Talk:First Vision/Archive 3

message: John Foxe, I have repeatedly tried to get you to understand that just because a statement contains facts doesn't mean that those facts have been stated in a NPOV way.  I've given you ample opportunity to retain the critical POV that is obviously your goal by moving it to a section dedicated to that POV.  I've tried to come up with a label for that section that you can live with.  74s181 13:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Last year, when I first decided to put serious time into this article, I had the notion that tables would help me get a quick grip on the inconsistencies in the First Vision stories.  I looked at both the apologetic on-line harmony of Elden Watson and the two-page table in the anti-Mormon Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2002), 16-17. (I think a fair-use case could be made for the latter if you wanted to incorporate the information in your table.)  In any case, after looking glassy-eyed at those charts for awhile, I gave up and went back to words.  Even if we ignore the issue of understandability for the uninitiated, there is the more serious problem that the categories chosen and the information selected make a significant difference in the final result.  In fact, used together, Watson's and Abanes' tables make an excellent case study on how to deceive with graphs and charts.--John Foxe 13:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the table from the Richard Abanes book available on the Internet?  If so, where? I'd like to take a look at it. 74s181 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I poked around and couldn't find it—but then, I'm a troglodyte.--John Foxe 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a problem with the above table, as well as many of the supposed "versions".  Frankly, I think many of these "inconsistencies" is because a number of the accounts are actually about the second vision with Moroni, rather than the first vision.  It was the second vision that was emphasized for many years.  It wouldn't surprise me if many members only knew about that vision rather than the first one.  It is possible that Smith didn't realize the significance of the first vision until later.  After all, it was quite similar to ones his ancestors had.  It was the vision with Moroni that led to Smith translate the Book of Mormon, and led people to accept him as a prophet. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 00:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just the facts? Ok, if you insist.

message: If this article is going to stay applicable to most Latter Day Saint denominations, which it should, it is worth mentioning near the beginning of the artcle that some Latter Day Saint denominations do not refer to the incident that is the topic of this article by the chosen WP name ("First Vision"), but rather prefer to use the term "grove experience". The Community of Christ is the 2d largest Latter Day Saint denomination and it uses this terminology, so it's clearly relevant. I had inserted it earlier but it has recently been removed without explanation. -SESmith 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, as an outsider I didn't realize the importance of the name and thought it an encumbrance in the opening paragraph. Hope this will do.--John Foxe 09:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Grove experience" 

message: Joseph Smith, Jr. is a big part of the 'who' of the first vision but there are only eight words in the first section about him. We don't need to recreate the entire Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article, but a short 'who' with a main article tag would be appropriate. 
The current description of the First Vision is a token attempt to provide the who, what, when, where, why, how of the FV, but it is really little more than a slight expansion of what used to be in the lead. 
On May 5th, I added a much more complete description of the First Vision.  I used the current "Earlier Smith family visions" and "Revivalism in the Palmyra area" to provide context and background.  I think that worked pretty well. 
I think that the quote from Gordon B. Hinckley (that used to be at the end of the article, drawing a negative conclusion) would be a more appropriate statement on the significance of the FV than the excerpt from the webtract that is currently presented. 74s181 00:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the quote by GBH is best used in a context that somehow describes current beliefs as opposed to historical attitudes and perhaps even the process that this became "canonized" as not just a historical idea but is even considered scripture.  BTW, if you think GBH's quote was out of context, the Marlin Jensen reference is completely out of line, as Mr. Jensen was in fact rather apologetic (academically speaking) about the veracity of the First Vision, not a major critic or detractor claiming that it in fact never happened. Read the interview yourself if you don't believe this.  BTW, this is perhaps a useful interview in terms of contemporary LDS Church beliefs so far as Marlin Jensen is a general authority... but I think the quote by GBH is perhaps better if you have to keep this from becoming a major apologetic piece about the LDS viewpoint.  --Robert Horning 15:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the things I most enjoyed about PBS series was that it avoided titling the talking heads "critics" or "believers." And often only those in the know could tell who was who.  Non-Mormons were saying pleasant things, and apologists were affirming things that might have gotten them excommunicated in years past.--John Foxe 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you notice that Richard Bushman said that 10 of Joseph Smith's plural wives were married to other men? I've never heard a devout LDS apologist make that admission. COGDEN 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of the First Vision

message: I thought it would be easier to switch than fight. Notice how much verbiage I've removed (not to mention the word "criticism") without any lost of content.  If the Temple Lot has something distinctive to say about the vision, then that information should be ferreted out and included.(The reversion was just an easy way to correct an error of my own.)--John Foxe 22:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Condensation