Joseph Smith's Four Accounts of the First Vision

[John Larsen]

I appreciate the offer, but am not really technologically set up to do a power point.

Which parts of your power point do you think would fall into the "too far" category?

I think what I am driving at is, considering that all four accounts were authored by Joseph Smith, why should anything in his accounts be considered by Mormons as "too far"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think the going to far is a matter of interpretation. As in many elements of LDS history, the text may be interpreted in different ways depending on your point of view.

However, as far as Sunday School goes, many do not want to be confronted with any information even slightly challenging to their preconceived notions.

[Black Moclips]

The bottow line here is whether people will be bothered to know that in the earliest account of the first vision, Joseph simply mentions the saw the Lord. Not two people, not one testifying of the other, just that he saw the Lord. All the rest of the differences can be attributed to the slight variations you would expect somewhat in a story told over several years. But the fact that he mentioned only one person is the big one.

Whether you are bothered by this or not, is based on your expectations. What would you expect Joseph to write down the first time he put the story to paper? What would you do? Why would he mention only seeing the Lord if two people were there?

When it comes down to it, I would say that most TBM's aren't even aware of the issue. I would guess most TBM's that do become aware of it, reconcile it as presented in the various posts here so far. But for some, those responses don't make sense or aren't satisfying. The question is whether or not you want to bring it up in Gospel Doctrine and be impetus for someone's angst. I favor the innoculation position - mention these things early on, and you'll have far fewer problems in the future.

[The Nehor]

I'm just curious what you want to get out of the different accounts. I teach GD too and unless I'm doing some kind of connecting history I try to toss anything that isn't going to invite the Spirit in. If there are specific truths you want to share go for it. If it's just an attempt to satisfy intellectual curiosity of others it probably shouldn't be in Sunday School. My two cents.

[HiJolly]

As I sat in Sunday School last Sunday (a big deal for me) the SS President sat down next to me and asked me if I would be willing to teach next Sunday's lesson (#3 - First Vision). I was really, really happy to be asked.

I'm going to start with "all truth can be circumscribed by the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" (Pres. Uchtdorf 2006) then proceed to explain how we simply can't teach it all in Church. The lesson manual itself says in THIS lesson (pg. 11) that "This lesson contains more material than is possible to teach in one class period." I'll then mention the doctrinal version vs. the 4 accounts (referring to the Ensign article -- Jan '85) and then the nine accounts (re: E Watson). Just to let them know how much there is available.

Then as an example of the possible benefits of going beyond the class materials, I'll discuss the Glory of God as heat, from the 1835 version of the FV and also Oliver Cowdery's relating of Moroni appearing in 'consuming fire', and then on to Moses 1:13 that Moses knew something was not right when Satan had no Glory. It's a personal thing from just me, but showing how our experience can be validated in our studies, if we seek.

I'll encourage everyone to study these things on their own. Then I'll launch into the "right place" "right time" "right man" discussions found in the manual.

I can't wait.

HiJolly

[zerinus]

Having settled that question, I am still interested in the thoughts of others as to how far I should go with this.

That is a strange question. The lesson is not about the recital of the First vision, but what we can learn from Josephâ??s experience of it. The purpose of the lesson is outlined in the manual as follows: â??To strengthen class membersâ?? testimonies of the First Vision and of Joseph Smithâ??s calling as the prophet through whom God restored the fullness of the gospel to the earth.â? Discussing the different recitals can only be useful to the extent that it furthers that aim, otherwise it can be counterproductive.

I mean, the entire class period is devoted to this one subject.

Not quite. The lesson deals with the Apostasy and Restoration. The heading to part 1 of the lesson material reads: â??After the Apostasy, God prepared the way for the Restorationâ?. Everything underneath that heading deals with that subject. It doesnâ??t touch the First Vision. Next, the heading to part 2 of the lesson material reads: â??God prepared Joseph Smith to be the prophet of the Restorationâ?. Everything under that heading tells us about Joseph Smithâ??s family background and other things about his personal life that indicate how God prepared Him for his prophetic calling. Again, the First Vision is not mentioned. The actual recital of the First Vision is the subject of part 3 of the lesson material, with a heading that reads: â??The First Vision ushered in the restoration of the gospelâ?. This part is in fact the shortest! It briefly discusses the account of Josephâ??s experience. The different recitals may be mentioned (very briefly) here. And finally, part 4 of the lesson manual discusses the object lesson learned from Josephâ??s experience of the First Vision; and the different recitals do not have much to offer to that part of the lesson.

And I think my class members are already pretty familiar with the 1838 version.

And how does becoming familiar with the other versions help class members achieve the main objectives of the lesson, as outlined above?

zerinus

[rpn]

I think you have your answer in the first verse of the assigned scriptures. There were lots of stories going around back then, and that was why JS wrote it down in this fashion.

  1 Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of aLatter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to militate against its character as a Church and its progress in the worldâ??I have been induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind, and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the bfacts, as they have transpired, in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession.
  2 In this history I shall present the various events in relation to this Church, in truth and righteousness, as they have transpired, or as they at present exist, being now [1838] the aeighth byear since the organization of the said Church.

[Lamanite]

Sig,

Just last night I sent a text to a board member to get his opinions. He shared the same advice in this thread as he shared with me privately. I teach teenagers. I'm sure they will be fine during class. I will encourage them to continue the discussion with their parents when they get home.

I'm going to discuss the 1832 Smith account. Some of the 1835 accounts. 1838 Smith account. And maybe some 1840 Pratt. On pg 56, 60, 62, 66, and 68 of Opening the Heavens, John W. Welch it provides tables that display similarities and differences, as well as other pertinent info between accounts.

After about a half hour discussion on the varying accounts, I'll spend the remainder of the time on the specific doctrinal implications. Personal and Church Implications will probably come up in the discussion of each separate account and the progressive nature for Joseph from personal manifestation to Divine manifestation for the Church as a whole.

I don't know how it will play out. I know that with the Spirit guiding the lesson we can't go wrong.

Happy Day!

Lamanite

[Olavarria]

Teach what will point them to Christ.

[stn9]

Why not review the account of the different versions in the Ensign some time ago.

Excellent suggestion. I wish I were teaching that lesson because I would review a few of the beliefs of the critics and use the varying accounts to paint a more accurate picture than we get in one account.

[stn9]

As Elder Ballard said: "If teachers feel a need to use some good supplemental resources beyond the scriptures and manuals in presenting a lesson, they should first consider the use of the Church magazines." And, as a second consideration--Elder Ballard only asked the Ensign to be a first consideration--I would suggest using Joseph Smith's own words or accounts recorded by those close to him.

[sleepyhead]

Thank you. That is also a good point. That article in the Ensign can be read here.

zerinus

Hello zerinus,

I went to the above site. All it had was someone talking about these various accounts. They didn't have the actual accounts.

[stn9]

If we are not careful we may fall into this trap, instead of receiving the word of God in plainness we want to try to "humanize" it or look upon the so-called "warts" so as to bring down the prophets to a "common" level... this I believe is a mistake....

I think this caution is a little too cautious. I don't want to strip any Church figure of their pious devotion or righteousness, but rather to help myself and others be more understanding and able to defend our faith; and you don't have to "bring down the prophets to a 'common' level" to show that they were, in many senses of the word, "common men" like you or me but more blessed and faithful (full of faith and true to the Lord, His gospel and the Church). I prefer Elder Oaks's response on this issue:

HW: Just one more question on that. In every church, in every person, there's a shallow territory usually explained away through context. Many find information through the Internet â?? some would rather find things out about the Church history, doctrine through teachings, rather than the Internet, or other resources.

DHO: It's an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That's an old problem in Mormonism â?? a feeling of members that they shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should've been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life.

There are several different elements of that. One element is that we're emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn't deal with anything that's unfavorable, and we're coming into a period of "warts and all" kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things â?? there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now.

On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don't want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn't exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that's a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven't read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives "Brother Jones" his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It's in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we're moving with the times, we're getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn't.

(From Elder Oaks Interview Transcript from PBS Documentary at lds.org; italics mine.)

Judgment will always be required in determining what we say to which group in which setting. But to stick to the "old way" (i.e. "manuals and nothing else,... except maybe an Ensign article") is to perpetuate the "old problem in Mormonism." I am all for mentioning things as directed by the Lord and repenting if you go too far (as you will be held accountable for what you teach). But, Joseph Smith didn't have a problem with teaching hard things, and everyone is accountable for how they themselves react to the things they encounter in this life, whether it's a quote on an anti-website or the same quote in Gospel Doctrine. I, for instance, do not share things in a shocking way, though the same things could be shared in a tone and context as if to damage faith and not foster faith and understanding. I have friends with doubts that I don't have, but we are reading about the same historical material. I believe it is the context and tone of the different historians we are reading that have in part helped create different experiences for us, not necessarily the material itself, because historical writing is selective, a selection from an already limited body of knowledge about the past. I think Elder Oaks is right: "we're emerging"--and I believe we should be emerging--"from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn't deal with anything that's unfavorable...." I know many faithful LDS scholars who feel the same (and have for some time) and I think many of the Brethren agree or are headed in that direction.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Amen, st9. Well done, imo.

[stn9]

Having settled that question [i agree], I am still interested in the thoughts of others as to how far I should go with this. I mean, the entire class period is devoted to this one subject. And I think my class members are already pretty familiar with the 1838 version.

Ask them what they want to know more about. I'm sure they have a wide variety of questions or even knowledge to share.

[zerinus]

Hello zerinus,

I went to the above site. All it had was someone talking about these various accounts. They didn't have the actual accounts.

The link was to the article that someone had mentioned. The "harmony" that I had linked to in my previous post I believe gives the complete texts of most of the different accounts; but he has split them up into bits for the purpose of creating his harmony. Most of the various accounts are not lengthy. They are short passages.

zerinus

[stn9]

The Bishop approached me and said he and others enjoyed my lessons but that a few people were uncomfortable with "outside" information being taught in class.

"Yea, Lord, we have enough. Please don't teach us anything new."

Buh-lee-aweu-gggaaaahhhh! (Or any other strange and shocking noise of digust.)

Joseph Smith: "I advise all to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness" (12 May 1844)

"Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternityâ??thou must commune with God. How much more dignified and noble are the thoughts of God, than the vain imaginations of the human heart! None but fools will trifle with the souls of men" (25 march 1839)

[stn9]

But the fact that he mentioned only one person is the big one.

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.

[daz2]

Lightbearer asked: " Why were the other versions not included in the scriptures?"

1. I do not think the compilers of the Pearl of Great Price in the mid- to late-1800s knew about the other versions.

2. At the time the First Vision was added to the canon, it did not play the same emphatic role it has come to play today in LDS teachings or as a core lynchpin claim--as I understand it, that did not really occur until polygamy was largely abandoned and the Smoot hearings led to a refocus by the Church on the initial prophetic calling of Joseph. (See Kathleen Flake's book).

[Mighty Curelom]

These kinds of threads make my head hurt. The fact that one can go "too far" indicates trouble with the veracity of the accounts. Someone asking "how far is too far" is like a parent saying "how far do I have to stretch the truth to keep my kids believing in Santa," while at the same time still believing in Santa.

If Joseph was telling the truth, then there is no such thing as "too far." There is only a "too far" if Joseph was lying, you know he was lying, and you want to protect naive members from testimony damaging information.

[LifeOnaPlate]

These kinds of threads make my head hurt. The fact that one can go "too far" indicates trouble with the veracity of the accounts. Someone asking "how far is too far" is like a parent saying "how far do I have to stretch the truth to keep my kids believing in Santa," while at the same time still believing in Santa.

If Joseph was telling the truth, then there is no such thing as "too far." There is only a "too far" if Joseph was lying, you know he was lying, and you want to protect naive members from testimony damaging information.

Do you think people who define "too far" as not fulfilling the calling as asked and outlined by the Church should change that view?

[annewandering]

hmm he gave 11. Last I heard anyway.

[Mighty Curelom]

Do you think people who define "too far" as not fulfilling the calling as asked and outlined by the Church should change that view?

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?

I wouldn't necessarily say that anyone should "change their view," as you say. But let's at least be honest with ourselves about what "too far" really means--and it has little if anything to do with the technicalities of what is or isn't precisely approved by the church for Sunday school lessons.

[annewandering]

I'm curious what he means by "too far" also. I think it is completely appropriate to discuss the different accounts--and I think Deborah's suggestion of using the Ensign article is the best for the basis of your GD lesson. Also, Brenda's suggestion to note the differing accounts that Paul told of his conversion.

However, I've never been able to understand what the big deal is between the four accounts. Joseph just tells the story differently. I know, I don't tell a story the exact same way every time and I wouldn't expect him to either. You emphasize different things depending on your frame of mind, the point you are trying to make, as well as your audience--at least, that's my experience.

Different sounds so scary!!! Then you find out he just didn include all the parts with the same emphasis each time. Silly.

[annewandering]

Why not review the account of the different versions in the Ensign some time ago.

If that is the one I am thinking of it was pretty good and included them all. So much for hiding things from "poor, stupid" church members!

[zerinus]

These kinds of threads make my head hurt. The fact that one can go "too far" indicates trouble with the veracity of the accounts. Someone asking "how far is too far" is like a parent saying "how far do I have to stretch the truth to keep my kids believing in Santa," while at the same time still believing in Santa.

If Joseph was telling the truth, then there is no such thing as "too far." There is only a "too far" if Joseph was lying, you know he was lying, and you want to protect naive members from testimony damaging information.

Thank you! That is what I wanted to say, but didn't know how to say it.

zerinus