Joseph’s First Vision - 1838 - fact and supposition

[malkie]

The comments from Pratt & Hyde have to be discounted as heresay and/or Chinese whispers. What some people said Joseph said about something that he only “remembered” a decade or more after he said it happened, and who remembered it differently and in an embellished fashion each time he retold it after that, is not what I would call “credible”.

As per the example that MG gave in a different thread about a man wrongly convicted on the basis of witness testimony that was coordinated by an interested party, you cannot trust witness testimony. Especially when that witness only remembers an extraordinary event a decade or more after it happened, at a point in their life when something extraordinary was needed to regain leadership credibility.

The whole series of First Visions bear the hallmark of somebody making it up as they went along. Pratt & Hyde saying what they thought Joseph might have said, should not be the basis of a Prophets conference talk, especially not when that Prophet deliberately hides the fact that he’s conjecturing up doctrine out of second hand heresay. If the sources were credible, why hide them…

It's a double-edged sword.

If testimony that flimsy is to be admitted ... well, look out! There's a lot more testimony of equal or better strength that logically would also become admissible.

[I Have Questions]

The comments from Pratt & Hyde have to be discounted as heresay and/or Chinese whispers. What some people said Joseph said about something that he only “remembered” a decade or more after he said it happened, and who remembered it differently and in an embellished fashion each time he retold it after that, is not what I would call “credible”.

As per the example that MG gave in a different thread about a man wrongly convicted on the basis of witness testimony that was coordinated by an interested party, you cannot trust witness testimony. Especially when that witness only remembers an extraordinary event a decade or more after it happened, at a point in their life when something extraordinary was needed to regain leadership credibility.

The whole series of First Visions bear the hallmark of somebody making it up as they went along. Pratt & Hyde saying what they thought Joseph might have said, should not be the basis of a Prophets conference talk, especially not when that Prophet deliberately hides the fact that he’s conjecturing up doctrine out of second hand heresay. If the sources were credible, why hide them…

It's a double-edged sword.

If testimony that flimsy is to be admitted ... well, look out! There's a lot more testimony of equal or better strength that logically would also become admissible.

Unfortunately serious apologists and amateur hacks like MG don’t see things like this in an intellectually honest or consistent way. Flimsy third hand heresay is to be taken as iron-clad credible testimony when it’s in favour of the Church’s claims. But it’s to be discounted out of hand if it isn’t. It’s impossible to hold a sensible discussion about something with someone holding that kind of extreme double standard.

[sock puppet]

It's a double-edged sword.

If testimony that flimsy is to be admitted ... well, look out! There's a lot more testimony of equal or better strength that logically would also become admissible.

Unfortunately serious apologists and amateur hacks like MG don’t see things like this in an intellectually honest or consistent way. Flimsy third hand heresay is to be taken as iron-clad credible testimony when it’s in favour of the Church’s claims. But it’s to be discounted out of hand if it isn’t. It’s impossible to hold a sensible discussion about something with someone holding that kind of extreme double standard.

Amen

[huckelberry]

The comments from Pratt & Hyde have to be discounted as heresay and/or Chinese whispers. What some people said Joseph said about something that he only “remembered” a decade or more after he said it happened, and who remembered it differently and in an embellished fashion each time he retold it after that, is not what I would call “credible”.

As per the example that MG gave in a different thread about a man wrongly convicted on the basis of witness testimony that was coordinated by an interested party, you cannot trust witness testimony. Especially when that witness only remembers an extraordinary event a decade or more after it happened, at a point in their life when something extraordinary was needed to regain leadership credibility.

The whole series of First Visions bear the hallmark of somebody making it up as they went along. Pratt & Hyde saying what they thought Joseph might have said, should not be the basis of a Prophets conference talk, especially not when that Prophet deliberately hides the fact that he’s conjecturing up doctrine out of second hand heresay. If the sources were credible, why hide them…

It's a double-edged sword.

If testimony that flimsy is to be admitted ... well, look out! There's a lot more testimony of equal or better strength that logically would also become admissible.

I remain a bit puzzled. I read Hinkley comments as a repeat of long established mantra of faith. It is what I was taught 30 years before Hinkley was church president. It was not new it was not questioned. It fits DC 130 and 132 it fits Joseph teaching as in King Follet discourse. It hardly needs Pratts pamphlet.

My understanding of LDS view of revelation is that the prophet is led by God in his understanding so ongoing interpretation is the substance not just details of a vision. Hence Hinkley is referencing what the vision means to the church not just the details reported.

Yes I see the difference this thread is looking at, it is an interesting observation. I ha e gone over it a few times. Read again the 1838 canonized story. It has a lot of detail that you, Malkie, did not include in your comparison. The details are not directly reporting what you note is missing so you are being correct.

What I see is Joseph being a story teller. He presents some drama and mystery. This invites a hearer into the story. What and who is this vision the hearer ask. At the same time the story is full of clues so the hearer can join in making the identification. This can be more compelling if Joseph wonders who this is an explains the hearer is invited to question. The story as presented uses people's assumptions and familiar images to decide for them. In a sense Malkie simplifying to basic data creates uncertainty that the story is designed to avoid.

It is clear that Mormon understanding of God was changing during Joseph Smiths life. Perhaps some ambiguity is in the report to allow followers to adjust. I gather Utah Mormons did. Reorganized did not holding to more traditional views of God.

[MG 2.0]

It is clear that Mormon understanding of God was changing during Joseph Smiths life. Perhaps some ambiguity is in the report to allow followers to adjust. I gather Utah Mormons did.

That's an interesting twist.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I remain a bit puzzled. I read Hinkley comments as a repeat of long established mantra of faith. It is what I was taught 30 years before Hinkley was church president. It was not new it was not questioned. It fits DC 130 and 132 it fits Joseph teaching as in King Follet discourse. It hardly needs Pratts pamphlet.

I'm not claiming to have made some new discovery, and I agree that Hinkley comments repeat of long established mantra of faith. If the other points I made don't strike you as significant, well, without simply repeating them I'm not sure what more I can say. The fact that something is generally not questioned doesn't say to me that it is not valid to question it. Quite the contrary.

My understanding of LDS view of revelation is that the prophet is led by God in his understanding so ongoing interpretation is the substance not just details of a vision. Hence Hinkley is referencing what the vision means to the church not just the details reported.

I don't see his talk as simply doing that.

Yes I see the difference this thread is looking at, it is an interesting observation. I ha e gone over it a few times. Read again the 1838 canonized story. It has a lot of detail that you, Malkie, did not include in your comparison. The details are not directly reporting what you note is missing so you are being correct.

I selected information from both the scripture and the talk to illustrate a couple of points, rather than reproducing the entirety of both.

What I see is Joseph being a story teller. He presents some drama and mystery. This invites a hearer into the story. What and who is this vision the hearer ask. At the same time the story is full of clues so the hearer can join in making the identification. This can be more compelling if Joseph wonders who this is an explains the hearer is invited to question. The story as presented uses people's assumptions and familiar images to decide for them. In a sense Malkie simplifying to basic data creates uncertainty that the story is designed to avoid.

Yes - the FV story hints at things, and allows the reader/hearer to fill in the blanks. The reason I introduce the idea of the disinterested listener/reader is to show that it's not always reasonable to expect people to fill in the blanks from your hints, and then simply accept what you're hinting at but are unwilling to state explicitly. Why should anyone, based on Joseph's own words, believe he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ? To me, it's an unwarranted assumption.

To then use these assumptions as the foundation of an unstated claim, and base the validity of a religion on it, seems to me to go far, far beyond what's reasonable.

It is clear that Mormon understanding of God was changing during Joseph Smiths life. Perhaps some ambiguity is in the report to allow followers to adjust. I gather Utah Mormons did. Reorganized did not holding to more traditional views of God.

I agree that the Mormon understanding of God was changing during Joseph Smith's life. I see that as problematic because Joseph states that “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another”. If the Mormon view of the character of their god is so fluid, it seems, once again, like a very poor foundation for a religion.

Thanks for your comments, huckelberry. I know that I can always depend on you for a thoughtful and honest appraisal of whatever you choose to comment on.

[MG 2.0]

I remain a bit puzzled. I read Hinkley comments as a repeat of long established mantra of faith. It is what I was taught 30 years before Hinkley was church president. It was not new it was not questioned. It fits DC 130 and 132 it fits Joseph teaching as in King Follet discourse. It hardly needs Pratts pamphlet.

I'm not claiming to have made some new discovery, and I agree that Hinkley comments repeat of long established mantra of faith. If the other points I made don't strike you as significant, well, without simply repeating them I'm not sure what more I can say. The fact that something is generally not questioned doesn't say to me that it is not valid to question it. Quite the contrary.

My understanding of LDS view of revelation is that the prophet is led by God in his understanding so ongoing interpretation is the substance not just details of a vision. Hence Hinkley is referencing what the vision means to the church not just the details reported.

I don't see his talk as simply doing that.

Yes I see the difference this thread is looking at, it is an interesting observation. I ha e gone over it a few times. Read again the 1838 canonized story. It has a lot of detail that you, Malkie, did not include in your comparison. The details are not directly reporting what you note is missing so you are being correct.

I selected information from both the scripture and the talk to illustrate a couple of points, rather than reproducing the entirety of both.

What I see is Joseph being a story teller. He presents some drama and mystery. This invites a hearer into the story. What and who is this vision the hearer ask. At the same time the story is full of clues so the hearer can join in making the identification. This can be more compelling if Joseph wonders who this is an explains the hearer is invited to question. The story as presented uses people's assumptions and familiar images to decide for them. In a sense Malkie simplifying to basic data creates uncertainty that the story is designed to avoid.

Yes - the FV story hints at things, and allows the reader/hearer to fill in the blanks. The reason I introduce the idea of the disinterested listener/reader is to show that it's not always reasonable to expect people to fill in the blanks from your hints, and then simply accept what you're hinting at but are unwilling to state explicitly. Why should anyone, based on Joseph's own words, believe he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ? To me, it's an unwarranted assumption.

To then use these assumptions as the foundation of an unstated claim, and base the validity of a religion on it, seems to me to go far, far beyond what's reasonable.

It is clear that Mormon understanding of God was changing during Joseph Smiths life. Perhaps some ambiguity is in the report to allow followers to adjust. I gather Utah Mormons did. Reorganized did not holding to more traditional views of God.

I agree that the Mormon understanding of God was changing during Joseph Smith's life. I see that as problematic because Joseph states that “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another”. If the Mormon view of the character of their god is so fluid, it seems, once again, like a very poor foundation for a religion.

Thanks for your comments, huckelberry. I know that I can always depend on you for a thoughtful and honest appraisal of whatever you choose to comment on.

I suppose that we can agree that the core narrative remains, Joseph sought divine guidance and felt he received it in a profoundly personal way. Joseph was a storyteller, yes, but also a seeker trying to make sense of what he experienced in light of evolving understanding. Orson Pratt would have been privy to that evolution and understanding. I think we can also agree on that point. President Hinckley’s references to the First Vision often emphasize its symbolic and doctrinal significance...that God speaks, that revelation continues, and that the heavens are not sealed. In that sense, he’s not misrepresenting Joseph’s words so much as interpreting their legacy through the lens of faith.

I understand that it is worth asking what the experience actually was, not just what it became. But I also think there’s room for faith to coexist with complexity that remains when looking backwards through the lens/fog of history. The way the First Vision Story has been told and retold reflects both divine influence and human interpretation in the minds of believers.

That’s not a flaw/bug, it’s the nature/feature of living faith. It evolves over time and with the retelling of foundational events told not only through the eye of the original beholder but through the later understandings of the original beholder while then sharing that/those experiences with those closest to him. In this case, Orson Pratt and possibly others that I am not aware of that took the time to 'flesh out' the original vision as they listened to and heard Joseph the Prophet speak.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

The way the First Vision Story has been told and retold reflects both divine influence and human interpretation in the minds of believers.

No. It reflects Joseph embellishing the story over time. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why it took him over a decade to remember he’d met “somebody” in a grove of trees. Keep in mind this vision supposedly happened prior to his other angelic visits from Moroni (originally he said it was Nephi). Why did he only come up with the vision story after his gold plates story was running out of steam?

[Limnor]

The way the First Vision Story has been told and retold reflects both divine influence and human interpretation in the minds of believers.

No. It reflects Joseph embellishing the story over time. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why it took him over a decade to remember he’d met “somebody” in a grove of trees. Keep in mind this vision supposedly happened prior to his other angelic visits from Moroni (originally he said it was Nephi). Why did he only come up with the vision story after his gold plates story was running out of steam?

This is where I get to say “because it really wasn’t his vision.”

[MG 2.0]

No. It reflects Joseph embellishing the story over time. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why it took him over a decade to remember he’d met “somebody” in a grove of trees. Keep in mind this vision supposedly happened prior to his other angelic visits from Moroni (originally he said it was Nephi). Why did he only come up with the vision story after his gold plates story was running out of steam?

This is where I get to say “because it really wasn’t his vision.”

The gold plates were never sidelined or discarded in early Mormonism. Instead, they served as a foundational artifact validating Joseph Smith’s prophetic role and the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.

The plates validated the new scripture that had come forth, the First Vision validates prophetic authority and theological distinctiveness. The church did run into a period where there were theological challenges. It was at this time that the vision was put front and center. This became more useful in doctrinal debates than a buried artifact.

Together, the plates and the First Vision narrative actually complement each other. One is material and the other falls into the 'mystical' realm. Both of these are pretty much off limits for any rational person on this board, of course.

Limnor, are you presuming access to Joseph’s interior world, his motives, and the authenticity of his experience?

Regards,
MG