The First Vision - Church News Story

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/3/2020 at 4:12 PM, 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?  ..........................

Well, I did hear the term "visitation" used this Conference, by the woman (not a native English speaker) who delivered the concluding prayer in the final session.  So, you are right, it is out there, but just how frequent I am not sure.  That woman's English language usage likely is based on her native Spanish "visitacion," which (among other things) "refers to the visit paid by the pregnant Mary to her cousin Elizabeth ..., as recorded in the New Testament."  http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Visitacion

[hope_for_things]

On 4/4/2020 at 12:46 AM, InCognitus said:

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.

Yes, I can understand that of course as a possible explanation.  Is it possible when someone shares a story, that they left out information that they knew about for some reason or another.  Or is it possible that the person temporarily forgot an important piece of information and then later shares it when they remember correctly.  Yes, all of those are possible explanations.  

What I take issue with is when I've listened to Steven Harper explain in some detail, the scientific studies about memory and some of the basic ideas that he shares which demonstrates a greater understanding than just intuitive observations like you're explaining here.  He spent some time in a recent podcast to elucidate on this observation from scientific studies which in summary is that whenever you recall a memory, you are actively reconstructing the memory in real time, not accessing the original event in your mind.  And when you recall this same memory at a later date, you again aren't accessing the original event anymore, you are partially accessing the previous time you reconstructed the memory, in addition to actively reconstructing the new memory in light of the current situation.  

These are the kinds of observations that don't help me understand how he can turn around an make a simplistic statement about historical accuracy.  He was even asked in this one podcast if every version of the first vision is true from an accuracy perspective, and he essentially said yes.  Which is the kind of relativistic thinking that makes many literalist types cringe, because it essentially is talking about subjective personal truth, not historical evidence kind of truth. This basically means that anyone's visions, no matter how bizarre, using this standard are equally "true" as Joseph Smith's visions.  Which to some extent, I actually agree with him on this point, if we're talking about subjective personal truth.  But this point he makes is in tension with his other points about historically accurate visions.  He's a historian by educational background.  So how he gets these two things all mixed up is a conundrum to me.  

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But this point he makes is in tension with his other points about historically accurate visions.  He's a historian by educational background.  So how he gets these two things all mixed up is a conundrum to me.  

It's not confusion, it's what we have been discussing for years. It is not "two things "at all it is "one thing."

The kind of historic reality you are trying to discuss simply doesn't exist.

Yes something did happen.

But what it was is so bogged down behind images and different recollections, even within one brain, that it is impossible to know what it was "really".  Throw and hearsay and multiple recollections in multiple brains and all you have is mush when you relate it to "things as they are."  It becomes immediately things as they were NOT.

Reality AS WE KNOW IT is assembled by human brains and is more about how we assemble what we call "reality" than it is about anything else.

How else can HUMANS know anything except the way HUMANS know things?

We cannot know reality as it is we can only know reality as HUMANS understand reality.

This is so blatantly obvious to me it's just incredible that it is so hard for some to understand. They call Rorty "the Lucid philosopher" for a reason, yet apparently for some he is anything but lucid.

Many have said all of this before but none as clearly I think as rorty has done in my quote below.

Edited April 7, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 4/3/2020 at 11:46 PM, InCognitus said:

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.

Great post!

I have noticed on this board that some "get" this instantly and others who simply hang on to the dualism between what is known, and how we know it.

I can't explain it but I am sure that's the way it works. It doesn't seem to be about intelligence but it seems to be about an entire different brain category.

Opposition in all things.

Whatever it is we seem to think the same way. 

Edited April 7, 2020 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

On 4/7/2020 at 2:20 AM, mfbukowski said:

It's not confusion, it's what we have been discussing for years. It is not "two things "at all it is "one thing."

The kind of historic reality you are trying to discuss simply doesn't exist.

Yes something did happen.

But what it was is so bogged down behind images and different recollections, even within one brain, that it is impossible to know what it was "really".  Throw and hearsay and multiple recollections in multiple brains and all you have is mush when you relate it to "things as they are."  It becomes immediately things as they were NOT.

Reality AS WE KNOW IT is assembled by human brains and is more about how we assemble what we call "reality" than it is about anything else.

How else can HUMANS know anything except the way HUMANS know things?

We cannot know reality as it is we can only know reality as HUMANS understand reality.

This is so blatantly obvious to me it's just incredible that it is so hard for some to understand. They call Rorty "the Lucid philosopher" for a reason, yet apparently for some he is anything but lucid.

Many have said all of this before but none as clearly I think as rorty has done in my quote below.

Aren't you taking an absolutist view here though?  Tell me about historical accuracy for a second.  Are all claims of accuracy equally accurate?  Is the weight of the evidence about the story that George Washington told his father that he chopped down an apple tree (likely mythic tale) the same as the evidence that Washington became the first president of the USA?  Using your argument here, it seems that both claims are equally valid from a historical accuracy perspective, are they not?  

As humans we have to make judgments using some kind of criteria.  How do we judge the veracity of the claimed revelation to Ron Lafferty to kill his sister-in-law and her child?  For that matter how do we judge the veracity of Joseph's claim that God commanded him via an angel with a sword to marry over 30 women?  Which of all these claims are reality?  How would you judge them?  

For me, I try to look at claims of visions, dreams, intuition, revelation as a type of subjective claim that doesn't necessarily have any objective evidence to support it.  I see those as a category of claims that are difficult to evaluate using the tools of scholarship.  Although I believe we can use some tools like consistency of message and other influencing factors in the environment that could have contributed to these subjective claims.  

The scholarship of historical evaluation doesn't strike me as one of the hard sciences, it seems to be more about telling a story of how we think the past was constructed, so its not as clear cut as math or physics.  But when it comes to religious history, and in this case Mormon history, we're trying to evaluate not only what happened in the past and how the people in the past interpreted it, but we're trying to understand how these narratives have evolved throughout the development of the faith, which is interesting in and of itself.  Can anyone ever get inside Joseph's head to "know" what he experienced?  Of course not.  

Steven Harper, I believe would agree with all those points, but then why does he make other statements that contradict this kind of an understanding.  Simplistic comments about historical accuracy. This is my problem.  I don't see these things as all equally subjective.  I see a spectrum of confidence we can place on various different claims using the tools of scholarship and our judgment of the evidence.  

Do not use criminals: Godwin's Law.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/7/2020 at 7:08 AM, hope_for_things said:

Aren't you taking an absolutist view here though?  Tell me about historical accuracy for a second.  Are all claims of accuracy equally accurate?  Is the weight of the evidence about the story that George Washington told his father that he chopped down an apple tree (likely mythic tale) the same as the evidence that Washington became the first president of the USA?  Using your argument here, it seems that both claims are equally valid from a historical accuracy perspective, are they not?  

As humans we have to make judgments using some kind of criteria.  How do we judge the veracity of the claimed revelation to Ron Lafferty to kill his sister-in-law and her child?  For that matter how do we judge the veracity of Joseph's claim that God commanded him via an angel with a sword to marry over 30 women?  Which of all these claims are reality?  How would you judge them?  

For me, I try to look at claims of visions, dreams, intuition, revelation as a type of subjective claim that doesn't necessarily have any objective evidence to support it.  I see those as a category of claims that are difficult to evaluate using the tools of scholarship.  Although I believe we can use some tools like consistency of message and other influencing factors in the environment that could have contributed to these subjective claims.  

The scholarship of historical evaluation doesn't strike me as one of the hard sciences, it seems to be more about telling a story of how we think the past was constructed, so its not as clear cut as math or physics.  But when it comes to religious history, and in this case Mormon history, we're trying to evaluate not only what happened in the past and how the people in the past interpreted it, but we're trying to understand how these narratives have evolved throughout the development of the faith, which is interesting in and of itself.  Can anyone ever get inside Joseph's head to "know" what he experienced?  Of course not.  

Steven Harper, I believe would agree with all those points, but then why does he make other statements that contradict this kind of an understanding.  Simplistic comments about historical accuracy. This is my problem.  I don't see these things as all equally subjective.  I see a spectrum of confidence we can place on various different claims using the tools of scholarship and our judgment of the evidence.  

OK I am going to make this short and sweet, because we have been over it all a few times before.  For those who don't know me, I follow after the school of "Pragmatism" and "Neo-Pragmatism" as exemplified by the line from William James through Dewey and then to - arguably- the later Wittgenstein, though he modified and clarified the position, and then the most "lucid" statement of the position, found in Richard Rorty.   

So I will answer every question quickly and directly as I think these 4 luminaries, with all their followers, would answer your questions.  I will repeat the line I am quoting and not using quote boxes because they will lengthen the process.

You:

Aren't you taking an absolutist view here though? 

Me:

Not sure what you mean by "absolutist", though I suspect you are using it as opposed to "relativistic"- I am speculating that you are saying that if one says that "the truth is always relative", that is "absolutist" and therefore self-contradictory to relativism.  Yet of course in the past, I have said that actual relativists would tell you that even relativism is only relatively true.  It is a question of semantics as usual.  Some statements can be both true and false at the same time,  So it depends on how you define words, as always

YOU:

Tell me about historical accuracy for a second.  Are all claims of accuracy equally accurate?  Is the weight of the evidence about the story that George Washington told his father that he chopped down an apple tree (likely mythic tale) the same as the evidence that Washington became the first president of the USA?  Using your argument here, it seems that both claims are equally valid from a historical accuracy perspective, are they not? 

ME:

Both can be justified beliefs depending on context and the intention of the speaker.  What we call "objective truth" is the kind of justified belief in which multiple reports show similar personal observations from people believed to give reliable reports, in fact give similar reports of their individual experiences.  Though these may actually be "hearsay" we trust the people making the report, which makes the reports justified. But that is "all" it means! Perhaps from a different angle, their observations might have been different.  Think of a magic show.  All can testify that the magician "cut the lady in half" and yet we know it did not "really happen" that way.  And then there is the story of Washington and the apple tree.  The PURPOSE of that tale was to demonstrate that George Washington "could not tell a lie".- which might have actually been justified and therefore"true" even if the story itself was spurious.   So in one sense the story of the apple tree may be told in such a way as to be synonymous with the statement "The belief that 'George Washington did not lie is justified" which itself might be justified by the historical testimony of others.  We would also have to look to the purpose for both statements- presumably being that George did not lie, therefore other statements he made, are justified.   So both stories may be justified beliefs, within their contexts,

You:

As humans we have to make judgments using some kind of criteria.  How do we judge the veracity of the claimed revelation to Ron Lafferty to kill his sister-in-law and her child?  For that matter how do we judge the veracity of Joseph's claim that God commanded him via an angel with a sword to marry over 30 women?  Which of all these claims are reality?  How would you judge them?  

Me:

It is not as complicated as you make it out to be.  Remember, the best definition we have of "truth" is a "justifiable belief"  I have no clue who Ron Lafferty,  is, probably a local figure, but courts of law are actually the FINDERS of facts- the jury actually pronounce the "facts" that they find to be the case, as I said above, through multiple statements by reliable witnesses.  In our culture that defines "truth".  So courts would define whether or not the statement "Lafferty killed people" as a belief is "justifiable"

The only way of justifying the visions of others is some other evidence for the person pronouncing belief in the vision to be justified is that individual also having a similar vision or personal evidence of some kind that such an event "actually happened".  Actually it is not unlike what we call "objective justification" in that  what justifies the "objective" is created by other people replicating the experience of the original discoverer. Galileo observed the rings of Saturn the first time as a private experience.  Later others had the "same experience" and accepted the paradigm that these were "rings" around the planet.  Today it is possible for virtually everyone to have a telescope which will enable one to replicate Galileo's original private observation.

Similarly, others can have their own experience showing them personally that Joseph indeed had the vision he did, not by (necessarily) having the "same vision" but by the individual having a "justifying experience" showing to their individual judgement, that this experience justifies belief in Joseph's vision as "true".   Such "justifying experiences" can also occur in moral judgments where we agree that horrendous crimes, etc are reprehensible, simply agreeing on what that word "reprehensible".  

So in a way, both objectively justifiable and privately justified beliefs are similar in that one accepts evidence within one's own mind that the evidence justifies the belief, though they using different types of evidence depending on the context.

You:

For me, I try to look at claims of visions, dreams, intuition, revelation as a type of subjective claim that doesn't necessarily have any objective evidence to support it.  I see those as a category of claims that are difficult to evaluate using the tools of scholarship.  Although I believe we can use some tools like consistency of message and other influencing factors in the environment that could have contributed to these subjective claims.  

Me:

There is no difficulty at all if the "scholar" understands that different types of evidence are called for in different contexts of ways of justifying beliefs.  Certainly James, Dewey, Wittgenstein and Rorty - AND their students and many many others- fully understood this.  Those who have not studied these matters may indeed find them "difficult to evaluate" because their personal understanding of justification of beliefs is, in my opinion, lacking, and still tied to logical positivism which is dead as a philosophy and so pronounced by even some of the founders of the movement- including Wittgenstein.  That is the basis of the difference between "early W." and "late W"- Wittgenstein can be seen as one of the pioneers both in positivism and views which destroyed positivism.   It's quite an interesting story.

You:

The scholarship of historical evaluation doesn't strike me as one of the hard sciences, it seems to be more about telling a story of how we think the past was constructed, so its not as clear cut as math or physics.  But when it comes to religious history, and in this case Mormon history, we're trying to evaluate not only what happened in the past and how the people in the past interpreted it, but we're trying to understand how these narratives have evolved throughout the development of the faith, which is interesting in and of itself.  Can anyone ever get inside Joseph's head to "know" what he experienced?  Of course not.  

Steven Harper, I believe would agree with all those points, but then why does he make other statements that contradict this kind of an understanding.  Simplistic comments about historical accuracy. This is my problem.  I don't see these things as all equally subjective.  I see a spectrum of confidence we can place on various different claims using the tools of scholarship and our judgment of the evidence.  

Me:

Well I don't know Steven Harper's work or why I should be interested in it, but certainly history is not a "hard science" if that word can even be used to describe it.  I would like to see an example of a scientific experiment justifying some belief in history, without use of a time machine.  All beliefs rely on a "spectrum of confidence" and I would certainly agree with that.

But "what actually happen(s)" remains elusive when all we have are our own perceptions and those of other humans like ourselves and the stories we come up with (paradigms) to explain "what really happens"

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

have no clue who Ron Lafferty

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_v._Lafferty

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't know Steven Harper's work or why I should be interested in it

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_C._Harper

Was a historian for Church History Dept, worked on the JSPP and Saints, currently at BYU.  Specializes in early church history.  Wrote a number of publications on the First Vision.

https://religion.byu.edu/steven_harper

Quote

 

This is the biography of a contested memory, how it was born, grew, changed the world, and was changed by it. It's the story of the story of how the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints began. Joseph Smith, the church's founder, remembered that his first audible prayer, uttered inspring of 1820 when he was about fourteen, was answered with a vision of heavenly beings. Appearing to the boy in the woods near his parents' home in western New York State, they told Smith that he was forgiven and warned him that Christianity had gone astray. Smith created a rich and controversial historical record by narrating and documenting this event repeatedly. In First Vision, Steven Harper shows how Latter-day Saints (beginning with Joseph Smith) and others have remembered this experience and rendered it meaningful. When and why and how did JosephSmith's first vision, as saints know the event, become their seminal story? What challenges did it face along the way? What changes did it undergo as a result? Can it possibly hold its privileged position against the tides of doubt and disbelief, memory studies, and source criticism - all in theinformation age? Steven Harper tells the story of how Latter-day Saints forgot and then remembered accounts of Smith's experience and how Smith's 1838 account was redacted and canonized. He explores the dissonance many saints experienced after discovering multiple accounts of Smith's experience. Hedescribes how, for many, the dissonance has been resolved by a reshaped collective memory.

https://books.google.com/books/about/First_Vision.html?id=SieeDwAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description

Edited April 9, 2020 by Calm

[Navidad]

On 4/3/2020 at 2:46 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I like your focus on Mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition and/or scholarship. What I have noticed is that the differences between Mainstream and Evangelical scholarship are lessening, especially from when I was in graduate school. This is why I get a bit worked up when my LDS friends confuse Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, the third wave of Protestant hermeneutics. We now also have a more full-blown Pentecostal approach which has matured greatly in the last thirty years. It is now a fourth wave and outpacing the others in growth. It seems my LDS friends, even at MHA don't make adequate distinctions between Mainstream, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and yes, Pentecostal approaches to both LDS and Biblical studies. There really is, no kidding a difference with the Mainstream-Evangelical distinction lessening and the Pentecostal growing/maturing and the Fundamentalists standing firm. Pentecostal theology is much more daring and unapologetic. I like what I read in their work. Take care.

[mrmarklin]

Yawn.  Lots of cyberspace on this topic, and not just this thread.

 

There is a canonized version of the vision in the Pearl of Great Price.  This is the official version, written and approved during Joseph Smith's lifetime.  OK, so some people wrote other versions down.  So what?

I'm not getting the controversy, if any.  Look at this stuff like a deposition taken for a court.  The deposer gets to edit and correct any misstatements made and misunderstandings.  That is your 1838 version as canonized.  All else is irrelevant.

 

Yawn...……………………...

[Navidad]

What do my LDS friends do with visitations like that of Juan Diego and the Virgin of Guadalupe? There is more evidence of that event being true than of the First Vision is one regards the tilma as evidence. It is the cornerstone of faith for many rural Catholics in Mexico. It is also a principal stumbling block to conversions if the missionary insists the candidate abandon belief in and loyalty to the Virgin of Guadalupe. What say my LDS friends about Juan's vision/visitation?

[let’s roll]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

What do my LDS friends do with visitations like that of Juan Diego and the Virgin of Guadalupe? There is more evidence of that event being true than of the First Vision is one regards the tilma as evidence. It is the cornerstone of faith for many rural Catholics in Mexico. It is also a principal stumbling block to conversions if the missionary insists the candidate abandon belief in and loyalty to the Virgin of Guadalupe. What say my LDS friends about Juan's vision/visitation?

If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to ALL...no conditions on that promise other than asking in faith with a commitment to act on the direction one is given.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I like your focus on Mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition and/or scholarship. What I have noticed is that the differences between Mainstream and Evangelical scholarship are lessening, especially from when I was in graduate school. This is why I get a bit worked up when my LDS friends confuse Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, the third wave of Protestant hermeneutics. We now also have a more full-blown Pentecostal approach which has matured greatly in the last thirty years. It is now a fourth wave and outpacing the others in growth. It seems my LDS friends, even at MHA don't make adequate distinctions between Mainstream, Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and yes, Pentecostal approaches to both LDS and Biblical studies. There really is, no kidding a difference with the Mainstream-Evangelical distinction lessening and the Pentecostal growing/maturing and the Fundamentalists standing firm. Pentecostal theology is much more daring and unapologetic. I like what I read in their work. Take care.

Yet, even with all the differences among the various Protestant denominations, they generally do not insist that those denominational brethren are heretical or outside the pale (most LDS are unaware of them, and are wholly ignorant of them). Mainstream Christians may look askance at Pentecostals, primarily because of the grave danger they see in any sort of actual acceptance of the Holy Spirit.  Who knows where something like that may lead?  Yet those Pentecostals are considered as part of mainstream Christian tradition.  The LDS rarely get included, except as a nod to good manners by some evangelicals, like Richard Mouw (who likely also sees an opportunity to minister to those ignorant, unwashed Mormons).

Given all that, it is also true that the most right wing forms of Judaism and Christianity are the ones which resist assimilation to the overarching secularism overtaking Western culture.  Only those groups will still be part of the actual Judeo-Christian tradition in a few decades.  The remainder will be having fun and spending their money on entertainment -- since they have no children, and do not contribute to any religion.  They will progressively disappear.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yet, even with all the differences among the various Protestant denominations, they generally do not insist that those denominational brethren are heretical or outside the pale (most LDS are unaware of them, and are wholly ignorant of them). Mainstream Christians may look askance at Pentecostals, primarily because of the grave danger they see in any sort of actual acceptance of the Holy Spirit.  Who knows where something like that may lead?  Yet those Pentecostals are considered as part of mainstream Christian tradition.  The LDS rarely get included, except as a nod to good manners by some evangelicals, like Richard Mouw (who likely also sees an opportunity to minister to those ignorant, unwashed Mormons).

Given all that, it is also true that the most right wing forms of Judaism and Christianity are the ones which resist assimilation to the overarching secularism overtaking Western culture.  Only those groups will still be part of the actual Judeo-Christian tradition in a few decades.  The remainder will be having fun and spending their money on entertainment -- since they have no children, and do not contribute to any religion.  They will progressively disappear.

Thanks for the reply. The more I study, the more I consider LDS theology/doctrine (sorry Mark) a form of fundamentalism. I grew up in a fundamentalist culture and then went to evangelical and evangelical/mainstream graduate schools and seminaries in theological and religious studies. As a marker from my childhood I have always been fascinated by Fundamentalism, The Sword of the Lord, and the like.  LDS apologetics and polemics and Fundamentalist apologetics and polemics seem equally counter-intuitive and counter-productive. I am not a big fan of either. My guess is that both create blindspots that cause the practitioner to perceive his or her labor as much more persuasive and effective than it really is. I believe it turns off far more folks than it convinces.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Navidad

[teddyaware]

46 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for the reply. The more I study, the more I consider LDS theology/doctrine (sorry Mark) a form of fundamentalism. I grew up in a fundamentalist culture and then went to evangelical and evangelical/mainstream graduate schools and seminaries in theological and religious studies. As a marker from my childhood I have always been fascinated by Fundamentalism, The Sword of the Lord, and the like.  LDS apologetics and polemics and Fundamentalist apologetics and polemics seem equally counter-intuitive and counter-productive. I am not a big fan of either. My guess is that both create blindspots that cause the practitioner to perceive his or her labor as much more persuasive and effective than it really is. I believe it turns off far more folks than it convinces.

From the dawn of time, truth has always turned off more people than it convinces. This is as true as night always turning into day. “Straight be the gate and narrow the way, and few there be that find it.” (Jesus Christ) The master Teacher himself, Christ, after three intense years of preaching, was only able to persuade less than a couple hundred people to believe in him prior to his death, in large measure due to that fact that his inflexible “fundamentalist” gospel approach and teaching methods turned off so many people. 

Perhaps if he’d been less of a  “fundamentalist” and more broad minded he would have been more successful? Too bad there was nobody around to warn him to turn from the error of his ways. Or perhaps there were some who warned him to “tone things down a bit” but he ignored them? If so, I wonder why he failed to heed their sound advice?

“¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? (John 6:66 and 67)

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by teddyaware

[Robert F. Smith]

49 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for the reply. The more I study, the more I consider LDS theology/doctrine (sorry Mark) a form of fundamentalism. I grew up in a fundamentalist culture and then went to evangelical and evangelical/mainstream graduate schools and seminaries in theological and religious studies. As a marker from my childhood I have always been fascinated by Fundamentalism, The Sword of the Lord, and the like.  LDS apologetics and polemics and Fundamentalist apologetics and polemics seem equally counter-intuitive and counter-productive. I am not a big fan of either. My guess is that both create blindspots that cause the practitioner to perceive his or her labor as much more persuasive and effective than it really is. I believe it turns off far more folks than it convinces.

You may be correct, Phil.  However, most of those well-meaning LDS apologists and polemicists (not sure who they are) you offhandedly refer to would be held in derision anyhow, no matter what.  Take the term "polemicist" as applied to some hapless Mormon.  I can't actually think of one.  I know that there are LDS folks who defend the Church when it is attacked, but who are these gunslingers you are referring to as polemicists?  Seems like just another false accusation against the Mormons, unless you actually know some LDS person who does go hunting dragons.  Could you name him or her?

I can think of a number of actual organizations dedicated to the disestablishment of the LDS Church.  Yet I know of no such organization used by Mormons.  Indeed, those well-funded organizations formed specifically to attack the LDS Church usually claim that any defense (apologia) of their faith is a turn off.  That is a major propaganda claim which is always rolled out to diminish and destroy any and all arguments on behalf of the LDS faith.  The effort is to create an atmosphere of contempt and disrespect against Mormons so that their beliefs and arguments are devalued before the fact.  Such apriorism is always dirty pool.  A respectful exchange of views among friends is to be preferred, if anything at all is going to be said.  Do you agree, Phil?

[hope_for_things]

On 4/9/2020 at 2:03 AM, mfbukowski said:

But "what actually happen(s)" remains elusive when all we have are our own perceptions and those of other humans like ourselves and the stories we come up with (paradigms) to explain "what really happens"

This is an excellent reply, I love the way you're addressing each question, thanks.  Its been pretty busy at work yesterday and likely today as well, but I'm looking forward to replying.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is an excellent reply, I love the way you're addressing each question, thanks.  Its been pretty busy at work yesterday and likely today as well, but I'm looking forward to replying.  

Reflecting on some comments in this thread, I realized that the way I think is so deeply embedded in the history of philosophy that I don't even realize it.

I realize now that most of our discussions come from the distinction between what is called in philosophy a priori and posteriori ways of knowing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori#Early_uses

Nowadays the term a priori has lost its meaning in general parlance. 

Today at simply means what a posteriori used to mean. In the simplest way it means things learned through experience, empirically.

A priori means things that we simply know are true "by definition," or logic.

A=A, or 1+1=2, are not true because we have empirically discovered these facts but simply because of the way our minds work. They're true through logical deduction and are evidence of how our minds structure knowledge.

Kant's work is a major contribution to this area of philosophy and Kant is actually a Pioneer that I should have put in my earlier lists including James Etc.

At any rate I would suggest you look at this entry before you respond. Or later it really doesn't matter. But you should check this out. It could be a key.

Sorry I didn't figure this out earlier but the distinction is so buried in my brain that I no longer even see it, it has become a priori knowledge to me, Like 1+1=2

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori#Early_uses

 

[aussieguy55]

Way back in 1969 a Presbyterian pastor by the name of Wesley P Walters submitted a paper to Dialogue:A Journal of Mormon Thought where he presented information on whether a revival as described by Joseph Smith actually occurred. They delayed the publication looking for a response. Walters meanwhile had it published in a shorter version as a pamphlet. 

http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/1stvision_dialogue69.pdf

Joseph Smith's story has members of his family joining the Presbyterian church  in 1820. Richard Bushman writes in Rough Stone Rolling page 570 fn 30 that "All the circumstantial evidence for the 1820 membership the date of Lucy Smith's engagement to Presbyterianism  remains a matter of debate. It is possible to argue plausibly that she did not join until later Palmyra revivals in 1824." 

Walters and Milton Backman were the two who wrote about the revival. Backman in his book on the FV does not mention Walter's paper. Bushman in his book RSR only references the pamphlet not the round table  in Dialogue.The revival which is only mentioned in the official account is the issue debated. 

 

[Robert J Anderson]

On 4/9/2020 at 4:54 PM, mrmarklin said:

Yawn.  Lots of cyberspace on this topic, and not just this thread.

 

There is a canonized version of the vision in the Pearl of Great Price.  This is the official version, written and approved during Joseph Smith's lifetime.  OK, so some people wrote other versions down.  So what?

I'm not getting the controversy, if any.  Look at this stuff like a deposition taken for a court.  The deposer gets to edit and correct any misstatements made and misunderstandings.  That is your 1838 version as canonized.  All else is irrelevant.

 

Yawn...……………………...

I don't think looking at it as a lawyer would is helpful.  A lawyer opposing would point out how the 1832 and 1838 accounts differ substantially and how the differences correspond with how Joseph Smith's view of deity evolved.  One may say that these supposed differences are irrelevant as you say and that the changes were made to better explain what really happened.  However, the 1838 account was done 18 years after the fact and Joseph Smith didn't seem think it was necessary to make the changes until that time.

I think the better approach is to focus on the experiences that led to belief in the first place as those who believe will continue to do so regardless of any supposed problems and those who do not wish to believe can find reasons to justify their path.

[Navidad]

On 4/9/2020 at 11:43 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You may be correct, Phil.  However, most of those well-meaning LDS apologists and polemicists (not sure who they are) you offhandedly refer to would be held in derision anyhow, no matter what.  Take the term "polemicist" as applied to some hapless Mormon.  I can't actually think of one.  I know that there are LDS folks who defend the Church when it is attacked, but who are these gunslingers you are referring to as polemicists?  Seems like just another false accusation against the Mormons, unless you actually know some LDS person who does go hunting dragons.  Could you name him or her?

I can think of a number of actual organizations dedicated to the disestablishment of the LDS Church.  Yet I know of no such organization used by Mormons.  Indeed, those well-funded organizations formed specifically to attack the LDS Church usually claim that any defense (apologia) of their faith is a turn off.  That is a major propaganda claim which is always rolled out to diminish and destroy any and all arguments on behalf of the LDS faith.  The effort is to create an atmosphere of contempt and disrespect against Mormons so that their beliefs and arguments are devalued before the fact.  Such apriorism is always dirty pool.  A respectful exchange of views among friends is to be preferred, if anything at all is going to be said.  Do you agree, Phil?

Hi Bob: Trust all is well and that you had a great Easter weekend. I can think of many Mormons who see dragons (to use your term) all over non-LDS Christianity. Aren't all of we non-LDS Christians haplessly (to use your root word) lost without LDS ordinances in this world or the next?  As someone, perhaps the original poster on this thread said in describing the main points of the LDS church's view of the First Vision, aren't all other churches not true? If they aren't true, doesn't that mean the mainstream LDS approach is that all other churches are false? The nicest of the LDS polemicists will smile and assure me there is "some truth" in all faiths." However, when queried further, the bottom line is that all other churches are indeed false in the sense of being salvific impotents. Isn't that what you celebrate when you celebrate the First Vision?

Perhaps there is another definition of "true?" Don't all other non-LDS Christians in the world need converted to the LDS church to find the complete truth? Aren't they (we) all in a state of apostasy without LDS ordinances? Aren't all non-LDS Christian ministers committing blasphemy when they perform ordinances without "proper authority, as President Kimball clearly stated?" Won't all non-LDS Christians spend eternity in the absence of God the Father and the Son without assistance from LDS ordinances? Isn't the LDS Church the "only true and living church" on the face of the earth with whom God is well-pleased, and wasn't it so when the church only had 650 members? Shall I go on?

Everything I have described is the essence of polemics. The discussion doesn't have to be ugly, mean, or nasty. One can be a polemicist with a smile, yes? Mirriam-Webster says in part that polemics are "a refutation of the opinions or principles of another." My opinion, belief and principles assure me that I am a complete Christian, whole and complete in my covenant and relationship with Jesus Christ, not because I am a Mennonite, but because I am a committed Christian saved by the atonement of Christ. Anyone on this forum care to refute that?  That is of course a rhetorical question because virtually every faithful LDS Christian on this forum would refute my principles and beliefs. That is the essence of polemics. It is the essence of the church missionary program. Very recently one of you assured me I am "pretending" when I take the sacrament. That kind of put-down is the essence of passive aggressive polemics.

On the other hand, I will say again, while I disagree on non-essential points with my LDS friends, I heartily accept them (you) as equal Christian brothers and sisters in Christ with me. I have nothing to offer an LDS Christian in terms of soteriology. I don't mean to go on, so I won't. I will stand back and, to use Mirriam-Webster wait for the refutation that is certain to come. 

[Robert F. Smith]

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

...............................I can think of many Mormons who see dragons (to use your term) all over non-LDS Christianity.

I asked you to name them, Phil, if there are any such Mormon gunslingers or dragonhunters.  Of course you did not bother to answer my post anywhere here, Phil.  Why not?

At the same time, you made a studied effort to ignore all the true polemicists whose well-funded job is to disestablish the Mormon Church.  Mormons do nothing like that, and an honest man would admit that up front, instead of joining in on the stomp-the-Mormons celebration.

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Aren't all of we non-LDS Christians haplessly (to use your root word) lost without LDS ordinances in this world or the next?  As someone, perhaps the original poster on this thread said in describing the main points of the LDS church's view of the First Vision, aren't all other churches not true? If they aren't true, doesn't that mean the mainstream LDS approach is that all other churches are false? The nicest of the LDS polemicists will smile and assure me there is "some truth" in all faiths." However, when queried further, the bottom line is that all other churches are indeed false in the sense of being salvific impotents.

Must you automatically take the most baleful approach, Phil?  Don't you realize that this tells us more about you than about the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Isn't that what you celebrate when you celebrate the First Vision?

Of course not, Phil, and you know that from being present in Mormon meetings.  Celebration of the FV is a joy in the glorious disclosure of deity to a 14 year old boy, and the start of a new dispensation.  Joseph and his family still respected the Methodists and others, and some of them still attended meetings in other churches.  No immediate replacement for normative Christianity was offered at the FV, and not for years afterward.  No polemic there.

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps there is another definition of "true?" Don't all other non-LDS Christians in the world need converted to the LDS church to find the complete truth? Aren't they (we) all in a state of apostasy without LDS ordinances? Aren't all non-LDS Christian ministers committing blasphemy when they perform ordinances without "proper authority, as President Kimball clearly stated?" Won't all non-LDS Christians spend eternity in the absence of God the Father and the Son without assistance from LDS ordinances? Isn't the LDS Church the "only true and living church" on the face of the earth with whom God is well-pleased, and wasn't it so when the church only had 650 members? Shall I go on?

Mormons never accuse normative Christian ministers of blasphemy for Eucharist/communion or other sacraments.  They have always been very respectful, even though one cannot say the same about normative Christian ministers.  Presbyterian scholar Richard Mouw has been very forthright about that, and about the deliberate lies  told about those horrible Mormons.  In fact, Mormons are virtual universalists, as I point out in a recent answer for Quora: https://qr.ae/pNrsGf

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Everything I have described is the essence of polemics. The discussion doesn't have to be ugly, mean, or nasty. One can be a polemicist with a smile, yes? Mirriam-Webster says in part that polemics are "a refutation of the opinions or principles of another." My opinion, belief and principles assure me that I am a complete Christian, whole and complete in my covenant and relationship with Jesus Christ, not because I am a Mennonite, but because I am a committed Christian saved by the atonement of Christ. Anyone on this forum care to refute that?  That is of course a rhetorical question because virtually every faithful LDS Christian on this forum would refute my principles and beliefs. That is the essence of polemics. It is the essence of the church missionary program. Very recently one of you assured me I am "pretending" when I take the sacrament. That kind of put-down is the essence of passive aggressive polemics.

Ah, now you backtrack, realizing that your claim of Mormon polemics won't stand scrutiny.  So you qualify it as "passive agressive."  I guess that means, when someone smiles at you, they must actually be insincere.  However, as a matter of fact, your definition of polemic is false.  Anyone can go online and find adequate definitions:  "A polemic is contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position. Polemics are mostly seen in arguments about controversial topics. The practice of such argumentation is called polemics" --  "a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something."

Indeed, the opposite of polemic is irenic, a position which you might have adopted, Phil:  irenic, "Irenicism in Christian theology refers to attempts to unify Christian apologetical systems by using reason as an essential attribute. The word is derived from the Greek word ειρήνη meaning peace. It is a concept related to natural theology and opposed to polemicism being rooted in the ideals of pacifism."  Mormons, as you know from being around them quite a bit, normally have irenic discussions.  They don't spend their time in name-calling or harsh accusatory debates.

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

On the other hand, I will say again, while I disagree on non-essential points with my LDS friends, I heartily accept them (you) as equal Christian brothers and sisters in Christ with me. I have nothing to offer an LDS Christian in terms of soteriology. I don't mean to go on, so I won't. I will stand back and, to use Mirriam-Webster wait for the refutation that is certain to come. 

Has the mask now come off, Phil?  Is this the real you?  I had thought you as kind and considerate, not rude and insufferable.  Did you just have a bad day? 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[blueglass]

I thought it was significant that for the first time in the entire history of the church, an apostle quoted from the 1832 first vision account in general conference.  "Shall we Not go On in So Great a Cause?"  Elder Ballard Sat morning April 2020.

Quote

The Savior then spoke:  "Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee.  Go thy way, walk in my statues, and keep my commandments.  Behold, I am the Lord of glory.  I was crucified for the world, that all those who believe on my name may have eternal life." 8

Following this glorious vision, Joseph wrote:  "My soul was filled with love, and for many days I could rejoice with great joy. . . .   The Lord was with me." 12

Any thoughts on the amalgamation of 4 accounts which Elder Ballard presented?    How does it compare to the amalgamation presented in this new first vision video from 2017 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/church-releases-new-ask-of-god-video-depicting-first-vision?lang=eng

 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Bob: Trust all is well and that you had a great Easter weekend. I can think of many Mormons who see dragons (to use your term) all over non-LDS Christianity. Aren't all of we non-LDS Christians haplessly (to use your root word) lost without LDS ordinances in this world or the next?  As someone, perhaps the original poster on this thread said in describing the main points of the LDS church's view of the First Vision, aren't all other churches not true? If they aren't true, doesn't that mean the mainstream LDS approach is that all other churches are false? The nicest of the LDS polemicists will smile and assure me there is "some truth" in all faiths." However, when queried further, the bottom line is that all other churches are indeed false in the sense of being salvific impotents. Isn't that what you celebrate when you celebrate the First Vision?

Perhaps there is another definition of "true?" Don't all other non-LDS Christians in the world need converted to the LDS church to find the complete truth? Aren't they (we) all in a state of apostasy without LDS ordinances? Aren't all non-LDS Christian ministers committing blasphemy when they perform ordinances without "proper authority, as President Kimball clearly stated?" Won't all non-LDS Christians spend eternity in the absence of God the Father and the Son without assistance from LDS ordinances? Isn't the LDS Church the "only true and living church" on the face of the earth with whom God is well-pleased, and wasn't it so when the church only had 650 members? Shall I go on?

Everything I have described is the essence of polemics. The discussion doesn't have to be ugly, mean, or nasty. One can be a polemicist with a smile, yes? Mirriam-Webster says in part that polemics are "a refutation of the opinions or principles of another." My opinion, belief and principles assure me that I am a complete Christian, whole and complete in my covenant and relationship with Jesus Christ, not because I am a Mennonite, but because I am a committed Christian saved by the atonement of Christ. Anyone on this forum care to refute that?  That is of course a rhetorical question because virtually every faithful LDS Christian on this forum would refute my principles and beliefs. That is the essence of polemics. It is the essence of the church missionary program. Very recently one of you assured me I am "pretending" when I take the sacrament. That kind of put-down is the essence of passive aggressive polemics.

On the other hand, I will say again, while I disagree on non-essential points with my LDS friends, I heartily accept them (you) as equal Christian brothers and sisters in Christ with me. I have nothing to offer an LDS Christian in terms of soteriology. I don't mean to go on, so I won't. I will stand back and, to use Mirriam-Webster wait for the refutation that is certain to come. 

It always amazes me that you actually want to associate with people who you think despise you so much, Phil.

I just don't get it.  You don't want to be LDS and yet you attend weekly so you can be told, from what you say here, that we are better than you?

I kind of hate to say those words but I say them as a good friend who is having trouble understanding you, as one might in a heart-to-heart talk.