Comments on: The Landscapes of Joseph Smith’s First Vision http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/ A Mormon Blog Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:02:51 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Corrado Misseri http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49025 Corrado Misseri Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:32:26 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49025 I am changing the subject a bit. I have read RSR and have a question concerning Bushman's account of John Taylor wounding in Carthage jail. The book states (pg.550) "John Taylor was hit in the thigh and fell against the windowsill, breaking his watch." All other accounts that I have read state that John Taylor's watch was hit by a bullet, including the T&S, July 15, Aug. 1, 1844 reports. If Bushman is right, how did the often told and official church story about the watch being hit by a bullet get started and propogated? Can anyone help me? I am changing the subject a bit. I have read RSR and have a question concerning Bushman’s account of John Taylor wounding in Carthage jail. The book states (pg.550) “John Taylor was hit in the thigh and fell against the windowsill, breaking his watch.” All other accounts that I have read state that John Taylor’s watch was hit by a bullet, including the T&S, July 15, Aug. 1, 1844 reports. If Bushman is right, how did the often told and official church story about the watch being hit by a bullet get started and propogated? Can anyone help me?

]]> By: Stephen M (Ethesis) http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49024 Stephen M (Ethesis) Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:17:03 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49024 Some good example clips about Brodie: http://adrr.com/living/broadie.htm Some good example clips about Brodie:

http://adrr.com/living/broadie.htm

]]> By: Stephen M (Ethesis) http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49023 Stephen M (Ethesis) Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:15:57 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49023 A couple of thoughts. Anyone reading Brodie needs to realize that most of her footnotes don't agree with her text. She is really, really bad about finding a source that says one thing and citing the source for the exact opposit. Next, some stories footnoted as known to be false, but useful to illustrate the way Brodie thought about Joseph Smith, are later not so footnoted (e.g. the story of Joseph trying to fake walking on water). .... As for the first vision accounts, I find them consistent, but then I'm a trial lawyer and I take a lot of depositions of people, compare them to statements they've made (and interviews they've given me before and after the depositions) and the testimony of other witnesses. A couple of thoughts.

Anyone reading Brodie needs to realize that most of her footnotes don’t agree with her text. She is really, really bad about finding a source that says one thing and citing the source for the exact opposit.

Next, some stories footnoted as known to be false, but useful to illustrate the way Brodie thought about Joseph Smith, are later not so footnoted (e.g. the story of Joseph trying to fake walking on water).

….

As for the first vision accounts, I find them consistent, but then I’m a trial lawyer and I take a lot of depositions of people, compare them to statements they’ve made (and interviews they’ve given me before and after the depositions) and the testimony of other witnesses.

]]> By: ed http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49022 ed Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:33:32 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49022 I agree with Jared. The fact that there are different accounts doesn't bother me much. The only thing that bugs me is the emphasis on the 1938 version to the exclusion of the earlier versions, with the insistance that it represents the literal-gospel-truth-last-word foundation of our faith, with any ambiguities swept under the rug. Ed Snow's anecdote was a great example of that. I agree with Jared. The fact that there are different accounts doesn’t bother me much. The only thing that bugs me is the emphasis on the 1938 version to the exclusion of the earlier versions, with the insistance that it represents the literal-gospel-truth-last-word foundation of our faith, with any ambiguities swept under the rug. Ed Snow’s anecdote was a great example of that.

]]> By: Ronan http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49021 Ronan Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:41:32 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49021 #39: I don't think the First Vision has received new emphasis under President Hinckley. It's been pretty central for the last century. #39:

I don’t think the First Vision has received new emphasis under President Hinckley. It’s been pretty central for the last century.

]]> By: Jared http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49020 Jared Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:37:33 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49020 The differing versions of the First Vision have never bothered me that much. I mostly think they are within the natural variation of recounting events, with different emphasis at different times. At the same time, I can allow that Joseph understood the experience differently as time passed and he made mental connections with other parts of the restoration. As to what a video camera would capture if it were there with Joseph, who knows? It should be noted that prophets having some uncertainty about what actually happened during their spiritual experiences is not uncommon in scripture. For Pete's sake, they sometimes don't even know if they were in their own body or not. As long as actual communication happened, I'm not that concerned about the physical form and details. The differing versions of the First Vision have never bothered me that much. I mostly think they are within the natural variation of recounting events, with different emphasis at different times. At the same time, I can allow that Joseph understood the experience differently as time passed and he made mental connections with other parts of the restoration.

As to what a video camera would capture if it were there with Joseph, who knows? It should be noted that prophets having some uncertainty about what actually happened during their spiritual experiences is not uncommon in scripture. For Pete’s sake, they sometimes don’t even know if they were in their own body or not. As long as actual communication happened, I’m not that concerned about the physical form and details.

]]> By: not on this thread http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49019 not on this thread Thu, 23 Feb 2006 00:51:08 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49019 I think it's interesting that by moving the central issue of the restoration from the ETB "Book of Mormon" to the GBH "First Vision," the church has effectively nullified hard data as a factor in determining truthfulness. That is, if the restoration rests upon the Book of Mormon, "the keystone of our religion," but the premises of that keystone: Lamanites, real people, chariots and Samuel the Lamanite don't hold up under the physical evidence, some people may develop concerns about the church's truth claims. However, if the restoration rests upon the First Vision, then it rests upon an event that simply cannot be proven or disproven based on the evidence, any more than can the Visitation by the Blessed Mother at Fatima or Mohammed being spirited away by a whirlwind or Elijah being taken up by a chariot. The goal posts for truth have moved. I think it’s interesting that by moving the central issue of the restoration from the ETB “Book of Mormon” to the GBH “First Vision,” the church has effectively nullified hard data as a factor in determining truthfulness.

That is, if the restoration rests upon the Book of Mormon, “the keystone of our religion,” but the premises of that keystone: Lamanites, real people, chariots and Samuel the Lamanite don’t hold up under the physical evidence, some people may develop concerns about the church’s truth claims.

However, if the restoration rests upon the First Vision, then it rests upon an event that simply cannot be proven or disproven based on the evidence, any more than can the Visitation by the Blessed Mother at Fatima or Mohammed being spirited away by a whirlwind or Elijah being taken up by a chariot.

The goal posts for truth have moved.

]]> By: Ed Snow http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49018 Ed Snow Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:39:04 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49018 I can't help but post these excerpts from the 1832 account, for me the most intimate, immediate and moving version of the First Vision. In early 1800s frontier revival meetings there was something called the "mourner's" bench where new converts went to pray next to others who prayed with them--I hear echoes of that below. <blockquote>I felt to mourn for my own Sins and for the Sins of the world ... therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and ... I Saw the Lord and he Spake unto me Saying Joseph thy Sins are forgiven thee … and my Soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great joy and the Lord was with me ....</blockquote> I can’t help but post these excerpts from the 1832 account, for me the most intimate, immediate and moving version of the First Vision. In early 1800s frontier revival meetings there was something called the “mourner’s” bench where new converts went to pray next to others who prayed with them–I hear echoes of that below.

I felt to mourn for my own Sins and for the Sins of the world … therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and … I Saw the Lord and he Spake unto me Saying Joseph thy Sins are forgiven thee … and my Soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great joy and the Lord was with me ….

]]> By: Ronan http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49017 Ronan Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:17:57 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49017 John (#32), The "certainty" I sense in you (say that with Yoda voice) is in how you frame the issue: <em>God and Jesus really did literally appear to Joseph Smith and told him what Joseph Smith said they told him</em>. I think everyone here (so far) actually believes that Joseph received a theophany in the early 1820s. We're just wondering how to understand what is is that <em>"Joseph Smith said"</em> when he in fact said different things at different times about the event. This does not, IMO, constitute a betrayal of what it means to be an "old fashioned" Mormon. We are (well I am) just Godwrestling, but still applying faith. And, again, the purpose of the review was simply to point out the different approaches that Brodie and Bushman take without taking <em>intellectual</em> sides. (Of course a believing Mormon is going to take sides, but I was writing simply as a historian.) John (#32),

The “certainty” I sense in you (say that with Yoda voice) is in how you frame the issue: God and Jesus really did literally appear to Joseph Smith and told him what Joseph Smith said they told him.

I think everyone here (so far) actually believes that Joseph received a theophany in the early 1820s. We’re just wondering how to understand what is is that “Joseph Smith said” when he in fact said different things at different times about the event. This does not, IMO, constitute a betrayal of what it means to be an “old fashioned” Mormon. We are (well I am) just Godwrestling, but still applying faith.

And, again, the purpose of the review was simply to point out the different approaches that Brodie and Bushman take without taking intellectual sides. (Of course a believing Mormon is going to take sides, but I was writing simply as a historian.)

]]> By: Ed Snow http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/21/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49016 Ed Snow Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:52:51 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/02/the-landscapes-of-joseph-smiths-first-vision/#comment-49016 Ronan's analogy to the four different gospels is interesting here I think. Here's my take on that. By tracing the First Vision accounts chronologically you can see trends in LDS thinking over time since nothing is told without a context, no narrative exists in a vacuum. Same with the gospels. Over time, the First Vision narratives start out focused more on Joseph Smith's personal situation and by the end they focus more on the event's (and Smith's) place in the church. And what of the various details in the different accounts--can you harmonize all of them? You can try, but I think it will not be successful. Each different First Vision narrative account has its own spiritual and theological meaning. I've had spiritual experiences that over time changed their meaning for me. I can look back at my original journal entries that describe them in terms that today I find naïve, I might even question some of my initial interpretations of what happened to me. With the gospels, you can try to harmonize them, but it's not very successful. In fact, by trying to harmonize the 4 gospels you actually end up distorting each one of them individually. Mark's focus is different from John's. Each of Matthew and Luke took Mark and changed his account in numerous places to suit their theological message and the needs of their communities (this according to the Markan priority theory of gospel formation which seems to be the majority opinion). Which brings us ultimately to the Historical Jesus and Joseph. The search for the Historical Joseph Smith is not interested in whether the First Vision occurred or a detailed narrative of it, but with what Joseph Smith said about it over time, as Ronan indicated. In this regard it is similar to analyzing the miracles of Jesus when you're searching for the Historical Jesus. That Jesus was reported to have performed miracles can be demonstrated historically speaking, what those miracles were is outside the boundaries of historical inquiry. Ronan’s analogy to the four different gospels is interesting here I think. Here’s my take on that.

By tracing the First Vision accounts chronologically you can see trends in LDS thinking over time since nothing is told without a context, no narrative exists in a vacuum. Same with the gospels.

Over time, the First Vision narratives start out focused more on Joseph Smith’s personal situation and by the end they focus more on the event’s (and Smith’s) place in the church. And what of the various details in the different accounts–can you harmonize all of them? You can try, but I think it will not be successful. Each different First Vision narrative account has its own spiritual and theological meaning. I’ve had spiritual experiences that over time changed their meaning for me. I can look back at my original journal entries that describe them in terms that today I find naïve, I might even question some of my initial interpretations of what happened to me.

With the gospels, you can try to harmonize them, but it’s not very successful. In fact, by trying to harmonize the 4 gospels you actually end up distorting each one of them individually. Mark’s focus is different from John’s. Each of Matthew and Luke took Mark and changed his account in numerous places to suit their theological message and the needs of their communities (this according to the Markan priority theory of gospel formation which seems to be the majority opinion).

Which brings us ultimately to the Historical Jesus and Joseph. The search for the Historical Joseph Smith is not interested in whether the First Vision occurred or a detailed narrative of it, but with what Joseph Smith said about it over time, as Ronan indicated. In this regard it is similar to analyzing the miracles of Jesus when you’re searching for the Historical Jesus. That Jesus was reported to have performed miracles can be demonstrated historically speaking, what those miracles were is outside the boundaries of historical inquiry.

]]>