First vision... is this really true?

[_harmony]

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.

What do you think evidence is?

[Anonymous]

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)

The available historical evidence suggests, as James Allen has observed, that "at best [the First Vision story] received only limited circulation" prior to the 1840s. I've already mentioned some possible explanations for this (Quinn, Bushman).

Does this go against Joseph's 1838 recollection that he suffered "bitter persecution" for telling the story? Yes, I think it does. But then Joseph 1838 history is problematic on a number of counts. I don't believe for a minute that "all the sects" united to persecute him for relating his theophany (JS-H 1:22). Early anti-Mormon accounts--notably the Hurlbut affidavits--never mention it, a baffling omission if the story was widely known and ridiculed (like the Moroni story).

As James Allen points out:

Joseph Smith himself never used the First Vision to illustrate his own expanded teachings about God. It appears, in fact, that he seldom referred to it at all, except in private conversation, even after it was published.

-- James B. Allen, "Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smith's First Vision in Mormon Religious Thought," Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980):51-52.

This is interesting, to be sure, but I don't think it suggests that Joseph simply invented the story. (If he did, he didn't get much mileage out it.) I think Joseph did have a visionary experience of God ca. 1820.

Even Dan Vogel grants as much:

Based on passages in the Book of Mormon which appear to contain fragments of Joseph's first vision experience, I suspect that the vision, or at least the claim to a vision, may be traced to the 1820-21. I therefore reject the suggestion that Smith invented the vision in the 1830s."

--Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004), 30.

[_harmony]

Even Dan Vogel grants as much:

Based on passages in the Book of Mormon which appear to contain fragments of Joseph's first vision experience, I suspect that the vision, or at least the claim to a vision, may be traced to the 1820-21. I therefore reject the suggestion that Smith invented the vision in the 1830s"

--Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004), 30.

Which brings up the thought that while Joseph may not have invented the vision in the 1830's, there's no saying he didn't invent it in the 1820's.

Those pesky things called witnesses and proof. All we have is Joseph's word, and we know how reliable that was.

[_Nevo]

Which brings up the thought that while Joseph may not have invented the vision in the 1830's, there's no saying he didn't invent it in the 1820's.

Those pesky things called witnesses and proof. All we have is Joseph's word, and we know how reliable that was.

Do you accept any of Joseph's visions for which there were witnesses?

[_gramps]

Hey LOAP,

Is Anderson's essay, Circumstantial Confirmation... in that book of essays? Just wondering.

If so, let's start with that.

[_gramps]

Hi LOAP, I just read Barney's review and , yes, that essay is in the book. I just read that essay in the BYU STUDIES. Could you tell us how it might be different from the newer publication, if at all?

I think it is a pretty bad essay, personally, and really has very little within it to help you support your argument. I mean, all it gives you is Lucy. LOL

Who else knew about the vision? before 1830-32? I couldn't find anything in there and Barney says that is the best of the bunch?

Help me out here. Did I miss something in that article? Lets start with that essay in particular, since you suggested we start with that book.

Ready? Let me get my new glasses on so we can go at this. I don't want to miss anything. OK. Ready.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Hi LOAP, I just read Barney's review and , yes, that essay is in the book. I just read that essay in the BYU STUDIES. Could you tell us how it might be different from the newer publication, if at all?

I think it is a pretty bad essay, personally, and really has very little within it to help you support your argument. I mean, all it gives you is Lucy. LOL

Who else knew about the vision? before 1830-32? I couldn't find anything in there and Barney says that is the best of the bunch?

Help me out here. Did I miss something in that article? Lets start with that essay in particular, since you suggested we start with that book.

Ready? Let me get my new glasses on so we can go at this. I don't want to miss anything. OK. Ready.

I've only read the version in Opening the Heavens, so I cannot do a compare/contrast on what differences may be present. I haven't read the article itself n over a year so I would need to revisit it in order to have a substantive discussion on it. Since I'm currently reading other things this is not presently something I will be doing. But I do appreciate your interest, and especially your willingness to read things.

[_gramps]

Hmmmh, kind of seems like you are running away. Or else, why did you pop in with those statements?

You indicated I would find something in that book. Now, you say you haven't read it for over a year and would have to refresh your memory. It took me 10 minutes to go through Anderson's article, of course, only to find nothing. Come on, LOAp. You are the one that said somethig is in that book that could answer our questions. Where is it? Again, Lucy? lol

Pony up, bud. You are the one that came into the thread and told us all that we were wrong. Now, you won't back it up?

Gosh, are all the boy apologists like this? They run off when it gets hot. You have a lot of time to hang out here and on the other board and throw out your little zingers. Well, now I am calling you on it.

[Guest]

Hmmmh, kind of seems like you are running away. Or else, why did you pop in with those statements?

Statements? I disagreed that the First Vision wasn't known until after 1840. No matter what source you ask (who knows anything) such an allegation is false.

You indicated I would find something in that book. Now, you say you haven't read it for over a year and would have to refresh your memory. It took me 10 minutes to go through Anderson's article, of course, only to find nothing. Come on, LOAp. You are the one that said somethig is in that book that could answer our questions. Where is it? Again, Lucy? lol

You are the one who brought it up, actually. I noted the fallacy in thinking that if something can't be shown to have been written down then it must not have occurred. I said: "Remember kids, something only happens if you wrote it down, and if that writing survived for the perusal of others.

Wait a second..."

Then you asked "what I got." I then referred you to the best and easiest source on the first vision primary documents and information of which I am aware, which is the book Opening the Heavens. I apologize for not wishing to provide a lengthy doctoral dissertation for you. You can call it "running away" if you want. I call it pointing to some of the sources I've read in response to a request for sources. I provided them. You can do with them what you will.

Pony up, bud. You are the one that came into the thread and told us all that we were wrong. Now, you won't back it up?

Told you that you were wrong, yes. Wrong about the FV not being known until after 1840. If you don't concede that point I really don't know what else to tell you.

Gosh, are all the boy apologists like this? They run off when it gets hot. You have a lot of time to hang out here and on the other board and throw out your little zingers. Well, now I am calling you on it.

It's not feeling hot to me at all. But the goalposts sure have a hard time staying in one place around here.

[_gramps]

Oh come on LOAP.

Go back and look at the thread. Inconceivable changed his timeline to 1830. And you still chimed in. Is he wrong or do you agree with him?

If you don't agree with him, where is the evidence to refute him? In the book you sent me to read?