Tarski Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 I'm joining this thread late and haven't read through the other posts. I'll just add my contribution for what it's worth.As a gospel doctrine teacher in our ward, I will be teaching this lesson on Sunday. As I've pondered the matter, I've determined I will say something in passing to the class along the lines of the following:In your personal study, you might run across, if you have not done so already, separate accounts by Joseph Smith of the First Vision. While these different versions do not conflict with one another, some contain elements that others do not; some differ from others in their focus. Do not let this bother you.Why don't you let them decide what bothers them and provide them with the different accounts to read?
The Nehor Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 Why don't you let them decide what bothers them and provide them with the different accounts to read?Handouts in Sunday School are generally an abuse of our stewardship of the Earth as trees die for nothing.
stn9 Posted January 16, 2009 Posted January 16, 2009 Handouts in Sunday School are generally an abuse of our stewardship of the Earth as trees die for nothing.That's sadly true for many of the manuals and other materials the Church hands out to members for free.
Brenda Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 Wow, this thread sure took off like gangbusters! I'll be teaching the lesson this Sunday and I plan to use all the vision accounts, woven into the Pearl of Great Price account. I'm drawing from an Ensign article and I feel the different accounts add validity and interest. It's hard for me to understand what the controversy is about.(Don't ya just love this calling? I've learned so much! Each lesson strengthens my testimony.)
LifeOnaPlate Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 For your use, if y'all want, here is Eldon Watson's harmony and Backman's appendix stuff of the various accounts. A good resource to have on hand.Well never mind, looks like it didn't work:"Error Upload failed. Please ask the administrator to check the settings and permissions"
robuchan Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 Anyway, that the First Vision was not widely used in early years when telling the story of Mormonism--to both non-members and members--I thought was pretty well established.I disagree with this. I was somewhat shocked as a 30-something, active, BYU educated, RM, past GD and elder's quorum instructor when I first learned of this. Most members associate the fact that there many First Vision accounts to anti-Mormon lies, and have no idea the First Vision didn't have the same prominence as a missionary tool and a church teaching in the 1830's and 40's as it does today.
LifeOnaPlate Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 Watson_and_Backman__First_Vision_Harmony_and_Accounts.pdfHere it is, all of you friends. The First Vision harmony and the accounts.
why me Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 Actually I think problems did arise and that is why the below was done.If I am not mistaken, I did mention briefly the reason behind the official version. But I don't think that the problem which some make today can be compared to yesteryear. When JS was alive, he could settle it all with an explanation and he probably did. Unfortunately we don't seem to have a record of it. JS was not known to save his words on a taperecorder... Unfortunately.
why me Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 This is not accurate. Both accounts are included in official histories of the restoration. The 1832 account was simply not published.The 1832 version was not published but it was known. http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...ion_backman.htmAnd the whole idea of seeing two personages would have gotten Joseph a very early tar and feathering in my opinion.
why me Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 As a side note, there seems to be a lot of web pages on the differences in the accounts.Is anyone aware of a site that displays the consistencies within the accounts as well?http://www.eldenwatson.net/harmony.htmThe above may do the trick.
why me Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 Protestants believe in three persons and one God. I don't think any protestant would take issue with the fact the Christ and the Father are two persons. However, you might be more correct in saying Protestants would have gotten a little bent out of shape at the concept of the Father having a body.As far as the audiences are concerned:ConclusionJoseph Smith's various accounts of the First Vision were targeted at different audiences, and had different purposes. They, however, show a remarkable degree of harmony between them. There is no evidence that the early leaders of the LDS Church did not understand that the Prophet saw two Divine Personages during his inaugural theophany.http://en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision_accountsI would assume that Joseph knew that it just may ruffle some feathers by claiming two personages among protestants. By using the word lord twice, it created some ambiguity.
consiglieri Posted January 17, 2009 Author Posted January 17, 2009 I would assume that Joseph knew that it just may ruffle some feathers by claiming two personages among protestants. By using the word lord twice, it created some ambiguity.Joseph Smith intentionally inserted ambiguity into the account?An interesting idea, and not entirely implausible.Thanks for the insight.All the Best!--Consiglieri
zerinus Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 Joseph Smith intentionally inserted ambiguity into the account?An interesting idea, and not entirely implausible.Thanks for the insight.All the Best!--ConsiglieriI think that none of the accounts contain the full story of what happened in the First Vision. In the official account is says: "... and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time." (JS-History 1:20) In each of the accounts Joseph tells as much of the story as it seemed appropriate to him on that occasion; while at the same time hiding an awful lot more that he felt he could not tell. Another source of the discrepancies is that spiritual experiences are not easy to describe in terms of human experience. For example, in some of the accounts he describes the presence of God in a pillar of light; while in others in fire. I think that is because he is trying to describe something that in human terms does not have an exact equivalent.zerinus
why me Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 Joseph Smith intentionally inserted ambiguity into the account?An interesting idea, and not entirely implausible.Thanks for the insight.All the Best!--ConsiglieriWhen Joseph shared his story of seeing an angel with protestant pastors, they reacted very harshly toward him. This may have had a tremendous effect on him. When he related his first vision account in 1832, he may have just had this in mind. Of course it is all speculation but it would make some sense. Even today, protestants seem to put Christ as lord at the center of their narratives. Heaven Father seems to be in the backgroud and at times, it does seem that the two are one and the same.
why me Posted January 17, 2009 Posted January 17, 2009 Here is the 1832 account as written by Joseph Smith:1832 account of first vision. Handwriting: Frederick G. Williams & Joseph Smith Jr. (the story itself is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith Jr.) recorded between summer 1832 and November 1832. Spelling is from the original. 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 Chist 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 brought 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 Gospel - the Law and commandments as they were given unto him - and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinence from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of God confered upon him and the continuation of the blessings of God to him &c-------- I was born in the town of Charon in the [state] Of Vermont North America on the twenty third day of December A D 1805 of goodly Parents who spared no pains to instructing me in [the] christian religion at the age of about ten years my Father Joseph Smith Siegnior moved to Palmyra Ontario County in the State of New York and being in indigent circumstances were obliged to labour hard for the Support of a large Family having nine children and as it required the exertions of all that were able to render any assistance for the Support of the Family therefore we were deprived of the bennifit of an education Suffice it to Say I was mearly instructed in reading {and} writing and the ground [rules] of Arithmatic which constuted my whole literary acquirements. At about the age of twelve years my mind became seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns for the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to Searching the Scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of differant denominations led me to marvel excedingly far I discovered that [they did not {adorn}] {instead} Of adorning their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that Sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divions the wickeness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the {of the} minds of mankind my mind become excedingly distressed for I became convicted of my Sins and by Searching the Scriptures I found that {mand} [mankind] did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own Sins and for the Sins of the world for I learned in the Scriptures that God was the same yesterday to day and forever that he was no respecter to persons for he was God for I looked upon the sun the glorious luminary of the earth and also the moon rolling in their magesty through the heavens and also the Stars Shining in their courses and the earth also upon which I stood and the beast of the field and the fowls of heaven and the fish of the waters and also man walking forth upon the face of the earth in magesty and in the Strength of beauty whose power and intiligence in governing the things which are so exceding great and marvilous even in the likeness of him who created {him} [them] and when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed well hath the wise man Said {the} [it is a] fool [that] Saith in his heart there is no God my heart exclained all all these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotent and omnipreasant power a being who makith Laws and decreeeth and bindeth all things in theirbounds who filleth Eternity who was and is and will be fron all Eternity to Eternity and when I considered all these things andthat [that] being Seeketh such to worship him as worship him inspirit and in truth therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy forthere was none else to whom I could go and {to} obtain mercy andthe Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in [the] attitude of calling upon the Lord [in the 16th* year of my age] a pillar of {fire} lightabove the brightness of the Sun at noon day come down fromabove and rested upon me and I was filld 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 this ungodliness and to bring to pass that which [hath] been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apostles behold and lo I come quickly as it written of me in the cloud [clothed] in the glory of my Father and my Soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevenly vision. . . . Nevertheless I fell into transgression and sinned in many things which brought wound upon my Soul and there were many things which transpired that cannot be writen and my Fathers family have suffered many persecutions and afflictions. *could be 15th year Words enclosed by {} indicate deletion by cross out-- words enclosed by [] indicate insertion with ^ mark.The first reference to 'lord' was put into the text as an insertion. Interesting. Now could this man write the book of mormon?
why me Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Last night I had a thought. Would these accounts of the first vision tend to debunk the idea that Joseph Smith had accomplices? For after all, it would seem to me that a group of fraudsters would make sure that JS knew his storyline. It just does not make sense to me. This would also signify that if JS was a fraudster, he acted alone in the beginning and began to recruit others to be in on the fraud.
Deborah Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Last night I had a thought. Would these accounts of the first vision tend to debunk the idea that Joseph Smith had accomplices? That has always been my thought. No one tells the same incident the same way everytime unless they have a memorized script. However, the antis will still find a way to debunk this and just say he didn't get his story straight because he was making it up as he went along. More likely however, is the fact that he was starting to understand more of what he saw. Can you even imagine putting into words what he did see? This scripture in Helaman 533 comes to mind: "And also again the third time the voice came, and did speak unto them marvelous words which cannot be uttered by man; and the walls did tremble again, and the earth shook as if it were about to divide asunder. "
Brenda Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 The lesson is done and I went with my "gut" and covered the different accounts of the vision. It went over really well and had many appreciative comments afterward.Still don't see the controversay. I love learning more details about the whole 1st vision experience. It makes it all the more REAL.
stn9 Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 I disagree with this. I was somewhat shocked as a 30-something, active, BYU educated, RM, past GD and elder's quorum instructor when I first learned of this.I should have been more clear as I was referring to scholars and not the membership as a whole. I have no doubt that the vast majority of members are in the state you described: solid Church experience and backgroud with little idea of how things really were (or are, for that matter).
Deborah Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 I have no doubt that the vast majority of members are in the state you described: solid Church experience and backgroud with little idea of how things really were (or are, for that matter). or even care. I think the point is if someone really wants to know something they can study on their own and it they haven't done so they have no one to blame but themselves when they decide they really should have known that.
bluebell Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 We had a sub in our class today, but it was one of the guys that subs frequently so he's used to teaching the class, and he didn't say a thing about the different versions. However, we didn't actually start talking about the first vision until there was only 5 minutes left in class so basically it was just a review of it.Most of the time was spent talking about the apostasy and the reformation.
Lamanite Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 or even care. I think the point is if someone really wants to know something they can study on their own and it they haven't done so they have no one to blame but themselves when they decide they really should have known that.And If a poor widow in the Sierra Leone wants to study the Varying accounts of the First Vision but has a hard time because the R.U.F. cut off her hands in the late nineties and her local Internet connection is non-existent and her branch of Deseret Book seems nowhere to be found; is it her fault as well?Should she blame herself because the missionaries never mentioned it, and 10 yrs later is given a tract from Ed Deckers people? Where was her .pdf files and books edited by John Welch? What was she to do?I think you've made a blanket statement that can't be applied to everyone who live everywhere. Big UP!Lamanite
Calm Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Well, Lamanite, I have yet to meet someone who has complained about the Church hiding stuff, etc. etc. who has not had an opportunity a good part of their life to do the searching.I suspect the poor widow likely has other things on her mind though more power to her if she cares about those types of things in the here and now, I believe the Spirit will give her what she desires in the appropriate place and time but until then it may be something she has to endure as we all have to endure certain voids/lacks in our lives and learn to make up for them in other ways. I also suspect that Deborah meant the type people you encounter here on the board who have access to not only the printed word through libraries, but also through the Internet and not a generic every last person in the world.
Calm Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 The lesson is done and I went with my "gut" and covered the different accounts of the vision. It went over really well and had many appreciative comments afterward.Still don't see the controversay. I love learning more details about the whole 1st vision experience. It makes it all the more REAL.What I particularly enjoy is exploring the reasons for the variations in some of the accounts by Joseph. It very much focuses on what Joseph felt was important to himself, what was important to nonmembers and what was important to members among other things. IOW, the First Vision served in his mind (and in the minds of the Early Saints) a variety of purposes and I think this approach should be something we apply in our own lives, not only for the First Vision but all scriptures. We shouldn't just assume that the scriptures can touch our lives in only one way, that not only others may relate to the scriptures in different ways, but at different times and places in our lives we may as well.
Calm Posted January 18, 2009 Posted January 18, 2009 Protestants believe in three persons and one God. I don't think any protestant would take issue with the fact the Christ and the Father are two persons. However, you might be more correct in saying Protestants would have gotten a little bent out of shape at the concept of the Father having a body.And being visible I would think.I am assuming that Protestants don't believe you can see or touch spirit, that it is truely immaterial, nonmatter (hmm...do they consider it nonenergy as well, as something completely 'other'?).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.