Talk:First Vision/Archive 9

Revivals irrelevant

Whether there were "revivals" or not, is irrelevant. Joseph Smith said that there was "an unusual excitement upon the subject of religion". Walters comments about "revivals" are not relevant. I note that this is one of the weaknesses of his study that have been pointed out by his critics and I do not think he ever addressed this issue. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

FAIR [1] disagrees with your assessment and stubbornly holds to an 1820 date, Methodist camp meetings as interdenominational revivals, no date conflation, and local newspapers not reporting local news. The FAIR page never suggests that the time and place of the interdenominational religious awakening is irrelevant.

If, as she says, Joseph Smith's mother joined the Presbyterian church in her search for comfort after the death of Alvin in 1823, then Joseph Smith is wrong about the date of the First Vision in his fifteen year, when he says there was a general awakening "among all the sects in that region of the country…the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties." Where is this great religious awakening in that "whole district of the country" in 1820? The question's not irrelevant, and Mormon apologists such as yourself are all too aware of that fact.--John Foxe (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that site constitutes a reliable source. It looks like another wiki.

And W.Walters was superseded. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Where is this great religious awakening in... 1820?" In the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account, JS,Jr. didn't say that the revivals occurred in 1820, or 1819, or any particular year. 74s181 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, you're sure that JS,Jr. was mistaken about something. Perhaps what he was mistaken about was when his mother joined the Presbyterian church. 74s181 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he said that the excitement about religion started about two years after their "Removal to Manchester". That would put an "earliest" date on things. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Blue Tie, what he said was "Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester", this is more than one year and less than two years after. Overall, JS,Jr. is very non-specific about the date of the revivals. 74s181 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"...born 1805...moved to Palmyra in tenth year, or thereabouts...in about four years...moved...into Manchester...Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester...unusual excitement on the subject of religion...commenced with the Methodists but soon became general...when the converts began to file off...scene of great confusion and bad feeling...priest against priest, and convert against convert...all their good feelings...were entirely lost...I was at this time in my fifteenth year..."

I challenge anyone to justify any specific year for the beginning of the revivals, using only JS,Jr's statements in the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account. If one could date the 'removal to Manchester' with certainty then one might identify the start of the revivals to within plus or minus one year. But when is the 'removal to Manchester'? We certainly can't date it from JS,Jr's statements in the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account. Based on other evidence, is it when JS,Sr. closed the deal on the Manchester property, or when they began clearing it, or when a member of the Smith family first slept overnight on the property, or when they began constructing the cabin, or when they completed the first phase of the cabin, or when the last family member closed the door on the place they had been living previously for the last time? 74s181 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that historians have tried to put a date on the 'removal to Manchester' because that is what historians do. Some historians may have tried to be objective, others did it axe in hand, predetermined that it couldn't fit / had to fit JS,Jr's timeline for the revivals. But I'm equally sure that JS,Jr. had no idea what dates the historians would choose when he said "Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester...", so whatever date the historians picked is irrelevant, regardless of their agenda or lack thereof. 74s181 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely some reliable source has written about this. Surely I'm not the first person to notice this. 74s181 (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

First, the idea of "our removal" to "Manchester", is very clearly a movement of the family. It would be the time that they left one residence for another residence. And by the way it is said, I think a fair argument could be made that this removal was not over the space of a few feet and did not involve just one person but rather the family unit. Perhaps we do not know the exact date of this, but we probably know the year. But in many ways this does not matter. You make mention of revivals but Joseph Smith does not. Joseph Smith mentions "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion". Frankly, I doubt that a boy of 12 to 14 has sufficient knowledge and experience to know what is unusual in that matter. To me, this simply smacks of his becoming aware of the general brewing of religious fervor that had been and would continue to be a part of the American religious history and experience. So too literal an interpretation of his words results in the equivalent of counting angels on pin heads. I do not know why you or J.F. are arguing that revivals ever took place in Palmyra or New York. If they were daily events or if they had never happened, it would not matter because Joseph Smith is silent about them. Instead, if someone wants to "disprove" this history they must take the impossible road of proving that there was nothing around that would constitute an "unusual" excitement on the subject of religion in the mind of a young and inexperienced country boy. To me there is no possibility to prove or disprove such a thing. But the general timing of the event may be understood by framing it -- such as in the second year after our removal to Manchester. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with turning "unusual excitement" into "usual excitement," but the folks in Temple Square will not be amused. Joseph Smith was not a boy when he first wrote down this story, and in the meantime, he had lived through the 1824-25 awakening when "great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties." In the canonical version of the story Smith says he was in his fifteenth year when his family "was proselyted to the Presbyterian church" although Lucy Mack Smith says that they joined after the death of Alvin in 1823; both cannot be correct, and it beggars belief that Lucy would forget the connection between the death of her son and her joining the church. That's just for starters. I suggest you try out your "it-doesn't-make-a-difference" thesis on someone from FARMS; they'll enlighten you as to the difficulties this position creates for Mormon apologetics.--John Foxe (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right that both cannot be correct, but I am not clear on why we care whether the people at this obscure and pov wiki site think this is a problem or not. If Mormon apologists consider it a problem, it is their problem. Not ours. Our problem is what to write about -- what to include, what to exclude. Appropriate weight is important to this matter. And so here is my thinking on that.

I do not have a problem with bad memories -- well not with their existence anyway. Over life, my memory has generally been fantastic and I have often been confused or annoyed at how others could simply not remember things properly. I have even seen people's minds just invent things that never happened and they believed them because they "remembered" them -- to my exasperation. However, in more recent years, I am finding that though I may not remember things incorrectly so that I unknowingly fabricate past events, I do not always remember them correctly either and so, in my dotage, I have become more sympathetic to people who do not remember things so well.

In this case, we are arguing one person's memory against another person's memory about a sub-detail on a bit of the article that is only relevant the dating of the First Vision. That two people have different dating memories is a big "so what?" in the context of the larger article even if it is interesting in the process of seeking a date of the first vision. So, how to handle it?

It appears to me that you are seeking to discredit the whole account (you have said you think J. Smith was a liar), but when we really look at it, all you are really discrediting is the power of people to remember things correctly -- and we may not even know whose memory is correct. Indeed, you are choosing superseded sources and the memories of older people over more recent research and memories of younger people. In my experience that is not always the best way to do things.

On the other hand, if the evidence about the date is not 100% correlated -- who can be surprised? Is history ever attested to cleanly? Not in my experience. That is part of the fun of it. I do not mind presenting different evidences for the date but I think we should be using the preponderance of the best evidences and certainly not use superseded references and we should avoid giving undue weight to trivia and memory malfunctions in the discussion. Particularly if we have an agenda to set a pov tone and to meet a pov perspective -- something you have openly proclaimed.

If the objective is to help determine the date of the first vision, best evidences should be used and if contradictory evidences can be satisfactorily explained in the context of what the predominance of the evidences shows, they should be discounted. Surely if you have experience in historical research this is not a novel idea to you.

Here we are talking about something that, though it has taken on larger importance, is apparently a private and personal matter and was part of the experiences of one person and one person only. THAT person's memories should have predominance. And the association of the person to the thing remembered should also matter. Joseph Smith's memories about things that happened directly to him should be given the greatest weight and his memories of things that happened to others or around him should be given less weight. His memory of the removal to Manchester is almost certainly key as a limiting factor because this was an event that affected him personally and directly. His memory on this is likely to be more correct. His age at the time is also likely to be pretty good though less reliable. What he remembered happening to others (joining other Churches for example) is likely to be even more unreliable and if it contradicts primary memories that would not greatly trouble me -- even if it troubles the folk the Mormon Apologetics wiki (or you).

Associated with all of this are the concepts of "accuracy" and "precision". I use the terms mathematically and this means that they are not synonyms. Joseph Smith may say that the First Vision occurred in 1820. This may be "accurate" without being precise and we might judge the precision of a date that ends in zero to be +/- 5 years. However, when he says it happened in his 15th year, the precision is closer to +/- 1 year. If he gives other accounts giving his age and they all have precision errors that are +/-1 year then we would not be idiots to suppose that the overlapping error bands constitute the region of maximum likelihood. So if he gives one account saying he was 14, we might think the error band to be 13 to 15. If he also gives another age of 15, we might consider the band to be 14 to 16. The overlapping regions (14 to 15) would constitute the maximum likelihood area. When Joseph says it happened in the Spring of 1820, this applies precision to within at least 3 months to many people (I would say probably more like 4.5 months). If he says "early in the spring", I would tend to see the precision as being +/- 4 weeks (around April 5). But though narratively that precision is attached to a year, my experience is that precision and accuracy do not always travel well together in memories and I am willing to accept that it might be the first half of some other year. Combining all of the various dated memories in this case probably resolves to a general and reasonable conclusion. (I make no specific conclusion here because I am talking process). If other incidental events remembered are not compatible with that conclusion I have no problem chalking it up to memory errors -- perhaps because it was not as central to the conscious awareness and mental note taking of the person doing the recalling. Only if a variety of other disparate and objective evidences harmonize in agreement with a conclusion that is contradictory should we consider them to be especially relevant -- and at that point they have sufficient weight to represent a separate point of view. Otherwise they are at best, footnotes to the article, and may not even rise to that level of importance. One must review them carefully to see if they are not simply cruft detail being given undue weight.--Blue Tie (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to give Joseph any benefit of the doubt. He told the canonical story in 1838 during a period of turmoil in the church, and this undoubtedly benefited his position. Smith had a conflict of interest and because of this conflict, every other witness to these early events is putatively more trustworthy than he. When Joseph said that the vision occurred in the spring of 1820, the question we should be asking is not how many weeks plus or minus we can allow him but whether there is any credence in his story at all.

The move to Manchester is indeed an important benchmark and one aspect of Joseph's story I trust because in itself it has no ideological implications. If you look hard at the public documents reprinted in EMD, you'll realize how difficult it is for apologists to prevent that move from being dated post-1820. (Awhile ago weren't you saying that talk of the Manchester move was just cruft?)--John Foxe (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is also no reason not to give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt. I do not consider it a factor either way, though I generally like to edit from the perspective of sympathy with the subject. As for his REAL motivations in telling the story, anything said by anyone but him is speculation and anything said by him is subject to a charge of self-serving. But either way, it is irrelevant and I consider it out of bounds in this discussion or in consideration of what to include or exclude in the article. However, it is patently ridiculous to say that anyone and everyone is more trustworthy than he is -- but it comes directly from your pov and is evidence you should not be editing this page... your views are way too extreme. We should not be asking "How many weeks we can allow him" nor should be we be asking "is there any credence in his story at all". We should just report the facts. Failing that, we should at least use some sort of non pov standards of reviewing the evidence. But this appears to be way too hard for you.

I particularly like the move to Manchester as a benchmark because I believe that would be a "bright line memory" and would go a long way to establishing a sort of early and late limit (subject to precision issues). The problem is that the evidence as to when this move took place is apparently confusing to some people. Personally, I would consider their "Removal to Manchester" to be the time that the family moved from one general locale to the general vicinity (certainly within walking distance) of their ultimate Manchester home. This appears to me, based upon my experiences with early records, to be obvious. But people may not agree. Whether this is a support or a problem for apologists is irrelevant to my thinking on the matter and in fact, I have no idea what they claim on this issue. (I have not researched it) --Blue Tie (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometime get out the relevant volumes of EMD and take a look at the evidence, especially the public records, most of which were created with no belief that they would be of significance to anyone beyond their original purpose. (I've noticed that you, more often than most editors, claim not to have read or researched something about which you have an opinion. Do you have an opinion about why that might be?)

Yes, I have an opinion about why that might be. I think it is because you scrutinize my writing for biases.

Incidentally, I do not research as much as I would like because, frankly, I am always traveling. That makes it hard. As a further aside, I have not forgotten your request for the information about the Methodist Circuit Rider and his journal. I intend to dig it out when I am home at Christmas. I did not photo copy the whole journal, but just some pages, so I might end up just giving a few quotes and then describing the reference in detail. As I recall this rider was in South Carolina. I might be wrong though.

With due respect, "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Proverbs 18: 13.--John Foxe (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bogus. Bogus to apply that little proverb to anything I have said. And unkind. Due respect for you has fallen a notch.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbor: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace." Proverbs 11; 12.--John Foxe (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we could all use a little more John 13:34-35. Especially me. 74s181 (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"He that passeth by and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears." Proverbs 26: 17--John Foxe (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

While I also enjoy writing from a sympathetic perspective to my subject, it would be foolish to overlook possible conflicts of interest that may skew the evidence. In this case there are serious conflicts of interest.

You are going into Original Research when you start to divine out and imagine motivations on your own and you are probably violating Undue Weight provisions if you present opinions that press a speculation on the matter. These opinions and speculations are not "Facts". Sure it is a fact that they exist, but it is not a "fact" relevant to the article.

There's no original research if one cites authority, which is what I do and propose to do. The opinions of an expert are "facts" unless challenged or proved incorrect by other evidence.--John Foxe (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh.. but as I said then you get into undue weight and perhaps cruft. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That undue weight and cruft must be proved. And due weight in making such a judgment should rest as much with those who believe the First Vision to be fictional as those who believe it to be fact.--John Foxe (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV goes into considerable detail about undue weight, I think this label is applicable to some of the problem parts of the article, and since it is defined in an objective way it could be useful in our discussion. 74s181 (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

However, WP:NPOV says nothing about 'cruft'. I thought that perhaps 'tiny minority view' might be a better label to use than 'cruft', but then I checked, and surprise! there is actually an essay (NOT a policy or guideline) on cruft! It appears to be very relevant to this discussion even though it is more focused on 'fan' articles. John Foxe, if you haven't read this essay I suggest you do so. The essay also references What Wikipedia is not, which, among other things says that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a battleground, two big problems we're having. 74s181 (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My views are no more extreme than yours; they're as mainstream for a non-Mormon as yours are for a Mormon; and if we both regard facts as authoritative, there's no reason why we can't work together to improve the quality of this article.--John Foxe (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your views are far different and I think more extreme than mine. Yours are not "non-Mormon". They are "Anti-Mormon". And as for my views being mainstream Mormon views, I am unfit to judge -- not really knowing what "mainstream Mormon" views would be. But based upon my interactions with Mormons I would say that my views are not always the same as theirs but my views are also not antagonistic (usually) and are "forgivable", "overlookable" (which might be a word had the Inkhornists had their way) or "compatible" with theirs. On the other hand, I am not sure that is so with my views and yours. For example, I am pretty certain that Joseph Smith sometimes lied, so perhaps you would think that we are in agreement. But, I am almost just as certain that Jesus also lied or deceived people. I suspect you would not agree. And how we handled that belief and those issues is where we differ. For example, I notice that in the Biography of Jesus, we do not really relate the alternate story of his nativity -- the one where we actually know the name and occupation of his father and possibly we can even point to his father's grave. Now, you might say "Well go and put it in". For me, perhaps a tiny bit might be ok, but frankly going very far into that would be undue weight because all of these rumors and speculations are not the best evidence or they are arcane and exotic to a profound degree -- so that they are reasonably doubtful. But it is exactly that sort of cruft that you are putting in this article, for the purpose of impugning and raising doubts. Not only that but you seek these sources out with an agenda to prove something, you obtain them from obscure, superseded sources and you apply them with a deep satisfaction. This is something I would never do, it is something I consider to be morally wrong and it is something I distinctly disagree with you on. I would no more do that to an article on Jesus or Joseph Smith than I would seek out and put in edits that provided opinions of medical experts on the anatomy of Ganesha -- and I would object to such things as cruft (even if they are true). I am not sure that you would understand that. Thus, we are quite different in a way that I think may not be resolvable.--Blue Tie (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing people won't take us far. Is D. Michael Quinn a Mormon scholar, a non-Mormon scholar, or an anti-Mormon scholar? Well, that depends.

There is a qualitative difference between history that occurred many centuries ago and the history of Mormonism. As Martin Marty has well said, Mormon beginnings are so recent that there is "no place to hide. What can be sequestered in Mormon archives and put beyond the range of historians can often be approached by sources outside them....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness."

You seem to imply that it's morally wrong to warn others of error; you even seem willing to eliminate truth if you believe it to be "cruft." In my view, it doesn't make any difference whether lies are exposed with satisfaction or grief; the important thing is that they be exposed. If you're interested in truth, in exposing the lies of Joseph Smith (or anyone else for that matter), then we can be on the same side. If not, not.

I'm not a bit interested in rumors, speculations, or arcane knowledge; but no sources are obscure or superseded unless proved such. And why, as a defender of Mormonism, should your opinion about which material is "cruft" be more determinative than mine?--John Foxe (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In categorizing people for wikipedia articles, I prefer to give an objective but relevant title to people if they hold one. For example, if Quinn was a Professor of History at the time of a quote, identify him as a Professor of History. If he was not a professor at the time (unemployed) he might be referred to by his degree "Doctor of History" or "Trained Historian". If Wesley Walters had no such title but instead was a minister in the Presbyterian Church, you could identify him as "Reverend". No need to go into any speculative details about their motives with pov labels.

There is no qualitative difference in history. There is a quantitative difference in the evidences for different historical events, but that is not the same thing. I do not consider Martin Marty's statement to be quite as precocious as you do. (When I wrote that I thought "He will believe its because it is against Mormonism that I feel that way". Heh. Its funny but not really flattering that you believe I am so shallow.)

It is morally wrong to use wikipedia to warn people of imagined spiritual errors. I do not believe that wikipedia is about truth, but even if it were, I would have serious problems with your sense of what is truth and what is not. I have had that discussion with you before, when I first interacted with you. As I said then, your whole desire for "truth" on wikipedia is misguided and it is one of the core problems you have as an editor here. There is no doubt in my mind that you are fascinated by rumors, speculation, or arcane knowledge if it fits your pre-conceived notions. At least in this article. Your edits on such things speak far louder than your current denials. And your insistence upon the discredited and superseded Walters study is an example.

One of the key indicators of cruft is proximity. In this case, the subject is the First Vision. A more narrow subject might be the Dating of the First Vision. Things start to get crufty when we find ourselves talking about a 59 foot error in the location of a backwoods LOG HUT as though it were a significant matter in either of these things. The "proximity" to the subject is remote. If you read a statement in the article or even in the footnotes and ask "What does this have to do with the First Vision?" and you get a weird, convoluted, tangled long reply, you know you are not in Kansas any more... you are in Cruftville and you can start to look around for a pov warrior who is driving the bus.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is morally wrong to use Wikipedia "to warn people of imagined spiritual errors." But I believe it praiseworthy to distinguish between historical fact and historical fiction. I believe in truth (notice, no sneer quotes), and I'm willing to follow wherever it leads whether or not it conforms to my preconceived notions.

You've not proved that Walter's study has been discredited or superseded. You've just declared it to be so.

I don't understand how you can at the same time regard the move to Manchester an excellent benchmark for the dating of the First Vision and at the same time complain that evidence about when that move may have occurred is "crufty." And why, as a defender of Mormonism, should your opinion about which material is "cruft" be more determinative than mine?--John Foxe (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to give Joseph' s critics any benefit of the doubt. He Smith told the canonical story in 1838 during a period of turmoil in the church, and this undoubtedly benefited his position resulted in even more presecution, and ultimately his martyrdom. Smith had Critics have a conflict of interest and because of this conflict and the price Smith ultimately paid,, every other his witness to these early events is putatively more trustworthy than he theirs. When Joseph said that the vision occurred in the spring of 1820, the question we should be asking is not how many weeks plus or minus we can allow him but whether there is any credence in his story at all exactly what the believing POV is, and what the non-believing POV is, after all, WP:NPOV says we should report on the debate, not engage in it. 74s181 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point about 'unusual excitement', I'm sorry I didn't pick up on that sooner. I've been obsessing about one particular thing, I missed the very important point you were making. 74s181 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Although this discussion isn't really relevant anymore, I still disagree about the 'removal to Manchester', this was not like moving from one apartment to another, even on the other side of town, especially not like moving to another state. Land had to be cleared, a dwelling built. Joseph no doubt helped in these things, so 'our removal' could be when JS,Sr, JS,Jr, and Alvin loaded up tools, bedrolls and supplies, built themselves a lean-to and began clearing the property. Or, it could be after they finished a dwelling and began moving the family. Or...? 74s181 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Presbyterian connection

Maybe JS,Jr. was mistaken about his family being proselyted to the Presbyterian church prior to 1820. Or, here's an interesting thought, maybe they were proselyted, maybe they even joined, but they stopped attending when JS,Jr. told his mother “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true", or, more likely, after he was first visited by Moroni. Then when Alvin died she returned and 'sought comfort' there. Another important question, how far was it to the nearest Presbyterian church? I doubt weekly attendance was the norm in that time and place, especially for the Smith family. JS, Sr. would have been resistant, travel was probably involved, and this would be especially difficult given the family circumstances as you are so fond of pointing out, John Foxe. I thought I had a link to the LMS manuscript at the BYU archives, but I can't find it, so I can't verify exactly what LMS said about this. I know you have the EMD book, does she say 'sought comfort' as you have summarized it in the article, or does she say that they 'joined' (were baptized?) after Alvin's death? 74s181 (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucy has just concluded discussing the death of Alvin. "About this time their was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest flocked to the meeting house to see if their was a word of comfort for us that might releive our overcharged feelings....Joseph also said I do not want to keep any of you from joining any church you like but you will not stay with them long."(1845)EMD,I: 306-07.

Why would Joseph tell LMS, after the death of Alvin, that he didn't care if they joined the Presbyterian Church (the Presbyterians had the only meeting house at that point) when according to JS-History, he told Lucy, "I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true" about four years earlier?

We know that Lucy and three of her children joined the Western Presbyterian Church because they were disfellowshipped on March 10, 1830 after eighteen months of procedural delay; but we don't know when they joined because the membership records for the earlier period are not extant. After Benjamin Stockton preached Alvin's funeral, he served in the 1824-25 awakening, and then took the pastorate of the Western Presbyterian Church for a couple of years, leaving town just about the time Joseph started to dictate the Book of Mormon.--John Foxe (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that even a seasoned professional minister might have a hard time telling a grieving mother that her son was probably going straight to hell, even if the doctrines of his church said it was true. When Alvin died, JS,Jr. was, what? 17 years old? What do you think, was he going to tell his mother, "No, mom, all those churches are false, you're just going to have to wait..." 74s181 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did Joseph tell his mother that Presbyterianism wasn't true in 1820 before she became a Presbyterian? Why Presbyterian and not all the other apostate churches?--John Foxe (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Why did Joseph tell his mother that Presbyterianism wasn't true..." I suppose this is a response to my earlier comment that JS,Jr. may have been mistaken about when LMS joined the Presbyterian church. That statement was an attempt to think outside the box in response to a 'historical fact' that turned out to be not a fact at all. This is at least the third time you've taught me this particular lesson, I'll try not to make that mistake again. 74s181 (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to 'truth' and 'historical facts' we have JS,Jr's statement that LMS was "...proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and... joined that church" prior to 1820. John Foxe, apparently you have nothing to support a post-1820 date other than "...flocked to the meeting house to see if their was a word of comfort for us..." and "...we don't know when they joined because the membership records for the earlier period are not extant". So by your own logic JS,Jr's statement is a 'historical fact' and should stand unopposed. However, we can't really 'prove' either possibility, and we shouldn't even try according to WP:NPOV policy. What JS,Jr. said and LDS believe about the FV is a POV, and what others say and believe about the FV is also a POV. Both are equally 'true' here on WP. The only thing we should be arguing about is how to best present these two opposing POVs in a WP:NPOV manner. Instead, we're arguing about 'historical facts' and 'Truth'. 74s181 (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree then that Lucy Smith was in error when she said that after the death of Alvin (three years after the First Vision), Joseph told her he didn't care if she and her children joined the Presbyterian Church?--John Foxe (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree because that is not what she said, at least according to the quote you provided.

"Joseph also said I do not want to keep any of you from joining any church you like but you will not stay with them long."

"I do not want to keep any of you from joining" is not the same as "I don't care".

"...any church" is not the same as "Presbyterian Church".

"...but you will not stay with them long" was a tacit acknowledgement that these other churches were false, and that the Smith family would quickly recognize this. 74s181 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, his mother is grieving for the loss of her child, JS,Jr. is only 17 or 18, what would you expect him to say to his grieving mother? Years later, he received a revelation now recorded as D&C 137, which has been a great comfort to many LDS and I'm sure was also a great comfort to Lucy and JS,Sr. 74s181 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(an aside) I think this illustrates an important point that has stuck within LDS theology. That even if you are told what to do, you do not force others to do it as well. Romney used this to show that as Governor he could support alcohol consumption even within his home, and yet not drink, and even support pro-choice legislation, while personally being pro-life. Bytebear (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you folks want to claim that Lucy Smith was already a member of the Presbyterian church at the time of the First Vision in 1820 (when Joseph told her that Presbyterianism was not true), then he couldn't tell her after the death of Alvin (1823) that he didn't want to keep her from joining "any church you like" because she was already a member of the Presbyterian church. Don't you agree then that Lucy Smith must have been in error about when this conversation occurred? (As Voltaire once wrote, "Confound details, they are a vermin which destroy books.")--John Foxe (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"If you folks want to claim..." Us folks don't claim it, JS,Jr. did. 74s181 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"...she was already a member of the Presbyterian church..." Maybe he thought that she was dissatisfied with the Presbyterian church and might join some other church. Maybe he thought she had 'quit' the church and would have to re-join. We don't know. If he had said "...keep you from joining the Presbyterian church...", your argument would be on firmer ground, but it still wouldn't be proof. But proof isn't the point, as I've said many times.

John Foxe, do you have a WP:RS expert that interprets Lucy's statements about 'seeking comfort' as proof of anything? If so, put it in the article with an appropriate attribution, otherwise, "...places the date of the first vision no earlier than 1823" is WP:OR. 74s181 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The best expert here is Lucy herself. She said she wanted to join after the death of Alvin. We know she was a member of Western Presbyterian Church in the 1820s. We know Joseph said, "OK, but I won't participate." No interpretation is needed.--John Foxe (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

By all means let's look at Lucy's words. "...we among the rest flocked to the meeting house to see if their was a word of comfort for us..." Doesn't say she had previously joined or was contemplating joining. 74s181 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A newly added quote says:

In 1845, Lucy Mack Smith said that she tried "to persuade my husband to join with them as I wished to do so myself."

This could work if this statement were expanded to include something that placed it after Alvin's death. Assuming that you can do that, the chain of logic would be, "JS,Jr., writing 18 years after the fact said the FV occurred in 1820 after LMS and other members of the family joined the Presbyterian Church, but LMS, writing 20 years after the fact said that she joined the Presbyterian Church after Alvin's death which occurred in 1823, but didn't place this event before or after the FV. This raises a minor question about JS,Jr's dating of the FV." 74s181 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you can tie the LMS statement to Alvin's death, and assuming you can find a WP:RS expert to explain the significance of this, then you'll have proved that either JS,Jr. or LMS was mistaken about when LMS joined the Presbyterian church. You won't have proved anything about the FV, but if a WP:RS expert says that the date that LMS joined the Presbyterian Church is relevant to the FV, then it is relevant and belongs somewhere in the article. Otherwise it is still WP:OR. 74s181 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I've added will satisfy you, but I'll be glad to work on it if it doesn't. In my view at least, every time you object to something, I learn more, and the article gets stronger.

I think this date problem is a greater problem for LDS apologists than you admit. In the canonical version, Joseph says that the vision occurred in 1820; if Lucy is right about joining the Presbyterian church after the death of Alvin (1823)—and it would be tough for her to get that one wrong unless she were well into senility—then the date of the First Vision would have to be moved to the spring of 1825 and that would mean moving the Moroni vision to no earlier than September 1825. This would complicate other parts of the story down the line. Plus, instead of Joseph being fourteen, he would be nineteen.--John Foxe (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

What you've done is an improvement. However, there is still a flaw in your logic. If Lucy's dating is correct, it doesn't prove that that FV didn't occur in 1820, it just proves that JS,Jr. was mistaken about when LMS joined the Presbyterian Church. However, if you have a WP:RS expert who says that this casts doubt upon the 1838 / JSH / PoGP account, then that is relevant and should be reported. 74s181 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I don't know if you noticed but the references are broken. I think you have some unbalanced ref tags, I found one and fixed it but there are more. 74s181 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to at least partially agree with Blue Tie, the "Dating the First Vision" section contains a lot of minutia. But I think these discussions are important. I think the section belongs, but maybe not where it is. That is, all this discussion about the date is really a 'response' kind of thing, maybe would be more appropriate in the 'response' section. 74s181 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the references. I fixed them, but I also moved the Walters and Quinn comments into the text. You may prefer to put them back in the notes again.

Because the First Vision is the alleged spiritual experience of an individual, it's not susceptible to proof or disproof. So I agree it could have happened in 1820. But if Joseph Smith was wrong about when his mother and sibs joined the Presbyterian church, then he was also wrong about the date of the revival that led to their decision to join the church, and therefore he was wrong about the date when he became concerned about discovering which of the competing denominations was true. These events are inextricably linked. No one, Mormon or non-Mormon, cares about the date of the Smith membership in the Presbyterian church per se.--John Foxe (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism Research Ministry

Just because a publication is considered 'anti-mormon' does not make it "not reliable"; their stated policy is "challenging the claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since 1979." That alone does not make them "not reliable". A Google search showed none of the alleged denunciations of them by 'Christian Groups'... certainly any such allegations would have turned up on the first few pages of such a search. We have started down a slippery slope here, unless you want to start a trend of challenging other publications as "not reliable" simply because of their 'pro-mormon' or 'anti-mormon' slant. Something to consider: a good place to start with such allegations would probably be FARMS, whose practices has been questioned here and elsewhere. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The video link is actually not owned by MRM, but is a video by "Search for the Truth" ministries. Here is what Wikipedia has about reaction to this video (and the video "The Godmakers" which this video is essentially a remake of.

From the Search for the Truth (video) article:

The Anti-Defamation League, an advocacy group which fights anti-Semitism, condemned the video as "nothing more than 'Mormon bashing'." Bill Straus, Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League, stated,

"This is the same kind of plain, old-fashioned Mormon-bashing that Jim Robertson and his group have been spewing for over a quarter-of-a-century. The only difference is that back then, it was the film, 'The God Makers,' and today it's the DVD, 'Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith.' It was wrong then, and it's wrong now."

From The God Makers (film) article

National Conference of Christians and Jews (NCCJ) editor Max Jennings attended a showing in Mesa Arizona that was “sponsored by a group known as Concerned Christians” whose purpose was “to reach out in love to those lost in Mormonism.” Jennings reported that “If what I saw Tuesday night is love, I must have had the wrong Sunday School lessons back in that dusty west Texas Methodist Church of my childhood. I didn’t hear anyone reaching out in love Tuesday night. I heard people reaching out in hatred of another’s right to believe what he wants.”

The NCCJ committee sent a letter to “Concerned Christians” on 5 December 1983 which stated, among other things, that,

"The film does not fairly portray the Mormon Church, Mormon history, or Mormon belief. It makes extensive use of half-truths, faulty generalizations, sensationalism, and is not reflective of the true spirit of Mormon faith. We find particularly offensive the emphasis that Mormonism is some sort of subversive plot-a danger to the community, a threat to the institution of marriage, and destructive to the mental health of teenagers. We are of the opinion that the film relies heavily on appeals to fear, prejudice and unworthy human emotions."

So, aside from not being academic in the least, the source video has been condemned as untrue by very reliable sources. It adds no information, and in fact spreads misinformation. Bytebear (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

So, a couple fringe groups have criticized them, and we should discount their contributions? Just about anything the ADL says should be taken with a grain of salt ... the others are not exactly mainstream 'Christian Groups' either.

FARMS academic 'science' and practices have also been questioned by many others, so I can't see that part of your argument. All in all this boils down to what each of us considers 'reliable sources'; it is your opinion (along with a couple special interest groups) that "the source video has been condemned as untrue by very reliable sources. It adds no information, and in fact spreads misinformation ". Not quite good enough to exclude it from Wikipedia. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that the video itself—not just the organization that produced it—is specifically criticized by the ADL and NCCJ for deliberately misrepresenting Mormon beliefs. That's a pretty strong statement about the integrity of the actual source being used, going beyond the sort of general accusation of unreliability that you allude to regarding FARMS. That the two organizations are completely unaffiliated with the LDS church makes their criticisms difficult to discount, and I do not understand your basis for saying that they have to be taken with a grain of salt. If they likewise took issue with a FARMS paper using similar terminology to describe its unreliability, it would be completely fair to forbid it from WP as a reliable source.

That said, if you are not persuaded the video is an unreliable source, then may I suggest opening a Request for Comment to seek broader input from the community on the question? It seems that if we cannot agree on any outside views as authoritative concerning the reliability of the source, then the authority for making that judgment would have to come from the general WP community. Would you be willing to take this course of action if there continues to be disagreement here? alanyst ^/talk/ 14:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I delve deeper into this (I'm on my way to work) I have one question to ask: are we to take everything that the ADL says on the topic of religion as truthful, unbiased and factual ? Think about the ramifications of that for a bit. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a different question than what we're dealing with here; I don't think anyone's suggesting that the ADL be regarded as universally infallible. In this case, we have two organizations that (so far as I know) are independent of each other and of Search for the Truth Ministries and the LDS church. Both have denounced the video on specific grounds. Why might their judgment be unfounded regarding this video? I'm willing to entertain a good rationale for dismissing their views if one can be articulated. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"That's a different question than what we're dealing with here ...". Not really ... the question of their 'expertise' in these matters is a vital part of the equation. Another editor summed up his edits to this article thusly: "not a reliable source" and "It has been denounced by Christian groups as anti-Mormon. Not reliable " ... well, if there is any question about the reliability of those 'Christian Groups' then I feel that this must be answered long before we use them as sources. Groups that may have biases of their own must be looked at very carefully, before we take their claims as gospel. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have requested outside input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Discussion will hopefully occur on this talk page though so the thread of conversation doesn't get lost. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite MRM. (Not that it's not allowed; just that it doesn't help our credibility at WP. Unless you want a FARMS-vs-MRM tit-for-tat in the article.) Can't the same point be made some other way? Tom Haws (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No Vision?

I find it odd that in an article of this length, the actual text of the official published account is missing. Why not let the text speak for itself? At the least, you should include an link to it. ---cks5929

The link's fine, but the whole text would be too long for an encyclopedia. The canonized version has always been linked in the "External Links" section.--John Foxe (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the full text is too long. However, we could allow Joseph Smith, Jr. to speak for himself, that is, tell the story of the FV via excerpts from the most complete and most widely accepted account. 74s181 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree here about the actual text being within the article. The Wikisource category of the First Vision has multiple accounts if you really want the full text of one or more written accounts. There is no need to add more of this sort of content other than short quotes from these original sources. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Marquardt / Walters vs Backman on dating "unusual excitement on the subject of religion"

1. Why does the Marquardt / Walters critical opinion merit an entire paragraph, while the Backman apologetic opinion, covering exactly the same issue, gets one sentence? 74s181 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Why do the quotes from Marquardt / Walters belong in the body, while the quotes from Backman relating to exactly the same issue are relegated to footnotes? 74s181 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

3. Why must the Backman opinion be immediately rebutted, rather than allowed to stand alone as a response to the Marquardt / Walters opinion? 74s181 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Why is "...argue that religious outbreaks occurred within a larger fifty-mile radius of Joseph's home" a summary of Backman's position? It sounds more like a misinterpretation of his position to me. 74s181 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The easy answer is that Marquardt/Walters have the better of the argument. Backman is simply grasping at straws for something that will refute Marquardt/Walters, and the best he can do is gather evidence of religious excitement far afield from Palmyra. In Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman takes another tack and writes cautiously that Joseph's religious interest was sparked when "the aftereffects of the revival of 1816 and 1817 were still being felt." (37) He doesn't even refer to Backman's argument in the text and only mentions his and Walters' articles in a footnote—without explaining either position. That's a significant omission for an LDS patriarch because when Walters first published, Bushman attempted to refute Walter's evidence in a companion article, which is not even cited in the bibliography. Pretty unusual to have written an apologetic article about a narrow subject and then, in a later publication, ignore your own earlier argument and omit a citation to it in the bibliography.--John Foxe (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Treasure Hunting by Joseph Smith - NPOV

In the "historical context" section of this article, it states:

"The family also practiced a form of folk magic, which, although not uncommon in this time and place, was criticized by many contemporary Protestants 'as either fraudulent illusion or the workings of the Devil.' Both Joseph Smith, Sr. and at least two of his sons worked at 'money digging,' using seer stones in (mostly unsuccessful) attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure."

I think there is a bit of a historical context that is missing from this paragraph, of note in particular is the fact that in the region of New York state around the Erie Canal in particular (aka Palmyra) there were large numbers of burial mounds filled with artifacts that were often dug up in an attempt to search for "treasure" of one sort or another. In a modern context, this is a horrible practice as essentially the Americans of the 18th & 19th Centuries erased nearly all of the evidence of previous civilizations. But given the era that Joseph Smith lived, it was a very widespread and common practice to excavate these mounds... both to provide level spots to farm as well as to find out what was inside these mounds. Usually all that was found was some "useless" artifacts like some pottery fragments, obsidian knives, some bones of both animals and people, and perhaps some petroglyphs if you were particularly lucky. While rare, on some occasions there would be things like gold or silver... which would attract attention of peasant-farmers that are moving into "virgin" territories for the first time. There was no real systematic study to this.... mainly a bunch of kids going out into the woods and digging for the "secret treasure" of the "Indians".

If anything, Joseph Smith was just a normal kid like almost anybody else of the era. In short, I find this paragraph to be mis-leading and expressing a POV that Joseph Smith and his family were weird freaks at the fringes of society... when it could be nothing further from the truth.

I'm not dismissing that Joseph Smith and his family were engaged in this sort of practice, nor am I trying to hide that he was involved in this practice. There is also quite of bit of Mormon theology/history that comes from this practice... including the speculation by Joseph Smith himself that the Mound Builders were in fact Nephites. It also explains why a "gold bible" wasn't all that weird... other than the fact that he (Joseph Smith) had it and other gold diggers were jealous that they didn't find it first. But I don't think this paragraph places this historical information properly into context, and does it with a decided POV slant.

I'm also not sure if the "treasure hunting" ought to be separated from the "folk magic". Joseph Smith did use "folk magic" as it can best be described, but he also was a common laborer for some of these excavation projects where no special divination was actually involved. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You would need to provide examples of Smith working as a "common laborer" in an excavation project "where no special divination was actually involved." I don't think there are any such. Furthermore, Smith never claimed to have found pottery fragments or other artifacts, which he probably would have had he been digging Indian mounds. Terryl Givens's By the Hand of Mormon makes it clear that what "money diggers" were after was "lost mines and buried treasure."(17) And the way to find these goodies was through scrying, through the use of magical practices. The fact that religious people, such as Stowell, participated in these hunts doesn't mean that clergy didn't condemn them. In my view, the Smiths were more marginal to their society than Mormons would like to believe they were—not "fringe" but not mainsteam either—and the sentence you've quoted is not only accurate, it leans perhaps a little too far to the apologetic side in an attempt to be fair.--John Foxe (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It is apparent to me the Smith family was mainstream for their social class in American Society. Were they mainstream for educated, upper-crust American families? Certainly not, but that was also not their station in life. Personally, I do not have a family history that includes people from the Northeast, but from my own family tree in the deep south, everything Joseph Smith did has a correlation in southern society. Magical? I have never heard the term used or applied to their activities, nor do I think the citizens of the day did either. But using the term adds to the sensational.

Water witching is used today in some of the most "educated" of societies. I know for a fact that a building in downtown Seattle used a water witch process to locate the exact location to dig for a well in the late 1990s, prior to building the tower. Is that making use of "magic?" I don't think you would find one architect, engineer, contractor, developer, or banker that would say they used magic to locate that well. It would be funny to read 150 years from now how a major building contractor in Seattle, WA used witchcraft to construct the building. Perspective is a funny thing.

Regardless, Robert, it would be helpful to have your assistance. Reputable sources are foundational to everything we do here. --^StormRider 02:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that reputable sources are the key. We can speculate that certain practices are mainstream or not, but without (for instance) evidence that a lot of 20th century contractors used water witching, we would be forced to conclude that it was unusual. Ditto with the Smiths. To prove that they were simply typical of their time and class, you'd need to tackle the evidence in the (literally) weighty volume by D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View.--John Foxe (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My point is that such practices of "treasure hunting" and digging up these burial mounds... of which there were documented to be tens of thousands of these if not much more, and were quite common to the "upstate" New York area of Palmyra in general... was a widespread and common practice among people in the 18th & 19th Centuries. This isn't just Mormon studies scholarship here, but general American history and specifically the history of American archeology. Thomas Jefferson, as an example, participated in digging up several of these mounds, and surprisingly published some of the early scholarly and scientific research notes about them based off of just what he found at Monticello. What I'm asking here is to put this into context of what was generally a part of American history. There is evidence in the form of newspaper ads taken out by Joseph Smith, Sr. to offer the services of himself and his sons to participate in this sort of activity. I've read the advertisements, but I don't know right off hand what scholarly research has this information quoted. I'll try to dig up some sources on this topic beyond what is here already. --Robert Horning (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe digging Indian burial mounds "was a widespread and common practice among people in the 18th & 19th Centuries," nor do I believe the Smith family ever offered to dig any of them. The Smiths and their clients were interested in finding gold through supernatural means. Pirates could bury that sort of treasure as easily as Indians, you might need to make a propitiatory offering of a sheep, and then the chest of gold might just slide further into the bowels of the earth as you dug.--John Foxe (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious here about what the basis of your "belief" here is about burial mounds. I'm not saying that every person went out and dug up these mounds, but it was a practice quite common. In fact, check out this page on the early history of American Archaeology, where it clearly states "The westward expansion of European American colonists over the Allegheny mountains saw the discovery of hundreds of mounds. Settlers looking for treasure pillaged many of these." (from the date range of 1780's to 1790's) Pirates of Spanish galleons certainly didn't get up to up-state New York... unless you are talking about some other more unusual event that I'm not aware of here. No, this is stuff that would have been buried anciently, and certainly there was widespread belief by the settlers (even if it wasn't really true in most cases) that many of these mounds contained buried treasure including gold and silver. I am asserting here that such digging through burial mounds like this was very common and certainly not the bizzare or unusual occupation on the frontier of American society that is being made out here.

Certainly it isn't totally outside reason to think some farmer... hoping to "strike it rich" by finding gold on their farm... would not offer a little bit of money for a few folks to come in and dig through one of these mounds on their land as a gamble that they might find some sort of precious artifacts or "treasure". That the Joseph Smith family might have "advertised" some sort of super-natural power is actually in keeping with the times as well... when patent medicine promoters offered miracles far more profound than what the Smiths were even claiming. I still think this paragraph I'm referring to here is highly biased in terms of its neutrality within this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The citation above doesn't even provide a guess at the numbers of Americans who rifled Indian burial mounds. My guess is that it was quite small; those folks had a lot on their plate. Furthermore, your citation says that none of the mounds contained gold, and that "almost none" were systematically excavated. Finally, there is no evidence that any farmers paid someone else to loot such mounds. Why should they? If they had the time, it was easy enough to do it themselves. You are correct that pirates did not get to upstate New York, but that didn't stop Joseph Smith, Sr. from hunting Captain Kidd's treasure there. (Quinn, Magic World View, 43.) Disconnect "money digging" from the occult, and you'll find that there are zero non-Mormon examples because if such examples existed, you'd read about them in Mormon apologetic works.--John Foxe (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The definition of insanity...

...is repeating the same actions over and over again, expecting a different result.

Ok, I'm insane. I'm going to try again to remove some of the anti-mormon bias from this article. 74s181 (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dating "Unusual excitement on the subject of religion"

BTW, I'm really not trying to start an edit war my third day back, I reverted because John Foxe said he didn't understand the reasons for my earlier edit, I've given a more detailed explanation here. If, after reading my reasons he wants to revert to his version, ok, I'll try to work with that. 74s181 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

From the edit log:

13:34, 13 July 2009 John Foxe (talk | contribs) (96,239 bytes) (→Dating the First Vision: restored material removed without explanation but kept the Bushman quotation)

16:05, 12 July 2009 74s181 (talk | contribs) (95,624 bytes) (→Dating the First Vision: Implementing John Foxe's suggestions from 080901, also, extracting the anti-FV POV from the pro-FV paragraph.)

John Foxe said I removed material without explanation. My explanation was in the edit comment, "...extracting the anti-FV POV from the pro-FV paragraph." 74s181 (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess my edit comment wasn't clear enough, so here is the long explanation. 74s181 (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the "Dating the First Vision" section asserts that "...there is no evidence that large multi-denominational revivals took place in the immediate Palmyra area between 1819 and 1820, the period specified by Smith in the canonized account of the First Vision." The third paragraph begins as a response to this anti-FV POV, but this attempt to present both sides of the argument is immediately drowned out by more negative assertions. No answer to the criticism is permitted to stand. 74s181 (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So what I did was to turn the third paragraph into what it pretends to be, that is, a response to the second paragraph. I also added additional evidence suggested by John Foxe on 080901. 74s181 (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk about balance. Prior to my edit there are about 74 words of rebutal to the anti-FV POV of the second paragraph, but nothing is permitted to stand, even within the paragraph. After my edit, the second paragraph anti-FV POV is unchanged at about 144 words, the third paragraph response is about 160 words. Yes, a bit longer than the anti-FV POV, but the anti-FV goes first. 74s181 (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

After John Foxe's edit, the third paragraph pro-FV response is about 58 words. JF added a fourth paragraph, containing the rebutal of the pro-FV evidence formerly embedded in the third paragraph, word count = 134. JF also removed a statement showing that church membership did increase, burying it in the footnotes.74s181 (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

After JF's edit in this section, 278 words of anti-FV POV in two paragraphs, bracketing 58 words of pro-FV POV response. Doesn't seem very neutral to me. 74s181 (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I know that WP is not about balance or equal word count, but I think the believing POV ought to at least get a chance to have its say without constant interruption. 74s181 (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

John, a suggestion. If it is important to you to rebut the rebutal, why not do it in a preemptive way in the second paragraph? 74s181 (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn' the sentence "...there is no evidence that large multi-denominational revivals took place in the immediate Palmyra area between 1819 and 1820, the period specified by Smith in the canonized account of the First Vision." violate a neutral POV? I can understand if there is a reliable source that makes that conclusion, but the article should not be making that conclusion itself, because it is debatable. Bytebear (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The end of the second paragraph in this section has a quote from Marquardt & Walters, it says:

While these magazines covered the 1816-17 and the 1824-25 revivals in the Palmyra area, there is "not a single mention of any revival taking place in the Palmyra area" in 1819-20.

A reference is provided, but I haven't checked it. If the reference actually says this, then it is not OR. 74s181 (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I suppose the statement "...the period specified by Smith in the canonized account of the First Vision" could be WP:OR if the reference doesn't draw this specific conclusion. 74s181 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an extensive review of Marquardt & Walters work by Richard L Bushman which should be used to counter their statement and their credibility. [2]. In fact, after reading this review, I would argue against their inclusion altogether. Do you have another source, because you simply cannot use them as a factual source, possibly for opinion but not fact. Bytebear (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a key paragraph from the review:

"Can we be absolutely sure that we know Joseph must have been referring to the 1824 revival when he wrote his story? Marquardt speculates that he conflated events: "Perhaps Smith in retrospect blended in his mind events from 1820 with a revival occurring four years later" (p. 32). Possibly, but that conclusion, based on the confidence that we know better than the person who was there, seems premature to me."

Bytebear (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So, Bytebear, I think you're saying that Marquardt & Walters doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. Are you suggesting poor scholarship, extremist/fringe, or perhaps you believe the material is self published? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Marquardt & Walters, but I have a pretty good suspicion about what will happen if the reference is removed. 74s181 (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And, personally, I don't think it really makes much difference if there was no "revival" in "Palmyra" during "1819-1820", there is plenty of evidence for "Unusual excitement on the subject of religion" all around the geographic area before and during the time period in question. We just need to be able to present it without constant interruption. 74s181 (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

What is absolute fact is that there is not a historian alive that can say with degree of legitimacy what happened in this area during the time of Joseph Smith on every day of the year between 1814 and 1825. The best they can is the "so and so records to not show any revival by so and so". To go futher than that is to attempt to show they have a crystal ball that knows the past perfectly (not even Joseph Smith went that far and now we think historians have that ability?). --^StormRider 23:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider in that we cannot present any historian's conclusions as fact. I think we can present theories, and I believe Bushman covers all the possibilities in a far more comprehensive and NPOV way. So, given the choice of historical analysis, I would choose Bushman over Marquardt. Bytebear (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that what Storm Rider describes is the essense of NPOV. "So and so says that there is no evidence of X". This is not an assertion of absolute fact, it is an assertion of expert opinion, it is a NPOV and it is important to JF and others in the disbelieving group. I too would prefer Bushman over Marquardt & Walters, but Bushman himself said "I like the book. I admire the research, and I appreciate the generous, fair-minded tone of the writing." I think this reference has a place here, but we need to verify that the conclusions attributed to the reference are actually present in the reference. 74s181 (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if we use them as a source, we must not conclude their findings as "fact" but as their interpretation of fact, but I didn't see any mention of Bushman at all in that section, so I would like to see his theories as a way to present all views to the reader. Bytebear (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been away for a while but as I remember it, there are no facts on WP except facts that all agree on, like "Mars is a planet". In a controversial article like FV, the conclusions of any reliable source are not facts, but if so and so said such and such, then that is a fact. And, BTW, the third paragraph in the section leads with a statement from Bushman. 74s181 (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

what does that mean? That you feel Bushman is already well presented? With all due respect, I don't understand what you are proposing here. Bytebear (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bytebear, I am not due any respect from you. I bailed out a year and a half ago in frustration. I am now trying to ease my way back in. You, OTOH, have been here all along, so I owe you respect. 74s181 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You said "we must not conclude their findings as 'fact', My response "Mars is a planet...so and so said such and such..." is an explanation of how I think WP policy says we should present 'facts' in controversial articles like this one. 74s181 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You said "I didn't see any mention of Bushman at all in that section", I was responding to that, he opens the third paragraph, I wasn't sure if you had noticed the change. 74s181 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What I am proposing is that each POV should get to have its say without interruption. The second paragraph has for some time expressed the disbelieving POV about dating "unusual excitement" without interruption, but the believing POV in the third paragraph was riddled with non-believing POV interruptions. I think the third paragraph should be alllowed to express the believing POV about dating "unusual excitement" without interruption. Both in a NPOV way, of course. The reason I propose this instead of the normal blended approach is because I think it might work better here where other approaches have failed. 74s181 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If you or others have better ideas about how to improve either paragraph or anything else, I bow to your experience. Lead me, guide me, walk beside me, help me find the WP way. 74s181 (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)--John Foxe (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back to the discussion, Wes.--John Foxe (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And, BTW it's Les, not Wes. 74s181 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. It has been a long time.--John Foxe (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So, can we present the facts and possibilities of dating the first vision, without presenting certain theories as fact. Let's present what we know in the most NPOV way and let the user come to their own conclusions. That's why i like Bushman. Even though he is LDS, he presents all sides of the issue with no real conclusions, only possibilities. Bytebear (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Too long headings!

In my browser, the table of contents takes about 70% of the width of the article colliding with any nearby images. Is it really really not possible to abbreviate the heading? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 07:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

propose to re-write "Contradictions" subsection

I propose to re-write the "Contradictions" section at First Vision#Contradictions. For 2 reasons: (1) It is rather incomprehensible - as written, Im not even sure what point the subsection is trying to make; and (2) that subsection should succinctly summarize the contradictions between the various accounts of the first vision (I'm thinking that a short table may be the best way to present it) as enumerated by notable critics. Any suggestions on this proposal? --Noleander (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. But we shouldn't present then as contradictions. After all the Church claims no contradiction, just different details in each account. I think a table might work, listing what details appear in each version. This would make it more neutral. Bytebear (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll go ahead and make that improvement to that subsection ... I'll endeavor to keep it as neutral as possible. I tried it as prose, and as a table, and the table makes much more sense. As for using the term "contradictions" .. I agree that puts a very POV slant on it. Ill try to find a more neutral term for the subsection. --Noleander (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I propose to rename the "1838 version" to "1838 (1842) version". The sources I have show that this version, which appears in the Pearl of Great Price, is - by its own account - written in 1838. But that the first published copy of this version appeared in 1842 in Times and Seasons. It was later put into the History of the Church (and later the Pearl of Great Price) and it was during that redaction it was given the creation date of 1838. I propose to do this re-name in the 2 or 3 places where the phrase "1838 version" appears in this article. Any comments? Or can anyone suggest a better term than "1838 (1842) version" ... maybe "1838/1842 version"? --Noleander (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the sources I have for the 1838/1842 confusion include http://en.fairmormon.org/Seldom_mentioned_in_LDS_publications_before_1877_(long), as well as critical sources (which make a big deal out of the date difference) Abanes and Tanners. The decision that needs to be made for this article is what to call that version: The version was first published in 1842, and that text did not mention when it was written (the implciation being 1842). Then later, when it was put into the History of the Chruch, the date of 1838 was attached. --Noleander (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't gotten any feedback on this "clarify 1838 vs 1842 name" proposal, so I'll go ahead an implement it as proposed above. --Noleander (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As I make this change, I notice there is the following sentence in this article (paraphrase): "The canonized 1838 vision was first published in 1840". I believe that is not correct. The first published version that matches the canonized (POGP) version was in 1842. The 1840 publication differs significantly from the POGP canonized version, for example, the 1840 version doesnt have the "This is my son, hear him" proclamation (but the 1842 publication does have that proclamation). I will correct the article to show that the first date of publication of the canonized text was in 1842. --Noleander (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would double check the 1840 publishing date. I can't verify it off the top of my head, but I think it was published in England before being published in the Times and Seasons. I would actually put 1838 with a footnote giving the details about the various publishing dates. Bytebear (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've been studying the various versions until they are coming out of my ears :-). Ive updated the article to be consistent with my understandings. Which are:

• There was the Pratt 1840 England version
• There was the 1842 publication in Times and Seasons
• The 1842 version was incorporated into POGP and HofChurch
• When put into HofChurch, the context indicates that it was written in 1838
• There is no written, published copy of that version prior to 1842
• It is unknown if it was written in 1838, or 1842, or in between.
• If it _was_ written in 1838, no written copy (from that year) has ever been found
• The term "1838 version" is rather misleading, and is not widely used, and is not used by FAIR.

I hope that is all clear. I'm just trying to improve the article by using a consistent terminology, and adding text into the article explaining the issue about the 1838/1840/1842 dates. --Noleander (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, see http://en.fairmormon.org/Seldom_mentioned_in_LDS_publications_before_1877_(long) for the FAIR list of versions, which shows 1842 as the first publication of the "official" version, and no mention of an "1838 version". I dont doubt that some people use the term "1838 version", but in this article, for the layman, we should try to use clearer terms such as "canonized version" or "1842 publication" etc. --Noleander (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should focus on the date 1838. An edited version of this was first published in 1842, but there is solid academic support that Smith actually dictated it in 1838. We know that Smith dictated this version in 1838 because of 1838 journal entries. Dean Jessee has written on this topic, and published a transcription from the 1838 manuscript [here]. I think it's important to specify 1838, because by the time this 1838 version was published, there had already been an 1840 version in England, and the version in the 1842 Wentworth letter, both of which bear the clear influence of the 1838 version. Calling it an "1842 version" gives the impression that the 1840 and Wentworth versions preceded it. For purposes of this article, it's far more important to show when Smith wrote or dictated the various version ("what he knew and when he knew it"), than when those versions were actually published. For example, the "1832 version" was actually first published in the 20th century. COGDEN 21:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved "possible 1830 allusion" section downward in article

I moved the "possible 1830 allusion" subsection downwards, to be _after_ the notable, published versions.

The reason is: it was in a location that is very prominent in the article, right near the beginning where the published versions are described. I've never heard of this 1830 "allusion" outside of _this_ article, and it says it is by an "amateur historian". I did not delete any text (I'll assume that the editor who put this in had a good reason) tho it seems rather unimportant, and perhaps belongs in a footnote? --Noleander (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the "possible 1830 allusion" is a stretch even for a Mormon apologist, and I support moving it to a footnote. I appreciate the commendable job you've done with the chart.--John Foxe (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 1830 reference is a less significant one, but I have a stylistic problem with putting it out of chronological order, when all the other accounts are chronological. Although the current citation is to an amateur historian, this point was also made by Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 39, who is one of the most respected scholars on the subject of Smith's history. It's not a stretch at all that this was an allusion to the same event later characterized as the First Vision, and in fact I'm not aware of any specific scholar arguing that it wasn't (although I haven't looked carefully for that particular point). Most importantly, it is consistent with his 1832 account, which characterized the vision primarily as an occurrence where Jesus told Smith his sins were forgiven. Moreover, this reference is found within the founding "constitution" of the church (as it was esteemed at the time), so it is important, even though it wasn't clear from the face of the document what the scope of this "manifestation" was. We'll have to make it clear, of course, that this June 1830 description is not really consistent with an October 1830 interview of Smith by Peter Bauder, who said that Smith could give him no "Christian experience". COGDEN 19:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Issues raised by Lanthum

I have invited Lanthum to participate in this discussion. Lanthum has attempted to make significant edits to the introduction, and they have all been reverted. Lanthum's edits, however, raised a few issues that I wanted to discuss, because they might come up in the future with Lanthum or other editors:

• Smith does not actually say that the "personages" he saw were God and Jesus. It's clearly implied, but that's not what he actually said. Why he left it ambiguous, I don't know. Curiously, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and others, for example, much later had it in their mind that Joseph saw angels rather than God himself. And of course, much earlier, Smith told people that he saw angels in the vision, but didn't mention God or Jesus. I can't remember where (maybe in a BYU class), but I think I've heard some Mormon apologist suggest that God didn't actually show up, but he sent angels to speak for him as if the angel were God. (God being the delegator that he is .) I think I have also heard the suggestion that maybe in the 1820s or early 1830s, Smith thought he had seen angels, but upon later reflection, he realized that they had to have been God and Jesus, so he wanted to be consistent with his early-1830 accounts and still leave a little ambiguity. So it's not quite so cut-and-dry.
• "Deception" is not the only theory about the First Vision by secular scholars. Other theories include delusion, false memory, hallucination, or some combination of these. Fawn Brodie's theory was that it started as a hoax or a fraud, which then became an honest belief through delusion and false memory. Woodbridge Riley's psychoanalytical theory was that it was a complex mixture of "shrewd insight, self-deception, disease of imagination and judgment, and conscious, intentional fraud."
• Lanthum argues that the intro has a condescending tone. I know this is pretty subjective, but is there anything in particular that we can improve by way of tone here? I am also mindful that historically, this article's tone has often been too apologetic or "Old Mormon History", and I don't want it to swing that way, either.

COGDEN 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion. All topics included in the First Vision article should be presented in their due order and magnitude. The most pertinent topics should get more attention. The First Vision is foremost a religious matter. Understanding the story and its role in religious communities should have priority over secular evaluations. It goes without saying that many readers want to know what the First Vision is all about. The First Vision is most accurately described by its role in the Mormon religion and only marginally described by its role in scholarly discussions. Let's introduce the topic in a way that gives greatest weight to the religious role.

If we were talking about a scientific theory, we might discuss opinions of well-recognized clergy; however, religious opinions would not be appropriate before discussing the roles the theory plays in science, nor would they warrant a disproportional magnitude of discussion.

One example is the first sentence in the second paragraph. The list of scholarly opinions is in the wrong place in the introduction (too early) and is absurdly long; a word or two would suffice. Furthermore, the list is an uneven weight of bias that is not balanced with a list of scholarly opinions that support the opposite view. If opinions are acceptable in this article, scholarly or otherwise, there should be more balance than Mormons vs. Scholars. Lanthum (talk) 10:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So does moving that sentence to the end of the paragraph help?--John Foxe (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

We have to follow WP:UNDUE, which says: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each....In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." In this case, the article is indeed largely about the minority view. However, the majority view ought to be clearly set forth right from the beginning. This will be very important if this article ever gets peer reviewed for promotion to a "good" or "featured" article. COGDEN 19:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to John Foxe for moving that sentence. Lanthum (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Class B

The section heading directly above this line and text which follows was origionally posted to Talk:First Vision/Comments, but should have been posted here, so moved. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is a GA class or A class article, but it definitely needs a class. Tom Haws 22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Taylor and the First Vision

COGDEN says “Curiously, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and others, for example, much later had it in their mind that Joseph saw angels rather than God himself.” In fact, John Taylor mentions an “angel” and “the Father and Son” in speeches given on the same day:

John Taylor, March 2nd, 1879, Journal of Discourses 20:167
“None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right.”

John Taylor, March 2, 1879, Journal of Discourses 20:257
“When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life.”

Even more curiously, John Foxe once said, "I accept that John Taylor mentioned the First Vision at least twice. That he did not emphasize it during his tenure as President is just as true as ever." John Foxe (21 October 2007) link

Nevertheless, Taylor mentioned the Father and Son in the First Vision numerous other times:

• 25 February 1879: "God Himself, accompanied by the Savior, appeared to Joseph...."
  John Taylor letter to A. K. Thurber at Richfield, Utah (25 February 1879).
• 28 November 1879: "He came himself, accompanied by his Son Jesus, to the Prophet Joseph Smith."
  Journal of Discourses 21:116.
• 7 December 1879: "...the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus, and, pointing to the latter, said: "This is my beloved Son, hear him."
  Journal of Discourses 21:161.
• 4 January 1880: "...the Lord appeared unto Joseph Smith, both the Father and the Son, the Father pointing to the Son said "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him."
  Journal of Discourses 21:65.
• 27 June 1881: "And hence when the heavens were opened and the Father and Son appeared and revealed unto Joseph the principles of the Gospel..."
  Journal of Discourses 22:218.
• 28 August 1881: "...the Father and the Son appeared to the youth Joseph Smith to introduce the great work of the latter days."
  Journal of Discourses 22:299.
• 20 October 1881: "In the commencement of the work, the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith. And when they appeared to him, the Father, pointing to the Son, said, "This is my beloved Son, hear him."
  Journal of Discourses 26:106-107.
• 1882: John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Company, 1882; Photo lithographic reprint, Salt Lake City, 1964), 138.
• 5 March 1882: "After the Lord had spoken to Joseph Smith, and Jesus had manifested himself to him..."
  Journal of Discourses 23:32.
• 29 May 1882: "God the Father, and God the Son, both appeared to him; and the Father, pointing, said, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him."
  Millennial Star 44/22 (29 May 1882): 337–338.
• 23 November 1882: "It is true that God appeared to Joseph Smith, and that His Son Jesus did;"
  Journal of Discourses 23:322.
• 18 May 1884: "When our Heavenly Father appeared unto Joseph Smith, the Prophet, He pointed to the Savior who was with him, (and who, it is said, is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person) and said: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him."
  Journal of Discourses 25:177-178.
• 1892: "God revealed Himself, as also the Lord Jesus Christ, unto His servant the Prophet Joseph Smith, when the Father pointed to the Son and said: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him.’"
  John Taylor, cited in B. H. Roberts, Life of John Taylor (1989; 1st published 1892), 394.

Roger Penumbra (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Taylor obviously made more references to the First Vision than I had suspected. Nevertheless, those statements given above were made quite late in his life and at about the time when the canonical story was beginning to be promoted by Taylor's nephew by marriage, George Q. Cannon. When Taylor discussed the origins of Mormonism in 1863, he did so without alluding to the canonical First Vision story: "We read that an angel came down and revealed himself to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him in vision the true position of the world in a religious point of view. He was surrounded with light and glory while the heavenly messenger communicated these things unto him, after a series of visitations and communications from the Apostle Peter and others who held the authority of the holy Priesthood, not only on the earth formerly but in the heavens afterwards." Journal of Discourses 10: 123@ 127--John Foxe (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The above anomalous statements by Taylor are echoed by several others, including Brigham Young, William Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Lucy Mack Smith, Church Historian Andrew Jenson, and arguably others. This begs the question why is there so much ambiguity on this particular point? There are probably a number of theories:

• Maybe these people were confusing the First Vision with the Second Vision. This is completely understandable, because during the 1830s, even people as close to Joseph Smith as Oliver Cowdery and Lucy Mack Smith apparently weren't aware that there were two separate visions, and conflated the two. So all through the 1830s and into the 40s, early Mormons heard the story of the angel Moroni's visit to Smith's bedroom for years, with nobody telling them that Moroni's appearance was not the first vision. Then in 1842, they read the published story of the First Vision. It would be understandable that they might occasionally confuse the two visions.
• Maybe these people knew that Smith had two separate visions, but originally heard the story in its "visitation of angels" version, and that's how it solidified in their mind. Much later, they read the "God and Jesus" version, but in speaking about it, they forgot which was the official version, or got confused.
• Maybe some of these people subscribed to the theory, as I mentioned above, about angels appearing on behalf of God and Jesus and speaking as if they were God and Jesus. There is motivation for early Mormons to have developed that theory, because Joseph Smith taught that nobody can see God without the priesthood, and Smith didn't have the priesthood when he had the First Vision. There is precedent for this kind of "proxy visitation", as many of the revelations in the D&C (and text in the BofM) are presented as the voice of Jesus, but the speaker refers to his "only begotten son."

In any event, there is enough ambiguity here that we cannot state categorically in this article that Smith said he saw God and Jesus, because (1) he never actually said that, and (2) there there are differing opinions as to whom he actually saw. COGDEN 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your first scenario is the likely one, although the issue of Cowdery's two-part account in 1834 is debatable (but lets not debate it here).

I find the second scenario unlikely. I don't think anyone was "confusing" the "First" vision with the "second" vision. I don't think that very many were aware of it. For the early 1830s, the "first" vision that was known was that of Moroni, with the real "First" vision not becoming widely known until sometime after the 1838 account was written. The 1832 First Vision account appears to have been kept private, although there is circumstantial evidence that Cowdery had it in 1834. The 1835 First Vision account does not appear to have been circulated at all.

With regard to your third scenario, and speaking as a Mormon apologist, I've never even heard of such a theory. If you have a reference for such a theory, I (and many others) would be most interested. Roger Penumbra (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Following up on your third scenario, COGDEN. As I suspected, other LDS apologists have not heard of this proposed theory. The consensus so far appears to be that COGDEN's theory is "creative," but that it "reaches beyond the composite evidence," and that COGDEN "may be attempting to explain some of the content of one of the 1835 accounts (where angels are mentioned); perhaps without being familiar with every detail of the 1835 document where the angels are referred to." However, I know that COGDEN is familiar with the 1835 account since he placed it in Wikisource.

On 9 Nov. 1835 Smith talks of two personages and angels:

I kneeled again my mouth was opened and my toung liberated, and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me head, and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and I saw many angels in this vision I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed I had not been a sleep,...

Yet, like John Taylor, who mentions "two glorious personages" in his 1850 account, then years later in 1879 mentions "the angel" in one speech and "the Father and the Son" in another speech given the very same day, Smith seems also to have the interchanged the term "angels" for the personages. On 14 Nov. 1835, just a five days after he wrote of being visited by two personages and angels, he said:

the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old and also the visitations that I received afterward,

So I don't think that they were "confused." I think that we may be "confused" about the specific way that they employed the term "angels" (or "Angels") that, at least to them, made sense. Roger Penumbra (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I came across this third theory at BYU. I wish I could remember who it was, and where the idea came from, and I have no idea if it was ever published, but I'll see if I can find anything. It's probably not in a reliable source, so it wouldn't be part of this article. By the way, this theory also was used to explain why the being who appeared to Moses in the burning bush was described as the "angel of the Lord," yet spoke with the voice of God. (and other similar instances in the Bible where an "angel" appears to speak as if they were God.) Obviously, this interpretation would not be considered apologetically kosher after the 19th century when the LDS Church started teaching that the vision was proof that God and Jesus had physical bodies. COGDEN 20:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As COGDEN implies, the notion that certain angels are God as well as speak for God should have been familiar to biblically literate early Mormons. For instance, in Genesis the Angel of the Lord appears to Hagar, and in Genesis 16.13, she calls him YHWH. In Genesis 31.13 the "angel of God" speaks to Jacob and says "I am the God of Bethel." In Judges 2.1 the "angel of the Lord" appears and identifies himself with YHWH.--John Foxe (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Foxe, the concept of angels appearing as God is not foreign to Christian theology; quite the opposite. It is recognized tha angels have named themselves as God when only speaking on His behalf. However, making the claim that the early converts to the Church felt or interpreted events similarly is something that requires a good reference. I am not sure that I have read about that specific interpretation before. -^StormRider 23:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Foxe as well. That is why I said that the specific way that they employed the term "angels" or "Angels" made sense to them. The issue that I have is with calling them "confused." I believe that Foxe is correct, and that early Mormon leaders who employed the term "angels" knew specifically what they were referring to. I don't think that it would be correct to call them "confused." However, COGDEN's apologetic theory #3 has no support with the current LDS apologetic community that I have been able to confirm. In fact, one of the resident First Vision experts at BYU said that he had never heard of such a theory. If a reference can be provided, particularly to the "burning bush" theory, it would be interesting to see. In any case, theory #3 is so far down the ladder that it ought not to appear in the wiki article. Roger Penumbra (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if there were support for it in a reliable source (and I can't find one either), I was not really suggesting that this would become part of the article, only that there are other understandings than (and counterexamples of) that Smith said he saw God and Jesus, so we can't say that categorically in the introduction. COGDEN 18:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

C.C.A. Christensen's painting of the First Vision

Does anybody know if there is an extant photograph or copy of C.C.A. Christensen's painting of the First Vision? I heard that this painting has been lost. But maybe there is a photograph somewhere, or somebody painted a reproduction. Any idea? This article mentions the painting as the first significant depiction of the First Vision, so if there is any existing photograph or copy, it would be nice to include it here. It seems notable enough that someone might have at least taken a photograph at some point before it got lost. COGDEN 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"To some academic students of mormonism....."

I've clipped that bit out and will fight to the bone to prevent it being re-inserted. I do not dispute the opinion stated but I find it very rash, negative, and degrading to have a statement as insulting as that placed in the lead paragraph of the article to deliver an immediate "bully type" view on the subject. Are there statements on the visions of all the apostles, mohammed, and any other claimed prophet in the world telling how the non-believers think it is a lie? No there isn't, so why should mormonism be disrespected any less? I cannot see how a rash critical opinion in the lead paragraph can be justified, this is a very significant religious event, and generally this page is being treat very very harshly indeed, and its already written in a style to try and dissapprove of it as much as possible, again is that the case with other claimed "visions"? That statement though was a choking POV on the article, and just because people disagree with it does not mean it has to be stated automatically, as its obvious some are going to disagree, and this kind of simply treatment does not exist on the articles of other sought after religious events, so stop bashing mormonism! Routerone (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is strictly that, a personal opinion. You do not dispute that you have deliberately deleted the material cited to reliable sources in the interest of personal religious belief.--John Foxe (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion request considered

I'm planning to request a Second opinion about the differences between myself and Routerone over the editing this page unless Routerone makes a prior request.--John Foxe (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

John, I tend to find myself in agreement that the Routerone in that the passage is not necessary. It is obvious that others, academics, LDS or otherwise, do not believe the First Vision occurred. Looking at Paul of Tarsus we don't find the obvious statement that Islamic scholars or even liberal Christian scholars do not believe he ever saw anything on the way to Damascus.

In topics of faith it is never necessary to state the obvious. In every religion there are liberal scholars that do not believe in their own church. The Jesus Seminar is an ideal example on liberal Christian thought on the reality of Jesus as the Son of God. Does this make any sense? --^StormRider 18:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you make do sense. Despite my dislike for the elimination of cited material in an explicitly stated attempt to defend a religious belief, I didn't write those sentences and have no personal interest in them. And it's also true that if you object to the sentences, I'm foreclosed from asking for a Second opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

comment I think a middle ground is possible here. Visions and miracles are often questioned by skeptics, and noting that skepticism is valid for this article. The possibility that the first vision was a delusion (or pious fraud, etc) is certainly plausible, but that can only be put into the section if there is a good source supporting it (and that source must specifically talk about the First Vision, not just JS in general). The original text had a quote from Brody, no? I would suggest cutting that text down to one sentence, focusing on the Brody quote. --Noleander (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, Noleander. The article's a strong one, and it holds up well without those sentences.--John Foxe (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Noleander that criticism is always functional, helpful material, but we must always strive for proper placement, etc. I still find myself resistant to stating the obvious on topics of faith, but I am not opposed to a section that addresses the thoughts of some scholars. I think there is such a section in the Criticism article; I did not go back and verify that it is here also. --^StormRider 19:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see how the original version of the intro is perhaps a bit over-the-top. I've introduced some possible compromise language. COGDEN 19:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Polygamy as defining element in Mormon Theology

"The vision also replaced polygamy as one of the defining elements of Mormonism and corroborated distinctive Mormon doctrines such as the bodily nature of God the Father and the uniqueness of Mormonism as the only true path to salvation."

The preceding quote is listed with a reference to how the story of the First Vision is a central tenant of the modern philosophy of Mormonism. I'll grant that, but this reference says absolutely nothing about how this "doctrine" replaced the principles of polygamy in Mormonism. That for many outside of the religion may have seen polygamy as a defining principle, I don't see that so much for those within the faith or why they joined the religion in the 19th Century. Then again, even in the 21st Century polygamy is still a defining concept from the outside looking in.

At the least, if a bold statement like this is made, back it up by some sort of authoritative reference. Either that, or get rid of it as it is clearly an uncited POV push. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a citation and a quotation in the footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible editional text

I just removed the following text from the article on Joseph Smith because that article was getting excessively long. I decided to put it here so that if any material is not in this article it can be put in by an interested editor.

and its importance to the Mormon faith began to be emphasized during the last two decades of the 19th century.

Hopefully someone will find this material useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems with FV article

I find the following depiction of the critics' discrepancies fallacious. That is not agreed upon. The article writer cites one source only for it. So I am changing it.

Discrepancies cited by critics

Critics of the First Vision cite the multiple versions of the First Vision as evidence that it may have been fabricated by Smith.[157] Critics specifically identify the following discrepancies between the various versions:[158]

• Was Smith 14 or 15 at the time of the vision?
• Did Smith attend a contemporaneous religious revival?
• Did the supernatural personages tell Smith his sins were forgiven?
• Were the supernatural personages angels, Jesus, God or some combination?
• Did the vision declare all contemporary churches (or specifically the Methodist church) corrupt, or did Smith believe this to be true before he experienced the vision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clioprof (talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a handy chart of all the discrepancies at the end of the article.--John Foxe (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is Backman's book not used as a source

This article should rely primarily on secondary sources that are scholarly. This means we should be looking to Backman's work, not directly citing accounts from the 19th century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I am so worried about this! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Teaching on the First Vision

I wonder if it really makes sense to have the Hugh Nibley quote. High Nibley does not say that Brigham Young never taught about the First Vision, only that Young did not use the First Vision as a hook for a study of the nature of God. I have added in clear references to the fact that Brigham Young did mention the first vision in his teaching. I however still wonder if this is too much tunnel vision. The nature of Mormonism is that teaching on subjects is broad, not limited to the discourses and writting of one man. For example "On 13 August 1857 Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Daniel H. Wells, John Taylor, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff placed several publications in the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple that contained First Vision accounts. They were: The Pearl of Great Price Lorenzo Snow, The Voice of Joseph Orson Pratt, (various tracts) Franklin D. Richards, Compendium John Jaques, Catechism for Children Millennial Star, vol. 14 supplement Millennial Star, vol. 3" per both Brigham Young's and Wilford Woodruff's journals. So there were lots of LDS publications that existed in the mid-19th-century that mentioned the First Vision. In some ways the mention of it in many mid-19th-century tracts seems to not coincide with some of the arguments put forth in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith did not state there was a revival

Joseph Smith mentioned an "excitiment" on religion in the general country. He did not say revival in Palmyra. There is no reason to present attacks meant to discredit a claim he did not make. There are multiple, undisputed claims of large scale religious meetings in Palmyra within the time frame of a "process of time". Joseph Smith's own words say we should not be searching a major revival in 1820.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why this analysis justifies the deletion of the extensive paragraph that addressed the non-Mormon studies of this question. Just because you disagree with the premise of the research does not mean that the WP article should not refer to the research at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I did a huge amount of reading on this subject a year ago, and I mostly agree with the deletion. The deleted paragraph relies mostly on publications by the Reverend Wesley Walters that have had all kinds of holes poked in them. For anyone interested in the subject, I highly recommend reading this article by Michael Quinn. Basically he argues that both sides (Walters and polemics vs. Mormon apologists) have had "tunnel vision" in arguing the revival issue, and makes a very convincing case. Basically Quinn says that Smith's later accounts of the First Vision follow a very common tendency to conflate past events. In other words, when Smith was writing the story 20 years later, he referred to the 1816-17 revivals, the 1818 camp meeting, the 1820 Methodist revival/camp meeting, and the extensive revivals of 1824, as if they had been "one coherent event". Based on what I've read, I think the whole revival dispute is much ado about nothing; I see no reason to repeat Walters' incorrect statements (and faulty math) in the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a great article you have linked to—very informative! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Skeptical criticism vs. apologetic response

I've been doing some thinking since looking at the skeptical criticism and apologetic response sections yesterday. I don't like the sections for a number of reasons, one of them being that I don't believe this method of pitting extreme opposing POVs against each other makes for good encyclopedia articles, even though it's a frequently used technique. The current structure leaves little room for middle ground. I've been wanting to add scholars like Quinn and Bushman to the article, but they are neither skeptical critics nor apologists... The table in the criticism section, though very interesting IMO, seems to be original synthesis, and is being used to support a point of view based on an arguably false premise (that if the story weren't fabricated there wouldn't be differences between retellings). Also, the people in the "apologist" section (LDS apostle, BYU professor of ancient scripture, and evangelical theologian) aren't really apologists.

Anyway, here's what I'd like to do to address these issues: I'd like to get rid of the current structure, moving the table to a new subsection with a title along the lines of "Differences between accounts" under the section "Recorded accounts of the vision" where I would move some of the material about people criticizing it for the differences, but also add new stuff (Bushman, Quinn). The rest of the stuff (people's views on it) would remain in the same place, but the section would be titled to something neutral that could accommodate critics, apologists, and most importantly those in between, possibly something along the lines of "scholarly views". This could contain the views that it was a fabrication, dream, self-deception, real occurrence, etc. Thoughts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Bushman, LDS Apostles, and BYU professors are not apologists? That's a gas. I think your definition of an apologist is a little off. The very nature of a controversial topic like the First Vision is going to lend itself to criticism, and apologetics. I don't know that you can get away from it unfortunately. There truly isn't a middle ground here IMHO. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. You and I probably do have slightly different definitions of apologist...mine is someone who is very active in defending and/or justifying religion, which would include some BYU professors and apostles, but not by default. I do disagree about the middle ground. It is possible to write objectively about a controversial topic without being apologetic or polemic, and one can do this no matter their religious belief. Just look for the leading scholars who are well-respected and cited by everybody. Or look for the books that Mormons, non-Mormons, and ex-Mormons can all read and conclude, "that's fair". I believe these are the types of works we should be citing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I think "apologist" is typically reserved for those who write with a specific intent of defending religious beliefs in the face of attacks or criticism. Some writings by BYU professors and apostles would meet this definition, but certainly not all. (I would not say that any of the works written by TS Monson, for instance, would qualify as "apologetics". It's more "inspirational", if anything.) The Bushman biography of Joseph Smith has not generally been described as apologist, I don't think, even though Bushman is a Mormon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess I just disagree - perhaps I am just a tad cynical - but Bushman's book is so deliberately watered, and obviously written with an intent to cast Smith in a faithful light with all of the justifications and rationale around the uncomfortable truths. Is this not precisely what apologists do? As for professors and apostles - sure they are not "apologists" by trade, but when they engage in apologetics, they become so relevant to the topic do they not? If a professor at BYU spends his entire career not engaging in apologetics, and then writes a big treatment in the FARMS Review for example - then he is taking on the mantle of an apologist (to use a Mormon faithful term) But my original point is - in my experience on the WP with Mormon articles, the only way to get to a balanced treatment is to present both sides of the story - which is the essence of WP:NPOV. That means any relevant criticism AND apologetics should be mentioned to satisfy all stakeholders, and present the relevant information to the reader to make an informed decision for themselves. So all of that having been said, I am blathering a bit, and am being a bit of a gadfly, but I suspect we are all closer to agreement than we think.--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't really saying what I think of Bushman's work—I was just saying how I believe reliable sources have treated it, in that I don't think sources describe it as an apologetic work or a work of a Mormon apologist. But I think you are right that this is a difficult line to draw, and ultimately, as far as the content of articles go, it's not really one that we need to try to draw. I also agree that in most cases, it's easiest simply to include both "sides", regardless of how one classifies the source. Otherwise all day is spent debating the characterization of the source without any real progress on article content. (I've seen that happen several times.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Is the latest "citation needed" tag really needed?

I have to query this. Is the latest citation needed tag really needed in the following paragraph?: "According to the LDS Church, the vision teaches that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bone; that mankind was literally created in the image of God; that Satan is real but God infinitely greater; that God hears and answers prayer; that no other contemporary church had the fullness of Christ's gospel; and that revelation has not ceased." If we say something like "according to the LDS Church" is the citation needed tag really necessary? If it is, these doctrines can be verified by LDS scripture. But first we need to determine if the tag is really necessary. Thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I thought it was necessary (I was the user who added it) because the article is making a claim about how the LDS Church uses the First Vision to elaborate on or teach doctrinal issues. If we make such a claim, shouldn't we have a source or sources that at least demonstrate that that is indeed what the church does? I'm not saying that it should be demonstrated by scriptures or manuals of the LDS Church; ideally, it would be through secondary sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources? Well, let's see. A cursory search on LDS.org for "The First Vision" yields the following results: Two general conference talks on the subject, one by James E. Faust, the other by Dieter F. Uchtdorf. Three articles about the First Vision from the Ensign. A cursory read of all these articles reveals what Latter-day Saints have learned or can and should learn from the First Vision. Since you were the one who put the "citation needed" tag in the article, I think it only fair that you should examine these secondary sources more carefully and determine which of these sources can be used for this article. Happy hunting! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I also refer you to the relevant chapters on the First Vision in the books "Our Heritage" and "Church History in the Fulness of Times". Each of these could also be referenced as a secondary source. Again, happy hunting! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think any materials produced by the LDS Church would actually qualify as primary sources as to what the church teaches rather than secondary sources. A secondary source would be a source from outside the church reporting on what the church teaches in its scriptures, manuals, sermons, etc. In cases such as this, any source is probably better than none, so primary ones may have to be used. In any event, just because I added a "citation needed" tag does not necessarily mean that I immediately have to satisfy the need for a citation. (Sometimes these tags stay in place for years without any action!) All of us are volunteers and we each only have so much time in our days to edit WP, but we all do what we can. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Connecting two separate ideas.

Good Olfacotry recently changed a long-standing word that was meant to connect two separate ideas in the paragraph about differing accounts of the vision. I suggested that the original wording was better and reverted the change, which was undone. So instead of turning it into an edit war, I decided on a compromise. Since the sentence in question linked two separate ideas, why not use the semicolon? It seemed to me that would be in the best interests of the sentence in question. There may be those who disagree with this change, which is why I am starting this topic. Would a semicolon be a fair compromise and in the best interests of the sentence in question? I have the greatest respect for Good Olfactory as an editor, and the last thing I want to do is start an edit war. So feedback would be helpful. Does anyone have an opinion on the matter? Thanks for helping me potentially prevent an edit war. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The semicolon is fine with me. (Whether it uses a comma followed by "and" or a semicolon without the "and", the meaning is basically the same.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for the feedback. Unless anyone else wants to comment on this issue, I think this matter can be successfully closed. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on First Vision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050414033852/http://www.irr.org:80/MIT/First-Vision-Scans/first-vision-1835A.html to http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Scans/first-vision-1835A.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no direct, uninterrupted, quote of the First Vision in the Canonized version.

I was sitting at church scratching my brain to see if I remembered the First Vision verbatim and thought, "Why not check the Wiki". I was a bit confused when I had to scroll through mounds of (to me) superfluous information, only to find that the article on the First Vision did not contain the First Vision. Now I get that people want to add their two cents and be scholarly, which is great, but it really gives me an odd vibe on the whole article to exclude this. Eventually I found the 1838 account, but it's relatively disjointed and, in my opinion, not neutral at all.

I guess in a round about way I'm asking, could we add a little quote box on the side of this segment that would quote the oft quoted by millions around the world account that I was looking for?

"...I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me... When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" -Joseph Smith History 1:16-17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by IslandBee (talk • contribs)

The role of an encyclopedia is not really to provide long, uninterrupted quotes of anything. (For more on this, see WP:QUOTEFARM.) There are several links to the complete canonized version in several places in the article. If users come looking for the text of the canonized version, they should certainly be able to link to it from the article in its current state. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on First Vision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110614003454/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?/jmh,10037 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/jmh,10037
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110614003454/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?/jmh,10037 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/jmh,10037
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131113090055/http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/08/archaeological-work-at-the-smith-log-house to http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/08/archaeological-work-at-the-smith-log-house
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070611051919/http://www.fairlds.org:80/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Anti-Mormons_and_Documentary_Sources.html to http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Anti-Mormons_and_Documentary_Sources.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110613165127/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?/jmh,10017 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/jmh,10017
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060519103925/http://content.lib.utah.edu:80/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=6509 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=6509

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on First Vision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070621132711/http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/jshist.pdf to http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/jshist.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081120090052/http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/ to http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081120090052/http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/ to http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110612082324/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u/?/NCMP1847-1877,2899 to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/u?/NCMP1847-1877,2899
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060502192151/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu:80/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=9615 to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=9615

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Vision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414033852/http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Scans/first-vision-1835A.html to http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Scans/first-vision-1835A.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Broken citations

I've noticed 3 citations on the page that are broken (there may well be others). One, "Tucker (1876)" I repaired to "Tucker (1867)" as I was able to verify the source. I suspect "Turner (1852)" was a tyop for "Turner (1851)" but can't verify it atm. The last one, "Mather (1880)," requires more digging. I've tagged the last two with {check}. Pastychomper (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on First Vision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faq.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cofchrist.org/history/default.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fjmh%2C10037
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613223029/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C3611 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C3611
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fjmh%2C10037
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fjmh%2C10017
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=%2Fdialogue&CISOPTR=6509
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130202040935/http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/early-mormon-documents-volume-one/ to http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/early-mormon-documents-volume-one/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130202201755/http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/early-mormon-documents-volume-two/ to http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/early-mormon-documents-volume-two/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130202121721/http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/early-mormon-documents-volume-three/ to http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/early-mormon-documents-volume-three/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130202130344/http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/early-mormon-documents-volume-four/ to http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/early-mormon-documents-volume-four/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130202055032/http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/early-mormon-documents-volume-five/ to http://signaturebooks.com/2010/02/early-mormon-documents-volume-five/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Vision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070412172947/http://www.irr.org/mit/First-Vision-Scans/first-vision-1830.html to http://www.irr.org/mit/first-Vision-Scans/first-vision-1830.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C36005

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Conversion of Lucy Mack Smith to Presbyterianism and dating of the First Vision

The conversion of Lucy Mack Smith to Presbyterianism is a controversial topic. Smith's 1838 account is clear that Lucy and several siblings joined the Presbyterian church in or shortly before 1820. Other sources have her conversion occurring in 1824 or 1825. This article intimated that it was before 1822, citing Dan Vogel and Lucy's history. I'd like to throw out and explain some of the sources on the table to help craft some NPOV phrasing.

• 1838 First Vision account: Has the conversion happening in or shortly before 1820.
• 1844-1845 draft of History_of_Joseph_Smith_by_His_Mother: Has her joining after Alvin's death in November 1823
• 1853 History_of_Joseph_Smith_by_His_Mother: Previous remarks were removed, and replaced with a 1838 copy of First Vision. As far as her baptism, she writes during the early 1800s but does not specify a date: "At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing To baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year." I cannot find what happened in her sons 22nd year in her source or any other, but she talks about attending a Methodist church at some time in the interim.
• Vogel states: "Until she joined the Presbyterian church in Palmyra, New York, in 1824 or 1825, she pursued her version of private religion." Vogel makes it clear that in his mind the evidence strongly points to an 1824 conversion
• Bushman states: "Sometime in the half dozen years after 1818, the religious rift in the family broke open again. Lucy joined the Western Presbyterian Church in Palmyra." In the footnote to this he writes: "All the circumstantial evidence notwithstanding for an 1820 membership, the date of Lucy Smith's engagement to Presbyterianism remains a matter of debate. It is possible to argue plausibly that she did not join until later Palmyra revivals in 1824." Other than the 1838 account, I can't find any evidence that she joined any earlier than 1823 (help?). Bushman notes the interview of William Smith in 1893, which states that Reverend Stockton was the Presbyterian preacher at the center of the revival who converted Lucy. Bushman also sites Marquardt, who considers the 1820 setting anachronistic and prefers the 1824 revival.
• Marvin S. Hill notes that Stockton did not arrive in Palmyra till 1823, and strongly supports an 1824 conversion.

I cannot find any evidence outside of the 1838 account that has Lucy joining the Presbyterian church prior to 1824, and the above corroborating evidence to the contrary. Some secondary sources are more sure than others. Is anyone aware of any other sources that discuss this? Epachamo (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Relevance of official proclamation

Following up on this revert I'd like to discuss whether the following paragraph is notable enough for this article.

LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson stated that the First Vision marked the onset of the restoration of Jesus Christ's ancient church and that the year 2020 would be a bicentennial year in honor of the 200th anniversary of Smith's theophany. Nelson designated the Sunday morning session of General Conference on April 5th as a solemn assembly to commemorate the First Vision, and announced an official proclamation [174] to the world as a "monument of words" honoring the inceptive role of the vision in the restoration.

If you read the actual text of the "official declaration" link you'll see there is nothing new or uniquely pertinent to this article. (Yup, church members still see it as the founding event of the restoration, but we've already covered that ground in this article.) Only 4 sentences in the declaration even talk about the First Vision, and those are a garden-variety retelling. I think the only unique thing is that it was celebrating the 200th anniversary. But I'm not convinced that gives it lasting significance here. That's why I cited WP:RECENTISM. ~Awilley (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think I see where you are coming from with WP:RECENTISM with respect to the proclamation. What would you say to taking out the part talking about the proclamation and leaving in the part about the year 2020 being a bicentennial in honor of the 200th anniversary (the centennial is mentioned for example)? I see that as passing the WP:10 year test and can live with that. Time will tell with the proclamation and when it does we can add it back, or not. Epachamo (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right that the centennial anniversary is mentioned, but it's only in passing, and the purpose of mentioning it is to illustrate the contrast with how relatively unknown it was 50 years prior. I'm just not convinced that something happening 200 years ago is enough of a reason to explicitly write that it had a 200th anniversary. I'm trying to think of other things that have had 200 year anniversaries recently. United States Declaration of Independence happened in 1976 and I'm sure there was a grand celebration. I think I have a couple 1976 drummer boy quarters stashed away somewhere. But I can find no mention of any bicentennial celebration in that article. (There is an article about the bicentennial though at United_States_Bicentennial, and I'm sure it's mentioned elsewhere.) Does that make sense? Maybe there's something I'm missing. Do you know if there were any celebrations outside of the church's bi-annual general conference, or if they had to cancel planned celebrations because of the Covid-19 thing? ~Awilley (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

My reading of the section is that it is meant to show how the First Vision is used by the LDS Church over the years. In this context, I find it very relevant, but it could be considered WP:OR. The importance and relevance of the Declaration of Independence to the United States has never really been questioned, and not much of a topic. That is not true for the First Vision. I just got done reading Steven Harpers "First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins"[3] where the entire book is on the subject of how the LDS Church has viewed the First Vision over its history. The 200th bicentennial commemoration certainly would have had significant discussion had it been written today. Another article discussing these shifts is James Allen's landmark 1966 paper in Dialogue. You should watch [4] which compares the usage of the First Vision in the LDS Church to the Community of Christ (from a BYU series of lectures and artwork in honor of the bicentennial I might add). A declaration in honor of the bicentennial certainly would have made it into their research. This is a small sampling of books and articles that talk about evolving usage of the First Vision in the LDS Church. I guess my bottom line is that I find it both notable and lasting and think that will definitely be reflected in future research, but am willing to acquiesce if the WP community disagrees. At this point, it is just my viewpoint and could be considered WP:OR and I wouldn't have a strong counterargument. Epachamo (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Deletion of "Methodist revivals within twenty road miles of Palmyra" phrase

I plan on deleting the following phrase but want to explain because it might be controversial to delete it: "In the intervening years, there were Methodist revivals, at least within twenty road miles of Palmyra; and more than sixty years later a newspaper editor in Lyons, New York, recalled 'various religious awakenings in the neighborhood.' " The sources cited are "Mather 1880, pp. 198–199 ; Roberts 1902." Besides being extremely old, the sources don't really support the claim that is being presented, and is misleading. I assume Mather 1880 refers to this anti-mormon article, a first hand account written 6 decades after the event, hardly a reliable primary source. The closest I could find in this was Mather's statement,

"There had been various religious awakenings in the neighborhood, and when the various sects began to quarrel over the converts Joe arose and announced that his mission was to restore the true priesthood. He appointed a number of meetings, but no one seemed inclined to follow him as the leader of a new religion."

There is no date given for these 'religious awakenings', and right before and after the pamphlet discusses the Hill Cumorah and the visitation of Moroni in 1823. The use of this citation is clearly WP:OR.

I assume the 'Roberts 1902' citation refers to the History of the Church. No page number is given for this six volume work, and the section on the first vision simply copies the 1838 account. Epachamo (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)