First vision... is this really true?

[_Inconceivable]

Nevo,

I'll amend: "..prior to the 1830's"

My point is that if a TBM Mormon researcher like Bushman has failed at digging up evidence, who can? (and who will?).

Let's keep it simple. There's 12 years (about 1820 to 1832) of vapor upon the subject of the First Vision.

There is nothing. Zilch. Blank paper. Not even a hope.

Hey, let's discuss the accounts of the First Vision prior to 1832

(crickets chirping)

[_Inconceivable]

Crickets still chirping..

12 years.. nothing. not one account of the first vision on record from any periodical to a journal entry. A famine of evidence. Not even a rumor.

Evidently, Smith defended a story he was never known to have related to anyone previous to 1832 - and was hated and persecuted for it from the time he was 14?

huh?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The first indication, in my mind, that this may be a little less than a rock-solid piece of scholarship is this:

Original Author Of Article: SpongeBob SquareGarments

LOL

I would suggest that after a lifetime of research, Bushman can only guess why there is no evidence of the "visitation of Diety" to his hero previous to the 1840's.

There is no evidence.

None.

Utterly false. Empirically so, too! Quite remarkable, confident, and incorrect.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Nevo,

I'll amend: "..prior to the 1830's"

My point is that if a TBM Mormon researcher like Bushman has failed at digging up evidence, who can? (and who will?).

Let's keep it simple. There's 12 years (about 1820 to 1832) of vapor upon the subject of the First Vision.

There is nothing. Zilch. Blank paper. Not even a hope.

Hey, let's discuss the accounts of the First Vision prior to 1832

(crickets chirping)

Remember kids, something only happens if you wrote it down, and if that writing survived for the perusal of others.

Wait a second...

[_gramps]

Nevo,

I'll amend: "..prior to the 1830's"

My point is that if a TBM Mormon researcher like Bushman has failed at digging up evidence, who can? (and who will?).

Let's keep it simple. There's 12 years (about 1820 to 1832) of vapor upon the subject of the First Vision.

There is nothing. Zilch. Blank paper. Not even a hope.

Hey, let's discuss the accounts of the First Vision prior to 1832

(crickets chirping)

Remember kids, something only happens if you wrote it down, and if that writing survived for the perusal of others.

Wait a second...

So, what have you got? Show us something, anything.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

So, what have you got? Show us something, anything.

I have nothing that I haven't already seen published in various places including firsthand accounts, contemporary criticisms, oral accounts second or third hand, etc.

Thus, remember kids, something only happens if you wrote it down, and if that writing survived for the perusal of others.

I advise starting here:

http://www.amazon.com/Opening-Heavens-M ... 0842526072

[_gramps]

So, what have you got? Show us something, anything.

I have nothing that I haven't already seen published in various places including firsthand accounts, contemporary criticisms, oral accounts second or third hand, etc.

Thus, remember kids, something only happens if you wrote it down, and if that writing survived for the perusal of others.

I advise starting here:

http://www.amazon.com/Opening-Heavens-M ... 0842526072

Thanks for the link. I don't have the book and was just perusing through the reviews.

Here was one:

The best commentary in this set, by far, is that which precedes the collection of documents relating to the first vision. The excellent essay by Dean Jesse, and especially the one by James B. Allen and Welch himself, far exceed the others in clarity. Joseph Smith's ten accounts of the first vision, contained in thirteen documents, are then presented chronologically. Welch and Allen use the very helpful tool of providing charts summarizing the contents of each of the ten accounts.

Another one spoke of eight accounts.

But, since I don't have the book, and you apparently do (?), is there any reason you can not share some of these accounts with us? Or are they on line somewhere else.

Lay out for us if you are willing what each of these accounts say, and who said them and to who. Could you do this for us?

[_harmony]

Remember kids, something only happens if you wrote it down, and if that writing survived for the perusal of others.

Wait a second...

Actually, something only has evidence that it happened if it's written down and has witnesses. Otherwise, all we have is speculation.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks for the link. I don't have the book and was just perusing through the reviews.

Here was one:

The best commentary in this set, by far, is that which precedes the collection of documents relating to the first vision. The excellent essay by Dean Jesse, and especially the one by James B. Allen and Welch himself, far exceed the others in clarity. Joseph Smith's ten accounts of the first vision, contained in thirteen documents, are then presented chronologically. Welch and Allen use the very helpful tool of providing charts summarizing the contents of each of the ten accounts.

Another one spoke of eight accounts.

But, since I don't have the book, and you apparently do (?), is there any reason you can not share some of these accounts with us? Or are they on line somewhere else.

Lay out for us if you are willing what each of these accounts say, and who said them and to who. Could you do this for us?

The book is available for all interested parties. It is a very good and valuable book. (I do own a copy and have read it. I purchased it with my junior mopologist salary.)

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Remember kids, something only happens if you wrote it down, and if that writing survived for the perusal of others.

Wait a second...

Actually, something only has evidence that it happened if it's written down and has witnesses. Otherwise, all we have is speculation.

Here harmony has listed her two qualifications for "evidence": that something is "written" and that "it" [not sure what the "it" refers to here, is it the writing of the record, is it the instance being written about, etc.] has "witnesses."

This is a very unique definition of evidence, I would say. I don't think this is a good definition of evidence.