Am I missing pieces to Joseph Smith's pre-1838 account of the First Vision?

[urroner]

This is what I discovered. Preaching a consistent First Vision and giving it the prominence that is holds today was just not something that the early church seemed to do.

Is that a bad thing?

[Deborah]

My own take on a well-known quote: "Grandchildren are God's reward for surviving your own kids' teenage years."

Similar to my own "Grandchildren are God's reward for being a parent."

End of derail.

[Deborah]

I do not have a problem with the consistency between the accounts as I do in the motive for revising the account to the 1838 version that we have today. The Ensign makes the following statement:

This has always been such an insignificant issue for me. For one thing one has to look at the point Joseph was making with each account and to whom he was giving it. Furthermore, one has to recognize how overwhelming the experience was for a youth whose education and experience were pretty limited. How do you explain such a thing except in words you can understand and others will understand.

Joseph himself recognized the problem when he gave the official version and said "Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to militate against its character as a Church and its progress in the world

[urroner]

Similar to my own "Grandchildren are God's reward for being a parent."

End of derail.

Children are God's punishment for enjoying sex.

[cinepro]

Children are God's punishment for enjoying sex.

Then what's birth control?

[urroner]

Then what's birth control?

My face.

Also a rock in the man's shoe. It makes him limp.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Raguel]

Kevin Christensen,

In the link that you provided to an article by Matthew Brown: http://www.fairlds.o...al_Stories.html, he indicates that there are story elements that were unknown in the non-LDS circle. The quote is:

A preliminary survey of the literature on my part turned up several First Vision story elements that were known in non-LDS circles before JS 1832 was created. They did not make it into this particular account, but they were included by Joseph Smith in JS 1838, signifying that they were integral parts of the story. This is enough to establish the fact that JS 1832 must not be considered as a full rendition of the First Vision event. Critics of Joseph Smith, therefore, would be wise to pause before making the accusation that any story elements that are not in this document, but which show up in later recitals, must represent a revision.

Does anyone know what Mr. Brown was referring to?

-R

[Wiki Wonka]

Thanks for these links. John Taylor is one of the ones that seemed to have the same understanding of the First Vision that the church has today. But by and large, as far as I was able to discover, the First Vision was very rarely part of the discussion of the church for the first generation of saints and I don't know that Brigham Young ever talked about it. If he did, I am unaware of it. The focus of the early church leaders was overwhelmingly "an angel came to Joseph, Joseph translated the Book of Mormon, and Joseph was a prophet." This is what I discovered. Preaching a consistent First Vision and giving it the prominence that is holds today was just not something that the early church seemed to do.

Yes, you are correct that the First Vision didn't receive the prominence that it has now until somewhat later. In the early days of the Church, it was the vision of Moroni and the production of the Book of Mormon that held the most significance. This is what initially set the Church apart.

Regarding Brigham and the First Vision, he doesn't seem to have referred to it to the extent that John Taylor did (at least not in his recorded sermons), but there are a few definite references in the Journal of Discourses. Here's an interesting one:

But have I yet lived to the state of perfection that I can commune in person with the Father and the Son at my will and pleasure? No

[cinepro]

Raquel, if you're interested in an interesting aspect of the history of the First Vision in LDS thought and teachings, check out Kathleen Flake's book:

The Politics of American Religious Identity

She tells the story of the Smoot hearings in the early 1900's, and how Church leaders at the time used the 1905 centennial of Joseph's birth to shift focus in the Church away from polygamy and towards a more foundational event in Church history: The First Vision. Until then, it wasn't emphasized nearly as much as we might imagine.

[Wiki Wonka]

WW,

Thank you for these references. The one that I found most helpful was the article in the January 1985 Ensign.

I do not have a problem with the consistency between the accounts as I do in the motive for revising the account to the 1838 version that we have today. The Ensign makes the following statement:

Early Latter-day Saint leaders who knew that Christ had instructed Joseph during his vision of 1820 sometimes declared that an angel told Joseph Smith not to join any of the churches. In their sermons, these same leaders used the term Lord to identify the Father and Son and used the words Lord, Christ, personage, messenger, and angel interchangeably. Do you have a reference for this point?

Thanks,

R

One thing to note is that Joseph Smith himself didn't use the terms "Father and Son" in any of his accounts of the First Vision. He usually referred to them as "personages." John Taylor was much more explicit, stating that the Father and Son were those personages.

Early Church leaders seemed to use the term "angel" or "Angel" interchangeably with "God" at times. Here's one example that makes it pretty clear that this was the case. John Taylor gave two different sermons on the same day that referenced the First Vision. Check this out:

None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. (emphasis added)

John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 20:167 (March 2nd, 1879)

Now check out this quote from another sermon that he gave the very same day:

When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith, he had a priesthood conferred upon him which he conferred upon others for the purpose of manifesting the laws of life, the Gospel of the Son of God, by direct authority... (emphasis added)

John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 20:257 (March 2, 1879)

Critics of the First Vision often make mention of the first quote, but they never seem to acknowledge the second one, even though they were given by the same person on the say day. Taylor referred to "angel" in one talk, and the "Father and the Son" in another, yet he was referring both times to the event that we now refer to as the "First Vision."

WW

[LeSellers]

Early Church leaders seemed to use the term "angel" or "Angel" interchangeably with "God" at times.

It shows up in the Bible, as well. Abraham, on the plains of Mamre saw the Angel of the Lord, and the text is clear that this was God, Himself. It happened again on Mount Moriah.

Moses saw the "Angel of the Lord" in the Burning Bush.

Balaam and his a$s saw the "angel of the Lord" and Balaam (before he betrayed Israel and Jehovah) worshiped this angel.

In Bochim, the whole of Israel saw the Angel of the Lord, Who said, "I made you go up out of Egypt..."

Gideon, too, saw God and the chronicler recorded it was the angle of the Lord.

It may have been that Manoah, Sampson's father, also saw the Angel of the Lord.

I could make a case that David, Zechariah, and Elijah did, too.

Some of these are explicit, some less so, but it appears to be common that the Bible uses the phrase "the angel of the Lord" to mean "God".

Lehi

[urroner]

The Doctrine of God and the Nature of Man\

Eusebius of Caesarea likewise called Jesus a "secondary being" who is both angel and God:

Remember how Moses calls the Being, Who appeared to the patriarchs, and often delivered to them the oracles afterwards written down in Scripture sometimes God and Lord, and sometimes the Angel of the Lord. He clearly implies that this was not the Omnipotent God, but a secondary Being, rightly called the God and Lord of holy men, but the Angel of the Most High His Father. (Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel 1:5)

[so-so saint]

Yes, you are correct that the First Vision didn't receive the prominence that it has now until somewhat later. In the early days of the Church, it was the vision of Moroni and the production of the Book of Mormon that held the most significance. This is what initially set the Church apart.

Regarding Brigham and the First Vision, he doesn't seem to have referred to it to the extent that John Taylor did (at least not in his recorded sermons), but there are a few definite references in the Journal of Discourses.

SNIP

WW

Thanks for these references. The first two quotes are ambiguous to me, especially the second one which I think is talking about Moroni's visit and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. I agree that the third looks like the First Vision.

To me, it is not clear cut that the early leaders used "angel(s)" in place of "Father and Son." Your other post about the quotes of John Taylor seem to indicate this, but there are many references where it appears that the word "angel" refers to Moroni and his visitation. I don't have the time at the moment to cite chapter and verse, but I recall when i went through things that many references to angels visiting Joseph seemed to refer to Moroni's visit, not the First Vision.

Thanks again.

[Stargazer]

I have a strong testimony of God, the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ...

OK, that's good. But where did you get it? You don't say. How do you know that God exists? How do you know that Jesus is His Son? Before one starts questioning one's testimony of Joseph Smith as a Prophet of God, one would do well to start with first principles, and get straight with regard to the being or beings that Joseph claimed to be a prophet of.

This First Question is extremely important to the discussion, and should be answered before you go off half-cocked about Joseph's prophethood.

So, can we start with the origin of your testimony of God the Father and Jesus Christ? And keep in mind that first of all you had to get the information about Them from someone or some place.

I'm interested to see what we come up with.

[cdowis]

The Holy Spirit gave me a testimony and witness of Jesus Christ. That same spirit gave me a sure knowledge that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

[Lightbearer]

Now I am thinking that he made up the experiences to mimic various portions of the Bible. This is not good.

Actually the Prophet Joseph's use of Biblical language for me is an evidence that he was indeed a prophet of God. One of my favorite books is "Scriptural Teachings of The Prophet Joseph Smith" by Richard Galbraith. It is basically TofTPJS by Joseph Fielding Smith only it is annontated to show how the Prophet knew the scriptures so well he used them in his teachings extensively.

[Raguel]

I appreciate all your input, information and inspiration. It has been very helpful. Thank you.

-R

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin Christensen,

The articles by Matthew Brown actually took me a couple steps backwards. He states:

But look more closely at this slide. In the area where the actual theophany takes place you will notice that Joseph Smith has incorporated three very relevant Bible stories into the telling of his tale; three stories that have to do with the appearance of heavenly beings. The first is the story of the angels who visited the shepherds and amidst a heavenly light announced the coming of the Christ. The second has to do with the appearance of the Savior to the apostle Paul when the heavenly light shown around him. And the third is about the apostle Stephen seeing both the Father and the Son. But before we move on to the next slide I will remind you what the Prophet said about the rejection he experienced when he first announced his vision. He said, 'I felt like the apostle Paul because they wouldn't believe his vision of Deity either.' Now here we see Joseph utilizing Paul's story to tell his own. Joseph used more of this story than any of the others and there is probably an important insight to be gained here. When Joseph Smith incorporates Acts 26 as a framework the parallels are so exacting that when Paul speaks in his text, Joseph speaks in his text; when Jesus addresses Paul in the Bible passage, Jesus addresses Joseph in JS 1832. And then the pattern reverts to Paul speaking and Joseph speaking.

There is another scriptural framework to be found in JS 1832, but it is on the large scale