That Lovely Morning

[_Stem]

I wouldn't worry about it. Nobody reads his articles anyway.

I liked how some random passerby could show up at a school house in those days and start preaching to the kids.

[Guest]

I'm going off on a tangent here, Kish, but this is all news to me. I thought that the First Vision had not been emphasised in Mormonism until very recently. BUt it sounds like popular devotional and artistic works based upon it were already being composed in the 19th century.

It appears from my shallow research that it starts getting more attention in the last quarter of the 19th century but really comes into its own as a pivotal event in Restoration history in the early 20th century, when there was a kind of reform of LDS theology after the abandonment of polygamy and the Adam-God doctrine.

[_consiglieri]

Shoot.

I suppose Professor Peterson was too busy writing this blog to explain why it is he wasn't lying when he said the 1832 account of the first vision was not suppressed.

[_consiglieri]

On another note, Professor Peterson seeks to make this 1834 reminiscence more important than it actually is.

How does he do this?

By eliding the 1835 account in which two personages ARE mentioned in favor of the 1838 account in which . . . two personages ARE mentioned.

Here is how he does it in the opening paragraph:

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:

If Professor Peterson had included the 1835 account in which Joseph Smith relates seeing two personages, the thrust of his argument would have been largely undermined.

[_Lemmie]

What makes this account especially problematic is not the date but the context. At the time Stevenson wrote other Mormons were recounting the First Vision and reconstructing it in poetry and painting. The FV was becoming more accessible to Mormon memory but in its later, not its early, form. Stevenson's recollection is most suspicious where it most resembles those later accounts. In essence, Stevenson is providing the kind of account of the First Vision that one would expect in his day, and its value as evidence for what happened in 1820 is negligible, in my view.

Its value is already negligible, I would agree, given the circumstances around it and Stevenson's personal issues, which are far and away the most damning indictments, but if I understand correctly, are we also talking about several minor issues of evidence? This is:
1) a speech, ostensibly heard by a 14 year old kid in 1834,
2) which he only wrote about 60 years later,
3) in which he recalled the words he heard, as a child, that Joseph Smith said in a speech,
4) in which Joseph Smith described an experience he had had, 14 years prior to that?

Come on. This explains the convoluted title: "A reminiscence of an 1834 retelling...," there really needs to be plausible deniability when people start asking about the reliability of the story.

[_consiglieri]

On another note, Professor Peterson seeks to make this 1834 reminiscence more important than it actually is.

How does he do this?

By eliding the 1835 account in which two personages ARE mentioned in favor of the 1838 account in which . . . two personages ARE mentioned.

Here is how he does it in the opening paragraph:

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:

If Professor Peterson had included the 1835 account in which Joseph Smith relates seeing two personages, the thrust of his argument would have been largely undermined.

And it is clear Professor Peterson has the 1835 account in his mind while writing the article, because that is the account famous for introducing the "vision of angels" theme, which Professor Peterson mentions.

[_mentalgymnast]

Okay, so we have a recollection based upon:

1) a speech, ostensibly heard by a 14 year old kid in 1834,
2) which he only wrote about 60 years later,
3) in which he recalled the words he heard, as a child, that Joseph Smith said in a speech,
4) in which Joseph Smith described an experience he had had, 14 years prior to that?

I can't speak for anyone else but me. But when I read this OP and some of the thoughts posted thereafter my mind went back to when I was a kid. I have some pretty vivid recollections. And I'm almost positive that these recollections have not been tampered with and/or been the result of some kind of distorted false memory syndrome. They're still in my head...and it's been around fifty plus years now.

So I guess when I read this account I'm not looking at the amount of time that's gone by as being the determining factor for whether the memory is accurate or not. Especially if the memory deals with something of an extraordinary nature. I remember one experience I had when I was nineteen and getting ready to leave on a mission. I will not share it in this venue, of course. But I remember it very clearly. I have not forgotten or distorted it. I am sure it happened as I remember it.

It was an experience that I had in the Salt Lake Temple.

Regards,
MG

[_Runtu]

I can't speak for anyone else but me. But when I read this opening post and some of the thoughts posted thereafter my mind went back to when I was a kid. I have some pretty vivid recollections. And I'm almost positive that these recollections have not been tampered with and/or been the result of some kind of distorted false memory syndrome. They're still in my head...and it's been around fifty plus years now.

So I guess when I read this account I'm not looking at the amount of time that's gone by as being the determining factor for whether the memory is accurate or not. Especially if the memory deals with something of an extraordinary nature. I remember one experience I had when I was nineteen and getting ready to leave on a mission. I will not share it in this venue, of course. But I remember it very clearly. I have not forgotten or distorted it. I am sure it happened as I remember it.

It was an experience that I had in the Salt Lake Temple.

Regards,
MG

I'm not discounting your memories, but there is a reason historians generally don't give as much weight to late recollections as to contemporaneous ones. As others have noted, the raw material of the memory might be more or less the same, but the context has changed. When you remember something at, say 15, it's not going to mean the same thing as when you remember it 50 years later. Memories are always reinterpreted based on context, and when you're recalling something 60 years later, the context includes everything you've experienced in the intervening years. So, the mental image of the experience might be remembered, but the baggage from the intervening years tends to merge with the raw image. Memory and experience are, in many ways, fictive creations.

[_Gadianton]

Mr. Stevenson is recounting this event in 1894

lol. 'nuff said. But seriously, your explanation to Shades -- and his observation was good too -- was a good one. Once there's a story in place, it's all over.

I don't care about the spaulding theory really, but unless there was already a myth spun about it and the witnesses were in contact with each other, it's not the same.

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?

[_grindael]

Joseph wasn't telling the story of the claimed first vision in 1834. He didn't even revamp it until 1835, and did this privately to someone he considered a murderer. The reason that Joseph did this, was to have the account written into his diary, which was to be his "history". The first instance we have of Joseph telling the story is in 1842 when he published his history and wrote the Wentworth letter. All other versions were private. And, in 1834 Joseph did not believe in a two person Godhead in BODILY form. He was teaching that the "father" was a spirit and Jesus was God in bodily form. When he had the opportunity to publish on this in 1834 (The Smith/Cowdery History) he omitted it for the story the missionaries were telling, that Joseph first approached the speaking to deity in 1823, and was answered by an angel. And if he was telling this story in 1834 so publicly, why did he help write and have published the Lectures on Faith a year later? It makes absolutely no sense. Smith may have related that he saw Jesus (as in the 1832 account) but he wouldn't have given the people of Pontiac the version that Stevenson claims that he did.

I'm in my 60's and I remember the Moon Landing. I saw it on TV. But is that was all the information I had, I would not be able to tell you what Neil Armstrong said when he stepped on the Moon. The only reason I know what those words were, is from being familiar with later accounts/news stories. I find it very doubtful that Stevenson would remember exactly what Smith said in that sermon.