Talk:First Vision/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Criticisms

I would feel more comfortable with the list of criticisms if references to these could be found. I’ve seen one account of the First Vision in the possession of the LDS Church which is written in Joseph Smith’s own hand. Is this the one that is being referred to in the text? Bill 13:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to edit in conformance with our policies. Tom Haws 15:33, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

In the Criticisms section are included all the accounts of JS's First Vision other than his final account. I feel it is unfortunate that all these pieces of information all lumped in as "criticism". I am not a critic of the First Vision, but I am interested in learning about its proper historical context, meaning, significance, and lessons. It seems to me that labelling all this extra information as "criticism" is POV. In reality it is simply further light and knowledge. Is there a way to cast this information in a less negative light? I would like to see more historical context for the First Vision. What record do we have of its use as a teaching tool or interpretive tool in the 1830s or 1840s? Was it always seen as a rather unique theophany, or was it initially received as a abundantly given seeker's theophany? Did JS ever give commentary? Tom Haws 16:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Also, for serious study, here is a good source. http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/harmony.htm Could we incorporate this harmony into the article and possibly reduced the "official account" and "criticisms" dichotomy. This is not an LDS Church encyclopedia, but a compliation of all human knowledge. Tom Haws 16:27, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Major expansion May 2005

Very nice expansion by an anon. I am impressed. I have copyright questions. Could the anonymous editor please identify himself and verify that the material contributed is legal? Tom Haws 20:47, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Over-reliance on Grant Palmer?

Much of this article seems devoted to criticisms of the First Vision accounts, with much material from Grant Palmer's An Insider's View. In fact, Palmer's theories seem to drive the direction and conclusions of the article. I'm not opposed to critical analysis, and I don't want to eliminate Palmer altogether, but is there some way to restore some balance to the article? Perhaps break out his criticisms into a separate section?

I'm ruminating on this point, and request other thoughts on a possible rewrite. --MrWhipple 1 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

See my comment above. Would it be possible to start by simply not referring to the study of the multiple accounts as criticism? Harmony? "Accounts of the First Vision" Tom Haws July 4, 2005 20:25 (UTC)

I would also prefer not to count multiple accounts as criticism, though criticism also means:

the art of judging with knowledge and propriety of the beauties and faults of a literary performance, or of a production in the fine arts (1913 Webster)

I would rather rename "Joseph Smith, Jr.'s Official Account of The First Vision" to "Official LDS Account of The First Vision" or "Joseph Smith, Jr.'s 1944 Account of The First Vision". Is this version also the official Community of Christ version? Nereocystis 17:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

CofC website [1] says:

In the early 1800s, a young boy named Joseph Smith knelt in the woods near his family home in Manchester Township, New York. He felt separated from God; he also wanted to know how he could make his life count for good in a world full of confusion and sin. He wanted to join with God’s people, but he had no idea how to do that. So, in response to the scripture from James, he prayed to God.

How long this first attempt at verbal prayer lasted is not known, but he came to a point of deep despair. At this point, a vision surrounded him with love and mercy. From that light came a voice as clear as his own. As the vision ebbed and the voice faded, Joseph felt that he knew the truth. He felt the healing presence of God within and the forgiving mercy of Christ. He knew that God would be with him.

That's a rather harmonized account, and I don't know that they stick with a single account. We need a CofC project member, don't we? Tom Haws 17:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the CofC account is that it doesn't have anything to do with the first-hand reports given by Joseph Smith. The CofC wants to downplay certain things about the First Vision that conflict with their current push toward ecumenicalism -- the Father and Son appearing bodily, Christian creeds being called "an abomination", and revelation that no existing church was correct and Joseph would be called to restore the kingdom of God. Instead they focus on things that Joseph never said but are more amenable to their doctrine -- Joseph wanting to "make his life count for good", "deep despair" instead of an actual encounter with Satan, a "voice" instead of a bodily appearance, "the healing presence of God", etc. I don't have a problem with including the CofC viewpoint, but it should be in a separate section, with the note that the CofC downplays certain elements and changes the traditionally-accepted focus of the vision. --MrWhipple 18:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to speak respectfully about our CofC brethren. I see some fighting words in your comments. Tom Haws 18:57, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

That was not my intent, and I apologize if I offended anyone. It just seems quite clear (at least to me) when comparing the accounts that date to JS's time with the account from the CofC, above. And I don't think the CofC would dispute or be offended by my description of them "moving toward ecumenicalism." For the last 30 years or so they have slowly been moving away from being identified as a Restoration church and toward a progressive, mainstream church (by giving women the priesthood, downplaying the Book of Mormon, breaking with direct descendency for the President, joining the National Council of Churches, etc.). --MrWhipple 21:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In all fairness, I can't say that the CofC account is less faithful or more "interpretive" of the overall message of JS's accounts of his first vision than is the LDS interpretation. It's true that making his "life count for good" seems innovative, but the rest might be traced to one of the various accounts. And the LDS interpretation that the First Vision resulted in 14-year-old JS leaving the woods believing the Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit isn't supported by any of the accounts from what I know. In any case, our NPOV policy requires that we report and attribute the interpretations faithfully. So I look forward to a restructing as outlined below. Tom Haws 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My original concern was that the current article is structured around Grant Palmer's arguments against the reality of the First Vision. This, IMHO, is not the best way to objectively approach the subject, any more than it would be to simply give the 1838 account and supporting statements from believers.

Here's my proposed outline for a rewrite:

• Introduction/summary
• Accounts of the FV (primary and secondary) during JS's lifetime
• Interpretation of the FV by believers (LDS, CofC, others?)
• Criticisms of the FV by non-believers (include Grant Palmer here)

Thoughts? --MrWhipple 18:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I really like that! When can you begin? Tom Haws 18:57, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Not for a few weeks. But if you'd like me to put together a draft and submit it for review, I'd be happy to do so. Isn't there some sort of "beta" page where proposed re-writes can be reviewed before being taken live? --MrWhipple 21:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That's how I'd rewrite it. COGDEN 19:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yup too much reliance on Palmer, look forward to your re-write - you are the man to do it, MrWhipple. -Visorstuff 21:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Has anything been done about this article? Tom Haws 18:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Is there still a desire among Wikipedians for a rewrite? --MrWhipple 23:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It still needs to be done, if that's what you are asking. -Visorstuff 00:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! Tom Haws 16:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I just discovered this article and the "Criticisms" section seems to take up a disproportionate amount of the article. Is there any way we could simplify them? The Jade Knight 01:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

From a Wiki reader (though I doubt I'd be considered a Wikipedian), I think just simply a section that gives arguments or even views from believers to ballance the article would do the trick. 6/21/06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.108.220 (talk • contribs)