That Lovely Morning

[_Fence Sitter]

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

You are right, it does have nothing do with the accuracy of the statement.

What it does is it allows arbitrary rejection of any unsympathetic testimonies by casting aspersions on the motivations and honesty of the person giving the testimony.

So the Conneaut Witnesses can be dismissed simply because of bad motivations and dishonesty, while Stevenson's can be accepted simply because his motives must be pure and honest.

[_Runtu]

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

As has been mentioned, Joseph was teaching that only Jesus had a body, not the Father, so this recollection of Stevenson's would have turned Joseph's teaching on its head.

[_mentalgymnast]

That Stevenson is discussing a public recounting that no one else mentions suggests we should take it with a grain of salt.

Who else was with him in that schoolhouse that day and how many? Who of those later joined the church? And of those, who went to Utah?

And then decided to add their account to the historical record. Assuming there was anyone else from that schoolhouse to confirm or back up Stevenson's account.

Some gaps/missing pages in this small slice of the historical record? Wouldn't be the first time.

It's not unimaginable, however, that Edward Stevenson was in a position to be one of a very few, if any, to give an account of what went on in that schoolhouse on that day.

But I'm open to further information on this wee slice of history.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

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.

Combining the very those issues you've presented with the further evidence that grindael presented above, and the Stevenson account carries even less weight:

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.

Kish, I saw this:

Of course, we are not just talking about the amount of time, but the way the FV was being recalled in Stevenson's day.

Exactly, the timeframe and memory issues are obvious and are to be treated like any other timeframe and memory issues-with academic rigor. I apologize that part of my post started a mopologist derailment, that was obviously not my intent! The much more significant and relevant issues that you have brought up, which are strongly corroborated by grindael's research as well as other comments, are fascinating.

[_Craig Paxton]

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.

Irrespective of what Stevenson recalled hearing. There is NO evidence that any god exists. Smith was either lying or delusional. Those that claim otherwise need to provide proof of a god figure...something that can not be provided since there is no proof that god exists, let alone a Christian god at that.

Smith's credibility is worthless, what with magic rocks, talisman and his magic world view. MG put up or shut up...what is your proof that your version of a god exists?

[_Runtu]

Who else was with him in that schoolhouse that day and how many? Who of those later joined the church? And of those, who went to Utah?

And then decided to add their account to the historical record. Assuming there was anyone else from that schoolhouse to confirm or back up Stevenson's account.

Some gaps/missing pages in this small slice of the historical record? Wouldn't be the first time.

It's not unimaginable, however, that Edward Stevenson was in a position to be one of a very few, if any, to give an account of what went on in that schoolhouse on that day.

But I'm open to further information on this wee slice of history.

Regards,
MG

Again, a small slice in the historical record, uncorroborated and late, does not outweigh the rest of the evidence. I think that's the point. No one is saying Stevenson is a liar, just that his late testimony doesn't carry much weight.

[_Meadowchik]

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

A well-intended person can honestly believe a fiction, even when the actual experience was different. That is a risk of believing the unproveable because of so-called witnesses.

[_aussieguy55]

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.

[_Runtu]

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.

Thanks for that. It's pretty much in line with the OP: the narrative is influenced by what came before it.

[Guest]

They don't want a "better" representative. Someone with credentials getting taken to the woodshed is bad for business, the village idiot on the other hand... he must be tolerated or it makes exmos look mean. Then they can howl, "see, see, look what angry, bitter people they are. they pick on the special olympics."

I resent the fundamental dishonesty of the whole exercise, be it PhD-credential-bearing apologists or milquetoast sado-masochistis on obscure message boards. They disrespect everyone by deliberately underperforming and failing to scrutinize adequately the evidence. All is thrown into the goal of believing, regardless of the quality or truthfulness of the object of belief.