Memory and the First Vision - Steven C. Harper

** More from Faith Matters on the podcast here: www.buzzsprout.com/719454 **
** Check out Dr. Harper's book here: www.amazon.com/dp/B07T3PP3BF/ **
Steven C. Harper is a Professor of Church History and Doctrine at Brigham Young University, and author of the new book, First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins. Steve has also served as the Managing Historian and General Editor of Saints, and as a Volume Editor of The Joseph Smith Papers. President Nelson declared 2020 a bicentennial year to commemorate Joseph Smith's first vision, and invited us to study the first vision in advance of General Conference. There's no one better to talk with about this subject than Steve. Reading his book completely changed our perspective on the First Vision itself, and he explains why it was never a given that the First Vision would become the seminal story of our faith. This was an absolutely fascinating conversation and we hope you enjoy it.
06:43 How Memory Impacts the First Vision
19:50 The First Vision and the Early Church
36:03 The First Vision and Missionary Work
43:52 The First Vision as an Identity Marker
55:36 Historical Criticisms of the First Vision
01:05:52 Which First Vision Account is True?
Listen on Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Listen on Google Podcasts: podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR...
Listen on Spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/291N...

[@psmith535]

I needed this sooo bad! Thank you for this amazing information. Amazing intellect and amazing interview!!

[@binmyrtmind]

I have many times shared a spiritual experience in which I only told part of it for different reasons. I was afraid of offending God by revealing what I had seen so I have been very careful. Some people can't understand the fullness of the story, and some needed only a portion of my story to help them. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Prophets different comments on his first vision are so upsetting to anyone who has any understanding of spiritual matters. Why would Joseph tell every single detail when it isn't relevant or necessary in different situations, especially to unbelievers. This is a great discussion. Thanks.

[@psmith535]

Wow! My story exactly!!

[@kdeltatube]

Boy, father Harper gave wise advice!

[@jearmin]

First of all, I'd like to thank these young interviewers for their excellent preparation for this interview. It showed they had read at least parts of the interviewee's book and their questions were also helpful in helping the listeners by rephrasing some of Mr Harper's remarks. It called my attention the precise questions they made to let their interviewee speak without annoying or out-of-place interruptions. And of course, I'd like to thank brother Harper for devouting his time for this interview and his speaking pace to allow us to follow his ideas wihtout major complications. Significantly, despite all his academic knowledge and research he's done for years, he made clear, that despite all that, he had a spiritual witness of the reality of the First Vision. He called it "subjective" knowledge to be more academic and he´s pretty right but I feel he may be telling us after all that the only, true source of divine knowledge is, in the end, the gaining of a spiritual testimony of any divine truth of the resotration. Granted that, then we can go on in our intellectual journey for the quest of additional thruths. This talk was pretty enlightening to me. Thanks for all the time and effort invested in initiatives like these.

[@WaltRBuck]

I used to get hung on up "I don't remember how old." I don't anymore. Here's the reason: There are times in my own life when I forget what age I was... specifically in my teens when I gained a testimony that was my very own. I used to believe it was when I was 14. I started thinking more and more on it and began to realize it was when I was 17.

[@davidwhittle4863]

Wow! What a gem of true understanding and humble scholarship. Kudos to all three for great questions, great answers and great insights. I'm sitting here hoping that a little research into my Harper ancestral line leads to letting me objectively claim Steve as a cousin rather than having to make a subjective and hopeful guess that we must be. :-)

[@TheSandyStone]

"Humble" includes the presence of acknowledgment that your position might be wrong. Otherwise it's arrogance hidden behind platitudes

[@georgiaborn1173]

👍 exciting!! Thank you

[@annsilva1506]

Love you guys, love your wrestle. Those of you born into the church are the labourers starting at the first hiring, I came in nearer the end. We have it all in the church, the covenant path is the path that leads to everything we seek and hope for. I like what Chieko Okazaki said in her book Lighten Up, In princple great clarity, in practise great charity. Fleshing out assumptions until there is peace, calm, and great compassion for ours and others limiteness, not allowing it to side swipe us from seeing that thing that we had never before supposed. That wonderful pure finding of a truth first visioned, ours to be treasured and especially not torn apart hopefully never by ourselves. I don't feel I have really said anything to help, but I love those who seek for more faith and just want to say hold on you have your very greatest treasure, Jesus Christ.

[@marscann]

Fantastic podcast! Thank you!!!

[@sharipeterson3654]

Excellent discussion! I agree with Steven Harper - go and READ! Re-listen to what his dad told him to make sure he had before going forward. If we don't like something or have a problem with this or that thing(s), doesn't make Joseph Smith or the Church liars or false. If different people wrote stories about my life, stating the same event(s), I guarantee they would be different because it would be from their point of views and maybe in the moods they were in when they recorded the event. Example: I had read a certain passage of scripture that had incredibly changed my life, then recorded it in my journal. Years later, I was reading this same recorded entry, and decided to re-read that same scripture. To my uttermost surprise, my feelings about that scripture was not the same, but the memory and experience I have of it when I originally read it, is still a large part of my life and faith today. So funny how that works; tender mercies or even miracles He gives us in times of need.. I just purchased his book and am looking forward to reading every word! Love, love, love your overall message! Thank you!

[@killerbing11]

So how do you explain Smith writing in his journal that he only saw one God and it only forgave him of his sins. Makes zero mention of all churches being false. And he even states that he already knew all churches were false. Absolutely destroys the whole narrative of wanting to know the truth as the narrative given by the church. Then second telling years later says two personages visited him. still no mention of all churches being wrong. and now apparently he is hearing someone walking behind him? Third telling years later has two personages and angels visiting, fire around him, and now this mysterious other being walking behind him is now trying to choke him!? And now mentions being told to start up a church because all others are an abomination. Honestly, you think there is no issue with this then the LDS church is a perfect fit for you.

[@sharipeterson3654]

Kenny Boy It is perfect for me, thank you. No one alive was there and lots of things written by various people can get “facts” mixed up. I have no hang-ups about this matter. It’s perfectly fine that you have issues and have no interest in this church. Best wishes and I hope you have a wonderful life!

[@killerbing11]

@@sharipeterson3654 What? We have the diary of Smith where he wrote it,lol. It's in church history. Please research this. It's found in the Joseph Smith papers. It's his own words vs what he said later on as recorded by him and other LDS Church historians.

[@sharipeterson3654]

Kenny Boy There are so many things I could say to you, but you seem to be where you really want to be, and so am I. My faith and testimony are solid; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is directed by Jesus Christ. HE understands all of us flawed mortals and tirelessly strives to help us. You must have been a member at one time and now feel/think differently and are trying to belittle the intelligence, spirituality, research and testimony of others. Go and be free, find your unity with those who believe like you and be happy. It is not kind to use your unbelief against believers. You will always find what you are looking for. I will not respond to you again. Be at peace Kenny Boy.

[@killerbing11]

@@sharipeterson3654 Well your lack of comment and evidence other than personal feelings is very telling.

[@williamcharles2117]

Mormonism Live! just did a masterful deconstruction of this. Harper is scrambling to try to make sense of the convoluted history.

[@mrdayyumyum3712]

please edit out the "yeahs" Saints is written for the seventh grade level. It be well to read to young kids at bed time. Rough Stone Rolling is a better read for the deeper thinker. Also Great Basin Kingdom.

[@leanneworwood2808]

Interesting interview. I'm frustrated that you didn't address the fact that in Joseph's personally written account, he doesn't even mention that there were two separate beings who appeared to him. That omission is central to my own loss of belief in the first vision accounts. I agree with your points that stories change, especially according to what is going on at the time when the person relates the story. It appears that as Mormon theology grew, the concept of separate members of the Godhead came into the later versions of his story. If Joseph would have actually seen both God the Father and Jesus Christ, wouldn't it make sense that when he finally DID write the story, that detail would make it into his only written account?

[@faithmattersfoundation]

Hi Leanne, totally understand where you're coming from. This is a tough issue. Sorry that didn't get addressed in the interview -- Steve is explicit about the details of that 1832 account in his book (it's the subject of the third chapter), but it probably deserved more time here.

[@leanneworwood2808]

@@faithmattersfoundation Thank you for your answer.

[@krismurphy7711]

Why would it be hard for Joseph Smith to write down what happened during the claimed first vision? And during the 12 years between when he said it happened and when he finally sat down and wrote down what he says happened, how many scribes did he have? It seems impossible that he didn’t have a discussion with Martin Harris or Oliver Cowdrey or Emma about the first vision and what it meant or didn’t mean and none of Three bothered to write it down

[@TheSandyStone]

Entire Book of Mormon, most of the JST, good chunk of book of commandments, started the church, written many letters, a command to start keeping records... none were enough to write down "I saw god and his son Jesus" before 1835. Were lucky to have anything of the 1832 account when it was so kindly pried out of the archives and taped back in the book in the 1960s. We can play mind games here or there. But in 1832 he was 27 years old. He was fully capable of understanding the gravity of being one of the few beings In recorded history to see God. By the time I was 27 I had recited the first vision thousands of times and memorized in 3 languages and I'm a boy from a coal mining town in Utah. To me, it's such a reach. We have to give so much latitude. More than we'd give any family member or friend. Yet for Joseph Smith we will move mental mountains to keep our cognitive dissonance intact. "Think slow" includes these thoughts. It gets overwhelming the more I apply the practicalities of these apologetic arguments to real life.

[@quemaspana]

Wesley Walter's thesis was not that the 1820 revival didn't happen, but that the 1823-24 revival is a better fit for Joseph Smiths description. The misrepresentation of his thesis has left you valiantly striking down a straw man. The following has NEVER been addressed completely even by Bushman: 1. Smith said the revival started in Palmyra and spread to the countryside. That did not happen in 1820, but did I'm 1823. 2. Smith said it happened about 2 years after the move to Manchester. The Manchester property wasn't available in 1820, but was in 1821. Tax records provide strong evidence that's when the move happened. 3. Lucy Smith said she converted to Presbyterianism after Alvin's death, which happened in 1823. 4. William Smith said his family was converted by Reverend Stockdale, who was not assigned to Palmyra until 1823. 5. Oliver Cowdery gave the date for the revival as 1823. 6. George Lane may have passed through Palmyra in 1820 (it's speculative), but was assigned in 1823-1824 to Palmyra. Bottom line is that Wesley's thesis has NOT been addressed, but misrepresented and continues to be. The 1823-24 revival has all the detailed elements Smith anachronistically put in his account.

[@krismurphy7711]

Interpretation has no place in the telling or description of something that actually occurred. An incident starts at zero seconds and proceeds and happens the way that it does over the seconds or minutes that it occurs. Interpretation would be about the meaning or reasons that the incident takes place or the information received or communicated. When Joseph Smith system down to write down what happened during the first vision, he is not interpreting what happened, but should be writing down exactly what happened. And as we can see, in particular with the 1832 version, what he writes down as having happened is radically different than later versions.

[@dirtbikeutah9615]

What I have learned is that that fact Joseph didn't say anything for for 12 years, I can come up with my own theories and its Possible. I am sure the church would print any person with an academic background books if it has a Faith Promoting narrative. There is a reason why people like John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and Hugh Nibley could only survive in a Church owned university considering their view point: You start first with assumption that the Church is true, and that drives their research to fit in that assumption.

[@TheSandyStone]

Lots of careers in "faith promoting" scholarship. They want the credibility of scholarship with the efforts of rhetoric. It only entrenches the given mindset.

[@krismurphy7711]

What happens during an incident in our life is very specific. The way that it occurred is the way that it occurred. When Joseph Smith is writing down or telling about the first vision, it only occurred and happened one way, the way that it occurred.

[@Rabano_Yodado]

52:00 "what it means to be a latter day saint will be subtly formed, consolidated". Interesting that the word "Subtle" is used. I have to say being a spanish native speaker 2 Nephi 9:28 uses the word "subtle" in translation to the word "cunning", as in "cunning plan of the devil". I agree that memories fail us, and we tend to tell our stories to others depending on the audience and what we consider sacred to not be defiled. However, and not pushing the words decided to be used by Steven, the Church tends to change the narrative and "toss us to and fro" as it is convenient, as Paul explains error does in Ephesians 4:14. We can always find ways to support and go around a lie, or something "not entirely true", as long as it fits our needs and desires. I have heard the main authorities doing this to other people. Then why wouldnt they do it to me? as long as the Church is ok, who cares about a nobody like me (a "nobody in their eyes"), the Church will continue anyway, as Steven said, and will not stop for an inquisitive lost sheep. How can I trust the book Saints will tell me the truth now? As Steven expresses, it will actually drive me to believe in the Church, if I want to believe, of course I will. Jesus said "truth will set you free", while in my blind opinion, it seems the Church says: "but in the mean time let´s review our narrative and adapt it to our current challenges, things will be shifting anyway, and when that happens, we´ll review our narrative again and do the marketing needed". Kinda sad. If american mormons are going through this, I wonder the ignorance and poor narrative shared by the Church to other poor and faithful countries that are not sitting in the same priviledged seat as Steven is. "Subtle" interview...

[@MormonismoSemCensura]

Harper really seems like a good honest guy. He represents a great step forward in church apologetics. Now, the arguments leave out a very important fact. Joseph’s character. We’re giving the benefit of the doubt to a man that was used to lying to gullible treasure seekers since a very young age. A man that, faced with opposition from his prospect father in law, because of his involvement with ilegal activities, simply eloped with the bride. A man that repeatedly cheated on Emma. A man that repeatedly lied about his practice of polygamy, made others lie under oath about it, faked marriages to cover up his own ilegal practice, had sexual relationship with girls he was supposed to be a foster parent for, slandered the reputation of those who opposed him, excommunicated men who dared say the truth about him, practiced tyranny destroying the press that did nothing but say the truth about his polygamy, etc, etc, etc. this is the man we’re willing to give the benefit of the doubt. My problem with most apologista will continue being compartmentalizations. They know that when you look at the broader picture , it is much harder to defend Joseph and most of the darker aspects of church history. As RFM once said, they rely on people’s lack of information. That’s said. I value honesty above all else, and I don’t think the church is really honest about its history.

[@davidwhittle4863]

One man's "honesty" is another man's facile dogmatism. Have you considered that it is perhaps not apologists who need to look at the broader picture, but rather critics who are failing to see the forest of the magnificence of the history of the restoration for a few sickly trees here and there?

[@MormonismoSemCensura]

David Whittle I did fully consider that possibility, and that’s how I got to the conclusion I did! One of my greatest strengths (and sometimes weakness) is that I always, always try looking at both sides of the story! Could never be a good attorney, but would make a great judge! That’s why a youth I was bishop of, after being disciplined by me for a “serious sin”, said, in an unrelated meeting, that being fair was my greatest quality!

[@davidwhittle4863]

@@MormonismoSemCensura Then you make your choices about the assumptions you'll accept and live by, and I'll make my own choices. Which of us has made the assumptions that bring us closer to the God of love is something we'll eventually learn from the Savior Himself, and I'm happy to be in complete harmony with the generous and loving assumptions about Joseph Smith that others Latter-day Saints have discovered for themselves and shared with the rest of us.

[@MormonismoSemCensura]

David Whittle oh the loving passive aggressive talk of religious orthodox, people! Always entertaining! Love you too brother and hope we both end up at the same place after this life!

[@davidwhittle4863]

​@@MormonismoSemCensura OK, so you're now directly accusing me of "passive aggressive talk" (sic). How convenient for you to stereotype me according to your cynical worldview. Fact is, your accusation would invoke laughter in anyone who knows me, since the words most often used to describe me by others (in print) are "open," "direct," "sincere," "candid," "earnest," and "tactless." I'd be really interested to hear the basis of the critical thinking whereby you came to the risible conclusion that me telling you that our assumptions are in opposition (and that it is therefore pointless to argue) and that I'm happy to stick with my assumptions rather than adopt yours means that I'm being passive aggressive. What I said avoids nothing but pointless contention over premises. Let's look at a little reality you're conveniently ignoring. You start with the assumption that Joseph Smith lacked character and then make your arguments as if your assumption is fact because Joseph did certain things that you've taken out of context that you think proves your point. That, my friend, is called begging the question. If one starts with a different premise, as I do, then your conclusion about Joseph's character from a few cherry-picked facts can be shown to be as absurd as it really is. You ignore the rest of Joseph's life, especially the fact that he could have escaped out West rather than turn around at the urging of Emma and others and face the death that he prophesied. That's not the act of a con artist or a man of low character. You also ignore the reality of his revelations. If you've read them, then you have to reject what Jesus said about judging prophets (namely that no good thing can come from a bad thing) to conclude that Joseph was not a true prophet to whom was revealed the beautiful and good word of God. Again, you have to beg the question about the revelations themselves to conclude that they are not inspired of God. But don't let that any of this stop you - and I know it won't - go ahead and start with your biased premises and proceed to your fallacious reasoning and facile conclusions as you take issue with Latter-day Saints who disagree with you. But please try to refrain from prejudiced insults and name-calling. Especially when you don't know what you're talking about and are dealing with someone who is willing to hold his own in any intelligent exchange but prefers to drop it when it descends into prejudice and bigoted stereotyping. So consider me sufficiently informed about the nature of your understanding of Latter-day Saints and their history as to be unwilling to do anything more than read any last words you might have to defend yourself against what I see as an obvious lack of critical thinking ability in your risible conclusion that I'm passive-aggressive and that Joseph lacked character.

[@krismurphy7711]

A prophet of God who was tasked with restoring the “gospel of Jesus Christ“ would truly be inspired of God to record the most important moment in Joseph Smith restoration process. Why would the Godhead allow Joseph Smith to mislead anyone???

[@krismurphy7711]

Joseph Smith “rehearsed” his vision many many times???

[@joshua.snyder]

🤦‍♂️

[@killerbing11]

In short: First vision has changed dramatically as told by Smith and is a clear fraud. But this guy just likes some nice things the church teaches so mental gymnastics comes in to save the day.