How Did Joseph Smith Learn Christianity Was In Error?

[Rivers]

I've read the various First Vision accounts told by Joseph Smith and I don't see too many problems. For me, the only thing that sounds like a contradiction is Joseph's telling of how he learned the churches were in apostasy.

1832 Account:

I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found that <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ …

1838 Account:

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)÷and which I should join.

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong;

In one account he says that the scriptures led him to believe all churches were wrong. In the other, he say it was revealed to him by God. Is this a significant contradiction?

[erichard]

I've read the various First Vision accounts told by Joseph Smith and I don't see too many problems. For me, the only thing that sounds like a contradiction is Joseph's telling of how he learned the churches were in apostasy.

...

In one account he says that the scriptures led him to believe all churches were wrong. In the other, he say it was revealed to him by God. Is this a significant contradiction?

The two accounts do not necessarily contradict each other.

The 1832 account seems to be a summary of his experiences. The 1838 account has more detail of those experiences.

Richard

[mfbukowski]

No contradiction.

I came to the same conclusions myself, perhaps through inspiration, before I joined the church.

But if you had come to that conclusion, and then God himself actually appeared to you, what would YOU ask him? Would you talk about the weather?

I think that question would be among the first out of my mouth as well.

Nope, no contradiction whatsoever.

[CV75]

contradiction?

To me it seems that while he concluded that there was no society or denomination (that he knew of) that was built upon the Gospel, he acknowledged that he lacked wisdom, and having an open mind, asked of God to know which (if any) he should nonetheless join. He was then instructed to not join any of them, and that they were, in fact, all wrong.

[Samurai2012]

I've read the various First Vision accounts told by Joseph Smith and I don't see too many problems. For me, the only thing that sounds like a contradiction is Joseph's telling of how he learned the churches were in apostasy.

1832 Account:

1838 Account:

In one account he says that the scriptures led him to believe all churches were wrong. In the other, he say it was revealed to him by God. Is this a significant contradiction?

I wouldn't consider it significant, just different in terms of the depth of detail he was willing to use in the narrative. In both cases, he acknowledges divine revelation of the events, however, the nature could be true in the first one as well, only that there is significantly less depth in the detail as to the actual nature of how the revelation took place. I can't say that I couldn't write exactly the same for my own multiple narratives of the same event either. Perhaps I would find better vocabulary words to use in writing in the second that I didn't have in the first, perhaps I would detail portions of the narrative more, and so on, while still keeping the general events going, either way, do you see where I am going with this?

[KevinG]

Eldon Watson has a neat "Harmony" of the First Vision posted here: http://www.eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm

[Rob Bowman]

None of the comments so far have grappled with the fact that the 1838 account explicitly says that it had never entered into Joseph's mind to think that all of the churches were false, whereas the 1832 account claims Joseph had already reached this very conclusion before his vision.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

None of the comments so far have grappled with the fact that the 1838 account explicitly says that it had never entered into Joseph's mind to think that all of the churches were false, whereas the 1832 account claims Joseph had already reached this very conclusion before his vision.

This just proves that JS is a liar huh?

I would not say it is a contradiction. It seems a little inconsistent though.

That is OK I noticed the same thing in the bible.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

How about you respond to what I say rather than put words in my mouth?

I am curious to know your distinction between a contradiction and an inconsistency -- and to know what kind of statement would satisfy your definition of contradiction.

This just proves that JS is a liar huh?

I would not say it is a contradiction. It seems a little inconsistent though.

That is OK I noticed the same thing in the bible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

How about you respond to what I say rather than put words in my mouth?

I am curious to know your distinction between a contradiction and an inconsistency -- and to know what kind of statement would satisfy your definition of contradiction.

For the sake of the argument lets just say it is a contradiction. It really does not bother me.

JS just remembered parts wrong. So what? Do you criticize Paul for remembering parts of his vision wrong? Do you criticize the bible about the different accounts of the angels appearing at the tomb? Or are you the type that tries to make it fit? I really have no interest in trying to make all of the inconsistencies of JS life fit. He was not perfect. Just as i don't try and make Pauls account completely consistent. I don't think Paul was lying or being dishonest. He could have remember a certain detail wrong. I do it all the time.

Of course I am sure there is some grand ways to explain this stuff just like you might try to explain away the inconsistencies of the biblical stories. Being completely consistent is not what converts people anyway.

I hope this was some what helpful.

Sorry about the "putting words in your mouth" I was just being snarky.

[CV75]

None of the comments so far have grappled with the fact that the 1838 account explicitly says that it had never entered into Joseph's mind to think that all of the churches were false, whereas the 1832 account claims Joseph had already reached this very conclusion before his vision.

Look at #4 again. Joseph Smith, in his admitted lack of wisdom, held a conclusion that none were built on the Gospel and sought further light from the Lord. This is very different than holding in his heart that all were wrong. in his heart and his mind, it seems he left it open that one church unknown to him might be right, or at least be "good enough" for God to support his joining.

[KevinG]

This is a very human recollection of important events in retrospect. Errors in recollection and timelines were probably made as they are in all recollections. (How our current understanding affects our past recollections is a fascinating study of psychology).

However it does not bother me at all. The overall narrative and its importance to us should not be discounted because of a few differences in how the events are remembered or transcribed. Again the harmony of the versions are as impressive as any harmony of the Gospels and like unto them in their importance to our salvation and understanding of God and His plans.

[ldsfaqs]

None of the comments so far have grappled with the fact that the 1838 account explicitly says that it had never entered into Joseph's mind to think that all of the churches were false, whereas the 1832 account claims Joseph had already reached this very conclusion before his vision.

Well, that's easy to explain.

First, let's make clear that Joseph actually "asks" which Church to join. Thus obviously, he wasn't completely "sold" at the time that they ALL were false.

It's very normal to have a judgment about something, but not be absolutely sure still.

Second, notice the actual wording of his statements.

In the 1832 version he indicates an intellectual exercise, which by the way is also partially indicated in the 1838 version. Both versions, he had been struggling things out in his mind, and not interested in joining any religion save some interest in Methodism.

In the 1838 version he states that it had "never entered into his heart that they were all wrong".

In other words, while intellectually he was considering the likelihood that all the faiths were wrong by searching the scriptures as he states in the 1832 version, in the 1838 version he indicates that in his HEART he had never considered this reality. Which if you think about it, it makes sense. Faith is about the heart, not simply the intellect. Since I'm sure Joseph knew the "spirit" of God having attended the various religions, he thought there would have to be a "true" Church somewhere, since he knew the spirit and he knew the Gospel Truths were out there in some form in the various religions. However, at the time, he couldn't intellectually determine which Church was true by comparing the religions he knew with the scriptures, because none of them actually fit the scriptures.

(By the way, this phenomena is actually something many of the Church go through, especially converts. I also saw for myself how the various religions I had attended didn't actually in full and accurately fit the Bible, and thus I couldn't embrace any. Only when I came upon Mormonism did a religion fully fit.)

In other words, no problem here.

Edited August 15, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[mfbukowski]

None of the comments so far have grappled with the fact that the 1838 account explicitly says that it had never entered into Joseph's mind to think that all of the churches were false, whereas the 1832 account claims Joseph had already reached this very conclusion before his vision.

Well there you have it. I'm leaving the church.

Seriously, "grappled"?

I never tell my conversion story the same way twice, because I remember different details at different times. This is really seriously grasping at straws. If he was lying you can bet the stories would be perfectly consistent because he would have checked out what he had written before. Do you really think he was a stupid man?

I suppose if one has never had a spiritual experience, one might think that way.

Maybe it's time to talk about "altar calls" and how you know if you're saved again, and what exactly you believed before you were saved, and how you recall what you believed.

This is a very weak argument, Rob

Edited August 15, 2011 by mfbukowski

[ldsfaqs]

This is a very human recollection of important events in retrospect. Errors in recollection and timelines were probably made as they are in all recollections. (How our current understanding affects our past recollections is a fascinating study of psychology).

However it does not bother me at all. The overall narrative and its importance to us should not be discounted because of a few differences in how the events are remembered or transcribed. Again the harmony of the versions are as impressive as any harmony of the Gospels and like unto them in their importance to our salvation and understanding of God and His plans.

All true.... I was going to say something similar also in relation to his question, but then I decided to read the two accounts, and realized there was a more simple and accurate explanation per my words above. So, in this case we don't have to go to the normal human error factor in recollection.

[mfbukowski]

Well, that's easy to explain.

First, let's make clear that Joseph actually "asks" which Church to join. Thus obviously, he wasn't completely "sold" at the time that they ALL were false.

It's very normal to have a judgment about something, but not be absolutely sure still.

Second, notice the actual wording of his statements.

In the 1832 version he indicates an intellectual exercise, which by the way is also partially indicated in the 1838 version. Both versions, he had been struggling things out in his mind, and not interested in joining any religion save some interest in Methodism.

In the 1838 version he states that it had "never entered into his heart that they were all wrong".

In other words, while intellectually he was considering the likelihood that all the faiths were wrong by searching the scriptures as he states in the 1832 version, in the 1838 version he indicates that in his HEART he had never considered this reality. Which if you think about it, it makes sense. Faith is about the heart, not simply the intellect. Since I'm sure Joseph knew the "spirit" of God having attended the various religions, he thought there would have to be a "true" Church somewhere, since he knew the spirit and he knew the Gospel Truths were out there in some form in the various religions. However, at the time, he couldn't intellectually determine which Church was true by comparing the religions he knew with the scriptures, because none of them actually fit the scriptures.

(By the way, this phenomena is actually something many of the Church go through, especially converts. I also saw for myself how the various religions I had attended didn't actually in full and accurately fit the Bible, and thus I couldn't embrace any. Only when I came upon Mormonism did a religion fully fit.)

In other words, no problem here.

That works for me too

Of course if one had never gone through the process, one would not know that.

[ERayR]

I've read the various First Vision accounts told by Joseph Smith and I don't see too many problems. For me, the only thing that sounds like a contradiction is Joseph's telling of how he learned the churches were in apostasy.

1832 Account:

1838 Account:

In one account he says that the scriptures led him to believe all churches were wrong. In the other, he say it was revealed to him by God. Is this a significant contradiction?

Not contradictory to me. He formed his opinion from the scriptures then asked God to help clear it up. The one thing he may not have been expecting was the answer he got. To me it sounds like he just wanted to know which one was right and was surprised with the answer he got.

[zerinus]

None of the comments so far have grappled with the fact that the 1838 account explicitly says that it had never entered into Joseph's mind to think that all of the churches were false, whereas the 1832 account claims Joseph had already reached this very conclusion before his vision.

That contradiction, or apparent contradiction, exists within the official published account of the First Vision:

JS-History 1

:

10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right;

or, are they all wrong together?

If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?

JS-History 1

:

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time

it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong

)—and which I should join.

But I don’t think there is really a contradiction. In the first instance, he is contemplating the possibility that all of them could be wrong. In the second instance, it implies that he didn’t really expect that all of them were wrong, but expected one of them at least to be right, and that God would point him to that right one.

In the 1832 Account:

I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found that <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ …

It does not mean that every single church was wrong, without the possibility of a single one of them being right. He is describing a general observable condition, rather than a mathematically exact number of zero one of them likely to being right.

[jmordecai]

It does not mean that every single church was wrong, without the possibility of a single one of them being right. He is describing a general observable condition, rather than a mathematically exact number of zero one of them likely to being right.

That's not what I took from it:

... there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ

[zerinus]

That's not what I took from it:

... there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ

That particular account appears to be a very rough-and-ready statement; and may contain backward projections of the conclusion into the premise. I think that my original reading of it is correct.

[Rob Bowman]

ldsfaq,

You wrote:

Well, that's easy to explain.

First, let's make clear that Joseph actually "asks" which Church to join. Thus obviously, he wasn't completely "sold" at the time that they ALL were false.

It's very normal to have a judgment about something, but not be absolutely sure still.

The 1838 account does say that Joseph asked God which church to join. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or how the account in this regard coheres with the 1832 account. Neither account says that he thought all of the churches were false but wasn't absolutely sure he was right. That is a harmonization of the two accounts, not something either account says. Furthermore, it is an artificial harmonization that does not do justice to either account, as I shall explain below.

You wrote:

Second, notice the actual wording of his statements.

In the 1832 version he indicates an intellectual exercise, which by the way is also partially indicated in the 1838 version. Both versions, he had been struggling things out in his mind, and not interested in joining any religion save some interest in Methodism.

Yes, let's notice the actual wording of the 1832 account:

At about the age of twelve years my mind became Seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns for the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to Searching the Scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of differant denominations led me to marvel excedingly far I discovered that <they did not adorn> instead of adorning their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divi[si]ons the wicke[d]ness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the of the minds of mankind my mind become excedingly distressed for I became convicted of my Sins and by Searching the Scriptures I found that mand <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own Sins and for the Sins of the world for I learned in the Scriptures that God was the Same yesterday to day and forever that he was no respecter to persons for he was God...therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness....

This is hardly the description of an "intellectual exercise" as distinguished from having something in his heart. In fact, Joseph says here that he pondered in his heart the contentions, divisions, wickedness, abominations, and darkness that characterized the complete apostasy he says he had come to recognize through searching the Scriptures. This means your explanation for the differences between the two accounts simply doesn't work:

In the 1838 version he states that it had "never entered into his heart that they were all wrong".

In other words, while intellectually he was considering the likelihood that all the faiths were wrong by searching the scriptures as he states in the 1832 version, in the 1838 version he indicates that in his HEART he had never considered this reality.

No, in the 1832 account Joseph claims that he had considered the matter in his heart, pondering it in his heart and being grieved in his soul over the matter. He claims that he took the matter very seriously indeed, so much so that he became exceedingly distressed and mourned for his own sins and for the sins of the world.

You concluded:

In other words, no problem here.

I'm afraid the problem remains.

[Mansquatch]

There seems to be a distinction between something "entering into a heart" and something being pondered or thought about in a heart in Joseph's usage of the phrase. To "enter into a heart" seems to have a certain and solidifying meaning when used by Joseph. In other uses of the phrase by Joseph this seems to be the case that when something "enters" the heart it has a spiritual confirmation followed by a solid conviction thereafter.

In a letter to William Smith, Joseph says that never did it "enter into his heart" that there was any wrangling or jealousy toward Joseph in William's heart. Joseph then describes uneasy feelings he had in his "breast" about the whole situation even before meeting up with William. So which is it? Did Joseph feel great about things with William before he met with him only to have it enter his heart later, or did he have feelings about it in his breast before the meeting? Maybe Joseph meant something different by using the word "breast", maybe the thought went into his pectoral or a nipple and waited there a while, only to finally enter the heart later. How else can we nitpick and avoid the spirit in anything said?

Edited August 16, 2011 by Mansquatch

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am getting confused in this thread. Why is it a big deal if JS remembered some parts incorrectly?

I brought up Paul's account of his vision and how there are inconsistencies and yet no seems to have an issue with those. Why then need to make it all fit? Sometimes people get things wrong. JS was not infallible and I am sure like many of us, he might remember certain things differently as we retell a memory.

Well, I guess there is some entertainment value in seeing how creative some of us are at trying to make it all fit.

Edited August 16, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

I am getting confused in this thread. Why is it a big deal if JS remembered some parts incorrectly?

I brought up Paul's account of his vision and how there are inconsistencies and yet no seems to have an issue with those. Why then need to make it all fit? Sometimes people get things wrong. JS was not infallible and I am sure like many of us, he might remember certain things differently as we retell a memory.

Well, I guess there is some entertainment value in seeing how creative some of us are at trying to make it all fit.

I have discussed in another thread the three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts (there is no comparable narrative account of that event in Paul's own writings). There is one, and only one, alleged contradiction in these accounts. Since all three accounts come in the very same book (Acts), one should consider the possibility that we are missing something in the English translation. This is probably correct, as I have explained. Furthermore, the discrepancy is picayune in comparison to the apparent discrepancies in the various accounts of the First Vision; it has nothing to do with the basic facts (who, what, where, when, why, and how) as they pertain to Paul's experience. I'm guessing you can find that thread easily enough; I don't wish to repeat the whole thing here. If I remember correctly, the thread was about the claim that Joseph was persecuted because of the First Vision story.

The "big deal" with regard to Joseph Smith's account in Joseph Smith--History is that there are several major factual issues and significant discrepancies that go to the heart of the credibility of the stories told in that text. There are really serious problems pertaining to the account at almost every turn. These concern, for example, the reason for Joseph's prayer in the woods, who appeared to him in the woods, the claim that he was persecuted for the First Vision story, whether the Anthon transcript included an English translation of the characters, whether Anthon could have validated such a translation, and the various problems arising from the loss of the 116 pages. One cannot slough off all of these problems by pleading that Joseph's memory was not infallible or that like anyone else he told the same story a little differently on different occasions.

[mfbukowski]

Edit:

It's a waste of time.

Forget it. I've said what I have had to say.

Edited August 16, 2011 by mfbukowski