Difference between revisions of "User:InProgress/Website reviews/F"

Revision as of 12:14, 4 May 2012

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The First Vision"

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that this MormonThink article appears to take are the following:

• That Joseph's different accounts of the First Vision are "relatively ignored" by the Church, despite an entire web page being devoted to them on lds.org and various mentions in the Ensign, including a statement by Gordon B. Hinckley.

FAIRMORMON'S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING DATA

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The First Vision wasn't even known by church members until 1842, and even then it wasn't very important. Joseph said that he was persecuted for telling people that he had seen a vision. There is simply no evidence that Joseph told anyone about the vision until many years later and not until after the Book of Mormon was published. There are no accounts in the newspapers, by neighbors, preachers or even by the members of Joseph's own family. There is much evidence to indicate that the First Vision either never really happened or was very different than we've been taught.

FairMormon commentary

• This is absurd. If no one knew about the vision "until 1842," why was a skeptical newspaper account describing how Mormon missionaries were teaching that Joseph had personally seen God in November of 1830? Not only had Church members heard that Joseph had seen God, but they were preaching it and a hostile press was writing about it.

Quotes to consider

• LDS missionaries were teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and received a commission from Him to teach true religion (The Reflector, vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831).
• Report in a non-LDS newspaper that Mormon missionaries were teaching at least six of the beginning elements of the First Vision story (Fredonia Censor, vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).
• When the Rev. John A. Clark published his autobiography he mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, Gleanings by the Way [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],---).

Additional information

• No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications—There is no mention of the First Vision in non-Mormon literature before 1843. If the First Vision story had been known by the public before 1840 (when Orson Pratt published his pamphlet) the anti-Mormons “surely” would have seized upon it as an evidence of Joseph Smith’s imposture. (Link)

• No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843?—No mention of First Vision in non-LDS literature before 1843? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
James B. Allen, who served as assistant church historian, frankly admitted that the story of the first vision "was not given general circulation in the 1830's." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.33). Dr. Allen makes some startling concessions in this article. He admits, for instance, that "none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830's, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision...." Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830's "the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it."

Author's source(s)

• Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45.

FairMormon commentary

• That isn't exactly what James B. Allen said. He said that the story "at best" received "limited circulation."

The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830s, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision is convincing evidence that at best it received only limited circulation in those early days. (emphasis added)

• Why doesn't MormonThink quote any work done after 1966 on this point? Don't they realize that more documents or accounts may have been discovered?

Additional information

• Missionaries 1830 statement about Joseph seeing "God"—Critics have claimed that just because LDS missionaries were teaching around 1 November 1830 that Joseph Smith had previously seen “God” personally it cannot be assumed that this was a reference to God the Father since the Book of Mormon (completed ca. 11 June 1829) refers to Jesus Christ as “the eternal God” (title page; 2 Nephi 26:12). The argument is made that since this evidence indicates that Joseph Smith understood Jesus Christ to be “God” the statement by the missionaries may have simply meant that Joseph Smith had seen the Savior; not necessarily the Father. (Link)

• No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications—Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Why did Joseph Smith fail to mention his First Vision when he first wrote the church history in 1835? Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote and published a history of the church that supposedly covered all of the important points related to its beginnings. However, Joseph Smith records a different story than the "official" one later published in 1842. In Joseph Smith's own 1835 published history of the church, he says that his first spiritual experience was in 1823 after a religious revival in Palmyra that same year.

FairMormon commentary

• Because Oliver wrote the history, not Joseph. Oliver was receiving instruction from Joseph.
• Why doesn't MormonThink mention here that Joseph wrote an account of his First Vision in his journal in 1835? Or an account in 1832? They quote a reference from the Tanner's which mention it later on the webpage. Why not acknowledge it here?
• Did you know that Oliver wrote the two-part account of Joseph's vision as part of the Church history and not Joseph? Did you know that the first part published described exactly the conditions that led to the First Vision, including Joseph's age of 14, before describing the vision itself.
• Did you know that by the time that Oliver published the next part, that he said that he had made a mistake on the year, and changed it to three years later (age 14 to age 17) and then proceeded to describe Moroni's visit instead? Do you get the idea that Joseph told Oliver not to continue the first vision account that he had started to publish and to focus instead on Moroni's visit?
• Did you know that Oliver indicated that he had written records that he was using to create the history, and that those records likely included Joseph's 1832 journal account of the First Vision?

Additional information

• Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit—Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
[I]n the early 1800s having visions wasn't perceived to be all that uncommon. Even Joseph Smith's father claimed to have had a vision - namely the Tree of Life vision. People believed in magic, seer stones, divining rods, etc. and people claiming to have visions weren't seen as all that strange. Like much of Joseph's work, the first vision is strikingly similar to someone else's story.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  
• Which kind of explains why Joseph didn't really mention it to many people, or why many people didn't pay much attention if he did.
• MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, and that such things were regarded as common. They were seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid any attention to it at the time.
• Pastors of that day looked down on people who claimed to see God in a vision - such things were being discouraged.
• It was the vision of Moroni and the subsequent recovery and translation of the Book of Mormon that caused Joseph to realize that his path was different than others who had claimed to see visions. Therefore, Joseph emphasized that and only wrote the full account of his First Vision much later.

Quotes to consider

• As Richard Bushman noted:

The clergy of the mainline churches automatically suspected any visionary report, whatever its content...The only acceptable message from heaven was assurance of forgiveness and a promise of grace. Joseph's report of God's rejection of all creeds and churches would have sounded all too familiar to the Methodist evangelical, who repeated the conventional point that "all such things had ceased with the apostles and that there never would be any more of them."^[1]

Additional information

• No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications—Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Since Joseph never told anyone about the vision, he wasn't persecuted. There is simply no evidence that he was ever persecuted for the First Vision....How strange that Joseph says that the neighborhood knew enough about it to persecute this obscure boy, but his own family hadn't heard about it at all. If Joseph's story had actually occurred and caused said excitement, someone would have mentioned it. No one did....God & Christ visit a young boy, and because of local gossip, he withheld that info from his family. And yet then he receives another visitation three years later from an angel, and immediately he tells his family? Why the inconsistencies?

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  
• Joseph never said that his vision caused "excitement." He described being persecuted for it:

"Joseph did tell a Methodist preacher about the First Vision. Newly reborn people customarily talked over their experiences with a clergyman to test the validity of the conversion. The preacher's contempt shocked Joseph. Standing on the margins of the evangelical churches, Joseph may not have recognized the ill repute of visionaries. The preacher reacted quickly and negatively, not because of the strangeness of Joseph's story, but because of its familiarity. Subjects of revivals all too often claimed to have seen visions."^[2]

• MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, and that such things were regarded as common (see above). They were seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid much attention to it at the time, other than to be scornful or dismissive if Joseph told them.

Quotes to consider

• Joseph did not tell his family about Moroni until he was commanded to do so by the angel. Rather than being inconsistent, this reinforces the truthfulness of Joseph's account: he apparently wasn't inclined to tell everyone until he was directed to do so. Perhaps he had learned his lesson and was "once bitten, twice shy"?
• Why do you suppose MormonThink doesn't tell us this? It's right in Joseph's official history, and yet they act like his actions are completely mysterious. Do they not know the material at all, or are they hiding something intentionally?

I shortly after arose from my bed, and, as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything. The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received (Joseph Smith History 1:48-49).

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
If it really happened, why couldn't Joseph Smith tell a consistent story about such a powerful experience as meeting with God and Jesus Christ face-to-face? How many people forget where they were when their first child was born? Or when they got their patriarchal blessing? Or their wedding night? How many forget who they were with and what happened? If we can remember details such as year, circumstance and those involved, why couldn't Joseph Smith consistently recall basic facts about his incredible First Vision?

FairMormon commentary
  The author is using mocking language and hyperbole to try to make his or her point  —The critic intentionally exaggerates claims in order to mock believers.
Note the characterization of Joseph's "powerful experience" and "incredible" First Vision.

• Joseph did remember consistently where he was and when it happened.
• How many of you forget the date of your anniversary? Or your dates of your kids' birthdays?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
In Joseph Smith's first handwritten testimony of the first vision in 1832, he says he already knew all other churches were false before he prayed. Smith testified: "by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ."....Yet in the "official" story written years later by a scribe, it has Joseph Smith saying: "I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join."

FairMormon commentary

• If you had come to the conclusion that mankind has apostatized from the true faith, and you suddenly found Jesus standing in front of you, wouldn't you ask Him if any of those churches was the correct one? Or would you simply tell Him, "never mind, I already figured it out for myself?"
• Besides, where is the inconsistency? How many churches did Joseph have immediate knowledge of? Three or four? Joseph determined that the churches with which he had direct experience did not adhere to the scriptures and that therefore mankind "had apostatized from the true and living faith." During his vision, he then asked the Lord which church was right, because it had not occurred to him that the Lord's church didn't exist anywhere on the face of the earth. It had never entered into his heart that all churches were wrong.

Additional information

• Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong—In his 1832 account of the First Vision, Joseph Smith said, “I found [by searching the scriptures] that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” But in the 1835 account he said, “I knew not who [of the denominations] was right or who was wrong.” Critics claim that thus counts as evidence that the First Vision story evolved over time. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There are earlier versions of the First Vision story in Joseph Smith's own handwriting, but they are not considered "official" and are relatively ignored by the church.

One thing is clear, the LDS Church does a great disservice to investigators of its claims by presenting Joseph Smith's 1838 account of his first vision as the only version of these events.

FairMormon commentary
  Doesn't count:  —Critics like to claim the Church never or rarely does something, and then insist that every counter-example doesn't really count (if they mention them at all). This lets them ignore all evidence contrary to their position.

• No, it isn't clear at all: Where does the Church claim that the 1838 account is the "only version" of these events?
• Did you mean to say that these accounts are "relatively ignored" except when they are mentioned in the Ensign and on the official Church website lds.org?

Quotes to consider

During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church.
—Accounts of the First Vision, Gospel Study, Study by Topic, located on lds.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located.
—Milton Backman Jr., "Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision," Ensign, January 1985.

Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.
—Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22.

I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.
—Gordon B. Hinckley, “‘God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear’, Ensign, Oct 1984, 2

• There is also a massive list of statements available. How can MormonThink ignore all these?
  • LDS-Authored Publications (1910-1968)—
    Brief Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1910-1968) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • LDS-Authored Publications (1969-1978)—
    Brief Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1969-1978) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • LDS-Authored Publications (1979-1983)—
    Brief Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1979-1983) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • LDS-Authored Publications (1984-1989)—
    Brief Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1984-1989) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • LDS-Authored Publications (1990-1997)—
    Brief Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1990-1997) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • LDS-Authored Publications (1998-2003)—
    Brief Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1998-2003) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Oliver Cowdery's account in the 1834 "Messenger and Advocate" stated that the "first vision" occurred in 1823---not a word about an 1820 vision. Cowdery's account also related that Smith's interest in religion was sparked by the preaching of Methodist elder George Lane, rather than Smith's version which claimed that he was inspired by reading in the Bible at 14. Cowdery also stated that the date of the "religious excitement in Palmyra and vicinity" was in Smith's "17th year," which would have been 1823, rather than 1820.

FairMormon commentary

•   Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
  
• MormonThink has not taken a close enough look at the available documents to understand the true nature of the criticism which they advocate.
• Oliver Cowdery did, in fact, know about the First Vision when he recorded his version of the history of the Restoration—he had physical possession of the Prophet's 1832 history.
• Cowdery's dating anomaly and confused reporting of facts likely occurred because the Prophet was extremely busy during this time period and did not have much of a chance for editorial oversight (Cowdery, in fact, was the editor).

Additional information

• Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit—Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There are other contradictions which cast doubt on the "first vision," such as the Smith family joining the Presbyterian church AFTER God has supposedly told Joseph that all churches were corrupt

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Cowdery's statement that Smith had wondered, several years after the alleged "first vision," as to whether "a Supreme Being did exist";

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
and the fact that as late as 1851, church publications such as the "Times and Seasons" were calling the angel that visited Joseph "Nephi," rather than Moroni.

FairMormon commentary

• Did you know that the first anti-Mormon book, Mormonism Unvailed, published in 1834, referred to the angel as "Moroni?"

Quotes to consider

• Mormonism Unvailed - 1834, reprinted as History of Mormonism in 1840 [an anti-Mormon book]

After he had finished translating the Book of Mormon, he again buried up the plates in the side of a mountain, by command of the Lord; some time after this, he was going through a piece of woods, on a by-path, when he discovered an old man dressed in ordinary grey apparel...The Lord told him that the man he saw was MORONI, with the plates, and if he had given him the five coppers, he might have got his plates again. (emphasis in original)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
A young Joseph, an amazing vision, the birth of Mormonism - it all started with a great revival. Joseph Smith gave a vivid description of the revival that took place in his boyhood town of Palmyra, New York....This revival made a big impression on Joseph Smith, but what kind of mark did it leave in history? Could we pinpoint the place and date of this event and verify that it really happened? Would church records for the years immediately before and after a revival, show a sudden jump in church memberships telling us exactly when this took place? What if we found the actual records but there was no evidence of a revival?

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Multiple sources revealed evidence of a great religious excitement, with big gains in church membership for all the denominations mentioned by Joseph. But, instead of the revival beginning in 1820, it started in the autumn of 1824 and continued into the spring of 1825.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The second detail was Joseph Smith's statement that the revival took place "sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester" (PGP/JS History 1:5). Research into existing tax records and property assessments indicate the most likely date for the Smith family's move onto their Manchester farm is 1822. A revival occurring in the second year after 1822 fits the 1824 revival date (Inventing, pp. 7-8).

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
FAIR believes that there was some sort of revival in 1820. I guess it depends on how you define a revival. Some believe that an ad in the newspaper for a church camp meeting is a revival. The revival Joseph seems to be referring to that sparked his quest is more like the big revivals that started in 1824 where membership jumped dramatically.

FairMormon commentary

• No, FAIR states that there were Methodist camp meetings being held in the Palmyra area. FAIR never states that there was a "revival." MormonThink has locked onto the idea of a "revival," despite the fact the Joseph himself never called the "excitement" a revival.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...

FairMormon commentary

== Notes ==

1. [note] Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 41.
2. [note] Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 40-41.