Jump to content

Js And The Accounts Of The First Vision


bluebell

Recommended Posts

I suppose an explanation could be found from verse 75 of the same section. That seems to be the highlight of this response to the question.

Well, I can see this topic could lead into a lengthy discussion about priesthood! For once, I am going to exercise discipline and not go off on this tangent, tempting though it may be! I'm sure it will come up somewhere else.

Link to post

Well, I can see this topic could lead into a lengthy discussion about priesthood! For once, I am going to exercise discipline and not go off on this tangent, tempting though it may be! I'm sure it will come up somewhere else.

Here's a link for you FIT.

Need an excuse? [:P]

Link to post

When Luke first retails the story Paul is the only one who falls to the Ground. (Men with me stood speachless) Still in the Second retelling, Paul still seems to be the only one Laying on the ground. But in the 3rd Retelling Paul takes extra pains to make good and sure he gets everyone laying on the ground. Its my perception that this story changed to impress king Agrippa. Does not the whole world bow before a King? Without that added power that everyone was bowing before a heavenly majesty why would this king even consider listening to waht Paul had to say?

In the second telling (Acts 22) Paulâ??s companions are not mentioned so we really canâ??t conclude anything about them. This absence of detail does not contradict the first telling (Acts 9).

In Acts 26 Paul is being held by Festus because he appealed to Rome and is waiting passage to Caesar. Festus had already found that Paul had done nothing deserving of death . He didnâ??t know what to write to the Emperor, so he asked Agrippa to hear Paul. He hoped Agrippa would understand the charges against Paul (since Agrippa was of Jewish descent) - then Festus would be able to write something to Caesar. Agrippa agreed to listen to Paul. And he listened to Paul for several paragraphs before Paul mentioned that everyone fell to the ground.

Kings in this time tended to be jealous of the Jews having God as their king. These earthly kings desired to be the ones worshiped. If you want to impress a king, downplay the worshiping of someone other than them, in my opinion. Also, it would not be impressive to be bowing for Jesus, a mere man - according to many Jews. Paul risked angering Agrippa by talking about bowing before Jesus - Jews bowed before God only. It seems to me that if Paul were modifying his story he should have left out everyone bowing before Jesus. Talking about bringing the gospel to the Gentiles would be enough for Agrippa to handle.

To apply you line of thinking to JS - did he add seeing the Father in the 1838 account to impress?

Link to post

No Im not suggresting that at all. I know of the heavy revisions to Genesis. He changed the verse orders in Rev 12 too.

But from the footnotes in the quad we can see that the vast majority of changes only involved one or two words.

If your footnotes are what is online, then many changes are not listed. Have you looked at the JST?

Do you think the changes involving one or two words mean the verse wasn't changed much? You can negate a sentence by adding "not".

Still, if JS fixed the "corrupted" Bible, then it seems you should be using his edition. Why wouldn't you? It seems to me that all his changes should reflect your complete doctrine.

Link to post
  • 1 month later...

And thus a thread is resurrected from the dustâ?¦

Iâ??ve been reading â??By The Hand of Mormonâ? by Givens, and he gives an interesting interpretation as to why the First Vision wasnâ??t widely talked about (even by Joseph) in the early days of the church. He believes that the FV was viewed more as a personal conversion story than a prophetic calling in the early days.

Link to post

And thus a thread is resurrected from the dustâ?¦

Iâ??ve been reading â??By The Hand of Mormonâ? by Givens, and he gives an interesting interpretation as to why the First Vision wasnâ??t widely talked about (even by Joseph) in the early days of the church. He believes that the FV was viewed more as a personal conversion story than a prophetic calling in the early days.

Interesting stuff-

Why did he think it was looked at differently then?

:P

Link to post

Interesting stuff-

Why did he think it was looked at differently then?

:P

Part of the reason (which might be the main reason) is due to its lack of prominence in the early days. It wasn't used by missionaries, and it wasn't used by Joseph. Another is a statement Joseph made to his mother when he returned from the grove: "I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true." Notice that he said that he hade "learned for [himself]." He also didn't seem to mind his family's continued religious affiliations.

Unfortunately I left the book at home. I will try to get the exact passages and post them either tonight, or in the morning.

Link to post

Part of the reason (which might be the main reason) is due to its lack of prominence in the early days. It wasn't used by missionaries, and it wasn't used by Joseph. Another is a statement Joseph made to his mother when he returned from the grove: "I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true." Notice that he said that he hade "learned for [himself]." He also didn't seem to mind his family's continued religious affiliations.

Unfortunately I left the book at home. I will try to get the exact passages and post them either tonight, or in the morning.

Thanks, that'll be great.

:P

Link to post

In the second telling (Acts 22) Paulâ??s companions are not mentioned so we really canâ??t conclude anything about them. This absence of detail does not contradict the first telling (Acts 9).

<_<:P

Acts 9

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22

9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Acts 26

13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, aSaul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Yes I know the Apologetics for this verse that they did not understand the voice even though the first telling suggests that they did hear the voice. And why in the first telling are they "standing speachless" and in the one to King Agrippa "everyone and their yellow dog wagging its tail falls down?

To apply you [sic] line of thinking to JS - did he add seeing the Father in the 1838 account to impress?

Quite Simply... No. Since the 1832 version was never published (a draft) how could he ADD to it to impress?

Link to post

Thanks, that'll be great.

:P

As requested: (hopefully 2 full paragraphs doesnâ??t go against copyright restrictions). From Terryl L. Givens, â??By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion,â? 2003 Paperback Edition (New York: Oxford University Press), pages 9-10:

Like many seekers of the Second Awakening, the young Smith found himself caught up in a scene of fervid revivalism and confused by the competing claims of ministers seeking converts. Deciding to pray for heavenly guidance, Smith had retired to the woods to ask God which church he should join. On that early spring morning in 1820, two personages, identifying themselves as God the Father and Jesus Christ, had appeared to the boy in a grove of trees on his fatherâ??s homestead (2). Though it may be true, as Mormon historian Richard Bushman writes, that in seeking such guidance â??an answer for himself must be an answer for the entire worldâ? and that with the vision â??a new era in history began,â? the boyâ??s initial reading was clearly less grandiose (3). His personal quest for spiritual guidance may have precipitated an epiphany on the order of Paulâ??s on the road to Damascus, but the important truths he learned were that his personal sins were forgiven and that he should hold himself aloof from the sects of his day. Although the timing and the naming of the event assign it absolute primacy in the founding of Mormonism, the vision was described by the young Joseph and apparently interpreted by him at the time as a private experience with no greater implications for the world at large or for Christian believers generally. In returning from the divine visitation, his understated remark, to his mother was simply, â??I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.â? (4)

In fact, so far was Smith at this point from universalizing his private revelation that his own mother continued her affiliation with the Presbyterian church for another several years. Apparently Smith did share his experience with at least a few persons outside the family circle, for he later said that he was chastised by the clergy and ridiculed by neighbors for his claims (5). It was not until 1832 that he actually recorded the event, and he withheld publishing a version until 1842, just two years before his death (6). Accordingly, neither Smith nor Mormon missionaries made much mention of the vision in the early years of Mormonism (7). Even in the 1830 â??Revelation on Church Organization and Government,â? a kind of manifesto that heralded the churchâ??s formal founding, the vision received no more than a passing, cryptic allusion to a time when â??it was truly manifested unto this first elder [Joseph Smith] that he had received a remission of his sins.â? (8 ) Clearly, the experience was understood at the time, and even scripturally portrayed, as part of a personal conversion narrative, not the opening scene in a new gospel dispensation.

Givensâ?? Endnotes:

(2). Between 1832 and 1842, Joseph would write or dictate several accounts of this vision. In the first, he mentions only on personage. See Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Papers of Joseph Smith, vol. 1, Autobiographical and Historical Writings (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1989), for those versions as well as some contemporary secondhand accounts.

(3). Richard L. Bushmanâ??s account of early Mormonism is the best to date. See his Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984), 55,57

(4). Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., ed. James Mulholland, Robert B. Thompson, William W. Phelps, Willard Richards, George A. Smith, and later B.H. Roberts (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1902-12; 2nd rev. ed., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1951), 1:6. Bushman observes that the confusion of the prophetâ??s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, over the details of Josephâ??s first vision seems to confirm that he shared few particulars of his experience even with close family. As Bushman notes, â??even twelve years after the event the First Visionâ??s personal significance for him still overshadowed its place in the divine plan.â? (Bushman, Joseph Smith, 56).

(5). Disapproval by â??one of the Methodist preachersâ? â?? probably George Lane â?? is the only specific instance he provides of the â??severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men, both religious and irreligiousâ? referred to in his personal history (JS-H 1:21-27).

(6). Two years before the publication of Josephâ??s official version in 1842, his friend Orson Pratt had published an account related to him by the prophet. See An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records (Edinburgh: Ballyntyne and Hughes, 1840). For a study of the different accounts of the First Vision, see Milton V. Backman Jr., Joseph Smithâ??s First Vision (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980).

(7) See James B. Allen, â??The Significance of Joseph Smithâ??s â??First Visionâ?? in Mormon Thought,â? Dialogue 1 (autumn 1966): 29-45; Marvin Hill, â??On the First Vision and Its Importance in the Shaping of Early Mormonism,â? Dialogue 12 (spring 1979): 90-99; James B. Allen, â??The Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role of Joseph Smithâ??s First Vision in Mormon Thought,â? Journal of Mormon History 7 (1980): 43-61.

(8 ). Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 20:5. In 1833, a compilation of revelations received by Joseph Smith was published as the Book of Commandments. In 1835, the volume was expanded and republished as the Doctrine and Covenants. This volume, along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price, is one of the â??standard worksâ? considered scripture by Latter-day Saints.

Link to post

Thanks so much stu-that was a lot of work typing out those endnotes and stuff-i'm going to try and find time to look at the stuff tonight.

thanks again.

:P

Link to post

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...