That Lovely Morning

[Guest]

That's the problem: we have no way of knowing whether his recollection is accurate or not. I don't know about you, but Edward Stevenson has not earned my trust or distrust one way or the other, so all else being equal, I am skeptical of a 60-year-old recollection that happens to correlate really well with published accounts in the interim. I'm unaware of any contemporary accounts that early that mention the details Stevenson does. So, it's not a matter of distrusting but simply an acknowledgment that this is one late account with no contemporary corroboration.

We are left to mull things over based upon not only one recollection, but others also. That's true.

I'm just saying that I don't know that Stevenson's account/recollection can simply be thrown out on the basis of the amount of time that had gone by. Suspect? Possibly. Thrown out?

Not necessarily.

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

I find it very doubtful that Stevenson would remember exactly what Smith said in that sermon.

Unless Edward was reminded in the interim and recollected what he heard.

And there we have a prime opportunity for his memory to be altered without him being fully aware of it. The distance between a jogged memory and an altered one is very slender.

But that is why it is important to look at the language Stevenson uses in his written account. At the very least we can say that the way he expresses his recollection has been influenced by later accounts of the First Vision. That is pretty clear in the passages I cited. From there, it becomes even more likely that the memory informing the written expression in 1894 was altered along the way as Stevenson encountered other versions of the vision.

On the whole, the Stevenson account is of very dubious value as a pre-1835 evidence of a FV with two personages.

[_mentalgymnast]

And it's a matter of trust.

Regards,
MG

That's the thing: even if we believe that he believes it, we know he can be mistaken. We know that people can believe things happened when they did not happen. Our minds are amazing. They can fill in spaces with information that is expected to be there.

I'm not disputing that at all. It comes down somewhat to the motivation and honesty of the individual doing the memory retrieval.

Regards,
MG

[_Runtu]

We are left to make a mull things over based upon not only one recollection, but others also. That's true.

I'm just saying that I don't know that Stevenson's account/recollection can simply be thrown out on the basis of the amount of time that had gone by. Suspect? Possibly. Thrown out?

Not necessarily.

Regards,
MG

I'm not saying it should be thrown out. It just doesn't have much evidentiary value on its own, as it is uncorroborated and appears to be heavily influenced by the published accounts afterward. The only other reason I would be skeptical is that Joseph is not known to have shared the story of the first vision publicly until much later. That Stevenson is discussing a public recounting that no one else mentions suggests we should take it with a grain of salt.

Again, I can choose to "trust" Edward Stevenson, but I don't know on what basis.

[_Runtu]

I'm not disputing that at all. It comes down somewhat to the motivation and honesty of the individual doing the memory retrieval.

Regards,
MG

For me, it has nothing to do with motivation and honesty. I'm not sure why you would say that.

[Guest]

I'm just saying that I don't know that Stevenson's account/recollection can simply be thrown out on the basis of the amount of time that had gone by. Suspect? Possibly. Thrown out?

Of course, we are not just talking about the amount of time, but the way the FV was being recalled in Stevenson's day. There is an abundance of possible influences in his time which he could have encountered that could have reshaped his recollection. Our close attention to Stevenson's language supports the view that his way of expressing his recollection was certainly influenced by later accounts, and it is also quite likely that even the point about two personages is also the product of contamination. The simple fact that he uses the word personage is evidence in favor of contamination.

[_Kishkumen]

For me, it has nothing to do with motivation and honesty. I'm not sure why you would say that.

Maybe because this is a passive way of impugning your motives for doubting Stevenson. Why, only a cynical anti-Mormon with an axe to grind would question the sincerity of Stevenson!

Of course, no one is questioning Stevenson's sincerity because Stevenson's sincerity is utterly beside the point. One acknowledges the faultiness of memory and the high likelihood of contamination when a person recollects a noteworthy incident of this kind. The most honest and best intentioned people will inadvertently alter their memories.

[_mentalgymnast]

On the whole, the Stevenson account is of very dubious value as a pre-1835 evidence of a FV with two personages.

I'm not going to discount the influences of other accounts and other folks upon Edward Stevenson over the years. But I would think that, as I've already said, he would have an accurate recollection of the number of beings that Joseph mentioned in the talk that he was a witness to.

The difference between one and two beings matters a lot, doesn't it? (discounting all the other angels going to and fro in one account or another)

He would have to have a really good reason to change the number from one (if that's what Joseph originally said) to two...especially if he believed he would be accountable to God for giving the correct number.

He wouldn't want to get it wrong.

I do think we have to take into account that these witnesses saw themselves...one would suppose...as being directly accountable to God for what they said they were witness to.

But then if we're honest, obviously, we would also have to take into account those that were witnesses to one thing or another that were contradictory and/or didn't dovetail with the experiences/accounts of 'faithful witnesses' of the restoration such as Stevenson. We are then left somewhat in a quandary.

And we come back to "who do we trust" again. And around and around we go...

Regards,
MG

[_Kishkumen]

I recognize that the only real chance to get the cogs turning for a TBM is to show internal inconsistencies, but what sucks about that is, let's say, the critics were wrong and we found some great evidence that he'd been telling a consistent account all along, how much credibility does that add to a story about two immortal aliens suddenly appearing?

And this is exactly why Joseph Smith did not really pin the story of the Restoration on the First Vision but the Book of Mormon. He must have been aware of how easy it would be to challenge something he experienced in a vision. Who cares what a teenager claims to have seen in a vision? No, there were the gold plates, for which he was able to produce signed affidavits, or "testimonies." People handled the plates, and then there was the translation to read. The translation purported to answer the big mystery regarding the origins of the Native Americans!

The Book of Mormon was rightly seen as the more compelling story for Joseph Smith to promulgate. Anyone could claim to have a vision. I am frankly surprised that anyone pays any attention to the First Vision, even today. The Book of Mormon, in our day and age, is even worse. But, there are plenty of gullible folks waiting for someone to tell them an interesting story that can change their lives and give meaning to them. Why not a First Vision? Why not a Book of Mormon?

To which I respond, "OK, what's your evidence? Why should I give you the time of day?"

[_Kishkumen]

I'm not going to discount the influences of other accounts and other folks upon Edward Stevenson over the years. But I would think that, as I've already said, he would have an accurate recollection of the number of beings that Joseph mentioned in the talk that he was a witness to.

Joseph Smith wasn't consistent on that point, so why should Stevenson be more reliable?