NOM

I just read an article by Matthew C. Godfrey in the Journal of Mormon History titled The Second Sacred Grove: The Influence of Greenville Indiana in Joseph Smith's 1932 account. Godfrey suggests that some experiences Joseph had in Greenville while waiting for Newel K. Whitney's broken leg to mend may have influenced the way he constructed the 1832 First Vision account, which could explain, according to Godfrey, why it differs so much from the later official version. My takeaway is that Joseph's time in Greenville more likely spawned the creation of the First Vision in response to other pressures.

Joseph was stuck in Greenville for weeks while things seemed to be falling apart all around him. He wrote the 1832 version of the First Vision sometime between July 20 and September 22 of 1832, immediately after Sidney Rigdon, according to Godfrey, received revelation from God that "the kingdom was taken from the church and left with him." Godfrey tells us that as a result Joseph confiscated Rigdon's "priesthood license" and stated the he himself still held "the Keys of this last dispensation and I forever will hold them in time and in eternity so let your hearts rest for all is well." This was also a period when Joseph was feeling a great amount of stress about the possibility of losing control of the church in Missouri. The Missouri leaders were no longer responding to Joseph's letters and there had been some intense arguments between Joseph and Bishop Edward Partridge. Ezra Booth described Joseph's demeanor with Partridge as "violent passion, bordering on madness," and recorded that Partridge had felt "abused" by Smiths display.

This left Joseph with a need to reinstate himself as the unquestioned leader of the church and to produce a story for how he came to posses the keys that gave him authority over everyone else. During his time in Greenville Joseph spent a lot of time in a local grove where he spend a great deal of time praying for forgiveness until he was assured that God had forgiven his sins. The 1832 account was written immediately after this experience and Joseph probably copied (as indicated by to the ink dip cadence of the letter book manuscript) from an earlier draft that was most likely written while Joseph was still in Greenville.

Just another little piece of the puzzle of how the miraculous events of early Mormonism came about.

One of the interesting things to me about the 1832 first vision account is that Joseph never really made anything of it- no one knew he wrote it really until the Tanners heard it had been tucked away. I guess we'll never know why he didn't tell anyone about it in 1832... it sure seems like it was written to give himself more credibility as *the* man of God.

What I do love is that Saints mentions in Chapter 8 how Solomon Chamberlain visits the Smiths in 1829 and gives them his own first vision story, which matches Joseph's in so many ways. Even Richard Bushman notes how similar it is, which combined with Chamberlain literally visiting the Smith family and giving them his vision... it's hard not to think that Joseph used that when crafting his own.

This write-up of yours matches Joseph's constant pattern of evolving theology and consolidating his own authority and power every time he started to lose his grip on the members. And yet most church members roll their eyes if you point this out. It's so clear once you're open to it, but until then our brains can't process what it right in front of it.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:05 pm I just read an article by Matthew C. Godfrey in the Journal of Mormon History titled The Second Sacred Grove: The Influence of Greenville Indiana in Joseph Smith's 1932 account.

Interesting that Godfrey (currently at BYU, right?) would publish this. Do you know if Journal of Mormon History is biased towards publishing pro-LDS research, or are they interested in publishing anything that has historical validity, regardless of the inference?

Arcturus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:59 pm Interesting that Godfrey (currently at BYU, right?) would publish this. Do you know if Journal of Mormon History is biased towards publishing pro-LDS research, or are they interested in publishing anything that has historical validity, regardless of the inference?

I don't really know anything about Godfrey except that he is involved in the Joseph Smith Papers project. The journal is published by the University of Illinois Press and doesn't appear to have any allegiance to the COB. They seem to actually be interested in historical scholarship more than anything else. They sometimes publish papers that lean toward faith-promoting, but they also publish some that don't pull any punches. A couple of years ago they published an article that completely eviscerated Lorenzo Snow's supposed face-to-face with Jesus. Godfrey is careful to guide this article into a fairly faithful place without laying the apologetics on too deeply.

Isn't this version also the one that could be later than 1832? That 1832 is the earliest it could be but that it could be as late as 1838 other something?

Maybe im mixed up.

dogbite wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:46 pm Isn't this version also the one that could be later than 1832? That 1832 is the earliest it could be but that it could be as late as 1838 other something?

Maybe im mixed up.

I think it's pretty solidly dated to 1832 because of the other things written in the same book with it. But there are many, many early Mormonism stories that can't be dated before 1838 when Joseph started dictating his re-remembered version of things.