1st Vision-Was It Shared Prior To 1838?

[lostindc]

Give it all some time, if people are looking for textual evidence I am sure that in the next decade or two it will come forth much like the Joseph Smith papers.

[marmutman]

In post #8 you were given a link to a page where there are many linked articles:

http://en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision_accounts

One of those linked articles was called "Lack of Contemporary Father and Son Vision Until 1838?"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Lack_of_contempor...n_until_1838%3F

One of the timeline points listed for your benefit in post #8 was as follows:

1831 - November. Lorenzo Snow and about 250 other people hear Joseph Smith talk about the First Vision (Improvement Era, vol. 40, no. 2, February 1937, 82-83).

Since you seem to be too lazy to do research let me tell you that in this November 1831 statement at a Church conference at the Johnson farm in Hiram, Ohio Joseph Smith told about 250 people about his meeting with the FATHER and SON. He was "preaching" to the audience.

Another timeline point that you were too lazy to look up is as follows:

1834 - October. Joseph Smith tells the First Vision story to "large congregations" in Pontiac, Michigan (Juvenile Instructor, vol. 29, 1 September 1894, 443).

If you would look up all of Edward Stevenson's accounts of this occurrence you would see that Joseph Smith testified at the time about seeing both the FATHER and SON.

Another timeline point that you were too lazy to look up is as follows:

1835 - August. By this point in time the Samuel W. Richards family has heard about the First Vision in Massachusetts and shortly thereafter they are visited by missionaries who confirm the account (Young Womanâ??s Journal, vol. 18, no. 12, December 1907, 537-39).

If you would bother to actually read the referenced story you would find that the Richards family heard about Joseph Smith seeing the FATHER and SON and then the missionaries confirmed it.

The November 1835 Joseph Smith journal entry speaks of TWO personages who appeared to him and they can easily be identified from the context of the entry.

Another timeline point that you were too lazy to look up is as follows:

1837 - August. Joseph Smith relates the First Vision story to a group of Saints in Canada (Young Woman's Journal, vol. 31, no. 4, April 1920, 212).

If you would have even glanced through this reference you would have seen that Joseph Smith told the gathering about seeing the FATHER and SON.

So now you have five eyewitnesses who have provided you with evidence that Joseph Smith was talking about seeing both the FATHER and SON between 1831 and 1837. This information was disseminated to large congregations and also to small groups of Saints and those who were not of the LDS faith.

098, thank you.

Where can I read and or obtain the actual source quotes and or source documents for these references to see what was actually 'said' in them? ie. the things which JS 'said' in the 1830's that are referenced in these 1894-1937 documents? These references to these instances of JS's testimony of seeing both HF & JC appear, to me, to be 60 to 100+ years after he said them. Not that that makes them invalid of course.

The fact that there are so few quotes however, to me, bolsters the idea that he was NOT actively preaching, teaching, testifying nor sharing that he saw BOTH HF & JC prior to 1838 (the 1835 'two personages', 15 years after the initial vision, notwithstanding). To me, it may have been a rare testimony that he gave, but it was not an unyielding and unrelenting testimony as we are taught. And therefore, to my thinking (and others too apparently), he could not have been relentlessly persecuted for a testimony he was 'nearly silent' about. Anyway, I will search for the source documents to see what was actually recorded/attributed to have been said by JS, but if you happen to have the source documents available and or links to them, please share.

Thanks again.

[James Banta]

You've given an interpretation, an evaluation. Other interpretations exist. For example, rather than Smith being cavalier he seems much more thoughtful and measured about what he shared and when.

I'm willing to be taught, show me in the 1835 document where these statements are made and I will change my tune... IHS jim

[James Banta]

Talk to any policeman, or detective and see just how reliable an eyewitness account is for a single incident. The Lord did not do a brain dump into Joseph, Joseph did not come away from the first vision knowing everything.

I believe that there was some formulation of learning going on. I bet the first vision was surreal for Joseph, and not everything sunk in all at once. Combine that, with other angelic visitations, the translation process, and other spiritual experiences he had, and you can see how Joseph's understanding unfolded. Looking back on the experiences he had, he could then put things together, and I believe, he could then interpret things that happened before, with experiences he had later. In this light, it does not bother me that a recitation of the first vision immediately after it happened does not coincide exactly with a recitation years later, or that it changed over time.

Paul saw the risen Lord on the road to Damascus.. His story of the events never changed.. NEVER!! It is beyond logic that a man would see such a great event and not have it etched into his mind for all time.. Paul wasn't just a young man wondering what church was true. No Paul was a enemy of the Church and Christ.. Yet the events he beheld were forever unchanged in his mind.. So go ahead trust in the arm of flesh and put away the Word of God as untrustworthy because this man, this sinful being, this person who could even keep the most fantastic event is all the world straight said God was lying... IHS jim

[098]

[Amendment to previous post]

There are EIGHT eyewitnesses who testify that Joseph Smith taught in 1831 1832, 1834, 1835, 1836, and 1837 that his initial manifestation was the Father and Son / two personages.

May 1831 - November 1833 / John Alger

A. Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., Diary of Charles Lowell Walker (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 2:755-56.

- recorded 2 February 1893

ca. 12 November 1831 / Lorenzo Snow

Deseret Evening News, no. 207 (20 July 1901), 22.

ca. 27 November 1832 / Joseph Smith historical document

Dean C. Jessee, ed., Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, rev. ed. (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and BYU Press, 2002), 9-12.

See: http://en.fairmormon.org/Only_one_Personag...he_1832_account

9 August 1834 - 9 August 1835 / Samuel W. Richards

Young Woman's Journal, vol. 18, no. 12, December 1907, 537-39.

20 October 1834 / Edward Stevenson

Millennial Star, vol. 48, no. 22, 31 May 1886, 341; Juvenile Instructor, vol. 29, no. 14 15 July 1894, 443-44.

9 November 1835 / Joseph Smith historical recounting

Dean C. Jessee, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Richard L. Jensen, eds., Journals, Vol. 1: 1832-1839 (Salt Lake City: Church Historian's Press, 2008), 87-88.

13 November 1836 / Kirtland Temple discourse

Joseph Smith gave "a relation . . . of the rise of the Church and of his experience" inside the Kirtland Temple to "a vast concourse" of people ("4 or 5 hundred"). The Prophet "gave the history of these things, relating many particulars of the manner of his first visions, etc." (Parley P. Pratt to the Elders and Brethren of the Church of Latter-day Saints in Canada, 27 November 1836, MS, LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah). Since Joseph had only one year previously referred to his experience in the grove with two personages as his "first communication . . . [or] vision,"â?he likely spoke about that event during this meeting.

August 1837 / Mary Horne

Woman’s Exponent, vol. 39, no. 1, June 1910, 5–6.

FAIR wiki article: http://en.fairmormon.org/Lack_of_contempor...n_until_1838%3F

[Honorentheos]

There are EIGHT eyewitnesses who testify that Joseph Smith taught in 1831 1832, 1834, 1835, 1836, and 1837 that his initial manifestation was the Father and Son / two personages.

...ca. 12 November 1831 / Lorenzo Snow

I am not familiar with all of the non-JS accounts referenced, but when I was first made aware of the 1831 Lorenzo Snow account I became very interested. The first vision account is one of those significant matters that lead me to where I am regarding a belief in the LDS faith as the literal one true church.

That being said, I found the Lorenzo Snow account to be of interest for what it is not - a pre-1838 account that supports the official version.

The actual account is below, with my emphasis added for noting when it was actually given (1901), as well as which of the first vision accounts it seems to be most similar to (not 1838) -

1831 [1901] Lorenzo Snow Account, Circa 1831. Sermon delivered July 14, 1901, Mill Creek Ward, Salt Lake City, Utah [Deseret Evening News, 20 July 1901, 22; Millennial Star 63. 33 (August 15, 1901): 541-544; 63. 34: 545-549];

"Over sixty years ago I saw for the first time Joseph Smithâ?¦. He was holding a meeting in the town of Hiram [Ohio] â?¦about three miles from where I was born and brought up. He was standing by a door and talking to an audience of about two hundred and fifty persons under a bowery. I was about eighteen years of age. â?¦.. He simply bore his testimony to what the Lord had manifested to him, to the dispensation of the Gospel which had been committed to him, and to the authority that he possessed. â?¦.[H]e testified that he had a conversation with Jesus, the Son of God, and had talked with Him personally, as Moses talked with God upon Mount Sinai, and that he had also heard the voice of the Fatherâ?¦â?¦. I was interested in what I saw and heard there. However, being busy in other directions, it passed measurably out of my mind. Some two and a half years later, business called me to Kirtland. My two sisters had been there for some time, and I made my home with them. There I became perfectly acquainted with Joseph Smith, the Prophet. I sat at his table and had a number of conversations with him. I also became somewhat intimate with his father. The first time I saw Father Smith he was holding a patriarchal blessing meeting, at which there were twelve or fifteen persons present. I was then searching to know whether there was any truth in â??Mormonismâ??â?¦.. It was hard for me to be convinced that there could be such extraordinary manifestations as I saw exhibited in visiting the temple and listening to the testimonies of persons and hearing the extraordinary accounts of what the Lord had manifested to them. Talking with President Joseph Smith, and being with him and his father, I could not help but believe that there was something more than common in what was called â??Mormonism.â??â?

[NOTE: also found in Leroi C. Snow, â??How Lorenzo Snow Found Godâ? , Improvement Era, 40.2 (Feb 1937): 82-3; also found in Dean C. Jessee, â??Priceless Words and Fallible Memories: Joseph Smith as Seen in the Effort To Preserve His Discoursesâ?, BYU Studies, 31. 2 (Spring 1991) 23; also found in Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, p. 204-5; also Matthew Brown, â??Historical or Hystericalâ?? Anti-Mormons and Documentary Sourcesâ? FAIR presentation, August 2004, http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2004BroM.html

Of some interest should be the biographical account of the conversion of Lorenzo Snow by his sister, Eliza R Snow-

Lorenzo Snow

Notice how it describes his meeting with David Patton as being of great influence, but does not mention the Hiram conference. Nothing definitive, but worth considering.

The following also seems to describe Lorenzo Snow as seeing JS for the first time in Kirkland-

Snow Family

Anyway, I recall finding an account that dated to the 1850's by Lorenzo Snow that was similar, but can not find it now. I have never found an actual account by Lorenzo Snow that dated 1831. With that in mind, these sort of accounts do not carry the same weight as the actual primary versions and given the timing of this account, long after the fact, it seems plausible to suggest that Lorenzo Snow may have been remembering that JS gave a sermon on his visit with Christ and supplied the details from his 1901 understanding of what took place (which in and of itself is interesting since it does not correspond with the official two personage version).

My feeling regarding the first vision is that the various accounts do a good service in reflecting Joseph Smith's changing view of the Godhead over the decade or so that they cover; that when one reads them in context with other information available from that period they tend to support one another (i.e. - the Book of Mormon and the 1832 account, the Lectures on Faith and the 1835 account, etc.) and references such as the Lorenzo Snow account that are used to support a more consistent telling of the visions usually end up being redactive accounts rather than contemporary, giving them a second or third tier status when one attempts to reconstruct what was actually being taught at the time.

[Flyonthewall]

Paul saw the risen Lord on the road to Damascus.. His story of the events never changed.. NEVER!! It is beyond logic that a man would see such a great event and not have it etched into his mind for all time.. Paul wasn't just a young man wondering what church was true. No Paul was a enemy of the Church and Christ.. Yet the events he beheld were forever unchanged in his mind.. So go ahead trust in the arm of flesh and put away the Word of God as untrustworthy because this man, this sinful being, this person who could even keep the most fantastic event is all the world straight said God was lying... IHS jim

Joseph was a boy of 14. How old was Paul? The events of the First Vision did not change, but Joseph's understanding did. Joseph was taught by the preachers of the day and was very confused by all the contradictions they had. He had to unlearn false teachings and learn the truth. God did not lie, God taught the truth to His chosen prophet.

Paul's experience, though dramatic, was of a different nature than Joseph's.

According to Acts 9, this was the extent of Paul's experience:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

Not a whole lot to it. Paul was told he's fighting on the wrong side, and go to the city and someone will teach you what to do. A lot different than Joseph's instructional session.

[wenglund]

To my thinking, both scenarios can't be right (that he kept it secret (scenario #2), and that he preached it in broad daylight and "related [it] to others" -- who were the 'others'? (scenario #1)).

I am wondering if you have set up a false dichotomy here and may have inadvertantly manufactured a controversy where non reasonably exists?

From my vast experience in the Church and extensive background in apologetics, the more typical, and non extremist view, held by Church members (particularly those versed in Church history) is that following Joseph's initial disclosure to the Methodist minister and perhaps a few others, not much was publicly mentioned of the First Vision until after the Book of Mormon was published, and the Church organized, and the saints began to gather in Kirtland.

To most of us (as I understand things), the First Vision may have been kept relatively "secret" or unmentioned for a time, but later, once the Book of Mormon was translated and published and the Church organized and missionary work initialted and the saints began to settle in Kirtland, it was periodically "preached in broad daylight" and "related to others", just as it is today, thus fitting both your alleged scenerios.

We also believe that from 1820 to his marterdom in 1844, Joseph experienced ongoing persecution, in part for having disclosed the vision.

This fits well what you quoted from Pres. Monson as well as various historical quotes that others have cited in this thread.

Frankly, I don't see where or why this is an issue--but then my focus is on looking forward for ways to personally progress, rather than looking backward to nit pick the past in making other people offenders for a word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[098]

I have never found an actual account by Lorenzo Snow that dated 1831.

So what? An eyewitness has provided testimony anyway. Bible accounts are not contemporaneous but the eyewitnesses of Bible events are believed regardless.

it seems plausible to suggest that Lorenzo Snow may have . . .

Is that the best you can do to try and discredit the EYEWITNESS testimony of someone whose statement is corroborated by the EYEWITNESS testimony of someone else regarding the same time period? Spare us.

My feeling regarding the first vision is that the various accounts do a good service in reflecting Joseph Smith's changing view of the Godhead

Inasmuch as your "feeling" does not comport with the available documents it does not "carry the same weight," as you said.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_...nception_of_God

[Honorentheos]

So what? An eyewitness has provided testimony anyway. Bible accounts are not contemporaneous but the eyewitnesses of Bible events are believed regardless.

Is that the best you can do to try and discredit the EYEWITNESS testimony of someone whose statement is corroborated by the EYEWITNESS testimony of someone else regarding the same time period? Spare us.

Inasmuch as your "feeling" does not comport with the available documents it does not "carry the same weight," as you said.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_...nception_of_God

For your benefit, I do not accept the biblical accounts as accurate, either. To be honest, I doubt most of what we have today was written by the traditionally accepted authors (i.e. - John the Apostle, Peter, many of the epistles of Paul, etc.).

But as to the rest, I am not attempting to discredit the eyewitness testimony of Lorenzo Snow. I am suggesting that your interpretation (and that shared in the fair article and frequently cited on this board) is at best a second-tier historical account due to it's late date of record, the other evidence that suggests that his sister and other biographers do not include this account as being significant to LS's conversion to the church, and his own late interpretation of the event as contradicting both the 1832 account which is most contemporary to the 1831 proposed telling as well as the subsequent 1838 official account. Rather, it seems most contemporary to the 1835 account - which happens to correspond well with when LS was baptized and may have actually being in a frame of mind to consider the story as it pertained to his own relationship to the church.

Fact is, it is not an 1831 account. I am just point this out.

[098]

[Lorenzo Snow's] sister and other biographers do not include this account as being significant to LS's conversion to the church

So what? Their productions are "second-tier" and third-tier - as you say.

And who is to say that they included EVERYTHING in their accounts that he would have?

his own late interpretation of the event . . . [he] may have actually be[en] in a frame of mind

Now you are trying to speak for a dead guy and tells us his brain processes. Not impressive.

[Honorentheos]

So what? Their productions are "second-tier" and third-tier - as you say.

And who is to say that they included EVERYTHING in their accounts that he would have?

Now you are trying to speak for a dead guy and tells us his brain processes. Not impressive.

98 -

I am saying that the Lorenzo Snow account is second - or third-tier history. There is no document that he wrote in 1831 describing what he heard. I haven't found one that was authored prior to the 1850's, which I can not find right now. So until someone produces an account that shows otherwise, the best we have is one from 1901. That is a recording 70 years after the event supposedly took place - making it something less reliable than the first hand accounts recorded contemporary to when they were to have taken place.

Until there is an actual 1831 account written in 1831 produced, this account is not what it is frequently portrayed to be on this board or in the FAIR article. I question whether the others you referenced (other than the 1832 and 1835 JS diary accounts) are similar?

[098]

I am saying that the Lorenzo Snow account is second - or third-tier history.

The account is still from an EYEWITNESS.

If you don't even believe in the value of the so-called 'second-tier' historical accounts of EYEWITNESSES in the Bible then there isn't much point to conversing with you.

the 1850's, which I can not find right now

It only takes a grand total of .03 seconds to find the reference on the FAIR wsebsite.

[Honorentheos]

The account is still from an EYEWITNESS. If you don't even believe in the value of the so-called 'second-tier' historical accounts of EYEWITNESSES in the Bible then there isn't much point to conversing with you.

98 - I'm not saying that Lorenzo Snow was lying. I'm not saying that his is not an eyewitness account. It is very possible that he heard JS in 1831 in Hyrum, Ohio.I'm saying that the recording of this event, as produced in this thread so far, was given by an 87 year old man just months before he passed away. I'm saying that this account does not reflect the first-tier historical sources from that period regarding both the first vision and the nature of the Godhead. I'm saying that, as a second-tier account, it does not qualify as a counter-refutation of the claim that JS was not teaching a two personage visit prior to the late kirland-early nauvoo period. In fact, it seems to support the theory of an evolving theology by JS regarding the godhead by being closer the the first-tier accounts from the time that LS was baptised (1835 JS history account and LS baptism in 1836).I'm saying that when this account ends up in this same list, as it does every time someone starts a thread on the 1st vision, it is not qualified for what it actually is. And it does not refute the theory that JS was not teaching a two-person visit in 1831.

That is not really for you, anyway. It is for those who have questions regarding the 1st vision and really are trying to figure this seemingly straight-forward matter out. I find this list, as given in the FAIR article, misleading. The Lorenzo Snow account is the one I have spent a good deal of time trying to find as it really gets to the heart of the matter. So far, what I have stated above is what I have been able to find out. If you have better information, by all means share it. I'm not playing sides here 98. I would hope we're all here with the purpose of weeding out the false and replacing it with the true. The true, as best as we seem to be able to prove as it applies to this matter, is that the LS account should be listed as 1901 rather than 1831 because that is when it was given.

It only takes a grand total of .03 seconds to find the reference on the FAIR wsebsite.

Perhaps you could share it?

[098]

I'm saying that, as a second-tier account, it does not qualify as a counter-refutation of the claim that JS was not teaching a two personage visit prior to the late kirland-early nauvoo period. . . . it is not qualified for what it actually is. And it does not refute the theory that JS was not teaching a two-person visit in 1831.

Lorenzo Snow, an eyewitness, says something is true but since it throws a monkey-wrench into the critics' point of view it must be swept under the rug. Got it.

That is not really for you, anyway. It is for those who have questions regarding the 1st vision

Oh, so these mental gymnastics are for the benefit of those who are less-informed on the issues. Got it.

[Honorentheos]

Lorenzo Snow, an eyewitness, says something is true but since it throws a monkey-wrench into the critics' point of view it must be swept under the rug. Got it.

I don't recall suggesting that we sweep anything under the rug. Rather, I recall suggesting that we correctly date the Lorenzo Snow account to when it was given rather than the frequently cited and misleading date of 1831 until such time as an actual account from 1831 surfaces.

[098]

I recall suggesting that we correctly date the Lorenzo Snow account to when it was given rather than the frequently cited and misleading date of 1831 until such time as an actual account from 1831 surfaces.

The information presented by Lorenzo Snow has nothing to do with 1901 and everything to do with 1831. Your 'suggestion' is non-sensical because the issue is a timeline about early nineteenth-century events.

The Lorenzo Snow reminiscence is already 'correctly dated' as per the reference provided in the timeline -- 1901

[jadams_4242]

I am trying to learn where I can read about Joseph Smith stating that he saw both Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father prior to his 1838 account (published in 1842 and which is now the 'official account').

Did he actually share, write, preach or otherwise state or share with anyone that he saw both Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father, prior to the 1838 account? If yes, where can I read the details?

My reasons for asking: Conflicting information I am receiving from the written record (what I've found so far anyway - hence this post), from Church leaders, and from well meaning family and friends.

Scenario #1 - Some say he freely shared his First Vision experience (seeing both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ) since 1820 when he first had the vision, and shared it continually, and was severely persecuted for it (I think this was the testimony of President Monson in one of the latest Ensigns as well, if I read it correctly and or recall it correctly?)

Wait, yes, here it is, from the January 2009 Ensign (Witnesses Of The Prophet Joseph Smith). â??When but 14 years of age, this courageous young man [Joseph Smith] entered a grove of trees, which later would be called sacred, and received an answer to his sincere prayer. There followed for Joseph unrelenting persecution as he related to others the account of the glorious vision he received in that grove. Although he was ridiculed and scorned, he stood firm. Said he, â??I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do itâ?? (Joseph Smithâ??History 1:25). â??Step by step, facing opposition at nearly every turn and yet always guided by the hand of the Lord, Joseph organized The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He proved courageous in all that he did. â??Toward the end of his life, as he was led away with his brother Hyrum to Carthage Jail, he bravely faced what he undoubtedly knew lay ahead for him, and he sealed his testimony with his blood. â??As we face lifeâ??s tests, may we ever emulate that undaunted courage epitomized by the Prophet Joseph Smithâ? (â??They Marked the Path to Follow,â? Ensign, Oct. 2007, 7â??8 ).

Scenario #2 - Others say he did have the First Vision, but told very few people, and of those people, he swore them to secrecy to protect them and himself. He also never preached it or taught it publicly at all (to guard it's 'sacredness' and to keep it 'secret' for his and the Saints protection). Therefore, for these reasons there is no evidence (journals of his family members or church members or newspaper stories discussing the severe persecution or of preachers discussing the vision) of his First Vision prior to 1838 because it was not shared prior to 1838/42. They further tell me that the persecution up to that time was solely for the Book of Mormon, the revelations and polygamy, but not for the First Vision, but after 1838/1842 the persecution was then for the First Vision.

To my thinking, both scenarios can't be right (that he kept it secret (scenario #2), and that he preached it in broad daylight and "related [it] to others" -- who were the 'others'? (scenario #1)). And I thought, this would be one of the better places to ask since the discussions here are often well researched and well 'backed-up' (how's that for non-academic lingo?), and frankly, I can't find anything anywhere to show Joseph shared his first vision experience (in it's present day form, ie. his seeing both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ) prior to it being written down in 1838 and then published in 1842.

As for myself, I've had a major loss of 'faith';not due to this particular issue, but this issue is something that interests me personally, more especially with the ongoing 'conflicting scenarios' my family, friends and Church leaders are sharing with me.

If this board is an inappropriate place to ask this sort of question, I apologize in advance (hey look, I'm practicing 'apologetics' ha).

Thanks.

Matthew Miller

(Alberta Canada)

The very best and absolute best manner in which to receive all the information your heart desires; is to get back and live the gospel to a "T" then and only then will you come to know everything. confirmation {hence information} will never come to the unwilling and non desirus heart.

[Honorentheos]

The information presented by Lorenzo Snow has nothing to do with 1910 and everything to do with 1831. Your 'suggestion' is non-sensical because the issue is a timeline about early nineteenth-century events.

The account is already 'correctly dated' as per the reference provided -- and it's 1901, not 1910.

Umm...thank?

I decided to look into another one from your list and randomly chose the 1837 Mary Horne account since it would precede the official version by about a year. Interestingly, I found this article that shares it in a 1982 article here -

Ensign 1982

So I went looking for the original from Sister Horne herself and found it here (source June 1910)-

Women's Exponent

What jumped out at me as I read the original was that the first vision account was not near the story of her meeting the prophet in her home in 1837, but towards the end of the article where she specifically says this was in the home of Sister Walton (any thoughts on who this may have been?). No date for this account is given. She suggests that her testimony was recorded at the request of Abraham Owen Woodruff just prior to his death (1904).

Edited to add - Oh, good. I see you corrected the 1901/1910 mix-up in your post. I was wondering about that one.

[Honorentheos]

A quick note on the Mary I. Horne testimony- the citation given in the list is for this article here -

Young Women's Journal 1920

It is the same as what appears to be the original from 1910 that I cited above.

This BYU resource is pretty cool, btw.

[098]

Sister Walton (any thoughts on who this may have been?)

Yes. And if you knew her name and her time of residence you would know more about the dating of the event.

[Mary Horne] suggests that her testimony was recorded at the request of Abraham Owen Woodruff just prior to his death (1904).

She suggests no such thing. It's a matter-of-fact statement. But there is absolutely no indication of when the account was actually recorded. It could have been anywhere between 1904 and 1910.

[Honorentheos]

Yes. And if you knew her name and her time of residence you would know more about the dating of the event.

Yes. If you have it, perhaps you could share it?

She suggests no such thing. It's a matter-of-fact statement. But there is absolutely no indication of when the account was actually recorded. It could have been anywhere between 1904 and 1910.

I was being euphemistic as to her motivation for writing this. She obviously did not do so to record an event historically at the time of it's happening, which is the primary issue. There is no doubt that she recorded it after 1903. Again, not an 1837 account. The facts regarding this one do not even support her saying it was 1837 event she is refering to, which is worse. The 1982 ensign article is misleading in this regard.

[wenglund]

I'm saying that, as a second-tier account, it does not qualify as a counter-refutation of the claim that JS was not teaching a two personage visit prior to the late kirland-early nauvoo period.

So, to you, the late statements of an aged eyewitness to the contrary, which corroborates the not-so-late recollections of the principle in this case, and rings consistent with other sited recollections, doesn't refute the pure conjecture that Joseph hadn't taught a two personage visit prior the late Kirtland period?

I would think that logically and historiographically some evidence (even if not the very best) would trump no evidence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Honorentheos]

So, to you, the late statements of an aged eyewitness to the contrary, which corroborates the not-so-late recollections of the principle in this case, and rings consistent with other sited recollections, doesn't refute the pure conjecture that Joseph hadn't taught a two personage visit prior the late Kirtland period?

I would think that logically and historiographically some evidence (even if not the very best) would trump no evidence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The question is one of what first-tier references are available that show a strong correlation between what was being taught by the church as doctrine concerning the godhead and what was being reported as having occurred during the first vision. The notion that JS was not teaching a two-personage first vision until later in his ministry isn't pure conjecture. The evidence seems to support it if one looks solely at first-tier sources. If one includes that other sources that show what the then-current teaching on the godhead may have been (i.e.- the BoM as teaching a modal/trinitarian godhead, the Lectures on Faith teaching a non-physical god the father, etc.) there is a correlation.

In fact, I have yet to encounter a first vision apologetic that doesn't rely heavily on some form of anachronistic reinterpretation of the first tier resources using either latter events and applying what was said then to infer what was meant (such as the "from on high" matter) or cites these other accounts that seem to have been recorded very late after the fact. Since they are written after the 1838 account was made well known and generally after the death of JS, they do not hold the weight that they would if they were actually recorded on the dates generally attributed to them.

I'm not throwing them out. I just feel they should be viewed for what they are - later recollections that could very easily reflect more modern LDS theology and mythology rather than contemporary accounts that shed light on what the church was teaching in 1832, 1835, or later.

I would much rather see the FAIR list with a more consistent structure that either shows the date of authorship or, at least, two dates that shows the date being documented as well as the date the account was recorded. It removes some of the cloudiness that always comes up in these 1st vision threads and would save some time. Instead, all accounts are given equal weight when used to say that there is no inconsistency in the first vision accounts given by JS, which is not accurate.

It's not much different from qualifying the late affidavits against JS with when they were actually written - it is treating the material honestly.

[wenglund]

The notion that JS was not teaching a two-personage first vision until later in his ministry isn't pure conjecture. The evidence seems to support it if one looks solely at first-tier sources.

I disagree. There is positive evidence in several accounts of the First Vision that Joseph mentioned just one of the members of the Godhead. However, to my mind this positive evidence doesn't support the negative assertion that Joseph did not teach a two-personage First Vision. How could several specific positives prove a generlized negative? Logically, they can't. They merely support the specific positive assertion that Joseph did, on occasion give a one-personage version of the First Vision. Hence, there is no evidence in support of your negative, and is thus pure conjecture.

As such, to your way of thinking, some late evidence from an aged eyewitness, which supports the authoritative two-personage version of the First Vision given by the principle, is somehow trumped by no evidence.

Logically, this seems backwards to me. But, I suppose it is not important enough to argue over. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-