First Vision - Perceived Inconsistencies

[Honorentheos]

The biggest support of JS having held a very primitive Christian view that is reflected in a literal reading of the 1832 account is found in the first Book of Mormon and in the first Times and Seasons issue. Both show an understanding of God from a traditional christian view and not from the more developed Nauvoo theology expressed in the 1838 account.

The apologetic defense of the single event/revised interpretation is unfounded and uses misrepresentations of third-party support to make it's case over and over. The primary documents (BoM, Lectures on Faith, Times and Seasons, etc.) show a progression in JS's theology, the first vision accounts show this progression; why is it so hard to accept?

I still challenge anyone who relies on the FAIR response to point to an account that was actually penned prior to the 1838 official first vision account that supports this view of the Godhead as expressed by JS himself. Every example on the FAIR page was written down after the 1838 date, even if they say the account was heard prior to that time. Many were written down as much as 70 years after the event itself was supposed to have taken place.

[LeSellers]

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.

I believe the issue centers on what Joseph could have meant by "did ... speak unto me". It is entirely possible that Jospeh intended to convey the idea that all of the detailed information came from "one of them", because, aside from the Father's introduction, He spake nothing

[MDalby]

I believe the issue centers on what Joseph could have meant by "did ... speak unto me". It is entirely possible that Jospeh intended to convey the idea that all of the detailed information came from "one of them", because, aside from the Father's introduction, He spake nothing

[toon]

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.

If I remember correctly, the Emory University study was designed to test the accuracy of people's recollections of significant and/or traumatic events.

One study documented how misattribution crept into people's recollections of the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger. Immediately after the Challenger tragedy, researchers at Emory University asked students to write down what they were doing when they heard the news. A year later, the researchers asked the same students to write down their memories of the event again. These later descriptions were riddled with misattributions. But misattributions can be startlingly strong. When told of the discrepancies, the students had trouble believing that their memories were inaccurate. Indeed, three years later, when the students were once again asked to recall the Challenger explosion, their recollections were closer to their second accounts.

http://www.aolhealth.com/learn-about-it/improving-memory-understanding-age-related-memory-loss/forgetting-whats-normal/seven-types-of-normal-memory-problems

I have no problem with Joseph not remembering 12 or 18 years after the fact exactly who said what or what his opinion at the time was on whether a true church existed. It seems perfectly natural that he would forget that kind of detail or that his recollection would be influenced by subsequent beliefs and events.

[toon]

Another link to the Emory University study:

http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/memory.htm

(Note: I don't agree with the article's implicitly absolute conclusion -- that you cannot rely on eyewitness testimony.)

As I mentioned, days after the Challenger explosion in 1986, students were asked to write down where they were when they first heard the news. They were then assigned the same task three years later. A significant number of those response varied, even among major details. When students were shown the discrepencies, they often still could not recollect the original version and felt that the subesquent/current one was accurate.

An example of one student's responses:

January 1986:

[De Groote]

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.

I don't think it is so much that his memories are reluctant.

Harper's presentation had a good, but unarticulated example. Harper spoke about a significant event that took place when he was 14 years old. It was a breakfast table discussion with his father. He told about some of the details he remembered and about some he did not remember. He also said he remembered things his father said word-for-word.

BUT...

He didn't tell us what those "word-for-word" things were.

Let us suppose he wrote down this lecture version of his memory. What would we have? No specifics of the conversation.

Now, let us suppose that six years later he wrote down a fuller version -- one for his family perhaps, that included those word-for-word quotes. Would we be correct in concluding that he made up the later quotes? Not really, although we could argue that there was no earlier evidence for those quotes and that there was indeed the possibility of them being changed over time. But we could not say the later version proved his MEMORY was faulty. The earlier version did not include details on purpose. The memory at that earlier time may have been better -- but the account's lack of specific word-for-word quotes had nothing to do with that memory.

[cdowis]

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.

He did.

Read Moroni 10:4-5 where the Lord told us how to test the Book of Mormon, and, by extension, the First Vision. Everything we need to know from the First Vision is already recorded. The test whether it is true is found elsewhere.

[Scott Lloyd]

I recently attended (and reported on!) Steven C. Harper's approach to the First Vision.

De Groote, what are you doing on here? Get back to work!

[gmormon]

De Groote, what are you doing on here? Get back to work!

Scott is this another one of you Deseret News self promoting types ? Do you guys get paid by how many times someone views your articles ?

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott is this another one of you Deseret News self promoting types ? Do you guys get paid by how many times someone views your articles ?

Drat! He's on to us.

[cinepro]

He didn't tell us what those "word-for-word" things were.

Let us suppose he wrote down this lecture version of his memory. What would we have? No specifics of the conversation.

Now, let us suppose that six years later he wrote down a fuller version -- one for his family perhaps,

It's an interesting theory, but if you look at the actual versions of the First Vision, I'm not sure they fit that pattern. For example, check out the table in the wikipedia article (about half-way down the page).

It compares the different versions for their report on who/what appeared to him, and whether they said "thy sins are forgiven" or "all the Churches are corrupt". It appears there's a consistent pattern of the pre-1838 stories only reporting "thy sins are forgiven thee", and the post-1838 versions saying "all other churches are corrupt" (omitting the mention of "forgiven sins").

[De Groote]

Scott is this another one of you Deseret News self promoting types ? Do you guys get paid by how many times someone views your articles ?

Self promotion is my justification for posting here on a work computer.

Scott, I was eating my lunch while looking at this topic -- a tasty sweet potato soup.

I have no excuse, however, to be on right now, so I better post and run.

[De Groote]

It's an interesting theory, but if you look at the actual versions of the First Vision, I'm not sure they fit that pattern. For example, check out the table in the wikipedia article (about half-way down the page).

It compares the different versions for their report on who/what appeared to him, and whether they said "thy sins are forgiven" or "all the Churches are corrupt". It appears there's a consistent pattern of the pre-1838 stories only reporting "thy sins are forgiven thee", and the post-1838 versions saying "all other churches are corrupt" (omitting the mention of "forgiven sins").

This falls under Harper's talking about memory is a blending of the past and the meaning we give to it in the present. Harper said that the significance of the childhood conversation he had with his father is much different today than it was when he was a teenager.

The significance of what the First Vision meant to Joseph in 1832 does not appear to be the same as what it meant to him later.

[John Larsen]

He did.

Read Moroni 10:4-5 where the Lord told us how to test the Book of Mormon, and, by extension, the First Vision. Everything we need to know from the First Vision is already recorded. The test whether it is true is found elsewhere.

And how do we know that the Lord told us that Moroni 10:4-5 was how to to test? Why the Book of Mormon tells us that.

I'm sure you can see where I am going with this.

[cinepro]

This falls under Harper's talking about memory is a blending of the past and the meaning we give to it in the present. Harper said that the significance of the childhood conversation he had with his father is much different today than it was when he was a teenager.

The significance of what the First Vision meant to Joseph in 1832 does not appear to be the same as what it meant to him later.

Obviously, we are in the realm of conjecture and ephemeral musings, but that being said, I would think that the idea that "all other Churches were corrupt" would be a pretty important point for someone starting and growing a church.

Which Joseph Smith did in 1830.

At the very least, it could be an important conversational point for missionary efforts back then, as it is today.

[Scott Lloyd]

Obviously, we are in the realm of conjecture and ephemeral musings, but that being said, I would think that the idea that "all other Churches were corrupt" would be a pretty important point for someone starting and growing a church.

Which Joseph Smith did in 1830.

At the very least, it could be an important conversational point for missionary efforts back then, as it is today.

Given the oppression Joseph reported suffering almost immediately following the First Vision, I think he could be pardoned for downplaying the corrupt doctrine aspect, at least in the beginning.

[Glenn101]

And how do we know that the Lord told us that Moroni 10:4-5 was how to to test? Why the Book of Mormon tells us that.

I'm sure you can see where I am going with this.

In circles???

Glenn

[John Larsen]

In circles???

Glenn

??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???

[cdowis]

And how do we know that the Lord told us that Moroni 10:4-5 was how to to test? Why the Book of Mormon tells us that.

I'm sure you can see where I am going with this.

Yep. You asked a question and I gave you an answer.

And you are going to ignore it.

[Lamanite]

...pretty important point for someone starting and growing a church. Which Joseph Smith did in 1830.

Hey man,

I might be able to provide an argument. In essence, I would provide a few sources that display Joseph's limited vision of himself as a Prophet and his Church ca. 1830, suggesting that the lens with which he saw these miraculous developments was still very personal. I'm not convinced that Joseph had settled into his calling yet; as opposed to the 1842-44 Nauvoo Prophet. I don't even think the priesthood or its attendant corporeal visitations were common knowledge in 1830; so I think his visitations, priesthood(s), Prophethood et al., were are still embryonic compared to the Nauvoo period.

However, in support of your position, I could probably provide several quotes where Joseph inflates the modest beginnings of Mormonism until it fills the world and ushers in the Millennium.

alas, these are but ephemeral musings...

Big UP!

Lamanite

[cinepro]

alas, these are but ephemeral musings...

Big UP!

Lamanite

They're all interesting possibilities. And since we're just guessing what Joseph might have been thinking, anything is possible. Ultimately, we each have to figure out for ourselves what we think the most likely scenario is.

So while I don't know for sure, I'm pretty confident saying that the canonized version probably isn't the most accurate account of what happened. But that's just me.

[Lamanite]

probably isn't the most accurate account of what happened.

Random thoughts,

Do you suggest that he knowingly misrepresented certain facts to suit his purposes? This presupposes he had some type of supernatural experience.

I don't think earlier account always equals accurate account.

I think it more plausible that he interpreted the experience with a different worldview. However, If I were you, I would assume that my take on things has to accommodate for a rigid theology. Essentially I have to massage everything into place to accommodate for my belief that Joseph is a Prophet.

Wild and Wacky-----

Big UP!

Lamanite

[toon]

I think the argument by someone challenging the Church's truth claims is that Joseph made it up and that the discrepencies are a result of his inability to keep his story straight and, therefore, evidence that it was fabricated.

To someone outside the Church, this is a reasonable explanation. Indeed, if you refuse to believe in the possibility of such manifestations, it is quite possibly the only explanation. But if you allow the possibility that Joseph was telling the truth, the discrepencies should not be problematic, as they are consistent with the discrepencies that one would expect to see in the retelling of any significant personal experience. In other words, one's belief in Joseph's prophetic mission should not rise or fall on discrepencies and potential inconsistencies found in the various First Vision accounts.

As believers, I don't think we'll ever get at exactly what happened (or what Joseph felt or thought) during the First Vision, as well as the events leading up to and following it. But that doesnt' mean that we can't get at some pretty basic truths.