Pregunta: ¿José Smith simplemente combinó elementos de los avivamientos de 1818 y 1824-25 en su historia de la Primera Visión?

Revisión del 00:47 27 jul 2017 de RogerNicholson (discusión | contribuciones)
(dif) ← Revisión anterior | Revisión actual (dif) | Revisión siguiente → (dif)

Tabla de Contenidos

Pregunta: ¿José Smith simplemente combinó elementos de los avivamientos de 1818 y 1824-25 en su historia de la Primera Visión?

  NEEDS TRANSLATION  


There is documentary evidence that shows abundant religious activity in the region surrounding Palmyra, New York during the 1819-1820 time period

Some critics and armchair scholars have come to the conclusion that some of the revival story elements found in Joseph Smith's 1838 historical narrative are not really accurate, but rather are representative of a conflation of facts. These people believe that Joseph Smith was actually mixing parts of 1818 and 1824-25 Palmyra revival activities into his storyline about what happened in 1820. In other words, they claim that the Prophet's narrative is not historically accurate - but not deceptively so.

The problem with the 'conflation theory' is two-fold: (1) It can be demonstrated that one of the most important pieces of documentary evidence which is used to support this theory does not actually say what some people think it says - see the FAIRwiki paper called Conflation of 1824-25 revival?. (2) There is plenty of documentary evidence that shows abundant revival activity in the general region surrounding Palmyra, New York during an 1819-1820 time period. A careful examination of Joseph Smith's 1838 narrative reveals that three distinct zones of revival activity are being referred to by him and each of these can be confirmed in non-LDS newspapers and ecclesiastical sources. When all of these sources are taken into account the idea of conflation loses most of its strength.

Notas