing having been violently kicked out of Missouri and having had defections from key leaders and supports of the church.  Also, important to remember that the 1838 account is worked on by a committee and as Richard Bushman stated, to paraphrase because I don't have the quote in front of me, it doesn't sound like Joseph's typical writing style.  

All that said, I think there must have been a reluctance to explicitly claim that God the Father and Jesus Christ were seen in vision for some reason.  Its an interesting question, as they don't seem to show that same reluctance in D&C 76.  It might also have to do with how people wrote about visions of deity in general.  Bushman also wrote an interesting essay comparing visionary experiences with many other contemporary published visionary experiences, and he notes that there likely is the borrowing of language from these other accounts.  

[Ahab]

On 2/1/2020 at 7:24 PM, Duncan said:

In Joseph Smith's 1838 account of the 1st Vision he doesn't identify God the Father and Jesus Christ , he just says "The Personages" or the Light, and the fact that one is clearly the father of the other one but it doesn't ever say who the personages are. Does anyone have thoughts as to why Joseph didn't identify who they were?

Hmm.  Let's see.  2 personages appear before him, coming down from the sky somehow, still hovering in the air when they speak to him, while they are surrounded by brilliantly bright light.  One then refers to the other one as his son.

Hmm.  Who could that be?  Odin and Thor, maybe?  Captain America and Iron Man?  Hmm. Who else could that possibly be?

Sorry, I'm just out of more ideas here.  Oh, wait a sec, I suppose it could also have been our Father from heaven and his son which we refer to by the name of Jesus Christ.

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Were you part of the below? I heard the same thing come out of the mouth of church historians being interviewed on the latest Mormon Land podcast. Maybe Duncan will get answers if he takes a listen to these podcasts put out by those in charge of the Joseph Smith's Paper Project podcast on the FV. 

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/the-first-vision-a-joseph-smith-papers-podcast

What did you think of the podcast?  I listened to this Mormonland interview with the hosts of the podcast as well.  I have to say I was somewhat disappointed.  Some of there answers didn't seem consistent logically or historically accurate.  For example, one of the interviewees (can't remember which at the moment) when discussing the 1832 account mentioned that Joseph of course asked which church was true, but he really didn't in that account.  In 1832 he already had discovered that the other church's weren't true, and that didn't come up in the prayer experience.  

Also, I felt like they were quite presentist in their interpretation of the word "vision".  The 1838 account when one of the interviewers asks about how it says that Joseph came to himself after the vision was over, whether that meant it was more of a visionary, in your mind kind of experience, the church historian quickly shot that down saying that it definitely was more of a visitation, and not visionary like other contemporaries may have experienced.  No evidence was provided to support this claim.  And the fact that the interpretation actually goes against the language of the account itself is quite difficult for me to take seriously.  This just goes to show that even the historians have significant bias when it comes to interpretation.  

https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/

[Duncan]

49 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Hmm.  Let's see.  2 personages appear before him, coming down from the sky somehow, still hovering in the air when they speak to him, while they are surrounded by brilliantly bright light.  One then refers to the other one as his son.

Hmm.  Who could that be?  Odin and Thor, maybe?  Captain America and Iron Man?  Hmm. Who else could that possibly be?

Sorry, I'm just out of more ideas here.  Oh, wait a sec, I suppose it could also have been our Father from heaven and his son which we refer to by the name of Jesus Christ.

if you were an outside reader and they weren't identified , what would you think? Ghosts perhaps? who knows right?

[Tacenda]

55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What did you think of the podcast?  I listened to this Mormonland interview with the hosts of the podcast as well.  I have to say I was somewhat disappointed.  Some of there answers didn't seem consistent logically or historically accurate.  For example, one of the interviewees (can't remember which at the moment) when discussing the 1832 account mentioned that Joseph of course asked which church was true, but he really didn't in that account.  In 1832 he already had discovered that the other church's weren't true, and that didn't come up in the prayer experience.  

Also, I felt like they were quite presentist in their interpretation of the word "vision".  The 1838 account when one of the interviewers asks about how it says that Joseph came to himself after the vision was over, whether that meant it was more of a visionary, in your mind kind of experience, the church historian quickly shot that down saying that it definitely was more of a visitation, and not visionary like other contemporaries may have experienced.  No evidence was provided to support this claim.  And the fact that the interpretation actually goes against the language of the account itself is quite difficult for me to take seriously.  This just goes to show that even the historians have significant bias when it comes to interpretation.  

https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/

(bold mine)

Yes it really stuck out to me and how he shot that notion down immediately. I wondered if he was more shooting down the thought that it was a psychedelic experience or out of body experience. And I do agree that historians hold biases...even Don Bradley IMO, does. Have you listened to the latest podcast with Gospel Tangents? I hope he isn't offended that I said that, but I feel he can't help but do that, sorry Don. 

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if you were an outside reader and they weren't identified , what would you think? Ghosts perhaps? who knows right?

I  just tried to tell you that I would have tried to think of who they could possibly be.  Just any random male angel with a son?  Hmm.  I suppose I could think that was a possibility at first, before I started taking to them.  But then from what they said I would try to figure out their identity with a little more exactness.  Why just 2 random angels?  I would have been praying to our Father in heaven for direction.  So he just sent some random angel who had a son to tell me something?  Hmm.  Maybe.  But I would still want to know more about them and I would still be praying to our Father in heaven some more if I had any more questions.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I do agree that historians hold biases...even Don Bradley IMO, does.

Everyone does, it is a given. It is impossible not to look at the world through the lens of your past experiences, assumptions, current feelings, etc. 

 As soon as someone says they don't have a bias, that should be a red flag they don't really understand what bias is or they are trying to get away with something, imo.

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Everyone does, it is a given. It is impossible not to look at the world through the lens of your past experiences, assumptions, current feelings, etc. 

 As soon as someone says they don't have a bias, that should be a red flag they don't really understand what bias is or they are trying to get away with something, imo.

I wouldn't say it is impossible but I would agree that it is our natural tendency to look at things through our own perspectives.  With some effort I believe we can put that aside, though, and think as if we didn't know what we know, like maybe from the perspective of what we knew before we learned something that we would now say we know, even though at one point in our past we did not know that.  This is what think of when thinking of what it means to consider something with an open mind, as if we didn't know what we do know now.

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

(bold mine)

Yes it really stuck out to me and how he shot that notion down immediately. I wondered if he was more shooting down the thought that it was a psychedelic experience or out of body experience. And I do agree that historians hold biases...even Don Bradley IMO, does. Have you listened to the latest podcast with Gospel Tangents? I hope he isn't offended that I said that, but I feel he can't help but do that, sorry Don. 

As I've read the history, there is a clear evolution in the visionary narratives from less specific to more specific and grandiose.  Personally, I don't like using the terms psychedelic or out of body just because those terms typically aren't used in religious context.  There is also a body and spirit dualism assumption that I don't think is necessary.  My personal perspective is that visions, dreams, mystical experiences, are all subjective.  I've never seen compelling evidence to the contrary.  If there were, we could test those claims using the tools of science and quickly verify if there is veracity to the claims.  I think psychology gets us closer to understanding the nature of these types of claims.  

Yes, I've listened to Don on Gospel Tangents, as well as a multitude of other podcasts, he's been doing quite the tour of interviews in the past couples months.  I'm planning to read his book.  I've been delighted to hear about some of his findings, and find them quite interesting.  I also have some concerns about some conclusions he expressed in interview form, but I'll look more closely at those things when I read the book.  It really was great that he wrote the book though, to get the conversations started and to get a closer look at actual historical evidence, even when it up ends some of our previously held views.  I really love that kind of stuff!  

  

[Ahab]

 

 

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 

 

Thanks for posting, this is important to consider when we think about types of bias and how important it is to use critical thinking skill when it comes to evaluating history or other disciplines for accuracy.  

One comment on the vision accounts is that I can't think of any attempts to claim that these visions were even based in the realm to objective history.  At least from the original authors.  It seems to me that its only modern apologists who are trying to support the very modern perspective of a physical visitation, who are trying to make a claim for objective reality for these visions.  The actual wording of the visions don't seem to make these claims.  I'm open to evidence otherwise if you or others have any.  

 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for posting, this is important to consider when we think about types of bias and how important it is to use critical thinking skill when it comes to evaluating history or other disciplines for accuracy.  

One comment on the vision accounts is that I can't think of any attempts to claim that these visions were even based in the realm to objective history.  At least from the original authors.  It seems to me that its only modern apologists who are trying to support the very modern perspective of a physical visitation, who are trying to make a claim for objective reality for these visions.  The actual wording of the visions don't seem to make these claims.  I'm open to evidence otherwise if you or others have any.  

 

I understand each report as something the reporter claims to have seen and/or heard and/or felt, and from there it is up to me to determine how or if I will use that report in my own life.  My preference is to ask our Father in heaven if there is any truth to it, such as asking him whether or not thee is any truth to it, if it was real or only imagined.  Did that person really see and/or hear and/or feel that, or not?  And I put myself to the same tests when I see and/or hear and/or feel something, myself. Is it real or do I only think it is real when it isn't?

This is simply what reality is and is like for me, and what I think it is like for other people, too.  Whether fact or fiction, real or only what we imagine, each of us makes our own decisions for ourselves using any resources we have available to us.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I understand each report as something the reporter claims to have seen and/or heard and/or felt, and from there it is up to me to determine how or if I will use that report in my own life.  My preference is to ask our Father in heaven if there is any truth to it, such as asking him whether or not thee is any truth to it, if it was real or only imagined.  Did that person really see and/or hear and/or feel that, or not?  And I put myself to the same tests when I see and/or hear and/or feel something, myself. Is it real or do I only think it is real when it isn't?

This is simply what reality is and is like for me, and what I think it is like for other people, too.  Whether fact or fiction, real or only what we imagine, each of us makes our own decisions for ourselves using any resources we have available to us.

Well, this isn't a way to objectively test things, clearly since you posted the video you understand the difference between an objective test and a subjective test.  Someone telling you they experienced something, and then you praying about that experience does not tell you anything about that other person's experience.  It only tells you about your experience.  This is not a short cut to objectivity.  Many people all around the world have spiritual experiences, answers to prayers that they feel are true, but this is not an objective kind of knowing, this is still squarely in the camp of subjectivity.   

None of that is to say that the experience wasn't real for you personally, I have no doubt that people experience things and they are quite real for them.  That doesn't make these experiences objective, to be evaluated as objective they have to be testable.  

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, this isn't a way to objectively test things, clearly since you posted the video you understand the difference between an objective test and a subjective test.  Someone telling you they experienced something, and then you praying about that experience does not tell you anything about that other person's experience.  It only tells you about your experience.  This is not a short cut to objectivity. 

God is my source for objective information when I can't physically experience the same things for myself.  Joseph's vision which we call the First Vision happened in the past, supposedly, and I can't time travel to go back there to see what he saw for myself.  I can only ask God if he appeared to Joseph and then take it from there.  I wouldn't trust Joseph's report if that's all I had to rely on, though.  But I do trust what God tells me, personally, so I will trust what he says even if someone else tells me something that contradicts that.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Many people all around the world have spiritual experiences, answers to prayers that they feel are true, but this is not an objective kind of knowing, this is still squarely in the camp of subjectivity.   

When you want to know if someone else did something in the past, and you can't time travel to the past to find out for yourself what happened, all you can do is ask the people who were involved if that is what really happened.  Can't get any better than that.

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

None of that is to say that the experience wasn't real for you personally, I have no doubt that people experience things and they are quite real for them.  That doesn't make these experiences objective, to be evaluated as objective they have to be testable.  

I think the point of trying to tell the difference between what is objective and what is subjective is to find out what really happened or what really is true vs what someone thinks happened but isn't what really happened.  We're just trying to get at the truth, here.

Sometimes knowing what God knows is as close as we can get because we can't time travel back to the past and other types of evidence can be interpreted incorrectly.

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

God is my source for objective information when I can't physically experience the same things for myself.  Joseph's vision which we call the First Vision happened in the past, supposedly, and I can't time travel to go back there to see what he saw for myself.  I can only ask God if he appeared to Joseph and then take it from there.  I wouldn't trust Joseph's report if that's all I had to rely on, though.  But I do trust what God tells me, personally, so I will trust what he says even if someone else tells me something that contradicts that.

Its the term objective, that doesn't apply to what you're saying.  God being your source for objective information, would mean that the information you receive from God can very independently verified through critical analysis.  Now, if you're claiming you have evidence that God told you something and that this evidence can be independently verified and analyzed, please correct me.  But a personal feeling, hearing words spoken to you in your head, meaning you can't record these words on a device and have independent people evaluate the data, by definition makes your personal individual experience subjective.  

24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

When you want to know if someone else did something in the past, and you can't time travel to the past to find out for yourself what happened, all you can do is ask the people who were involved if that is what really happened.  Can't get any better than that.

Actually, there is a methodology for analysis employed by modern historians with a very systematic and detailed review of multiple points of evidence.  Sources of various kinds whether first, second or third hand, all play a role in the process.  It is a scholarly discipline that educated historians follow and its better in the sense that its more likely to be accurate.  

27 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think the point of trying to tell the difference between what is objective and what is subjective is to find out what really happened or what really is true vs what someone thinks happened but isn't what really happened.  We're just trying to get at the truth, here.

Sometimes knowing what God knows is as close as we can get because we can't time travel back to the past and other types of evidence can be interpreted incorrectly.

Interesting that you posted that video about objective and subjective, but it seems we have very different understanding of those terms.  BTW, in Mormon theology as I understand it, we can never know what God knows in this life, and I would say anyone who thinks that their personal knowledge is on the same level as God's is due for a dose of humility.  

[Kevin Christensen]

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, this isn't a way to objectively test things, clearly since you posted the video you understand the difference between an objective test and a subjective test.  Someone telling you they experienced something, and then you praying about that experience does not tell you anything about that other person's experience.  It only tells you about your experience.  This is not a short cut to objectivity.  Many people all around the world have spiritual experiences, answers to prayers that they feel are true, but this is not an objective kind of knowing, this is still squarely in the camp of subjectivity.   

None of that is to say that the experience wasn't real for you personally, I have no doubt that people experience things and they are quite real for them.  That doesn't make these experiences objective, to be evaluated as objective they have to be testable.  

Take care, while promoting the notion of "objectivity" so as not to slide into uncritical positivism:

Quote

During the 1930’s and 1940’s the positivists had taken science as the norm for all meaningful discourse. Religious language was considered neither true nor false, but meaningless. The positivists had declared the famous Verification Principle, which states that, apart from tautologies and definitions, statements are meaningful only if they can be verified by sense data. ((Compare Riskas, 115.)) Accepting an oversimplified view of science as the prototype for all genuine knowledge, they dismissed religion as “purely emotive.”

During the 1950’s positivism came under increasing attack, but many of its assumptions were perpetuated in the empiricism which came to replace it as the dominant interpretation of science. Among the empiricist claims were the following. (1) Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in a pure observation-language independent of any theoretical assumptions. (2) Theories can be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed experimental data. (3) The choice between theories is rational, objective and in accordance with specifiable criteria. Philosophers under the sway of such empiricism continued to say that religion can legitimately make no cognitive claims. ((Barbour, 3.))

That is from Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.

Quote

These ideas came under increasing attack in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, and three counter-claims were advanced. (1) All data are theory-laden; there is no neutral observation-language. (2) Theories are not verified or falsified; when data conflict with an accepted theory, they are usually set to one side as anomalies, or else auxiliary assumptions are modified. (3) There are no criteria for choice between rival theories of great generality, for the criteria are themselves theory-dependent.

The attack on empiricism was carried a step further in Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). Kuhn held that the thought and action of a scientific community are dominated by its paradigms, defined as ‘standard examples of scientific work which embody a set of conceptual, methodological and metaphysical assumptions’. He maintained that observational data and criteria for assessing theories are paradigm-dependent. ((Barbour, 9.))

There is much more in Barbour.  I quote him often, in these cases, here:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

And regarding the notion of objectivity, it's best to admit one's own ideological perspective upfront, so as to be able to critically think about the implications, rather than pretend to objectivity and to subsequently blind one's self to the implications.  Peter Novick and Alan Goff and Thomas Kuhn and many many others have made that case at length.  Bushman observed years ago that a claim of objectivity is typically a plea for immunity from criticism.  It too often disguises tribalism.  "We are objective and therefore correct.  You are subjective, and therefore, wrong."

And I wouldn't over generalize about LDS apologists (especially if you do not give specific names) arguing that Joseph's 1830 experience was a visitation, when his own direct language, in the Wentworth letter, for instance, says " my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision..."   I don't argue for a visitation versus vision for reasons that Joseph's own language makes it obvious what he thought about it, and I am far from the only LDS believer who has said so.  The 3 Nephi account on the other hand, definitely describes a visit, rather than a vision.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Ahab]

56 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its the term objective, that doesn't apply to what you're saying.  God being your source for objective information, would mean that the information you receive from God can be independently verified through critical analysis.  Now, if you're claiming you have evidence that God told you something and that this evidence can be independently verified and analyzed, please correct me. 

Yes, that's what I'm talking about, as long as anyone has access to the same things God has access to.  People like us still aren't able to time travel backwards, so knowledge of things that happened in the past is dependent on those who were there when those things happened.

Quote

But a personal feeling, hearing words spoken to you in your head, meaning you can't record these words on a device and have independent people evaluate the data, by definition makes your personal individual experience subjective.  

How I got the information I got doesn't matter much as long as I somehow got the correct information about something that happened.  I can just tell you what I know, even if it's just from a thought in my head, and then it is up to you to do whatever you can with the information.

Quote

Actually, there is a methodology for analysis employed by modern historians with a very systematic and detailed review of multiple points of evidence.  Sources of various kinds whether first, second or third hand, all play a role in the process.  It is a scholarly discipline that educated historians follow and its better in the sense that its more likely to be accurate.  

More likely to be accurate than.... what?  As long as it is what happened that is all that matters.  Not everybody will accurately come up with the correct interpretation of the evidence every time, though.

Quote

Interesting that you posted that video about objective and subjective, but it seems we have very different understanding of those terms.  BTW, in Mormon theology as I understand it, we can never know what God knows in this life, and I would say anyone who thinks that their personal knowledge is on the same level as God's is due for a dose of humility.  

I agree that we can't know EVERYTHING that God knows in this life time, only about 100 years, at best, but we can learn at least some of the things that he knows. Little by little, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little... over and over again, forever.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Ahab

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Take care, while promoting the notion of "objectivity" so as not to slide into uncritical positivism:

Quote

During the 1930’s and 1940’s the positivists had taken science as the norm for all meaningful discourse. Religious language was considered neither true nor false, but meaningless. The positivists had declared the famous Verification Principle, which states that, apart from tautologies and definitions, statements are meaningful only if they can be verified by sense data. ((Compare Riskas, 115.)) Accepting an oversimplified view of science as the prototype for all genuine knowledge, they dismissed religion as “purely emotive.”

During the 1950’s positivism came under increasing attack, but many of its assumptions were perpetuated in the empiricism which came to replace it as the dominant interpretation of science. Among the empiricist claims were the following. (1) Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in a pure observation-language independent of any theoretical assumptions. (2) Theories can be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed experimental data. (3) The choice between theories is rational, objective and in accordance with specifiable criteria. Philosophers under the sway of such empiricism continued to say that religion can legitimately make no cognitive claims. ((Barbour, 3.))

Its a good point, thanks for bringing up this reminder.  I definitely don't think this way, and I was trying to express that I believe the subjective experiences people have are very real.  This was more of a category discussion from my perspective.  Personal religious experience is by definition subjective.  Unless that person makes claims that can be evaluated and tested.  I wasn't making a value judgment on the experiences themselves, just making sure we define terms correctly. Ahab made the claim that his answers to prayers were objective.  That doesn't fit into the objective category.  

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

There is much more in Barbour.  I quote him often, in these cases, here:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

And regarding the notion of objectivity, it's best to admit one's own ideological perspective upfront, so as to be able to critically think about the implications, rather than pretend to objectivity and to subsequently blind one's self to the implications.  Peter Novick and Alan Goff and Thomas Kuhn and many many others have made that case at length.  Bushman observed years ago that a claim of objectivity is typically a plea for immunity from criticism.  It too often disguises tribalism.  "We are objective and therefore correct.  You are subjective, and therefore, wrong."

And I wouldn't over generalize about LDS apologists (especially if you do not give specific names) arguing that Joseph's 1830 experience was a visitation, when his own direct language, in the Wentworth letter, for instance, says " my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision..."   I don't argue for a visitation versus vision for reasons that Joseph's own language makes it obvious what he thought about it, and I am far from the only LDS believer who has said so.  The 3 Nephi account on the other hand, definitely describes a visit, rather than a vision.

These are very good points as well, thanks again.  I agree completely.  

As for the LDS apologists I was referring to the two that worked on the JSP podcast that I was messaging Tacenda about earlier.  They were also on the Mormonland podcast I linked to as well.  In this case it was Matt Grow and Spencer W. McBride.  See the links above and please comment on what you think of those episodes and their SLTrib interview. 

Just a question for you, when you say you don't argue about vision vs visitation because Joseph's language makes it obvious what he thought, are you saying Joseph's language shows it obviously was a visitation?  If so, can you explain what about that language describes it in terms of visitation, because that was my concern with what the interviewees said in their podcast, is they were reading the words of the account much differently than how I would interpret them.  

[hope_for_things]

44 minutes ago, Ahab said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Its the term objective, that doesn't apply to what you're saying.  God being your source for objective information, would mean that the information you receive from God can be independently verified through critical analysis.  Now, if you're claiming you have evidence that God told you something and that this evidence can be independently verified and analyzed, please correct me. 

Yes, that's what I'm talking about, as long as anyone has access to the same things God has access to.  People like us still aren't able to time travel backwards, so knowledge of things that happened in the past is dependent on those who were there when those things happened.

Help me out here because I'm not following you.  Are you saying that your answers to prayers can be independently verified through critical analysis?  If so, how can this be accomplished and tested in a way that people can evaluate it?  

46 minutes ago, Ahab said:

How I got the information I got doesn't matter much as long as I somehow got the correct information about something that happened.  I can just tell you what I know, even if it's just from a thought in my head, and then it is up to you to do whatever you can with the information.

What you explaining, clearly fits the definition of subjective knowledge.  

47 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Quote

Actually, there is a methodology for analysis employed by modern historians with a very systematic and detailed review of multiple points of evidence.  Sources of various kinds whether first, second or third hand, all play a role in the process.  It is a scholarly discipline that educated historians follow and its better in the sense that its more likely to be accurate.  

More likely to be accurate than.... what?  As long as it is what happened that is all that matters.  Not everybody will accurately come up with the correct interpretation of the evidence every time, though.

More accurate than less sophisticated historical analysis.  Modern history, evaluation of sources, the tools used to evaluate, the critical thinking methods developed through years of scholarship has improved significantly in recent generations.  Just like you see improvements in other disciplines of scholarship, we've seen significant improvement in how historical information is evaluated.