The Gospels and the First Visions

[Damien the Leper]

I was listening to Bart Ehrman's lectures on the creation of the NT canon. He finds it wrong to attempt to create a unifying tapestry that supports an overall theological message. He asserts that the Gospels should each be read on their own terms.

Can Mormonism treat the different accounts of the FV in the same way? Can each account be read and understood on its own terms as opposed to building toward a canonized and universal account?

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

I was listening to Bart Ehrman's lectures on the creation of the NT canon. He finds it wrong to attempt to create a unifying tapestry that supports an overall theological message. He asserts that the Gospels should each be read on their own terms.

Can Mormonism treat the different accounts of the FV in the same way? Can each account be read and understood on its own terms as opposed to building toward a canonized and universal account?

Considering all the First Vision accounts come from the same source this seems like a bit of a stretch.

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Considering all the First Vision accounts come from the same source this seems like a bit of a stretch.

That is problematic. 

[Calm]

I think you can look at each account as fulfilling a different purpose and examine it from that POV.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I was listening to Bart Ehrman's lectures on the creation of the NT canon. He finds it wrong to attempt to create a unifying tapestry that supports an overall theological message. He asserts that the Gospels should each be read on their own terms.

Can Mormonism treat the different accounts of the FV in the same way? Can each account be read and understood on its own terms as opposed to building toward a canonized and universal account?

Why not?

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I was listening to Bart Ehrman's lectures on the creation of the NT canon. He finds it wrong to attempt to create a unifying tapestry that supports an overall theological message. He asserts that the Gospels should each be read on their own terms.

Can Mormonism treat the different accounts of the FV in the same way? Can each account be read and understood on its own terms as opposed to building toward a canonized and universal account?

Of course, and I think that is encouraged according to what the Church has put out there for our study. However there is still an important role for a canonized account, which serves to bind the saints together by covenant into what they are willing to uphold as a common belief (that God spoke to Joseph and initiated the Restoration). I wouldn't call it universal in light of the other accounts.

[churchistrue]

7 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I was listening to Bart Ehrman's lectures on the creation of the NT canon. He finds it wrong to attempt to create a unifying tapestry that supports an overall theological message. He asserts that the Gospels should each be read on their own terms.

Can Mormonism treat the different accounts of the FV in the same way? Can each account be read and understood on its own terms as opposed to building toward a canonized and universal account?

Sure. There's not as much to work with to experiment with this idea, but I think the general idea and comparison fits perfectly. Greg Prince talks about the First Vision in similar way.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I was listening to Bart Ehrman's lectures on the creation of the NT canon. He finds it wrong to attempt to create a unifying tapestry that supports an overall theological message. He asserts that the Gospels should each be read on their own terms.

Can Mormonism treat the different accounts of the FV in the same way? Can each account be read and understood on its own terms as opposed to building toward a canonized and universal account?

No.

[the narrator]

10 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I was listening to Bart Ehrman's lectures on the creation of the NT canon. He finds it wrong to attempt to create a unifying tapestry that supports an overall theological message. He asserts that the Gospels should each be read on their own terms.

Can Mormonism treat the different accounts of the FV in the same way? Can each account be read and understood on its own terms as opposed to building toward a canonized and universal account?

I've been arguing for quite some time that the different accounts need to be read differently. Joseph's memories of the vision changed as his theology developed and as new circumstances came into his life. To me, this (among many other things) points to the vision as being more of a vision rather than a visitation. Attempting to combine them together simply creates an incoherent and anachronistic beast.

Edited June 24, 2019 by the narrator

[why me]

The first vision has the official version which is followed by the lds church. The other versions are not official. I believe that Joseph knew that an official version needed to be written because of the confusion of what he said previously when asked about the first vision. And of course that official version is rich in detail whereas the others are not.

[Damien the Leper]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No.

Ehrman mentioned a book from the 70s titled The NT in Stereo or something to that effect. He recognized the problem of mashing the Gospels together to create a cohesive and united message. I suppose the same problem could be applied to the FVs if they were to be mashed together.

Also, could the LDS church gone without canonizing any of the FVs? What would the church look like then?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

Ehrman mentioned a book from the 70s titled The NT in Stereo or something to that effect. He recognized the problem of mashing the Gospels together to create a cohesive and united message. I suppose the same problem could be applied to the FVs if they were to be mashed together.

Justin Bellville put out his Complete Gospel Harmony for LDS Readers: Including JST and inspired commentary from the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants in 2016, and there are many more limited Gospel harmonies in print and online.  Indeed, Tatian put out a 4-Gospel harmony as a single narrative in the 2nd century A.D. called the Diatessaron.  So the idea has been around for awhile.

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

Also, could the LDS church gone without canonizing any of the FVs? What would the church look like then?

We do have several different accounts of Creation in our Canon and that doesn't seem to have upset anybody.

[SettingDogStar]

15 hours ago, the narrator said:

I've been arguing for quite some time that the different accounts need to be read differently. Joseph's memories of the vision changed as his theology developed and as new circumstances came into his life. To me, this (among many other things) points to the vision as being more of a vision rather than a visitation. Attempting to combine them together simply creates an incoherent and anachronistic beast.

I agree with this. It wasn’t really a visitation as it was an actual vision/dream. Not to make it any less real but I’d compare to Nephis vision. While Nephi has full interaction with things around him those beings were not actually around his physical body.

side note: this would also solve the whole “if you don’t have the Melchizedek Preisthood God can’t visit you” thing in D&C

[Raskolnikov]

On 6/25/2019 at 2:44 AM, SettingDogStar said:

I agree with this. It wasn’t really a visitation as it was an actual vision/dream. Not to make it any less real but I’d compare to Nephis vision. While Nephi has full interaction with things around him those beings were not actually around his physical body.

side note: this would also solve the whole “if you don’t have the Melchizedek Preisthood God can’t visit you” thing in D&C

I also agree. But accepting it as a purely visionary experience also raises some concerns -- putting aside the contradictory details of who he saw and what he heard and how that changed over time. The Church has put an awful lot of weight on the First Vision, including claims to the nature of God and the Godhood. 

"There was no man scarcely upon the earth that had a true conception of God.... But all this was swept away in one moment by the appearance of ... God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, to the boy Joseph.... The Father came accompanied by the Son, thus showing that there were two personages of the God-head ... Joseph saw that the Father had a form; that He had a head; that He had arms; that He had limbs; that he had feet; that He had a face and a tongue with which to express his thoughts; for he said unto Joseph: “This is my beloved Son” – pointing to the Son – “hear him." George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 24, p. 371-72

Can the Church afford to let the First Vision be seen as a purely mental visionary story? Does there need to be a physical appearance to support the doctrine of physical separateness of God and Jesus Christ or the literal physical bodies of Jesus and God the Father?

 

[SettingDogStar]

27 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

I also agree. But accepting it as a purely visionary experience also raises some concerns -- putting aside the contradictory details of who he saw and what he heard and how that changed over time. The Church has put an awful lot of weight on the First Vision, including claims to the nature of God and the Godhood. 

"There was no man scarcely upon the earth that had a true conception of God.... But all this was swept away in one moment by the appearance of ... God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, to the boy Joseph.... The Father came accompanied by the Son, thus showing that there were two personages of the God-head ... Joseph saw that the Father had a form; that He had a head; that He had arms; that He had limbs; that he had feet; that He had a face and a tongue with which to express his thoughts; for he said unto Joseph: “This is my beloved Son” – pointing to the Son – “hear him." George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 24, p. 371-72

Can the Church afford to let the First Vision be seen as a purely mental visionary story? Does there need to be a physical appearance to support the doctrine of physical separateness of God and Jesus Christ or the literal physical bodies of Jesus and God the Father?

 

I always wondered why we always said “he learned they had physical bodies that day.” Which just isn’t true. He never wrote anything about touching or feeling the Lord or the Father, so how could he know this? 

And the church would be find if they just let it be a vision. We’re okay with Nephi and his purely “mental” vision of the future.

[Duncan]

23 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

I also agree. But accepting it as a purely visionary experience also raises some concerns -- putting aside the contradictory details of who he saw and what he heard and how that changed over time. The Church has put an awful lot of weight on the First Vision, including claims to the nature of God and the Godhood. 

"There was no man scarcely upon the earth that had a true conception of God.... But all this was swept away in one moment by the appearance of ... God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, to the boy Joseph.... The Father came accompanied by the Son, thus showing that there were two personages of the God-head ... Joseph saw that the Father had a form; that He had a head; that He had arms; that He had limbs; that he had feet; that He had a face and a tongue with which to express his thoughts; for he said unto Joseph: “This is my beloved Son” – pointing to the Son – “hear him." George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 24, p. 371-72

Can the Church afford to let the First Vision be seen as a purely mental visionary story? Does there need to be a physical appearance to support the doctrine of physical separateness of God and Jesus Christ or the literal physical bodies of Jesus and God the Father?

 

if the Church wants to be historically accurate it would, I think. The 1832 account even says, "hevnly vision "  I don't understand the attempt to explain away what he saw (not necessarily by you) but why isn't a vision good enough? isn't God able to show himself to people? in 1835 Joseph told the Twelve  "In the first place God manifested himself to me and gave me authority to establish his church, and you have receivd your authority from God through me" in the handwriting of William E. McClellin

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/record-of-the-twelve-14-february-28-august-1835/10

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I always wondered why we always said “he learned they had physical bodies that day.” Which just isn’t true. He never wrote anything about touching or feeling the Lord or the Father, so how could he know this? 

And the church would be find if they just let it be a vision. We’re okay with Nephi and his purely “mental” vision of the future.

what is a "mental vision"? Why would Joseph describe it as a vision if it wasn't a vision? why would he use that word to describe it when he could have said something else which would be accurate?

[SettingDogStar]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

what is a "mental vision"? Why would Joseph describe it as a vision if it wasn't a vision? why would he use that word to describe it when he could have said something else which would be accurate?

I was just using the word the poster I was replying to used when referring to a vision. He said "Can the Church afford to let the First Vision be seen as a purely mental visionary story?" and I was just using the word mental to reference his point. I don't know how visions work so I couldn't tell you if their outside of the body or not.

I think the point is though why does it have to be a physical appearance among the trees in the forest. It could have easily been something else, Joseph even calls it a vision. Honestly Joseph rarely brought it up, he seemed more focused on the visitation of Moroni.

Edited June 27, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I always wondered why we always said “he learned they had physical bodies that day.” Which just isn’t true

Unless in quickening or whatever happened to him that allowed him to have that experience, something was added that enabled him to sense the physicality as if he got a hug from both.

I may have read too much sci-fi with alien species with different sense perceptions than we have...one was an awareness of everything around them, something like X-ray vision but more felt than seen.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Calm