Joseph Smith's memory of the First Vision

Harper, an assistant professor of church history at BYU and a volume editor of the Joseph Smith Papers, spoke at the University of Utah on Jan. 28 on "Memory and the First Vision."...

"I think we've been quite narrow-minded in the ways we have thought about Joseph's accounts. And I mean that both by believers and non-believers, by those who accept the accounts as divine narratives and those who are critical of them as nonsense," Harper said.

Memories are subjective and personal. One person's memory of a Jazz basketball game will be very different from the person she sat next to at that game, for example.

...Harper referred to Joseph's 1832 account of the First Vision. This early account did not explicitly mention two heavenly beings. "The more I think about this stuff (about memory), the more I wonder if he did," Harper said.

Harper said some read that and find mention of only one personage...Joseph may be using the word "Lord" to refer to first Heavenly Father and then use "Lord" to refer to Jesus Christ. "It is quite consistent with at least a couple of the other accounts where he talks about seeing one heavenly being who then introduces him to the next and he sees the other one at that point," Harper said...

...In 1832, Joseph wrote of how he was "seriously impressed with regard to the all important concerns for the welfare of my immortal soul." This was a vivid, strong and emotional memory. In the same sentence, however, Joseph wrote that he had these feelings, "At about the age of twelve years." This was a vague recollection of time...

From the article: Memories are subjective and personal. One person's memory of a Jazz basketball game will be very different from the person she sat next to at that game, for example.

Yes, but part of Smith's recall is that in most of his accounts, two personages appear...but in his earliest (& another), only one does. That is pure mathematics. Two fans at a Jazz game coming away with either distinct memories as to who won or what the score was will either prove one or even both to be wrong. You can't relativize this as "subjective and personal" as this BYU prof just tried to do in a lecture last night!!! (Shame on him -- because the article goes on to show this was one aspect he tried to address last night: Harper referred to Joseph's 1832 account of the First Vision. This early account did not explicitly mention two heavenly beings. "The more I think about this stuff (about memory), the more I wonder if he did," Harper said. Harper said some read that and find mention of only one personage.

What??? This is outrageous. Because Smith only wrote about one personage in his original 1832 "First Vision" account, this "BYU prof" now says only "SOME read that and find mention of only one personage"????

Is this guy legit??? Notice the shift here? Harper puts the blame for Smith's one-personage vision account not on Smith, but upon the reader because the reader somehow isn't discerning enough to look under every "L" or "LRD" to see, "Yup, you see this 'Lord' character is mentioned twice so that must mean two Lords there. Get it?"

Mormons do this all the time. Whether it's this, or if someone concludes Mormonism is false -- they blame it on the person for not praying about the Book of Mormon with sincere intent. It thereby becomes a fail safe method of not dealing with the real reasons for rejection.

From the article: Another aspect of memory is that it can be a mixture of the reliable and unreliable...

You got that right...only it was more likely 99% unreliable & at best, 1% reliable! Oh, and BTW, Mr. Harper, if you concede that Brother Smith was mixing the unreliable into the First Vision, pray tell, then why did the Mormons in 1870s place this "vision" in the Pearl of Great Price "scripture?" Why would they want something that was admittedly "unreliable" to be deemed as "scripture?"

From the article: ...Joseph wrote that he had these feelings, "At about the age of twelve years." This was a vague recollection of time.

Well, of course, Harper had to admit in a section of his lecture talking about Smith's "unreliability" of some of the content of his accounts, the fact that Smith said in 1832 that all this "stuff" was going on when he was 12 yo...when it other accounts...he was 14 or 15 or 16!!! He wants us to believe that when two heavenly beings appear to you, it will leave you firmly implanted with "vague recollections!"

Hmmmmm, reminds me of: MUHAMMAD’S EXPERIENCES WITH SPIRITS

Muhammad had “visions” as a child.

BINGO!

When Muhammad was a child he was nursed by a Bedouin woman. During this time he had an experience with “two men in white raiment”.

Here is W. M. Watt’s translation of Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad, page 36: “...two men in white clothes came to me with a golden basin full of snow. They took me and split open my body, then they took my heart and split it open and took out from it a black clot which they flung away. Then they washed my heart and my body with that snow until they made them pure.”

This event deeply disturbed the Bedouins and they returned Muhammad to his mother. Here is the story told by Muhammad’s wet-nurse, related in Guillaume’s translation of Ibn Ishaq, page 72:

“His [Muhammad’s friend’s] father said to me, “I am afraid that this child has had a stroke, so take him back to his family before the result appears. ..... She [Muhammad’s mother] asked me what happened and gave me no peace until I told her. When she asked if I feared a demon had possessed him, I replied that I did.”

Note that Muhammad’s wet-nurse believed he had been possessed by a demon. One would expect some degree of attachment between the two, since she nursed him, so it is extraordinary that she would return him in those circumstances: something very troubling actually occurred.

BINGO!

Note that Muhammad’s wet-nurse believed he had been possessed by a demon.

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]
Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.
Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.
As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.
Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]
Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.
Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.
Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, believe Mohammed’s son was to be their next leader. Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith’s followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith’s own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.
Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith’s claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.

Jeoy Smith’s “memory” wouldnt stand up in court...

Hearsay...

“Mr Smith could you tell us about your visions/”

“Leading the witness.”

“Sustained”

“Mr smith could you tell us if anything unusual happened to you when you were young/”

“Ten years ago when I was 14 I had a vision of 2 personages...”

“Hearsay”

“Over ruled. But get to the point.”

Mr Smith, Did you record the vision at the time or tell anyone ??”

“No but I told my Mom that I learnt that Presbyterianism was untrue”

“Mrs Smith do you remember your son Joey telling you about a vision?”

“No but Joey was always making up tall tales. If he said something about that I might have been busy at the time. I probably tuned him out. He was a lazy sod and wouldnt work. he was always under feet telling me some grievance he had with a neighbor or other or fantastic story.”

“Mrs Smith Yes or No”

“No”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.