First Vision accounts (of Joseph Smith)

*** I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.****

Here is the key. A mixed company of Jews and Gentile traders on the way to Damascus..

Paul hears it in the Hebrew language. The Jews probably heard it also, but saw no man.

To the Gentiles, it sounded like thunder because they could not understand it.

Vietnamese sounds to me like ducks quacking.

Oh I find him funny most of the time but the quote (not a scare quote) was to show his disdain for religious writings in general not just the BOM.
His humor seems more than a little bitter in this last period of life.
I much appreciate his originality and I think that is brilliant.

**** he had been personally visited by God, Jesus, a host of Heavenly angels, Peter, James and John, ***

Been eating that ergot infested grain again wasn’t he.

I think Mark Twain's criticisms had some validity, and thus humor. Something isn't funny unless it is (slightly) true. Twain's opinion of the Book of Mormon recalled so well my own memory of attempting to read through it (only half way)that it struck me as immensely funny. Sorry if you took umbrage but compared to the venom of the anti-Mormon contingent you usually encounter I thought a bit of humor (even if it engaged it a bit of nose tweaking) might lighten things up.

What’s the last verses of the Bible say? It is an attempt to add to the Bible. That’s why I will never buy it.

And I stand by my statement that you used scare quotes around ‘brilliant humorist’. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term......

http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node31.html

Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase from which you, the writer, wish to distance yourself because you consider that word or phrase to be odd or inappropriate for some reason. Possibly you regard it as too colloquial for formal writing; possibly you think it’s unfamiliar or mysterious; possibly you consider it to be inaccurate or misleading; possibly you believe it’s just plain wrong. Quite often scare quotes are used to express irony or sarcasm:

Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones and David Koresh. Not a dime’s worth of difference between them. Birds of a feather.

O.K., He had to go through Barnabas at first. Paul doesn’t seem to be shy about speaking elsewhere so I would guess he would tell his story himself too “in detail”.

Not the intent of my comment. In Acts 9:26-27 it states
26 And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
27 But Barnabas took him, and brought [him] to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.

So Paul's conversion story had already been out there for Barnabas to know, basically on the streets for a while and not something made up at a later date.

...most arguments against Joseph Smith’s first vision...

You know, Fred, there's lots of good "evidential" arguments against Smith's first vision, but that isn't the type of response I tend to focus in re: my convos with Mormons. So when you say "most arguments against Joseph Smith's first vision…," I go back to simply one portion of his so-called first vision. Verses 18-20:

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join...I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)÷and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join NONE of them, for they were ALL wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that ALL their creeds were an ABOMINATION in his sight; that those professors were ALL corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."
20 He again forbade me to join with ANY of them...

Please note the sweeping “absolutes” claimed by Smith with the words of “None…All…All…All…Any” (Anybody see any caveats issued there? I don’t)

With just a few paragraphs, Smith tried to:
...reduce EVERY creed of Christendom to ashes...
...slander the character of EVERY professing believer to that of a "corrupt" status;
...place a large "boycott" sign on every non-Mormon church: you "MUST... [NOT] JOIN ANY!

(1)Wanna explain, Fred, how Smith had such broad-sweeping powers of moral judgmentalism that he could label EVERY Christian “professor” – “professor” as in one who professes beliefs not an academic “professor” – as being absolutely “corrupt?”

(2) Wanna explain, Fred, how Smith could openly bash all Christian sects and simultaneously attempt to dig a spiritual graveyard for not only every 19th century Christian church, but the ones that had been around for the previous 15- to perhaps 19 centuries?

(a) Mormon founder: What’s amazing to me, then, is after Smith has taken the initiative to describe the entirety of Christianity for 14 to 15 to 18 centuries in such a manner, who is it in Mormon eyes that is deemed as the villainized “anti?” Supposedly, to hear Smith tell it, this vision occurred in 1820…so it can’t be claimed by Mormons that Smith was simply responding to the so-called 1830s “persecution” of Mormons.
(b) Second-generation Mormons: Since it was an entirely later full generation of Mormons who decided to place this vision as LDS canonized “Scripture,” it can’t be said that this was just Smith’s mere “opinion.”
( c ) Contemporary Mormons: Since contemporary Mormons tithe on this language to be spread world-wide in millions of imprinted messages (in translated Books of Mormon; in LDS curricula; in LDS books & articles, etc.)… and since the supposedly highly "winsome" “U Christians are ALL corrupt apostate" messages are spread world-wide via 60,000+ LDS missionaries door to door, ya wanna tell us again why we are the so-called “antis?” Just because we object to this tremendous daily drum beat of slander upon our reputation and upon divine truth (creeds) we are the ones belittled as “attacking?” [That's like claiming ships that sailed the same ocean lanes for centuries were "antis" because they opposed the pilfering Pirates!]

(3) Since you mention a comparison to the apostle Paul, wanna explain, Fred, how Smith and Paul could both be right? – Smith about his current & rear-view mirror assessment of the Christian church as being universally “apostate” – the apostle Paul with his prophetic foresight that God would receive… glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout ALL generations, for ever and ever! Amen. (Eph. 3:21) ??? [Both cannot be right]

[See also 1 Timothy 4:1 where “apostates” doesn’t translate into a complete & total apostasy any more than Judas translates into an immediate full apostasy of all the disciples of Christ. Paul says that in the “latter days,” (1 Timothy 4:1) “the Spirit clearly says that…SOME will abandon the faith… Why, Fred, then do you & other Mormons call the Holy Ghost a liar – He says “SOME” – You apparently say “ALL”?]

Why should Joseph Smith’s pronouncements trump Paul’s?... which would lead us to label…
…Paul as a liar or a false prophet…
…the Holy Ghost as either mistaken or a false revelator – for Paul says in 1 Tim. 4:1 that the Holy Ghost "expressly" or "clearly" made that pronouncement…
…Jesus Christ as a false prophet - for according to Joseph Smith the gates of hell would have then indeed prevailed against His church for about 1500 years or so (see Matt. 16:18) [Smith later boasted that he was the "only man" who ever knew how to keep a church together...that Jesus didn't do it...Paul didn't do it...]

Pay attention here. Under the picture was the words “brilliant humorist”. Quotation marks show I was quoting someone else's words to identify a person not named, nothing more.
I am well aware of the uses of quotation marks, apparently more so than you. When one quotes another's words it is entirely appropriate to use quotation marks.
You can read into it whatever you will if it's such a important point to you.
“Quite often scare quotes are used to express irony or sarcasm:......”
Quite often is not always and since I made clear my views otherwise I was counting upon the intelligence of the reader to be able to distinguish between the two. Good day.

Brilliant humorist were indeed my words. You chose to say “brilliant humorist” rather than brilliant humorist or Mark Twain and I thought the use of the quotes around the phrase was indicative that you did not agree; as would be standard usage. If you agree he was a brilliant humorist than there was no need for the quote marks as it is hardly a phrase original to me.

Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. — LDS President Gordon B;. Hinckley, Salt Lake Tribune, October 7, 2002

The source website is a Wiki clone for mormon apologetics and does not represent the official mormon position on these issues. With that in mind I will move through the issues in a sequential manner, although not likely to follow FAIR’s apologetics line by lie. I will address the strawman comparison to Paul’s encounter with Christ towards the end.

FAIR argues - Critics love to dwell on supposed inconsistencies in Joseph Smith’s spontaneous accounts of his first vision. But people normally give shorter and longer accounts of their own vivid experiences when retelling them more than once. Joseph Smith was cautious about public explanations of his sacred experiences until the Church grew strong and could properly publicize what God had given him. Thus, his most detailed first vision account came after several others—when he began his formal history.

Additionally they (FAIR) like to emphasize ”Joseph Smith's various accounts of the First Vision were targeted at different audiences, and had different purposes. .

Given that there are a substantial number of accounts out there, these initial excuses might carry water. Might, that is until smith’s personal diary was found by Dean C. Jessee, who was "a member of the staff at the LDS Church Historian's Office," claimed the "1831-32 history transliterated here contains the earliest known account of Joseph Smith's First Vision." (Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1969, p. 277-78) In a later issue of BYU Studies, Summer 1971, p. 462, Jessee made it clear that this was not only the first extant account of the First Vision, but that it was the only account in "the actual handwriting of Joseph Smith."
(http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no71.htm#PROBLEMS%20ALL%20OVER)

Transcript and image of original documents can be found here:
http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/1832-account.html

Since this was his personal journal, if FAIR’s argument were correct, then the most detailed account of the First Vision should be present in this text. Journals are not for public dissemination until later in the life (or after the death) of the writer, therefore smith should not have had any concerns about the mormon church properly publicize(ing) the account. However, on this point alone the argument falls apart, for it is not detailed at all, but remarkably vague. Although a point by point evaluation of the contradictions between accounts will follow later, the vagueness of the only account in smith’s handwriting (in comparison to the official version lacks
1. The presence of the Father
2. The location of the vision
3. No mention of a revival

Again, the reader is referred to comparing the transcript located above.

Conclusion

FAIR’s initial attempt to deflect criticism of the first vision accounts fails miserably upon the actual text written by smith’s own hand. Finally, for this first review, I’d like to repeat part of the lead FAIR comment
But people normally give shorter and longer accounts of their own vivid experiences when retelling them more than once. and ”Joseph Smith's various accounts of the First Vision were targeted at different audiences, and had different purposes. . This would work IF the stories were consistent. Lack or enhanced details in presentations are all common and if this were the only complaint, FAIR would be justified in these counter arguments. Unfortunately, that is not the case as my research has shown that these issues are not the ones brought forth into this argument by critic, but issues of contradictions in the stories. A contradiction is an instance where two (or more) statements are made that cannot BOTH be true. A contradiction by definition is not a variation in detail or length of an account.

For a baseline evaluation, I will refer to the official first vision account of mormonism. Of the many first vision accounts I will utilize:

• 1827 — Account of Joseph Smith, Sr., and Joseph Smith, Jr., given to Willard Chase, as related in his 1833 affidavit.
• 1827 — Account by Martin Harris given to Rev. John Clark, as published in his book Gleanings by the Way, printed in 1842, pp. 222-229.
• 1830 — Interview of Joseph Smith by Peter Bauder, recounted by Bauder in his book The Kingdom and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, printed in 1834, pp. 36-38.
• 1832 — Earliest known attempt at an ‘official’ recounting of the ‘First Vision, from History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.
• 1834-35 — Oliver Cowdery, with Joseph Smith’s help, published the first history of Mormonism in the LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Dec. 1834, vol.1, no.3
• 1835 — Account given by Joseph Smith to Joshua the Jewish minister, Joseph Smith Diary, Nov. 9, 1835.
• 1835 — Account given by Joseph Smith to Erastus Holmes on November 14, 1835, originally published in the Deseret News of Saturday May 29, 1852.
• 1844 — Account in An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States, edited by Daniel Rupp. Joseph Smith wrote the chapter on Mormonism.
• 1859 — Interview with Martin Harris, Tiffany’s Monthly, 1859, New York: Published by Joel Tiffany, vol. v.—12, pp. 163-170.

http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/fvision-accounts.html
http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#therareseveral

My reason for this selection is that the documentation is excellent – one can specifically read the transcripts or images. These accounts are also closely linked to Smith in that he authored them, supervised their writing or came directly from his mouth via interview and published in a mormon publication. The two Harris accounts are included since he was one of smith’s closest associates during the time frame the vision stories were starting and as a witness to whatever smith told him. FAIR lists numerous other accounts by Young, Cannon and others and we may get there in time to show just what teaching was carried on following smith’s death.

Progress will be to compare internal contradictions between the accounts (which FAIR spends very little hard disk space on) and then external contradictions between the official account and historical facts. Because FAIRs apologetics are so scattered, I will address those points as they are affected by my observations, however, I will roughly follow their sequence. My follow-on will address internal contradictions such as:

1. Age
2. Location
3. Visitors / personages/ angel(s)
4. How did he determine all religions were wrong
5. probably other TBA

External contradictions I’ll expose are

1. Revival
2. smith’s joining other churches after the vision
3. impact of the 1826 conviction for ‘treasure seeking’

For starters too. I will likely look at significant absences of information in some of the accounts to show that in some instances the lack of detail actually accounts against the account, given what IS presented.

I didn't “take umbrage”. See I like to use quotation marks when the words aren't mine (kind of credit where due thing) despite the advice of Larry Trask.

Well now you’ve done it. The apologists will have to call in the goon squad and try to get this thread pulled for exposing too much truth about mormonism.

“Brought to you by the Purdue University Online Writing Lab
Use a set of quotation marks to enclose each direct quotation included in your writing.”
Now I have no more time to waste on toe-may-toe, ta-maa-toe.

"Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision … It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most wonderful and important work under the heavens." – LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley

Which First Vision Account Should We Believe?
By Lane Thuet

According to LDS scripture, when Joseph Smith was 15 years old, he was confused as to which church was true. He claimed this confusion was sparked by an 1820 religious revival in his neighborhood. His heart was powerfully impressed one night when he read James 1:5, and subsequently he went into the woods near his house to pray that God would tell him which of all the Christian sects was right. As he began to pray, he claimed that he was nearly overcome by "some power" of "astonishing influence" that prevented him from speaking. As he called out to God, he was miraculously delivered by two beings who identified themselves as Jesus Christ and God the Father. Joseph Smith claimed that he was told the following: "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt." (Joseph Smith – History 1:19).

This story is referred to in the LDS Church as the "First Vision." It was this vision that ultimately led Joseph Smith to organize what is today known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Whenever LDS missionaries meet with potential converts, their message always includes the "First Vision" story. This vision is obviously the cornerstone upon which the LDS Church is built. In fact, the ninth president of the Mormon Church, David O. McKay, said that "the appearing of the Father and the Son to Joseph Smith is the foundation of the Church." (Gospel Ideals, p. 85). Preston Nibley, a descendant of an early LDS apostle, once wrote that "Joseph Smith lived a little more than twenty-four years after this first vision. During this time he told but one story..." (Joseph Smith the Prophet, p. 30).

So important is this vision that it is published as scripture to the Mormon people in a book known as The Pearl of Great Price. This official version was taken from the early LDS publication Times and Seasons, which originally published it on April 1, 1842 (pp. 748-749). Joseph Smith wrote this account of the vision in 1838, 18 years after it supposedly happened.

However, contrary to what Mr. Nibley claimed, this is not the only version Joseph ever told. In 1965, a BYU student named Paul Cheesman found a different version of the first vision. He noted that the accounts differed in significant details. This led others to start looking into the matter, and a surprising detail came to light. There are at least nine different versions of this first vision, each of which differs in the more significant parts of the story. Here is a brief look at them, starting with the latest known account, and working back to the earliest one.

Version 9. On May 24, 1844, Alexander Niebaur wrote the first vision in his journal as Joseph Smith told it to him. In this account, most of the details are the same as the official version, except that Joseph was not told that all of the Christian sects were wrong. Instead, he was specifically told that the Methodists were not God's people.
Version 8. In 1843, Joseph Smith gave an interview to the Pittsburgh Gazette, which was reprinted in the New York Observer on Sept. 23, 1843. In this version, Joseph said he was 14 years old, and there was no mention of any dark power trying to overcome him.
Version 7. This is the officially accepted version of the first vision, published in Times and Seasons on April 1, 1842.
Version 6. On March 1, 1842, the Times and Seasons published contents of a letter written by Joseph Smith to John Wentworth. This was published one full month before the account that is accepted as the official version today. In this one, Joseph Smith did not give his age. He mentioned no evil power overcoming him, and he said two personages visited him, though he never identifies them. It is significant that he did not mention the evil power that played so prominently in the story and also that he omitted that the personages visiting him were supposedly God the Father and Jesus Christ.
Version 5. In 1841, Joseph Smith's brother William Smith told the story to James Murdock. This account is published in A New Witness For Christ In America (2:414-415). This account lists Joseph as being 17 years old when he received the vision, and rather than God and Jesus appearing to him, William states that it was only a "glorious angel." Admittedly, this account is third hand, and William could certainly have been mistaken about Joseph's age. But it is not likely that he would forget that God Himself and Jesus Christ visited his brother, unless he was never told that to begin with.
Usually we dismiss third-hand accounts in our research, believing them to usually be very unreliable. However, this account is substantiated by other sources. For example, in the early LDS publication Times and Seasons for December 15, 1840 (Vol.2 pg. 241), Oliver Cowdery stated specifically that Joseph Smith, Jr. was 17 at the time of the first vision - specifically placing the year of the vision in 1823. And in at least seven other places in the Journal of Discourses, early LDS leaders shared that it was only an unidentified angel that visited Joseph, not God and Jesus (2:171, 196, 197; 10:127; 13:78, 324; 20:167).
Brigham Young even stated specifically that the Lord did not visit young Joseph. In reference to this vision he said "The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven...But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun...and informed him that he should not join any of the religions of the day, for they were all wrong;..." (Journal of Discourses 2:171).
William Smith's account was also printed in part in the RLDS Church publication The Saints Herald (Vol. 31 No. 40, page 643, 6/8/1884). No correction or retraction of the information published there was ever printed. We must keep in mind that both the LDS and RLDS (now known as the Community of Christ) share the same history for the first several years of Mormonism's existence. Contradictions regarding Smith's Vision would affect the credibility of both groups.
Finally, this account is also worthy of special consideration because it was first brought to light by a Mormon researcher from the LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University. As mentioned earlier, Paul Cheesman wrote his master's thesis in 1965 entitled "An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith's Early Visions." In that study he discusses this differing account of the first vision in detail. It was subsequently discussed by LDS scholars in the publication Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought for Autumn 1966. None of these researchers and scholars dismissed the account as mere gossip; rather they discussed it as a valid account worthy of consideration. There is no reason, then, for us not to consider it as well.
Version 4. In 1837, William Appleby recorded the vision story as given by Orson Pratt in his diary. In this version, the revival was not until 1822, Joseph was 17 again, and the visitors were not God and Jesus but beings who identified themselves only as angels who claimed to have forgiven Joseph's sins. Again, this is a third-hand account, but the most important details of the vision are left out or completely different.
The differing details of this vision account have been verified by other statements of LDS leaders throughout the early years of the LDS Church. George A. Smith and Orson Hyde both stated that Joseph was visited not by God but by angels (Journal of Discourses 6:335; 12:334). This corroborative information makes this third-hand account worthy of our consideration. In addition, the discourses and statements of the early LDS apostles and prophets, as published in many books by the LDS Church, were mainly recorded from the diaries and journals of the early Mormons. The LDS Church considers these third-hand accounts to be valid enough to accept for "inspirational" material. It would be inconsistent for the Mormons to accept only those accounts that support their teachings and to disregard those accounts with which they disagree. Since Orson Pratt was a first-hand witness to the early events of Mormonism and to the life of Joseph Smith, Jr., his version of the events are of significant importance for consideration – even when recorded in a listener's journal.
Version 3. In 1835, Joseph Smith dictated his own account of the first vision for his personal diary. There is some question among scholars, even those who are LDS, as to who the scribe was for this part of the diary. Some believe it was Warren Parrish, but others believe it was Warren Cowdery. Regardless of which man physically wrote the account, the fact is that it appears in the official diary of the Prophet, and this journal entry is accepted as accurate and valid. In this account, which was first published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (VI, No.1, pg. 87), the evil power is mentioned for the very first time. In all previous published accounts (listed below), no evil power was ever mentioned by Joseph. Also, he does not claim that the messengers were God and Jesus, just that many angels visited him. That seems to be a very curious omission.
Version 2. In February 1835, the LDS publication Messenger and Advocate recorded the account of the vision that Joseph Smith gave to Oliver Cowdery. In this account, Joseph was 17 years old, the revival is in 1823, and no mention is made of James 1:5. Instead, Joseph claimed he had been wondering if there was a God and if his sins could be forgiven. His only reason for praying was to ask if God did exist. After "11 or 12 hours" in prayer, he was visited by "a messenger from God" who forgave Joseph's sins. While this vision is given in the Messenger and Advocate as the first vision of Joseph Smith, this story was later revised and published as a second vision from the angel Moroni preparatory to giving Joseph Smith the golden plates.
It should be noted that this account was printed not only in an LDS publication but also during the lifetime of Joseph Smith. No statements by Joseph against the accuracy of this account have been found, indicating his approval of the information given. It was also a second-hand account given by Oliver Cowdery, a witness to many of the key events in LDS history. The same account was also copied unchanged into Joseph Smith's Manuscript History of the Church and subsequently into the LDS publication Times and Seasons. Since it was copied into so many LDS publications and records without any changes, the account must have been considered accurate and valid to Joseph Smith at that time. This adds quite a bit of significance to the differing details of this version.
Version 1. The earliest known account of the first vision was written in 1831-32 in Joseph Smith's own handwriting. This was the version made public by Paul Cheesman in 1965, published later that same year by Jerald and Sandra Tanner in Joseph Smith's Strange Account of the First Vision. This account had been in the hands of LDS leaders for over 130 years, hidden away in their vaults – presumably because it differs so greatly from the official version. In this account, Smith claimed to be 16 years old and that he already knew that all churches were wrong from reading the Bible. Joseph sought forgiveness, and it was Jesus alone who visited him and forgave his sins.

We are left, then, with various differing stories of this important event. Joseph never did tell "but one story" of the first vision; he told several, as already shown by the various published statements of early LDS leaders. There is no way to tell, then, if any of the details of the vision really happened. Was it one angel or several who visited Joseph? What was the identity of the heavenly visitor to Joseph – Jesus and God, Jesus alone, Peter (JD 6:29), Nephi (Times & Seasons 3:753; 1851 PoGP, pg.41; Millennial Star 3:53, 71), or Moroni?

Was he 14, 15, 16 or 17 years old when it happened? Was his reason for praying to get forgiveness, to determine if there was a God or to find out which religion was correct? Was he overcome by a dark and evil power or wasn't he?

All these variations – particularly in the accounts that came directly from Joseph Smith himself – lead us to the inevitable conclusion that the official version of Joseph Smith's "first vision" is, at best, unreliable. Though unproveable, Joseph may have had some kind of a vision in his younger years that he expanded upon and/or changed the details of each time he re-told it. Eventually the story was developed into the heart-rending official version that the LDS Church publishes today as fact, though it clearly is not.

Well if you don't wish to be misinterpreted you should attribute the two word quote to me in some way or leave off the quote marks. A two word description is either utilized or discarded not usually used as a “direct quotation”. ;)

WWFSMD?

Mea culpa. Oh, yes. There in Damascus Paul’s experience would be well know. In fact Acts 9:21 speaks of the reputation Saul had and now here he was one of those he had persecuted. Evidently the news hadn’t reached Jerusalem yet. But Paul’s experience was as you say known immediately (certainly within days) to the disciples in Damascus not years later. Quite so.

Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.