That Lovely Morning

[_Meadowchik]

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 a kind of reform of LDS theology after the abandonment of polygamy and the Adam-God doctrine.

Times and Seasons essentially says this.

"The correlated gospel of the modern LDS Church gives prominent place to the First Vision in the story of the Restoration. Interestingly, that was not the story of the Restoration told in Joseph’s day. Indeed, clear through the 19th century the First Vision was not a central part in how the Restoration was recounted. As LDS historian James Allen put it, “the weight of evidence would suggest that it [the First Vision] was not a matter of common knowledge, even among church members, in the earliest years of Mormon History.” [5] Kathleen Flake recounts the emergence of the familiar “Joseph Smith story,” starting with the First Vision, during the first decades of the 20th century. She describes it as “not only a source of doctrine but as the modern L.D.S. Church’s master narrative.” [6]

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive ... st-vision/

[cacheman]

Times and Seasons essentially says this.

"The correlated gospel of the modern LDS Church gives prominent place to the First Vision in the story of the Restoration. Interestingly, that was not the story of the Restoration told in Joseph’s day. Indeed, clear through the 19th century the First Vision was not a central part in how the Restoration was recounted. As LDS historian James Allen put it, “the weight of evidence would suggest that it [the First Vision] was not a matter of common knowledge, even among church members, in the earliest years of Mormon History.” [5] Kathleen Flake recounts the emergence of the familiar “Joseph Smith story,” starting with the First Vision, during the first decades of the 20th century. She describes it as “not only a source of doctrine but as the modern L.D.S. Church’s master narrative.” [6]

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive ... st-vision/

That's correct. It's interesting that, in Joseph's immediately family's accounts, they have Moroni's visit as the first vision. When Lucy Smith's book came out later, it was heavily redacted, and the canonized First Vision account was merely inserted into the book.

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

I get that, Runtu. I've read a bit of psychology and brain science/memory stuff. And I'm not discounting that equal weight may not always be given to long term vs. short term memory. But, again, I can only speak for myself.

I'm sure that you also have memories from many years ago that you can remember very clearly and are almost 100% positive that they are accurate or nearly accurate.

I don't think we can automatically discount Edward Stevenson's recalled memory on the basis that some folks may not recall experiences vividly after an interim of many years.

Some folks can. And many do.

And I don't see why some commonalities with phraseology, birth dates, and even the age at which Edward heard Joseph speak, ought to influence whether or not his recollection hits the mark in regards to what he saw/heard. Especially if he DID hear similar language used by others during the interim.

What matters at the end of the day is whether or not Edward Stevenson had an accurate recollection of what he heard Joseph say. Number of heavenly beings, etc.

And it's a matter of trust.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...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?

Depends. If the two immortal beings were God and Christ and supporting crew, angels and the like, I'd give it a bit more credence than picturing/visualizing one eyed green alien beings oozing slime from their skin.

Regards,
MG

[_Runtu]

I get that, Runtu. I've read a bit of psychology and brain science/memory stuff. And I'm not discounting that equal weight may not always be given to long term vs. short term memory. But, again, I can only speak for myself.

I'm sure that you also have memories from many years ago that you can remember very clearly and are almost 100% positive that they are accurate or nearly accurate.

I don't think we can automatically discount Edward Stevenson's recalled memory on the basis that some folks may not recall experiences vividly after an interim of many years.

Some folks can. And many do.

And I don't see why some commonalities with phraseology, birth dates, and even the age at which Edward heard Joseph speak, ought to influence whether or not his recollection hits the mark in regards to what he saw/heard. Especially if he DID hear similar language used by others during the interim.

What matters at the end of the day is whether or not Edward Stevenson had an accurate recollection of what he heard Joseph say. Number of heavenly beings, etc.

And it's a matter of trust.

Regards,
MG

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.

[_Meadowchik]

Times and Seasons essentially says this.

"The correlated gospel of the modern LDS Church gives prominent place to the First Vision in the story of the Restoration. Interestingly, that was not the story of the Restoration told in Joseph’s day. Indeed, clear through the 19th century the First Vision was not a central part in how the Restoration was recounted. As LDS historian James Allen put it, “the weight of evidence would suggest that it [the First Vision] was not a matter of common knowledge, even among church members, in the earliest years of Mormon History.” [5] Kathleen Flake recounts the emergence of the familiar “Joseph Smith story,” starting with the First Vision, during the first decades of the 20th century. She describes it as “not only a source of doctrine but as the modern L.D.S. Church’s master narrative.” [6]

http://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive ... st-vision/

That's correct. It's interesting that, in Joseph's immediately family's accounts, they have Moroni's visit as the first vision. When Lucy Smith's book came out later, it was heavily redacted, and the canonized First Vision account was merely inserted into the book.

Yes, and we know that the 1800s church was not immune from the problems of memory. There seems to be a pattern of the need to affirm the current narrative with spiritual experiences and memories of spiritual experiences, even if they have to be invented.

[_Meadowchik]

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.

[_mentalgymnast]

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. I'm with you on the fact that sometimes exact words...or a lot of the 'filler'... might be difficult to recollect exactly, but it isn't as difficult to accept that an exact number would be recalled from a general recollection...two isn't a very hard number to remember. And if Edward actually heard the number one rather than two in the original sermon I would think that this would 'stand out' in his memory. It's not too hard to differentiate the difference between one and two even after sixty years.

Remembering that God and Jesus were both mentioned isn't an unreasonable assumption. Remembering that Joseph said an angel appeared to him after that experience also wouldn't be something that would be difficult to accept...even with a generalized and incomplete memory.

For me, even with generalized memories, it's the important details...numbers, textures, smells, feelings, etc., that stand out.

And again, it's a matter of trust. Can we trust Edward Stevenson as a witness to the same extent as other witnesses at the time?

Why would he lie at that point in his life?

Regards,
MG

[_Runtu]

Unless Edward was reminded in the interim and recollected what he heard. I'm with you on the fact that sometimes exact words...or a lot of the 'filler'... might be difficult to recollect exactly, but it isn't as difficult to accept that an exact number would be recalled from a general recollection...two isn't a very hard number to remember. And if Edward actually heard the number one rather than two in the original sermon I would think that this would 'stand out' in his memory. It's not too hard to differentiate the difference between one and two even after sixty years.

Remembering that God and Jesus were both mentioned isn't an unreasonable assumption. Remembering that Joseph said an angel appeared to him after that experience also wouldn't be something that would be difficult to accept...even with a generalized and incomplete memory.

For me, even with generalized memories, it's the important details...numbers, textures, smells, feelings, etc., that stand out.

And again, it's a matter of trust. Can we trust Edward Stevenson as a witness to the same extent as other witnesses at the time?

Why would he lie at that point in his life?

Regards,
MG

Again, I don't think anyone is saying he lied. What reason do we have to trust him as a witness? We have none, as far as I can tell.

[_Meadowchik]

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. I'm with you on the fact that sometimes exact words...or a lot of the 'filler'... might be difficult to recollect exactly, but it isn't as difficult to accept that an exact number would be recalled from a general recollection...two isn't a very hard number to remember. And if Edward actually heard the number one rather than two in the original sermon I would think that this would 'stand out' in his memory. It's not too hard to differentiate the difference between one and two even after sixty years.

Remembering that God and Jesus were both mentioned isn't an unreasonable assumption. Remembering that Joseph said an angel appeared to him after that experience also wouldn't be something that would be difficult to accept...even with a generalized and incomplete memory.

For me, even with generalized memories, it's the important details...numbers, textures, smells, feelings, etc., that stand out.

And again, it's a matter of trust. Can we trust Edward Stevenson as a witness to the same extent as other witnesses at the time?

Why would he lie at that point in his life?

Regards,
MG

How about just comparing him to Joseph's only account in his own hand? No, he need not be lying in order to tell the story wrong. He could believe it.