That Lovely Morning

[_DarkHelmet]

My main point is that I would suggest...if you read my posts carefully...that he would more than likely NOT get the number of personages wrong in his recollection. Unless he was purposefully doing so.

That would mean he was lying.

Regards,
MG

Are you talking about Joseph Smith?

[_mentalgymnast]

My main point is that I would suggest...if you read my posts carefully...that he would more than likely NOT get the number of personages wrong in his recollection. Unless he was purposefully doing so.

That would mean he was lying.

Regards,
MG

Are you talking about Joseph Smith?

Full quote, for the record:

Edward Stevenson may have remembered his experience listening to the prophet in the school house with exact precision, or he may not have. My main point is that I would suggest...if you read my posts carefully...that he would more than likely NOT get the number of personages wrong in his recollection. Unless he was purposefully doing so.

That would mean he was lying.

Bolded words are referring to the same person.

Hope that helps,
MG

[_Lemmie]

My main point is that I would suggest...if you read my posts carefully...that he would more than likely NOT get the number of personages wrong in his recollection. Unless he was purposefully doing so.

That would mean he was lying.

Regards,
MG

Are you talking about Joseph Smith?

I think he's talking about Stevenson. If he is and he thinks the big issue is whether or not Stevenson just correctly remembered the "number of personages," then he missed the point entirely that Kishkumen was making about the current environment influencing Stevenson, which grindael and aussieguy's posts also discussed and supported, among others.

It's too bad, because Kishkumen's research is fascinating. I'd rather hear more about that. Doc Cam was right.

[_honorentheos]

Interesting to see Dr. Peterson resurrect the old defense of the first vision. FAIRs old defense began with rather condescending assertions that there were many accounts of the first vision that supported the official version even predating the written 1832 account. But as more and more critics uncovered the reality these supposed early accounts all consisted of later recollections claiming someone heard the story somewhere in the 1830-1840 timeframe but being told no earlier than the 1850s, we saw this defense quietly retire in favor of others such as Smith's later visions and experiences helping him better understand what he had witnessed. That this defense fails to grasp how memory actually works to the point of almost arguing against itself was lost on those usually making the argument. I guess DCP is either getting old and having memory issues of his own, or he is quietly hoping to reassert this rather easily dismissed apologetic as it at least has the advantage of not requiring memory rewriting through recall.

[_Lemmie]

... as more and more critics uncovered the reality these supposed early accounts all consisted of later recollections claiming someone heard the story somewhere in the 1830-1840 timeframe but being told no earlier than the 1850s, we saw this defense quietly retire... I guess DCP is either getting old and having memory issues of his own, or he is quietly hoping to reassert this rather easily dismissed apologetic as it at least has the advantage of not requiring memory rewriting through recall.

Interesting backstory, honor, thanks. His revisiting of this doesn't seem to be going well, as he getting pushback in his comments similar to here:

This "story" recounted by Mr. Stevenson cannot be true. Let me explain.

We know from many first hand contemporaneous accounts from the apostles and many others that Joseph Smith wasn't telling the story of the claimed first vision in 1834.

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 and never openly taught in a two person Godhead. In 1834 Joseph Smith was teaching that Heavenly Father was a spirit and Jesus was God in bodily form.

When Joseph Smith had an opportunity to publish on this in 1834 (The Smith/Cowdery History) he omitted it.

In addition to the 60 year gap, Mr. Edward Stevenson is recounting a story that no one else in Church history happens to mention suggests this story just isn't true.

DCP's response is priceless.

I'm waiting for your explanation of why it "cannot be true."

And did I call it or what? I said DCP created such a convoluted title so that he could fall back on plausible deniability if there was pushback, and here it is:

I didn't offer [the Stevenson story] as proof.

I simply thought it interesting.

[people are reacting] as if I had offered it as -- and declared it -- a slam dunk.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yep. One will notice Mr. Peterson is now employing step #2.

- Doc

[_QuestionEverything]

I remember one experience I had when I was nineteen and getting ready to leave on a mission. I will not share it in this venue, of course. But I remember it very clearly. I have not forgotten or distorted it. I am sure it happened as I remember it.

It was an experience that I had in the Salt Lake Temple.

Regards,
MG

I think you're missing the essence of the argument here:

Just how do you know that you have 'not forgotten or distorted it'?? You are relying on the mechanisms of memory that your brain uses, and it is those mechanisms themselves that have been demonstrated to be unreliable. Our memories do not capture 'flash-bulb' type moments, but are continuously updated, revised, and altered with each remembrance.

So one does not need to be lying to be incorrect. It is not an accusation of dishonesty, but simply a recognition that our memories are not reliable.

There is a very famous study where students were asked to write what happened when the Challenger exploded. Years later, they were asked again, and there were substantial differences between what they later recalled, and what they had actually wrote at the time.

Link to Memory Study

I can't find access to the full article, but the abstract linked to above is sufficient.

I recall hearing a podcast on this topic, and if memory serves correctly (since I can't access the article itself at the moment, and I could be mistaken), the point was made that for some of the students, their response when they were shown their original written account, was that yeah, that was their handwriting, but that's not what happened.

In other words, they naïvely 'believed' their current memories and recall, even if they conflicted with what they actually wrote at the time of the events in question.

This is why memories simply cannot be relied on to establish actual events, with that reliability becoming increasingly poorer as time goes on, and other events have the opportunity to alter the original memories.

[_Stem]

Edward Stevenson may have remembered his experience listening to the prophet in the school house with exact precision, or he may not have. My main point is that I would suggest...if you read my posts carefully...that he would more than likely NOT get the number of personages wrong in his recollection. Unless he was purposefully doing so.

That would mean he was lying.

Regards,
MG

Not so. Not at all. If he was familiar with the official version for the bulk of the 60 years it is likely he is interpreting the memory of what was said in the schoolhouse in light of what he had been trained to think the first vision was. It is obvious in 1894 he is trying to testify, if you will, of the truthfulness of the church as understood such testifying to be in 1894, not in 1834.

[_consiglieri]

Edward Stevenson may have remembered his experience listening to the prophet in the school house with exact precision, or he may not have. My main point is that I would suggest...if you read my posts carefully...that he would more than likely NOT get the number of personages wrong in his recollection. Unless he was purposefully doing so.

This seems where you are trying to have it both ways, MG.

You say Stevenson was not likely to have gotten the number of personages wrong in his sixty-year old recollection.

But Joseph Smith did get the number of personages wrong in his twelve-year old recollection.

Can you see what I'm driving at?

[_Kishkumen]

Not so. Not at all. If he was familiar with the official version for the bulk of the 60 years it is likely he is interpreting the memory of what was said in the schoolhouse in light of what he had been trained to think the first vision was. It is obvious in 1894 he is trying to testify, if you will, of the truthfulness of the church as understood such testifying to be in 1894, not in 1834.

Bingo.