The First Vision - Church News Story

[hope_for_things]

https://www.thechurchnews.com/history-revisited/2020-04-02/joseph-smith-first-vision-accounts-restoration-179037

I like to see more attention given to the whole First Vision narrative, so I was encouraged to see this article.  What are its strengths and weaknesses from your perspective?  

As a Gen X individual myself, I was raise on the First Vision as a foundational narrative for our church.  During my missionary experience and throughout most of my lifetime the correlated narrative about the FV has been spoken of in terms of a visitation and as a proof text for what we know about the ontological nature of God.  Yet I see some changes to this story happening now and that key people in the church are acknowledging certain important things.  

That memory isn't always accurate.  Steven Harper, the appointed expert in chief on this subject goes to great lengths to talk about the fallibility of memory from an accuracy perspective in his new book and in his podcasts.  Yet he still makes statements that seem to contradict this idea, statements like in this article where they paraphrase him as saying that the FV tells us that God and Christ are separate and embodied.  Both points, first that God the father isn't present in the 1832 account likely the most closely representative of Joseph's original memories.  Second that they are embodied is nowhere stated in any of the accounts if embodied means what dictionaries seem to think it means.  

Quote

From Dictionary.com - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/embodied

1. to give a concrete form to; express, personify, or exemplify in concrete form:
2. to embody an idea in an allegorical painting.
3. to provide with a body; incarnate; make corporeal:

Other thoughts about the newer direction on the FV narrative that we have emerging these days?  I personally think that it opens the door to thinking of the FV as a vision again, rather than a visitation.  Yet, I don't hear this concept coming from official church representatives.  However, I would like to see us go in that direction as I think it makes Joseph's experience more relatable, many of us have had visions, dreams, epiphanies of some sort or another, and some of those likely have been very profound and influential on our lives.  I think this makes Joseph more human, to think that he had a vision of some kind, not a tangible visitation, and that this vision was influential in his life. This brings Joseph back down to earth as a flawed and real human, rather than putting him up on some pedestal as next in line with deity. 

I think that bringing Joseph down to earth will be essential to a maturing faith community.  Because its really a challenge the more someone learns about Joseph to view him as anything but a flawed human.  He had strengths and weaknesses and rather than making excuses for his weaknesses or idolizing his strengths, it becomes important to examine these traits closely and to evaluate what things are worth emulating and what things should be discarded and condemned.  That is my approach.  Any other thoughts?  

[Tacenda]

I saw part of a video the other day, it had Steven Harper in it, now can't remember where, maybe a promotion spot on TV? And it mentioned the FV started out with Joseph Smith seeking forgiveness as well as not knowing which church to join and then him reading James 1:5. I remember as a child being taught all of that, minus the part of Joseph seeking forgiveness, maybe others remember different. But that is mine, a long with it being a visitation with both Jesus and God. 

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I saw part of a video the other day, it had Steven Harper in it, now can't remember where, maybe a promotion spot on TV? And it mentioned the FV started out with Joseph Smith seeking forgiveness as well as not knowing which church to join and then him reading James 1:5. I remember as a child being taught all of that, minus the part of Joseph seeking forgiveness, maybe others remember different. But that is mine, a long with it being a visitation with both Jesus and God. 

I'm grateful for them adding in the seeking forgiveness element, as that is the main thrust of the 1832 account.    

The church has a template for what they say we should learn from the FV accounts.  Things like the embodiment of God and Christ as separate beings, or the miraculous nature of God visiting and calling Joseph as a prophet in our day, or that the other churches weren't true, these are the central messages of what the church wants the FV to be about.  Then they go back to the accounts to find the nuggets from all the different versions as proof texts to support the template.  The template and talking points are what they want to promote and they use the fragments of information from various accounts to support the template.

This is the same way the Saints narrative is written, or curriculum of all various kinds.  The central points are already setup by those in charge, and the evidence to support these central points is then interpreted in ways to conform to those central points.  Religion isn't scholarly history and it isn't made up of facts about history.  Religion is about a deliberately constructed narrative that both evolves and is created over time by its members.  I has to be compelling, and it has to speak to people, otherwise it will die. 

Its always changing, the question for me is whether those changes are the kind of changes that we as a people both inside and outside the church will benefit from the most.  Will the template being promoted by the church about the FV today lead people toward a more mature faith that isn't as rooted in supernatural thinking and fundamentalism?  That is my hope.  I see some good signs in the messages, things about the fallibility of memory are welcome and refreshing signs that we're making some progress.  Its going to take time though.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

As a Gen X individual myself, I was raise on the First Vision as a foundational narrative for our church.

The First Vision was not foundational for the early LDS Church.  In fact hardly anyone knew about it.  The Book of Mormon was far more important, yet hardly anyone read the book.  The BofM was more important as a sign of Joseph Smith's prophetic status.  However, the FV did become far more important in the 20th century, and it was the main point of the old "Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story" tract -- which I liked so much.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  During my missionary experience and throughout most of my lifetime the correlated narrative about the FV has been spoken of in terms of a visitation and as a proof text for what we know about the ontological nature of God.  Yet I see some changes to this story happening now and that key people in the church are acknowledging certain important things.  

Hardly any ordinary people I know use the term "ontological," and I have never heard the FV referred to as a "visitation."  Hardly any Mormons have training in theology or philosophy and have no conception of the implications of two separate, anthropomorphic divine beings, Father & Son.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

That memory isn't always accurate.

Correct.  Even though human memory has a very strong reputation in courts of law, it is nearly valueless in science.  Circumstantial, forensic evidence is always of greater value.  Joseph Smith was only a 14-year-old kid when he had his First Vision in 1820, and the first actual record of it isn't written down until many years later.  Indeed, every account written years later tends to vary, no matter how strongly the writers try to be accurate.  Paul cannot even tell his First Vision story twice without major, contrasting variants.  Same applies to the 4 Gospels (and maybe the 5th, the Gospel of Thomas).  It is utterly silly to expect these accounts to demonstrate unity.  We don't see it anywhere in the Bible, nor in secular society.

The primary problem here, as usual, is the confusing of faith with reason.  Those are two very separate modes of thought.  It is a major category mistake in philosophy to confuse faith with reason.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

..................... brings Joseph back down to earth as a flawed and real human, rather than putting him up on some pedestal as next in line with deity. 

I think that bringing Joseph down to earth will be essential to a maturing faith community.  ............................

Joseph Smith has no status in the LDS tradition as "next in line with deity."  He is highly regarded as a prophet, but one hears very little about him in general.  Certainly not much in Fast & Testimony meetings, which seem to focus on Jesus Christ.  As to "maturing faith communities," that conjures up the failing Methodist Church, which is undeniably more mature than it was a couple of centuries ago.  But to what end?  People no longer attend or take it seriously.  Yet it was once a strong, successful church.  My grand dad was a Methodist minister.  Today in America it is smaller than the LDS Church, and getting smaller every year.  What happened to it?

[pogi]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Other thoughts about the newer direction on the FV narrative that we have emerging these days?  I personally think that it opens the door to thinking of the FV as a vision again, rather than a visitation.  Yet, I don't hear this concept coming from official church representatives.

I suspect that we are going to be hearing a lot about it this weekend.  It will be interesting to hear how it is presented and framed by the leadership.  I suspect that the traditional narrative of it being a visitation will remain unchanged.  I, like you, would love to see the narrative change towards a vision.  That, to me, is what the evidence suggests.

I also agree that Joseph didn’t learn that the Father and Son were corporeal from the first vision.  That wasn’t revealed until later in the D&C.  The scriptures clearly state that there is only one way to tell if an entity is corporal or not - ask to shake their hand (because it is impossible to tell by sight alone).  

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

I suspect that we are going to be hearing a lot about it this weekend.  It will be interesting to hear how it is presented and framed by the leadership.  I suspect that the traditional narrative of it being a visitation will remain unchanged.  I, like you, would love to see the narrative change towards a vision.  That, to me, is what the evidence suggests.

I also agree that Joseph didn’t learn that the Father and Son were corporeal from the first vision.  That wasn’t revealed until later in the D&C.  The scriptures clearly state that there is only one way to tell if an entity is corporal or not - ask to shake their hand (because it is impossible to tell by sight alone).  

To me it matters not one whit whether Joseph’s experience could be characterized as a vision, a visitation or both. It’s genuine and divine in any case. 
 

I suppose some deniers fuss over the distinction because, somehow in their minds, it’s easier to falsify a vision than it is a visitation. 

And variances in the way the account has been rendered bother me even less than whether it was a vision or visitation. They differ, but they do not conflict. Much ado about nothing. 

Joseph was told later by Moroni that his name would be both good and evil spoken of. The calumny continues to this day. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To me it matters not one what whether Joseph’s experience could be characterized as a vision, a visitation or both. It’s genuine and divine in any case. 

I agree that it is genuine and divine in either case.  It doesn’t change my testimony one way or the other.  I do think the visitation narrative has been a doctrinal stumbling block for many investigators however.  I think that framing it as a vision, is not only more true to the evidence (which I think is important), but it would remove that stumbling block for many.  Many Christians identify with mystic traditions, and I think this becomes a little more relatable for them when presented as a vision during prayer - it brings a little more mysticism to our religion.  

Edited April 3, 2020 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The First Vision was not foundational for the early LDS Church.  In fact hardly anyone knew about it.  The Book of Mormon was far more important, yet hardly anyone read the book.  The BofM was more important as a sign of Joseph Smith's prophetic status.  However, the FV did become far more important in the 20th century, and it was the main point of the old "Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story" tract -- which I liked so much.

Yes, agreed.  It wasn't until under the presidency of Joseph F. Smith that the FV narrative really started to become an important story for the church institutionally, this was after they abandoned polygamy.  Kathleen Flake talks about this in her very well written book, 

https://www.amazon.com/Politics-American-Religious-Identity-Seating/dp/0807855014/ref=sr_1_2?crid=26UCPNF97H91P&dchild=1&keywords=kathleen+flake%2C+politics+of+american+religious+identity&qid=1585940455&sprefix=kathleen+flake+%2Caps%2C245&sr=8-2

35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hardly any ordinary people I know use the term "ontological," and I have never heard the FV referred to as a "visitation."  Hardly any Mormons have training in theology or philosophy and have no conception of the implications of two separate, anthropomorphic divine beings, Father & Son.

I'm using the term ontological because I think it appropriately describes they way that correlated materials use the FV as proof text for describing the nature of God.  On visitation, I can find a number of hits with this term on the church web site.  But even more recently to this on a recent level, the JSP podcast editors called it a visitation in multiple interviews recently, see link for one of these below.  I believe RadioWest or Mormonland was the other one I'm thinking about, and I'm pretty sure Steven Harper even commented on this recently as well.  They go as far as to say that other people who had visions during Joseph's time period (as there are quite a few other people who had similar experiences), their experiences were "visions" while Joseph's was more like a visitation, even though they have no historical evidence to support that assertion that I've been able to see.  

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/the-first-vision-podcast-episode-5-transcript

Quote

They always stop short of saying, “God came and visited to me.” These are visions, not visitations. In Joseph’s 1838 account, he goes in directly the opposite direction.

Whether as an effort to distinguish his own account from those that are also circulating during the time or whether this reflects his more expanded understanding of the importance in that experience, he says, “I did in reality, see a vision. God the Father did in reality visit me. Jesus Christ did in reality speak to me.” He frames it much more as a visitation, as opposed to a vision that he can’t quite make sense of. The language of “by faith I saw,” or “in a dream state I saw,” is absent from Joseph Smith’s accounts. He’s adamant that this is something more real, that this is something more tangible. I think that’s significant in both understanding how his experience differs from others and how he understands his experience differing from others, and also, I think that’s important in helping us understand the response that his vision elicits.

 

46 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  Even though human memory has a very strong reputation in courts of law, it is nearly valueless in science.  Circumstantial, forensic evidence is always of greater value.  Joseph Smith was only a 14-year-old kid when he had his First Vision in 1820, and the first actual record of it isn't written down until many years later.  Indeed, every account written years later tends to vary, no matter how strongly the writers try to be accurate.  Paul cannot even tell his First Vision story twice without major, contrasting variants.  Same applies to the 4 Gospels (and maybe the 5th, the Gospel of Thomas).  It is utterly silly to expect these accounts to demonstrate unity.  We don't see it anywhere in the Bible, nor in secular society.

The primary problem here, as usual, is the confusing of faith with reason.  Those are two very separate modes of thought.  It is a major category mistake in philosophy to confuse faith with reason.

I very much agree with you here.  Recent studies like those done after the 9/11 event show just how poorly humans are at accurately reconstructing memory.  One point that Steven Harper likes to drive home and I agree with him on this point, is that each time we're remembering something we're actively reconstructing memories in the context of our current mindset.  We aren't accessing a data file that's stored in our head like a computer, human brains aren't computers.  But the perplexing thing about Steven making statements like this, and he clearly has done research on memory studies and understands some of the basic components of memory recall, is that he'll then make a really perplexing statement that he believes the FV is the most well documented and historically accurate theophany in history.  Or something along those lines.  Its just extremely perplexing to me how he can make those kinds of statements in the same conversation as his other talk about human memory.  

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Joseph Smith has no status in the LDS tradition as "next in line with deity."  He is highly regarded as a prophet, but one hears very little about him in general.  Certainly not much in Fast & Testimony meetings, which seem to focus on Jesus Christ.  As to "maturing faith communities," that conjures up the failing Methodist Church, which is undeniably more mature than it was a couple of centuries ago.  But to what end?  People no longer attend or take it seriously.  Yet it was once a strong, successful church.  My grand dad was a Methodist minister.  Today in America it is smaller than the LDS Church, and getting smaller every year.  What happened to it?

Perhaps you're attending a different church than the one in which I've been raised.  Hero worship of Joseph is a staple in my church experience.  Praise to the man, John Taylor's canonized adulation in D&C 135, more for salvation than any other save Jesus.  I honestly have no idea how you can make those statements with a straight face.  

Maturing faith will be different than fundamentalism, no doubt.  But I can't envision a future where literalists and fundamentalists are able to successfully contribute to society and maintain a sheltered world view.  Kind of like I can't see a place for flat earth society members in our culture either.  I just don't think these kinds of paradigms have a legitimate space in a modern world.  I wouldn't legislate them out of being or anything, but I do think their influence on our culture should be marginal at best.  

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that it is genuine and divine in either case.  It doesn’t change my testimony one way or the other.  I do think the visitation narrative has been a doctrinal stumbling block for many investigators however.  I think that framing it as a vision, is not only more true to the evidence (which I think is important), but it would remove that stumbling block for many.  Many Christians identify with mystic traditions, and I think this becomes a little more relatable for them when presented as a vision during prayer - it brings a little more mysticism to our religion.  

Your term “mysticism” gives me heartburn. Perhaps I’m misapprehending your intended connotation, but I would resist any way of framing the narrative that would detract from its verity, even by implication. Joseph’s words echo in my mind: “He did in reality speak to me.”

[hope_for_things]

51 minutes ago, pogi said:

I suspect that we are going to be hearing a lot about it this weekend.  It will be interesting to hear how it is presented and framed by the leadership.  I suspect that the traditional narrative of it being a visitation will remain unchanged.  I, like you, would love to see the narrative change towards a vision.  That, to me, is what the evidence suggests.

I also agree that Joseph didn’t learn that the Father and Son were corporeal from the first vision.  That wasn’t revealed until later in the D&C.  The scriptures clearly state that there is only one way to tell if an entity is corporal or not - ask to shake their hand (because it is impossible to tell by sight alone).  

I'm excited at what might be shared as well.  It would be awesome if they even explicitly quote from the 1832 FV account.  I wonder if thats ever happened in a GC before?  I remember last time we covered the D&C in Sunday School 2-3 years ago when this lesson came up, our teacher refused to even talk about the other versions of the FV because he felt those were a distraction from the "true" version.  Hoping for some more openness in conference as that will help more than anything else with the average member.  

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To me it matters not one what whether Joseph’s experience could be characterized as a vision, a visitation or both. It’s genuine and divine in any case. 
 

I suppose some deniers fuss over the distinction because, somehow in their minds, it’s easier to falsify a vision than it is a visitation. 

And variances in the way the account has been rendered bother me even less than whether it was a vision or visitation. They differ, but they do not conflict. Much ado about nothing. 

Joseph was told later by Moroni that his name would be both good and evil spoken of. The calumny continues to this day. 

I think it matters.  The terms genuine and divine in this context are akin to me saying that this painting in my house is genuine and divine.  These are subjective personal expressions of feeling about something.  Your genuine and divine are no more true than members of any other religion expressing their feelings about their tradition.  Robert expressed this in the same way that I would when he said "The primary problem here, as usual, is the confusing of faith with reason.  Those are two very separate modes of thought.  It is a major category mistake in philosophy to confuse faith with reason." 

As for your comment about vision or visitation.  I wonder if any historians could tell us the first time we can find reference to the FV as a visitation in Mormon records?  I don't think Joseph ever made any comments to call it a visitation, in fact many of his accounts make it sound like he was in a trance of some kind and woke from that trance when it was over.  I wonder when this idea of visitation started exactly?  Just putting that out there in case anyone has some interesting points.  

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I suspect that we are going to be hearing a lot about it this weekend.  It will be interesting to hear how it is presented and framed by the leadership.  I suspect that the traditional narrative of it being a visitation will remain unchanged.  I, like you, would love to see the narrative change towards a vision.  That, to me, is what the evidence suggests.

I also agree that Joseph didn’t learn that the Father and Son were corporeal from the first vision.  That wasn’t revealed until later in the D&C.  The scriptures clearly state that there is only one way to tell if an entity is corporal or not - ask to shake their hand (because it is impossible to tell by sight alone).  

I’m wondering what the differences might be between a heavenly vision and a visitation from heavenly beings wherein the individual who beholds the heavenly visitants “sees” them with spiritual eyes, not with his natural eyes?

Edited April 3, 2020 by teddyaware

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I saw part of a video the other day, it had Steven Harper in it, now can't remember where, maybe a promotion spot on TV? And it mentioned the FV started out with Joseph Smith seeking forgiveness as well as not knowing which church to join and then him reading James 1:5. I remember as a child being taught all of that, minus the part of Joseph seeking forgiveness, maybe others remember different. But that is mine, a long with it being a visitation with both Jesus and God. 

I think his desire for seeking forgiveness was clearly outlined in his writings, and the issue was clearly weighting heavily on his mind, as he was very honest over things he was clearly uneasy about in his youth. Not all stories, or accounts are linear in the mind of any author, when writing and recounting one’s past. I know when I write they are not, often when I write, during the process, things occur in an unilinear process. Luckily, unlike Joseph, I have the benefit of a work processor, (and countless tools) where I can review, go back and delete and insert sentences, and correct my mistakes. Even then I still make copious mistakes. Joseph have a pen a paper, where he would have to ruin the document by drawing lines through entire sentences or paragraphs, or just start over. For those older like myself, who did not grow up with word processors (or what ever they call it today) , or spellcheck, we can, and do sympathize; greatly! 

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/history-revisited/2020-04-02/joseph-smith-first-vision-accounts-restoration-179037

I like to see more attention given to the whole First Vision narrative, so I was encouraged to see this article.  What are its strengths and weaknesses from your perspective?  

As a Gen X individual myself, I was raise on the First Vision as a foundational narrative for our church.  During my missionary experience and throughout most of my lifetime the correlated narrative about the FV has been spoken of in terms of a visitation and as a proof text for what we know about the ontological nature of God.  Yet I see some changes to this story happening now and that key people in the church are acknowledging certain important things.  

That memory isn't always accurate.  Steven Harper, the appointed expert in chief on this subject goes to great lengths to talk about the fallibility of memory from an accuracy perspective in his new book and in his podcasts.  Yet he still makes statements that seem to contradict this idea, statements like in this article where they paraphrase him as saying that the FV tells us that God and Christ are separate and embodied.  Both points, first that God the father isn't present in the 1832 account likely the most closely representative of Joseph's original memories.  Second that they are embodied is nowhere stated in any of the accounts if embodied means what dictionaries seem to think it means.  

Other thoughts about the newer direction on the FV narrative that we have emerging these days?  I personally think that it opens the door to thinking of the FV as a vision again, rather than a visitation.  Yet, I don't hear this concept coming from official church representatives.  However, I would like to see us go in that direction as I think it makes Joseph's experience more relatable, many of us have had visions, dreams, epiphanies of some sort or another, and some of those likely have been very profound and influential on our lives.  I think this makes Joseph more human, to think that he had a vision of some kind, not a tangible visitation, and that this vision was influential in his life. This brings Joseph back down to earth as a flawed and real human, rather than putting him up on some pedestal as next in line with deity. 

I think that bringing Joseph down to earth will be essential to a maturing faith community.  Because its really a challenge the more someone learns about Joseph to view him as anything but a flawed human.  He had strengths and weaknesses and rather than making excuses for his weaknesses or idolizing his strengths, it becomes important to examine these traits closely and to evaluate what things are worth emulating and what things should be discarded and condemned.  That is my approach.  Any other thoughts?  

You’ve got me wondering if at the final judgement there will some who will see God and Christ face to face but will later explain it all away by convincing themselves what they experienced was a vision (i.e. a figment of their collective imaginations) and not an actual visitation by real living beings?

Edited April 3, 2020 by teddyaware

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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

I'm using the term ontological because I think it appropriately describes they way that correlated materials use the FV as proof text for describing the nature of God.  On visitation, I can find a number of hits with this term on the church web site.  But even more recently to this on a recent level, the JSP podcast editors called it a visitation in multiple interviews recently, see link for one of these below.  I believe RadioWest or Mormonland was the other one I'm thinking about, and I'm pretty sure Steven Harper even commented on this recently as well.  They go as far as to say that other people who had visions during Joseph's time period (as there are quite a few other people who had similar experiences), their experiences were "visions" while Joseph's was more like a visitation, even though they have no historical evidence to support that assertion that I've been able to see.  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/the-first-vision-podcast-episode-5-transcript

You are speaking here of the Mormon intellectual elite.  They regularly use terminology which is foreign and turgid to ordinary people.  Most of that Mormon elite is unfamiliar with advanced biblical studies showing that the God of the Bible is fully anthropomorphic, and that Joseph's explicit experience with two entities in the FV would not at all grate on what any ancient Near Eastern expert already knows.  When Yahweh and two angels come to Abraham at Mamre and have lunch with him (Gen 18), is that a vision or visitation?  Does it matter?  If you take the traditional, mainstream Protestant approach, how do you explain Jesus rising from the dead, then coming back to have lunch with his apostles (Lk 24:42-43)?  What took place on the Mount of Transfiguration?  You seem to be suggesting the "mature" view that it is all fantasy or a fairy story, and certainly Bart Erhman will agree with you on that.

Most Mormon historians know nothing of biblical studies, and don't realize that anthropomorphism is normative among non-Mormon biblical scholars.  They have no idea that creation from nothing is rejected in mainstream biblical scholarship (Gen 1 seen as similar to Assyro-Babylonian Enuma elish in positing already extant material being organized).  Unlike mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition, Mormon theology is soundly based on what the Bible actually says.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I very much agree with you here.  Recent studies like those done after the 9/11 event show just how poorly humans are at accurately reconstructing memory.  One point that Steven Harper likes to drive home and I agree with him on this point, is that each time we're remembering something we're actively reconstructing memories in the context of our current mindset.  We aren't accessing a data file that's stored in our head like a computer, human brains aren't computers.  But the perplexing thing about Steven making statements like this, and he clearly has done research on memory studies and understands some of the basic components of memory recall, is that he'll then make a really perplexing statement that he believes the FV is the most well documented and historically accurate theophany in history.  Or something along those lines.  Its just extremely perplexing to me how he can make those kinds of statements in the same conversation as his other talk about human memory. 

There is nothing at all new in this, and the FBI has been teaching the poor quality of memory for several generations.  That is why they emphasize forensic and documentary evidence.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Perhaps you're attending a different church than the one in which I've been raised.  Hero worship of Joseph is a staple in my church experience.  Praise to the man, John Taylor's canonized adulation in D&C 135, more for salvation than any other save Jesus.  I honestly have no idea how you can make those statements with a straight face. 

"Hero worship"?  We rarely sing "Praise to the Man," and the song is no more an act of divinization than the Jewish song about Elijah (Eliyahu haNavi).  In both cases, they are merely prophets.  No more.  D&C 135 just doesn't get read or cited that often.  You are cherry-picking mere odds and ends.  I challenge you to make a note of how often Joseph is lionized in ordinary Mormon church services -- especially during Fast & Testimony Mtg.  I am now 78, and I have been around the block a few times.  I just haven't seen this imaginary church you depict.  Well, at least you didn't claim that there is a Smithmas. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

You’ve got me wondering if at the final judgement there will some who will see God and Christ face to face but will later explain it all away by convincing themselves what they experienced was a vision (i.e. a figment of their collective imaginations) and not an actual visitation by real living beings?

Its an interesting question, what would a face to face experience with God be like.  I think within the tradition, we have a lot of mystical type language around not being able to view God through natural eyes.  So what are unnatural eyes, perhaps our mind's eye?  And what is the difference.  Also, if I'm having a face to face experience of God, would anyone else in the vicinity be able to view us having a face to face experience, or is this just a personal experience for solely with myself and God.  These are all unanswerable questions of course, but its interesting to think about.  You seem to suggest that you think a God face to face experience is something more tangible and concrete, and thats fine if you do, but I can point you to many scriptures that describe the God experience in different terms.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are speaking here of the Mormon intellectual elite.  They regularly use terminology which is foreign and turgid to ordinary people.  Most of that Mormon elite is unfamiliar with advanced biblical studies showing that the God of the Bible is fully anthropomorphic, and that Joseph's explicit experience with two entities in the FV would not at all grate on what any ancient Near Eastern expert already knows.  When Yahweh and two angels come to Abraham at Mamre and have lunch with him (Gen 18), is that a vision or visitation?  Does it matter?  If you take the traditional, mainstream Protestant approach, how do you explain Jesus rising from the dead, then coming back to have lunch with his apostles (Lk 24:42-43)?  What took place on the Mount of Transfiguration?  You seem to be suggesting the "mature" view that it is all fantasy or a fairy story, and certainly Bart Erhman will agree with you on that.

Most Mormon historians know nothing of biblical studies, and don't realize that anthropomorphism is normative among non-Mormon biblical scholars.  They have no idea that creation from nothing is rejected in mainstream biblical scholarship (Gen 1 seen as similar to Assyro-Babylonian Enuma elish in positing already extant material being organized).  Unlike mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition, Mormon theology is soundly based on what the Bible actually says.

Undergrad college courses introduce students to basic terms line ontology, so I don't think thats in the realm of intellectual elite by any stretch.  

I do agree that some historians are not as familiar with biblical scholarship, however, I would challenge you on your statement that anthropomorphism is normative among non-Mormon biblical scholars.  I'm no biblical scholar myself, but from what I have read I haven't seen this as normative by any stretch.  From my observation, you certainly can find evidence for some ancient views which could support a more anthropomorphic conception of God, and some of these strains of thought might even approach the ultra anthropomorphic God that Mormonism conceives of, but these views were by no means dominant in the ancient world.  And as with all religious traditions you'll find a variety of perspectives that develop and change relative to time and environmental factors.  

Your asserting that Mormon theology is somehow soundly based on biblical exegesis is one of those faith claims that you mentioned in an earlier post that can't be supported by reason and is a category error.  For one thing, the Bible doesn't represent one theology, but a variety of theologies put forward by multiple authors from hundreds of years of religious tradition.  Often contradictory theologies of course.  You confuse me sometimes Robert as I find that I agree with some of your salient points, but then you make a very simplistic point like this that throws me for a loop.  

Lastly, what do you say to my evidence about the term visitation being used frequently of late and throughout Mormon history.  You claimed you'd never seen it before.  Was that statement an honest reflection on your part or just hyperbole?  

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"Hero worship"?  We rarely sing "Praise to the Man," and the song is no more an act of divinization than the Jewish song about Elijah (Eliyahu haNavi).  In both cases, they are merely prophets.  No more.  D&C 135 just doesn't get read or cited that often.  You are cherry-picking mere odds and ends.  I challenge you to make a note of how often Joseph is lionized in ordinary Mormon church services -- especially during Fast & Testimony Mtg.  I am now 78, and I have been around the block a few times.  I just haven't seen this imaginary church you depict.  Well, at least you didn't claim that there is a Smithmas. 

GC is this weekend, just look for all the Joseph Smith references.  While I'm not going to be listening live to the whole thing, I'm guess we could do a word search after the text of talks are posted online and the number of references to "The Man" will be bounteous.  Also, we sing that song all the time here in Utah at church, and I would even be willing to place a wager that it will be sung as one of the hymns this weekend GC.  Your Mormonism sounds very different than the one I've experienced.  

[teddyaware]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its an interesting question, what would a face to face experience with God be like.  I think within the tradition, we have a lot of mystical type language around not being able to view God through natural eyes.  So what are unnatural eyes, perhaps our mind's eye?  And what is the difference.  Also, if I'm having a face to face experience of God, would anyone else in the vicinity be able to view us having a face to face experience, or is this just a personal experience for solely with myself and God.  These are all unanswerable questions of course, but its interesting to think about.  You seem to suggest that you think a God face to face experience is something more tangible and concrete, and thats fine if you do, but I can point you to many scriptures that describe the God experience in different terms.  

If the Book of Mormon is true, then the appearance and ministry of the resurrected Christ among the Nephites settles the question once and for all. After all, he did eat with them and even allow thousands of conscious individuals the privilege of seeing AND TOUCHING the wounds inflicted on his material body prior to the resurrection. He even cradled their little children in his arms..

A question: if you were to honestly disclose your own personal preference as to what you hope the nature of the First Vision actually turns out to be, either a mystifying dreamlike so-called  ‘vision’ of uncertain reality and authenticity, or a very real face to face visitation of the physically embodied God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ to a conscious and fully aware Joseph Smith, which one of these two possibilities would you prefer be the truth and why?

Edited April 3, 2020 by teddyaware

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

If the Book of Mormon is true, then the appearance and ministry of the resurrected Christ among the Nephites settles the question once and for all. After all, he did eat with them and even allow thousands of conscious individuals the privilege of seeing AND TOUCHING the wounds inflicted on his material body prior to the resurrection. He even cradled their little children in his arms..

A question: if you were to honestly disclose your own personal preference as to what you hope the nature of the First Vision actually turns out to be, either a mystifying dreamlike so-called  ‘vision’ of uncertain reality and authenticity, or a very real face to face visitation of the physically embodied God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ to a conscious and fully aware Joseph Smith, which one of these two possibilities would you prefer be the truth and why?

If the BoM is literal history, perhaps yes.  But perhaps one could say that the resurrected Jesus, wasn't fully divine at that point either.  There are many possible different interpretations, and like I mentioned earlier quite a few scriptures that talk about not being able to view God with our natural eyes, even in the BoM (Brother of Jared comes to mind).  There is often a different way of looking at these things that doesn't make for a simple answer.  

I can answer your question about what I think the nature of the FV was.  From my perspective it was an experience that Joseph had.  A personal experience that was subjective, meaning only he could experience it and it was uniquely experienced by him.  It was something his brain processed, just like all our brains process experiences.  But it wasn't something that a modern recording device like a video camera would have captured.  Was Joseph conscious or not?  There is no way to tell, but I don't think it matters.  Many people have visions while conscious, and there isn't a clear way of measuring whether someone is sleeping or in a conscious state of mind at all times anyhow, as there is a spectrum and many different neurological factors that come to play. 

I don't think Joseph constructed the experience entirely from whole cloth, I think he did experience something and I think it had an effect on him.  Clearly I believe he borrowed on the language of others during his time to explain his Methodist like Christian experience (Bushman agrees with this).  I think he had many experiences throughout his life, he claims to have communed with angels on numerous occasions.  All of his experiences were subjective, yet its interesting that he had some experiences that others present claimed to have jointly experienced.  Like "The Vision" with Sidney Rigdon (a jointly envisioned experience), I believe these were experiences that he had using his mind's eye, so something that an outside observer wouldn't be able to experience or record in any objective sense.  However, clearly the experiences were formative.  

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your term “mysticism” gives me heartburn. Perhaps I’m misapprehending your intended connotation, but I would resist any way of framing the narrative that would detract from its verity, even by implication. Joseph’s words echo in my mind: “He did in reality speak to me.”

I don’t think using the term mysticism detracts from the reality that God spoke with Joseph.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don’t think using the term mysticism detracts from the reality that God spoke with Joseph.

Are there that many religions that embrace mysticism, that adding it to our narrative would be a benefit? 

With the word’s connections to the occult, I’m not sure it would really help many people feel more comfortable with our claims. 

Edited April 4, 2020 by bluebell

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Undergrad college courses introduce students to basic terms line ontology, so I don't think thats in the realm of intellectual elite by any stretch. 

No they don't.  Very few college students can define ontology, and cannot carry on a meaningful conversation about it.  Those few who actually study philosophy or theology would likely hear of it, but those are not the most common courses taken at college.  The focus of the Mormon intellectual elite is usually history, which means that most of them only learn more complex terms through broader reading habits.  Not from course work.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 I do agree that some historians are not as familiar with biblical scholarship, however, I would challenge you on your statement that anthropomorphism is normative among non-Mormon biblical scholars.  I'm no biblical scholar myself, but from what I have read I haven't seen this as normative by any stretch.  From my observation, you certainly can find evidence for some ancient views which could support a more anthropomorphic conception of God, and some of these strains of thought might even approach the ultra anthropomorphic God that Mormonism conceives of, but these views were by no means dominant in the ancient world.  And as with all religious traditions you'll find a variety of perspectives that develop and change relative to time and environmental factors.

When non-Mormon scholar Ernst Benz tells us that Joseph Smith's anthropomorphic view has more in common with primitive Christianity than that of normative Christianity, he is merely stating a fact which he and other scholars have long accepted.  Indeed, Benz is explicit in rightly claiming that Smith's view is heresy from the viewpoint of that normative Christianity.  As for "ultra anthropomorphic," I can't imagine what you mean.  That is not a term used by scholars at all.  In any case, you clearly do not understand the typically anthropomorphic nature of gods in the ancient world.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 Your asserting that Mormon theology is somehow soundly based on biblical exegesis is one of those faith claims that you mentioned in an earlier post that can't be supported by reason and is a category error.

Mormon theology is not derived from exegesis, and hardly any Mormons ever do exegesis.  Another term which Mormons do not use.  Mormon theology is inductively derived from Scripture and from the teachings of Joseph Smith.  It is not an exegetical product.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

For one thing, the Bible doesn't represent one theology, but a variety of theologies put forward by multiple authors from hundreds of years of religious tradition.  Often contradictory theologies of course.  You confuse me sometimes Robert as I find that I agree with some of your salient points, but then you make a very simplistic point like this that throws me for a loop.

You sound here like you are quoting me from my own 2012 SMPT paper on Book of Mormon theologies: https://www.scribd.com/doc/251781864/BOOK-OF-MORMON-THEOLOGIES-A-THUMBNAIL-SKETCH

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Lastly, what do you say to my evidence about the term visitation being used frequently of late and throughout Mormon history.  You claimed you'd never seen it before.  Was that statement an honest reflection on your part or just hyperbole?

Sorry, buddy, I just can't recall use of the word "visitation" in a Mormon context, unless you are referring to ministering.  Maybe you've been hearing it in podcasts which I haven't heard.  Perhaps it is very popular now among the hoi polloi.  Is that a fad begun by the estimable Steven Harper?

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

GC is this weekend, just look for all the Joseph Smith references.  While I'm not going to be listening live to the whole thing, I'm guess we could do a word search after the text of talks are posted online and the number of references to "The Man" will be bounteous.  Also, we sing that song all the time here in Utah at church, and I would even be willing to place a wager that it will be sung as one of the hymns this weekend GC.  Your Mormonism sounds very different than the one I've experienced.  

You seem just a bit confused.  This weekend is all about the First Vision of Joseph Smith.  In fact it is the bicentennial of that event.  Everyone has been preparing to celebrate that event.  And now you are declaring that this is going to be a typical Mormon weekend event?  I thought you were claiming that this was a typical schema for regular Mormon meetings, and had been for many years.  I claim that is false.  I personally have spoken at many Sacrament meetings, and never about Joseph Smith, and I can't recall others doing so.  I am sure someone has, but I can't recall it just now.  However, it is dirty pool to suggest that this Conference is going to represent a typical Mormon meeting. 

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Are there that many religions that embrace mysticism, that adding it to our narrative would be a benefit? 

With the word’s connections to the occult, I’m not sure it would really help many people feel more comfortable with our claims. 

I’m not saying that we have to use the word “mysticism”, but many would identify it as such.  While Protestants may not love the idea of mysticism, I think they are more open to divine communion and experience with the divine than they are open to the idea of a mortal man seeing God with physical eyes.  

There are however mystic traditions in every major branch religion including Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam with a form of it identifiable in Buddhism (not associated with a God however).

“Broadly defined, mysticism can be found in all religious traditions, from indigenous religions and folk religionslike shamanism, to organised religions like the Abrahamic faiths and Indian religions, and modern spirituality, New Age and New Religious Movements.”

Many Protestants May not be into it, “however, Quakers, Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Local Churches, Pentecostals and Charismatics have in various ways remained open to the idea of mystical experiences.”

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by pogi

[InCognitus]

On 4/3/2020 at 8:07 AM, hope_for_things said:

That memory isn't always accurate.  Steven Harper, the appointed expert in chief on this subject goes to great lengths to talk about the fallibility of memory from an accuracy perspective in his new book and in his podcasts.  Yet he still makes statements that seem to contradict this idea, statements like in this article where they paraphrase him as saying that the FV tells us that God and Christ are separate and embodied.  Both points, first that God the father isn't present in the 1832 account likely the most closely representative of Joseph's original memories.  Second that they are embodied is nowhere stated in any of the accounts if embodied means what dictionaries seem to think it means.  

While it's true that memory isn't always accurate, fallible memory may have very little to do with the differences in the first vision accounts.  I'm not sure why you are so focused on the memory issue when there are other more compelling real-life factors that explain the differences in the accounts, such as other events going on in Joseph's life at the time when a particular account was written or the intended audience.  But you seeing only the memory issue and Steven Harper seeing the evidence of the other factors may explain why you can't reconcile what he says with what you are thinking.  Surely you've had experiences in your life that you told to others where you gave less details at one point in time or more details in another.  Even on this message board there are different things that you have told us about yourself.  In one post you may say one thing, and in a separate post you may say something else.  And as time goes on you may feel more comfortable with your audience, or even more confident in yourself, and reveal more details.  Your experiences really don't change, but how you view them at different times in your life may change, or you may feel the need to explain something in more detail because of a relevant circumstance.  Should we attribute the differences to fallible memory?

As an example of this, I briefly discussed a significant spiritual experience I had back in 1992, over in the Date of First Vision thread.  I explained that I couldn't remember the exact date of that event.  But I remember very vivid details of what transpired in that experience.  And in the occasions when I've recounted that experience to others I have never given all the details in any single account.  I didn't even record all the details when I wrote down the experience, but I still remember them.  And what details I choose to share when I'm telling others of that experience depends on the reason I am relating the story, and how it is relevant to the situation at the time and what is meaningful to my life at that time.  For example, there was a non-member guy that helped repair my vehicle on the day when I had that experience.  Most of the time I don't say anything about him as a non-member or not.  He's just a guy.  But when I related the story to a friend, to testify and explain why I know that God may work in the lives of people not of my own faith, I included more details about why the guy offered to fix my vehicle and more details about the guy's life that I learned while he was fixing my vehicle, because those details help explain why I have that testimony of how God works.  And in most of the times when I recounted the story I leave out the fact that I went through the St. George temple the night previous to this experience, even though the temple visit influenced some of the choices I made that are relevant to my experience the next day.  But when I was with family members and we were having a discussion about the temple and it prompted me to relate my experience to them, I was more comfortable including those temple details.  And none of the differences in details between the accounts I have given of that experience have to do with fallible memory, except for not remembering the exact date of the event.  I didn't write the date down, and I am not good with dates.  But the lack of a date, or the differences in details that I have recounted to others, doesn't change the reality of my experience, nor does it mean I'm changing my story or making it up as I go. It's just how telling real life experiences work.

I see the same kind of thing going on with the different accounts of Paul's vision given in the book of Acts.  Luke's report in Acts 9:1-31 is given in the third person, and it includes different details than Paul's first person defense and testimony before the people of Jerusalem spoken "in the Hebrew tongue", as recorded in Acts 22:3-21 after he was removed from the temple.  And his first person defense and testimony before King Agrippa at Caesarea in Acts 26:9-12 includes different details too.  I believe they are different, not because they have poor memory and can't keep their story straight, but because they are for different audiences at different times, for different purposes.  And I think that's exactly what's going on with the first vision accounts.

Edited April 4, 2020 by InCognitus

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To me it matters not one whit whether Joseph’s experience could be characterized as a vision, a visitation or both. It’s genuine and divine in any case. 
 

I suppose some deniers fuss over the distinction because, somehow in their minds, it’s easier to falsify a vision than it is a visitation. 

And variances in the way the account has been rendered bother me even less than whether it was a vision or visitation. They differ, but they do not conflict. Much ado about nothing. 

Joseph was told later by Moroni that his name would be both good and evil spoken of. The calumny continues to this day. 

This is getting frightening.

I am agreeing with you more by the day. Scary. 🤔

"Ontologically" the difference between a vision and visitation relies on a very dogmatic and simple view of what is real and what is not.

It almost never makes a difference in anything and certainly not here.

This thread better watch out or I'll play the Rorty video again. 🤪