Joseph Smith's Four Accounts of the First Vision

[consiglieri]

I think also that in the investigation of crimes, etc., detectives consider it a red flag if the person tells events in the exact same way every time--they expect some differences in the telling, if the person is relating it truthfully.

My experience has been that detectives, right or wrong, look at any variation of a retold story, however minor, as evidence that the person is lying.

They usually call it "changing their story."

For what it's worth . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

Someone defining "too far" as "straying from church approved materials and methods" is falling back on a technicality. The question is, what is the danger in breaking from that which is "outlined by the church"? And more to the point, why is there a danger at all?

Well, Mighty Curelom, there are apparently some folks out there who won't quite know what to do when presented with different accounts. Depending on how the presenter frames the accounts these folks can draw different conclusions from the same information. It can prove to be an edifying experience or a confusing experience. Since you disbelieve the First Vision as something that actually occurred and I do not, our approach will differ. I particularly like st9's comments in the thread, and hope that other posters might "lighten up" in regards to the lessons these teachers have been called to teach. I also hope the teachers make use of the Holy Ghost in their instruction.

[consiglieri]

This is the main reason I wish I were the teaching this class: two Lords are in the 1832 account ("...the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord..."), but by not reading the other accounts we don't get a clear sense of this fact and why one Lord appeared before the other. Nor do we realize how much Joseph was really alluding to in this first known recorded version.

There is actually a clue to understanding the "one Lord" reference in the 1832 account.

The clue is in the 1838 account, the one that we have in the Pearl of Great Price.

The clue is hard to locate, however, because it was edited out of the 1838 account when it was canonized.

And, unfortunately, I have to run, but will try to get back to explain further.

All the Best!

And thanks for all the great contributions to the thread, everybody!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

There is actually a clue to understanding the "one Lord" reference in the 1832 account.

The clue is in the 1838 account, the one that we have in the Pearl of Great Price.

The clue is hard to locate, however, because it was edited out of the 1838 account when it was canonized.

And, unfortunately, I have to run, but will try to get back to explain further.

As Lamanite would say, "bush league."

[Lamanite]

. I also hope the teachers make use of the Holy Ghost in their instruction.

I agree with LOAP here. And I think it's the second or third time he's made this remark in this thread.

One thing we as teachers may want to ask is "to what end?" The Savior asked his disciples something similar, "What seek ye?". If you're answers to these questions are the glorification of God and the spiritual edification of your students; then I say teach on.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[consiglieri]

As Lamanite would say, "bush league."

I heard that!

[Lamanite]

As Lamanite would say, "bush league."

Or as LOAP would say, "Tricks are for kids!"

LOL

[consiglieri]

Or as LOAP would say, "Tricks are for kids!"

Heard that, too!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Remember that guy on here who posts stuff like this:

[PrettyNewMommy]

It is ridiculous that we can not tell the whole truth in the True Church. People are so sensitive, and need to relax about "Things that bother them".How can their testimonies possibly grow without constantly learning new material..Or should I say "VERY VERY OLD material"..That we keep on the -hush, hush for some WEIRD reason. I tell stories to people all the time and they are always just a little different! This subject with the 4+ visions does not even bother me! Who cares about the 7-10 something ways someone told a story. Come on people..There are things in the church WAY more Bothersome than this subject. I can not believe the whitewashing.

[zerinus]

My experience has been that detectives, right or wrong, look at any variation of a retold story, however minor, as evidence that the person is lying.

They usually call it "changing their story."

For what it's worth . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Then you must beleive that the New Testament writers were lying, because they often gave differing accounts of the same story. Here is a quote from Ensign article that illustrates this point:

Indeed, there are long-standing precedents for differing accounts of the same spiritual experience. For example, the four Gospels do not correspond exactly concerning the great events at the gardenâ??s empty tomb. There are variations as to the number of women and angels who were present and whether the angels were sitting or standing. Although the Prophet Joseph Smith in his inspired translation clarified some of these details (and others cited below), minor disparities remain in the four descriptions of this event (compare Matt. 28 with Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20). The differences, however, are not importantâ??they may have resulted from incorrect transmissions or translations, or may be the result of recording the event from different perspectives. The glorious fact remains that the tomb was empty because Jesus had risen as the first fruits of the Resurrection.

Accounts of the Saviorâ??s appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus, related to us in Acts by Luke and by Paul in his letters, also vary. To cite one example, in Acts 8:7, we read that others traveling with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. In chapter 22, verse 9, we read that others saw the light but did not hear the voice.

A description of an event found in John 12 is similar in some respects to the New Testament account of Paulâ??s vision. According to John, while Jesus was in Jerusalem a â??voiceâ? was heard from heaven. While some perceived that the noise was like thunder, others thought that an angel had spoken. (See John 12:28â??29.)

It is the great reality that is important, not the somewhat differing perceptions of it. Although the description by Matthew of the death of Judas (Matt. 27:5) is different from that described in Acts (Acts 1:18), and although the gospels differ on the message enscribed on the cross and the words that Jesus spoke prior to his death (compare Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:34; Luke 23:38, 43; and John 19:19â??21), we should not become so engrossed with differences that we fail to comprehend the basic message conveyed in the Gospels. Of most importance in the descriptions of the crucifixion is that Jesus, while on the cross, was completing the Atonement.

zerinus

[annewandering]

It is ridiculous that we can not tell the whole truth in the True Church. People are so sensitive, and need to relax about "Things that bother them".How can their testimonies possibly grow without constantly learning new material..Or should I say "VERY VERY OLD material"..That we keep on the -hush, hush for some WEIRD reason. I tell stories to people all the time and they are always just a little different! This subject with the 4+ visions does not even bother me! Who cares about the 7-10 something ways someone told a story. Come on people..There are things in the church WAY more Bothersome than this subject. I can not believe the whitewashing.

All 11 accounts were in the Ensign at one time.

Problem is that sunday school is short and if you wanted to get in depth it would take hours on just the one idea. You also have the problem of varied interests and abilities in sunday school. We have two Gospel Doctrine classes in our ward. One is taught by a woman who is a professor and likes to get down into it which is fascinating to me but for a number of the people I have talked to, they say her lessons are over their heads, in their own words not mine.

The other class is equally well taught but is more hmm simple? Not stupid mind you but easier to understand. We are fortunate to have that but even so the one teacher has to really rush to get through the materials. It is just not practical to teach in a great deal of depth, normally, in that setting.

However for those that want more there are always classes, for instance byu online classes, online information, books etc. You can always find out more if you want.

[sethpayne]

Then you must beleive that the New Testament writers were lying, because they often gave differing accounts of the same story. Here is a quote from Ensign article that illustrates this point:

Indeed, there are long-standing precedents for differing accounts of the same spiritual experience. For example, the four Gospels do not correspond exactly concerning the great events at the gardenâ??s empty tomb. There are variations as to the number of women and angels who were present and whether the angels were sitting or standing. Although the Prophet Joseph Smith in his inspired translation clarified some of these details (and others cited below), minor disparities remain in the four descriptions of this event (compare Matt. 28 with Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20). The differences, however, are not importantâ??they may have resulted from incorrect transmissions or translations, or may be the result of recording the event from different perspectives. The glorious fact remains that the tomb was empty because Jesus had risen as the first fruits of the Resurrection.

Accounts of the Saviorâ??s appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus, related to us in Acts by Luke and by Paul in his letters, also vary. To cite one example, in Acts 8:7, we read that others traveling with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. In chapter 22, verse 9, we read that others saw the light but did not hear the voice.

A description of an event found in John 12 is similar in some respects to the New Testament account of Paulâ??s vision. According to John, while Jesus was in Jerusalem a â??voiceâ? was heard from heaven. While some perceived that the noise was like thunder, others thought that an angel had spoken. (See John 12:28â??29.)

It is the great reality that is important, not the somewhat differing perceptions of it. Although the description by Matthew of the death of Judas (Matt. 27:5) is different from that described in Acts (Acts 1:18), and although the gospels differ on the message enscribed on the cross and the words that Jesus spoke prior to his death (compare Matt. 27:37; Mark 15:34; Luke 23:38, 43; and John 19:19â??21), we should not become so engrossed with differences that we fail to comprehend the basic message conveyed in the Gospels. Of most importance in the descriptions of the crucifixion is that Jesus, while on the cross, was completing the Atonement.

zerinus

They weren't told by the same person silly! Makes a difference methinks.

[PrettyNewMommy]

Consig, go with the spirit and give the information. If members don't already know this than obviously they aren't paying attention to information the Church puts out.

Pretty New Mommy~ We teach by the spirit and of spiritual things while at Church. Most of those types of stories don't do any good to get into a debate while at Church. That is what Institute and Seminary and many other Church classes offer. Sunday mornings are about learning of Christ, not how many different ways a story are told. If you think about it the New Testament does the same thing with the four gospels. None of the gospels are the same and some are rather different accounts. However when we learn of them on Sunday we rarely go into the how and why of them being so different.

BTW. It is not a debate, it is what happened.If people want to know Who-What-Where-When-Why tell them to read the Ensign article, or other legitimate sources. If you don't want to hear it, don't listen. If your testimony(in general, NOT yours) is not strong enough to handle the truth, and you can not accept it than you are claiming the church is false.(Which is what the church teaches ALL or Nothing..That however is not what I believe..I do not believe in All or Nothing, just to clarify). If I was in a class learning about NT/4 gospels. Gee..You know what I would do ..I would listen and learn and accept..And if I didn't like it I would find a new church. I am begining to dislike the Say Less/Say the Best..Baptize more.We have nothing to hid..if it is the True church.

Also..This post is not really about a TIME issue. It is the "What are the safe things/How much can I say" issues. I'm sure you can find ways to quickly explain ..Only the 4 versions. Or at least maybe mention..btw there are also 3 others..And so and so many from other members...etc. There are ways ..It is not IMPOSSIBLE..Another lame excuse for keeping the members comfortable. -I know, I know Sundays should be comfortable-we should not have to think.

[zerinus]

They weren't told by the same person silly! Makes a difference methinks.

The First Vision accounts were not all told by the same person either. Most of them are reports of what Joseph Smith had reportedly told others.

zerinus

[consiglieri]

Then you must beleive that the New Testament writers were lying, because they often gave differing accounts of the same story. Here is a quote from Ensign article that illustrates this point:

I didn't say I thought anybody was lying.I was just saying that law enforcement is much more inclined to look at people who change their story as lying than people who tell the same story.Anyway, I have to run, but here is the interesting detail I noted last night when perusing the 1838 account, and how it may relate to the 1832 account.Everybody here knows the famous part where Joseph Smith says that he saw two personages, "and they did in fact speak to me," etc.Right after he says the quoted part, there is a phrase in parenthesis--(or at least one of them did).This parenthetical phrase is omitted in the PGP version, but when we know it was there in the original 1838 version, I think it tends to make a little more sense of the 1832 version.By the way, I am going from memory here, but am pretty sure that this is accurate.Will try to remember to bring in my source material to work tomorrow.All the Best!--Consiglieri

The First Vision accounts were not all told by the same person either. Most of them are reports of what Joseph Smith had reportedly told others.zerinus

Which takes us back nicely to the OP where I mentioned the four versions by Joseph Smith and you corrected me, saying there were nine.I am most interested in what Joseph Smith had to say rather than what others say he said.All the Best!--Consiglieri

[sethpayne]

The First Vision accounts were not all told by the same person either. Most of them are reports of what Joseph Smith had reportedly told others.

zerinus

Hmmmm... didn't he write several himself? 1832, 1834 and 1838?

[zerinus]

Which takes us back nicely to the OP where I mentioned the four versions by Joseph Smith and you corrected me, saying there were nine.

I am most interested in what Joseph Smith had to say rather than what others say he said.

All the Best!--Consiglieri

I think that all of them are important, provided that their limitations are recognized. If you wanted to discard everything that was reported by others of Joseph Smith, you would have to chuck away most of his Teachings.

Hmmmm... didn't he write several himself? 1832, 1834 and 1838?

I said most of them, not all of them.

zerinus

[Lamanite]

Hmmmm... didn't he write several himself? 1832, 1834 and 1838?

He only wrote most of the 1832 account (Frederick G. Williams is the other handwriting in the document). 1835 and 38 accounts were dictated. All the rest are secondary, tertiary, and so on.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[consiglieri]

Okay, I'm back with resources in hand!

I have spent about an hour making this post, and warn you at the outset that it is somewhat detailed.

On the other hand, I think there is at least one new insight contained in it that tends to "gel" the different accounts of the First Vision given by Joseph Smith.

__________________

The book I have with me is The Keystone of Mormonism: Early Visions of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by Paul Cheesman, (Eagle Systems International: Provo, UT) 1988, which collects in the appendices all the different First Vision versions.

The 1832 account

The 1832 account states, in relevant part (original spelling and grammar retained):

". . . while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the [unclear word] year of my age a piller of light above the brighness 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 and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son Thy Sins are forgiven thee, . . ."

Here, Joseph does not specifically mention seeing two personages, which has caused some controversy. (By the way, my dearest friend, an RM, left the Church in the late 1980's, citing this as a major contributing factor.)

Apologists are quick to point out that Joseph Smith doesn't say he saw only one personage, and some say that the mention of "Lord" twice refers to "two Lords" and that two personages can therefore be inferred.

The 1835 account

The 1835 account mentions the fact that the two personages did not appear simultaneously:

"A pillar of fire appeared above my head; which presently rested down upon me and filled me with unspeakable joy. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first; he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee."

A Comparison of the 1832 and 1835 Accounts

Comparing the 1832 account with the 1835 account at this point, there is a strong similarity. The 1835 account refers clearly to two different personages, one appearing before the other, and the second one speaking to Joseph and saying, "Thy sins are forgiven thee."

The 1835 account refers to both beings with the same noun, "personage."

It is not unreasonable to look at the 1832 account in a similar way, having Joseph Smith describing the same event, but instead of using the same word, "personage" to describe the two beings, he uses the same word, "Lord."

The 1832 account could then be understood to say that "the Lord opened the heavens upon me," referring to the first personage the 1835 account; and then going on to say, "and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me," referring to the second personage of the 1835 account.

This is not the most natural reading of the 1832 account; but mainly, that has to do with the fact that we tend to think of the phrase "the Lord" as being applicable to only one being, and not two, whereas we have little difficulty understanding the phrase "the personage" as not unique to only one being; something that Joseph Smith may not have considered at the time of the 1832 account dictation; and could very well have been why he changed the "the Lord" in the 1832 account to "the personage" in the 1835 account; not necessarily because he was changing his story on this detail, but because he wanted to be more clear.

But considering that the 1832 account appears to have remained in rough draft form; was dictated to a scribe (likely Frederick G. Williams, as Lamanite pointed out); and also keeping in mind that the 1835 account was written only three years later; all of this together with the fact that these two passages appear to be describing the exact same part of the event; it is not implausible to read the 1832 account as being open to the interpretation that Joseph Smith was not talking about only one "Lord."

The Omitted Portion of the 1838 Account

The 1838 account, as I mentioned above, becomes interesting in view of the fact that the 1832 and 1835 accounts refer to only one of the "Lords" or "personages" speaking to Joseph Smith; that being the second one.

Here is the relevant section of the 1838 account, which also mentions that only one of the "personages" spoke to Joseph Smith, although he now mentions having heard the first one speak, as well, but only by way of introducing the second.

"So it was with me, I had actually seen a light and in the midst of that light I saw two personages, and they did in reality speak unto me, or one of them did, and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true . . . "

Of course, the bold-faced parenthetical statement was omitted from the canonized version, so we have it in the PGP as follows:

"So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Persaonges, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; . . ."

Now, obviously the removal of the parenthetical statement, "or one of them did," makes the sentence run more smoothly, and increases the power of the testimony, so it is understandable why the change may have been made.

It may also have been thought strange to include the phrase "or one of them did," right after Joseph Smith describes one of the two Personages as saying the following to him:

"One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other--This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

The answer given to Joseph Smith in response to his query as to which of all the sects is right, and which he should join, is inferred to be given by the second Personage, though I might note that the text does not specifically state this.

(This inference is warranted, inasmuch as why would the first Personage introduce the second Personage, with the admonition for Joseph to "Hear" the second Personage, if the second Personage never said anything?)

But the parenthetical comment, "or one of them did," serves as a connecting link between the 1838 account and the 1832 account.

Regardless of the fact that the first Personage spoke to Joseph, calling him by name and introduced the second Personage, it looks like Joseph Smith did not really consider that brief introduction to amount to "speaking" to him; and hence his qualifier, "I saw two personage, and they did in reality speak unto me, or one of them did."

I say this may be a connecting link because it sounds similar to the 1832 account:

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.

In other words, the first "Lord" mentioned in the 1832 account only "opens the heavens" and the second "Lord" mentioned "spake unto me."

This is similar to the first Personage of the 1838 account addressing Joseph and introducing his Son; but is only similar because even in the 1838 account Joseph Smith indicates that he doesn't really consider this speaking to him; and that it was the second Personage who spoke to him.

This important point would be overlooked if we went only by the PGP First Vision account, and were not aware of the omitted parenthetical statement in the original 1838 account on which it is based.

The 1832 account of the first "Lord" "opening the heavens" is also similar to the 1835 account that one "personage" appeared first (hence "opening the heavens") and the second "personage" to appear was the one that "spoke" to Joseph.

Conclusion

Generally an analysis of this detail is a thread-stopper; but I wanted to be sufficiently thorough to do justice to the subject.

Also, I think the omitted parenthetical statement from the 1838 account may be important, and to my knowledge has not been remarked upon by others.

At least, I can say that it was not mentioned in Paul Cheesman's book, nor in the Ensign article linked to above, nor by Elden Watson's "harmony" linked to above, as well.

I hope that my analyzing it here may be of interest.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[HiJolly]

Very nice! Thanks, C.

HiJolly

[consiglieri]

Very nice! Thanks, C.

HiJolly

Wow!

Thanks for taking the time to wade through it!

All the Best!

--C.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I had forgotten the parenthetical (now deleted) portion. Where did you find it?

[HiJolly]

Wow!

Thanks for taking the time to wade through it!

All the Best!

--C.

"wade through it"? I cut 'n pasted it. It's sitting on my HDD right now.

HiJolly

[consiglieri]

I had forgotten the parenthetical (now deleted) portion. Where did you find it?

In the appendices of Paul Cheesman's book.

Appendix A (pp. 129-139) is the 1838 account as recorded in Joseph Smith's original manuscript history.

Appendix B (140-150) is the 1838 version as amended for the Pearl of Great Price account.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri