A common observation of Mormon apologetics, and FairMormon in particular, is that their explanations are rarely internally consistent. The explanation for one issue contradicts or conflicts with the explanation for another issue. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter much that they contradict each other. Other times, they really do damage to their arguments.
One case in particular is when FairMormon addressed the survey the Open Stories Foundation conducted about understanding Mormon disbelief. In this address, FairMormon pointed out problems with the scientific nature of the survey and whether the results could be considered valid or statistically representative of the people who leave the Mormon church. For this post, I don’t care if the problems are valid or significant. Instead, I want to focus on Problem #2 and its implications for the multiple First Vision accounts.
Here is what FairMormon said about Problem #2 (emphasis and color added).
Problem #2: Difficulties with memory and retrospective accounts
Mormon Stories’ efforts to use the survey to construct a narrative of why some Mormons disbelieve highlights a second difficulty: “Autobiographical memory is a constructive process:….People’s current goals and knowledge influence recollections.” [46] This applies to everyone. One author makes the same observation in his analysis of secular and sectarian ex-Mormon narratives: “after-the-fact narratives are inherently unreliable in establishing the authenticity of actual occurrence.” [47]
Mormon Stories’ questionnaire asks people to describe why they made a decision in the past. What were the factors that led them to conclude the Church was not what it claimed to be? A change in religious worldview can be a major life event, so memories might well be vivid. However, the psychological literature is clear that conclusions about our past mental state based upon retrospective reporting are also highly unreliable. “We often edit or entirely rewrite our previous experiences—unknowingly and unconsciously—in light of what we now know or believe. The result can be a skewed rendering of a specific incident, or even of an extended period in our lives, that says more about how we feel now than what happened then. Thus, without knowing it, we can modify our own history.”[48]
“Unfortunately,” noted the National Academies Press in 1988, “asking people about the past is not particularly helpful: people remake their views of the past to rationalize the present and so retrospective data are often of uncertain validity.” [49] As a recent popularization put it, “Today, there’s broad consensus among psychologists that memory isn’t reproductive—it doesn’t duplicate precisely what we’ve experienced— but reconstructive. What we recall is often a blurry mixture of accurate recollections, along with what jells with our beliefs, needs, emotions, and hunches. These hunches are in turn based on our knowledge of ourselves, the events we try to recall, and what we’ve experienced in similar situations.” [50] A variety of biases affect such efforts to establish past views, beliefs, and influences, especially about a subject as emotionally-freighted as religion.[51]
Someone in the Open Stories Foundation has had instruction on social science research techniques. This is evinced by the insertion of a disclaimer stating that Mormon Stories’ survey is not statistically rigorous. Despite this, Mormon Stories still wishes to use the survey to construct narrative, and encourages the audience to draw conclusions based upon the responses. But, as the experts warn, “hindsight bias…is ubiquitous: people seem almost driven to reconstruct the past to fit what they know in the present. In light of [a] known outcome, people can more easily retrieve incidents and examples that confirm it.” [52]
It is thus not clear what can be concluded from such a survey, save that Mormon Stories’ audience now agrees with Dehlin.
So, let’s compare this to the First Vision accounts. The first one we know about was written by Joseph Smith in 1832 — 12 years after the First Vision was purported to have taken place. Other accounts of the First Vision (dictations or secondhand accounts) were recorded in 1835, 1838, 1840, 1842, 1843, and 1844. Clearly, the gap in time falls into the “after-the-fact narratives are inherently unreliable in establishing the authenticity of actual occurrence”.
Additionally, the details of the various accounts vary drastically. In one, he sees Jesus and is forgiven of his sins. In another, he only sees angels. In another, he sees God the Father and Jesus Christ and is told to not join any church but that he will start a church instead. These changing details conveniently fit with changes in Joseph’s theology, and needs he had in keeping control of the church he was running. Grant Palmer’s “An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins” does a much better job detailing this than I can do in a blog post. This fits with “We often edit or entirely rewrite our previous experiences–unknowingly and unconsciously–in light of what we now know or believe”. Also, “people remake their views of the past to rationalize the present and so retrospective data are often of uncertain validity”.
Congratulations, FairMormon, you’ve successfully proven why we shouldn’t trust the differing accounts of the First Vision. Oops!
How I Lost my Faith by Defending it by Wes T I followed the faithful path outlined for every young man: baptism, priesthood, Eagle Scout, missionary, BYU graduate, and eternal husband,…
Examination Summary by Don Cohen My intent here was to approach the Church’s claims about itself, its history, and its mission, from several different perspectives,…
Actually, this cute little blog post is a great example of what happens when you only have passing familiarity with the literature you are attempting to address. Steven Harper has discussed the issues associated with memory and the First Vision in his book, Joseph Smith’s First Vision: A Guide to the Historical Accounts (Deseret Book, 2012). It is not really as problematic for the First Vision as you make it out to be. I would recommend reading it before jumping to conclusions.
I have not read Harper’s book. I did, however, listen to the FairMormon podcast where he discusses his book and the varying accounts of the first vision. In it, he uses multiple logical fallacies (strawman, ambiguity), and employs victim blaming. One thing that stood out to me was when he was summarizing the “facts” and explains the difference between the facts and interpretation of those facts. I thought it was good, until he said an historical fact was that Joseph told a “generally consistent story”. This is an interpretation, not a fact. Clearly, in my post above, I consider the differences to be drastically different (an interpretation, or opinion if you will).
Another point was that because Joseph’s story changed with time, it is consistent with what we know of memory and therefore supports his claim of the first vision. Harper is drawing conclusions that aren’t supported by the facts. While it is true that memories change over time, and clearly Joseph’s story changed over time, this says nothing of whether Joseph was speaking of a true event, or merely lying. In either case, the origin truth or lie would change with time, thus you can’t use the fact that the story changed as evidence that the original event actually happened.
This is such a great example of the apologist mindframe. Each event or issue is addressed in a vacuum from every other.
I’m not sure what their response to your critique would be, but I imagine it would go something like: “we don’t need to be internally consistent because we are simply providing potential answers, not definitive answers. We are providing options, not doctrine.”
As such there is no responsibility, no accountability, they can propose every potentiality that supports their cause, and discard all evidence to the contrary since they are only looking for a way to show there is a chance (however insignificant).
Well done on this. I would love to see them actually respond! 😀
Actually, this cute little blog post is a great example of what happens when you only have passing familiarity with the literature you are attempting to address. Steven Harper has discussed the issues associated with memory and the First Vision in his book, Joseph Smith’s First Vision: A Guide to the Historical Accounts (Deseret Book, 2012). It is not really as problematic for the First Vision as you make it out to be. I would recommend reading it before jumping to conclusions.
Good to know, Quinten. I’ll look into it. Could I hear your key takeaways from the book as a tease for why others should read it?
I have not read Harper’s book. I did, however, listen to the FairMormon podcast where he discusses his book and the varying accounts of the first vision. In it, he uses multiple logical fallacies (strawman, ambiguity), and employs victim blaming. One thing that stood out to me was when he was summarizing the “facts” and explains the difference between the facts and interpretation of those facts. I thought it was good, until he said an historical fact was that Joseph told a “generally consistent story”. This is an interpretation, not a fact. Clearly, in my post above, I consider the differences to be drastically different (an interpretation, or opinion if you will).
Another point was that because Joseph’s story changed with time, it is consistent with what we know of memory and therefore supports his claim of the first vision. Harper is drawing conclusions that aren’t supported by the facts. While it is true that memories change over time, and clearly Joseph’s story changed over time, this says nothing of whether Joseph was speaking of a true event, or merely lying. In either case, the origin truth or lie would change with time, thus you can’t use the fact that the story changed as evidence that the original event actually happened.
Is his book anything like the podcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiNFbrrYUlE)?
This is such a great example of the apologist mindframe. Each event or issue is addressed in a vacuum from every other.
I’m not sure what their response to your critique would be, but I imagine it would go something like: “we don’t need to be internally consistent because we are simply providing potential answers, not definitive answers. We are providing options, not doctrine.”
As such there is no responsibility, no accountability, they can propose every potentiality that supports their cause, and discard all evidence to the contrary since they are only looking for a way to show there is a chance (however insignificant).
Well done on this. I would love to see them actually respond! 😀