Bishop's letter 2003

[Robert F. Smith]

I followed your link.

It has the anstract, and a dead link to the main article.

I'm a little confussed here.

What are the implications of Joseph receiving his first vision in 1824, instead of 1820?

What difference does it make?

Sorry about that. Seems Dialogue removed it from their website (they redid the whole website recently), and I cannot find it anywhere else. I'll let you know if I am able to find a copy online.

Some people are claiming Joseph to have been a liar. Quinn shows that Wes Walters and others knowingly falsified the record in order to make Joseph out to be a liar, when, in fact, there was a very nearby revival in the area in 1820 which Joseph might very well have attended. Quinn's is an extraordinary article. Especially since some paint him as an anti-Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

"Page missing". Not helpful. D. Michael Quinn, author; that's cool. He's thorough and has a rep for honest investigation.

But I can't say anything about a paper that I cannot read.

Regardless: references to camp meetings, prior to the large-scale ones during the 1824-25 revival, are moot; since the people flocking to this or that sect did not occur at any of the pre-1824 camp meetings. This feature is absolutely required in order for an 1820 camp meeting to fulfill the requirement; as Joseph Smith said that "...great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties...". The Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist church membership records referenced by Palmer all disagree with assertions that large-scale conversions occurred earlier than 1824.

You don't need to put this on a win or lose footing, imho. We are all trying to learn here....

Agreed. And (as I just informed Inquiring Mind) I will try to find a copy of that paper online somewhere.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Bob McCue is not an "anti". His letters do not attack the Church. His position is critical vis-a-vis the leaders are defending their position of control above all else. The "faithful history" taught is part and parcel to that agenda above all else. The doctrines per se are not a problem, either with McCue or myself. The history as presented is the problem.

You cannot be serious.

[Questing Beast]

Deliberately incomplete? Indeed, he did. See below.

All history production, since textual sources inevitably include inconsistencies (the ones I work with are loaded with them!), requires a deliberate sorting through, sifting, and then winnowing away of inconsistencies.

But that's not what Palmer, Compton, et al. the scholars intent on revealing the more full history, are doing. You point out a review of Palmer's book, and assert along with its author that Palmer deliberately did not mention the parts in his sources in order to prove his point; yet admit that he quoted copiously from it elsewhere. Obviously, to me at least, he only mentioned the parts that applied specifically to what he was addressing. For instance, the point he was making, vis-a-vis the angelic priesthood restoration stories that were later developed, is how the identities of the angels got later inserted (and thus recalled at much later dates by contemporaries, even though the IDs of the angelic ministers were "revealed" long after Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said that the priesthood had been restored by angels: e.g. look at the 1833 Book of Commandments: "Section 13" is missing entirely; and the HC reference adds "John the Baptist" in 1839 when the HC was first being compiled). Joseph's mother has no recollection (in her original manuscript) of him asserting any angelic visitations: rather, he and Oliver Cowdery baptized each other because of inspiration that they had received while translating the BofM. Palmer's point is that the story of angelic visitation grew into the form we have it now; even the identities of the angels was a later addition. That Palmer does not mention what you point out, that the critic of his book points out, is not an example of "cherry picking" over the facts and selecting what you want the evidence to say: rather, it is pointing out the parts that the Church historians never acknowledged. The reason why Palmer, et al. want to do this is because they arrive at a very different conclusion as to the true history than the selective, "faithful history" does. The sources that the "faithful history" quotes are not being unacknowledged by Palmer et al. when they don't refer back to them: because it is the "faithful history" and its foundation of selective quotations that they are criticizing.

How exactly a historian does this depends upon his/her chosen interpretive frameworks and, since methodological consistency is an ideal only, her/his personal biases. This process when engaged in by faithful historians is 'controversial' to you only because you've chosen to give your allegiance to a narrative structure which, because of its competing interpretive frameworks and alternate biases, has winnowed away its own--and nearly opposite, in many cases--set of inconsistences. These choices, by the way, appear controversial to me.

You are fixing the cart before the horse here. Palmer et al. (and I include non scholars, mere students like myself, my brother, evidently McCue, and the "legion" of others who have followed the earlier injunction of the "Brethren" to study deeply out of "the best books" and to find the truth wherever it can be found, etc.) are not seeking controversy; they ARE not choosing to "give our allegiance to a competing narrative structure". We are trying to understand what we read in the light of a "faithful history" which does not fit the facts (sic): facts are what we read inclusive of everything else we have read and recollect up to that time. You can spin this to not be "facts" if you like; but at this given moment, my "facts" are the hypothesis I hold and test with every word that I read in its context. I hold no agenda to disbelieve anything. So there is no "winnowing away" of contentious, controversial, inconsistent material. I see Palmer as squarely lodged inside the same paradigm of truth seeking....

[Questing Beast]

...

You presume speed somehow increases accuracy, it does not

Oh, but it does. We all have a fixed amount of time. If a great deal of it is wasted through lack of means, then we cannot cross-reference or "falsify" what we read nearly as quickly. As the Net increases, so too does our capacity to weed out the "rumor mill" stuff. We grow adept at swiftly determining if something is properly sourced, or is just blather in text form. "Speed does not equal accuracy," true, but speed does equal efficiency. This is analogous to missile fire in modern combat. In the OLD DAYS, accuracy (marksmanship) was highly prized. But accuracy was not the be-all; casualties was. By increasing the number of missiles, the accuracy went down as percentage of "hits", but casualties increased; thus the net effect is a lower percentage of hits but higher casualties as the rate of fire increases. The Net is FAST information. The student can peel off a ton of sources in an hour where physically handling that amount of material before would have taken many hours if not days, weeks or even months, when s/he was forced to use library loans and such SLOW methods to compare sources. Ultimately, speed translates into potential accuracy, arrived at much sooner than just half a generation ago, and accessible by practically everyone in the developed West (and soon to be everyone globally)....

[Questing Beast]

Bob McCue is not an "anti". His letters do not attack the Church. His position is critical vis-a-vis the leaders are defending their position of control above all else. The "faithful history" taught is part and parcel to that agenda above all else. The doctrines per se are not a problem, either with McCue or myself. The history as presented is the problem.

You cannot be serious.

Why else would I be here? Seriously?

I read his first letter and all 23 pages up to the appendix of his reply to Holland's (unpublished) response to his first letter. I am utterly unbiased, curious and already convinced in my own mind that no human being is entirely unbiased! That is to say, I do my best to read with an open mind, giving the writer all benefit of the doubt until s/he gets hoist on their own petard. I did not see anything in McCue's letters to show that he hates the Church, its doctrines or its leaders, etc. Rather I read of an enormous shock and disappointment. He wasn't even angry when he first wrote Holland. Offended at being "duped", yes, but he wasn't writing like the angry people I've run across on exmo fora. His letters (the two I have read) did not attack the Church: they attacked the culpability of the top leaders in promoting the "faithful history" in order to control their membership. He clearly stated the conditions under which he would joyfully return to full association with the Church: simply, that the First Presidency admit that this policy of deliberate misinformation ("faith-promoting history") be acknowledged, called the mistake it is, and that all the history be accepted and studied, discussed and interpreted the best that we all can: that nobody be censured or marginalized (much less cast out) for holding opinions freely voiced. As long as the Church recognizes that opinions are not a danger it can entertain all of them. There should henceforth be no coercion to limit one's freedom to speak out fearlessly. The Church will not go with this, McCue admits, so there is a virtually "zero" chance of his ever returning to the Church. How is that position "attacking the Church"?...

[LDSToronto]

Pursuant to my above posts, I thought it might helpful to re-address the issue of interpretative frameworks a bit. One way of looking at this issue is to utilise a mathematical metaphor: f(x), where x = the data gleaned from historical documents and f = the interpretative framework(s) a historian brings to bear on those data. In this case, the function of x results in a specific historical interpretation.

In the case at hand, a (necessarily limited) set of data x might look like this:

[*]In the 16 November 1830 Painesville [Ohio] Telegraph, an article entitled 'The Golden Bible' records that Oliver Cowdery (misspelt as Cowdray) had been preaching in the vicinity and that a part of his message, mentioned twice in the 237-word article, was that he had 'seen and conversed with Angels.'

[*]In his 1832 history, Joseph Smith himself wrote plainly concerning 'the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel

[Pahoran]

"We" may very well be "legion". So what? Last I heard, believers are supposed to be in the extreme, fading minority in the Last Days.

Your criticism of his character is typical apologist tactics: attack the "messenger", always, and do not address the points of disagreement that he brings up. In avoiding the contest, find errors in his facts, and then dismiss the correct facts on the basis of his having gotten some things not quite right: if you find even one mistake, you assert that this allows you to dismiss the "messenger" utterly. On that basis, you must apply an equal measure of judgment and dismiss Joseph Smith himself....

Your argument here is a typical anti-Mormon schtick. You lead in by building up someone into a mighty authority (He was a bishop! Wow! And a Completely Impartial Seeker for Pure Unvarnished TRVTH) and then, as soon as someone points out that he's really not worthy of such adulation, you trot out the standard mantra about "attacking the messenger."

So I take it that, from being the magisterial source of all wisdom, McCue is now a mere "messenger," is he?

You really need to get your story straight.

Incidentally, who does this fellow think he is, to suppose that the best possible use of the Brethren's time is to wade through eighty pages of his self-serving special pleading?

And speaking of special pleading: the revisionist notion that the First Vision could not "possibly" have taken place before 1824 is not an undisputed historical "fact," and it is grossly disingenuous to pretend that it is. Rather, it is a controversial fringe position.

And to deny the fact that Bob McCue is an anti-Mormon is about as candid as trying to deny the sunrise. Not only is he an anti-Mormon, he has made himself a prominent one. Please don't deny such self-evident facts; you only undermine your own credibility.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

I want to repeat the question I asked before but which has been ignored:

I wouldn't even argue that Joseph's understanding evolved, but how is it misleading if the church teaches the final and correct understanding? Joseph was given information step by step and as each piece was added his understanding grew.

[Palerider]

I want to repeat the question I asked before but which has been ignored:

Hey Deborah,

My bad. I just got involved in some other things. For one thing, I am not completely convinced that Joseph's doctrine regarding the Godhead is entirely correct. Furthermore it is one thing to receive revelation regarding an issue of doctrine and quite another to arrive at it by one's own thought process and deductive thinking. I think this will be a matter of differing opinions.

[Deborah]

For one thing, I am not completely convinced that Joseph's doctrine regarding the Godhead is entirely correct. Furthermore it is one thing to receive revelation regarding an issue of doctrine and quite another to arrive at it by one's own thought process and deductive thinking. I think this will be a matter of differing opinions.

But if it is Joseph's doctrine and he makes a definitive statement about it, why is it not appropriate to accept the definitive statement. I don't think he even arrived at it by deductive thinking but rather as he received additional revelation and visions his knowledge increased.

[Palerider]

But if it is Joseph's doctrine and he makes a definitive statement about it, why is it not appropriate to accept the definitive statement. I don't think he even arrived at it by deductive thinking but rather as he received additional revelation and visions his knowledge increased.

I think as a true believing Mormon one would be obliged to accept the statement regardless of how he arrived at it as long as it is true.

My issue is that for years the church taught (through me and a big bunch of other missionaries) that Joseph learned of God's true nature (flesh and bone) from his "First Vision" experience in the grove. When I was in the mission field I happened to notice a copy of Lectures on Faith in the mission library and asked if I could read it. When I was done I went to my mission president and asked regarding the baffling teaching on the Godhead that LoF contains. In essence he told me it was something I didn't need to be concerned about and to move along.

Many years later it came back to me and I decided to research it a little more. Finding out the truth has a funny way of changing your way of viewing someone who has been painted by the church as being 12 feet tall.

When you go to the coroner's report and find they were only 5 foot 7inches it has an effect................

[Deborah]

When you go to the coroner's report and find they were only 5 foot 7inches it has an effect................

Joseph was 6 feet tall so the 5 foot image is the same problem as making him 12 feet tall, but I agree with the point. In other words let's deal with the reality. One thing that has been emphasized on the Joseph Smith Papers project is how they want to get away from the idealized version of Joseph and show him as the real person he was, and in spite of that was a prophet. But that's how I've always seen him so I've never gotten upset over the nitpicky things. I think his teachings so far outweigh the discussions of how he got there that such discussions seem unimportant.

I find the D&C so profound in its detail of things like Aaronic/Melchizidek Priesthood, kingdoms of glory, organizing the quorums etc that I find it hard to understand why people would dismiss these things because they think he gave a different version of his first vision (whether he did or not is still a matter of debate).

[Pahoran]

I think as a true believing Mormon one would be obliged to accept the statement regardless of how he arrived at it as long as it is true.

My issue is that for years the church taught (through me and a big bunch of other missionaries) that Joseph learned of God's true nature (flesh and bone) from his "First Vision" experience in the grove. When I was in the mission field I happened to notice a copy of Lectures on Faith in the mission library and asked if I could read it. When I was done I went to my mission president and asked regarding the baffling teaching on the Godhead that LoF contains. In essence he told me it was something I didn't need to be concerned about and to move along.

Since Joseph didn't write the LoF, there is no reason to assume that the LoF represented his view of the Godhead at any stage in his life.

But if that's what you need to justify your abandonment of your faith, carry on.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Palerider]

Joseph was 6 feet tall so the 5 foot image is the same problem as making him 12 feet tall, but I agree with the point. In other words let's deal with the reality. One thing that has been emphasized on the Joseph Smith Papers project is how they want to get away from the idealized version of Joseph and show him as the real person he was, and in spite of that was a prophet. But that's how I've always seen him so I've never gotten upset over the nitpicky things. I think his teachings so far outweigh the discussions of how he got there that such discussions seem unimportant.

I find the D&C so profound in its detail of things like Aaronic/Melchizidek Priesthood, kingdoms of glory, organizing the quorums etc that I find it hard to understand why people would dismiss these things because they think he gave a different version of his first vision (whether he did or not is still a matter of debate).

And I see the BoM and D&C as more of a redundant "midrash" on Biblical themes that were already present, and then eventually a departure from Biblical precedent in the form of the addition of Masonic rites. I also believe that Joseph was later greatly influenced/educated by Sidney Rigdon and others as they went through the process of "translating" the Bible. That's why when he was involved in the writing of LoF he was either unable to correct the concepts of his collaborators or actually believed them himself.

Obviously this all hinges on whether one believes Joseph was a prophet. I can only tell you in all sincerity that I have diligently approached the Lord regarding these things over a lengthy period of time and I receive no confirmation. I'm sure someone here may have something cynical to say regarding those supplications but that is their problem not mine.

[Questing Beast]

...

And speaking of special pleading: the revisionist notion that the First Vision could not "possibly" have taken place before 1824 is not an undisputed historical "fact," and it is grossly disingenuous to pretend that it is. Rather, it is a controversial fringe position.

If you've been paying close attention, this thread was started because of controversy. I have not assumed that the 1824 dating of the first vision is a "fact": the facts are the church records, the newspaper articles, the statements/recollections of other Smith family members and acquaintances, the same from neighbors of the Smiths (many of them in affidavit form): i.e. the TOTAL evidence to date.

Compared to the "faithful history", based ONLY on the 1838 version dictated by Joseph Smith to James Mulholland - and ignoring all the rest of the evidence in hand - it is the Church's position that is shown to be less factual and more controversial. That this new examination by an increasing number of scholars sheds light on how narrow the Church's selective history is, only points out that there is a controversy here. And the controversy isn't between pro Mormons and anti Mormons: it is between real scholarship and selective history. One side (the Church) discounts all evidence that refutes Joseph Smiths LAST version of his personal history (including the earliest in his own hand); the other side gathers ALL of the extant versions and ALL connected evidence and compares them to arrive at as complete a picture of the history as possible. One side (the Church) is intent ONLY on distributing a "faith-promoting" story; and even goes so far as to label ALL dissenting evidence as negative, apostate or even the work of the evil one, to destroy testimonies: and many leaders will admonish members to "go not after them", and if they do, they must not discuss these matters in church meetings or even in private, if they want to remain "members in good standing". Threats of discipline accompany any efforts of members to bring these other historical sources into the light. This is a core accusation of McCue's: that he discovered that he could not talk about the things on his mind because his leaders considered them to be threatening to the Church. He rightly pointed out, through quotation of General Authorities, that "the truth has nothing to fear": and showed up the dichotomy, the hypocrisy, of such a claim vis-a-vis the Church's current stand on controversial subjects (such as the dating of the first vision and the first vision's relative importance today compared to its largely unknown and non emphasized status in Joseph Smith's lifetime).

And to deny the fact that Bob McCue is an anti-Mormon is about as candid as trying to deny the sunrise. Not only is he an anti-Mormon, he has made himself a prominent one. Please don't deny such self-evident facts; you only undermine your own credibility.

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't know McCue's current status. I am only judging his initial letter of explanation and exhortation to Elder Holland, and its followup "tome". What he has been up to in the intervening eight years I have no idea. Perhaps you know better about that. But these two letters are clearly not anti-Mormon, but critical only. If criticism makes one an anti-Mormon, then the late Hugh Nibley was an anti-Mormon....

[Deborah]

Compared to the "faithful history", based ONLY on the 1838 version dictated by Joseph Smith to James Mulholland - and ignoring all the rest of the evidence in hand - it is the Church's position that is shown to be less factual and more controversial.

Even though the different versions have been published in the Ensign, discuss by various scholars and discussed in the Joseph Smith papers....

[Jeff K.]

I don't know McCue's current status. I am only judging his initial letter of explanation and exhortation to Elder Holland, and its followup "tome". What he has been up to in the intervening eight years I have no idea. Perhaps you know better about that. But these two letters are clearly not anti-Mormon, but critical only. If criticism makes one an anti-Mormon, then the late Hugh Nibley was an anti-Mormon....

The two letters are anti Mormon and yes, McCue is a very active anti Mormon with websites galore. I find it more than a little disengenuous to state you are not aware of his current status given the OP opinion on internet use. The man detests the Mormon church and generally attempts to create a series of half truths in order to undermine it. Not sure how you could avoid that information since al you had to do was google his name. Are you stating that such never occurred to you and yet, you found this one single letter? Don't you think that is just shy of saying you know what next weeks lottery numbers will be in California?

One side (the Church) discounts all evidence that refutes Joseph Smiths LAST version of his personal history (including the earliest in his own hand); the other side gathers ALL of the extant versions and ALL connected evidence and compares them to arrive at as complete a picture of the history as possible. One side (the Church) is intent ONLY on distributing a "faith-promoting" story; and even goes so far as to label ALL dissenting evidence as negative,

That is inaccurate to the point of being a falsehood. Again read "Rough Stone Rolling" so that you can have a better context for the accusations you make.

[Jeff K.]

Even though the different versions have been published in the Ensign, discuss by various scholars and discussed in the Joseph Smith papers....

Let see him ignore that too.

[Palerider]

Even though the different versions have been published in the Ensign, discuss by various scholars and discussed in the Joseph Smith papers....

Once these things begin to come to light and cannot be suppressed, the church goes into secondary defensive mode and sees that it is better to admit them and then take the opportunity to put their own spin on the issue.

In my youth I was a little more aquainted with a traffic judge than I preferred but I did learn some interesting things from him. In his court one could:

1. Deny the charges, plead innocent and ask for a jury trial.

2. Plead gulity but with an explanation and throw oneself on the mercy of the court.

3. Plead guilty and just pay the fine.

It is interesting to watch the church go through these phases as new (and irrefutable) information comes to light. The first reaction is to deny it ever happened and plead innocent. When the facts and the truth become obvious and verifiable, they then admit "o.k. it happened, but this is how we explain it and Joseph is still a prophet!". The thing they never do is plead guilty and just pay the fine.................

[Questing Beast]

But if it is Joseph's doctrine and he makes a definitive statement about it, why is it not appropriate to accept the definitive statement. I don't think he even arrived at it by deductive thinking but rather as he received additional revelation and visions his knowledge increased.

The last "definitive statement" often is not consistent with the first. It isn't "line upon line", it is a complete change (e.g. the Godhead doesn't get more clear with time, it changes).

I've gone the gamut of making everything harmonize. And I was okay with that; it is possible to do it, e.g. it is possible to view the different accounts of the first vision without the inconsistencies posing any insurmountable barrier to belief - as long as Joseph Smith is a prophet.

But when the facts (written statements of those who knew) point to behavior that is absolutely inimical to the gift of prophecy, then the man is just a religious genius, just like every other successful religious genius before him. THEN the Church becomes the work of an inspired set of men and women, just like every religion before it. I don't have a problem with this conclusion: but the Church leadership does. And I have a problem with anyone who recognizes original sources as valid and yet invalidates the same sources when they don't agree with the paradigm. In other words: I dislike it intensely when I discover facts (as written) that I should have learned from the Church, and instead it denies their truth, yet there is no fair criteria applied for asserting the denial....

[Questing Beast]

The two letters are anti Mormon and yes, McCue is a very active anti Mormon with websites galore. I find it more than a little disengenuous to state you are not aware of his current status given the OP opinion on internet use. The man detests the Mormon church and generally attempts to create a series of half truths in order to undermine it. Not sure how you could avoid that information since al you had to do was google his name. Are you stating that such never occurred to you and yet, you found this one single letter? Don't you think that is just shy of saying you know what next weeks lottery numbers will be in California?

You could have cut out the excess verbiage and just written, "LIAR".

No, I was searching for something else, bumped into the "bishops letter", read it, and thought the name looked familiar. I came straight from that reading and posted this thread; then went back and read the second 23 page letter (I didn't read the appendix). I did not search for any Bob McCue Websites/pages. I still haven't. To my knowledge I have read nothing by him except those two letters. I should say, I don't remember reading anything else; because it turns out that back in 2004-05 my brother sent a dozen or so emails that were Bob McCue related; and I may have read or skimmed them, but all that remained in my memory was the name, just enough for it to look familiar. I DID a search of my emails and made that discovery and satisfied my curiosity. I am not interested in the "subsequent Bob McCue": there are thousands of disgruntled "fishes" in the sea of Mormon apostasy. I found his initial letter interesting on several levels. I wanted to know if this forum's members of long standing had run into him in discussion here, and your impressions. So my thread is doing okeedokee in that regard.

One side (the Church) discounts all evidence that refutes Joseph Smiths LAST version of his personal history (including the earliest in his own hand); the other side gathers ALL of the extant versions and ALL connected evidence and compares them to arrive at as complete a picture of the history as possible. One side (the Church) is intent ONLY on distributing a "faith-promoting" story; and even goes so far as to label ALL dissenting evidence as negative,

That is inaccurate to the point of being a falsehood. Again read "Rough Stone Rolling" so that you can have a better context for the accusations you make.

I have to read "your" reference book in order to be disabused of falsehoods? "Retired BYU professor Marvin S. Hill, writing in Dialogue, says that Bushman 'comes up markedly short at times and he does not always examine controversial issues carefully' but that 'his book suggests that thought about the Prophet has matured among some faithful Latter-day Saints'." from Wikipedia quote of a review Heh, "matured", I'd like to know how he defines that in this context. My thought about "the Prophet" has certainly matured. But "faithful Latter-day Saint" would have to be qualified to include those who continue to live as a "member in good standing" ought to live, yet no longer accept the Church's paradigm for my religious world view.

I bet Bushman avoids any hint of polyandry. Please confirm or deny.

Since you appear to have your finger on the pulse of the anti-Mormon "community" (you assert to be knowledgeable of such persons, if you know so much about McCue), what is the current status of Todd Compton? By your definition he must be an anti. Anything on him more recent than this 2006 interview ? His book In Sacred Loneliness was the "instrument" that awakened me to accept the fact of the Church's manmade origins (Joseph Smith's polyandry was MY tipping point). But I can't accept that his book went down remotely well with the Church's leaders. It is a far more impressive and dangerous book than Palmer's, imho....

[Jason]

I bet Bushman avoids any hint of polyandry. Please confirm or deny.

Perhaps you should read the book before you decide what is and isn't in it?

[Jeff K.]

Yes, I suggest he read the book, he might be suprised and refute himself which would be interesting to see. The references and what is covered and discussed in the book are excellent. The issues are not always positively covered, but the fact that you had to go to Wikipedia (which upon reading seemed fairly positive) reflects your lack of research on the subject matter. Needless to say it covers many of the issues you refer to as hidden and they were made available to Bushman by the Church leadership without reservation.

Seems you are the only one clueless to what is or is not covered by either the Ensign or other publications.

[Deborah]

The last "definitive statement" often is not consistent with the first. It isn't "line upon line", it is a complete change

Only in your interpretation. Those who have studied the issue find no contradictions just different renderings of the same thing depending on audience and venue. I think the reason the official version came out was so that Joseph could state once and for all the events of that day. And yes by this time his understanding greatly increased, but that doesn't mean prior accounts were wrong, only different.