Talk:First Vision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Talk:First Vision/Archive 1: 24 October 2006

Contents

[edit] Paul on the road to Damascus

There is no conflict in the three accounts of Paul's vision if you read Acts 22: 9 in any version other than the KJV. For instance, in the New American Standard Bible and the New International version, it says that Paul's companions did not "understand the voice"--that is hear what was uttered with understanding.--John Foxe 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

True - in Acts 9:7, it says that the men with him heard a sound, but beheld no one. This agrees with what you have above. However, in Acts 22:9, it states that the men with him saw the light, but didn't hear the voice of the one who was talking to him (Saul). In Acts 26:13, the KJV says the light appeared around Saul and those with him, but if you look at the Greek, it could just as easily be translated that Saul and the men around him saw the light. So, in Acts 9:7 the men heard the voice, but in Acts 22:9 the men didn't hear the voice. The same greek word is used for "hear" in both verses. And while it can refer to understanding and learning, it can also mean simply "not deaf".
This isn't the only place. If you compare the different versions of the same event in the synoptic Gospels, you will find a number of incidents where the details are different. There are even more differences in the Hebrew Bible where the same story appears in two places, but slightly different (compare the creation stories in Gen 1 & 2), and there are a number of differences between Chronicles and Kings, which cover the same time frame. The reason I use this example is because both events involve three versions that deal with visions (Saul on the road to Damascus and Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove), and most Christians accept Saul's vision (as do I), even though there are differences in the accounts. Therefore, it shouldn't be such a surprise that Mormons can believe in the First Vision even though there are discrepancies in the accounts.
Actually, some historians consider differences in the details as further proof that the event actually happened. If different versions say basically the same thing, it could easily be different copies of a single source. If there are differences, that implies that multiple people recorded the event slightly differently. So, if there are no differences, it could have been a single person who claimed the event happened, but if there are differences, multiple people are claiming that the event happened. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you should put some of the argument above in the article text. As for the account of Paul's vision, I have to go on what I can read about koine Greek because I don't know any Greek myself. Greek apparently makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative.) In other words, you have the same Greek word but a different case: "phones" in Acts 9:7 and "phonen" in Acts 22:9. There's a parallel between what Paul's companions saw and what they heard. They saw only saw a blazing light, but they did not see the Person.
As for Genesis 1 and 2, they are not separate accounts. Genesis 2 follows logically from Genesis 1 and simply develops in detail the creation of man. Find another Near Eastern creation narrative that ignores mention of the sun and seas. Even the animals aren't mentioned until Adam names them.--John Foxe 09:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smith's age in 1823

What Cowdery says is "You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. Smith Jr.’s age — that was an error in the type — it should have been in the 17th." In other words, he says that he had earlier made a typographical error and said that Smith was fourteen in the previous issue and now wishes to correct the error by saying that he was sixteen. Obviously, in 1823, Smith was seventeen, at least until the last week of December. So both articles get Smith's age wrong. Thanks for adding the links to the original text though.--John Foxe 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem - you're right re fourteen, sixteen - I think this "minor typo" is indicitive of the sloppiness of the scholarship of this "account" of the first vision - and such obvious errors cast doubt on the validity of the year as well - Cowdery could have just as easily have meant 1820 instead of 1823. --Trödel 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd bet Cowdery heard Joseph say "about fourteen" somewhere along the line and then realized that the date of the Moroni visitation wouldn't line up well with him being that old. (Cowdery was only a few months younger than Smith, and he would have been conscious of how old Smith was in 1823.) So a typo happened.--John Foxe 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How can this possibly be called NPOV

While I would have to agree that for those who are trying to talk about religious concepts that are fundimental to their lives can often be at odds to those who consider otherwise, but this current article reeks so strongly of a POV bias against Mormonism and LDS theology that it makes my head spin.

Simply put, this is a horribly written article and espouses a very strong POV that the First Vision described by Joseph Smith didn't even happen at all. That is discussed right at the beginning. Or the viewpoint that Joseph Smith made all this up as some sort of religously oriented scam on a bunch of unsuspecting 19th Century American farmers. I hardly call that a NPOV.

As far as where to take this article, I think it would be useful to identify exactly what happened, or at least what are "typical" beliefs of what happened in regards to the events of the First Vision. It shouldn't delve immediately into criticism of the event as would an anti-Mormon tract. If you want to include the viewpoints of others of the LDS movment besides the LDS Church, fine.

To note that there are criticisms of Joseph Smith is fine, and that there may be differences between different versions of this event. I would, however, encourage that to perhaps even be made into a completely seperate Wikipedia article, unless there isn't enough source material to verify this sort of material, or enough commentary on the issue that it would turn into original research. If so, then it should be removed from Wikipedia anyway precisely because it is original research. The opinions of one person should not be written so strongly in this situation.

So much of this current article is an attempt to prove logically that Joseph Smith was a fraud that it totally misses the point of why this event is so critical to those who believe the LDS faith, nor do I upon reading it really understand what happened. I say put more of the actual event into this article and move the critical cruft to other articles. That they could be linked to this one is fine, but they don't belong here. --Robert Horning 00:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is NPOV because Mormons and non-Mormons have hammered it out together over several months--in a polite and respectful manner, I might add--and virtually every statement is documented by at least one citation. Interestingly, of the two sentences you asked to be documented, one citation was added by a Mormon and the other by a non-Mormon. Welcome to the conversation, Robert.--John Foxe 13:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
That does not make an NPOV article, that makes an unruly compromise. Still, I am glad that at least some civil discourse can be made here. The real point that I'm making here is that this article ought to be termed Comparisons of accounts of the First Vision rather than something about the actual event itself, at least as it is currently written. Or even Criticisms of accounts of the First Vision. Just because there are citations here is not by itself sufficient either, and the citations are clearly ones with a major axe of some sort to grind.
When I come here, I want to know exactly what it is about. In other words, the who, what, when, where, and why? Instead, I get statements like these differences call into question what, if anything, happened in 1820. That is not a neutral point of view. That is clearly espousing a strong POV that this whole thing is about strong doubts that this event even happened, and strongly suggesting it didn't.
So from this, what is the First Vision that is claimed?
And launching right into a statement by Gordon B. Hinkley hardly follows the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines either.
I'm not saying that this is really any different from the rest of the LDS-related articles on Wikipedia, but this is not NPOV. I know that people's egos are on the line here, and that as a strongly religious topic that trying to achieve a neutral point of view is often exceedingly difficult to obtain.
On the positive side, this article, as written, is making me very anxious to try and get into more depth about the subject and try to get into the original sources and see for myself more about these various accounts. I just don't think that more than half of the article ought to be highly critical of Joseph Smith and painting him to be a fraud. To note that there are people critical of Joseph Smith is acceptable, but it shouldn't be the main thrust of the article.
BTW, an example of a religious topic dealt with as an NPOV article I would consider to be more along the lines I was thinking of was Immaculate Conception. I can certainly try to dig up other better articles that perhaps are even featured articles as well. --Robert Horning 21:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I counted the citations in "First Vision," and by my calculation they break down roughly as follows:
Primary Sources 10
Mormon Secondary Sources 7
Anti-Mormon Secondary Sources (including Palmer) 7
Neutral (including Bushman) 6
I would certainly encourage your interest in the original sources. Let me suggest as a starting place Early Mormon Documents, Volume 1 (1996), which includes material from Joseph Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, and other members of the Smith family. We should be devoted to the truth and follow wherever it leads. --John Foxe 22:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Mind you, it isn't the fact this is lacking citable sources (which all of these certainly are to one extent or another). It is the simple fact that I have no idea what the First Vision even is after reading this article. That is a huge shortcoming that can and should be addressed, as the article as written right now does not cover the basics of what this is about. Instead, this is a comparison and contrast of various written versions, some by the harshest critics of Mormonism who would stop at nothing to prove their point.
What I'm asking is to apply the KISS principle to this article as well. I believe this would help with the POV problems that are rampant with this article, but also get to the point to explain exactly what is the big deal about this theological issue. Exactly how to accomplish that is certainly a point to argue at the moment. I do believe that a truly NPOV article can be created here that gets to the point, but it isn't going to be easy to accomplish. And the traditional appeal to citable sources is not going to be sufficient in this case, as it is apparent that there is certainly substantial outside content (outside of Wikimedia projects) about this topic.
From my POV (with long experience on many different projects and pages) a substantial problem here is that unlike other topics, almost all significant sources have an incredible POV either in glowing support of Joseph Smith and the LDS church, or out to skewer the man and prove him to be a fake. As written at the moment, this article does display both points of view, but that is also the problem. I am not asking that the article be rewriten to any particular point of view, but rather to refine it to the core concepts, and why this might be something that is contested as to its validity or not and perhaps to even know what might have indeed happened to Joseph Smith, or at least what is believed by most of the followers of Joseph Smith. I don't think that going over mintuae of individual written accounts necessarily accomplish this goal. --Robert Horning 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Robert. The issue is that articles centered on faith are difficult to write and edit. When the topic is about a religion as controversial as Mormonism, then one must understand that there are people in the world who make a living off of doing all in their power to disprove Mormons and save poor Christains from being converted to the faith "made in the bowels of Hell". I can be rather jaded and I do not have a great deal of respect or compassion for zealots regardless of which side they might fall.

The topic, rightly pointed out above, is called the First Vision. The structure should point out what the official LDS church position is of the theophany. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending upon one's POV, it is vastly larger organization and the tail should not wag the dog. Then it should discuss the significance of the event and then criticism. Thoughts? Storm Rider (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a more complete description of the LDS position of the First Vision early on in this article. But as you both have admitted, it already stands on all fours; it is well supported by citations from every position. How we can learn anything more about this or any other event by ignoring the minutia "of individual written accounts" is unclear to me. As that great philosopher of criminology, Joe Friday, said on many occasions, "Just the facts, ma'am; just the facts." (And yes, I realize the line is apocryphal--we can't expect too much of a fictional character.)--John Foxe 10:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This definitely needs to include the position of the LDS Church and others within the Latter Day Saint movement about what happened. --Lethargy 00:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

For the reasons discussed above, as well as the repeated edits by IP users who obviously thought this was POV, I added the tag to the article. --Lethargy 00:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted a truly NPOV (which is otherwise impossible in religion and politics), you would say "here is what his followers say and here is what others or his opposition says". To put one view ahead of the other is to show a POV. This should be obvious. Many of these sources cited are like asking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to write a book about George Bush. You might as well be quoting Mein Kampf in reference to Jews. The whole point of the article seems to be to prove that (1)the verity of the LDS Church is dependent on the verity of the First Vision and (2)The First Vision is clearly a sham. This is (1) Offensive and (2)A unwelcome attempt to use Wikipedia as a "bully pulpit". It is articles like this that turns wikipedia from a database of information to a circus of propaganda.

In that case you can also tag the article with {{unreliable}}. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidelines. Thanks for discussing this here BTW. --Lethargy 01:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
If you check the history of this article, you will note that there has been long-standing give and take by Mormons and non-Mormons here, and changes have been made in a gracious fashion with respect for one another's position. I would urge other editors to state specifically what, in their opinion, is POV or unreliable. We are not interested in "what his followers say" or "what the opposition says," we're interested in facts that can be demonstrated in historical source material.--John Foxe 09:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Foxe: I am not sure what history of the article you are referring. If you read the comments above by others you will find that many others have the same objection to this articles clever attempt at discreditation (see my specific comments). Hint: they are labeled wiht (1) and (2). My guess is your head is too far in the sand to notice and that the only give is "your take". I love how your infer that "what his followers say" etc can't be historically accurate and annotated. As if you are the fountain of truth on this subject. You urge others to state specifically what is "unreliable" yet you fail to read and intake others specific complaints. Please do not be a editor Nazi. I realize this might be your only attempt to revize this history. Maybe you were offended by a religious person earlier in your life but counseling is the place to deal with those problems not an online encyclopedia that others might take as accurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.137.240 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 October 2006.

Thank you for your comments. Your objections to the article are apparently not to any particular phrases or sentences. You have not asked for any facts to be documented. If the article is so obviously biased, why not? --John Foxe 20:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Although that was not aimed at me, I do feel the POV tag is justified, given the discussion here and particularly the one directly above this. --Lethargy 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for Reversion

Most of Cogden's suggestions are attempts to add things that should be on another page, probably "Joseph Smith, Jr." "First Vision" should be about the First Vision. There is no need to revisit the gamut of early Mormon history here. --John Foxe 19:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I added material back, and attempted to address some of your concerns. I don't think there is cause to delete any information about the First Vision that is relevant and verifiable. Much of this information is on the Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article, but this First Vision article should go into more depth on this particular subject, which I think deserves extensive treatment. COGDEN 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I object to any material being taken from "Joseph Smith, Jr." For one thing, that page is too controverted, and you'll bring all the ill will over here. Besides the comments you've tried to add are so poorly written and organized that they make the page almost unreadable. Try taking the revisions sentence by sentence. We're in no hurry.--John Foxe 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No info has been taken from Joseph Smith, Jr.. It was taken from Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., which is a featured article that has appeared on the Main Page. Part of my changes are structural, and not amenable to a sentence-by-sentence addition. In essence, the Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article contained only a summary about the First Vision, and this article should discuss every issue and citation raised there, and much more. Since I haven't really deleted anything, only added things, I would call on you and others to discuss any NPOV, relevance, or other Wikipedia problems you might think are present. If you have problems with something that has been added, please make improvements. COGDEN 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
John, it appears that your complaints may have not been as well thought out as you may have thought. I did not think the edits by Cogden were poorly written or made the article unreadable. I suppose that a feature article, the source for the edits, should be given a modicum of respect. Time is irrevelent to the conversation, the objective is to produce excellent articles. Wholesale reversions are a last resort according to policy; it is incumbent upon you to make a critique sentence by sentence if that is your desire. One does not achieve concensus by aggressive action such as yours and making unfounded critiques is also not a good sign of objectivity. Storm Rider (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted one more time, to keep the status quo while we discuss here. Both John Foxe and I are up to our limit under the Wikipedia:3RR rule, so I won't be reverting any more. Hopefully neither will John Foxe for 24 hours. This will give time for user comment. COGDEN 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I stand by my earlier statement that much of the new material is poorly written and (to a lesser extent) poorly organized. I've done some stylistic and substantive revision of the early parts of it, and I welcome the comparison with the original. There much to be redebated here. Good luck on the "sacred grove" page. The gnome that watches over it wouldn't let me add anything about Mormonism's sacred grove. --John Foxe 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
My last edit, a short addition mentioning the Sacred Grove, apparently came just after John Foxe reverted the article (for the fourth time, in violation of the Wikipedia:3RR rule) and I didn't notice. Everybody needs to play by the rules, here, or otherwise we get anarchy. In honor of that rule, I'm not going to un-revert again for 24 hours. Obviously, since I'm an involved party, I can't use my administrative privileges to take any direct action like blocking or protection. Since this last reversion was only a partial reversion, I probably wouldn't block you anyway, but I would hope that we can work together on this article in the future. COGDEN 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't revert. I was simply editing. I look forward to working with you on this article. You've just thrown in a lot of changes all at once, and that's hard to get a handle on. --John Foxe 23:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, a partial reversion (any deletion of newly-added material) still counts under the Three-revert rule. COGDEN 00:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Version

I dare anyone to say that at least so far as clarity and readability goes, this new version is not superior to every other version that appeared on this page on October 23. Sorry, I didn't know that changing anything at all counted as 3RR. --John Foxe 00:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Foxe: if you are to be academically honest about that first vision you must include some form of the following statement made by Joseph Smith Jr in regards to the many versions of the first vision. I am sure you know the reference;
"Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to militate against its character as a Church and its progress in the world—I have been induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind, and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the facts, as they have transpired, in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession."
In fairness you seem to be headed in the right direction as far as POV. However, you might want to take a couple of days or weeks off and then come at it again. You seem too wrapped up in it. Nobody likes an editing Nazi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.134.242 (talk • contribs) .
That is the intro to his history, not the intro to the first vision account per se.JS-History 1:1 I had always interpreted that comment to refer to rumors about his character more than accounts of the first vision. In fact, later in that section he specifically points out the rumor of his being a money-digger.JS-H 1:56 I am not aware of any disputes about the various accounts of the first vision during his lifetime. Anybody else? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Although it had been in the Church Archives for over a century, the 1832 version in Joseph's handwriting was only made public by Paul Cheesman in 1965 and published later that year by Jerald and Sandra Tanner. --John Foxe 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


During Smith's lifetime, up until about 1840 when Orson Pratt published his missionary pamphlet in England popularizing the First Vision, it wasn't something that early Mormons emphasized at all. Pretty much all the major historians, including Bushman, agree on that. Frankly, during the 1820s and much of the 1830s, having a theophany was nothing special. Lots of people said they had them, and Smith apparently didn't think it was nearly as important an event, from a proselitizing perspective, as the translation of the Book of Mormon. COGDEN 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
John If I remember right, it was published prior to Cheesman's research - and certainly discussed by BH Roberts. I'll need to find my sources, though. -Visorstuff 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Discussion

I will try to revise the article starting from the beginning. It should be clear at the start that there were multiple versions of the First Vision, that one mentions two persons (I don't think anyone would argue that One of them was not God the Father), and that the 1838 account is the one treated by the Church as canonical. Nor should it be debated that the doctrine is so important to the Church that President Hinckley has put great weight on its veracity.

The statement by Gordon B. Hinckley has no business in the introduction, as has been discussed many times before by other editors than I. This is an article that applies to numerous Latter Day Saint denominations, and not all of them agree with Hinckley. In addition, not all of the denominations have canonized the 1838 version. Basically, only the LDS Church, in its Pearl of Great Price. COGDEN 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am irritated by those "Harvard citations" in the text. They are truly ugly and reduce readability. The vast majority of readers will not be clicking on them anyway. --John Foxe 10:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If we decide to use footnotes in the article, that's fine, but we should choose one system or the other. You haven't actually removed the Harvard citations. You just put them in footnotes, making it that much harder to find and verify them, which puts two layers of indirection between the user and the full citation. If you want to use footnotes, lets do so, but we should put the full citation, or at least an abbreviated one, in each footnote. Personally, I like Harvard citations because they are edit-friendly. Footnotes are good for World Book and Brittanica, where you don't have people constantly cite-checking. Harvard referencing is more academic, as well, for those of us who care about where the cited "factoid" came from, so that we can understand immediately how credible it is, without having to sort through footnotes. Either way, however, is only a temporary solution, because eventually we're moving toward a Wikicite system, which will solve all of these problems. COGDEN 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
When you started editing "First Vision" I thought I'd take a look at your "Early Years of Joseph Smith." After two paragraphs I gave up; the internal citations were just too irritating. Two clicks is not too high of a price to pay to get rid of them. In fact I made a mental note that if someone wanted to insure that an article would not be read, he should just end every phrase with a Harvard citation.--John Foxe 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Second section: I think the belief that "most" Americans believed in visions is a stretch. Certainly most contemporary Calvinists would not have been amused. The Methodist preacher to whom Smith told his vision was horrified.

We can change "most" to "many". COGDEN 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs if possible. --John Foxe 12:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. COGDEN 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical Backround: If you look at the newspapers from this area and period, you'll be struck by how little attention they pay to religion. There's probably a good journal article in the reasons why there should be so little interest during a period of such religious intensity. --John Foxe 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Varied Accounts: I've cut one paragraph that was appropriate for the introduction but is superfluous here. Otherwise it's mostly stylistic tweaks.--John Foxe 20:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it looks so clean without those nasty internal citations. Every lawyer ought to have such an editor:) --John Foxe 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


I strongly disagree with your premise that the article should begin with making it clear there were multiple versions. A topic is first introduced; it answers what, when, why, and where. A summary of the most prevelant and believed version of the event should be summarized. It should be followed by a lead in to who believes and how they might be different in their beliefs. Then a controversy section. I don't believe any article should start with controversy unless we are attempting to be polemical in our writing. I believe an outline was already discussed. Storm Rider (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Where is the controversy in mentioning that there's more than one version? Mormons and non-Mormons agree about that. The various versions are a historical fact. Only one version is canonical, and we say that in the introduction.--John Foxe 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current outline and proposed outline

The current outline for the article looks as follows:

  1. Background and summary I don't see why this should contain more than in intro to Joseph Smith
    1. Earlier Smith family visions This is not germaine to the topic, but to the family article

      It's germaine because it provides context. And the academic articles include that information. COGDEN 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    2. Historical background What is value of this, visions have happened in all religions.

      All the academic articles include historical context. And so did Smith's own 1838 account. COGDEN 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    3. Date and location of the First Vision This should go into the intro: What, when, where, why

      There is too much information about date and location to include it in the introduction. This section will be expanded. COGDEN 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    4. Whom Smith might have told This should remain and developed who knew first and what happened to knowledge
  2. Details of the vision Initial details of vision are summarized in intro; this should intro evolution
    1. 1832 Account
    2. 1834 Account by Oliver Cowdery The accounts of Joseph Smith have precedence, then the accounts of others
    3. 1835 Account
    4. 1838 Account
    5. 1840 account by Orson Pratt
  3. Criticism and apologetic responses to the canonical 1838 version of the First Vision

    We'll have to eliminate this section to conform to WP:NPOV policy. Separating apology and criticism into two separate sections doesn't work and is inherently biased.COGDEN 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    1. Criticism of the First Vision This is where main thrust of discussion on different versions, Joseph Smith etc
    2. Apologetics of the First Vision
  4. Notes
  5. References
  6. Further reading

I hope this is a first step in gaining concensus on how to proceed. I have stayed onthe guidelines simiply because I dislike edit wars, but this sure smacks of individuals to committed to an agenda rather than writing an article in keeping with NPOV policy. I would hope that we can agree to an outline before we start wholesale rewriting of the article without any initial directioi chosen by the group. Thoughts? Storm Rider (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest perhaps a "fork" of the article for doing a major overhaul of this article that would eventually be folded back into this main article, mainly to work on the more extreme simplification that I've suggested. There are some good sources here with this article, but it tries to do far more than simply tell the story of the First Vision, which was my complaint in the first place.
My goal would be to try and achieve a truly NPOV article rather than simply a conglomoration of ideas poorly put together. Perhaps even moving the bulk of this current article into some seperate Wikipedia article about the multiple accounts done as a comparison and contrast of various versions account. IMHO, discussion that there are multiple accounts should only take up about two paragraphs of content with this article, with perhaps the typical "For more information see..." linking to the other article going over the comparisons in much more detail. Detailed analysis really must be done as a seperate article as it completely confuses the issue and the point of this article. --Robert Horning 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Forking or segregating is always a very bad idea. Forking has come up numerous times across the Wikipedia, and the idea is almost always rejected. I share your desire to get a "truly NPOV" article. But that is impossible as long as the criticism, apologetics, and history are separated from each other. There is no "just telling the story" of the First Vision, because the First Vision has many stories. Smith himself wrapped up the story in its historical context. And every academic article I've read talks about the historical background and the different versions. COGDEN 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope my editing pleases you. I agree that the article should stay focused on the First Vision and not unnecessarily repeat what can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Of course, a description of the varied versions of the First Vision can't be shunted to another site without violating the historical record, one accepted by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars. This section of the article is also unavailable elsewhere on Wikipedia.--John Foxe 21:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is that you can't delete information about a topic that, in your POV, is (1) not true, or (2) not relevant, as long as there is a significant POV that disagrees with you. In particular, with respect to the relevance, Wikipedia has loads of storage, and its an encyclopedia, with emphasis on the "encyclo". There is no limit to how deeply we can and should explore the subject of the First Vision, so long as there are editors willing to do so and provide the proper citations. COGDEN 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I think I understand Robert's position and I am not sure I agree that it is would meet the true definition of a fork. I think he is talking about a more in depth article that covers the evolution of the recorded history of the First Vision. However, I would still disagree that it is necessary. This article can and should cover the history of the First Vision.
I don't think my proposed changes to the outline came out that well; it is not as easy to distinguish between existing and proposed. Currently the article is confusing. An reader without any understanding of the First Vision, which is the vast majority, would come away shaking their heads. It certainly reads more like a polemical pamphlet meant to confuse rather than enlighten a reader. First and foremost, it should answer the five W's of Who, what, where, when and why.
The history of the Smith family and visions in the early 1800's is, IMHO, superfluous information. Visions have been a common occurrence in religions since any human has claimed a relationship with a superior being. Attempting to draw this period as unique is in error and is more the mark of polemical writers than true scholarly research (with no offense to COgden intended).
In Mormonism, I have long been a proponent of never allowing the tail to wag the dog. The vast majority of members of the Latter Day Saint Movement are members of the LDS church. The doctrine primarily should focus on that doctrine and then should be followed by any differing opinions from the other sects. Also, the attempt to portray that there is a question as to which "story" of the First Vision should be used is also the work of polemical writers. There is one canonical recording of the First Vision; that recorded in 1838. The others are viewed as incomplete and unfinished, but should certainly be presented and discussed. Meeting the standard of the LDS church first is not disrespectful, but just simply the reality that they are the biggest group by far. This is similar to the Christainity article towing the line of the Roman Catholicism; they are the big dog and that is the first picture of Christianity presented.
I still think it best to come to an agreement on outlines and then let the writing begin in earnest. Storm Rider (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to revise the introduction to answer the questions "who, what, when, where, and why", as you suggested. I agree it was needed. I disagree that this article should be LDS Church-oriented, because any attempt to do so would violate WP:NPOV. It's true that there is one canonical version of the vision, but the only group that has canonized any version has been the LDS Church. First and foremost, this is a historical article. While canonization by the LDS Church of a certain account should certainly be discussed at length, it shouldn't be discussed until after the historical facts are set forth. First, we discuss the history (the "who, what, when, and where" elements), and only then can we adequately discuss the theological interpretations (the "why" element). Discussing the "who, what, when, and where" requires discussing all the accounts, because they are arguably in conflict. COGDEN 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your revisions and the hard work you have done; thank you. I think my issue is that the topic of the First Vision is primarily a spiritual event, not a historical event. It only has significance within a religious context. For that reason I think it important to state the why sooner in the article. It is a question of focus. In the Jesus article we do not attempt to put him first in a historical perspective, but why he is important. The historicity question is addressed in more depth later in the article. If I am not mistaken, it has been a while since I read the article on Bernadette Soubirou, but it also just tells the visions of Lourdes without a focus on the historical setting. If I am not mistaken, COgden, you are a historian by training or by passion. It is natural for you to want to focus on the historical issues first, but I would humbly disagree with that initial focus. Storm Rider (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess my main concern is that I don't think you can tell much about the "why" in an NPOV manner without getting into the nitty-gritty historical details. There are several whys that all have to be accounted for. For example, consider the following "whys", all of which I've seen expressed in potentially-citable literature:
  • LDS Church missionary POV: The First Vision was the single most important event in the history of civilization, other than the Atonement, because it started the Restoration and brought more souls to Christ than any other single event.
  • LDS Church Gospel Doctrine POV: The First Vision was actually not a vision, but a visitation of actual living people, and its main importance is that it is our most potent evidence that God and Jesus are separate individuals, each with bodies.
  • Community of Christ POV: The First Vision was actually, as the name suggests, a vision, in which Smith saw with his "spiritual eyes" two images representing the persons of the Father and the Son, who are in actuality the same being.
  • Fundamentalist Mormon POV: The First Vision was an actual physical appearance of Jesus and his father Adam.
  • New Apologetic History POV: There was a First Vision, but since the accounts were written years later, his recollection of the event may have grown more elaborate and were influenced by later events in his history.
  • Skeptical "false memory theory" POV: There was no First Vision, but Smith later grew to believe there was one as he elaborated it in his mind.
  • Skeptical "fraud-theory" POV: There was no First Vision, and Smith's various accounts were attempts to retroactively invent a convincing "Christian experience" that would justify to followers his claim to be a prophet.
  • Skeptical "delusion-theory" POV: There was a First Vision, but it was the result of a delusion, or a hallucination.
COGDEN 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forking for editorial purposes

Perhaps I am using the wrong terminology here, but what I am proposing is not to do an outright fork, such as something like LDS version of the First Vision, but rather doing a development and editorial branch of an unstable nature. This is indeed a common technique for helping to resolve complicated issue. In the software development world, especially when there are multiple contributors and collaborators, this is a very common practice to branch development from a stable bit that doesn't change much (keeping the current version of this article, for example) while the part that you want to allow major changes to be reviewed before they become "official". Indeed this is exactly what the Wikipedia 1.0 supporters are even encouraging, and it can be done right now in a limited fashion.

All I'm suggesting is starting a page of First Vision/Unstable or First Vision/Review that would allow us to do the major changes, but allow the current version to be available while the unstable version isn't quite up to par and is undergoing major changes. Especially if we are going to make substantial structural changes to the topic.

All of this is being done with the intention of moving it back to the main article. Indeed, a good administrator can even merge in the edit histories from the stable and unstable pages if we think we have found a good candidate page for improvement, and we can discuss several different organizational strategies to help deal with this topic and eventually delete the ones that we don't want to follow.

This is not a classical fork such as what happened with es.wikipedia, where a whole extra server was created independent of Jimbo and completely independent development occured. I am saying this is merely a tool to help organize our thoughts and try to achieve the supposed objective here: To create a truly NPOV article about the topic of the First Vision of Joseph Smith.

I would like to do this here directly tied to this article, but I can also do this (it is even recommended at times) as a sub-page of my user page instead. --Robert Horning 19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is used sometimes, but be sure to put it at Talk:First Vision/Unstaable or /Review - as it should not be in the main namespace until it is finalized (See WP:SP). However usually it is better to work collaboratively on the article since it is difficult to get reach concensus that a wholesale new version should replace the current version. It would be good to get concensus from the editors to leave the main version alone and work together on catestrophic changes before working on such a version :) --Trödel 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we have any reason, here, to create a provisional fork article. I think we're generally moving in the right direction. It's difficult to achieve NPOV when there are such an unusually large number of significant points of view that have to be accounted for. COGDEN 17:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Towards consensus

We're making progress toward consensus, gentlemen. It just shows what good will and some maturity can accomplish even in such a controverted arena. --John Foxe 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry if I messed up the discussion...

The lead paragraph got into too much detail about non-essentials. Just tried to stick to what it was, etc. Hope it helps. -Visorstuff 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed what you wrote (but saved it below), largely because it gives us so little information about the nature of the First Vision. Note too that the first sentence emphasizes the importance of the First Vision while the second deemphasizes it.

The vision is considered the most important spiritual event in the Latter Day Saint movement. Although it is emphasized as a foundational teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in demonstrating the need for modern prophets and apostles, and the reality of God the Father and Jesus, the event is not considered historical by some smaller Latter Day Saint denominations. Latter Day Saint adherents view the First Vision as the starting point of the Latter Day Saint restoration.

--John Foxe 09:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary - it says that it is important in the movement, and that it has controversial aspects. How the lead paragraph reads now doen't do either. It basically starts off saying there was an event that is hard to understand because tehre are multiple accounts. Gee. I don't have a clue what the FV is after reading the current version.

Why can't we say its the most important event in the Latter Day Saint movement. It is, isn't it? What LDS sect would state otherwise?

I'm completely frustrated by this article, moreso than others as it seems very agenda driven, but there is no apparent agenda other than edit control. I wish i could put my finger on what it is. The current form stinks, and it only seems to be getting worse. I'll take a break already from this article, but it seems like no real progress is being made. AND that is something else for me to say this early in my dialogue that i'm frustrated with it. -Visorstuff 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've stayed away from editing on this article because I also see this to be very much an agenda driven article with a major bias against specifically the LDS Church, and driven from the POV of trying to systematically dissect and disprove the validity that this event even happened in the first place. This isn't NPOV, this is a very anti-LDS POV. This paragraph, as written above, is largly what I would have written as the leading paragraph, and states the idea of what this whole thing is about very clearly.
As I've stated before, I feel this whole thing is way off the mark in terms of trying to describe the who, what, when, where, and why of the primary topic here. The topic is the "First Vision", not "various accounts of the 'First Vision' as described by Joseph Smith and those who both hated and loved him".
IMHO, nearly the entire section currently labeled "Accounts of the First Vision" needs to be moved to a completely different Wikipedia article. It goes into minutae of details that do not really support the primary focus of what this really should be, which is to describe the topic. In terms of further reading, going on to other Wikipedia articles would be a good idea. As would filling up a substantial section on Wikisource filled with these various accounts rather than giving point by point editorial reviews of those various accounts. Since Joseph Smith has been dead for over 100 years, I'm presuming that they would all be public domain materials, or am I mistaken?
To describe that not everybody agrees with all of these accounts is certainly something reasonable in terms of maintaining NPOV standards. But this article certainly is not NPOV at the moment (although it is getting better). --Robert Horning 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lane, beer and cakes

I've put the section about Lane in the footnotes because it's so speculative. There is no evidence that Lane was the Methodist with whom Smith spoke, there is no evidence that he met Smith in Phelps, there is no evidence that Smith was in Phelps. I can't understand why you would be interested in including this guess on guess. There were plenty of Methodists in the Palmyra area to whom Smith could have spoken about the vision.--John Foxe 09:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to de-emphasize this, even though it's somewhat speculative. It's an important element of LDS apologetic literature on the subject. The precise date, whether 1820, 1821, 1823, or 1824-25 period, is a hot issue. Read the apologetic articles, and many of the non-apologetic articles, and you'll see what I mean. COGDEN 17:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
One problem is that William Smith says that Lane was preaching in his neighborhood in "1822 and 1823." Another is that William introduces the minister as "the Rev. M___." William also conflates the First Vision and the Moroni vision. All that information will have to be introduced. Are you sure that's what you want? --John Foxe 18:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you are looking at the wrong reference. The earlier 1883 references mentions George Lane by name. Also, William combines the two visions. But it's still the First Vision. He describes the First Vision roughly the way Smith described it, except for the fact that he dated it in 1823, and he said that the personage he saw in the Sacred Grove also told him where the plates were. This is all very good stuff to include in the article. COGDEN 18:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
William Smith said "Rev. M__" the following year in 1884. That might have been a mistake made by the transcriber. Otherwise, the whole William story is hopeless. You suggest (on no evidence) that Joseph may have met Lane in Phelps in 1819, but William is clear that Joseph met him in 1823 in the Palmyra area. And then he has Moroni appear the next day.
In any case, I've put some of the Lane material back into the footnotes to keep everything about Lane together.--John Foxe 21:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The William Smith story is not hopeless. Consistent with NPOV, we don't judge the veracity of claims here on Wikipedia. We just report them. William's accounts are especially important, because he was living in the same house as Joseph when Joseph would have had the First Vision. If Joseph told his family, William would have heard. COGDEN 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Aplogetic writings are a response to criticims or conflicts. It seems like the objective you are trying to achieve is to ward off criticism without raising the criticism first. I would agree more with Foxe on this issue, it is more a curiosity and should be covered in footnotes. Storm Rider (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Lane material is good stuff both for apologists and for critics, and I've seen it used on both sides. You have to keep in mind that this information is front-and-center in most of the literature on the First Vision since the late 1960s. The First Vision dating issue is significant, and the George Lane issue is at the center of the debate. COGDEN 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Critic" and "critical"

I object to the use of the word "critic" and "critical" to describe non-Mormon views. If non-Mormon views are characterized as "critical," then LDS views should be prefaced by the word "believing," and those who hold them should be called "believers." Obviously, for a number of reasons, this is the wrong way to go. --John Foxe 10:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. COGDEN 17:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences in details

I would like to add some comments about the various accounts, but I don't know a source. I think it should be pointed out that differences in details of historical events doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. Actually, more often the opposite. The more different versions of a historical event, the stronger the evidence that the event happened. In some cases, the differences help in our understanding of the event.

For example, there are a lot of minor differences in the four Gospels about many of the same event. This makes sense because different people are recalling the same event slightly different. (Even if you accept the existence of the Q document, probably none of the existing Gospels are the same as the Q document.)

I've added a comment several times, but it keeps getting deleted, that Paul has three different accounts of his experience on the road to Damascus. Each account is slightly different than the others. (For example, did the people with him see a light or hear a voice?) Regardless of these differences, Christians still believe that Paul had an experience on the way to Damascus. Likewise, there are a number of details that differ in the Kings and Chronicles accounts in the Hebrew Bible. So, the fact that there are different accounts of the First Vision doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Personally, I think the significance of the event is overblown by the LDS Church (it has little to do with my testimony). I'm not sure that Smith realized the importance of the event when it happened, and much of the variation in accounts is the result in different interpretations of the meaning during different stages of his life.

Is it just me, or is this something that should be included? I'm not talking about an entire section, but at least a comment in passing. Does anyone have a source that would support my theory that differences in details doesn't have to cast doubt on the authenticity of the event? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, personally. I know there are apologetic sources that say that (but I don't remember where; maybe one of the BYU Studies articles), and that's a significant POV that should be referenced, probably in the very last section on "use of the First Vision...". COGDEN 20:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Bill, let me repeat what I've said earlier about Paul's vision--that there's no conflict at all in the accounts in Acts. None. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative.) In other words, you have the same Greek word but a different case: "phones" in Acts 9:7 and "phonen" in Acts 22:9. There's a parallel between what Paul's companions saw and what they heard. They saw only a blazing light, but they did not see the Person.
As for the notion that the "more different versions of a historical event, the stronger the evidence that the event happened," that's not what we look for in either a court of law or in daily life. The more different the versions, the more the likelihood that one or more people are lying. Because men are fallible, there will always be differences in the testimony of witnesses, but in real life, we give greatest credence to stories that are most congruent. --John Foxe 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
My point was that the more different versions of an event, the stronger the evidence that the event happened. What the exact details were is, of course, a challenge, but it is much harder to make a case that it never happened if you have lots of people giving different accounts. When, for example, different Gospel versions are identical, the natural reaction is that they came from the same source (which is where the idea of the Q document came from.) As for Paul on the road to Damascus, we've had that conversation before. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Would you tend to accept my view if I say it several more times in different ways?:) --John Foxe 21:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Visitation?

Does anybody actually use the term First Visitation? I've never heard this before, except for in 1835 when Smith called it his "first visitation of angels". But nobody actually uses this today, do they? I can't find a reference to that usage on Google. If nobody actually uses it, we should delete it from the intro as a synonym. COGDEN 00:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that up; it struck me as odd today while editing. I am personally unaware of its usage, but you guys are more skilled researchers than I. I did not check to see who brought that usage in. Storm Rider (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have never heard it called that, but I haven't thoroughly studied the subject either. --Lethargy 01:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
It's gone. If someone comes up with a reason to resurrect it, we will.--John Foxe 19:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained deletions

I have reverted the page to eliminate unexplained deletions made during the past few days. It's important that reasons be given for major changes, especially for such an article where wording has been carefully negotiated for months previous.--John Foxe 15:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Biased links? Well, sure. That's no problem.--John Foxe 14:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/r/Talk%7EFirst_Vision_7dbe.html"