That Lovely Morning

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: That Lovely Morning

Post by _grindael »

Here is a glimpse of what Smith was teaching in the early 1830's... (You can see the original here https://mormonitemusings.com/2015/10/09 ... scapegoat/

In 1830 a man named Peter Bauder came to see Smith and spent a whole day with him. The Peter Bauder interview with Joseph Smith was published in 1834, so we do not know the exact circumstances that led Bauder to Joseph Smith, other than what Bauder wrote later. Bauder wrote,

However … we find him [anti-Christ] in various other places. For instance, view him in the Mahometan system, and a variety of other imposters, who have drawn disciples after them, who had no Theological Seminaries among them; but if you will observe their manner of increasing their numbers, you will find it is done without a reformation wrought in the hearts of their members, by a godly sorrow for sin, and a compunction of soul, and pungent conviction, which precedes a joy which is unspeakable and full of glory, 1 Peter, 1, 8—because the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto them according to Romans, 5, 5.

Among these imposters there has one arisen by the name of Joseph Smith, Jr. who commenced his system of church government in this state, (New York) in the year 1830. His followers are commonly called Mormonites, sometimes New Jerusalemites, or Golden Bible society; they call themselves the true followers of Christ. I conceive it my duty to expose this diabolical system for two special reasons—first, because I have had an opportunity with Smith, in his first setting out, to discover his plan; secondly, because I learn since they were broke up in New York State, they have gone to the western States, and are deceiving themselves and the people, and are increasing very fast.

A copy of Bauders account from his book may be found here... https://mormonitemusings.files.wordpres ... _36-37.jpg

I will name some of the particular discoveries which through Divine Providence I was favored with in an interview with Joseph Smith, Jr. at the house of Peter Whitmer, in the town of Fayette, Seneca County, state of New York, in October, 1830. I called at P[eter]. Whitmer’s house, for the purpose of seeing Smith, and searching into the mystery of his system of religion, and had the privilege of conversing with him alone, several hours, and of investigating his writings, church records, &c. I improved near four and twenty hours in close application with Smith and his followers: he could give me no christian experience, but told me that an angel told him he must go to a certain place in the town of Manchester, Ontario County, where was a secret treasure concealed, which he must reveal to the human family. He went, and after the third or fourth time, which was repeated once a year, he obtained a parcel of plate resembling gold, on which were engraved what he did not understand, only by the aid of a glass which he also obtained with the plate, by which means he was enabled to translate the characters on the plate into English. He says he was not allowed to let the plate be seen only by a few individuals named by the angel, and after he had a part translated, the angel conmanded him to carry the plate into a certain piece of woods, which he did:—the angel took them and carried them to parts unknown to him. The part translated he had published, and it is before the public, entitled the Book of Mormon: a horrid blasphemy, but not so wicked as another manuscript which he was then preparing for publication, which I also saw. He told me no man had ever seen it except a few of his apostles: the publication intended was to be the Bible!!! The manner in which it was written is as follows:—he commenced at the first chapter of Genesis, he wrote a few verses of scripture, then added delusion, which he added every [p.18] few verses of scripture, and so making a compound of scripture and delusion. On my interrogating him on the subject, he professed to be inspired by the Holy Ghost to write it. I will now give the public my fears on this subject, (unless God prevents) when he gets his work ready for the press. He will pretend that the angel has brought the plate, and his new Bible will be a translation of the remaining plate, which were not put into the Book of Mormon, and the public will have this diabolical invention imposed on them. (See also, Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, p. 16-18).


It is obvious that this is written from an 1834 perspective. We do not know how Bauder felt in 1830 when he visited Smith. He may not have been antagonistic at all. FAIRMORMON assumes this of Bauder, and then concludes that “Joseph may have simply chosen not to share the experience of his vision with an obvious enemy of the church.” Yet, Joseph shared his claimed 1820 vision with Robert Matthews in 1835, who Smith speculated was a murderer and ultimately claimed that Matthew’s “God was the devil”. In the light of Smith sharing his supposed vision with one such as Matthews, Nicolson’s argument doesn’t make much sense.

What is interesting is that Bauder got all of the details right about Smith’s claimed visit with Moroni. He also got the details right about Smith’s “translation” of the Bible, although his later speculation that Smith might claim it came from the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon never came to pass. If Bauder was simply making it up about Smith’s lack of Christian experience in 1830, why did he correctly claim that Smith told him he was later translating the Bible with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost? This is not about Joseph joining any church; Bauder describes what “Christian experience” is, in an earlier paragraph:

“…a reformation wrought in the hearts of their members, by a godly sorrow for sin, and a compunction of soul, and pungent conviction, which precedes a joy which is unspeakable and full of glory…because the love of God is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto them…”


That is not about joining a church. The fact that Bauder claims that Joseph did not speak of any Christian experience before his supposed encounter with the angel Moroni in 1830, is borne out by what Mormon Missionaries were teaching in 1832; and what Smith and Cowdery wrote themselves in 1834. Smith made an attempt to rewrite his history in 1832, but left it unfinished and abandoned it in the back of a letterbook and did not include his supposed vision of Christ in the 1834 history. In that version of his history they claim that Joseph prayed in 1823 to see “if a Supreme Being did exist” and was answered by an angel who told him about some gold plates.

The wiki article today (2015) reads:

In June 1830, Smith provided the first clear record of a significant personal religious experience prior to the visit of the angel Moroni.[73] At that time, Smith and his associate Oliver Cowdery were establishing the Church of Christ, the first Latter Day Saint church. In the “Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ,” Smith recounted his early history, noting

“For, after that it truly was manifested unto [Smith] that he had received remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world, but after truly repenting, God visited him by an holy angel … and gave unto him power, by the means which was before prepared that he should translate a book.”[74]

No further explanation of this “manifestation” is provided. Although the reference was later linked to the First Vision,[75] its original hearers could have understood the manifestation as simply another of many revival experiences in which the subject testified that his sins had been forgiven.[76] On the other hand, when in October 1830, non-Mormon critic and author Peter Bauder interviewed Smith for a book, Bauder was writing about false religions, Smith apparently declined to share his experience. Bauder thus stated that Smith was unable to recount a “Christian experience.”[77]

So it appears that Nicholson’s objections of a few years ago are groundless, since Bauder is described as a “non-Mormon Critic” in the current wiki article. Now, these changes may have come about with the persistence of Mormon editors, but that is the way it is supposed to work, right?. It appears that this wiki article has “stabilized itself over time,” at least in this instance.

So why the current objections to wiki? Because FAIRMORMON can’t totally control the flow of information there as they can at their own site. But what is almost comical is that FAIRMORMON has its own version of wiki. And what do they have on their own wiki page? This:

In October 1830 Peter Bauder (a non-Mormon minister) spoke directly to the Prophet. Bauder commented: “he could give me no Christian experience,” meaning that he did not belong to any church before his experience with the angel and plates in September 1823.


Notice there is little difference from the current “First Vision” Wikipedia page. FAIRMORMON uses this quote to try and prove that Joseph Smith didn’t join any Churches. On another page, they write the same thing:

In October 1830 Peter Bauder (a non-Mormon minister) spoke directly to the Prophet. Bauder commented: “he could give me no Christian experience,” meaning that he did not belong to any church before his experience with the angel and plates in September 1823.


Bauder absolutely did not mean that, as he himself explains above. The Wikipedia article is still wrong though, because Bauder did not say that Smith declined to share his experience, Smith could not give him one, as defined by Bauder. And Bauder did not just spend an hour or two with Smith, he claimed that he spent “near four and twenty hours in close application with Smith and his followers,” and spoke to Smith alone for “several hours”, so neither Smith nor any who followed him could give Bauder a “Christian experience” for Joseph Smith in his youth.

In every instance of evidence from the early 30's, we have Smith giving the angel story as his "theophany". There was no visit from Jesus or the Father. The only document we have is of Jesus alone, with no Father and this document Smith scrapped and never used or referred to it again in his lifetime and it was later suppressed by the church. I think it really bothered Smith that he was looked upon as having no Christian experience, and his ties to the occult. He wanted to change that, and so invented the story of the claimed First Vision.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: That Lovely Morning

Post by _Kishkumen »

Symmachus wrote:You are generous in your praise as ever, Kish. I certainly don't have the command of the facts in the way that someone like Grindael does, who continues to awe me with how much he knows about this period of Mormonism. But the implication that Peterson seems to be leaning on is that the 1835 and 1832 accounts aren't difficult if just some version of the 1838 account was current in 1834. I don't get how that's supposed to help.

"Your Honor, it's true I did make contradictory claims in the past, but in fairness to me I additionally claimed at that time the thing that I'm claiming now."


Yes, grindael is a treasure! We have quite a cadre of thinkers, writers, and scholars here. When we are at our best the discussion is envigorating, edifying, and challenging. Granted we are often not at our best. I bet newbies and casual visitors are confused and even put off by our freewheeling ways, but as a veteran of the board I find the best aspects of the community continue to draw me back.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: That Lovely Morning

Post by _grindael »

The question that I would ask of you is why did Joseph refer to the second personage in 1835 and not be as forthcoming or explicit in his description of the vision in the 1832 account?

I think what you are saying is that he forgot to say anything explicitly of a second personage (although there are shimmers of such) in 1832 because he forgot...but then remembered three years later in 1835? And you find that suspicious, I would assume?

Consig, my posts may be numbered at this point. I've exceeded the the limits of what I am allowed in having a conversation without receiving harassment from those that would like to see me disappear.


Notice he never really answered this question. Instead he hems and haws about how his comments may be "numbered". But then what happens? He continues on and on and on and on. Even after Waterdog's post, he writes a long one in response to it, but doesn't put any effort into answering Consig's question. Why is that I wonder?

I have one. Why are there so many different versions of Smith's claimed theophany and why do Mormon Apologists use secular memory arguments, when Joseph taught that he had the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" which would bring all important things concerning God to remembrance? Why couldn't Joseph just dictate his history like he did his "revelations", instead there were multiple drafts until he got it where he wanted it? Why do Mormon "prophets" never act like prophets when it really matters?
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_Johannes
_Emeritus
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:50 am

Re: That Lovely Morning

Post by _Johannes »

Symmachus wrote:Speaking of the need to explain things, I think Peterson has tossed in a red herring. Stevenson's account might call into question the accepted view that the First Vision wasn't a prominent part of LDS devotion—has this exactly been established anyway? It tastes less like a fact to me than a historiographic trope one finds so often today in the steroidal market of academic publishing and interpretation-production ("you thought x, but it's really y").


Yes, maybe it is. The tedious cult of counter-intuitive opinioneering is a lot older than the publish-or-perish culture, though. Just for fun, here is the Oxford historian R W Johnson talking about Harry Weldon, who died in 1958:

R W Johnson wrote:Anyone who has been a victim, let alone a perpetrator, of the Oxbridge system will recognise Niall Ferguson’s book for what it is: an extended and argumentative tutorial from a self-consciously clever, confrontational young don, determined to stand everything on its head and argue with vehemence against whatever he sees as the conventional wisdom – or, worse still, the fashion – of the time. The idea is to teach the young to think and argue, and the real past masters at it (Harry Weldon was always held up as an example to me) were those who first argued undergraduates out of their received opinions, then turned around after a time and argued them out of their new-found radicalism, leaving them mystified as to what they believed and suspended in a free-floating state of cleverness.


Maybe things are different at BYU.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: That Lovely Morning

Post by _Runtu »

Kishkumen wrote:Yes, grindael is a treasure! We have quite a cadre of thinkers, writers, and scholars here. When we are at our best the discussion is envigorating, edifying, and challenging. Granted we are often not at our best. I bet newbies and casual visitors are confused and even put off by our freewheeling ways, but as a veteran of the board I find the best aspects of the community continue to draw me back.


Indeed. I can honestly say that this board and its people are an inexhaustible source of information for me. For example, grindael's thread about Joseph Smith vs. William Law, comparing their private and public statements leading up to June 1844, told me more about the reasons things came to a head than pretty much anything I had read before.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Johannes
_Emeritus
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:50 am

Re: That Lovely Morning

Post by _Johannes »

Actually, in the spirit of being counter-intuitive, I'm going to defend old Peterson here. He has at least (1) engaged with criticism of his opinion-journalism on the First Vision by producing something other than self-pity or polemic, and (2) pulled out a source which seems to be genuinely new to most people here.

I also think that he shouldn't be held to academic standards of pedagogy on his blog. I can't imagine the rest of us would want to be judged in that way for our online activity. He's essentially engaging in journalism here, just as he was in his Deseret NEws article, and that's the appropriate yardstick by which to measure him.

He has no historical case, of course, but that's a flaw that's inherent in the materials he has to work with. If that's the criticism, it essentially reduces to "DCP shouldn't believe in Mormonism", which seems a little redundant to me.
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: That Lovely Morning

Post by _grindael »

Johannes, please keep commenting. I really enjoy your perspective on things.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: That Lovely Morning

Post by _Lemmie »

Kishkumen wrote:Thank you for that lucid and eloquent explanation of the probability issue, Lemmie. Although I lack your expertise (wish I did not), my intuition or perhaps Bayesian sense of a priori probability that Stevenson’s memory was not malleable and altered over time, and that he was not influenced by the devotional memory of the First Vision of the late 19th century as he wrote this reminiscence is close to zero.

You are quite welcome, Kishkumen, you are too kind! RE: your odds, no argument there! :lol:
Kishkumen wrote:Yes, grindael is a treasure! We have quite a cadre of thinkers, writers, and scholars here. When we are at our best the discussion is envigorating, edifying, and challenging. Granted we are often not at our best. I bet newbies and casual visitors are confused and even put off by our freewheeling ways, but as a veteran of the board I find the best aspects of the community continue to draw me back.
Couldn't agree more--you capture the feeling perfectly.
_Johannes
_Emeritus
Posts: 575
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 5:50 am

Re: That Lovely Morning

Post by _Johannes »

Thanks, grindael, I appreciate the compliment, although I come here largely to learn about Mormonism rather than to comment on things. You're one of the posters who I've probably learnt most from during my time here.
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: That Lovely Morning

Post by _consiglieri »

Johannes wrote:Actually, in the spirit of being counter-intuitive, I'm going to defend old Peterson here. He has at least (1) engaged with criticism of his opinion-journalism on the First Vision by producing something other than self-pity or polemic, and (2) pulled out a source which seems to be genuinely new to most people here.


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.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
Post Reply