DiscussMormonism.com

Our old friend DCP has offered up a "noteworthy" post on Sic et Non about an early witness to the First Vision.

See: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/07/a-reminiscence-of-an-1834-retelling-of-the-first-vision-story-by-joseph-smith.html

In his 1894 autobiographical account of a visit of Joseph Smith to Pontiac, Michigan, Edward Stevenson reports the words of Joseph Smith's 1834 sermon:

Here are some of the Prophet’s words, as uttered in the schoolhouse. With uplifted hand, he said, “I am a witness that there is a God, for I saw Him in open day, while praying in a silent grove in the spring of 1820.”

He further testified that God, the Eternal Father, pointing to a separate personage, in the likeness of Himself, said: “This is my Beloved Son, hear ye Him.” Oh how these words thrilled my entire system, and filled me with joy unspeakable, to behold one who, like Paul the apostle of olden time, could with boldness testify that he had been in the presence of Jesus Christ!

DCP introduces this information with the observation that:

DCP 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.

OK, well, that Stevenson account looks like decent evidence that the "critics" are wrong, or, to take it out of a polemical context and restore the discussion to its proper historiographical context, that historians might add this to their evidences that Smith was claiming a visit of two "personages" in 1834.

Here's the problem, and it is a real problem:

Contamination of memory. Mr. Stevenson is recounting this event in 1894. By this time, not only would Joseph Smith's 1838 First Vision account of two personages, in one form or another, been known for many years (the Joseph Smith History was canonized in 1880 as part of the PoGP), but also the hymn "Joseph Smith's First Prayer" which would appear in the Sunday School Union Songbook. Also, there was C. C. A. Christensen's painting of the First Vision, completed by 1878 and now lost.

If we look more closely at Stevenson's account, we see how its language is reminiscent of both the Joseph Smith History (canonized as part of the PoGP in 1880) and the hymn.

Stevenson wrote:With uplifted hand, he said, “I am a witness that there is a God, for I saw Him in open day, while praying in a silent grove in the spring of 1820.”

Joseph Smith History wrote:14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty.

Manwaring wrote:Oh, how lovely was the morning!
Radiant beamed the sun above.

Now for the two "personages":

Stevenson wrote:God, the Eternal Father, pointing to a separate personage, in the likeness of Himself, said: “This is my Beloved Son, hear ye Him.

Joseph Smith History wrote:When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

Manwaring wrote:While appeared two heav’nly beings,
God the Father and the Son,

***

“Joseph, this is my Beloved;
Hear him!”

Stevenson's emotional reaction to Joseph Smith's alleged 1834 First Vision account is reminiscent of Manwaring's poetic description of Smith's reaction to seeing the Father and Son, which is absent from Smith's 1838 First Vision account:

Stevenson wrote:Oh how these words thrilled my entire system, and filled me with joy unspeakable, to behold one who, like Paul the apostle of olden time, could with boldness testify that he had been in the presence of Jesus Christ!

Manwaring wrote:Oh, what rapture filled his bosom,
For he saw the living God

In my view there is enough similarity here to warrant the acknowledgment of the possibility that Stevenson's recollection of 1834 has been deeply colored by accounts of the First Vision that subsequently circulated widely within the LDS Church. As prominent historians of Mormonism have recognized, the late 19th century was the time when the First Vision's prominence and significance as an inaugural event of the Restoration really started to take off. The canonization of the PoGP, the Manwaring hymn, and the Christensen painting all reflect that reality. So too does Stevenson's account.

Now, I cannot say that Stevenson made up the story of personally hearing Smith testify of his First Vision. And we cannot completely discount the possibility that he mentioned two personages, but there is a very high probability that his memory of 1834 was contaminated by a later conception of the First Vision, the popularity of which (in the LDS Church) was exploding in Stevenson's own time.

In other words, DCP is not treating Stevenson's account in a historically responsible way. It would be more scholarly by far to acknowledge, at least, the possibility of contamination, given the information provided above.

Goodness, a 60 year difference? How old was Stevenson in 1834 vs. 1894?

I'm no historian, but even while reading your post, before you got to the punchline, the similarity in the language was obvious and jumped out to me. I repeat my sentiment shared on the other recent thread. How can I treat this as anything other than intentional deception? Am I supposed to believe that a PhD level researcher is this incompetent? It has to be intentional.

Water Dog wrote:Goodness, a 60 year difference? How old was Stevenson in 1834 vs. 1894?

Well, this is where things get even more interesting and suggestive, Water Dog. Edward Stevenson was born in the spring of 1820, May 1, to be precise. It is quite likely that he saw the coincidence between his birthdate and the First Vision to be extremely significant. Also, he heard Joseph Smith preach in the schoolhouse in 1834, or, when Stevenson was 14 years old. As you recall, Joseph Smith was approximately 14 years old when he had his First Vision. So, we have good reason to think that Stevenson constructed his account with deliberate allusions to Joseph Smith's First Vision in its more famous versions because he wanted his reader to pick up on his personal connection to Joseph Smith's First Vision. Stevenson seems to be suggesting that his experience hearing about the First Vision was mightily akin to Joseph Smith's experience of having the vision.

Okay, let me see if I have this straight. . .

The Conneaut Witnesses who identified the Book of Mormon as having been derived from Solomon Spalding's "Manuscript Found" cannot be trusted because 22 years had passed between the event and their statements, but Edward Stevenson can be trusted in spite of the fact that 60 years had passed between the event and his statement.

Is that about right?

Water Dog wrote:I'm no historian, but even while reading your post, before you got to the punchline, the similarity in the language was obvious and jumped out to me. I repeat my sentiment shared on the other recent thread. How can I treat this as anything other than intentional deception? Am I supposed to believe that a PhD level researcher is this incompetent? It has to be intentional.

Yes, I don't know. I think DCP would say that he is writing on a blog and he only intended to draw people's attention to the existence of this account without really getting into the nitty gritty of it. Of course, in making this choice, he has found a nice way of avoiding the salient questions regarding the account, and, as you can see, there is every reason to think that Stevenson has juiced up his account for reasons that are understandable from a late 19th century Mormon perspective but problematic from a modern historian's perspective. I would say Stevenson's account provides very weak (perhaps even negligible) support for the 1838 and later versions of the First Vision, as what amounts to a much later account of the First Vision (1894).

Dr. Shades wrote:Okay, let me see if I have this straight. . .

The Conneaut Witnesses who identified the Book of Mormon as having been derived from Solomon Spalding's "Manuscript Found" cannot be trusted because 22 years had passed between the event and their statements, but Edward Stevenson can be trusted in spite of the fact that 60 yeas had passed between the event and his statement.

Is that about right?

It is important to raise the issue of contamination of memory in all of these cases, of course. Would a 22 year gap be less profound than a 60 year gap? Yes. I think so.

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.

Any competent historian would reference all available contemporary accounts before looking at sixty-year old post-contemporary accounts. So where did DCP reference the former?

The stupidity in this article might have surprised me many years ago, but not anymore. I don't expect much from Mormon apologists.

Kishkumen wrote:Contamination of memory. Mr. Stevenson is recounting this event in 1894. By this time, not only would Joseph Smith's 1838 First Vision account of two personages, in one form or another, been known for many years (the Joseph Smith History was canonized in 1880 as part of the PoGP), but also the hymn "Joseph Smith's First Prayer" which would appear in the Sunday School Union Songbook. Also, there was C. C. A. Christensen's painting of the First Vision, completed by 1878 and now lost.

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.

Dr. Shades wrote:Okay, let me see if I have this straight. . .

The Conneaut Witnesses who identified the Book of Mormon as having been derived from Solomon Spalding's "Manuscript Found" cannot be trusted because 22 years had passed between the event and their statements, but Edward Stevenson can be trusted in spite of the fact that 60 yeas had passed between the event and his statement.

Is that about right?

This looks like yet another instance of #1 and #8 of your apologist tactics that you explain on your website: http://www.mormoninformation.com/pro_lds.htm

DCP is privileging positive information in a vacuum.