First vision... is this really true?

[_harmony]

Sometimes it's hard to remember that we have no independent documentation that Abraham existed.

[_Nevo]

Sometimes it's hard to remember that we have no independent documentation that Abraham existed.

Unless you count Fort Abram.

[_Inconceivable]

..Why would a Methodist preacher even bother to record such a thing..?

I'll refer you to this doctrinally accepted quote (Bushman's are not):

22 I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects —all united to persecute me.

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:22)

But maybe Bushman could be right since the only known language in 1820's upstate New York was Navajo.

Imagine any published anti-Smith lit between 1820 - 1832 that would not preface by mocking the Mormon prophet's self-declared calling from God (the first vision).

Do you really think the Mormon Satan would consider the first vision a "no fly zone" for 12 years? According to the above statement, Smith said he jumped right on it.

C'mon Nevo, think about it.



Going on 3 pages and still nothing.

[_Inconceivable]

Sometimes it's hard to remember that we have no independent documentation that Abraham existed.

Apples and elephants.

The only assumption I'll make is that if there were an accurate pre 1832 first vision account, it would be located in the church's archives. Bushman and others have buried themselves for years dusting off documents and have found nothing.

If it were found it would, no doubt, be unfurled at the end of Moroni's trumpet (just as the papyra was).

[_Nevo]

Imagine any published anti-Smith lit between 1820 - 1832 that would not preface by mocking the Mormon prophet's self-declared calling from God (the first vision).

I can. Easily.

As we have seen, Joseph didn't initially present the vision as a calling from God, but as a divine manifestation of forgiveness. Many revival subjects reported similar experiences (see, e.g., Charles Finney). Thus, Michael Quinn writes: "Though Smith's vision of deity was not remarkable in the 1820s, his visions surrounding the Book of Mormon created a sensation" (D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 3-4).

Like I said before, I think JS-H 1:22 is problematic. I don't think it's historically accurate, although it probably does accurately reflect Joseph's feelings of injury. The Hurlbut affidavits amply attest to the general prejudice against the Smith family--and against Joseph in particular--in the 1820s.

[_Inconceivable]

Nevo:As we have seen, Joseph didn't initially present the vision as a calling from God, but as a divine manifestation of forgiveness..

Like I said before, I think JS-H 1:22 is problematic. I don't think it's historically accurate..

Nevo,

The first vision had nothing to do with forgiveness. Nothing.

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join..

Admittedly, Smith doesn't specifically state he was called on that day. However, the remarkable difference between Smith's vision and others was that:

a) both Jesus and God appeared (this is remarkable - same reason why people speculate Michael and Janet Jackson are rarely seen together)
b) Jesus told him that all religeons were an abomination (also remarkable - Jesus diss'd everyone).

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:18 - 19)

Smith was called and forgiven by a floating man named Moroni - not God - 3 years later:

29 ..on the evening of the above-mentioned twenty-first of September.. I betook myself to prayer.. for forgiveness of all my sins.. and also for a manifestation to me.. as I previously had one.
30 While I was thus in the act of calling upon God.. a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air..
33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do;

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:29 - 33)

Still, no mention of the first vision for 12 years - not even by the Mormon Satan himself.

[_Nevo]

Nevo:As we have seen, Joseph didn't initially present the vision as a calling from God, but as a divine manifestation of forgiveness..

Like I said before, I think JS-H 1:22 is problematic. I don't think it's historically accurate..

Nevo,

The first vision had nothing to do with forgiveness. Nothing.

Obviously you're not interested in a serious discussion. You just want to bash. I already suspected as much, but this confirmed it.

FYI, Joseph's was not the only vision where God and Jesus appeared together or where all religions were said to be corrupt (see, respectively, Richard Lyman Bushman, "The Visionary World of Joseph Smith," BYU Studies 37, no. 1 [1997–98]: 191, and Elden J. Watson, "The 'Prognostication' of Asa Wild," BYU Studies 37, no. 3 [1997–98]: 229).

[_harmony]

Obviously you're not interested in a serious discussion. You just want to bash. I already suspected as much, but this confirmed it.

How did you get that from his post? He has some points that need to be discussed, and you're giving up?

Don't give up now!

[_Inconceivable]

[/i]As we have seen, Joseph didn't initially present the vision as a calling from God, but as a divine manifestation of forgiveness..

Nevo,

The first vision had nothing to do with forgiveness. Nothing.

Nevo,

Just because you've been shown that you're incorrect doesn't mean you're being bashed

You've made your point that both Bushman and Quinn had no evidence of a pre 1832 first vision account - and that all they could do was guess why they came up short. We'll both agree they were looking in the right place.

Any other hopeful prospectors you'd like to quote that didn't find any gold?

[_Nevo]

Nevo,

Just because you've been shown that you're incorrect doesn't mean you're being bashed

The 1829/30 reference to the First Vision in D&C 20:5, and the 1832 and 1835 accounts of the First Vision, all portray the vision primarily in terms of forgiveness of sins. Yet you write, "The first vision had nothing to do with forgiveness. Nothing." And I'm supposed to take you seriously?

Why should anyone expect to find a pre-1832 account of the First Vision? Who would have written it other than Joseph Smith? Was Joseph, who had little time or inclination to write, supposed to pen a spiritual autobiography in his teens? How many written sources are there for Norris Stearns's vision, apart from his own 1815 account?

You keep repeating this mantra about there being no pre-1832 account of the First Vision as if the absence of such a document is somehow significant. It isn't.