In other words, a priori knowledge does not rely on experience for verification. Philosophers describe that kind of premise as a priori, a Latin term that describes knowledge that is, essentially, assumed. Įach of the three arguments begins with the premise that the vision simply could not have happened as Joseph described it. So by now it has become a foregone conclusion for some that there are no such things as visions and that Joseph failed to mention his experience for years and then gave conflicting accounts that didn’t match historical facts. Then, a generation later, Wesley Walters charged Joseph with inventing revivalism when a lack of historical evidence proved that there was none, and therefore there must have been no subsequent vision. More than a century later, Fawn Brodie wrote, with literary grace to mask her historical deficiencies, that Joseph concocted the vision years after he said it happened. The minister to whom Joseph reported the event announced that there were no such things these days. There are numerous books and many more websites that work to undermine faith in Joseph Smith’s First Vision, but historically there have been just three main arguments against it that are repeated by others in print or on the web. Harper (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, 2012), 307–23. Harper, "Evaluating Three Arguments against Joseph Smith's First Vision," in Exploring the First Vision, ed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |