First Vision - Perceived Inconsistencies

[Joseph Antley]

I would kindly request your source.

Did you just ask for a source for the Moroni, John the Baptist, and Kirtland temple visions?

[cdowis]

I would kindly request your source.

Go post in Social Hall. You aren't ready for this forum.

[John Larsen]

Go post in Social Hall. You aren't ready for this forum.

I think I've been at this longer than you, junior.

[John Larsen]

Did you just ask for a source for the Moroni, John the Baptist, and Kirtland temple visions?

I am asking for a reference where those were referred as the second, etc. visions in juxtaposition to the first vision. I'm not saying they weren't. I've just never heard them used in context with the term first vision. I'm not questioning your statement, I'm looking for a source.

It is my understanding that the first vision term came about because it was the first of Joseph's angelic visions, of which there were several. I believe the first telling of the "first vision" was patterned after the theophany of Stephen and resembles that story in many aspects.

[Joseph Antley]

I am asking for a reference where those were referred as the second, etc. visions in juxtaposition to the first vision. I'm not saying they weren't. I've just never heard them used in context with the term first vision. I'm not questioning your statement, I'm looking for a source.

What do/did you think the word "First" in "First Vision" implied?

From what I understand, the term was coined (much?) later, and simply means that Joseph's adolescent vision of the Father and the Son was the "first" of his many visions (including the later visions of Moroni, John the Baptist, and Moses, Elijah, Christ, etc.).

[Calm]

I see the differences in the texts due mainly to the focus of why JS was writing the account. In one of the two most commonly referred to, he is modeling Paul's experience, appears to follow much the same style....it is a personal account, what the experience meant to him foremost.

In the other where it concentrates more on what is going on around him (whether the churches were right or wrong, etc.), it is about what the vision means for others.  That account is establishing the Vision place in terms of the Church's development as opposed to JS's own personal development.

As for the comment about not knowing in his heart that all the churches were wrong, one interpretation I've heard and that I favour is that his prior thoughts on the matter were about churches he knew personally---those he had decided did not hold the truth, but he had not yet thought that there was nowhere on earth that there wasn't the true church established. This makes both statements consistent with other related comments.

As to the one speaking to him, it is possible that he meant that one individual carried on a conversation with him, he asked something and was answered back, etc. Both had something to say, but God the Father only spoke an introduction or an announcment for his Son and it was the Son that then spoke directly with (as opposed to "to") Joseph.

[cdowis]

I think I've been at this longer than you, junior.

Really?

I don't remember your participation in Compuserve BBS (prior to the public use of the internet), or in alt.religion.mormon. What was your nickname in those groups back in the 1970s?

I recently posted my story, so you might want to read it here. I think your mother was still changing your diapers back then.

[Lamanite]

Really?

I don't remember your participation in Compuserve BBS (prior to the public use of the internet), or in alt.religion.mormon. What was your nickname in those groups back in the 1970s?

I recently posted my story, so you might want to read it here. I think your mother was still changing your diapers back then.

Wow. We are throwing around "mother" now?

Bad form...

Anyway, it seems Joseph used the phrase, "...the vision" as early as 1830. (JS-H 1:21), Opening the Heavens p 39. I can't find anything in RSR, but I only gave it a cursory glance.

It may be of some importance to note note that, "According to scripture, it is impossible for any person to behold Deity with natural eyes. Joseph Smith made it clear that this profound experience transcended his physical senses... and that it had an exhausting effect upon him..." ibid p 69

Big UP!

Lamanite

[MDalby]

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

[MDalby]

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.

cdowis,

"What are you.......?" "What are you.......?" Where do you get off with this attitude. You really need to stop and think before you post... No, I take that back... Perhaps you just need to think period. I am not disputing the Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son. I am not disputing that the Father introduced His Son. I am simply trying to understand why Joseph inserted his additional comment, "[or one of them did]" I know there were two personages there because I believe Joseph's statements. Yes, I know the meaning of the word they. Read my post and come back when you have something intelligent to contribute rather than your mocking attitude.

MD

[MDalby]

Take your tiring act somewhere else...

Grow up.

[MDalby]

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.

I obviously have not seen a vision or visitation of this magnitude and so it is difficult for me to imagine the affect and impact and how I would remember details. It seems very difficult that I would forget the Father speaking to me. I am leaning towards the explanation that the vast majority of the vision was the Son speaking and the Father was not adding comments throughout the vision and this is what Joseph meant.

[John Larsen]

Really?

I don't remember your participation in Compuserve BBS (prior to the public use of the internet), or in alt.religion.mormon. What was your nickname in those groups back in the 1970s?

I recently posted my story, so you might want to read it here. I think your mother was still changing your diapers back then.

I was referring to this board, not you happy youth spent with punch cards. And my mother? Low, dude.

[cdowis]

I was referring to this board, not you happy youth spent with punch cards. And my mother? Low, dude.

I was over at ZLMB. And yes, I do remember those punch cards and using a typewriter to do my thesis.

[Deborah]

Also, you can refer to this paper by Backman at BYU Studies, "Verification of the 1838 Account of the First Vision"

Thanks, I see where you are getting that but fyi when something is in brackets [ ] that is the author who is quoting the account making an interjection so it wouldn't be Joseph saying it. In other words the author, who is Backman, is saying at least one of them spoke to him but Joseph in his writings indicates "they" spoke to him.

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; [or one of them did]

From a website on writing: "Square brackets are used to amend direct quotations, either by adding an explanation or to make them fit the grammar of the surrounding sentence."

[Lamanite]

Thanks, I see where you are getting that but fyi when something is in brackets [ ] that is the author who is quoting the account making an interjection so it wouldn't be Joseph saying it. In other words the author, who is Backman, is saying at least one of them spoke to him but Joseph in his writings indicates "they" spoke to him.

From a website on writing: "Square brackets are used to amend direct quotations, either by adding an explanation or to make them fit the grammar of the surrounding sentence."

I could benefit from a "writing" website. I've been looking for something similar.

Could you please post a link?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[MDalby]

Thanks, I see where you are getting that but fyi when something is in brackets [ ] that is the author who is quoting the account making an interjection so it wouldn't be Joseph saying it. In other words the author, who is Backman, is saying at least one of them spoke to him but Joseph in his writings indicates "they" spoke to him.

From a website on writing: "Square brackets are used to amend direct quotations, either by adding an explanation or to make them fit the grammar of the surrounding sentence."

Deborah,

That is an inclusion by Joseph Smith. The Welch book does not have those brackets.

[MDalby]

Welch has as the source for the 1838 version of the First Vision, Dean Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith

It can also be found here. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_the_Church/A-1

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

MD

[cinepro]

I'm surprised apologists have never suggested that Joseph's memory of the event improved over the years because he may have been reminded of what, exactly happened by revelation. It's possible that shortly before recording the 1838 version of the story, he spoke with Jesus and was reminded of who was there, and what, exactly was said.

Frankly, that would make more sense than the other theories put forth.

[Joseph Antley]

Frankly, that would make more sense than the other theories put forth.

I disagree. I think (at least one of) the other theories are perfectly adequate.

[cdowis]

Take your tiring act somewhere else...

Grow up.

Please put me on ignore, as I have done with you.

[Deborah]

Welch has as the source for the 1838 version of the First Vision, Dean Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith

Then it appears Backman may have inserted the brackets as he questioned the source, particularly when the official canonized version doesn't contain this. Joseph often corrected revelations that others wrote down and this appears to have been a copy of the original. In any case it illustrates how difficult it is to verify and corroborate what is legit and what may have been a mis-scribing or a correction.

[De Groote]

I recently attended (and reported on!) Steven C. Harper's approach to the First Vision. He looks at how modern memory studies help us understand some of the differences in the various accounts. His approach is preliminary and I look forward to further development in that area.

One aspect of memory that Harper discussed was how we can vividly remember some details and vaguely remember other details. For example, Joseph may have a vivid recollection of the pillar of fire, but only vaguely remember exactly what year it was. A memory can also be filled in with information gained elsewhere -- for example, I may vaguely remember when something happened, but after consulting a calendar I may be able to pin it down to the exact day. That newly acquired (but accurate) day may work itself into the original, but vague sense of when it happened and change to a certain memory of when it happened.

A memory is not, according to Harper, just the past. A memory is a combination of the past and the present meaning we give to it. Without the present meaning, there is no real memory. This is why memories take on different significance as time goes on. We notice things we missed before, we emphasize different things, our ability to describe changes, etc.

I think some of the variations in Joseph's accounts, however, have more to do with Joseph's general reluctance to share some spiritual experiences than anything else. Am I the only one who finds it unusual, for example, that it took a direct command from an angel before Joseph told his father about Moroni's night-long appearances? I think this reluctance is part of his personality -- and probably part of the reason the Lord trusted him. Joseph was not a blabbermouth.

Another factor is attempting to cast an experience in a certain format or genre. Joseph may try to conceal certain facts to fit a certain type of narrative. I can't remember who told me this (sorry! A vague part of the memory), but somebody pointed out that the 1832 account is drawing heavily upon Paul's vision for its structure and language. If that is what Joseph is doing in 1832, it makes sense he is telling it a certain way.

[Deborah]

A memory is not, according to Harper, just the past. A memory is a combination of the past and the present meaning we give to it. Without the present meaning, there is no real memory. This is why memories take on different significance as time goes on. We notice things we missed before, we emphasize different things, our ability to describe changes, etc.

This is an excellent point. We talk about Monday morning quarter-backing. It's easier to look back and see how all the pieces were falling into play. Likewise we can have an aha moment about a past event that we could only have with more experience.

I think some of the variations in Joseph's accounts, however, have more to do with Joseph's general reluctance to share some spiritual experiences than anything else.

Many scholars agree with this. In fact Joseph said something to this effect having to do with things revealed and that he could keep them sacred where others wouldn't.

[John Larsen]

I recently attended (and reported on!) Steven C. Harper's approach to the First Vision. He looks at how modern memory studies help us understand some of the differences in the various accounts. His approach is preliminary and I look forward to further development in that area.

One aspect of memory that Harper discussed was how we can vividly remember some details and vaguely remember other details. For example, Joseph may have a vivid recollection of the pillar of fire, but only vaguely remember exactly what year it was. A memory can also be filled in with information gained elsewhere -- for example, I may vaguely remember when something happened, but after consulting a calendar I may be able to pin it down to the exact day. That newly acquired (but accurate) day may work itself into the original, but vague sense of when it happened and change to a certain memory of when it happened.

A memory is not, according to Harper, just the past. A memory is a combination of the past and the present meaning we give to it. Without the present meaning, there is no real memory. This is why memories take on different significance as time goes on. We notice things we missed before, we emphasize different things, our ability to describe changes, etc.

I think some of the variations in Joseph's accounts, however, have more to do with Joseph's general reluctance to share some spiritual experiences than anything else. Am I the only one who finds it unusual, for example, that it took a direct command from an angel before Joseph told his father about Moroni's night-long appearances? I think this reluctance is part of his personality -- and probably part of the reason the Lord trusted him. Joseph was not a blabbermouth.

Another factor is attempting to cast an experience in a certain format or genre. Joseph may try to conceal certain facts to fit a certain type of narrative. I can't remember who told me this (sorry! A vague part of the memory), but somebody pointed out that the 1832 account is drawing heavily upon Paul's vision for its structure and language. If that is what Joseph is doing in 1832, it makes sense he is telling it a certain way.

We are asked to hang a lot on this squish thing that you point out. You would think God would come up with a better method of testifying of His existence that Joseph's twice filter reluctant memories.