The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Further considerations:

If we look at the differing versions of Christs life in the four gospels we can find the same reasoning I posited in my previous post. In the Gospel of John we find only one visit to Jerusalem (the new/old capital of Israel I might add) and in other versions we find multiple visits to Jerusalem. This does not make any of the versions false or make the motives of the authors suspect. It simply means they were emphasizing certain points, certain focuses of teaching. It neither changes the doctrine nor does it magnify or diminish the message.

There is a really significant difference between the four gospels and the 1832/1838 first visions accounts:

The gospels had different authors and not all of them were eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about.  The 1832 and 1838 first vision accounts had the same author and he was the eyewitness to the event. 

I recognize that this is the analogy used by President Hinckley (and probably others) but it is not a good comparison. 

[Anijen]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't think the issue is whether the church is culpable for merely possessing multiple accounts, it's the lack of openness, in the past, regarding the multiple accounts that people find problematic. 

The "lack of openness" argument in my opinion (not wrong opinion) is a logical fallacy that is intended to lead the accusers audience to a false conclusion, e.g. the church is false and Joseph made it up as he went....

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never lacked transparency in their history. The purpose of the Church, of the Book of Mormon, of the Gospel is to bring people closer to Christ and persuade them to become His disciples.  Thus, in almost every lesson given by a teacher, bishop, general authority, or prophet has been under that cause. Joseph did not give one account and then subsequently gave a differing account to hide lies or to hide facts, or to hide anything (the so-called lack of openness). If "people" that have an agenda to find what they want to find, then likely will interpret their findings to how and what their preconceived desires to find will be found (a mouthful for sure). If those same "people" try to convince others that this was Joseph reasoning (to hide the past) then they are following what that person has taught them and NOT what the LDS Church or its leaders have taught.

I have been an active member my entire life and not once, not a single instance have I had a lesson, or heard a talk that implied or expressly admitted to hiding any portion of the Church's' history. The purpose of each lesson is to teach a lesson that hopefully will cause a person to become closer to the Savior and hopefully become His disciple. Now before you go and jump all over me with examples (MMM, blood atonement, different versions, polygamy, etc.) those issues generally do not make for a Sunday School lesson. Because they are rarely taught does not even remotely imply the conscience effort to hide Church history, in other words lack of openness, in other words lack of transparency. There is none.

Quote

Also, calling the questioner a mini-anti-christ doesn't seem to be helpful.

If you read my post more carefully I labeled those who "maliciously attach some sort of falsity or culpability to the Church or its present or past leaders for having multiple accounts of the First Vision..." as a "mini-anti-Christs." In which I stand on what I wrote. However, you are correct and I agree doing so is probably not helpful.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would agree that I don't think people should expect art to reflect serious scholarship.  But to call it silly or foolish doesn't seem fair either.  Art has a huge influence on societal conceptions of historical events.  This is not a unique Mormon phenomenon.  Art and film are very influential and persuasive ways of communicating.  If you like podcasts, you may enjoy this episode I listened to recently.  

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/10/24/yanss-113-the-power-of-fiction-to-change-peoples-minds/

 

 

I once did some work on the Ensign.  I was designing the layout for the articles that were already written.  I layed out an illustration that looked like a stain glass rendering of the subject matter.  It was rejected by the editors of the Ensign because "the church does not do stain glass".  Believe me, there are very strict guidelines on not only what is illustrated in the church magazines but also how they are illustrated.  The direction of what is wanted is quite precise.   What artwork you see in church publications is exactly what the church wants you to see.

[Exiled]

23 minutes ago, Anijen said:

The "lack of openness" argument in my opinion (not wrong opinion) is a logical fallacy that is intended to lead the accusers audience to a false conclusion, e.g. the church is false and Joseph made it up as he went....

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never lacked transparency in their history. The purpose of the Church, of the Book of Mormon, of the Gospel is to bring people closer to Christ and persuade them to become His disciples.  Thus, in almost every lesson given by a teacher, bishop, general authority, or prophet has been under that cause. Joseph did not give one account and then subsequently gave a differing account to hide lies or to hide facts, or to hide anything (the so-called lack of openness). If "people" that have an agenda to find what they want to find, then likely will interpret their findings to how and what their preconceived desires to find will be found (a mouthful for sure). If those same "people" try to convince others that this was Joseph reasoning (to hide the past) then they are following what that person has taught them and NOT what the LDS Church or its leaders have taught.

I have been an active member my entire life and not once, not a single instance have I had a lesson, or heard a talk that implied or expressly admitted to hiding any portion of the Church's' history. The purpose of each lesson is to teach a lesson that hopefully will cause a person to become closer to the Savior and hopefully become His disciple. Now before you go and jump all over me with examples (MMM, blood atonement, different versions, polygamy, etc.) those issues generally do not make for a Sunday School lesson. Because they are rarely taught does not even remotely imply the conscience effort to hide Church history, in other words lack of openness, in other words lack of transparency. There is none.

If you read my post more carefully I labeled those who "maliciously attach some sort of falsity or culpability to the Church or its present or past leaders for having multiple accounts of the First Vision..." as a "mini-anti-Christs." In which I stand on what I wrote. However, you are correct and I agree doing so is probably not helpful.

I don't think the form of the "openess" argument is faulty in and of itself rendering it fallacious. Even so, the church still keeps certain documents restricted like certain journals from prominent leaders of the past, etc. Also, part of the reason the Joseph Smith Papers project got so much acclaim, even from critics, was because the church was starting to be more open with its history. One may argue the implications of not being open, but it clearly is more open now than it once was.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

There is no culpability neither on the Church nor on Joseph Smith. Over time, priorities will change and the context we wish to teach will change. Note: I said context and priorities change, not the facts of the event. These changes could reasonably occur when we address different audiences, when we want to emphasize a certain key point or focus on a certain doctrine, e.g. the nature of the godhead, or if Satan exist, etc.. Because of this focus on a doctrine or to emphasize a point will in no way diminishes or magnify any of the accounts, but are used for a specific purpose.

If they try in sincerity try to attach some sort of falsity or culpability because there are differences in the accounts, then they are simply being ignorant and or silly.

However, to maliciously attach some sort of falsity or culpability to the Church or its present or past leaders for having multiple accounts of the First Vision, then the answer is simply they themselves are guilty of the act that they are making against the church or its leaders. And, IMO they are mini-anti-Christs.

I agree.  The church should blame those "ignorant and or silly" members that didn't read the footnotes that were in the teachers manuel which they didn't have a copy of.  It is all their fault.  They are just lazy members who expect to be taught everything and not have to do any individual digging.  

Of course the church also has to be ok with the fact that those "ignorant and or silly" members may very well leave the church because they no longer trust church leaders and "feel" like they have been deceived.  It's a wheat/tar goat/sheep thing.  They probably are leaving because they don't want to pay tithing any longer anyway.  This whole trust issue is just made up by anti Mormons who are unwilling to follow the leaders.

 

This is what a lot of these post sound like.  Maybe it is what those posting want it to sound like. The church never has any culaibility.  They want to make that perfectly clear at all costs.

Edited December 6, 2017 by california boy

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

I once did some work on the Ensign.  I was designing the layout for the articles that were already written.  I layed out an illustration that looked like a stain glass rendering of the subject matter.  It was rejected by the editors of the Ensign because "the church does not do stain glass".  Believe me, there are very strict guidelines on not only what is illustrated in the church magazines but also how they are illustrated.  The direction of what is wanted is quite precise.   What artwork you see in church publications is exactly what the church wants you to see.

Thanks, I've heard similar stories from others as well.  This is partly why many found the argument made in that seer stone Ensign article a couple years back so disingenuous.  The idea that it was the artists fault that all the depictions of the translation process were the way they were.  Correlation carefully controlled the artwork in the past and they continue to do so today. 

[Anijen]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There is a really significant difference between the four gospels and the 1832/1838 first visions accounts:

I certainly agree there are differences. Perhaps this is so because they are different. (forgive my snarkiness please.)

 

Quote

The gospels had different authors and not all of them were eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about.  The 1832 and 1838 first vision accounts had the same author and he was the eyewitness to the event. 

You quote me, but completely miss my point. The four different authors still were writing about the same events and the same Gospel and the same Savior. My point is not diminished at all by there being four different authors compared to one [Joseph Smith].

Having said that I will use your reasoning to make my point (again):

Jesus said;  "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (see John 5:31). Jesus also said (note: same author same book, same speaker); "Though, I bear record of myself, yet my record is true." (see John 8:14). Jesus was certainly the same speaker, it was in the same book (John), and Jesus certainly was an eye witness to the event. My point is the same one I emphasized earlier in a previous post, which is,  in different versions to different audiences at different times  does not make any of the versions false or make the motives of the authors suspect. It simply means they were emphasizing certain points, certain focuses of teaching. It neither changes the doctrine nor does it magnify or diminish the message.

Perhaps you are not yet convinced (hopefully others will be). Another example using your own reasoning. In Acts, chapters 9, 22, and 26 (same author [Luke], same book [Acts], same speaker [Paul]) there are three differing accounts of the conversion of Paul. This is an excellent comparison to the multiple accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision. Just because Pauls accounts are different (even contradictory). My point again (I know redundant), is,  in different versions to different audiences at different times  does not make any of the versions false or make the motives of the authors suspect. It simply means they were emphasizing certain points, certain focuses of teaching. It neither changes the doctrine nor does it magnify or diminish the message.

 

Quote

I recognize that this is the analogy used by President Hinckley (and probably others) but it is not a good comparison. 

Perhaps you have your own definition of comparison. To me there is no such thing as a perfect comparison (or in your words "a good comparison"),  simply because if it were so then it would not be a comparison but instead a mirror image reflection. A comparison does not need to be perfect or even good. We use comparisons to show a connection, sometimes to show a contrast, a correlation, or even a juxtaposition. For example, if I say;  I subscribe to the philosophical ideals of Gandhi and of the philosophical ideals of Marquis de Sade I have made a comparison of philosophers and of beliefs. Would the two being almost polar-opposites make this  not a "good comparison"?  

I think you are putting to much space between the analogy used by President Hinckley (and probably others) and your own concept of what is a good comparison.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

Didn't calm say that its a lack of study on the part of the member for why the member didn't know? And you liked her post. Why are you so obsessed with blaming the members? You have to acknowledge that a lack of understanding is an issue and some members fault the church for it and frankly the manuals haven't been as open in the past as they are today. So, the church should shoulder some of the responsibility, shouldn't it? Isn't this problem of not being as up front one of the reasons why the manuals were changed to have a section devoted to the multiple first vision accounts?

I have not blamed members or anyone else. It is you who are fixated on placing blame.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Kevin Christensen]

I recall Jesus saying in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7):

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

Back in 1975, just back from my mission, I was browsing through some thick stacks of Ensigns and Improvement Eras, looking for all things Nibley that I had, up to that point, had not asked for, not sought, and not had opened for me, I found the November 1970 issue of the Improvement Era, which had a Nibley essay, but also the cover story was on the different first vision accounts.  James Allen wrote that one, and it very good.  So once I asked and sought in various libraries and bookstores, and I soon found the BYU Studies publication of all the accounts,  discussions in back issues of Dialogue,  and not even hidden in a library, but for sale at the Deseret Book  across from Temple Square Bachman's The First Vision, which also had all the accounts, and discussions of the contexts, debates, and provided all the versions.  Since that initial flurry, I've also read all sorts of things, ranging from Tanners to Richard L. Anderson to Brode, and Matthew Brown's insightful books and FAIR presentation, Michael Quinn's dialogue essay, and at least three addition Ensign articles.  I found the Journal of Mormon History articles on the literary form and on the history of the pedagogical use of the 1838 account as starting in the 1870s.  Many good essays, and all sorts of grousing as well, none of which has persuaded me to join in.

One thing notably missing from my experience was any sense of betrayal or being lied to.  My thought process was, "Oh.. that's interesting.  I did not know that.  I wonder where I can go to learn more?"  One of the things that supported that lack of crisis was my own realization that I had just picked up a 1070 Improvement Era that had been in the house for years, and I hadn't been interested enough to look.  Another was that I was not an unusual Mormon in that regard, that is, that most people didn't know much, or read much or know better.  I'd been a teacher and so I knew something about teachers not being omniscient.  And I intuited that the same went for those who wrote manuals.  The institution church was an an assembly of people ( the Greek "ekklesia" for church has the primary meaning of assembly).  So it's a bunch of very human people with limited time and means and resources, and bound by those limits, as well as those of paradigm and culture and such. The church, the assembly of people, could be expected to behave like people, rather than God's sock puppets, doing only and exactly what he permits. 

I have noticed a law of the harvest regarding seeking and finding.  I've also noticed the chapter on "The Invisibility of Revolutions" in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and noticed how neatly it applies to the differences in 1960s LDS text books and the Joseph Smith papers.   Kuhn pointed out that paradigm shifts don't happen all at once for institutions, but take generations at times.

While getting involved in addiction recovery over the past decade plus, I have learned about the relationship between expectations, and resentments and a sense of entitlement.  Recovery involves letting go expectations, resentments, and that sense of entitlement.  "It's not what I would do! if I were there" does not demonstrate empathy or perspective.

I've noticed that none of the people grousing about the first vision tell me that in the 1832 account, about the above the line editing of the passage, "the ^Lord opened the heavens to me and I saw the Lord."  If the inserted "Lord" had been "God", we'd have no controversy.   Allen noticed that in his 1970 Improvement Era article.  And there was Matthew Brown's brilliant insight that the first paragraph of 1832 account likely references the Father witnessing the Son.  (See his FAIR presentation or his book.) 

Joseph Campbell notes that a function of Myth is to sustain a social order.  In politics, among competing social orders there are always rival attempts to control the narrative, the myth, the social order.  So how we tell stories, how read them, had consequences.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't mind talking about such issues. I'm not necessarily it's the appropriate focus for church lessons which are more devotional, motivational and doctrinal. It seems just a fact that the '32 version isn't that useful pedagogically. The elements it has are also had in the other accounts. So beyond mentioning it's existence and dealing with purported implications from it, I guess I just don't see why it'd be used rather than the '38 or even '35 version.

Even if you're focused on what changed for Joseph, it's not at all clear that the '32 text is the ideal text to discuss that. It simply doesn't deal with most of the major changes in theology.

Well I agree but as I said to Stemelbow I don't see that as a problem given the focus. Further what's generally taught doesn't mean the other isn't taught. However again the '32 version just isn't as useful for most things one wants to teach. I could point at lots of scriptures that don't get quoted or even historical texts by Joseph Smith.

Yeah I just disagree with that. I think people have a duty to learn. Most people don't. Blaming the Church when they've clearly done a reasonable job on the issues seems silly. Further I think conflating "the narrative" with putting the facts out is mixing two completely different issues. More or less it makes the following argument:

1. people do the absolute minimum and only pay attention to what's forced repeatably in Sunday School although they'll never do the reading

2. some people freaked out when finding out there were multiple first vision accounts despite it being mentioned fairly often

3. therefore the church should make sure people who do the minimum amount of study possible know about what freaked those people out

4. if the Church doesn't get it so people who do the minimum amount of study possible know about this they aren't being transparent

I just think that a horrible argument. The fact is it gets regularly quoted from in the Ensign. General Authorities have discussed it including President Hinkley. It's in any biography of Joseph Smith. Clearly people aren't still finding it so you want a full lesson on it which is more or less acknowledging that it's there but people aren't finding it. 

The question becomes why, since the 1832 account is only a problem in strained readings, the Church should focus on it to that degree? Wouldn't other items that people are also ignorant of also need addressing? I recognize that it seems like the Church might just do this. I'm not sure that's wise of the Church and would actually tell them not to do it if I were advising them. And that's coming from someone who's a big advocate of the inoculation approach to controversy. The one exception would be the Joseph Smith Priesthood manual which I think should have had all four accounts in the chapter on the First Vision. There I think you have a point.

I guess we'll have to disagree regarding the sufficiency of the teaching of the 1832 account over past decades.  Hopefully we agree that the church does have some vested interest in building/maintaining faith and commitment among its members.  With that as a basis, I would cite these three relatively recent comments from general authorities:

• Ballard's 2016 address to CES in which he called upon them to inoculate the upcoming generation and make the "gone are the days" statement.
• Church Historian Snow's call for more openness.
• Ballard's response in the recent YSA Q&A devotional wherein apparently out of ~4,000 questions the issue of multiple first vision accounts was a common enough theme to have made the final list of questions.

I think these points illustrate that we, as a church, have not done all we ought to have done to help members understand both the existence and content of the first vision accounts.  Onward and upward.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I recall Jesus saying in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7):

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

Back in 1975, just back from my mission, I was browsing through some thick stacks of Ensigns and Improvement Eras, looking for all things Nibley that I had, up to that point, had not asked for, not sought, and not had opened for me, I found the November 1970 issue of the Improvement Era, which had a Nibley essay, but also the cover story was on the different first vision accounts.  James Allen wrote that one, and it very good.  So once I asked and sought in various libraries and bookstores, and I soon found the BYU Studies publication of all the accounts,  discussions in back issues of Dialogue,  and not even hidden in a library, but for sale at the Deseret Book  across from Temple Square Bachman's The First Vision, which also had all the accounts, and discussions of the contexts, debates, and provided all the versions.  Since that initial flurry, I've also read all sorts of things, ranging from Tanners to Richard L. Anderson to Brode, and Matthew Brown's insightful books and FAIR presentation, Michael Quinn's dialogue essay, and at least three addition Ensign articles.  I found the Journal of Mormon History articles on the literary form and on the history of the pedagogical use of the 1838 account as starting in the 1870s.  Many good essays, and all sorts of grousing as well, none of which has persuaded me to join in.

One thing notably missing from my experience was any sense of betrayal or being lied to.  My thought process was, "Oh.. that's interesting.  I did not know that.  I wonder where I can go to learn more?"  One of the things that supported that lack of crisis was my own realization that I had just picked up a 1070 Improvement Era that had been in the house for years, and I hadn't been interested enough to look.  Another was that I was not an unusual Mormon in that regard, that is, that most people didn't know much, or read much or know better.  I'd been a teacher and so I knew something about teachers not being omniscient.  And I intuited that the same went for those who wrote manuals.  The institution church was an an assembly of people ( the Greek "ekklesia" for church has the primary meaning of assembly).  So it's a bunch of very human people with limited time and means and resources, and bound by those limits, as well as those of paradigm and culture and such. The church, the assembly of people, could be expected to behave like people, rather than God's sock puppets, doing only and exactly what he permits. 

I have noticed a law of the harvest regarding seeking and finding.  I've also noticed the chapter on "The Invisibility of Revolutions" in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and noticed how neatly it applies to the differences in 1960s LDS text books and the Joseph Smith papers.   Kuhn pointed out that paradigm shifts don't happen all at once for institutions, but take generations at times.

While getting involved in addition recovery over the past decade plus, I have learned about the relationship between expectations, and resentments and a sense of entitlement.  Recovery involves letting go expectations, resentments, and that sense of entitlement.  "It's not what I would do! if I were there" does not demonstrate empathy or perspective.

I've noticed that none of the people grousing about the first vision tell me that in the 1832 account, about the above the line editing of the passage, "the ^Lord opened the heavens to me and I saw the Lord."  If the inserted "Lord" had been "God", we'd have no controversy.   Allen noticed that in his 1970 Improvement Era article.  And there was Matthew Brown's brilliant insight that the first paragraph of 1832 account likely references the Father witnessing the Son.  (See his FAIR presentation or his book.) 

Joseph Campbell notes that a function of Myth is to sustain a social order.  In politics, among competing social orders there are always rival attempts to control the narrative, the myth, the social order.  So how we tell stories, how read them, had consequences.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Not everyone returned from their missions to find access to stacks of old Ensigns.

I have a hard time shaming good and faithful church members for not knowing what to even look for or ask.

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by rockpond

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I certainly agree there are differences. Perhaps this is so because they are different. (forgive my snarkiness please.)

 

You quote me, but completely miss my point. The four different authors still were writing about the same events and the same Gospel and the same Savior. My point is not diminished at all by there being four different authors compared to one [Joseph Smith].

Having said that I will use your reasoning to make my point (again):

Jesus said;  "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (see John 5:31). Jesus also said (note: same author same book, same speaker); "Though, I bear record of myself, yet my record is true." (see John 8:14). Jesus was certainly the same speaker, it was in the same book (John), and Jesus certainly was an eye witness to the event. My point is the same one I emphasized earlier in a previous post, which is,  in different versions to different audiences at different times  does not make any of the versions false or make the motives of the authors suspect. It simply means they were emphasizing certain points, certain focuses of teaching. It neither changes the doctrine nor does it magnify or diminish the message.

Perhaps you are not yet convinced (hopefully others will be). Another example using your own reasoning. In Acts, chapters 9, 22, and 26 (same author [Luke], same book [Acts], same speaker [Paul]) there are three differing accounts of the conversion of Paul. This is an excellent comparison to the multiple accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision. Just because Pauls accounts are different (even contradictory). My point again (I know redundant), is,  in different versions to different audiences at different times  does not make any of the versions false or make the motives of the authors suspect. It simply means they were emphasizing certain points, certain focuses of teaching. It neither changes the doctrine nor does it magnify or diminish the message.

 

Perhaps you have your own definition of comparison. To me there is no such thing as a perfect comparison (or in your words "a good comparison"),  simply because if it were so then it would not be a comparison but instead a mirror image reflection. A comparison does not need to be perfect or even good. We use comparisons to show a connection, sometimes to show a contrast, a correlation, or even a juxtaposition. For example, if I say;  I subscribe to the philosophical ideals of Gandhi and of the philosophical ideals of Marquis de Sade I have made a comparison of philosophers and of beliefs. Would the two being almost polar-opposites make this  not a "good comparison"?  

I think you are putting to much space between the analogy used by President Hinckley (and probably others) and your own concept of what is a good comparison.

I agree that there is no perfect comparison - which is why I wrote that it was not a "good comparison".

Your Acts example is a much better analogy.  I would recommend leading with that next time.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not everyone returned from their missions to find access to stacks of old Ensigns.

Agreed, and I think that while Kevin's experience is perfectly valid, that this is the exception rather than the rule.  For every one Kevin type experience you have multiple other people who are surprised by finding out about other versions of the vision and who had no idea they existed or that they had material differences. 

The fact that we're even talking about it means that its been an issue for many people.  If it hadn't been an issue for anyone, then it wouldn't come up on these message boards or be talked about at all, and the church wouldn't have written an essay on the subject or devoted all the time and money they did to do a mashup video of the first vision for the new history library. 

[Anijen]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree.  The church should blame those "ignorant and or silly" members that didn't read the footnotes that were in the teachers manuel which they didn't have a copy of.

Your sarcasm is noted.

The laziness, ignorance, or silliness of any members is a straw man argument and has nothing to do with the issue I was speaking on. Because a member might be silly, lazy, ignorant, or if the member did not read the footnotes in the teachers manual (which I add is hard to do if they do not have a copy of the manual) has absolutely nothing to do with a "lack of openness" or of the critical examination of Joseph Smiths' First Vision accounts.

 

Quote

 It is all their fault.  They are just lazy members who expect to be taught everything and not have to do any individual digging.  

Have no clue what your point is here.

 

 

Quote

Of course the church also has to be ok with the fact that those "ignorant and or silly" members may very well leave the church because they no longer trust church leaders and "feel" like they have been deceived.  It's a wheat/tar goat/sheep thing.  They probably are leaving because they don't want to pay tithing any longer anyway.  This whole trust issue is just made up by anti Mormons who are unwilling to follow the leaders.

These are your words and not mine. Your words (above) are neither close to the issues I have written about nor do they add any affective value to the conversation.

 

Quote

This is what a lot of these post sound like.  

Since you have quoted me, I say emphatically that my post do not even come close to sounding like that. That is why I called it a strawman argument. You have set-up this narrative, in which I have never used, and then attacked that narrative that you set up (hence a strawman argument)

 

Quote

Maybe it is what those posting want it to sound like. The church never has any culaibility.  They want to make that perfectly clear at all costs.

I admit the Church is not perfect because the people (both member and non-member). Humans are not perfect. Yet the imperfection lies in the weakness of people, not in the Gospel, not in the restoration, not in revelation, not in scripture, but the people.

People having weaknesses is kind of world-wide.

The mistakes of people the blame is on the people, never the Savior or His restored Church. If a church has culpability it is because of imperfect members not a church. Yes I would like to make that perfectly clear.

 

[Gray]

47 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I certainly agree there are differences. Perhaps this is so because they are different. (forgive my snarkiness please.)

 

You quote me, but completely miss my point. The four different authors still were writing about the same events and the same Gospel and the same Savior. My point is not diminished at all by there being four different authors compared to one [Joseph Smith].

Having said that I will use your reasoning to make my point (again):

Jesus said;  "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." (see John 5:31). Jesus also said (note: same author same book, same speaker); "Though, I bear record of myself, yet my record is true." (see John 8:14). Jesus was certainly the same speaker, it was in the same book (John), and Jesus certainly was an eye witness to the event. My point is the same one I emphasized earlier in a previous post, which is,  in different versions to different audiences at different times  does not make any of the versions false or make the motives of the authors suspect. It simply means they were emphasizing certain points, certain focuses of teaching. It neither changes the doctrine nor does it magnify or diminish the message.

Perhaps you are not yet convinced (hopefully others will be). Another example using your own reasoning. In Acts, chapters 9, 22, and 26 (same author [Luke], same book [Acts], same speaker [Paul]) there are three differing accounts of the conversion of Paul. This is an excellent comparison to the multiple accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision. Just because Pauls accounts are different (even contradictory). My point again (I know redundant), is,  in different versions to different audiences at different times  does not make any of the versions false or make the motives of the authors suspect. It simply means they were emphasizing certain points, certain focuses of teaching. It neither changes the doctrine nor does it magnify or diminish the message.

 

Perhaps you have your own definition of comparison. To me there is no such thing as a perfect comparison (or in your words "a good comparison"),  simply because if it were so then it would not be a comparison but instead a mirror image reflection. A comparison does not need to be perfect or even good. We use comparisons to show a connection, sometimes to show a contrast, a correlation, or even a juxtaposition. For example, if I say;  I subscribe to the philosophical ideals of Gandhi and of the philosophical ideals of Marquis de Sade I have made a comparison of philosophers and of beliefs. Would the two being almost polar-opposites make this  not a "good comparison"?  

I think you are putting to much space between the analogy used by President Hinckley (and probably others) and your own concept of what is a good comparison.

The Acts account of Paul does contradict Paul's own account.

[Anijen]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Agreed, and I think that while Kevin's experience is perfectly valid, that this is the exception rather than the rule.  For every one Kevin type experience you have multiple other people who are surprised by finding out about other versions of the vision and who had no idea they existed or that they had material differences. 

The fact that we're even talking about it means that its been an issue for many people.  If it hadn't been an issue for anyone, then it wouldn't come up on these message boards or be talked about at all, and the church wouldn't have written an essay on the subject or devoted all the time and money they did to do a mashup video of the first vision for the new history library. 

I really like your reply.

Each point you make is valid. I hope when my posts are read that people on this board will see I am not just a member defending with blind faith. The things you mentioned do take place and should be looked at from individual points of view. We all have different levels of knowledge, different levels of access to church history, different levels of faith, different levels of anti-voices fighting for our attention. In my small sphere of influence I am trying to make the position in this thread that; (1) the Church does NOT hide its history and, (2) the multiple accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision are different but those differences neither changes the doctrine nor does it magnify or diminish the message.

Thank you so much for your post, one which is not inflammatory, ad hominem, or contentious. I wish sometimes all my post were that way. Alas, sometimes (oft times) my emotion will sneak out onto my words.

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Your sarcasm is noted.

The laziness, ignorance, or silliness of any members is a straw man argument and has nothing to do with the issue I was speaking on. Because a member might be silly, lazy, ignorant, or if the member did not read the footnotes in the teachers manual (which I add is hard to do if they do not have a copy of the manual) has absolutely nothing to do with a "lack of openness" or of the critical examination of Joseph Smiths' First Vision accounts.

 

Have no clue what your point is here.

 

 

These are your words and not mine. Your words (above) are neither close to the issues I have written about nor do they add any affective value to the conversation.

 

Since you have quoted me, I say emphatically that my post do not even come close to sounding like that. That is why I called it a strawman argument. You have set-up this narrative, in which I have never used, and then attacked that narrative that you set up (hence a strawman argument)

 

I admit the Church is not perfect because the people (both member and non-member). Humans are not perfect. Yet the imperfection lies in the weakness of people, not in the Gospel, not in the restoration, not in revelation, not in scripture, but the people.

People having weaknesses is kind of world-wide.

The mistakes of people the blame is on the people, never the Savior or His restored Church. If a church has culpability it is because of imperfect members not a church. Yes I would like to make that perfectly clear.

 

You do realize I was quoting your very phrase "laziness, ignorance, or silliness".  I guess now I can thank you for pointing out your own straw man argument.

I agree with you that the people in the church are not perfect.  Neither is the church for the very reason that it is run by imperfect people.  What is the Gospel other than the things taught by those imperfect People?  And evidently they are also not capable of acknowledging past faults that have occurred.  It is part of this arrogance that I believe drives people further away from the church.  It is much easier for most people to forgive and move on when the person who has caused the offense admits to the offense and sincerely apologizes.  I know, what a concept.  One church leaders have yet to grasp, though it is a very core part of that Gospel you speak of.

[Anijen]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

The Acts account of Paul does contradict Paul's own account.

I agree, I do not find contradiction in Saul/Paul conversion as found in Acts. However, some people have found contradiction. I will post the relevant parts below. In Acts Paul's conversion has differences, whether one believes or not, the differences are there in the Paul's conversion story.  My point would be regarding these accounts is that Saul was converted, he became Paul and was a significant contributor to the New Testament, and an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.

• Acts 9:3-8 The men with Paul did not see a light, but heard the voice, they remained standing."
• Acts 22:6-11 The men with Paul saw the light but, and did not hear the voice."
• Acts 26:13-19 there is no mention of the men hearing or seeing a light yet they fell down.

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I really like your reply.

Each point you make is valid. I hope when my posts are read that people on this board will see I am not just a member defending with blind faith. The things you mentioned do take place and should be looked at from individual points of view. We all have different levels of knowledge, different levels of access to church history, different levels of faith, different levels of anti-voices fighting for our attention. In my small sphere of influence I am trying to make the position in this thread that; (1) the Church does NOT hide its history and, (2) the multiple accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision are different but those differences neither changes the doctrine nor does it magnify or diminish the message.

Thank you so much for your post, one which is not inflammatory, ad hominem, or contentious. I wish sometimes all my post were that way. Alas, sometimes (oft times) my emotion will sneak out onto my words.

Thanks for the praise, I appreciate thoughtful exchanges and I try to do the same, but sometimes I fail at it, so its a work in progress.    Just two comments on your points. 

1. The church doesn't hide its history.  I disagree on this point, primarily because "The Church" is not a monolith, it is actually just a group of disparate people, many of which individually do try to hide history, we have examples like the Joseph Fielding Smith one hiding the 1832 account, or Gordon Hinckley in the 1980s buying Hoffman documents for the purposes of suppressing them, or the many documents over time that have been in the restricted section some of which are now seeing the light of day, but many which are still restricted.  Being honest about what has been hidden and what is still being hidden (we don't have details about it, precisely because its still restricted) is important.  Now all that said, I don't believe there is a conspiracy to hide documents, or necessarily a policy of hiding, but whatever leaders are in their positions of authority that make the decisions to restrict information, that is on their shoulders individually, yet they are representing the church as an institution when they make these decisions.  So it think its fair to call these decisions made by "The Church". 

2. There are significant differences in the first vision accounts to me.  Not everyone feels the same way and that's fine, different experiences for different people.   Some argue that the differences aren't important and that they are to be expected.  I'm sympathetic to those arguments, and I would agree that they are valid for those people.  Personally, I would like the church to stop using a vision as historical proof of the validity of Joseph Smith as a prophet, or the tangible nature of the Godhead, and we won't have this problem.  Its the expectations and the lofty status given to that account and the rhetoric by church leaders like President Hinckley, that have created such high status for this event in our history.  

[Anijen]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

You do realize I was quoting your very phrase "laziness, ignorance, or silliness".

Yes, I of course realize you quoted the words I used ["laziness, ignorance, or silliness"]. But you placed them in an entirely different context, using sarcasm (I did not use sarcasm), and not in any way close or in relation to how I had used them. Thus, a strawman argument by you. Quoting the words I used, but not in the manner I used them and then attacking that manner that you set up is a classic strawman argument.

 

Quote

 I guess now I can thank you for pointing out your own straw man argument.

See my response above. It is you using a strawman not me. Or perhaps you do not know what a strawman argument is, in that case, see also my response above.

 

 

Quote

I agree with you that the people in the church are not perfect.  Neither is the church for the very reason that it is run by imperfect people.  What is the Gospel other than the things taught by those imperfect People?

We are in agreement here.

 

Quote

And evidently they are also not capable of acknowledging past faults that have occurred.  It is part of this arrogance that I believe drives people further away from the church.  

Who are "they"? The Church or people, or members? I agree arrogance of people could (and has) drive/driven people further from the church. Arrogance in general repels most people no matter where from. I think we are in agreement here (if you are speaking of the arrogance of people and not the church).

 

Quote

It is much easier for most people to forgive and move on when the person who has caused the offense admits to the offense and sincerely apologizes.

We are in agreement here.

 

Quote

One church leaders have yet to grasp, though it is a very core part of that Gospel you speak of.

What are the church leaders failing to grasp?

The part of the gospel I have been speaking of is the accusation that the church hides its history, which I do not believe they do, or the multiple accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision are detrimental to the Church. The Church obviously did not hide the multiple accounts of Joseph's first vision we can read about them in many histories, journal accounts, newspapers, etc.. The Church has addressed them many times (not just currently). Because it [multiple accounts of the First Vision] is a popular topic now neither means it is just coming to light, nor does it mean the Church hid it.

Furthermore, I do not believe either issue is a core part of the gospel. To me the core part of the Gospel is to bring people to the knowledge of Christ and to help convert them.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Not everyone returned from their missions to find access to stacks of old Ensigns.

I have a hard time shaming good and faithful church members for not knowing what to even look for or ask.

 

And I have a hard time drowning newborn kittens. Luckily for me, I haven't seen anyone drowning newborn kittens. Luckily for you, nobody's been "shaming good and faithful church members."

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Or it would be like blaming the Church for Deseret Book selling the Harry Potter series (if it did; I'm not sure it does).

It did when it had its bigger stores.  Haven't gone into one for years so couldn't say now.

[kiwi57]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the praise, I appreciate thoughtful exchanges and I try to do the same, but sometimes I fail at it, so its a work in progress.    Just two comments on your points. 

1. The church doesn't hide its history.  I disagree on this point, primarily because "The Church" is not a monolith, it is actually just a group of disparate people, many of which individually do try to hide history, we have examples like the Joseph Fielding Smith one hiding the 1832 account,

That is a claim that has yet to be proven. Repeated assertion is not proof.

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

or Gordon Hinckley in the 1980s buying Hoffman documents for the purposes of suppressing them,

That assertion is a proven falsehood that has been thoroughly discredited. Just so you know.

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

or the many documents over time that have been in the restricted section some of which are now seeing the light of day, but many which are still restricted.  Being honest about what has been hidden and what is still being hidden (we don't have details about it, precisely because its still restricted) is important.  Now all that said, I don't believe there is a conspiracy to hide documents, or necessarily a policy of hiding, but whatever leaders are in their positions of authority that make the decisions to restrict information, that is on their shoulders individually, yet they are representing the church as an institution when they make these decisions.  So it think its fair to call these decisions made by "The Church". 

2. There are significant differences in the first vision accounts to me.  Not everyone feels the same way and that's fine, different experiences for different people.   Some argue that the differences aren't important and that they are to be expected.  I'm sympathetic to those arguments, and I would agree that they are valid for those people.  Personally, I would like the church to stop using a vision as historical proof of the validity of Joseph Smith as a prophet, or the tangible nature of the Godhead, and we won't have this problem.

"Historical proof?" Who has done that?

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  Its the expectations and the lofty status given to that account and the rhetoric by church leaders like President Hinckley, that have created such high status for this event in our history.  

The event is rather more important than the quibbling over details in the accounts thereof.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I guess we'll have to disagree regarding the sufficiency of the teaching of the 1832 account over past decades.  Hopefully we agree that the church does have some vested interest in building/maintaining faith and commitment among its members.  With that as a basis, I would cite these three relatively recent comments from general authorities:

• Ballard's 2016 address to CES in which he called upon them to inoculate the upcoming generation and make the "gone are the days" statement.
• Church Historian Snow's call for more openness.
• Ballard's response in the recent YSA Q&A devotional wherein apparently out of ~4,000 questions the issue of multiple first vision accounts was a common enough theme to have made the final list of questions.

I think these points illustrate that we, as a church, have not done all we ought to have done to help members understand both the existence and content of the first vision accounts.  Onward and upward.

There's two separate issues as I suggested. First inoculation is, I think, a good thing. If people are leaving because of something you deal with it. That is quite different from the issue of accountability you raised. I can think someone is responsible for their ignorance while simultaneously want to help solve that ignorance. That's just basic charity. I help people even if most of their problems of are of their own making.

To me if the Church is telling people to read the Church magazines (this was much more significant in the days before lds.org), is putting it in their historic magazines, it's in the biographies pushed by church oriented publishers, people are told to study, then I think that leads to a reasonable degree of accountability. Don't get me wrong. I understand why many were ignorant. But I could probably come up with 20 key beliefs of Mormonism that at least half the members are ignorant of despite their regularly being covered even at Church. So while I'm sympathetic to people ignorant of more obscure things I confess I have far less sympathy regarding key teachings or things like this. When you move to the post lds.org days then I have almost zero sympathy. It's too easy to find these things.

Edited December 6, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

Didn't calm say that its a lack of study on the part of the member for why the member didn't know? 

If someone takes a class in chemistry and doesn't study the required text, is it their responsibility or the professors?

If a member took the Institute class and then refused to read the text or listen to the teacher when studying that chapter in class and therefore remained unaware of the material in the text, how is it anyone's responsibility but their own?

If they didn't take the class, that is different. Please don't assume I am generalizing to all members.  I am specifying those who took the Institute class only.