Today’s guest post is from Shannon who has guested with us before.
A couple of days ago I was perusing the March 24, 2017 issue of the Mormon Times and noticed an article titled Remembering the First Vision (read article here). It is authored by Daniel Peterson and is a short recitation of some interesting observations about various accounts of the First Vision. However, I was so stunned by the first two paragraphs that I had to read them twice just to make sure I wasn’t reading them incorrectly.
Some years ago, two Latter-day Saint writers arrived separately at the conclusion that Joseph Smith’s First Vision probably occurred on Sunday, March 26, 1820. (See “Oh, How Lovely Was the Morning: Sun 26 Mar 1820?” ) In other words, this coming Sunday may mark the 197th anniversary of the commencement of the Restoration.
Of course, we can’t be certain of the date. Unlike most of Joseph’s fundamental visions, it was received alone. (See “Many of Prophet’s revelations were shared experiences,” Feb. 24, 2011.) Nonetheless, the anniversary must be near at hand, and this seems a good time to reflect on that pivotal event. Fortunately, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made excellent resources available for such reflection, including a collection of various accounts of it that supplement the familiar 1838 narrative found in Joseph Smith-History in the Pearl of Great Price in “First Vision Accounts” in the Gospel Topics section of lds.org. For obscure reasons, Latter-day Saints have neglected these other versions of the story thus far. But we no longer have any excuse for doing so.
Was I reading this right? Surely Mr. Peterson was not saying that March 26th should become a day of veneration in our church. Well, it looks like that is what he is saying. He may be trying to fool himself about an end result with disclaimers like “of course, we can’t be certain of the date”. I assume he knows who his audience is and that they will take whatever is written in the Mormon Times as “the Gospel truth”. I naively believe that most of the days of wild fabrications about the First Vision are over. I guess I must be wrong. As I looked more carefully at the Meridian Magazine article that provides the dating Mr. Peterson uses, the imposition grew even larger.
I made a rough count of the lines in the Meridian article and out of a total of 246 only about 30 addressed the issue of determining the exact date from known sources.
The First Vision is fundamental to our religion, but what was the date on which it occurred? All that we have known about the date is that it “was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring” of 1820 (JSH 1:14). It has been assumed that this brief description could only be used to narrow down the date to have been within the period of late March to early April, with a Sunday being the most likely day on which a farm boy would have been able to actually go to the woods to pray.[3]
Years ago, Meridian Magazine published an article by Dr. John P. Pratt which stated that evidence from the Enoch calendar implied that by far the most likely date for the First Vision was Sunday, March 26, 1820.[4] When I learned of his proposed date, my interest in this problem was immediately rekindled. Two decades ago, about the time my book April Sixth[5] was published, it occurred to me that the First Vision might have happened on April 6, 1820. Knowing that the vision had been on a beautiful day, I sought weather records to verify whether that date was at least a candidate. To my delight I found that detailed weather records had been kept only eighty miles from Palmyra, but to my disappointment I found it had snowed the night before April 6, and had been cloudy and freezing weather all that day. I did not pursue the study further. Thus, when I recently learned of Pratt’s proposed date in March, I immediately sent to the National Archives for the microfilms of the weather journal, which resulted in the results published here.”
The authors then spend about 210 lines going through some largely irrelevant expositions on the weather in the area and how maple sugar is made. I say irrelevant because their jumping off point is the one sentence from Joseph Smith’s 1838 history. They have narrowed the “early spring” to about a three week window and not even considered the possibility that it may have occurred in a different year. From an 18 year look back, early spring could mean anything from The 1st of March to late April. The whole section on how maple sugar is made is really put there to just puff up the piece. Reference is made to an “Enoch Calendar” which one is left to guess as to what that is and then the authors tip their hand as to their real methodology–they reveal just how badly they wanted the date to be April 6, because wouldn’t that be so fun and special? This is an excellent example of conclusions in search of evidence and devotional writing masquerading as history. (you can read both articles here.)
This all reminds me of the story of Parson Weems. Mason Locke Weems was a book agent and author and an ordained minister in the Protestant Episcopal Church, (hence the title Parson). He is most famous to us today as the author of the first popular biography of George Washington and the originator of the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, a story first published in 1809. That story was a complete fabrication of Parson Weems. Americans for decades and decades, have retold the story, eaten cherry pies by the carload, taught school children, and given speeches all based on a story that isn’t true. Interestingly, for fans of Arnold Friberg’s famous painting Washington’s prayer at Valley Forge, that is also a Weems fabrication. You can read more about Parson Weems and the cherry tree story here.
It seems almost unbelievable that in the modern day, scholars would tolerate popularizing and promoting false or misleading history. I wonder if Daniel Peterson understands the damage he is doing. I am sure Mr. Peterson is a nice person, but I have to question his ability to see the bigger picture here. The general membership of the church has been taught things that are false or have not been given the whole story. The excuse usually given is that the author is trying to protect those who are “weak in the faith”. The various accounts of the first vision are a prime example of this phenomenon, and here Mr. Peterson is doing it again. I sometimes wonder if the real cause of the prevarications are, in fact, the author’s weakness in the faith. When are we ever going to learn our lessons from the past? These kinds of false stories always seem to come back to bite us. All of the controversial topics in the Gospel essays are an attempt at damage control, an attempt to correct past errors. Is there going to have to be an essay in the future to correct the error that the First Vision occurred exactly on March 26, 1820?
Upon further reflection, I wonder if there is a different and an additional way to look at this? At the end of the day though, I wonder what difference it really makes. I get frustrated when I know things are being taught that are not true because historically it has been a catalyst for people leaving the church. Parson Weems had a good motive in fabricating the cherry tree story. He loved George Washington and wanted others to hold him in high regard, just as he did. He wanted school age children to learn an important lesson about being honest. And in the decades following, no one in the Washington family did anything to disprove the story.
The same could happen with the First Vision dating. While there is much debate in the historical community about the exact date–with some saying it might have taken place a full year later or even as much as four years later–no one can say that it absolutely could not have happened March 26, 1820. There are many people in the modern day who don’t believe that there was a world wide flood or that Moses really turn his staff into a snake but still hold the Bible to be scripture. There are many other examples in the scriptures of events that carry with them some serious historical doubt.
- In the end, am I and those like me getting upset for nothing?
- What level of untruth are we willing to tolerate?
- Am I just fooling myself in thinking that someday we will hear only truthful history being taught in the average LDS Sunday School?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I don’t get upset about things like this. People wonder and make conjectures all the time. And here, I think the writers allow that their dates are their own conjectures. For me, I simply don’t care — I accept the basic truth of the story and the academics can talk all they want. But I hope all Latter-day Saints know that the date is uncertain.
Actually, March 26th is a date of LDS historical importance; the release of the Book of Mormon. Billions celebrate December 25th as the birth of Jesus with a lot of controversy concerning its accuracy. “Gee, no one’s sure if that detail is true so I just won’t believe in it at all” Don’t get bogged down by minutia.
I can say for sure that I am LESS upset about reading things such as this than I was 2 or 3 years ago. I hear the church leaders say they are transparent and I have to admit that there have been SOME steps taken to be a bit more transparent. But I have given up expecting that the leadership will lead the way to transparency. If it does happen it will come from outside the church or from the individuals within the church pushing for it.
But on another level, I am a bit too Spock like. I don’t even care to celebrate my own birthday let alone every historical event. So squibling over the exact date of something like this just reminds me of my kids when they were younger and were passionately arguing over which grade in elementary school was best. As some of the more “country folk” around me would say, “I just don’t have a dog in that fight.”
This is much ado about nothing.
It looks like a hatchet piece on Daniel Peterson. Look, there are lots of reasons to get mad at Dan, but this is not one of them. The reasons cited in this post are ridiculous.
“Was I reading this right?”
No you were not. You were looking for reasons to be offended.
“Surely Mr. Peterson was not saying that March 26th should become a day of veneration in our church.”
Correct. Mr. Peterson is not saying that March 26th should become a day of veneration in our church.
“Well, it looks like that is what he is saying. ”
On what planet did you read this? Bizarroworld? To get angry at Peterson on this is just stupid, and to hand-wave away “210 lines going through some largely irrelevant expositions on the weather in the area and how maple sugar is made” shows you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. In the 8th grade I lived in New Hampshire. Our teacher showed us how to tap maple trees to make maple syrup. It’s a big deal in New England where Joseph Smith grew up. I can’t believe you were so dismissive of this. Really it shows you had an ax to grind, and shows a lack of understanding. You have nothing substantive to add to the conversation. It is simply a hit piece on Peterson and you are guilty in the opposite direction of “devotional writing masquerading as history.” In this case, your devotion is to slamming Peterson.
One again, there are lots of reasons to get mad at Peterson, but this article is badly reasoned and simply a hit piece.
This just might be the most bizarre posting I’ve ever read at W&T, and certainly qualifies as a great example of “conclusions in search of evidence.” Peterson’s short article is a very nice example of the “truthful history” the author seems so concerned about. He talks about the various versions of the first vision and briefly analyzes some of their content which seems an appropriate and completely benign thing to do given that it is now the early spring of the year . His opening paragraph is without a doubt nothing more than an interesting aside about someone’s conjectured date for the first vision that serves as an introduction meant to grab the reader’s interest so she will continue reading. Where does the hostility about Peterson and his article come from in this hyperbolic piece of propaganda from Shannon? It certainly doesn’t come from Peterson’s short, concise and innocuous article.
I read the first two paragraphs quoted twice to see if I could see what the problem was before reading on. I was way off. The only thing slightly questionable I saw was this sentence:
“For obscure reasons, Latter-day Saints have neglected these other versions of the story thus far. But we no longer have any excuse for doing so.”
I would have said “for the purpose of obscuring” rather than “for obscure reasons.” Ha ha.
I do have to say though that the anger in MH’s comment seems like an overreaction. Maybe there is some backstory here to which I am not privy. Or maybe I’m reading a tone that MH didn’t intend.
EBK, even your questionable concern in Peterson’s first paragraph and your wink wink accusation that the church purposely obscured multiple first vision accounts are off-base. Here is a synopsis of all references to multiple first vision accounts in church publications from 1910 to the present, it’s very, very long.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Did_the_Church_hide_accounts_of_the_First_Vision
I do find it strange that you accuse MH of overreaction but say nothing of the overreaction present in the OP.
MH, of course I disagree with everything you said in your reply. I agree with EBK, is there a back story here? Maybe you are first cousins with Daniel Peterson. To say this is much ado about nothing indicates you don’t understand the point of the post. How do you think monstrous falsehoods get started? It always starts as a small thing, innocuously introduced, usually by a person with a good heart. However it always grows and grows and then takes on a life of it’s own, soon becoming a foundation of faith and a rallying point to be defended. Then the question becomes, are we really able to say, with a straight face, my faith is based on falsehoods and I don’t care? Also, if you think the article in Meridian magazine is good historical writing, you need some help in understanding what is good historical writing.
KLC, your second comment misses the point . Your reference to the section in Fair Mormon about whether or not the Church, as an institution, has done a poor job in teaching about the various accounts of the First Vision is confirmed by Fair Mormon. A close look at the listed writings previous to 1965 show that the Church has been purposeful in obscuring conflicting information. I am not sure if your comment “it is very, very long” was meant to scare anyone from actually looking at it. I am very surprised by the comments so far. Maybe I need to do another post on the very complicated nature of understanding the content and dating of the First Vision. I didn’t put much into that part of the post as I assumed that most of the readers of Wheat and Tares would be familiar with the material. I will include one link here so any reader can understand for themselves how complicated a subject the First Vision is. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_47.pdf. This one article only scratches the surface, but I can say that this article is a great example of good historical writing.
I don’t believe people will start celebrating March 26th as First Vision Day, but Dan Peterson lending his weight to the theory is frustrating. He begins with “two Latter-day Saint writers arrived separately at the conclusion that Joseph Smith’s First Vision probably occurred on Sunday, March 26, 1820.” When you look at those two writers’ methods for arriving at the date, they are clearly questionable, yet the phrasing of two guys independently coming up with the date seems to give it a scholarly weight. Also I can see Deseret News readers (this was originally published there in the Faith section) saying, “Dan Peterson is one of the chief apologists for the church. Surely he wouldn’t mention this if it didn’t have credence, right?” Most people reading this would’ve been looking at a print edition – you can’t just click a link to evaluate the source on your own.
Right now a discussion of the various accounts of the First Vision is apologetic. With the First Vision essays and Maynes’ talk awhile back, the church is still easing people into accepting the various accounts as just another interesting bit of history rather than an indictment on the church’s truth claims. Bringing in pseudo-science in this endeavor (even just as a fun lead-in) is frustrating to me as a believer. Like the author of the OP, it makes me angry that in a defense of the church he would include an entirely unnecessary piece of bad scholarship in the first paragraph – that’s the part that gets people’s attention and what they’ll remember, in spite of the hand waving later.
The frustration is more about the responsibility of those defending the church to not propagate bad arguments.
Shannon, I had to chuckle about “first cousins with Daniel Peterson.” Do you accuse everyone that disagrees with you about being a relative? Come on, that’s a childish reaction.
As I read your latest comments, I think there is a backstory you haven’t told us. You’re upset about the multiple First Vision accounts. I’m not clear if you think Joseph completely made it up, or exaggerated the claim, but it is clear to me now (not when I first read your post) that you want to trash anyone who might have a belief in it, or defend Daniel Peterson.
To be clear, I am not a cousin of Daniel Peterson, nor have I ever met him. I don’t like his ultra-defensiveness towards critics, and his publication of a hit piece on John Dehlin is a black eye on his reputation.
But this is a hit piece on him as well and is a black eye on your reputation. You attribute motives that are unfair “He may be trying to fool himself”, “I assume he knows who his audience is,” (we know what happens when you ASSume), ” wild fabrications about the First Vision.” These are polemical arguments and are not at all dispassionate. Your passion clearly shows, and it clouds your judgment. You completely dismiss “210 lines going through some largely irrelevant expositions on the weather.” Your critique is not dispassionate, it is clouded by your passion. If it is irrelevant, tell us why it is irrelevant, rather than hand-wave it away.
If you want to dispute the year was 1823, or 1821, or whatever, do that. If you want to dispute the methodology about maple syrup, go for it. I’ll read with interest. If you’re going to claim there are discrepancies in the First Vision, there’s plenty of evidence for that.
But if you want to assert that the First Vision didn’t happen (which you seem to imply, but I’m not sure your position), and unfairly attack Peterson rather than the methodology, well your analysis skills are emotional, not dispassionate. If you’re going to ad hominem me being a cousin of Peterson, or saying Peterson is trying to fool himself, then I’ll just start ignoring your posts. This isn’t analysis, it is an ad hominem attack and this simply isn’t worthy of discussion.
(Your previous post on More Charity for Bad Examples was fine, but this post does not measure up to that one.)
Let me agree with MaryAnn and add that I don’t like it when the church propagates bad arguments either. I haven’t read the article in question. Perhaps it is pseudo-science. I don’t know. But nothing in the OP tells me anything about why the article in Meridian is pseudo-science. I don’t read Meridian, nor do I plan to. I am simply stating that the reasons put forth in the OP are not useful analysis and are more ad hominem in nature than good analysis of why the piece in question is bad. It could very well be bad. But there’s nothing in the OP that makes me want to read it and find out whether it is good or bad historical writing or pseudo-science.
MH, you misunderstand me entirely. The comment by Mary Ann illustrates exactly what I am talking about. I did not delve into the particulars of the Meridian article for three reasons. 1. It is not the focus of my post. 2. I don’t believe most people will read posts that are two thousand words long. 3. It is a completely flawed argument to begin with. The authors have completely ignored the fact that even the approximate date of the First Vision is very difficult to pin down and thus all of the weathering and maple sugaring has little to no value in really understanding the First Vision and its dating.. The authors already determined a three week window and then went looking for evidence to satisfy their conclusion.
“Your comment “That you want to trash anyone who might have a belief in it”, could not be more wrong. I want those who believe to temper their enthusiasm with a dose of reality. Believe anything you like but at least try to base your belief in something that is real and truthful. BTW I would never stoop so low as to call you an ASS in a forum such as this. That is a childish reaction.
.
“The frustration is more about the responsibility of those defending the church to not propagate bad arguments.” Yes, I agree with Mary Ann. It’s a slippery slope.
Shannon had a passionate piece and MH reacted to that passion. You guys can stop now.
Some background info: the first guy to come up with the March 26th date used the Enoch calendar. Here’s part of his August 2002 Meridian article: “The Book of Enoch states that a calendar was revealed anciently to the Prophet Enoch by the angel Uriel. A proposed model of that Enoch calendar was described in last month’s article,[1] so that any date in history can now be converted to the equivalent Enoch calendar date. When that is done for a variety of significant dates during the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an interesting pattern emerges. It appears that the Lord may be using the Enoch calendar for the timing of certain religious events.”
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2002/restoration.html#1.1
The 2015 Meridian article (a reprint of an October 2002 article) laid out John Lefgren’s thinking. He hoped April 6th would be the date. (He’d previously written a book arguing that the church was organized 1,830 years to the day after Christ was born. In a review of that book at BYU Studies, three professors declared, “The work literally abounds in unjustified assumptions, misinformation, and misunderstandings on a number of levels.”) Lefgren assumes the 1820 year is accurate, which is debatable. He determines that it could not have happened later than April 15th, because, duh. *Early* spring. Based on weather reports and maple sugar harvest, he determines the most likely date would’ve been just after the end of the harvest. He selectively takes a quote from an 1843 interview where Joseph says he prayed in a clearing where his axe still laid – Lefgren explains Joseph would’ve just finally finished chopping down trees to provide firewood for the maple sugar harvest, because clearly there’s no other reason to clear trees on the frontier.
As Shannon was attempting to argue, dating the First Vision using 6 weeks of weather reports from 1820 has a major problem – the year of the First Vision is disputed. From note 34 on page 570 of Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman talks about 1821 (based on Joseph’s first written account where he says it was in his 16th year), 1820 (1838 account), and 1823 (based on when William Smith said how old Joseph was). Even Joseph Smith kept saying he was “about” fourteen years old, as if he were unsure.
Shannon, There has been a lot of misunderstanding in the post and comments. Let me try to bring this back to a less heated discussion, and I’ll try to offer some constructive advice, realizing that I’m not necessarily a model citizen all the time either. I’m a kettle as much as a pot, and I realize this.
“MH, you misunderstand me entirely… I want those who believe to temper their enthusiasm with a dose of reality. Believe anything you like but at least try to base your belief in something that is real and truthful.”
If that was your position of the post, you’re right. I misunderstood that entirely because of all of the other uncharitable comments you made. And my uncharitable choice of words in my most previous comment probably wasn’t the best either, so I’m going to own that. I wasn’t trying to call you an ass, I was trying to emphasize the phrase associated with the word *assume* so that I didn’t have to say the well-worn phrase “when you use the word *assume* it means you’re making an ass out of u and me.” I can understand how you thought I was calling you an ass, but I wasn’t–I was trying to highlight the trite phrase by emphasizing the letters ASS in assume. Message not delivered as intended. My bad.
You stated “I did not delve into the particulars of the Meridian article for three reasons. 1. It is not the focus of my post.”
I think the particulars should have been your focus. And if the Meridian article wasn’t your focus, it seemed to me your focus was a hit job on Peterson. Absolutely I was unclear what was your intended focus of the post. It didn’t sound charitable of Peterson or believers.
“2. I don’t believe most people will read posts that are two thousand words long.”
You’re probably right, but a brief summary might have helped prevent misunderstanding. Some would have read the Meridian article–2000 words isn’t that long–I write posts longer than that frequently, but maybe I’m an outlier. (This comment is over 600!)
“3. It is a completely flawed argument to begin with.”
Fine, tell us that and give examples. Instead of highlighting the flaws, it appeared to me you went to unproductive phrases like “I naively believe that most of the days of wild fabrications about the First Vision are over. ” This seems to undercut your comment that “I want those who believe to temper their enthusiasm” because it sounds like you think the whole First Vision is a wild fabrication, rather than quibbling over the date it may have occurred.
Anyway, it is probably apparent to all who read here that I enjoy debate. I’d prefer that it be on the flaws of an argument, and not the personality (like Daniel Peterson) or at the expense of believers (wild fabrications of the First Vision), and you asking if I’m cousins with Daniel Peterson didn’t help. Trust me, there’s a lot to complain about Peterson, but your summary of what he said sounds pretty innocuous to me. Like I said, I enjoy Book of Mormon geography theories, dating Christ’s birth, and archaeological evidence for Moses and the Exodus. I am well aware that some people think this is pseudo-science, but I don’t think it’s charitable to call people who study this “wild fabrications” either. I’ve even blogged about an atheist who thinks he found the Garden of Eden and has spoken to church groups about it. Such language seems needlessly hostile to believers, which is why I took exception to your characterizations on the OP.
And here was I thinking Shannon’s focus was concern that 50 years down the line folk might really believe 26 March was the date, and be blindsided to discover it wasn’t, a la the problems we see people experiencing today, and shouldn’t we have learnt something from that.
2 items of interest:
John Pratt is now Snufferite (spoke in their conference).
Your accusation that they are only looking for a devotional conclusion e.g. April 6 is obviously now borne out by their result.
I have worked with people who are in the process of leaving the church and continue to meet with a small number. The single biggest difficulty I encounter is trying to help them come to terms with the concept that the leaders of the church are fallible and that is okay. I know dozens of people who are able to accommodate an improved understanding about polygamy, doctrinal changes, blacks and the priesthood etc., but the one thing (and at first this was very surprising to me) that they refuse to get over is that many Church leaders, while speaking in the inspired mode, have said and done things that are quite wrong. They are unable , or unwilling, to believe that our church can have fallible leaders but still be the true church. I had one fellow tell me, “if they are fallible, they shouldn’t be!”
The passion of my post came from the hours and hours I have spent telling people – who are making life altering decisions for them selves and their families – that our church is making some good progress in cleaning up our act regarding our history and doctrine etc. Then here comes Daniel Peterson doing it all over again, in a subject that is not that new or difficult to figure out. It felt like a real kick in the head to me. Very discouraging.
“They are unable , or unwilling, to believe that our church can have fallible leaders but still be the true church. I had one fellow tell me, “if they are fallible, they shouldn’t be!””
We need to study the Old and the New Testament more. Both volumes are series of stories about fallible leaders.
Shannon, you still seem unsure of what you are trying to say, you keep conflating Peterson’s simple article and what you see as bad history in a completely separate piece on dating the first vision. If Mary Ann is right and you were only “attempting to argue [that] dating the First Vision using 6 weeks of weather reports from 1820 has a major problem”, and it seems she is right based on the fact that the majority of your post and subsequent comments are about that, then why the full on attack of Daniel Peterson? Why not just write about what you see as the bad history in the dating article and leave Peterson out of it?
Peterson wrote a 750 word general interest devotional column, I think he’s smart enough to know what historical writing is and I think he would be astonished to read that someone had such an ax to grind that they would misrepresent his article for something it is not and was never intended to be. He made an offhand two sentence comment about people figuring out the actual date of the first vision as a hook in his introductory paragraph. He didn’t endorse it, he didn’t hold it up as good history, and he came nowhere near saying that we should venerate the 26th of March as the day of the first vision. A reader doesn’t have to believe it is good history or even believe it is factual to find it interesting, and so it clearly serves Peterson’s purpose in using it, to pique our interest in the real purpose of his article, which is thinking about the first vision now that it is the early spring of our year. He acknowledges the existence of multiple versions of the first history, almost half of his remaining remarks consist of direct quotes from them and from other historical records. He makes some comparisons and gives some thoughts about what the different versions say and about what they mean.
If he hadn’t written that first paragraph would you have anything bad to say about the remaining 95% that he wrote? Is your animus toward him so strong that you can’t admit that his opening paragraph can be seen as an innocuous aside and not as a monstrous falsehood worthy of our alarm and disdain? I do agree with one of your comments above, there must be a back story here. Your exaggerations are too extreme, your contempt is too passionate, and your assumptions are to outrageous to be based merely on Peterson’s article.
KLC, This is really getting old. If D. Peterson had not included the first two paragraphs I wouldn’t have had anything to say about it. But he did write it a and made it the opening of his piece. It it not innocuous. It is very damaging. How can you say he didn’t endorse the the Meridian article? He summarized it and provided a link to it. Since I am not a mind reader I cannot tell what he intended, I can only go by what he wrote. It is very plain to me what he wrote and every other writer on this post other than yourself and MH get it. Every other writer has concurred with my opinion and provided additional material backing up to what I said. I honestly don’t know what more to say.
Shannon, not trying to be rude, but if you think only KLC and I disagree with you, you have already forgotten the comments. The first 5 out of the gate disagreed with you before EBK agreed. You even said “I am very surprised by the comments so far.” Now you say “Every other writer has concurred with my opinion.” Baloney. Read the comments again, especially the first 6 and remember your surprise that people didn’t agree with you.
Your comment that you want people “Believe anything you like”, is half-hearted. Your passion clearly shows even in your comments (like the OP) that your real purpose was tearing Peterson down. “Then here comes Daniel Peterson doing it all over again, in a subject that is not that new or difficult to figure out. It felt like a real kick in the head to me.” My advice to you is to tear down bad arguments, not people. Tear down bad arguments and I’ll probably agree with you and not give you a hard time. I agree this is tiring, and I’ll stop beating the dead horse. KLC said it well (and more polite than me.)
Shannon, I now agree with two things you’ve said, yes, it this is getting old, that is if you’re referring to your bizarre separation from reality. You continue to make gross generalizations that just can’t be supported by the facts. You’re not a mind reader? You can’t tell what Peterson intended? That’s strange since you seem absolutely sure of what he intended and you spell it out quite explicitly.
What is damaging in Peterson’s second paragraph? It says nothing about dating the first vision. You quoted it yourself in your first 2 paragraph block quote in the OP. Go back and read it again and then tell us all exactly how that 2nd paragraph says anything about the article linked in the first paragraph. You can’t because Peterson says nothing about that brief mention of someone’s determination of the date of the first vision in the second or subsequent paragraphs. Once again you seem to be conflating two separate things. Your second 2 paragraph block quote in your OP does indeed support your arguments and I would agree is not innocuous, but Peterson didn’t write that. You need to get your facts straight.
How can I say Peterson didn’t endorse the Meridian article? Because he makes one brief mention of it in his first paragraph and then never returns to it again. It is nothing more than an introduction. If you wrote a column about the story of the ark in Genesis and lead with the statement, “Some people think they have discovered Noah’s ark” and then linked it to a story about one of the many expeditions that have tried to find evidence of the ark, before moving on to your own thought about what the ark story means to us today, would you be guilty of endorsing pseudo archaeology and threatening to bring about the downfall of Christianity and western civilization? Or would you just be guilty of using effective journalism to engage possible readers in your own story?
Mario S. De Pillis emeritus professor of American Religious history at the University of Massachusetts Amherst has made the following statement about Dr. Petersen:
“As a non-Mormon I find that Daniel C. Petersen is almost always instructive. (I can usually skim the apologetic or faith-promoting passages). Gifted with an irenic temperament, enriched by a well-stocked mind and fortified by a sophisticated mastery of key languages and cultures, he is almost always well worth reading.
His extremely wide ranging current essay is one of the most historically sophisticated to come out of Zion on the place of Mormonism in Christian history. Professor Petersen is one orthodox Mormon intellectual that I still listen to. And I go way back 60 years to friendships with the young Leonard J. Arrington and Fawn McKay Brodie.
Though Professor Petersen’s conservative view of his church is not shared by all Latter-day Saints, I think that it is a necessary point of view in the present Mormon dialogue.
Moreover, despite Professor Petersen’s conservative conception of his own faith, his generosity toward non-Mormons has the effect of mollifying outsiders’ disdain for the claims of Joseph Smith. An invaluable Mormon voice”
Thanks Dr. Petersen for your unique contribution and insight on so many issues. I found nothing offensive in his article of the First Vision and much to commend.