First vision accounts getting detailed attention in CES devotional

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Moroni was right. Native Americans are descendants of Abraham in the same way most people are related to Gengas Kahn. 

No, it's not in the same way. Covenant blessings and responsibilities and a spiritual heritage are not inherited from Ghengis Khan. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

I know you believe this but I know many who feel it's still a huge issue.  My brothe-in-law read everything he could find on this topic and spent over a year researching it.  He stopped believing over this one issue but is still holding on and attending for now.   He's staying in for family reasons and making it work.

Then he and others like him have reached a wrong conclusion. I stand by my assertion: DNA studies are not a game changer. 

Edited May 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then he and others like him have reached a wrong conclusions. I stand by my assertion: DNA studies are not a game changer. 

Well, I don't know.  It's not something I've studied very much.  I just know many disagree with you.  It's not a game changer for me though.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well, I don't know.  It's not something I've studied very much.  I just know many disagree with you.  It's not a game changer for me though.

I'll put it another way: DNA studies no more compel a conclusion that the Book of Mormon is false than they compel a conclusion that it is true. Either way, one makes a choice that is not driven by science. 

Edited May 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

I am an attorney...I am used to dealing with various versions to a story.  I have no problems with the versions of the First Vision.

I am a professional historian, and I could write the very same words as you.

As I have written here and here in a much earlier thread:

Retellings are always tailored to fit a specific audience and a unique narrative context. As a consequence, when multiple accounts of an event exist, as is not infrequently the case, this is a bonus for the historian because such accounts tend to be mutually complementary and help in the construction of a fuller retelling. And it's an added bonus when the accounts don't contain any genuine contradictions or mutually exclusive details because very often they do, though thankfully usually only of the minor kind -- incorrect names and/or discrepancies in age, date, or other numbers, as a few examples.

Over the past decade, much of my research has involved the personal writings of Catholic priests/missionaries serving in the East/Pacific in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. One of the hallmarks of this research has been work with multiple accounts of events. In preparation for the annual arrival of European ships, it was not at all unusual for a single Jesuit priest to compose separate letters or reports for the Society's headquarters in Rome, for the provincial superior in India, and for one or more of his fellow missionaries elsewhere in the East and/or in Europe. These texts would provide a summary of events from the past year, and unsurprisingly they tend to differ strongly in content and degree of detail -- despite in some cases being composed over the course of a single day -- simply because each retelling served a different purpose.

Details included in one letter may not appear at all in another. In other cases, what earns a passing mention in one report forms the central focus in a different report. Retellings of conversations with, for example, local chiefs often differ from one text to the next, not because the priest made up all these accounts but because choosing which parts of a (sometimes long) interaction to report -- and who exactly was involved -- depended on audience and context. Reports to superiors tend to be more cautious and less detailed in some cases than reports to peers. I can think of a few cases where comparing the former with the latter clearly shows how carefully missionaries picked and chose details to give a completely honest report whilst still holding back the more complete picture.

This is what real history looks like, and Joseph's narratives fit perfectly into the pattern. If there is anything even remotely noteworthy about the existence of or the content in the various accounts of the First Vision, it is how consistent and lacking in contradictions they are.

*****

I maintain that there is nothing uniquely or tellingly dissonant about the various First Vision accounts. Consider the following hypothetical (inspired by my own research):

• In 1562 a Jesuit missionary reports that upon having visited a remote Pacific Island he met the ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the ruler told him that he was happy to have the priest in his island.
• In 1565 the missionary reports that upon having visited this same Pacific Island he met first one and then another ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; a number of local chiefs were also present during this audience.
• In 1568 the missionary reports that upon having visited this same Pacific Island he met the queen and king of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the king told him that he hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting his island.
• In 1572 the missionary reports that upon having visited this same Pacific Island he met the rulers of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the rulers told him that they hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting their island.

If I were to present the above in a seminar and express concern over the dissonance caused thereby, I would be met with quizzical, probably embarrassed looks. And yet these hypothetical accounts parallel the supposedly difficult-to-reconcile differences in the First Vision accounts.

[UtahTexan]

14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I am a professional historian, and I could write the very same words as you.

 

I agree....but...in my profession, as a litigator, I have cross-examined many a witness and destroyed them due to various versions of a story.  But...I also understand, in my experience, that people tell stories differently depending on to whom they speak.

I got upset at my wife once for interrupting me constantly while I told her a story.  She finally said, "I would not interrupt if you have told me all the details from the beginning".  The problem was, I did not think those details were pertinent in telling HER the story......so I left them out.

[Robert F. Smith]

See volgadon's comments on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58691-your-vision-of-the-first-vision/ , at his post 18.

[Robert F. Smith]

Rene Descartes had a thrice-repeated Hermetic dream-vision which led him to turn toward math and analytic geometry and away from Hermetism and Rosicrucianism (F. Yates, Giordano Bruno, 452-453).

First Vision/Vision of Hermes Trismegistus:        

Quote

Pimander, who is the Nous, or divine mens, appears to Trismegistus when his corporeal senses are bound as in a heavy sleep.  Trismegistus expresses his longing to know the nature of beings and to know God.
Pimander’s aspect changes, and Trismegistus sees a limitless vision which is all light.  Then a kind of obscurity or darkness appears, out of which comes a kind of fire in which is heard an indescribable sound, like a fiery groan, while from the light issues a holy Word, and a fire without mixture leaps from the moist region up to the sublime, and the air, being light, follows the fiery breath.  “That light”, says Pimander, “is I myself, Nous, thy God . . . and the luminous Word issuing from the Nous is the Son of God.”  Yates, Giordano Bruno, 23.

Compare also the first vision or revelation from an angel to Mani in A.D. 228 to prevent him “from the error of the sectarians” (J. Z. Smith, ed., HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion [1995], 680).

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I am an attorney...I am used to dealing with various versions to a story.  I have no problems with the versions of the First Vision.

 

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I am a professional historian, and I could write the very same words as you.

As I have written here and here in a much earlier thread:

Retellings are always tailored to fit a specific audience and a unique narrative context. As a consequence, when multiple accounts of an event exist, as is not infrequently the case, this is a bonus for the historian because such accounts tend to be mutually complementary and help in the construction of a fuller retelling. And it's an added bonus when the accounts don't contain any genuine contradictions or mutually exclusive details because very often they do, though thankfully usually only of the minor kind -- incorrect names and/or discrepancies in age, date, or other numbers, as a few examples.

Over the past decade, much of my research has involved the personal writings of Catholic priests/missionaries serving in the East/Pacific in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. One of the hallmarks of this research has been work with multiple accounts of events. In preparation for the annual arrival of European ships, it was not at all unusual for a single Jesuit priest to compose separate letters or reports for the Society's headquarters in Rome, for the provincial superior in India, and for one or more of his fellow missionaries elsewhere in the East and/or in Europe. These texts would provide a summary of events from the past year, and unsurprisingly they tend to differ strongly in content and degree of detail -- despite in some cases being composed over the course of a single day -- simply because each retelling served a different purpose.

Details included in one letter may not appear at all in another. In other cases, what earns a passing mention in one report forms the central focus in a different report. Retellings of conversations with, for example, local chiefs often differ from one text to the next, not because the priest made up all these accounts but because choosing which parts of a (sometimes long) interaction to report -- and who exactly was involved -- depended on audience and context. Reports to superiors tend to be more cautious and less detailed in some cases than reports to peers. I can think of a few cases where comparing the former with the latter clearly shows how carefully missionaries picked and chose details to give a completely honest report whilst still holding back the more complete picture.

This is what real history looks like, and Joseph's narratives fit perfectly into the pattern. If there is anything even remotely noteworthy about the existence of or the content in the various accounts of the First Vision, it is how consistent and lacking in contradictions they are.

*****

I maintain that there is nothing uniquely or tellingly dissonant about the various First Vision accounts. Consider the following hypothetical (inspired by my own research):

• In 1562 a Jesuit missionary reports that upon having visited a remote Pacific Island he met the ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the ruler told him that he was happy to have the priest in his island.
• In 1565 the missionary reports that upon having visited this same Pacific Island he met first one and then another ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; a number of local chiefs were also present during this audience.
• In 1568 the missionary reports that upon having visited this same Pacific Island he met the queen and king of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the king told him that he hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting his island.
• In 1572 the missionary reports that upon having visited this same Pacific Island he met the rulers of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the rulers told him that they hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting their island.

If I were to present the above in a seminar and express concern over the dissonance caused thereby, I would be met with quizzical, probably embarrassed looks. And yet these hypothetical accounts parallel the supposedly difficult-to-reconcile differences in the First Vision accounts.

I am a journalist, and like CountryBoy and Hamba, I am used to dealing with differing (though not necessarily conflicting) versions of a story. Good journalism involves seeking more than one source and asking questions in pursuit of clarification and enlarged scope of understanding. 

From the foregoing, I am tempted to conclude that fussing over different accounts of the First Vision is indication of an unsophisticated mind. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Tripartite vision: Gilgamesh Epic IV,i-iv, three dreams of Gilgamesh.  S. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia (1989/1998), 46,128 n. 16, “Omens including dreams were frequently sought in a series of three deliberately for assurance and confirmation.”

Cf. the repeated angelic visits to Christopher Kotter.  Yates, Rosicrucian Enlightenment, 159; Prophecies of Christopher Kotterus, et al., 2nd ed. (1664), 28-29,39-41,59.

 On the night of Sept 22, 1827, while Joseph Smith was taking the Book of Mormon plates from their stone box (at Jewish New Year), at separate locations (and knowing nothing of Joseph), Brigham and Miriam Young, John and Fanny Young, Heber and Vilate Kimball, and John and Rhoda Greene all experienced an extraordinary heavenly vision, as noted by Daniel Peterson in Sunstone, 4/2 (Mar-April 1979):31, and W. Jeffrey Marsh in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 10/2 (2001):8-9, both citing especially O. F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 2nd ed. (1945/1992), 15-17.  Non-Mormon scholar Willis Barnstone, ed., The Other Bible (1984), 537, was quite taken with the strong parallels adduced in comparison of the Apocalypse of Paul and Joseph’s obtaining the Book of Mormon.

[Scott Lloyd]

Replied to wrong post.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I am a journalist, and like CountryBoy and Hamba, I am used to dealing with differing (though not necessarily conflicting) versions of a story. Good journalism involves seeking more than one source and asking questions in pursuit of clarification and enlarged scope of understanding. 

From the foregoing, I am tempted to conclude that fussing over different accounts of the First Vision is indication of an unsophisticated mind. 

What you (and others) are describing isn't what we have with the First Vision accounts.  Getting different versions of a story from different people is a good idea because of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony in general.  But having one person describe the same event (which only they experienced) over the course of many years doesn't mean you're going to get more reliable information.  Indeed, any time it's been studied, eyewitness testimony has been shown to be far less reliable than most people suspect:

Bias creeps into memory without our knowledge, without our awareness. While confidence and accuracy are generally correlated, when misleading information is given, witness confidence is often higher for the incorrect information than for the correct information.

https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

Obviously we can theorize some degree of divine intervention into the normal human memory processes and suggest that Joseph was given supernatural help in recalling important details as the years went by.  But if we are just assuming normal human (and fallible) memory function, the additional details introduced into the story in later tellings would not be confidence inspiring.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I agree....but...in my profession, as a litigator, I have cross-examined many a witness and destroyed them due to various versions of a story.  But...I also understand, in my experience, that people tell stories differently depending on to whom they speak.

I got upset at my wife once for interrupting me constantly while I told her a story.  She finally said, "I would not interrupt if you have told me all the details from the beginning".  The problem was, I did not think those details were pertinent in telling HER the story......so I left them out.

Sounds like your wife would have made a good journalist!

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think the so-called 'First Vision' is one of the greatest things ever revealed to any man in any dispensation and that too many people don't see or understand the significance of what was revealed to Joseph then.

I think I feel as deeply about what people are missing out on as President Ezra Benson felt most people, even members of the Church, miss out on the significance of the Book of Mormon. 

The idea that our Father in heaven is a person just like Jesus Christ is a person and that they are both the same kind of being we are is an idea that will help us draw nearer to God than any other idea I can imagine and if so-called atheists understood the significance of the word God as well as we do they'd  realize how much sense it makes to realize that God does in fact exist and that we would not exist without him

 

You might find this context interesting:

Many factors contributed to the relative lack of interest in the First Vision by nineteenth century believers and nonbelievers. Most have been identied by Latter-day Saint scholars in a variety of articles attempting to validate the historicity of the event or its relationship to developments in L.D.S. doctrine.  Though these studies disagree on the First Vision’s theological implications, what matters for our purposes is that all agree, in the words of James B. Allen, author of the most extensive study, that “the weight of evidence would suggest that it [the First Vision] was not a matter of common knowledge, even among church members, in the earliest years of Mormon history .” As Allen’s research makes apparent, though the First Vision is used in a sermon as early as 1883, the turning point in the status of the First Vision occurs during the administration of Joseph F. Smith and, signicantly for the purposes of this essay , contemporaneous with the Smoot hearing and its immediate aftermath. The story is first used in Latter-day Saint Sunday School texts in 1905; in priesthood instructional manuals in 1909; as a separate missionary tract in 1910; and in histories of the church in 1912. Moreover, in 1907, the Smith family farm in Palmyra, New York, was purchased and passed into church ownership in 1916. A grove of trees on the site where Joseph Smith was assumed to have had the First Vision became an increasingly popular pilgrimage site, culminating in centennial celebrations in 1920. By mid-century, Joseph Smith’s account of his theophany was denominated “The Joseph Smith Story.” Eventually, this story would be granted the status of “the beginning point, the fountainhead, of the restoration of the gospel in this dispensation.”  In the First Vision, Progressive-Era president Joseph F. Smith, whose tenure lasted until his death in 1918, had found a marker of L.D.S. identity whose pedigree was as great as, and would be made greater than, that of plural marriage for the twentieth-century Saints.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/kathleenflake/files/2012/01/RAC-Re-placing-Memory.pdf

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

What you (and others) are describing isn't what we have with the First Vision accounts.  Getting different versions of a story from different people is a good idea because of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony in general.  But having one person describe the same event (which only they experienced) over the course of many years doesn't mean you're going to get more reliable information.  Indeed, any time it's been studied, eyewitness testimony has been shown to be far less reliable than most people suspect:

 

 

But the accounts do not contradict one another in any material way. The only difference is in the selection and extent of detail.

And believe me, that is quite common. A single person is apt to vary in how he tells a story without necessarily contradicting himself. That's why I say a good journalist will probe for clarification and greater detail, not to manipulate the account but to provide questions as a catalyst for a more complete telling.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, it's not in the same way. Covenant blessings and responsibilities and a spiritual heritage are not inherited from Ghengis Khan. 

Are you suggesting that charging people down on horseback and cutting them to pieces is not a blessing, a responsibility, and a great spiritual heritage?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I am a professional historian, and I could write the very same words as you.

As I have written here and here in a much earlier thread:

Retellings are always tailored to fit a specific audience and a unique narrative context. As a consequence, when multiple accounts of an event exist, as is not infrequently the case, this is a bonus for the historian because such accounts tend to be mutually complementary and help in the construction of a fuller retelling. And it's an added bonus when the accounts don't contain any genuine contradictions or mutually exclusive details because very often they do, though thankfully usually only of the minor kind -- incorrect names and/or discrepancies in age, date, or other numbers, as a few examples.

Over the past decade, much of my research has involved the personal writings of Catholic priests/missionaries serving in the East/Pacific in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. One of the hallmarks of this research has been work with multiple accounts of events. In preparation for the annual arrival of European ships, it was not at all unusual for a single Jesuit priest to compose separate letters or reports for the Society's headquarters in Rome, for the provincial superior in India, and for one or more of his fellow missionaries elsewhere in the East and/or in Europe. These texts would provide a summary of events from the past year, and unsurprisingly they tend to differ strongly in content and degree of detail -- despite in some cases being composed over the course of a single day -- simply because each retelling served a different purpose.

Details included in one letter may not appear at all in another. In other cases, what earns a passing mention in one report forms the central focus in a different report. Retellings of conversations with, for example, local chiefs often differ from one text to the next, not because the priest made up all these accounts but because choosing which parts of a (sometimes long) interaction to report -- and who exactly was involved -- depended on audience and context. Reports to superiors tend to be more cautious and less detailed in some cases than reports to peers. I can think of a few cases where comparing the former with the latter clearly shows how carefully missionaries picked and chose details to give a completely honest report whilst still holding back the more complete picture.

This is what real history looks like, and Joseph's narratives fit perfectly into the pattern. If there is anything even remotely noteworthy about the existence of or the content in the various accounts of the First Vision, it is how consistent and lacking in contradictions they are.

*****

I maintain that there is nothing uniquely or tellingly dissonant about the various First Vision accounts. Consider the following hypothetical (inspired by my own research):

• In 1562 a Jesuit missionary reports that upon having visited a remote Pacific Island he met the ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the ruler told him that he was happy to have the priest in his island.
• In 1565 the missionary reports that upon having visited this same Pacific Island he met first one and then another ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; a number of local chiefs were also present during this audience.
• In 1568 the missionary reports that upon having visited this same Pacific Island he met the queen and king of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the king told him that he hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting his island.
• In 1572 the missionary reports that upon having visited this same Pacific Island he met the rulers of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the rulers told him that they hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting their island.

If I were to present the above in a seminar and express concern over the dissonance caused thereby, I would be met with quizzical, probably embarrassed looks. And yet these hypothetical accounts parallel the supposedly difficult-to-reconcile differences in the First Vision accounts.

To me the problem comes from how the church uses the vision accounts. Here is what Bushman has to say on the subject:

Quote

I am very much impressed by Joseph Smith’s 1832 History account of his early visions. This is the one partially written in his own hand and the rest dictated to Frederick G. Williams. I think it is more revealing than the official account presumably written in 1838 and contained in the Pearl of Great Price. We don’t know who wrote the 1838 account. Joseph’s journal indicates that he, Sidney Rigdon, and George Robinson collaborated on beginning the history in late April, but we don’t know who actually drafted the history. It is a polished narrative but unlike anything Joseph ever wrote himself. The 1832 history we know is his because of the handwriting. It comes rushing forth from Joseph’s mind in a gush of words that seem artless and uncalculated, a flood of raw experience. I think this account has the marks of an authentic visionary experience. There is the distance from God, the perplexity and yearning for answers, the perplexity, and then the experience itself which brings intense joy, followed by fear and anxiety. Can he deal with the powerful force he has encountered? Is he worthy and able? It is a classic announcement of a prophet’s call, and I find it entirely believable..

Quote

I think it is possible that Smith exaggerated the claims of his 1820 persecutions when he wrote in 1838. He had undergone a great deal of serious persecution just recently, and he may have seen his early troubles as the first stage. He may have been a little on the paranoid side too, exaggerating opposition when he encountered it. He certainly was sensitive to insults of any kind. I conjecture that after the First Vision he said nothing to his family but did confide in a minister. When his account was dismissed, he took it badly. After all he had come to open his heart and was rejected by a minister who probably was impatient with visionary claims. The experience made him all the more wary about telling anyone about his experiences. By his own account, he said nothing about Moroni to his family until admonished by the angel.

 

Outside of divine intervention, peoples memories do not get better with age. Every time we recall and retell an event we rewrite the memory. Studies of "flash bulb" memories of events like what were we doing when 9/11 occurred have been shown to change substantially overtime. Does this mean that Joseph didn't have a visionary experience when he was 14? No. But the most accurate recollection is probably the earliest. When we teach that from the first vision, Joseph knew that HF and JC were two separate and distinct physical beings and hence the trinity is false, we are going beyond what Joseph ever claimed or taught.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The accounts don't contradict each other, and the participants don't change. Some provide detail that others don't. Big whoop.

So you're saying that a pillar of fire appeared with singing concourses of angels. Then, the Lord appeared. Then God the Father and Jesus Christ both appeared in a pillar of light like the brightness of the sun.

It sounds very exciting. If all of JS's vision accounts are to be believed then it is vastly different than what we've been taught. I had never heard before that ALL of these things occurred and ALL of these heavenly messengers appeared.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But the accounts do not contradict one another in any material way. The only difference is in the selection and extent of detail.

And believe me, that is quite common. A single person is apt to vary in how he tells a story without necessarily contradicting himself. That's why I say a good journalist will probe for clarification and greater detail, not to manipulate the account but to provide questions as a catalyst for a more complete telling.

I honestly don't understand this. Minor "details" changed like whether JS had a vision of the Lord, many angels, or God and Jesus? No biggy.

These are not minor details. We base our understanding of God the Father and Jesus Christ functioning as a godhead on this vision. We scoff at the concept of the trinity based on this vision of God and Jesus. These details are essential and material to modern understanding and doctrine in the church.

I think of the most amazing experiences I've had and I remember who was there. When I tell the story of an incredible vacation, or musical experience, I remember where I went, who I was with, and other details like what band played. When I talk about going to a Garth Brooks concert I remember it was Garth Brooks and don't mix up that detail by telling people I saw Paul McCartney.

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Outside of divine intervention, peoples memories do not get better with age.

Except that I absolutely believe in divine intervention.

Quote

When we teach that from the first vision, Joseph knew that HF and JC were two separate and distinct physical beings and hence the trinity is false, we are going beyond what Joseph ever claimed or taught.

I'm not sure whom you mean here by we, but I certainly don't teach that, and I've even written on this topic in this and subsequent posts in the same thread.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I honestly don't understand this. Minor "details" changed like whether JS had a vision of the Lord, many angels, or God and Jesus? No biggy.

You may have missed what I wrote above?

Quote

Consider the following hypothetical (inspired by my own research):

• In 1562 a Jesuit missionary reports that upon having visited a remote Pacific Island he met the ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the ruler told him that he was happy to have the priest in his island.
• In 1565 the missionary reports that upon having visited this same Pacific Island he met first one and then another ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; a number of local chiefs were also present during this audience.
• In 1568 the missionary reports that upon having visited this same Pacific Island he met the queen and king of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the king told him that he hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting his island.
• In 1572 the missionary reports that upon having visited this same Pacific Island he met the rulers of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the rulers told him that they hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting their island.

If I were to present the above in a seminar and express concern over the dissonance caused thereby, I would be met with quizzical, probably embarrassed looks. And yet these hypothetical accounts parallel the supposedly difficult-to-reconcile differences in the First Vision accounts.

 

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Quote

When we teach that from the first vision, Joseph knew that HF and JC were two separate and distinct physical beings and hence the trinity is false, we are going beyond what Joseph ever claimed or taught.

I'm not sure whom you mean here by we, but I certainly don't teach that, and I've even written on this topic in this and subsequent posts in the same thread.

Right. It's obvious that he saw two separate beings. The thing that bothers me sometimes is that people claim that because of the first vision Joseph discovered that both God the Father and Jesus had bodies of flesh and bone. All he did was see the two beings; he did not touch them nor did they tell him that they had tangible bodies. I believe Joseph learned this later on.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You may have missed what I wrote above?

 

I did miss that, but it doesn't make a difference. My statement stands.

It sounds to me like you are subscribing to the idea that ALL of the visitations happened. That's fine. But if that is true the church really ought to change the canonized vision account to accurately represent the vision because it is vastly different than what is officially taught.

IMO- taking each of the accounts and stating they all happened is merely a way of justifying the inconsistency and easing the cognitive dissonance because there is no other "faithful" possibility.

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

To me the problem comes from how the church uses the vision accounts. Here is what Bushman has to say on the subject:

 

Outside of divine intervention, peoples memories do not get better with age. Every time we recall and retell an event we rewrite the memory. Studies of "flash bulb" memories of events like what were we doing when 9/11 occurred have been shown to change substantially overtime. Does this mean that Joseph didn't have a visionary experience when he was 14? No. But the most accurate recollection is probably the earliest. When we teach that from the first vision, Joseph knew that HF and JC were two separate and distinct physical beings and hence the trinity is false, we are going beyond what Joseph ever claimed or taught.

Thanks for sharing that. I think Joseph Smith's first account of his first vision is much more likely to reflect what he experienced at the time than subsequent accounts, which seem to have been altered to reflect changes to LDS theology. 

[stemelbow]

I imagine if I were telling a story to different people and the story-telling was separated by a few years each, I could imagine quite a bit of variation in the accounts without me even realizing it.  Our perception is an interesting thing, and our change in perception over time is palpable, at least it has been for me.  In that sense, I'm not too concerned about the varying accounts in the first vision or visitation of angels or whatever we want to call it. 

With that said, it seems obvious we want to put more stock into the story than Joseph did.