Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Nature of Joseph Smith's First Vision


First Vision: Dream, Visitation?  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. This nature of Joseph Smith's First Vision was raised and discussed in another thread. Was it a dream? Some form of physical visitation? How are we defining "vision"? So, here is how I'd like to phrase the question: If someone had been standing 10 feet behind Joseph Smith, would they have also seen God the Father and/or Jesus Christ? (This assumes "all else equal"... meaning: please ignore the fact that if another person had been there, the First Vision likely would have been postponed by Joseph Smith or God.)

    • Yes. A person standing 10 feet behind Joseph would have seen the Heavenly Being(s).
      14
    • No. A person standing 10 feet behind Joseph would NOT have seen the Heavenly Being(s).
      24
    • Something else... please elaborate.
      12


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Hmm...  I think it does matter, at least in this sense.   If God does exist as an actual being, and if humans do continue to live after they die and these humans have some sense of physical form and actually can visit living humans to give them special authority and keys in the way that Joseph Smith claims, then I think it would matter.  Isn't the church making a very bold claim with respect to all of this history.  They are claiming something that isn't just subjective and mystical is happening.  They are claiming a transaction occurred and that this transaction grants special powers to the leaders of the church.  Its a pretty bold claim if you think about it.  

To give another analogy.  What if a group of UFO believers were claiming that aliens visited them and gave them futuristic technology that is far more advanced than anything earthlings are able to comprehend.  And this UFO group is using this technology to communicate with other worlds and even travel to distant planets.  If this was real I think it would matter a great deal.  

What do you think? 

There's really no transaction during the first vision. There is a conversation which could just as easily be done physically or mentally/spiritually/ etc. I think your argument would hold more sway for visitations in which there was physical contact, like bestowal of priesthood authority. IOW- it would be hard for John the Baptist, or Peter, James, and John, or Elijah to bestow keys by the laying on of hands, if they weren't physically present. But there is no physical transaction like that during the first vision.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So spirits don't have a physical presence? How then are they visible?

No, I don’t believe a spirit has a physical presence.  One definition of spirit is the “non-physical part of a person”. 

But I also believe that spirits can be visible to people when they so choose.  But then they would be spiritually visible. 

 

Link to comment

I think the First Vision did not actually happen and that it was something Joseph Smith either fabricated or made up in his own mind because of the following reasons:

1. The first recorded account of the First Vision wasn't until 1832, which is 12 years after the 1820 vision supposedly occurred.

2. Moreover, there are other accounts that differ from the 1832 version, which, IMO, are not consistent with this event actually taking place in 1820 (too many discrepancies IMO). 

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

3. Visions were common during the early 1800s, so I see Joseph Smith's vision as a product of his own time/mind, and not a divine event (see below).

"Visions in the early 1800s were common. In modern times if someone said they had a vision it would seem extraordinary, or more likely not believable. However in the early 1800s having visions wasn't perceived to be all that uncommon. Even Joseph Smith's father claimed to have had a vision - namely the Tree of Life vision. People believed in magic, seer stones, divining rods, etc. and people claiming to have visions weren't seen as all that strange. Like much of Joseph's work, the first vision is strikingly similar to someone else's story."

"FairMormon Response

FACT CHECKING RESULTS: THIS CLAIM IS BASED UPON CORRECT INFORMATION - THE AUTHOR IS PROVIDING KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING SOME PARTICULAR FACT, SUBJECT, OR EVENT

This is true. Joseph was not the only one to report having a vision."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The_First_Vision#Response_to_claim:_In_the_early_1800s_having_visions_wasn.27t_perceived_to_be_all_that_uncommon

4. IMO, Joseph Smith was a great story teller:

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.[1]"

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/"Amusing_recitals"_of_ancient_American_inhabitants#cite_note-1




Link to comment
5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I don’t believe a spirit has a physical presence.  One definition of spirit is the “non-physical part of a person”. 

But I also believe that spirits can be visible to people when they so choose.  But then they would be spiritually visible. 

 

That definition of Spirit contradicts the teaching that Spirit is composed of matter. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There's really no transaction during the first vision. There is a conversation which could just as easily be done physically or mentally/spiritually/ etc. I think your argument would hold more sway for visitations in which there was physical contact, like bestowal of priesthood authority. IOW- it would be hard for John the Baptist, or Peter, James, and John, or Elijah to bestow keys by the laying on of hands, if they weren't physically present. But there is no physical transaction like that during the first vision.

Right, I guess I'm conflating the FV with the later authority claims.  In that sense I think it would matter.  But I guess if you're God and you want to send someone a dream, or if you want to show up in person, it wouldn't matter as far as how effective that communication is.  

It would be kind of cool if God sent a message like they do in Mission Impossible movies.  I'm thinking of a tablet that self destructs after the person receives the message, in order to erase all evidence of the secret communication.  

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't attribute them to the supernatural. Visions are a natural part of the human experience. A sizeable percentage of the population experiences them. Whether there is anything external to the mind going on in any particular vision is unknowable. Personally I don't think God literally sends communications to anyone, but that doesn't mean people don't really experience visions.

We do have plenty of clinical experience with delusional people, and there is nothing at all new about that.  We can read about them in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV).  Nothing at all supernatural about all that.  At the same time, we have plenty of accounts of visions and vernacular "magic" from ordinary people -- the Michael Marquardt papers in the Univ of Utah Special Collections has a nice assemblage, and one can discern some typical patterns in those accounts.  The same applies to folklore worldwide, and anthropologists study it under the rubric of ethnology.  Literary analysts examine the tropes in-common worldwide as well.

Normative theologians attribute some of that to the supernatural, and this is true of mainstream Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology generally. It is, by its very nature, impossible to evaluate in a scientific manner.  Natural systems, on the other hand, are always amenable to scientific inquiry. You are mistaken to claim that "Whether there is anything external to the mind going on in any particular vision is unknowable."  Natural systems are always subject to hard, forensic examination.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, rockpond said:

The question doesn't have anything to do with the reality of the First Vision.  It is just meant to explore the nature of it...

Was it a visitation of two physical beings, actually present in the Sacred Grove?

Was it a dream being experienced within Joseph's mind?

Was it some kind of spiritual vision in which they appeared to be floating in front of him but they weren't physically there?

I'm curious how people understand it.  Do you want to weigh in?

I do not see the purpose because the answer is unknowabe and any conclusion drawn will be worthless anyway.

And what others think will be irrelevant to my way of thinking about it.

So I guess the answer is no. :)

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

While this is strictly true in a 100% objective accuracy sense, everyone will have a slightly different interpretation of events that occur, there is a level of agreement that typically can be arrived at when people are queried about group experiences.  Especially if the witnesses are close to the action and interviewed quickly after the experience before they have a chance to discuss the experience with others.  

Accuracy declines as distance increases between the observer and the action as well as when the length of time between the event and the accounting of the even by the witness is recorded. 

But that doesn't mean all perceptions are equally removed from "reality".  Some are more accurate representations than others in an objective sense.  

Irrelevant. This is not a group experience. And no representation is closer to reality than any other do I have to play the Rorty video again?

Link to comment

I think Don Bradleys presentation on The First Vision is a must read for this topic. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2013/the-original-context-of-the-first-vision-narrative-1820s-or-1830s

i think he makes a compelling argument that the account fits the time. There’s also an interesting bit from one telling in his home that he could only see God in the vision after God touches his eye. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not see the purpose because the answer is unknowabe and any conclusion drawn will be worthless anyway.

And what others think will be irrelevant to my way of thinking about it.

So I guess the answer is no. :)

 

I already knew what I thought and believed on the matter.  Just curious how others interpreted it.   So the question was simply for the sake of discussion. 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Irrelevant. This is not a group experience. And no representation is closer to reality than any other do I have to play the Rorty video again?

Huh?  Its relevant to the OP and to your post, I was commenting on what you said, see below.   The OP talked about if someone else were in the grove, what would they have experienced.  That is what my comments are about, if another person were there, what would they experience.  

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Does anybody standing 10 feet behind me see what I can see?

No, because I am in the way.

Do you see the same colors I do and notice the same things? Do you feel what I feel and interpret what we see the same way?

Link to comment
10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think Don Bradleys presentation on The First Vision is a must read for this topic. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2013/the-original-context-of-the-first-vision-narrative-1820s-or-1830s

i think he makes a compelling argument that the account fits the time. There’s also an interesting bit from one telling in his home that he could only see God in the vision after God touches his eye. 

A couple other articles worthy of review on this topic.  Greg Prince essay from the Journal of Mormon History in Oct 2015.  

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.41.4.74?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

And this back and forth discussion between Ann Taves and Steven Harper in the Mormon Studies Review in 2016 .  

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3772&index=7

Link to comment
17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 

Accuracy declines as distance increases between the observer and the action as well as when the length of time between the event and the accounting of the even by the witness is recorded. 

But that doesn't mean all perceptions are equally removed from "reality".  Some are more accurate representations than others in an objective sense.  

The point is, there is no such thing as "accuracy" there is nothing logically to talk about other than agreement between the parties about the experience.  And yes interpretations and memory changes the accounts IF there were others at the event.

And no there are no accurate representations of reality. All there are is agreement about perceptions.

In this case we have are accounts of a solitary experience that one person had.

What others would experience if there was anything for them to experience is another question and total worthless speculation.

I think this -well I think that.

Well I think the moon is made of green cheese.

It's useless.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The point is, there is no such thing as "accuracy" there is nothing logically to talk about other than agreement between the parties about the experience.  And yes interpretations and memory changes the accounts IF there were others at the event.

And no there are no accurate representations of reality. All there are is agreement about perceptions.

In this case we have are accounts of a solitary experience that one person had.

What others would experience if there was anything for them to experience is another question and total worthless speculation.

I think this -well I think that.

Well I think the moon is made of green cheese.

It's useless.

This is probably a point we keep differing on.  My struggle with what you're saying is that it seems to me you are taking a philosophical point about the interpretation of reality, and applying that in a very universal and strict sense.  

On the other hand there is the practical nature of how we operate in the world, and that is what I'm speaking to.  Of course there are more accurate interpretations of reality, how else do all these tools that we use every day work so well.   In practice, we operate in a world of accurate representations of reality, and the more accurate the more benefit for society.  

If accuracy isn't important, then everyones opinion about what they experience is equally credible.  Everyday is Halloween.  

Edited by hope_for_things
Link to comment

Since all we have to go on here is speculation, what about the idea that Heavenly Father and Jesus exist in a different dimension or sphere than we do (going along with the previously taught idea that the Spirit world is right here on the earth but a different sphere than the one we interact with), then JS could have been in the grove, in the physical presence of God and Christ, without God and Christ physically being in our world (or being visible to anyone near).  

All that would be needed is an open "door" between both spheres or dimensions.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Since all we have to go on here is speculation, what about the idea that Heavenly Father and Jesus exist in a different dimension or sphere than we do (going along with the previously taught idea that the Spirit world is right here on the earth but a different sphere than the one we interact with), then JS could have been in the grove, in the physical presence of God and Christ, without God and Christ physically being in our world (or being visible to anyone near).  

All that would be needed is an open "door" between both spheres or dimensions.

That's as possible as any other theory.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We do have plenty of clinical experience with delusional people, and there is nothing at all new about that.  We can read about them in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV).  Nothing at all supernatural about all that.  At the same time, we have plenty of accounts of visions and vernacular "magic" from ordinary people -- the Michael Marquardt papers in the Univ of Utah Special Collections has a nice assemblage, and one can discern some typical patterns in those accounts.  The same applies to folklore worldwide, and anthropologists study it under the rubric of ethnology.  Literary analysts examine the tropes in-common worldwide as well.

Normative theologians attribute some of that to the supernatural, and this is true of mainstream Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology generally. It is, by its very nature, impossible to evaluate in a scientific manner.  Natural systems, on the other hand, are always amenable to scientific inquiry. You are mistaken to claim that "Whether there is anything external to the mind going on in any particular vision is unknowable."  Natural systems are always subject to hard, forensic examination.

If indeed a vision involves some kind of tangible connection to a God that exists in physical reality (something like a radio frequency being broadcast into the mind?), I suppose technically it would be possible to detect. But there's always the escape clause that we simply don't understand God's methods well enough to detect his influence, so in practice it amounts to the same kinds of arguments used by people with a supernatural view of God. Undetectable and unknowable either in theory or due to the limits of our science. Either way, it is taken purely on faith that the source of the vision is external to the mind.

I heard an interesting story by a Rabbi about an experiment he took part in in the 60s. A bunch of students were made to listen to pink noise, played pretty loudly on a speaker. The Rabbi, as a student, started to hear very clearly a classical guitar piece in the midst of the noise. He was surprised to discover afterwords that he was the only one who heard it. His mind created the guitar performance in the midst of the rushing noise. He compared that to the nature of what revelation is.

Edited by Gray
Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This is probably a point we keep differing on.  My struggle with what you're saying is that it seems to me you are taking a philosophical point about the interpretation of reality, and applying that in a very universal and strict sense.  

On the other hand there is the practical nature of how we operate in the world, and that is what I'm speaking to.  Of course there are more accurate interpretations of reality, how else do all these tools that we use every day work so well.   In practice, we operate in a world of accurate representations of reality, and the more accurate the more benefit for society.  

If accuracy isn't important, then everyones opinion about what they experience is equally credible.  Everyday is Halloween.  

The point is however that if we are not constantly aware that the way we speak about reality is NOT consistent with what is strictly logical we will have errors in trying to decide things precisely like this- in what sense was the vision "real" which means objectively verifiable to most people

THAT is the error- the positivism implied by your comment.  Positivism doesn't work and never has.

It is self- contradictory- the belief that to be "true" every assertion needs verifiable evidence is itself not verifiable and clearly we take many many assertions which are not objectively verifiable to be "true" every day of our lives.   

And that kind of thinking does not belong in a religious context in any way shape or form!!

NOTHING about religion is objectively verifiable!!

The implication - which many here take unquestioned- is that if the vision is NOT objectively verifiable- ie that if you were 10 feet behind Joseph you would NOT see what he saw and therefore it was "ONLY IN HIS HEAD" and therefore not "real" is the crux of the error.

It misses the whole point

What is important is the paradigm the alleged vision brings forth. ( and I am a TBM- I believe the account is true due to my testimony- I use the word "alleged" simply to demonstrate that it is a logically justifiable position)

The paradigm is that God is a person with a body and so is Jesus.  This simple observation or hypothesis by Joseph- which ever it is is irrelevant- turns Christianity in its Greek pagan tradition - on its head!

Suddenly we are in the realm of the unity of the three beings as being one of "purpose" and not substance.

They are as it were three beings unified in purpose and thought- as perhaps the ideal parents should be.  When Bobby comes and asks mom for the keys to the car- mom should know in perfect unity- that the couple does or does not want Bobby to take the car and the nature of that unity- in a religious context with God- is perfectly explained by positing that the unity that exists is being of "one mind" and unity in purpose.  If mom says no then dad will also say no.  No separation- perfection in purpose and being of "one mind"

We are now also with that paradigm in the camp of "social trinitarians" which is a whole logical construct in itself which is highly justifiable without appeal to imaginary "substance" which is immaterial and part of a medieval paradigm which has not philosophical basis any more if it ever had!

This idea of a social trinity also provides an explanation how- if there are three beings- there could not theoretically be an infinite number of beings also of "one mind and purpose" to this "committee" of the "Trinity"

And that brings forth one justification for the logical structure of the way we members of the COJCLDS thing of theosis or exaltation.

It is also consistent that baptism brings us into the "family of Christ"- the word "family" representing again this unity of purpose which families have under ideal conditions

So this paradigm of the first vision- that there are beings which are separate persons and yet unified as one- becomes really the entire theological basis for the church.

The PARADIGM is what is important - not if what Joseph saw was "reality" any more than what any of us see is "reality"

But seeing reality in the sense of guys like Rorty- and of course many others- JUSTIFIES logically the entire theology of the church and yet we have others who simply refuse to see that and keep on with the error that language in any way "corresponds" to "reality" which is a major logical error.  And so in this silly thread- if you stood behind Joseph and did not see what he saw- then it was "all in his head" and therefore not "real"

Totally absurd.

I am confident that our great grandkids will do away with this error and no longer speak that way.  They will be brought up into thinking about paradigms as explanations for observations- NOT that observations are about "the world as it is"

To me that is a grievous error that plagues us as a church and I will call it out when I see it as much as I can.

Thinking that way is medieval and we need to move at least into the 19th century, now that it is the 21st century.

Heck Kant had it perfectly in the 18th century and here we are still talking about "reality" as if it was not about observations but about what is NOT observable - the alleged "reality" lurking somewhere invisibly BEHIND the observation itself.  Absurd.  Talking about a world which cannot be observed which is "real" is precisely what we are doing when we separate observations from "reality"

Why people cannot get that through their heads- that when they speak of reality they are speaking about something which CANNOT in principle be observed- I will never understand and frankly I am surprised every time you defend it.  I don't understand it at all.

Defending a world that cannot be observed in principle?  YOU?

I don't get it.

I think talking about a world beyond observation is "Halloween " everyday.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

And this back and forth discussion between Ann Taves and Steven Harper in the Mormon Studies Review in 2016 .  

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3772&index=7

The Taves discussion is interesting (although at the same time IMO a little sad to have done at the Maxwell Institute). She's clearly taking her view of cognitive science and spiritual experiences like gloassalia and applying it to Joseph. It seems like she's for the most part taking the report of the experience at face value. That is she's dismissing the late created narrative model. But I agree they get at some important nuances here particularly relative to memory and how other texts shape the presentation (in particular Moses 1 as Taves notes).

Prince's I'm more mixed on and suspect Bradley's is as much as anything a response to that as well as the book Exploring the First Vision. (Although I didn't check the dates of each so that may be wrong)

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Since all we have to go on here is speculation, what about the idea that Heavenly Father and Jesus exist in a different dimension or sphere than we do (going along with the previously taught idea that the Spirit world is right here on the earth but a different sphere than the one we interact with), then JS could have been in the grove, in the physical presence of God and Christ, without God and Christ physically being in our world (or being visible to anyone near).  

All that would be needed is an open "door" between both spheres or dimensions.

While I wouldn't use the term "sphere" or "dimensions" which I think mislead somewhat there is strong folk doctrine along these lines. The idea that there is this spiritual world here alongside us that we simply can't see has a long history in Mormon thought. I think there's strong reasons to think Joseph held to that as well. Even the account of God touching Joseph's eyes to see, while 3rd hand and late, ties into this view. You have it in the Bible too most particularly in the famous Elijiah/Elisha exchange in 2 Kings 6 where there are angels around that Elisha couldn't initially see. There's tons of variants on that Elijah account in Mormon history often with guardians of temples and the like.

Of course it's fair to be skeptical of such folk tales. However at a certain point there's a presumption that the spirit world isn't an other place but is here all around us that we can't see. Likewise the presumption of real sons of perdition all around us trying to tempt us, while not held by everyone, seems a pretty ubiquitous belief.

The implication of this is that while we may not be able to tell if this was a vision, the standard ontology of spirits would allow it to be both physical and yet others around not see what's going on.

Link to comment
On 10/31/2018 at 7:24 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Joseph Smith states this in the Wentworth Letter account of the vision:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/church-history-1-march-1842/1

Seems like Joseph's descriptions should enter in to the discussion.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Agreed.

Here are his descriptions of what happened in 3 different accounts.  They all seem to corroborate each other in detail (the 1832 account may not be as obvious):

Quote

and while in <the> attitude of calling upon the Lord <in the 16th year of my age> a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord (1832 Account)

Quote

When I came to myself again I found myself lying on <my> back looking up into Heaven (1838 Account - official version in JS HIstory).

Quote

while fervently engaged in supplication my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision (1842 Account).

My best guess, if someone was in the sacred grove at the time, Joseph would have appeared to be passed out on his back. 

The vision of his natural surroundings left him, the vision of heaven opened upon him, and when he "came to himself" he found himself lying on his back looking up into heaven..

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:
2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

And this back and forth discussion between Ann Taves and Steven Harper in the Mormon Studies Review in 2016 .  

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=3772&amp;index=7

The Taves discussion is interesting (although at the same time IMO a little sad to have done at the Maxwell Institute). She's clearly taking her view of cognitive science and spiritual experiences like gloassalia and applying it to Joseph. It seems like she's for the most part taking the report of the experience at face value. That is she's dismissing the late created narrative model. But I agree they get at some important nuances here particularly relative to memory and how other texts shape the presentation (in particular Moses 1 as Taves notes).

Prince's I'm more mixed on and suspect Bradley's is as much as anything a response to that as well as the book Exploring the First Vision. (Although I didn't check the dates of each so that may be wrong)

I'm glad you enjoyed it, I found it fascinating and an interesting extension of the ideas that Taves presents in Reveletory Events, and personally I agree with her about how to evaluate this experience.  Curious, but why are you sad that the Maxwell Institute facilitated this exchange? 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It is self- contradictory- the belief that to be "true" every assertion needs verifiable evidence is itself not verifiable and clearly we take many many assertions which are not objectively verifiable to be "true" every day of our lives.   

I think there are multiple definitions for the word "true" and they have different applications, and I'm wondering if you see things the same way.  Tell me how you would interpret this example, starting with an assumption that aliens have never visited our earth.  If someone claims to have been abducted by an alien, and this experience has changed that person's life, how would you describe that experience in terms of "truth"?  

And lets take this example into your discussion about paradigms.   Lets assume this person claiming an alien abduction operates by way of a paradigm that assumes that aliens exist and that they frequently visit this earth and are monitoring humans and are able to largely avoid detection because of the sophistication of their advanced technology.  

For outside parties that don't view things through the alien paradigm, how should we discuss the terms of the claims that they make?  Is it fair for us to say that their claims aren't "true"?  How should outsiders who don't share their paradigm respond if people within that paradigm want to change the laws of the broader society to accommodate specific claims within the alien paradigm?  

What if the alien paradigmers have a belief that ice cream was created by the aliens for mind control purposes, and now they want the government to ban the consumption of ice cream because it is detrimental to society.  Can scientific studies be employed to research the properties of ice cream to determine if there is any scientific validity to those claims?  Or does philosophical thought tell us that we can't objectively evaluate any of the claims made by the alien paradigmers because "NOTHING about religion is objectively verifiable!!".   

While I agree with you on some things that you're saying, I think the problems are not solved as easily as you have characterized with respect to just having the correct paradigm to view things.  I would love it if you are willing to respond to my thought experiment and share your perspective on it.  

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think the First Vision did not actually happen and that it was something Joseph Smith either fabricated or made up in his own mind because of the following reasons:

1. The first recorded account of the First Vision wasn't until 1832, which is 12 years after the 1820 vision supposedly occurred.

2. Moreover, there are other accounts that differ from the 1832 version, which, IMO, are not consistent with this event actually taking place in 1820 (too many discrepancies IMO). 

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

3. Visions were common during the early 1800s, so I see Joseph Smith's vision as a product of his own time/mind, and not a divine event (see below).

"Visions in the early 1800s were common. In modern times if someone said they had a vision it would seem extraordinary, or more likely not believable. However in the early 1800s having visions wasn't perceived to be all that uncommon. Even Joseph Smith's father claimed to have had a vision - namely the Tree of Life vision. People believed in magic, seer stones, divining rods, etc. and people claiming to have visions weren't seen as all that strange. Like much of Joseph's work, the first vision is strikingly similar to someone else's story."

"FairMormon Response

FACT CHECKING RESULTS: THIS CLAIM IS BASED UPON CORRECT INFORMATION - THE AUTHOR IS PROVIDING KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING SOME PARTICULAR FACT, SUBJECT, OR EVENT

This is true. Joseph was not the only one to report having a vision."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/The_First_Vision#Response_to_claim:_In_the_early_1800s_having_visions_wasn.27t_perceived_to_be_all_that_uncommon

4. IMO, Joseph Smith was a great story teller:

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.[1]"

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/"Amusing_recitals"_of_ancient_American_inhabitants#cite_note-1



 

What website did you copy and paste that from?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...