Jump to content

Js And The Accounts Of The First Vision


bluebell

Recommended Posts

much as paul, it seems, did when retelling his visionary experience.

EXACTLY!

Paul's story grew in magnituded... until it was finaly told to a King.

Everyone bows before a King

So... the Story changed in that Detail to impress this earthly King.

So the question still remains... why should I reject the changing JS story and accept hook line and stinker the changing story of Paul?

PS. I accept them both. Call it the Faith in me.

6. In 1832, Jesus is coming “quickly” to destroy the wicked. In 1838, destruction of the wicked is not mentioned.

Seems to me he learned that the "quickness" of the Lord isn't so immediate. The Lord said the same things to the Apoastles and here we are 2000+ years later.

Link to post

Key Differences Between 1832 & 1838 Accounts

1. No revival mentioned in 1832.

Lucy Smith says she and her children joined the Presbyterian church after Alvinâ??s death (1823). Thus, Joseph Smith pushes 1824-25 revival back to 1820.

2. Motivation for praying in 1832 is forgiveness of sins, but in 1838 it is to know which church is true.

In 1832, Smith--like his parents--has already concluded from reading the Bible that humanity had â??apostatised from the true and liveing faithâ? and â??there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament.â? In 1838, Smith says, â??for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong.â? Smithâ??s concern for which church is true dates to after the 1824-25 revival when his family became split over religion, the meaning of Joseph Sr.â??s dreams, and the fate of Alvin. Thus, Joseph Smith pushes both the revival and his concern for the true church back to 1820.

3. In 1838, Smith is instructed to join none of the churches, but not in 1832.

If Josephâ??s 1820 vision had contained the prohibitive information he later claimed for it, it is difficult to explain Lucyâ??s pressuring Joseph to join and his not citing his vision as the reason he did not want to attend or join. Lucy says Joseph did not object to her joining the Presbyterians.

4. In 1832, all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life (regardless of church affiliation).

5. In 1832, Smith sees Jesus, but it is unclear if Jesus is in heaven or on earth. In 1838, both Jesus and the Father descend to earth in the beam of light.

6. In 1832, Jesus is coming â??quicklyâ? to destroy the wicked. In 1838, destruction of the wicked is not mentioned.

Thanks for listing those-i have to ask though, which of these 'key differences' is more upsetting than the differences in Paul's vision retellings?

Which differences, in your view, make the JS first vision accounts MORE contradictory than the Pauline vision accounts?

That's the question of this thread.

:P

Link to post

The only contradiction that is relevant, IMO, is JS failure to note the existence of both God/Jesus as separate in the earlier accounts. Everying else, such as his age, the revival, why he was there, is all trivial by comparison.

Apologists, in attempt to create the illusion of consistency, ignore the importance of materiality.

In my first brush with apologetics, an apologist created an analogy, whereby when retelling what he had for breakfast, only in the latter version he first mentions having toast.

I leaves me to wonder whether apologist completely fail to grasp the enormous signficance, if true, of God appearing along Jesus Christ in human form, or whether they think that those reading the explanation are truly stupid.

Does it matter, in your assesment of the 1832 first vision account, that even though there was no mention of God AND Christ in it, that people knew about both being present in his vision before 1832?

Is that, in your mind, still only an illusion of consistency?

:P

Link to post

Does it matter, in your assesment of the 1832 first vision account, that even though there was no mention of God AND Christ in it, that people knew about both being present in his vision before 1832?

Is that, in your mind, still only an illusion of consistency?

:P

Yes, of course, it matters. If true, it would go along way towards repairing the glaring inconsistently between the two statements. But, you would still have to provide some credible explanation, as to why JS omitted this important detail from the 1932 written account.

Link to post
Yes, of course, it matters. If true, it would go along way towards repairing the glaring inconsistently between the two statements. But, you would still have to provide some credible explanation, as to why JS omitted this important detail from the 1932 written account.

Perhaps it would help us understand the objection and the request for explanation if we knew why one would expect the never published 1832 version to be particularly complete to JSJr's satisfaction.

Link to post

Perhaps it would help us understand the objection and the request for explanation if we knew why one would expect the never published 1832 version to be particularly complete to JSJr's satisfaction.

I think you understand the objection.

But if you are suggesting that the '32 version was an early draft, not intended for intended for immediate publication, then I don't see how that helps your case. (that would suggest JS had broad discretion to recreate history.)

Link to post
I think you understand the objection.

I frankly don't get it, given the fact that unfriendly sources were talking about JSJr seeing G-d long before the 1838 version came out. When the objection ignores such inconveniences, it appears irrational and is not penetrable to my analysis.

But if you are suggesting that the '32 version was an early draft, not intended for intended for immediate publication, then I don't see how that helps your case.

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. I'm suggesting that if JSJr was satisfied with it he would have seen to it that it was widely disseminated instead of known only to a very few. That's all.

'Course, somebody is bound to say sometime that JSJr started out saying he'd seen G-d and the Master, only to try to back off from that invented whopper to a more modest 1832 invented whopper in the newly fresh air of Kirtland . . . but that he had second thoughts and decided to flesh out the earlier whoppers with his 1838 whopper when Missouri was burning down around everybody's ears.

USU "I can spin with the best of 'em" 78

Link to post

How does the learned prosecutor deal with the apparent ability of 3rd parties to know of events not expressly (though perhaps impliedly) present in the 1838 version as early as 1830 and before?

I'm not following you here. Please clarify.

Link to post

This is actually the question that came to my mind as well.

It seems that the discrepencies in the 1832 and 1838 accounts are used to 'prove' that JS changed his accounts over time to strengthen his case-

But, in my understanding, the fact that we know that others knew of the issues in question prior to the 1832 account seems to prove that JS simply emphasised different aspects of the same vision at different times and to different people...

much as paul, it seems, did when retelling his visionary experience.

:P

This is an assertion that needs support and argument. I see none here.

Link to post

EXACTLY!

Paul's story grew in magnituded... until it was finaly told to a King.

Everyone bows before a King

So... the Story changed in that Detail to impress this earthly King.

So the question still remains... why should I reject the changing JS story and accept hook line and stinker the changing story of Paul?

PS. I accept them both. Call it the Faith in me.

It's not about rejecting JS story; it's about being critical of his version. The kinds of changes tell us something about changes he was undergoing between 1832 and 1838.

Seems to me he learned that the "quickness" of the Lord isn't so immediate. The Lord said the same things to the Apoastles and here we are 2000+ years later.

One of those changes was an obvious cooling of Millennial furver. In 1833, persecution in Missouri started--the press was destroyed and the Mormons were driven from Jackson County. In 1834, Zion's Camp was sent from Ohio to return the Mormons to their lands, but that failed.

Link to post
I'm not following you here. Please clarify.

I've yet to hear DV address the 3rd party unfriendly sources mocking the very idea that JSJr saw G-d that appeared far earlier than 1838.

Sorry about the language mixup. I zigged when I should have zagged and my edit function won't function.

Link to post

Thanks for listing those-i have to ask though, which of these 'key differences' is more upsetting than the differences in Paul's vision retellings?

Which differences, in your view, make the JS first vision accounts MORE contradictory than the Pauline vision accounts?

That's the question of this thread.

:P

Just when I was trying to give this thread some historical sophistication. Joseph Smith's accounts should concern us more because they come from the same person and have more meaning. Contradictions in the NT shouldn't bother us as much, because they have no meaning beyond being contradictory. Now, do you want to look at JS's accounts, or not?

Link to post

This is an assertion that needs support and argument. I see none here.

It no doubt does, but that's not completely the point-it's about deciding if the change is any MORE notworthy than the changes made by Paul-does the change MEAN anything doctrinally?

Since JS had told others about seeing God and Christ before 1832-then i don't see how his not mentioning it in the 1832 account can be said to contradict the 1838 account. All it tells us is that the accounts were not equally detailed in provided the same information.

If JS had said, in the 1832 account, that God the Father wasn't there-then the 1838 account WOULD be a contradiction. If there was no hint of JS ever mentioned God the Father before 1838-then that account COULD be a contradition-though we wouldn't know for sure.

:P

Link to post

I frankly don't get it, given the fact that unfriendly sources were talking about JSJr seeing G-d long before the 1838 version came out. When the objection ignores such inconveniences, it appears irrational and is not penetrable to my analysis.

How can I comment on a "given fact" if I seen any evidence to support the existence of a given fact.

But assuming its true, all that says is that JS told different version to different people at different times, rather than one story that evolved over time.

I'm suggesting that if JSJr was satisfied with it he would have seen to it that it was widely disseminated instead of known only to a very few. That's all.

I don't know what you mean by "satisfied."

'Course, somebody is bound to say sometime that JSJr started out saying he'd seen G-d and the Master, only to try to back off from that invented whopper to a more modest 1832 invented whopper in the newly fresh air of Kirtland . . . but that he had second thoughts and decided to flesh out the earlier whoppers with his 1838 whopper when Missouri was burning down around everybody's ears.

USU "I can spin with the best of 'em" 78

So then, what is your spin on why he failed to mention the presence of God and Jesus as separate personages in his hand written '32 account.

Did he forget that God was there? Was God's presence not germane to the story? Was he threated with destruction if he mentioned God?

Link to post

Just when I was trying to give this thread some historical sophistication. Joseph Smith's accounts should concern us more because they come from the same person and have more meaning. Contradictions in the NT shouldn't bother us as much, because they have no meaning beyond being contradictory. Now, do you want to look at JS's accounts, or not?

I have been looking at them, there have been some great links provided here-but if you remember, that's not WHY i started this thread. It was to understand the position of those who support Paul through his changed accounts, but not JS through his.

To those who quote Paul more than Christ in their doctrine, his accounts should have meaning in their beliefs. If you base your belief of grace and salvation on what Paul said (as many do)-then shouldn't you know that he was called to speak for God on the subject. If his vision is false, then that comes into question.

:P

Link to post

It's not about rejecting JS story; it's about being critical of his version. The kinds of changes tell us something about changes he was undergoing between 1832 and 1838.

I can agree with that.

One of those changes was an obvious cooling of Millennial furver. In 1833, persecution in Missouri started--the press was destroyed and the Mormons were driven from Jackson County. In 1834, Zion's Camp was sent from Ohio to return the Mormons to their lands, but that failed.

I can live with that too.

Since... he tells us that he was once praying very ernestly to know that date of the Lords coming and was basically blown off not knowing what to make of the comunique he received.

What is the saying... line upon line.

Link to post
How can I comment on a "given fact" if I seen any evidence to support the existence of a given fact.

I guess you missed Helorum's post on the 2nd page of this thread where he provided the following link to articles on the subject, which list and discuss those 3rd party unfriendly sources as well as other information.

But assuming its true, all that says is that JS told different version to different people at different times, rather than one story that evolved over time.

No. It doesn't mean that at all. The essential elements of G-d and the Master appearing to JSJr are there in the unfriendly sources for all to see . . . much before 1838. They are statements against interest and highly credible on this subject.

So, no, there's no evidence that JSJr forgot what he saw when he was a pup, as the early sources confirm he talked to somebody about it, and word got out so that he could be pulverized in print therefor. Why he didn't mention it in the 1832 version is simply unknown and cannot be used as credible evidence that he was fudging in 1838 -- either he was fudging in the 1820s, or not at all. 1838 vs. 1832 is a red herring.

Now, DV seeks to discuss what the differences mean without addressing the foundational claims themselves. I don't have a problem with that, so long as everybody's clear that we aren't talking about the Church's foundational claims, but rather a mere historical curiousity.

Link to post

I've yet to hear DV address the 3rd party unfriendly sources mocking the very idea that JSJr saw G-d that appeared far earlier than 1838.

Sorry about the language mixup. I zigged when I should have zagged and my edit function won't function.

You evidently missed what I said before about my position with the first vision. I accept that something happened in 1820, but I question JS's version of it. I think you are referring to the report of an Ohio resident that Cowdery and other missionaries claimed JS saw God. It reads:

Smith (they affirmed), had seen God frequently and personally. Palmyra Reflector, 14 Feb. 1831.

Assuming the Ohio resident got the story right, how does this prove JS's 1838 account is accurate?

Link to post

This was intresting from the link...

1835â??36

Around 9 August 1835 Joseph Young (Brigham Youngâ??s brother) was serving as a missionary with Burr Riggs and they were teaching the First Vision story (See Young Womanâ??s Journal, vol. 18, no. 12, December 1907, 537â??39; Samuel W. Richards, Journal Book 2 of Travels To Nauvoo, BYU Special Collections, Writings of Early Latter-day Saints, 26; Andrew Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, 1:187). In the Summer of 1836 Joseph Young and Brigham Young were together serving as missionaries (See Andrew Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia, 1:115).

This one list our very own Dan...

Dan Vogel, "The Earliest Mormon Concept of God," in Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, edited by Gary James Bergera, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 17â??33.

The theophany portion of the 1832 account does seem to indicate that only Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. The relevant text reads as follows:

"a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day c[a]me 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 and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life <behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father."[1]

Even though the Savior is quoted as making a direct reference to the Father in this text, there is no indication in the theophany portion of it which would indicate that God the Father made an appearance on this occasion. However, critics have failed to notice a significant phrase found in the introductory remarks of the Prophet's 1832 historical narrative. There he says that this document is -

"A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brough <it> forth and established by his hand <firstly> he receiving the testamony from on high secondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospelâ??<â??the Law and commandments as they were given unto himâ??>and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God."

This paragraph outlines four major events of the Restoration in chronological order.

FIRST: Reception of "the testimony from on high" - First Vision

SECOND: The "ministering of angels" - Moroni visitations

THIRD: Reception of the Holy Priesthood to administer the letter of the gospel - Aaronic

FOURTH: Reception of the High Priesthood after the order of the Son - Melchizedek

http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Only_one...he_1832_account

Link to post

It no doubt does, but that's not completely the point-it's about deciding if the change is any MORE notworthy than the changes made by Paul-does the change MEAN anything doctrinally?

I think the changes have important historical implications.

Since JS had told others about seeing God and Christ before 1832-then i don't see how his not mentioning it in the 1832 account can be said to contradict the 1838 account. All it tells us is that the accounts were not equally detailed in provided the same information.

Of course, none of these accounts pre-date the 1832 account. They are reminiscences and are just as liable to be wrong as the ones discussed on the other threads that do not conform to the 1838 account. Memory is tricky from the standpoint of, say, 1870, a few years in the 1830s can get blurred very easily. That doesn't make them automatically wrong, but you are trying to use them to overcome a problem in an 1832 document in JS own hand, which happens to fit with what is known about JS's doctrinal development in the early 1830s.

If JS had said, in the 1832 account, that God the Father wasn't there-then the 1838 account WOULD be a contradiction. If there was no hint of JS ever mentioned God the Father before 1838-then that account COULD be a contradition-though we wouldn't know for sure.

Why would the 1832 accout say the Father was not there? This is more unlikely because at that time, apparently, Jesus was the Father (see Mosiah 15).

Link to post

I have been looking at them, there have been some great links provided here-but if you remember, that's not WHY i started this thread. It was to understand the position of those who support Paul through his changed accounts, but not JS through his.

To those who quote Paul more than Christ in their doctrine, his accounts should have meaning in their beliefs. If you base your belief of grace and salvation on what Paul said (as many do)-then shouldn't you know that he was called to speak for God on the subject. If his vision is false, then that comes into question.

:P

No one need pay any attention to such a flagrant violation of the fallacy of ad hominem circumstantial.

You still have not acknowledge the difference between the situation with JS's accounts and the NT. If the there is discrepency in Luke's two versions, and one is closer to Paul's version than the other, how does that call into question Paul's vision? You are comparing apples to oranges.

Link to post

The Problem is... If I understand correctly Luke is attributed with writing the first two accounts and Paul is attributed with writing the third. (At least from the way the bible reads the third being in first person and all) And it is with that exact acount the the All falling Down or all standing but Paul makes a lot of difference. Why did Pauls story change to impress a king?

Link to post

The Problem is... If I understand correctly Luke is attributed with writing the first two accounts and Paul is attributed with writing the third. (At least from the way the bible reads the third being in first person and all) And it is with that exact acount the the All falling Down or all standing but Paul makes a lot of difference. Why did Pauls story change to impress a king?

Paul's letters pre-date the gospels (Acts being attached to Luke's gospel), and we do not know what sources Luke used.

Link to post

No one need pay any attention to such a flagrant violation of the fallacy of ad hominem circumstantial.

You still have not acknowledge the difference between the situation with JS's accounts and the NT. If the there is discrepency in Luke's two versions, and one is closer to Paul's version than the other, how does that call into question Paul's vision? You are comparing apples to oranges.

It doesn't automatically call Paul's vision into question-because we don't know WHY there are discrepencies in the different versions we have (paul could have told it quite differently-perhaps luke made the best parts up?-maybe paul was trying to impress the king?).

It simply calls into question why we may be so willing to overlook the discrepencies of one person's accounts but not overlook them for another.

We don't know WHY there are discrepencies in paul's accounts-could be an error on luke's part-could be paul embelishing the story for his audience with the king (and luke's accounts could be more correct)-could be paul and luke emphasising different aspects of the same vision.

We dont' know WHY there are discrepencies in JS's accounts-could be he was making stuff up-could be he was afraid to tell the truth about seeing God for some reaon-could be he was focusing more on certain aspects of the same experience, etc....

For me-i don't see how paul or JS's accounts can stand or fall based on the contradictions in them-because we just don't know enough about why they are there.

I think other things have to come into play (faith and the Spirit for two)-many people take Paul's accounts as truth through faith-they accept that they don't know why some parts contradict (same as with the resurrection story) but it doesn't matter to them.

But some of these same people will automatically assume the worst answer to 'why' for JS's accounts and allow that assumption to make or break his validity.

I don't see it as apples and oranges at all. It seems to me to be based on religious bias-'mercy for our beliefs, justice for everyone elses'....

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...