Robert Rees on Smith's First Vision - interpreter

[_aussieguy55]

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/lookin ... ment-22994

Interesting comment - "Cognitive neuroscientists have found that, by and large, memories are constructed, not remembered — or at least are a combination of remembered facts and largely unconscious invention; at any given moment we are not likely to be able to distinguish between the two. Israel Rosenfeld (1988) argues that memory is always constructed and that the circumstances surrounding the event affect what and how we remember: “Recollection is a kind of perception, . . . and every context will alter the nature of what is recalled”12 (emphasis added). These findings suggest that caution should be exercised in judging an account based on memories"

The 1831 account was I understand something not unique but experienced by others in that time of religious fervour. The timing of the joining of the Smith family to the Presbyterian church has to be 1823-24 when there is positive evidence of a revival. Even Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling supports that view. Nothing much in the notes about the discussion of the revival.

[_grindael]

Rees writes,

The standard argument against Joseph Smith’s account of his First Vision is that there are many conflicting accounts — or at least, many conflicting details among the accounts — leading to the conclusion that Joseph simply couldn’t keep his story straight. The differences among the various versions are neither subtle nor trivial and lead to multiple and valid questions. Was there a religious revival in the Palmyra area at the time Joseph says? Was Joseph’s intent in seeking divine help for forgiveness of his sins or in acquiring wisdom as to which church he should join? How many divine or angelic personages did he see, and who were they? Was Joseph commissioned by the divine personages to open the Last Dispensation of the gospel? How does one begin to approach a story for which four primary accounts survive (1832, 1835, 1838, and 1842), along with additional documentation by at least five other writers?
As a textual critic, I am convinced that our most productive focus is on the texts themselves. One cannot ignore whatever historical material exists relative to the texts, but since that information is itself often incomplete and open to dispute, what we are ultimately left with are the words of the texts — the vocabulary, syntax, rhetorical devices, narrative patterns, and stylistic expressions of the author or authors. What do these reveal beyond the obvious, surface differences? Do they offer any clues to the resolution of the question of Joseph’s veracity and integrity? What details in the text are most revelatory, both of the reliability of Joseph’s account of his vision and of him as the teller or reliable narrator of his story? In considering such questions, we will first examine the text itself and then consider the vagaries of memory and how memory itself is affected by what we understand of modern cognitive neuroscience in relation to powerful, emotionally resonant experiences commonly called “flashbulb memories.”
…I urge them [my students] to pay particular attention to the details, especially the degree of rhetorical sophistication and the use of [Page 70]such stylistic devices as imagery, repetition, and symbolism. Generally, they do not see what I hope they will, so I have to point things out as we read the texts together. What follows are examples of the kind of close reading I feel the First Vision texts deserve.

LYING RIGHT OFF THE BAT!!! VVVV

Rees writes,

The text I consider the most authentic and reliable, as far as capturing Joseph’s experience in the Sacred Grove is concerned, is the first, the 1832 version penned by Frederick G. Williams and Joseph Smith himself. It clearly reveals Joseph’s lack of sophistication and expressive skills (something his wife noted in relation to his translation of the Book of Mormon). Joseph acknowledges his stylistic insufficiency in a letter to William with. Phelps, admitting his account is written in a “crooked broken scattered and imperfect Language.” Of the various versions, to my mind this one rings true in a way later, more consciously constructed, sophisticated, and coherent accounts do not.

Joseph did not write to Phelps about THIS ACCOUNT. Joseph wrote to Phelps in Nov. of 1832 and here is what he actually said,

O Lord when will the time come when Bro Walmart thy servant and myself behold the day that WE may stand together and gaze upon eternal wisdom engraven upon the heavens while the magesty of our God holdeth up the dark curtain until WE may read the reccord of eternity to the fulness of our immortal souls, O Lord God deliver US in thy due time from the little narrow prison almost as it were total darkness of paper pen and Ink and a crooked broken scattered and imperfect Language… (my emphasis)

Smith is talking about language IN GENERAL and how eternal things are hard to convey into language. He is not saying that he himself wrote some specific account so badly that he could not convey what he was trying to describe as this author is deceptively trying to claim. And notice that Joseph uses the word “US” in terms of imperfect language, which INCLUDES PHELPS, who was a Newspaper Editor and was very fluent in language, and was relied upon by Joseph to write for him his entire life going forward.

And by all means READ THIS LETTER which he wrote in the same period of time he crafted the 1832 History, if you think that Smith was some kind of bad writer that couldn’t craft a coherent sentence together! This letter is actually very sophisticated and the prose is very descriptive. For example,

...seccondly it is conterary to the will and commandment of God that those who receive not the inherttenc [inheritance]by consecrationagree[a]ble to his law which he has given that he may tithe his people to prepare them against the day of vengence and burning should have there names enrolled with the people of God, neithe[r] is the geneology to be kept or to be had where it may be found on any of the reccords or hystory of the church there names shall not be found neithe[r]the names of ther fathers or the names of the children writen in the book of the Law of God saith the Lord of hosts yea thus saith the still small voice9 which whispereth through and pierceth all things and often times it maketh my heart bones to quake while it maketh manifest saying and it shall come to pass that I the Lord God will send on[e] mighty and strong holding the scepter of power in his hand clothed with light for a covering whose mouth shall utter words Eternal words while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth to set in order the house of God and to arange by lot the inheritance of the saints whose names are found and the names of their fathers and of their children enroled in the Book of the Law of God while that man who was called of God and appointed that puteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God shall fall by the shaft of death like as a tree that is smitten by the vived shaft of lightning and all they who are not found write [written]in the book of remmemberance shall find none inheritence in that day but they shall be cut assunder and their portion shall be appointed them among unbelievers where is wailing and gnashing of teeth these things I say not of myself therefore as the Lord speaketh he will also fulfill and they who are of the high Priesthood whose names are not found writen in the book of the Law or that ar[e] found to have appostitized or to have been cut off out of the church as well as the lesser Priesthood or the members in that day shall not find an inheritence among th[e] saints of the most high therefore it shall be done unto them as unto the children of the Priest as you will find recorded in the second Book chapter and sixty first and second verses of Ezra... http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... ber-1832/1

So our man has crafted his first red herring lie. He goes on,

The clear focus of this first version is on emotional or spiritual — as opposed to cognitive or rational — experience. For example, Joseph’s association of “mind” in this version is not with light or enlightenment but with “darkness” and “distress,” whereas the associations with “heart” are linked with the more positive words “considers” and “exclaims.” Although there is one negative association with “heart,” it is presented in God’s words, not Joseph’s (God says, “Their hearts are far from me”). The account ends with what I consider an exultant summary of the entire experience, one clearly centered on the heart: “my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great joy and the Lord was with me but [I] could find none that would believe in the hevnly vision [Page 71]nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart,” a framing, as pointed out earlier, that echoes Mary’s theophany. [In Luke] That “nevertheless” illustrates Joseph’s determination throughout his life to seize the light in the face of darkness.

Where to start with this tripe. So, because Jo mentioned the word “mind” three times and “heart” five times, this is some kind of irrational emotional account that doesn’t convey exactly what Joseph intended, or that he simply left crap out or didn’t focus on certain things because he was so emotional? Hogwash. What all Mormon Apologists seem to forget is that the claimed 1820 vision recounted here, is simply a PART of a LARGER document, or History. Here is what this was all about, as Jo himself writes,

A History of the life of Joseph Smith jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brought forth and established by his hand firstly he receiving the testamony from on high seccondly the ministering of Aangels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel the Law and commandments as they were given unto him and the ordinenc[e]s, fo[u]rthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinence from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of god confered upon him and the continuation of the blessings of God to him &c—

THIS was to be the focus of the document. You simply cannot excise out whatever part you want and then claim what the focus of that part is. This is constantly being done by Mormon Apologists. Jo didn’t want this version of his vision made public. Jo didn’t want to focus on certain things, blah, blah, blah.

NO, this was a HISTORY that Jo had intentions of publishing. But why was it ultimately abandoned? I think we know the reasons. It was simply inadequate, and it got major historical facts wrong. Facts we know TODAY, because of historical research. But let’s move on…
Rees writes,

In the primary 1835 version, the emphasis shifts to cognitive processes, with no mention of “heart” at all. Thus, Joseph is “wrought up” and “perplexed” in his mind, and he speaks of “the different systems taught the children of men,” suggesting systematic thought and possibly belief. Further, he speaks of “a realizing sense” and seeking and finding as he searches for “information” with a “fixed determination,” all of which suggest rational processes. As with the 1832 account, this one ends with Joseph being filled with “joy unspeakable.”

Whereas the 1832 version emphasized the heart, and the 1835 version focused more on the mind (with no mention of the heart), the 1838 version includes references to both mind (four times) and heart (five times) but leans more heavily on reason and ratiocination than on intuitive or heart-based knowing. Thus, Joseph speaks about “inquirers after truth,” “facts as they have transpired,” “priest contending against priest,” “strife of words,” and “contest about opinions.” In addition, he speaks of “great excitement” of mind; “serious reflection”; an inability to “come to any certain conclusion”; Presbyterians who, in contending with Baptists and Methodists, use “their powers of either reason or sophistry to prove their [respective] errors”; and Baptists and Methodists “endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.” This “war of words” and “tumult of opinions” leaves Joseph wondering (that is, trying to figure out) who is right and who is wrong and, the ultimate question, “How shall I know it?” In other words, he is left bewildered by this flurry of verbal, cognitive, and rational conflict.

This is simply cherry picking. Notice he says the “PRIMARY” 1835 version… How is that version "primary"? (The Robert Matthews version). Why would not the Oliver Cowdery/Joseph Smith 1835 version be primary? Because it leaves out the whole damn vision?

In the 1835 Smith/Cowdery account, the word “heart” is mentioned twice and the word mind four times. So is there some significance of the use of the word “heart”? It’s anyone’s guess. So Joseph said he struggled. Had a conflict between his mind and heart. SO WHAT? What does this prove in relation to what he wrote? And yes, those feelings could have been genuine, but were they in 1823-24, or before 1820? That is the question. All the missionaries that were teaching during this period claimed Joseph said he repented, prayed to God AND SAW AN ANGEL who forgave him of his sins. EVERY ONE we have record of. He goes on making my point:

Discussion of rhetoric and style alone does not address the criticism of the substantive differences and discrepancies among the various accounts of Joseph’s seminal visionary experience — those having to do with his age, his reason for seeking guidance, the identification and number of heavenly visitors, the presence of a dark or demonic power, etc. In other words, it isn’t just the imagery; a number of significant details change with each telling.

Exactly. But watch how he tries to downplay what I bolded by virtually ignoring it. He then regurgitates the standard apologetic nonsense about AUDIENCE:

In his first account, Joseph seems to be writing in response to a command to begin a history of the Church (D&C 85:1–2) rather than with a definite audience in mind. Essentially, he seems intent on recalling and recording the facts and impressions of the vision as he remembered them at the time. It is also important to keep in mind that, as Richard Bushman reminds us, “At first, Joseph was reluctant to talk about his vision.” Given the skeptical — even hostile — responses he received when he did begin telling what happened, it would have been natural for him to be even more reluctant to speak of his experience; that reluctance would likely have affected both his memory and his selection of specific details when he began his initial record of what happened.

And Cowdery wrote in 1834:

In the last Messenger and Advocate I promised to commence a more particular or minute history of (page 27) the rise and progress of the church of the Latter Day Saints; and publish, for the benefit of enquirers [inquirers], and all who are disposed to learn. There are certain facts relative to the works of God worthy the consideration and observance of every individual, and every society:-They are that he never works in the dark-his works are always performed in a clear, intelligible manner: and another point is, that he never works in vain.

So WHO would be the recipient of Jo’s HISTORY? THE ENTIRE CHURCH and PUBLIC. And Joseph NEVER claimed to be “reluctant” to talk about his vision. He claimed he had it, and then went and talked about it right away, BUT IT WASN’T BELIEVED. Did that stop him from talking about the angel OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN? Nope. In fact, it would have bolstered Smith’s claim to authority, which he was desperately trying to establish with this 1832 History, to have a vision of God as others of the day had. Smith knew this, so he wouldn’t have just shut up about it as he didn’t with the angel. In fact, Joseph told his family about the angel and said don’t repeat this or they will try and kill us – why, because of the supposed plates, but then what did they do? Blabbed it to everyone. This idea that Jo would just shut up about this claimed earlier vision just doesn’t fly. It is not what he did, he claimed he IMMEDIATELY BLABBED IT to the “clergy” of the day. But funny, his family, who he told all about Moroni is CLUELESS. They have no idea about this claimed vision.

Can the apologists explain this? No, they never have been able to in any coherent way. They have to get all esoteric on us, claiming all kinds of silly things about how Jo didn’t intend for this version to be THIS and that version to be THAT.

Now do we take into account the circumstances of each retelling? Absolutely. But NO ONE can claim to know Smith’s INTENT each and every time he recited this claimed vision. Joseph mentions angels in some accounts and here is Rees explanation for that:

It is probable that, having already experienced negative response to his claim to having seen God and Christ, Joseph chose the more generic, less specific “personages” and “angels” for these accounts.

Really? How can he know this? How often did Smith get a bad response about Moroni? Did he then start changing the story? Nope, it was pretty consistent. He prayed, and an “angel” came and told him about some gold plates. Did he later embellish what the angel supposedly told him. Yup. But that core story stayed the same.
Joseph could play around with the claimed first vision story because he never wrote it down and showed it to the public. Therefore, it was only private tellings that he could manipulate later. If all else fails, blame it on the freaking “scribes”:

The influence of the various scribes who assisted — either by writing or transcribing the oral dictation or speech — must also be considered. Undoubtedly, some were more reliable recorders than others. Any changes during the printing of the various accounts might also explain some minor differences as well as stylistic infelicities.

Like Joseph NEVER reviewed ANYTHING he was going to have published. And then there is this BS:

While such memories are common to us all, we are seldom confronted with a question about the accuracy of our recollections, simply because it is generally assumed that our memories of such events are accurate. The dramatic re-telling likely disarms our normal skepticism, and we mistakenly assume that something so vivid is not likely to have been invented. There is also wide latitude for exaggeration or invention of narratives that serve the purpose of binding families, groups, and communities together.
For those who are prominent or in the public spotlight, however, such misremembrances can be embarrassing, precisely because we hold such figures to a higher standard of veracity. Additionally, in the twenty-first century such memories can be checked by audio, video, and other eyewitness accounts. Examples of distorted memories of highly unusual [Page 77]or dramatic events and experiences include President George with. Bush’s misremembered account of hearing the news of the attacks on 9/11; Hillary Clinton’s assertion that she came under sniper fire during a trip to Tuzla, Bosnia in 1996; Ronald Reagan’s false remembrance that he was present at the liberation of Auschwitz; Mitt Romney’s mistaken remembrance of seeing his father “march with Martin Luther King;” and, more recently, TV anchor Brian Williams’ misremembrance of what happened during a dramatic US Army mission in Iraq 2003 that he accompanied as a reporter for NBC. Once such stories are told (and usually believed) by the teller and listener alike, unconsciously elaborating on them with successive tellings becomes almost inevitable.

Really? Did these people claim to be PROPHETS OF GOD, who had the Holy Ghost to help them remember all things?

Joseph Fielding Smith: It was through the teachings of the Comforter, or Holy Ghost, that the teachings of Jesus Christ were recalled by the apostles. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:38)

Brigham Young: We believe we are entitled to the gift of the Holy Ghost in extent according to the discretion and wisdom of God and our faithfulness; which gift brings all things to our remembrance, past, present, and to come, that are necessary for us to know, and as far as our minds are prepared to receive the knowledge of God revealed by that all-wise Agent. (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp.160-161)

Joseph Smith: We believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost being enjoyed now, as much as it was in the Apostles' days; we believe that it [the gift of the Holy Ghost] is necessary to make and to organize the Priesthood, that no man can be called to fill any office in the ministry without it; we also believe in prophecy, in tongues, in visions, and in revelations, in gifts, and in healings; and that these things cannot be enjoyed without the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.243-247)

Blame it on having OTHER VISIONS! Yup, this is really desperate:

According to what cognitive neuroscientists say about the unconscious construction and reconstruction of highly emotional or dramatic memories, such an abundance of heavenly visions and visitations could indeed account for some of the discrepancies among the various versions of the First Vision.

This is the defense of Joseph not being at all consistent about what age he was, who was there, when it happened, who he told, etc., etc.
Why is there never any mention of the Holy Ghost by these guys? Did that just not apply? Seems not. Why? Was he a prophet or not? Or was he only a prophet when it suits Mormon Apologists?

What better time would there be to use the "gift of the Holy Ghost" then when you are trying to give an account of your "marvilous experience and of all thy mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Christ...?"

And yet, Smith relies on faulty memory to craft his history. He can't even get his age right! Doesn't mention that the Father was there. It goes on and on. They can't explain this, but it is easily explained as an ad hoc account cooked up by Smith because of challenges to his authority, and the actual contradictory accounts bear this out.

Yet, by contrast, it is accepted by Mormons that Jesus' apostles remembered everything he said because the Holy Ghost was there to help them and they went through way more traumatic crap than Smith did. But good lord, don't apply this to the prophet of the "Restoration". You would then have to explain how the "Holy Ghost" got so confused.

Remembering may be one of the most precious gifts the Spirit can give you. He will “bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever [the Lord has] said unto you” (John 14:26). The memory may be of an answered prayer, of a priesthood ordinance received, of a confirmation of your testimony, or of a moment when you saw God’s guiding hand in your life. Perhaps in a future day when you need strength, the Spirit may bring to your memory the feelings you are having during this meeting. I pray that this may be so.

One memory that the Spirit often brings to my mind is of an evening sacrament meeting held many years ago in a metal shed in Innsbruck, Austria. The shed was under a railroad track. There were only about a dozen people present, sitting on wooden chairs. Most of them were women, some younger and some older. I saw tears of gratitude as the sacrament was passed among the small congregation. I felt the love of the Savior for those Saints, and so did they. But the miracle I remember most clearly was the light that seemed to fill that metal shed, bringing with it a feeling of peace. It was nighttime and there were no windows, and yet the room was lit as if by noonday sunshine.

The light of the Holy Spirit was bright and abundant that evening. And the windows that let in the light were the humble hearts of those Saints, who had come before the Lord seeking forgiveness of their sins and committing to always remember Him. It was not hard to remember Him then, and my memory of that sacred experience has made it easier for me to remember Him and His Atonement in the years that have followed. That day the promise in the sacrament prayer that the Spirit will be with us was fulfilled and so brought feelings of light and peace. H. Eyring, Conference, April 2017, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... u?lang=eng

Gee, why does this work for him, but not for Joseph Smith?

[_deacon blues]

I'm impressed that the guy gets to teach a Mormon Studies course at UC Berkeley. It would almost be worth moving there to take such a course.

[_grindael]

You could probably learn more doing your own research.

[_deacon blues]

You could probably learn more doing your own research.

I understand what you are saying, but I imagine such a class at UC Berkeley would have some more open discussions than say, BYU.