First Vision - Perceived Inconsistencies

[Woody]

...Joseph seems to have understood the First Vision foremost as an evangelical conversion experience. Thus at the time, knowing his current state of salvation and obtaining forgiveness for his sins was more meaningful than knowing which church to join.

Throughout the 1830s, there is a shift in emphasis until it seems that Joseph finally understands the application of his First Vision to the Church as a whole. His evangelical experience is no longer the emphasis...

Could you please indicate what you mean by "evangelical" ? Is it the meaning understood by TV audiences? By New Testament students? By the New Testament authors? As given in the Doctrine and Covenants? Or maybe something else? I'm not parsing your ideas above.

Edit: Oh yeah, your crawly bug on my screen bothers me. I'd be real surprised the women are attracted. Could you possibly find another avatar? (it's not even an ant, y'know)

Wood

[Joseph Antley]

Could you please indicate what you mean by "evangelical" ? Is it the meaning understood by TV audiences? By New Testament students? By the New Testament authors? As given in the Doctrine and Covenants? Or maybe something else? I'm not parsing your ideas above.

Wood

The Evangelical movement in the early nineteenth century (and eighteenth century, for that matter) were those groups that emphasized guilt for sin and the need for a saving conversion experience and obtaining forgiveness of sins by coming unto Christ.

These Evangelical ideas (via Methodism) convinced young Joseph of what a sinful creature he was and that he needed to go before God to be forgiven for his sins.

[Joseph Antley]

Edit: Oh yeah, your crawly bug on my screen bothers me. I'd be real surprised the women are attracted. Could you possibly find another avatar? (it's not even an ant, y'know)

Did you try swatting it?

[MDalby]

Why did Joseph say here that only one of them spoke to him?

He didn't say this. You got this phrase from the antimormons.

What?? I did not get this phrase form the antis. I just quoted Joseph. "they did in reality speak unto me, or one of them did"

I got that phrase from the antis?

[T-Shirt]

Have you ever said or written something that, to you, seemed to be clear and easy to understand, only to find out later that others were confused by your statement and needed clarification? To me, the simplest explanation is that in the 1832 account, Joseph was trying to express that he had not yet found a church that he believed to fit what he believed to be the New Testament model. The 1838 account clarifies this by adding that he had never considered that there was no true church to be found anywhere on the earth.

T-Shirt

[Joseph Antley]

What?? I did not get this phrase form the antis. I got quoted Joseph. "they did in reality speak unto me, or one of them did"

I got that phrase from the antis?

I think he was picking out the word "only".

[MDalby]

If copyists would get it in their heads to just copy the text AS IS, putting their own edits clearly marked as such, I'd be happier.

Wood

Woody,

Your post helped a lot.

Thank you

[MDalby]

Have you ever said or written something that, to you, seemed to be clear and easy to understand, only to find out later that others were confused by your statement and needed clarification? To me, the simplest explanation is that in the 1832 account, Joseph was trying to express that he had not yet found a church that he believed to fit what he believed to be the New Testament model. The 1838 account clarifies this by adding that he had never considered that there was no true church to be found anywhere on the earth.

T-Shirt

Thanks Kerry. I like this explanation. What about my other question.

Did the Father speak to Joseph?

1838 account:

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..."

[O-Brother]

The relevant entries in the 1828 edition of Webster's dictionary are:

Fact-Archive.com

Vision -

"In religion, visions comprise inspirational renderings, generally of a future state and/or of a mythical being, and are believed (by followers of the religion) to come from a deity, directly or indirectly via prophets, and serve to inspire or prod believers as part of a revelation or an epiphany. Many mystics take the word vision to be synonymous with apparition."

So you think Joseph's experience was true theophany and 3-dimensional, in-person and not a vision like Lehi's? Were the visits from Moroni visions or personal encounters? What do we call the experience? Moroni's Visions or Moroni's Visits. I can't remember. When did Joseph pass out, before, during or after the "vision?"

[toon]

It's the only explanation, really.

Joseph likely did not understand the magnitude of the First Vision when it occurred. Obviously he was only fourteen, but he had also been conditioned to believe that visions were acceptable, and perhaps even expected and common-place. Based on the earliest references to the First Vision, and considering his interaction with Methodism drove Joseph into the Sacred Grove, the Prophet probably understood the First Vision foremost as an evangelical conversion experience. Thus at the time, knowing his current state of salvation and obtaining forgiveness for his sins were more meaningful than knowing which church to join.

Throughout the 1830s, there is a shift in emphasis until it seems that Joseph finally understands the application of his First Vision to the Church as a whole. His evangelical experience is no longer the important detail of the vision; in its final telling from 1838 onward, the Prophet emphasizes the aspect that is relevant to the world, which was the lack of the Lord's Church on the earth.

It's not the only explanation.

Maybe his recollection changed over time? (Did he review is 1832 account before drafting the 1838 account?)

I believe there was a study done at Emory University were, shortly after the Challenger explosion, students were asked to write down what they were doing and what their reactions were when they first heard the news. Some time later, they were asked the same question, and it was amazing how inconsistent many of the accounts were. This may explain why differing accounts cannot be simply reconciled with different time, emphasis, audience, etc. explanations.

Memory can be as much a creative process as it is a reconstructive process.

I do think it's important to look at both external and internal evidence of context when interpreting and extracting meaning from each account. But I don't think we can expect anything conclusive by doing some form of redaction criticism.

[Joseph Antley]

It's not the only explanation.

Maybe his recollection changed over time?

Of course his recollection changed over time, but that doesn't explain the seemingly deliberate shift from Evangelical conversion experience to vision about global apostasy.

[Joseph Antley]

So you think Joseph's experience was true theophany and 3-dimensional, in-person and not a vision like Lehi's?

I don't think he was asleep, if that's what you're asking.

However, if Alvin had come looking for Joseph at just that time, would he have seen two personages standing in the air? I don't know, of course, but I'm inclined to think that he wouldn't have.

Were the visits from Moroni visions or personal encounters?

Why do we need to distinguish between the two?

[cdowis]

What?? I did not get this phrase form the antis. I just quoted Joseph. "they did in reality speak unto me, or one of them did"

I got that phrase from the antis?

Please tell me what "they" means. I have some knowledge of the English language, and it means two or more individuals. Now, let's move on. "they did in reality speak unto me". So how many individuals spoke to him, by the very statement of Joseph Smith?

You are using the antimormon technique of "forgetting" to give us the full details, when JS said "they" spoke to him. I also note that you "forgot" to include the ellipsis in this post, even though you include them in the OP. What are you.......?

Anyway, it is obvious from his "or" that he was trying to recollect whether one or both of them spoke to him. Considering the short statement from the Father relative to the longer statements from the Son, it is natural that he might be unsure. It was later that he was able to reconstruct what was said.

[Lightbearer]

Most Bible translations support the word "vision" as you stated Some just say "what you have seen" but the majority say "vision". Your position seems to have full support of scripture. So what becomes the question now is: Is a vision a physical, materialized experience? If so, the dictionary's definition of "a vision" is off.

So was Joseph's a vision but not a materialization of the beings in person? If all he had was a Vision of the Father and of the Son in the Grove and not a personal visit, we are to assume that a vision and materialization are the same things with the same meaning. Are they? I've always thought that he personally saw the personages and NOT that he had a vision about or of them. Maybe someone with better understanding of the English language can clarify the differences.

Were Moroni's visits in person or in vision?

I do not think the problem lies in semantics or languages, I think it comes from a basic assumption that any sort of "vision" is already classified as imaginary by the worldly and the learned and certainly by the ones who write and publish secular dictionaries. Joseph had that problem when he related his experience:

(JSH-1:21) "Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them."

It seems even among the religious there is a blind spot when it comes to visions or revelations. I think the prophet declares it as a real event, even though put into the sacred term "vision" as he does here:

(JSH-1:24-25) "However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise. 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 to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For 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 it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation."

The things of the spirit cannot often be classified and categorized as we do in the physical world. We can see angels in a crowded room, whereas the person sitting next to you says they see nothing. Does that mean the person seeing it lied, or was mistaken, or crazy? No it means that not all have the same gift given. I think the vision of Moses gives a lot of clues regarding this process:

(Moses 1:2-5) "And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence. And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless? And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth."

From this I understand that mortal men must be protected before they can endure God's presence and they cannot see all that God can show them and remain here in the flesh. I think these are things that are hard for our darkened minds to comprehend unless quickened by the spirit. I think this is the reason the Holy Ghost must be a member of the Godhead, I think it is He that prepares us for the glory of the Father and protects us from things that would be too much for us to endure. Also see the contrast:

(Moses 1:9-15) "And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth. And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed. But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him. And it came to pass that when Moses had said these words, behold, Satan came tempting him, saying: Moses, son of man, worship me. And it came to pass that Moses looked upon Satan and said: Who art thou? For behold, I am a son of God, in the similitude of his Only Begotten; and where is thy glory, that I should worship thee? For behold, I could not look upon God, except his glory should come upon me, and I were transfigured before him. But I can look upon thee in the natural man. Is it not so, surely? Blessed be the name of my God, for his Spirit hath not altogether withdrawn from me, or else where is thy glory, for it is darkness unto me? And I can judge between thee and God; for God said unto me: Worship God, for him only shalt thou serve."

Now what is notable here is that we need no such protection to look upon Lucifer, but to look upon God we must be changed. Now another point some of the revelations in scripture give a curious wording:

(2 Corinthians 12:2) "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven."

It is similar to this curious wording of the prophet:

(D&C 137:1) "THE heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell."

And again in the Book of Mormon:

(3 Nephi 28:12-17) "And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, he touched every one of them with his finger save it were the three who were to tarry, and then he departed. And behold, the heavens were opened, and they were caught up into heaven, and saw and heard unspeakable things. And it was forbidden them that they should utter; neither was it given unto them power that they could utter the things which they saw and heard; And whether they were in the body or out of the body, they could not tell; for it did seem unto them like a transfiguration of them, that they were changed from this body of flesh into an immortal state, that they could behold the things of God. But it came to pass that they did again minister upon the face of the earth; nevertheless they did not minister of the things which they had heard and seen, because of the commandment which was given them in heaven. And now, whether they were mortal or immortal, from the day of their transfiguration, I know not;"

So it seems that perhaps we do not fully comprehend the way God manifests Himself to us, but we do know that God is a physical tangible being of flesh and bone, yet He is so glorious that our bodies/spirits must go through a change just to dwell in His presence. It is not as simple as could the men with Paul see anything on the road to Damascus, or if anyone were in the sacred grove when Joseph prayed could they see anything? It is much more complex, but just as real as anything that exists on this earth that we can measure empirically.

[Flyonthewall]

My two cents...

Vision or physical appearance can sometimes be used interchangabley. When the Lord appears in His glory we cannot see Him and live, with our natural eyes, but only with our spiritual eyes. It is also through our spiritual eyes that we perceive visions. Whether it be a "physical appearance" or a "vision", I am confident it does not change the message, so it matters not.

As to whether one or two spoke to him...if I meet two people, A & B, and the only thing that 'A' says is: "This is B", then 'B' talks to me from then on...I would consider only the latter as having spoke to me. Speaking to the overall picture, it could be stated that only one of the personages spoke to him.

[Deborah]

What?? I did not get this phrase form the antis. I just quoted Joseph. "they did in reality speak unto me, or one of them did"

Where are you getting that phrase. That's not what it says in the Joseph Smith History account. It says specifically "One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other

[Lamanite]

Hmmm. Many things have zero salvation value but, if I were researching this topic, I would very much like to know whether he had a vision or a visitation. They are two different things. Brushing it off as insignificant only leaves the question hanging. The dictionary wasn't invented TODAY though. The word vision is not new. In fact it's older the Joseph's story by hundreds of years. For example, the angel Moroni, as I understand it, personally visited him IN PERSON and not in vision. True?

relax...I said it was fun didn't I. This distinction is one of importance today. I think the distinction should be asserted and clarified. To deal with the definitions and distinctions of the past can easily be explained by cultural usage in that time. A word count of major religious texts of the day may be of some importance.

Another possible over simplification is my assertion that the OP can be reconciled by accepting the 1832, 35, 38, and 42 accounts as being independent of each other and written from a unique world view and for differing audiences.

Big UP!

Lamanite

edit to correct dates.

[John Larsen]

Was he sleeping, unconscious perhaps? Now I'm confused. I thought that Joseph was in the Grove, talking to the personages as one man talks to another kind of thing. Not that he was asleep, in a dream-like state or having visions. The Temple Square presentation doesn't show him lying on his back dreaming but an actual 3-dimensional visitation with the Father and the Son speaking to him, etc. What am I missing here? Did he pass out before, during or after the experience?

There is another clue here. It was called the first vision. If it was the first, what was the second and third? And what does that say about the nature of the "vision".

[John Larsen]

Where are you getting that phrase. That's not what it says in the Joseph Smith History account. It says specifically "One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other

[Lamanite]

There is another clue here. It was called the first vision. If it was the first, what was the second and third? And what does that say about the nature of the "vision".

Hi John,

If you can figure out when the visitation began being referred to as the "first vision", you may also begin to determine how much doctrinal weight we can assign those two words.

I can search RSR later tonight. My guess is that the term was not coined until much later.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Deborah]

So let me get this straight. Someone accuses him, without proof, of using an unnamed source. He denies it. Now he must offer proof to counter that accusation? Please. Let the accuser reveal the source of the accusation or back off.

What the heck are you talking about? He keeps quoting something that isn't in the source he's referring to so we'd like to know the source he is getting it from. You really ought to pay attention to what's gone on before.

[cdowis]

There is another clue here. It was called the first vision. If it was the first, what was the second and third? And what does that say about the nature of the "vision".

The Kirkland temple. We could also include the visits of Moroni, John the Baptist, etc.

In some of these there were additional witnesses, except for the first vision.

Now what?

[John Larsen]

The Kirkland temple. We could also include the visits of Moroni, John the Baptist, etc.

In some of these there were additional witnesses, except for the first vision.

Now what?

I would kindly request your source.

[John Larsen]

What the heck are you talking about? He keeps quoting something that isn't in the source he's referring to so we'd like to know the source he is getting it from. You really ought to pay attention to what's gone on before.

I don't have problem with that. I have problem with the assertion that he got it from an anti-Mormon source without knowing, as you say, "the source he is getting it from." If you don't know the source, how can you know it is anti-Mormon?

[John Larsen]

Hi John,

If you can figure out when the visitation began being referred to as the "first vision", you may also begin to determine how much doctrinal weight we can assign those two words.

I can search RSR later tonight. My guess is that the term was not coined until much later.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Excellent point. I thought the term was coined along with one of the accounts, but I will see what I can come up with.