That Lovely Morning

[Guest]

Wesley P Walters in a letter to me in 1975.

Stevenson statement This was written as a reminiscence and each time he mentions it it becomes more like the official version.

'the prophet preached relating his visions with mighty power.".Private Journal may 27 1883 p.136.

"the Prophet .... began relating his vision ... the truth of his visitation of an angel coming to him."(autobiography 1891 p.18-19.

"We were honoured.... who stood in the presence of God the Father and Jesus Christ his only begotten upon the earth" (autobiography 1891 p. 64f.)

"the prophet testified with great power concerning the visit of the Father and the Son" Reminiscences 1893 p.4.

"We were proud...to entertain one who had conversed with the Father 7 the Son' Reminiscences 1893 p.5.

Notice how each time the subject is mentioned Stevenson's memory drifts more and more towards the official account. Has this influenced his recollections? It would appear to be so to me"

Walters July 26 1975.

Very interesting letter. I am reminded of a chapter in the first volume of Early Mormon Documents (1996) (ed. Dan Vogel), "Joseph Smith Recital to Pontiac (MI) Saints, October 1834," that quotes those sources (plus a ca. 1881 journal article from a man who wrote about a visit from Joseph Smith and others to Michigan, an 1886 Millennial Star article by Stevenson, and the 1894 Juvenile Instructor article by Stevenson). In an editorial note, Vogel writes (p. 35):

Joseph Smith's History records that he and other church leaders visited Pontiac, Michigan, arriving on 20 October 1834. The History gives no details except to state that "[a]fter preaching, and teaching the Saints in Michigan as long as our time would allow, we returned to Kirtland" (J. Smith 1948, 2:168-69). Late in life Edward Stevenson recounted the details of this preaching, recalling among other things that Smith gave a recital of his first vision experience. If Stevenson remembered correctly, Smith's statement to the Pontiac converts would be the earliest known public announcement of the appearance of God the Father and the Son to Smith. (Smith's unpublished 1832 History had described the appearance of one personage, presumably Jesus.)... [Stevenson] was fourteen years old when Smith visited Pontiac. Forty-nine years later, at age sixty-three, Stevenson made only a brief notation of the event in his journal. However, his subsequent retellings add significant details not originally recorded. These should be read with caution since they are likely tainted with details later obtained from Smith's published History. Also included in this collection is the account of Joseph Curtis (1818-81), recorded about 1881, which gives no clear reference to Smith's description of his vision.

Curtis dates Joseph Smith's visit to Michigan to spring 1835, although, as Vogel notes, October 1834 is likely the correct date. Some excerpts from Curtis' ca. 1881 journal entry (quoted by Vogel on pp. 36-37):

I will state a few things according to my memory--as a revival of some of the sec[t]s was going on some of his fathers family joined in with the revival himself being quite young he feeling an anxiety to be religious his mind some what troubled this scripture came to mind which says if a man lack wisdom let him ask of god who giveth liberaly and upbraideth not believing it he went with a determination[n] to obtain to enquire of the lord himself after some struggle the Lord manifested to him that the different sects were [w]rong also that the Lord had a great work for him to do . . . had other manifestations [rest of line black] [p. 5] saw an angel with a view of the hill Cumorah & the plates of gold had certain instructions got the plates by the assistance of the Urim & Thumin ....

Some excerpts from the 1886 article (quoted by Vogel on pp. 37-38):

First the Prophet related how he was alone in the woods in secret prayer, when a bright light began to shine around him (like unto Paul's vision) the brightness of which at first alarmed him, but his fear was soon dispelled by the voice of the Father introducing His Only Begotten Son to him, who spoke to the young man, and instructed him . . . . He also described the visit of the angel (three times during one night to his bed-chamber) who instructed him in the fullness of the everlasting Gospel, which was to be established and preached to every nation, kingdom, tongue, and people . . . . While relating those visions the countenance of the Prophet shone ....

[_Kishkumen]

Thank you for these valuable additions to Professor P.'s mix there, Tom!

[_Johannes]

The blog cannot simply be a dodge. If he engages in no scholarly analysis of the evidence anywhere, then his drive-by blogging stands in stark contrast with that silence. He wants to say, "I offered the evidence," without ever submitting it to a sustained historical investigation. For someone who spends as much time as he does defending Smith, you would think he also had the time for making sure his position really stands up to scrutiny and then demonstrating how it does.

Yes, irrespective of the content of what he writes, he's made an unfortunate choice of form. His blog seems to be mostly just brief musings, quotations, and so on without sustained analysis. Drive-by blogging, as you say. I'll admit that that does annoy me, because sometimes I've felt genuine curiosity about what he has to say about something, only to find that the text comes to an abrupt stop with "Posted from Tahiti" or some such.

He can't claim that it's inherent in the blog form because most other Patheos bloggers manage to put together something more coherent than "here's something from Krauthammer about how scientists don't know that much really, here's a picture of the Pyongyang temple lit up at night, right, see you later". I'm a bit surprised that Patheos haven't demanded meatier content.

Most of all, I beg to differ with you when you claim that his only other alternative is to deny his Mormon faith altogether. No. I think not. What is at stake is his position as the ever faithful comforter of the discomfited Mormon. For every Peterson I would wager there are a few faithful LDS people who recognize that Joseph Smith's story changed as his theological understanding changed, who are comfortable with the idea that perhaps Smith's memory altered with time for one reason or another. Peterson insists that the two personages version is the original because that is what he must do to retain his credibility as the loyal and faithful defender of correlated modern Mormonism.

Indeed. I'd reiterate my earlier comment about postmodernism being the card that he needs to play here. When we try to reconstruct Smith's first vision experience, we've got this chorus of sometimes harmonious, sometimes discordant voices. It's just like scripture, really. A first year theological student from a manstream church could tell him that there's a lot more you can do with this than waste time arguing over whether Smith "really" saw one figure or two. Peterson probably knows this on some level. After all, he's read Peter Novick, hasn't he?

[_Kishkumen]

Please notice that I did not say that Elder Stevenson’s account proved such allegations wrong beyond a shadow of doubt. I did not say that a reminiscence in old age of an event from sixty years earlier constituted the strongest possible evidence. (The slightly cumbersome title of my post — “A reminiscence of an 1834 retelling of the First Vision story by Joseph Smith” — was deliberately if only implicitly rather modest. As is the title of this post itself.) I said, simply, that the account was “worth noting.”

Notice the careful choice of words here. It does not constitute "the strongest possible evidence." That leaves room for it to be pretty darn good evidence, and, yet, as many other better Mormon historians would likely conclude, it constitutes pretty poor evidence.

My actual view is that the Stevenson account deserves to be stirred into the mix of documentation that we possess regarding Joseph Smith’s First Vision, but certainly not that it’s a primary-source document of pivotal importance. There are no decisive historical documents here that will absolutely settle the issue once and for all in the eyes of all parties. This certainly isn’t such a decisive document. Frankly, it had never occurred to me that anybody would think otherwise. Believers (like myself) will believe. Unbelievers won’t believe.

"Not that it's a primary-source document of pivotal importance . . . . "There are no decisive historical documents here that will absolutely settle the issue . . . ."

Here DCP tries to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to present himself as a reasonable, responsible historian, while leaving open the possibility that Stevenson's account is still darn good evidence, especially in the field of evidences regarding the First Vision.

"This certainly isn't such a decisive document" because there is no such thing.

But what kinds of documents are there? How do we weigh their relative evidentiary value? Does Joseph Smith's 1832 account not count for more than Stevenson's 1894 account of Joseph Smith's alleged 1834 account?

You would be hard pressed to learn that from Peterson.

Finally, Peterson offers the stark choice. One either believes or one does not. Well, what does that have to do with the evidentiary value of Stevenson's account? Stevenson's account may be nearly worthless as a historical document attesting to an 1834 sermon by Smith, while being a wonderful document to help us understand Mormon witnesses of the First Vision in the last quarter of the 19th century. Knowing its actual value as historical evidence, depending on the question at hand, does not divide believer from non-believer. It divides historian from hack.

[_Kishkumen]

Some excerpts from the 1886 article (quoted by Vogel on pp. 37-38):

First the Prophet related how he was alone in the woods in secret prayer, when a bright light began to shine around him (like unto Paul's vision) the brightness of which at first alarmed him, but his fear was soon dispelled by the voice of the Father introducing His Only Begotten Son to him, who spoke to the young man, and instructed him . . . . He also described the visit of the angel (three times during one night to his bed-chamber) who instructed him in the fullness of the everlasting Gospel, which was to be established and preached to every nation, kingdom, tongue, and people . . . . While relating those visions the countenance of the Prophet shone ....

This one is particularly interesting to me. Stevenson was really struck by the comparison of Smith and the ancient apostle Paul. He mentioned Paul in the 1894 account as well. It is interesting that here there are no bodily personages, at least in the part of the text you cite. There is the Father's voice introducing "His Only Begotten Son." I am reminded of the significance of the voice in Paul's "vision." We may have to add the New Testament to the sources of contamination here.

[_grindael]

Actually, the account is not worth noting in the context of claimed first vision evidence. It's only worth is what Kish stated, in the context of the surge of first vision interest in the late 19th century. It has no place in any serious discussion of the claimed first vision, but it would fit into a discussion about how the claimed first vision finally gained prominence in the church. So what was the original context of the Peterson article? He wrote,

It’s sometimes alleged by critics that Joseph Smith came up with the idea of a visit of two personages — the Father and the Son — rather late (say, in the 1838 “canonical” version now known as JS-History 1) and/or that he began to soup the story up from a mere vision of angels during, say, the collapse of the Kirtland Panic in the national Panic of 1837 (so as to shore up his personal prestige and authority). In the light of such charges, I think this 1894 autobiographical account from Edward Stevenson worth noting:

Using it in this context is simply misleading. In this context it is not worth noting at all.

[_Kishkumen]

Actually, the account is not worth noting in the context of claimed first vision evidence. It's only worth is what Kish stated, in the context of the surge of first vision interest in the late 19th century. It has no place in any serious discussion of the claimed first vision, but it would fit into a discussion about how the claimed first vision finally gained prominence in the church. So what was the original context of the Peterson article? He wrote,

It’s sometimes alleged by critics that Joseph Smith came up with the idea of a visit of two personages — the Father and the Son — rather late (say, in the 1838 “canonical” version now known as JS-History 1) and/or that he began to soup the story up from a mere vision of angels during, say, the collapse of the Kirtland Panic in the national Panic of 1837 (so as to shore up his personal prestige and authority). In the light of such charges, I think this 1894 autobiographical account from Edward Stevenson worth noting:

Using it in this context is simply misleading. In this context it is not worth noting at all.

Yep. That's very important to stress. Well put, grindael.

[_Kishkumen]

While this is true as far as it goes, the problem I have is that Professor Peterson is fiddling around with this marginally probative reminiscence instead of addressing the claim I made against him that he lied in his recent Deseret News article when he wrote there has been "no suppression" of early First Vision accounts.

Professor Peterson has time to post voluminously on Bill Reel's Facebook page where Bill was holding his feet to the fire, adamantly denying he was lying but saying he would not address why it was he wasn't lying until he was darn good and ready.

Professor Peterson has time to post a non-response response in a recent Sic et Non blog.

Professor Peterson now has time to post about this reminiscence from sixty-years after the fact.

But what Professor Peterson does not have the time to do is explain how he wasn't lying in his Deseret News article.

The suppression of the 1832 account seems to be a pretty slam-dunk case of suppression. There really isn't room to wiggle around that one, and yet Peterson would have use believe that there was no suppression. You really let him have it, and he has yet to address the pretty clear evidence that he did not present the case honestly. But he has managed to divert everyone's attention to this new issue of his misuse of the Stevenson account.

Oddly, I am kind of reminded of Trump here. People are too busy chasing all of his new disasters to keep track of the old ones. He is consistently a source of chaos. As much as people hate such comparisons, DCP's diversionary tactics are similarly maddening. He keeps piling one on top of the other.

[_Kishkumen]

Whether that means he or anyone shouldn't believe in Mormonism is another question, because it's perfectly possible, perhaps even reasonable, for someone who has had intimate contact with a higher order of reality, as I understand he once had while scouting for water with a stick, not to care about such mundane, trivial matters.

I love rereading that passage time and again.

[_Tom]

This one is particularly interesting to me. Stevenson was really struck by the comparison of Smith and the ancient apostle Paul. He mentioned Paul in the 1894 account as well. It is interesting that here there are no bodily personages, at least in the part of the text you cite. There is the Father's voice introducing "His Only Begotten Son." I am reminded of the significance of the voice in Paul's "vision." We may have to add the New Testament to the sources of contamination here.

Here is a link to the full 1886 article: https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/c ... r/id/28172 (p. 341).