The "New" Mormon Reformation

[Requiem]

There is ample evidence supporting the premise we are entering a new period of enlightened thinking that may qualify as a full scale "Mormon Reformation".

I offer the following as evidence:

1. Clarification and definition of what constitutes doctrine - as outlined in the recent First Presidency press release. No longer will we be faced with defending questionable statements (e.g. JFS saying "man will never walk on the moon") as doctrine.

2. Open discussion of Church History and Criticism. Last Saturdays' article in the Church News addressing criticism of the First Vision was compelling and open (www.desnews.com/cn/art/1,1600,,00.html). The article's preface indicated there would be similar discussions in future issues. In addition, recent articles on the MMM have been more candid than previous press releases.

I welcome these developments and find them to be positive. It may be questionable as to what constitutes a true reformation (I will leave that to Brother Arch), but the increased candor is refreshing.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Your des news link does not work.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Your des news link does not work.

There is a bogus right-parenthesis on the end of the URL. Take that off and it works (well, it goes to a list of articles - not a specific article).

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

There is a bogus right-parenthesis on the end of the URL. Take that off and it works (well, it goes to a list of articles - not a specific article).

Bummer, you have to log in to read the specific article. Lame.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Bummer, you have to log in to read the specific article. Lame.

Here is a corrected link that should go directly to the article:

http://www.desnews.com/cn/view/1,1721,470006497,00.html

I apologize for the confusion - the article and the preface do represent a positive move.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Here is a corrected link that should go directly to the article:

http://www.desnews.com/cn/view/1,1721,470006497,00.html

I apologize for the confusion - the article and the preface do represent a positive move.

That's odd. I get an error every time I click on it.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That's odd. I get an error every time I click on it.

Yeah, It appears to go the Church News site and one needs login info to access. Could someone just cut and paste the article, or at least gist it?

Thank you in advance.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Could someone just cut and paste the article

Ack!
see no evil hear no evil see no evil hear no evil

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Ack!
see no evil hear no evil see no evil hear no evil

Y'all are a tough crowd:

A genuine vision

Scholars have rebutted arguments from naysayers



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


May 26, 2007

By R. Scott Lloyd
Church News staff writer
This is one in a series of occasional articles dealing with troubling questions and adversarial criticisms against the Latter-day Saint faith. Responses are not presented as official Church statements but rather as insights and analyses from faithful and knowledgable Church members.


Latter-day Saints affirm the validity of Joseph Smith's First Vision, despite objections from critics about differing accounts.

Copyright Intellectual Reserve

Readers are encouraged to submit suggestions for future topics. Write to R. Scott Lloyd at LDS Church News, P.O. Box 1257, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110; e-mail to rscott@desnews.com.

Was Joseph Smith's First Vision a fanciful tale that evolved over the years? Or was it a genuine theophany in which he was indeed visited by the Father and the Son?
In the recent two-part documentary "The Mormons," presented over the Public Broadcasting Service, one of the individuals interviewed makes this remark:
"The first version of the vision was written in Joseph Smith's own hand in 1832.... Subsequently, over the next 12 years, there were other versions that emerged from Joseph Smith, where the story got more detailed and more colorful. And one of the later versions became the official version."
This is immediately followed in the program by a comment from another man, who says: "Finally, in 1838, we have God and the Son visiting him, telling him to join none of the other churches. And it begs the question, was Joseph Smith building a story as he went, because the story certainly evolved and the story certainly took on more miraculous, more remarkable characteristics."
The clear insinuation is that Joseph invented the account from the beginning and embellished it as time went on. Unfortunately, the documentary provides nothing in the way of rebuttal from faithful Church members to counter that notion, and viewers, perhaps, are left with impression that Mormons have no rebuttal.
Not so, say LDS scholars and other students of Church history.
"People have so many misconceptions about the 'various accounts,"' wrote James B. Allen, a retired BYU history professor, in response to a Church News e-mail. "I have often given firesides about it, emphasizing the fact that, of course, there are differences between the accounts, but that there are some remarkable and important consistencies, and that, most important, they all reflected Joseph Smith's honest effort, at different times, under different circumstances, and to different people, to explain what happened to him.
"Why would we not expect some differences to occur — after all, which of us tells a story exactly the same way every time?"
Brother Allen's article "Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision — What Do We Learn from Them?" appeared in the April 1970 issue of the Improvement Era, forerunner to today's Ensign magazine, drawing upon a 1965 master's thesis by Paul R. Cheesman.
Since then, other treatments of the several first vision accounts have been written by Milton V. Backman, Richard Lloyd Anderson and others, including a 2005 update by Brother Allen, co-authored with John W. Welch, as a chapter in the book Opening the Heavens.
Do these authors see variations in the accounts as shedding doubt on the veracity of the experience? On the contrary, they relish them as illuminating and providing greater detail to it.
"Although each narrative emphasizes different ideas and events, none is incompatible with other accounts," Brother Allen wrote in the Improvement Era piece. "There is a striking consistency throughout all the narratives, and if one wishes he may combine them into an impressive report that in no way contradicts any of the individual accounts. Moreover, the descriptions given of events related to the vision but that happened outside the grove are consistent with our knowledge of contemporary events."
Here is a brief listing of eight of the narratives:


An 1832 account written by a 26-year-old Joseph Smith 12 years after the experience. It emphasized his remorse and forgiveness for personal sins and the guidance he received from the Savior.

An 1835 account given by the Prophet to a visitor and recorded by a scribe. It referred to the appearance of two heavenly beings, one coming after the other, and mentioned "many angels."

The familiar 1838-39 account that today is part of the Pearl of Great Price. As such, it is canonized scripture and the Church's official account of the vision.

An 1840 account written by apostle Orson Pratt and published in England. It elaborated on some details of the 1838-39 version.


An 1842 account by another apostle, Orson Hyde, published in a missionary tract in Germany, similar to Elder Pratt's account.

An 1842 account, part of the letter Joseph wrote to John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat newspaper.

An 1843 account given by Joseph to the editor of the Pittsburgh Gazette, which appeared in the New York Spectator on Sept. 23.

An 1844 entry in the diary of German immigrant Alexander Neibaur endeavoring to retell the story after hearing it from the Prophet.

A chart accompanying the 1970 Improvement Era article provides a harmony of the different versions, showing elements common to them.
Since 1970, two other accounts have surfaced, one an 1843 diary entry by Levi Richards of Nauvoo, and the other an additional 1835 account given to and recorded by another visitor to the Prophet.
Despite persuasive arguments to the contrary by Church scholars, critics have continued over the years to hammer away at the variations in the accounts, claiming they cast doubt on the experience, often ignoring rebuttals that have already been made. To date, their contentions have not been conclusive or even convincing.
Here is a sample of some antagonists' arguments accompanied by responses thereto:
Criticism: The 1832 account mentions only one heavenly visitor, not two.
Response: Nothing in the account claims there was only one personage.
Writing in the April 1996 Ensign, Richard Lloyd Anderson, BYU professor of ancient scripture, noted: "The Prophet writes poignantly about seeking God and adds: 'And the Lord opened the heavens upon me, and I saw the Lord,' Then follow the words of the Savior... . Possibly the term Lord referred to the Father in the first instance, while afterward referring to the Son, who declared (H)is atonement for the sins of all. This is the most personalized of all the vision accounts, and Joseph Smith is preoccupied with Christ's assurance, evidently only hinting at the presence of the Father."
Criticism: The 1838-39 account describes a religious revival, yet no such movement can be documented in the town of Palmyra, N.Y., in the spring of 1820.
Response: The account doesn't mention Palmyra specifically, but rather, refers to "the place where we lived" (Manchester township) and the "whole district of country," which could be interpreted broadly. And it says the religious excitement took place "in the second year after our removal to Manchester," which could have been in 1819 or 1820.
"Professor Milton Backman has demonstrated conclusively that there was considerable religious excitement in the general area of the Burned-over District of western New York in 1819 and 1820, and that 'spiritual quickenings' were particularly intense in 1819," Brother Allen wrote in his 1970 article.
Criticism: Some have pointed to a possible discrepancy between the 1832 account and later versions. In 1832, Joseph said he had decided after studying the scriptures that no denomination was built upon the New Testament gospel. Yet in the original 1838 account is the parenthetical statement that "at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong."
Response: In a January 1985 Ensign article, Milton V. Backman, BYU professor of Church history, reasoned: "Perhaps the statements are not contradictory. Through a study of the Bible (an intellectual analysis) Joseph Smith may have decided that all the churches he knew of were wrong. At the time he entered the grove, however, and at other times, he may have believed in his heart that God's true church existed somewhere — he just didn't know where."
Viewed in another way, the foregoing may have fit what young Joseph came to learn — and what Church members have been taught through the years — is the pattern for receiving personal revelation: First, study and ponder the problem in one's mind; then arrive at a tentative conclusion; finally seek confirmation from the Lord in prayer (see Doctrine and Covenants 9:8-9).
In this case, such confirmation came in a very dramatic fashion, one that has eternally blessed mankind.
Resources:
James B. Allen and John W. Welch, "Appearance of the Father and the Son," in Welch, Opening the Heavens, BYU Press and Deseret Book, pp. 35-75.
Milton V. Backman Jr., "Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision," Ensign, January 1985, pp. 8-17.
Richard L. Anderson, "Joseph Smith's Testimony of the First Vision," Ensign, April 1996, pp. 10-21.
Michael R. Ash, "The First Vision," Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), 2003, www.fair-lds.org.
Matthew B. Brown, "Revised or Unaltered? Joseph Smith's Foundational Stories," address at 2006 Conference of Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR); transcript accessible at www.fair-lds.org.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Y'all are a tough crowd:

I do apologize. When copyright issues arise I tend to get out my horn-rimmed glasses and turn into the crotchety old librarian... hair-bun, frumpy sweater and all.