President Oaks' advice to young married couples in Chicago

[CV75]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In your mind, is the church responsible for failing to teach the multiple first vision accounts, or is this person responsible for not researching and learning about it?

I would say "Neither." We are each responsible for handling our questions through what Elder Corbridge describes as 'divine learning," the principle of which have been taught by the Church since 1830, and by others earlier.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think church leadership has tried to start teaching the four FV accounts (directly attributed to JS) over the last 5 years or so.  This is part of the inoculation.  And it's a good change in the curriculum.

If we're being honest with ourselves, we need to admit that as a church we didn't adequately teach the different accounts in decades past.  If we had, we wouldn't be seeing so many members caught off guard by the discovery.  (And the recent string of GA talks that address the concerns raised by this are proof to me that there are many members in that category.)

I agree that as a church we didn't teach the different accounts of the first vision very much, but I'm not sure that I would say we didn't teach it adequately because I don't know what that means really.

Did we teach it adequately enough for every member to be fairly familiar with each account?  No, I don't think so.  
Did we teach it adequately enough for most active members to know that multiple accounts exist?  I think probably yes.  
Should the church have foreseen the day when a failure to adequately teach the first vision accounts would lead to a serious crises of faith?  I don't know that that's a reasonable assumption. 

I agree the change in curriculum is good, but I don't think the old curriculum showed a lack of judgement by our leaders.  I think the old curriculum is evidence of just how much of a non-issue our leaders thought the different first vision accounts were (in terms of reasons to lose faith).  After all, there are multiple gospels, all which contradict each other, and no one lost faith over those.  The same thing goes with the conversion of Paul.  I think our leaders assumed that people would find different first vision accounts as problematic to faith as those other accounts were (which is to say, not really a problem at all) so they covered them from a historical and theological perspective but not as an attempt to inoculate anyone from the shock of finding out about them later.  

I don't think our leaders knew that such a vaccine would be necessary until a few years ago, and that's why we see the coverage of it now that we didn't see them.

And, since I believe that satan is going to do whatever he can to cause people to doubt their faith in the last days (in Christ and in His church), I don't think a first vision vaccine (as helpful as it is) would have keep most people from experiencing a faith crisis if it had only existed earlier.  Our leaders could have helped keep this specific topic from being a catalyst for a faith crisis but I believe that some other topic would have taken it's place (and will, in the future when this topic isn't troubling people anymore).

If we had more adequately (to use your word) taught the first vision accounts I believe you are right in that we wouldn't see so many members caught off guard by this topic, but I still believe we would be seeing just as many members having crises of faith.  I think that the faith crises of this day and age are a symptom of satan's opposition to the gospel of Christ and His church (which I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is).  

(which isn't to say that the church and our leaders shouldn't care about doing everything they can to keep people strong, including inoculating them against topics that are causing concerns.  I only mean that it's not in the church's power to keep people from ever experiencing trails of faith.  Trials of faith are a part of being a disciple of Jesus Christ and they will continue, and probably get harder, as long as there are disciples of Christ in a fallen world).

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Did we teach it adequately enough for most active members to know that multiple accounts exist?  I think probably yes.  

Really?  That has not been my experience.  I still believe that "most active members" are not aware of the multiple accounts.  I think some know and more are learning they exist.  I also don't believe that most who do know about them learned of them from church leaders.

Edited February 6, 2019 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

The counsel that always works in dealing with spiritual matters is divine learning (referencing Elder Corbridge’s talk in another thread). As a disciple, I practice and do many other daily things that leverage the efficacy of this counsel and contribute to what I consider an intuition about spiritual things. Divine learning works in times of challenge as well as in times of ease.

If I were presented with a calling to practice polygamy, I think I would be likely to give it some attention, as discipleship fosters an open mind. I would assume the invitation would be in the context of plural marriage and explained to me in much the same fashion as we see in the multiple communiques we receive on changes in Church policy, practice and other roll-outs. This information would initiate my divine learning of the calling as it is set up today.

I would not be inclined to compare it with how it and other sealing practices were practiced, changed and abandoned yesteryear, or expect it to be practiced exactly the same now as then. I would be inclined to stay open to understanding what is expected of me today and prayerfully seek to understand that.

Whatever my initial response (I mentioned some “negative” possibilities: seeing it as a bad thing, or something I am uncomfortable with, or as a trial or tribulation), I don’t think it would be enough to change my witness of the many things I do know and hold to be true. Just as a positive response I might have (my response is my responsibility to manage). What I have garnered through life by divine learning would be a major factor in deciding what to do about such a calling.

I would seek confirmation on my decisions, which could be as much about whether I was right to participate, or that I should participate, as to whether the practice or the calling is inspired of God. From my experience, if the first confirmation is affirmative, the second is also (or might as well be!). I take this approach from Matthew 26: 21-23. Sometimes the unthinkable is proffered, yet we have to ask because anything is possible.

Ok, thanks, I don't really have much I can think of to respond to in a productive way, but its interesting to see how others work through these things.  

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

So it is your friends' fault that they didn't catch the Ensign articles even though the church curriculum and all the addresses from our church leaders only acknowledged one account?

 

I don't think it's their fault and I don't think it's the church's fault.  I don't think either party did anything wrong.

I had a companion on my mission that had grown up in the church that honestly didn't know we believed in deification.  It was a huge shock to her when I shared the Snow couplet with her to support something a Lutheran minister had told her about our beliefs.  I wouldn't say it was her fault that she didn't know because that implies that she had done something wrong and I don't think she did.  Somehow, along the way, she just never caught on or understood that particular doctrine.  But the church was teaching it, even if she never realized it, so it wasn't the church's fault either.  

Even when the church spends a fair amount of time on a subject, people still miss them sometimes.  This is even more true when it comes to periphery subjects (such as the number of first vision accounts) that are not taught very often at all.  When it comes to the first vision accounts, I don't blame the church for not spending a lot of time on something it didn't seem to view as that doctrinally significant and I don't blame members for not being aware of it.

Quote

When your friends say that the "discovery of the mere existence of different accounts" that were never acknowledged caused their faith crisis I suspect the word "different" is operative in that statement.  If they had discovered that there were several accounts that all matched, would they have been concerned that the church only ever focused on and published one account?

I really can't answer that because I don't know.  I have friends who were surprised by the different accounts, studied them, and found no cause for alarm and then I have two friends who found out about them, didn't study them themselves but read a lot of very critical writings about what the different accounts meant, and left the church (and became hostile towards it.  One isn't even my friend anymore, though the other and I are still going strong thankfully).  It's just anecdotal and that's really all I know. 

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would say "Neither." We are each responsible for handling our questions through what Elder Corbridge describes as 'divine learning," the principle of which have been taught by the Church since 1830, and by others earlier.

Those are some nice sounding words ("divine learning"), but can you give me an example of how that works say with learning about specific difficult topics from church history.  How about starting with the polyandry that Joseph and others practiced in the early days of the church?

[hope_for_things]

17 hours ago, Kate said:

I'm not saying the reported took him out of context, it could have happened inadvertently, I'm saying that you charged forward on this without even knowing the whole quote...just a mere fragment.

If you don't like my comments and have another perspective to share please feel free to support your different perspective, I welcome participation and engagement.  I'm using the article as it has been reported and this seems to be a straightforward reading of the meaning reported in the article.  Is it possible that things were taken out of context by the reporter whether intentionally or not, sure, anything is possible.  A person could speculate all day about the possibilities. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not to derail, but bluebell if you came to determine the church isn't true, would that mean Jesus Christ isn't as well? I'm thinking that's why you and others hold so tightly that the church is true, and if so, I can sure understand the reasons for defending the church like you have. And just ignore, if I've crossed a line in asking this. I've gotten personal questions asked of me on this thread, so I understand if you ignore it.

I don't mind answering.

If I came to determine that the church isn't true then I would doubt my belief in Jesus Christ because the way that I know Jesus Christ is real and who He claims to be is the same way that I know that the church is what it claims to be (revelation).  So if I doubt one then I would automatically doubt both.  It doesn't mean that the existence of such doubt would guarantee a loss in faith in Christ though.  Neither does it mean that me not wanting to lose faith in Christ is the reason that I defend the church. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

You should also note that I never used the word hidden.

Just because something could have been found does not mean that it was easy to find, especially if one didn't know to look for it.

Sorry about that. You can replace the word 'hidden' with the term 'not forthright' in my post.  It doesn't change my point any.

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Really?  That has not been my experience.  I still believe that "most active members" are not aware of the multiple accounts.  I think some know and more are learning they exist.  I also don't believe that most who do know about them learned of them from church leaders.

Yes, but even more important than learning about multiple first visions, would be a discussion of what this actually means.  Many people have a mindset that these accounts represent not just a vision, but a tangible event in time and space.  It would be even more important to talk about what a vision is, how Joseph might have thought of a vision, how these narratives evolved over time in response to environmental circumstances, and how they represent a window into Joseph's theological development over time.  

[Thinking]

7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Actually saying "I don't know" is probably a better answer than giving a really bad answer.

This is true. Giving a bad answer is probably where some of the pseudo doctrines come from.

7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Some questions simply can't be known.  We can answer the question of why Joseph married so many women as that what could happen if one practices polygamy.  Polygamy can be defended in the scriptures.  What is hard to know is why he married some women who were married to other men.  That answer is not knowable.  We can make guesses but that is all they are.  I suppose if I was to travel back into time and asked Joseph and the women in question why they did it, they most likely would give me an answer that makes sense and is satisfying.  Since I lack a DeLorean, I can't do this and I can just brainstorm reasons.  That is all critics can do as well.  Brainstorm and think up the most negative reasons and use those as excuses.  So on this point is more of a faith thing.  I have faith that when I die and speak to Joseph on the issue, he will explain it all in a manner that makes sense.  I also have faith that those who are critical of Joseph regarding the issue will have to offer a big apology to Joseph for being critical regarding an issue they did not understand and had little right and position to judge based on the level of facts we have now.

I think I've heard something like this before. Yes, that's it. "It will all be worked out in the next life."

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Really?  That has not been my experience.  I still believe that "most active members" are not aware of the multiple accounts.  I think some know and more are learning they exist.  I also don't believe that most who do know about them learned of them from church leaders.

From my perspective, if something is covered occasionally in church magazines and on the BYU channel, and available online, then that's adequate coverage for most members.  I'm not saying that most members will know about it but that most members have been given the opportunity to know about it if they are taking advantage of those resources like the church has counseled.  

The church has pushed and pushed for members to have access to the ensign for decades, for example, and pushed and pushed for members to read it every month.  They made it super cheap (less than $1 an issue) and kept issues in church libraries for people who didn't get it at home.  If a member followed the council about the Ensign, and only that council, then they would be aware of the multiple accounts of the first vision even if they didn't know them very well.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're a fair guy, but this is silly. The church encourages study ...but not research. 

They're the same thing. You can claim of course that Oaks is attempting to limit research but there's nothing in this talk to suggest that. I'm completely open to appeals to other texts demonstrating that Oaks believes that. I'm skeptical you'll find them.

From all I can see Oaks was the key figure pushing the Church away from the tendency to disparage inquiry and only study approved materials. Indeed it appears that he and Hinkley were key in getting a much more open history.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

This isn't about misreading, its about disagreement.

Except you're doing exactly the same thing with me, and I actually am extremely confident in what I actually believe on the subject. If you misread me so egregiously, why should I think you read Oaks any better especially when it seems clear he doesn't mean what you attribute to him.

If you were merely saying that Oaks thought studying with the spirit along with charity/service and prayer would lead people to truth then I'd have not trouble. Even if you think him wrong in that. But that's not what you're claiming. I recognize you disagree with Oaks. But you're also misreading his central claim.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Research with the spirit is totally subjective.

I recognize you believe that. You believe that the spirit is a completely unreliable guide for truth. Can you at minimum accept that Oaks and I don't agree with you? Shouldn't that shape how you read Oaks?

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

When you speak of "requiring" the spirit in your research, you are going far beyond what Oaks is saying it seems to me.  He said research is not helpful.

He didn't say that at all. He said, according to the OP,  regarding spouses of people in a faith crisis that "research is not the answer." He then said, giving the answer, that "Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members."

So his solution is spiritual conversion. Conversion comes through (1) prayer (2) study/research and (3) service. 

The implication is that it's the spirit that converts. He's clearly alluding to D&C 9:8 "...you must study it out in your mind..." He's quite familiar with what that meant for Joseph Smith that included learning languages including Hebrew, reading commentaries (particularly Clarke's Bible Commentary which was a catalyst for many JST changes) and more. 

Again I get that Oaks' critics want to say that research is reading history while study is just reading and praying about scriptures. I'm not sure if you're making that limitation. However at minimum you have to demonstrate that's what Oaks means in terms of his talk. Make an argument. Thus far I just am seeing people projecting onto Oaks their preconceptions. If it's so clear that's what Oaks means it should be very easy either in the text in question or even in other talks to find Oaks telling people not to research or study non-Church published materials.

To be clear, you're talking about a person who helped start Dialogue, even if he became disillusioned with what it became, and who has written scholarly history books. Note that in his talks he'll cite such things. (Such as this recent talk) He elsewhere wrote,

• “Our quest for truth should be as broad as our life’s activities and as deep as our circumstances permit. A learned Latter-day Saint should seek to understand the important religious, physical, social, and political problems of the day. The more knowledge we have of heavenly laws and earthly things, the greater influence we can exert for good on those around us and the safer we will be from scurrilous and evil influences that may confuse and destroy us.”

He then qualified this in a manner quite similar to the current talk in question

• “In our quest for truth, we need to seek the help of our loving Heavenly Father. His Spirit can direct and intensify our efforts to learn and magnify our ability to assimilate truth. This learning with the Spirit is not confined to classrooms or preparation for school examinations. It applies to everything we do in life and every place we do it—at home, at work, and at church.”

In an other talk he wrote

• Latter-day Saints know that learned or authoritative commentaries can help us with scriptural interpretation, but we maintain that they must be used with caution.

  Commentaries are not a substitute for the scriptures any more than a good cookbook is a substitute for food. (When I refer to “commentaries,” I refer to everything that interprets scripture, from the comprehensive book-length commentary to the brief interpretation embodied in a lesson or an article, such as this one.)

  One trouble with commentaries is that their authors sometimes focus on only one meaning, to the exclusion of others. As a result, commentaries, if not used with great care, may illuminate the author’s chosen and correct meaning but close our eyes and restrict our horizons to other possible meanings. Sometimes those other, less obvious meanings can be the ones most valuable and useful to us as we seek to understand our own dispensation and to obtain answers to our own questions. This is why the teaching of the Holy Ghost is a better guide to scriptural interpretation than even the best commentary.

My reading of the talk in question is completely consistent with this. Is yours?

Edited February 6, 2019 by clarkgoble

[mrmarklin]

I slogged through all the replies in this thread.  My take on it is that Oak's speech was given on a specific topic to a specific audience.  I don't extrapolate more than that.  The advice he gave was for that specific audience.  Let's not get carried away that it's advice for the Church as a whole.

We should all do what we believe is necessary to justify our faith.  Oaks is not contradicting that IMHO.

Many here seem to be extrapolating his statements beyond what he intended.  Shame on you.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think church leadership has tried to start teaching the four FV accounts (directly attributed to JS) over the last 5 years or so.  This is part of the inoculation.  And it's a good change in the curriculum.

If we're being honest with ourselves, we need to admit that as a church we didn't adequately teach the different accounts in decades past.  If we had, we wouldn't be seeing so many members caught off guard by the discovery.  (And the recent string of GA talks that address the concerns raised by this are proof to me that there are many members in that category.)

I don’t have the least bit of problem with saying we didn’t adequately teach many topics, I was about to say the same thing in fact. 

There is a difference with that and labeling church methods as hiding or being deceptive. 

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, if something is covered occasionally in church magazines and on the BYU channel, and available online, then that's adequate coverage for most members.  I'm not saying that most members will know about it but that most members have been given the opportunity to know about it if they are taking advantage of those resources like the church has counseled.  

The church has pushed and pushed for members to have access to the ensign for decades, for example, and pushed and pushed for members to read it every month.  They made it super cheap (less than $1 an issue) and kept issues in church libraries for people who didn't get it at home.  If a member followed the council about the Ensign, and only that council, then they would be aware of the multiple accounts of the first vision even if they didn't know them very well.

That it may have been mentioned in a few Ensign articles over the past several decades does not support what you stated:

Quote

Did we teach it adequately enough for most active members to know that multiple accounts exist?  I think probably yes.

Obviously it was not taught "adequately enough" or there would not be so many members finding out about them for the first time now.

Let's be honest here, they were not really "taught" at all....and they actually are still not being "taught" in our lessons (other than if you happen to be taking an institute class that covers them or have a seminary teacher who chooses to talk about them) and they are not being taught to the members by our leaders.  Members still need to research and find them on their own (including finding the essays on lds.org).

[Tacenda]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't mind answering.

If I came to determine that the church isn't true then I would doubt my belief in Jesus Christ because the way that I know Jesus Christ is real and who He claims to be is the same way that I know that the church is what it claims to be (revelation).  So if I doubt one then I would automatically doubt both.  It doesn't mean that the existence of such doubt would guarantee a loss in faith in Christ though.  Neither does it mean that me not wanting to lose faith in Christ is the reason that I defend the church. 

Thanks bluebell, I understand fully. If it weren't for my faith transition, I'd have a sure faith in Christ. Now, I don't as much and it's a battle to fight the noises in my head, and anything that I read to lead me to a non faith. 

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I slogged through all the replies in this thread.  My take on it is that Oak's speech was given on a specific topic to a specific audience.  I don't extrapolate more than that.  The advice he gave was for that specific audience.  Let's not get carried away that it's advice for the Church as a whole.

Do you really want to do that?  Will you be applying this to all talks given by church leaders in the future?  Talks given to youth only apply to the youth....talks given to singles only apply to the singles....talks given to the men only apply to the men....talks given to those who are older and married only apply to that age group who are married....and so on?

If so, that's an interesting take!  Next time someone on here quotes a church leader, I'm going to just shrug and say, "Well, I don't need to follow that since he was just talking to the women in the church" 😉

Edited February 6, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

Just now, ALarson said:

That it may have been mentioned in a few Ensign articles over the past several decades does not support what you stated:

Obviously it was not taught "adequately enough" or there would not be so many members finding out about them for the first time now.

Let's be honest here, they were not really "taught" at all....and they actually are still not being "taught" in our lessons (other than if you happen to be taking an institute class that covers them or have a seminary teacher who chooses to talk about them) and they are not being taught to the members by our leaders.  Members still need to research and find them on their own (including finding the essays on lds.org).

The Brethren have no lack of ability to teach that which they want taught:  They define the Sunday curriculum and give hours of conference addresses each year.  They have massive publishing and media capabilities.  If they truly wanted all members to know of the four First Vision accounts, we'd know.

I have been attending church nearly every Sunday (sickness and travel excepted) for 48 years.  The only lessons I've ever heard on the different First Vision accounts are the two that I gave.

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When it comes to the first vision accounts, I don't blame the church for not spending a lot of time on something it didn't seem to view as that doctrinally significant and I don't blame members for not being aware of it. 

I agree with this statement.

Where you and I might differ is that I believe those FV accounts are doctrinally significant.  And, whether it is the differences or the simply the fact that members weren't told about them, we are now losing people because of those FV accounts.  And the struggle I'm having is that we don't have great answers to the concerns they raise.  The Church seems to be putting forth some apologetic answers but the Brethren themselves, the prophets, seers, and revelators to whom we often look for guidance are relatively silent other than to advise us to have faith and look the other way.

Have you ever read through the four JS FV accounts with a class of Priests/Laurels and discussed them?  Not an easy task.  (Honestly speaking from experience.)

[california boy]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree that as a church we didn't teach the different accounts of the first vision very much, but I'm not sure that I would say we didn't teach it adequately because I don't know what that means really.

Did we teach it adequately enough for every member to be fairly familiar with each account?  No, I don't think so.  
Did we teach it adequately enough for most active members to know that multiple accounts exist?  I think probably yes.  
Should the church have foreseen the day when a failure to adequately teach the first vision accounts would lead to a serious crises of faith?  I don't know that that's a reasonable assumption. 

I agree the change in curriculum is good, but I don't think the old curriculum showed a lack of judgement by our leaders.  I think the old curriculum is evidence of just how much of a non-issue our leaders thought the different first vision accounts were (in terms of reasons to lose faith).  After all, there are multiple gospels, all which contradict each other, and no one lost faith over those.  The same thing goes with the conversion of Paul.  I think our leaders assumed that people would find different first vision accounts as problematic to faith as those other accounts were (which is to say, not really a problem at all) so they covered them from a historical and theological perspective but not as an attempt to inoculate anyone from the shock of finding out about them later.  

2

If the old curriculum is evidence of just how much of a non-issue church leaders thought this issue was, then why change the curriculum at all?  Why not continue to teach only one version with the rare mention of other visions from time to time?  Why even make this new inoculating approach to any of the "less taught" issues?  It seems like if you think the church did an adequate job of teaching church history in the past, there should be no need to change.  

 

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

If the old curriculum is evidence of just how much of a non-issue church leaders thought this issue was, then why change the curriculum at all?  Why not continue to teach only one version with the rare mention of other visions from time to time?  Why even make this new inoculating approach to any of the "less taught" issues?  It seems like if you think the church did an adequate job of teaching church history in the past, there should be no need to change.  

 

 

The very next sentence of my post answers your question.  It was "I don't think our leaders knew that such a vaccine would be necessary until a few years ago, and that's why we see the coverage of it now that we didn't see them."  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Did we teach it adequately enough for every member to be fairly familiar with each account?  No, I don't think so.  
Did we teach it adequately enough for most active members to know that multiple accounts exist?  I think probably yes.  
Should the church have foreseen the day when a failure to adequately teach the first vision accounts would lead to a serious crises of faith?  I don't know that that's a reasonable assumption. 

I disagree that we taught it adequately enough for most active members to know that multiple accounts exist.  I have met far too many lifelong active members who had no idea for me to agree.

I grew up in the church in an active family with parents who were serving in every level of ward and stake leadership.  We attended every week.

I graduated from early morning seminary and from BYU.  Served a mission.  I attended institute post-grad.  I taught early-morning seminary, including the D&C/Church History year.

It wasn't until years AFTER all of that that I learned of the differing accounts.  If I seem offended by the suggestion that members should have known and shouldn't feel upset that they didn't... It's because I am offended when I'm told that.  Throughout my life I have been 10-20 hours per week to my church callings.  Nobody has the right to tell me I should have known. It is offensive.

Then, when I finally do start to study the church narrative and truth claims in more detail... then I find out that there are differing FV accounts.  Then when my entire testimony and faith crumbles to pieces, I'm told it is MY fault for failing to know these things before.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

The very next sentence of my post answers your question.  It was "I don't think our leaders knew that such a vaccine would be necessary until a few years ago, and that's why we see the coverage of it now that we didn't see them."  

So the "prophet, seer, and revelator" thing didn't help much.  They didn't see this crisis coming?

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That it may have been mentioned in a few Ensign articles over the past several decades does not support what you stated:

Obviously it was not taught "adequately enough" or there would not be so many members finding out about them for the first time now.

Let's be honest here, they were not really "taught" at all....and they actually are still not being "taught" in our lessons (other than if you happen to be taking an institute class that covers them or have a seminary teacher who chooses to talk about them) and they are not being taught to the members by our leaders.  Members still need to research and find them on their own (including finding the essays on lds.org).

I am being honest. That I disagree with you doesn't mean that I'm not being honest.  

I'm sorry if I was confusing but yes, the fact that the different First Vision accounts have been taught over the years in the Ensign does support what I stated.  In my opinion, that is adequate enough for members to know about it if they were following the church's counsel regarding its magazine.