Joseph Smith’S First Vision Accounts: More Mormon Church Suppression And Cover-Up

[cksalmon]

In memory facts can and do change.

Really? Historical facts change to accomdate memory?

[Log]

LOG - The link with the comparison of the 9 versions was pretty cool. It shows much more harmony then we give credit. I know when I tell one of my best stories of something that happed to me I tell it slightly different each time, though not intentional. And these are events which hold great importance and weight on my memory. It happens. and it isn't about decepion. In memory facts can and do change. Also sometimes you remeber something later that you hadn't thought of in an earlier telling.

As I converse with people about conversion experiences, I emphasize and omit things in mine, and, on the other hand, when I hear others' accounts, I am reminded sometimes of things which I left out - so I add them in. There is a master account, you see.

This board, however, is not the place for it.

[DBMormon]

Really? Historical facts change to accomdate memory?

not actual realty as it took place but your remembrance of the facts change... yes. You may have had a purple sweater on last Christmas but you swear it was red.. your lucky red one. This stuff happens all the time and in physchology is a proven phenomenon. How we remember things is not stagnate it is always evolving and changing. the way you remeber your 12th birthday is different today in essential facts then it was 15 years ago.

Edited June 21, 2012 by DBMormon

[selek1]

Off-topic, but fun nonetheless.....

I have two windows open on my desktop: one LDS music on Pandora (internet radio).

The second was open to Log's link regarding the harmonization of the First Vision.

As I got to the part labeled 1842B which states, "Joseph Smith Jr., to whom the angel of the Lord was sent first", the music (which I'd been studiously ignoring) broke into the chorus, "Praise to The Man who communed with Jehovah".

Call it "coincidence" if you like, but I've been privy to far too many of "those things just happen" to chalk it up to mere happenstance or chance..

Just for the record, the song was Jenny Jordan Frogley's "Praise the Man", from her Beautiful Life album.

[Aliwe]

Christians do not make the decision to accept Christ based on history, and we do not make the decision to become a Mormon based on history either.

On the contrary, Peter said (2 Pet. 1:16) "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

In the Book of Mormon (Enos 1:13) we also read, "And now behold, this was the desire which I desired of him -- that if it should so be, that my people, the Nephites, should fall into transgression, and by any means be destroyed, and the Lamanites should not be destroyed, that the Lord God would preserve a record of my people, the Nephites; even if it so be by the power of his holy arm, that it might be brought forth at some future day unto the Lamanites, that, perhaps, they might be brought unto salvation."

In both cases, the message of salvation comes through the agency of a historical record. Too many Christians have bought into the propaganda that if it's recorded in the scriptures its not real history.

[Ron Beron]

Here's an online source, the FAIR Wiki entry, drawn from Dean Jesse's The Papers of Joseph Smith.

Thanks for the citation. My wife is a direct descendent of Neibaur and we were looking for this. I have other accounts of his life, but his entire journal remains fairly unavailable.

[Cobalt-70]

Really? Historical facts change to accomdate memory?

For the most part, history is memory, written down. Historians can sometimes get one step beyond the level of memory by comparing multiple memories and making value judgments. (They can also sometimes supplement memory with archaeology, photographs, artifacts, or video, but in the case of the First Vision, these supplements are not possible.) Being in the past, the First Vision no longer exists. The vision only existed for a brief time in the the sensory regions of his brain and then in his memory. After he died, all that was left of his memory was whatever was translated to paper in his various accounts. There are no "historical facts" beyond those accounts.

[DBMormon]

cobalt.... thank you

[DBMormon]

In both cases, the message of salvation comes through the agency of a historical record. Too many Christians have bought into the propaganda that if it's recorded in the scriptures its not real history.

true that we encounter God much through what is written about him by others by our conviction comes from him and is not problematic history. Even if historical evidence said angels were false, would Nephi believe it? he had divine evidebce which trumps hostory

[mfbukowski]

On the contrary, Peter said (2 Pet. 1:16) "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."

In the Book of Mormon (Enos 1:13) we also read, "And now behold, this was the desire which I desired of him -- that if it should so be, that my people, the Nephites, should fall into transgression, and by any means be destroyed, and the Lamanites should not be destroyed, that the Lord God would preserve a record of my people, the Nephites; even if it so be by the power of his holy arm, that it might be brought forth at some future day unto the Lamanites, that, perhaps, they might be brought unto salvation."

In both cases, the message of salvation comes through the agency of a historical record. Too many Christians have bought into the propaganda that if it's recorded in the scriptures its not real history.

It's not.

You say it is. I think you do not understand what "real history" is.

You don't join a church because of history- and you don't believe the Bible because you think it might be. History cannot prove that God even exists much less that the Bible is "correct" about him.

Read the Zoroastrian Avesta. It's historical. Does it prove that Ahura Mazda is the "true God"?

[mfbukowski]

Really? Historical facts change to accomdate memory?

This takes us way back to where we were discussing constructivism (this thread? I don't remember) and you told me you didn't

That's the whole problem here. You believe in a world we cannot experience, where i believe that only what we can experience (and in this case, remember) is "real".

It's a lot easier case to prove than one that says that the way everyone remembers everything is incorrect.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not in principle against a subjective experience validating a religious claim. And I don't denigrate Mormon testimonies by labeling them mere brain states (since unlike you guys I'm not a materialist ).

But believing something primarily because of an internal experience strikes me as inherently problematic.

Assuming Joseph Smith's reported account actually occurred, he didn't believe it occurred because of a merely internal experience. It was a sensory experience at least even if there was a "spiritual" component.

We don't have access to the objective data of that experience, which is true of all events in the past to which we were not party.

So, why should we believe X was an historical event? It's an open question, one amenable to all sorts of historical inquiry.

We do it all the time.

But Mormons want others to take the Moroni challenge seriously and they typically build two HUGE assumptions into its apologetic deployment: namely, that Mormonism is true and that subjective experiences validate the factuality of historical events.

If I don't stipulate that those two things are already true, Moroni's challenge is likely to falter.

I think Mormons generally recognize the second assumption, but often don't recognize the first. Not in all cases.

I'm not speaking about the subjective experiences of those who get the "right" answer, but about the apologetic deployment of the challenge by those who already believe.

Again, I think you are confusing the important areas in our lives in which we make subjective decisions and the areas in which objective evidence is the deciding factor.

Typically the way we make decisions takes into account objective evidence insofar as we have it or believe it to be accurate, and then make a subjective decision based on the totally of our feelings and the objective evidence.

Most Americans don't know who the last vice president was- much less reading up on biblical evidence for or against spiritual aspects of the bible making it "true" or "false"

The feel a need in their lives for "something". Their grandma believed in the Bible, so "I guess that must be right". They go to a Billy Graham rally, and hear him speak, and for the first time in their lives they feel something spiritually.

So it must be right, right? They give their lives to Christ, according to their understanding, which at that point is not much. But that is not bad.

If you believe in an independent reality independent of what we can experience and feel and taste and touch, I would like to know how you know that such a reality exists, but I do not.

Of course science is a codification of observations made by many people, but it is still observations made by people. We call those "objective" because many people have made them, and have written articles ABOUT their experience and observations, BUT THEY ARE STILL OBSERVATIONS MADE BY PEOPLE EXPRESSED LINGUISTICALLY.

If you can show me a "reality" which exists independent of human experience, good luck, because neither of us could experience it.

And the only way we can communicate experience is through language.

In fact all we can speak about is what we can speak about. If you can speak about something we cannot speak about I would like to hear it

So I don't care how you think it is- the reality is all we talk about is talking, and we make decisions based on what we "feel" the so-called "evidence" is.

Nothing more, nothing less. That's all there is, that's all there can be.

Does God teach people differently? Yes of course because he shows them the path that will lead them forward the best. Would he teach someone genuinely by the spirit to become a Buddhist? Of course, if that is the path they need to learn while they are here.

If a homeless alcoholic finds Christ on skid row through the Salvation Army, and receives a genuine revelation that this is what he needs, does that mean that the LDS church is not "true"?? Of course it does not mean that.

This life is a progression from truth to truth, lead by the spirit. I personally believe that the LDS church is the best we have available, and I believe that after studying philosophy, religion, and the church over a period of 40 years, and most importantly several strong religious experiences I have had.

And I feel that my understanding of Pragmatism, William James, Wittgenstein, and many contemporary philosophers is completely coherent with this point of view.

On the other hand, I have found no other fully justifiable position after 40 years of study. But of course I could be wrong.

[Aliwe]

You don't join a church because of history- and you don't believe the Bible because you think it might be. History cannot prove that God even exists much less that the Bible is "correct" about him.

Jesus either was just what he claimed to be, God, or he was insane. He could not merely be a good man who was not God, because a good man would not falsely make the claims Jesus did. Nor does the behavior of Jesus in the gospels (taken purely as secular history at this point, not inspired history) indicate that he was a bad man. If Jesus was insane, then it is possible that he went to his death on a cross out of his insanity, but we can eliminate that because it would require that his followers colluded with his insanity to maintain the hoax of an empty tomb. But something important happened to eliminate that possibility. After the crucifixion the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus hid themselves in the upper room where they had shared the Passover feast with him, and the door was locked, because they were filled with great fear on account of the Jews. Then, suddenly, the Eleven begin the work that Jesus had trained them to do with much prayer and thanksgiving, and they had no more fear of the Jews, even though their master had suffered the most cruel death men could devise. They were willing to die for the belief that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. No one is willing to die to perpetrate a hoax that has no tangible benefit for them. We can only conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead, to be seen of his disciples, and that he was therefore the son of the living God.

[mfbukowski]

Jesus either was just what he claimed to be, God, or he was insane. He could not merely be a good man who was not God, because a good man would not falsely make the claims Jesus did. Nor does the behavior of Jesus in the gospels (taken purely as secular history at this point, not inspired history) indicate that he was a bad man. If Jesus was insane, then it is possible that he went to his death on a cross out of his insanity, but we can eliminate that because it would require that his followers colluded with his insanity to maintain the hoax of an empty tomb. But something important happened to eliminate that possibility. After the crucifixion the eleven remaining disciples of Jesus hid themselves in the upper room where they had shared the Passover feast with him, and the door was locked, because they were filled with great fear on account of the Jews. Then, suddenly, the Eleven begin the work that Jesus had trained them to do with much prayer and thanksgiving, and they had no more fear of the Jews, even though their master had suffered the most cruel death men could devise. They were willing to die for the belief that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. No one is willing to die to perpetrate a hoax that has no tangible benefit for them. We can only conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead, to be seen of his disciples, and that he was therefore the son of the living God.

I can tell you stories about Greek mythology too. Wanna hear stories about Zeus? How about Mithras, or Krishna?

The Bible may be "secular history" but there is no way of knowing it is. Your reasoning is circular. How do YOU personally know the Bible is "true"- or don't you? You do not seem to portray a consistent image, just throwing out comments on both sides of any question

That is of course your privilege, but people will tire of your toying with them and soon see you for the troll you probably are, and then you won't have anyone to play with any more.

[altersteve]

Jesus either was just what he claimed to be, God, or he was insane.

There are more options than that. Maybe the people who wrote the Gospels were mistaken. Maybe they were lying.

The fact is, it's impossible to know the truth of what the Bible says based on history and our own reasoning alone. Only by revelation from God can it be known. Latter-day Saints claim to know that Jesus is the Christ by the same method by which Peter came to know this: by revelation from the Father. Do you?

[Aliwe]

The Bible may be "secular history" but there is no way of knowing it is. Your reasoning is circular. How do YOU personally know the Bible is "true"- or don't you?

If the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

[mfbukowski]

If the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

Your point? It's hard to take away what isn't there. That is not very convincing to unbelievers, I am sure.

You know of course that I am a faithful LDS right? All I am criticizing is your arguments, not your beliefs whatever those are since you don't seem to be willing to share.

[cksalmon]

Again, I think you are confusing the important areas in our lives in which we make subjective decisions and the areas in which objective evidence is the deciding factor.

I don't believe I'm confusing them; I'm attempting to place them in relationship with one another. Our approbation of a particular historical claim may have a significant subjective component. May significantly involve a "feeling." (I'm scarequoting feeling as you scarequoted reality.)

Typically the way we make decisions takes into account objective evidence insofar as we have it or believe it to be accurate, and then make a subjective decision based on the [totality] of our feelings and the objective evidence.

I note in passing that your second sentence appears to prioritize feelings. We make decisions based upon our feelings (first) and the objective evidence (second). Your sentence suggests as much, at any rate. Not sure if that was intentional.

You also appear to build in the assumption that all of our decisions are fundamentally subjective. ("[T]hen [we] make a subjective decision based on ....") I don't grant that premise, if, indeed, that's what you intended to communicate.

If you believe in an independent reality independent of what we can experience and feel and taste and touch, I would like to know how you know that such a reality exists, but I do not.

You do, too.

If you can show me a "reality" which exists independent of human experience, good luck, because neither of us could experience it.

This strikes me as an example of muddled thinking, m. A host of counterexamples come to mind. What about historical facts that exist independent of my human experience but not independent of your own?

Let's take a relatively-noncontroversial example:

1. On the morning of March 4, 1996, M ate breakfast.

Let's label that proposition X.

Further, let's consider X's negation.

2. On the morning of March 4, 1996, M did not eat breakfast.

Let's label the negation ~X.

My example has been chosen intentionally. Unless I've fortuitously chosen a memorable date, I assume that you are highly unlikely to remember whether or not you ate breakfast that morning. But, still, you either did or you didn't.

Further, lest you want to go all Clinton on me, my example assumes that we inhabit a shared linguistic space. Without getting bogged down in linguistic bric-a-brac, you can't help but know what I mean. My linguistic expression, assuming our shared experience, sufficiently selects for the event in question. That's a fuction of language. And it assumes a lot. Nothing we can't handle, though.

Either X or ~X.

The truth or falsity of X exists independent of my experience. Would you agree that the truth or falsity of X exists independently of your experience? That the truth value of X or ~X depends upon linguistic convention? That X is true or false depending upon how you talk about X?

Is the historical claim that M ate breakfast on March 4, 1996 dependent upon how M talks about his breakfast-eating on March 4, 1996 or does the truth value of X vs. ~X exist independently of how M chooses to talk about it? That is: does the truth value of X (something that happened or did not happen in the past) depend upon your later linguistic expression?

Because you seem to be saying the latter.

And the only way we can communicate experience is through language.

So what? That's a given. It surely doesn't follow that post hoc linguistic expressions instantiate the historical events they are intended to document.

So I don't care how you think it is- the reality is all we talk about is talking, and we make decisions based on what we "feel" the so-called "evidence" is.

Nothing more, nothing less. That's all there is, that's all there can be.

On that logic, conversion to Mormonism is based purely on feeling. Historicity is irrelevant.

That explains Cobalt-70's historical nihilism, I suppose: "There are no 'historical facts' beyond those accounts."

I suspect that folks, like Cobalt-70, who suggest that "there are no 'historical facts' beyond those accounts" suspect that "there are no 'historical facts' beyond those accounts."

[ANACO]

This is silly. Not even Joseph Smith explained every detail of the First Vision:

JSH 1:20 "He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time."

What's the saying? 'If one could look into Heaven 5 minutes, he would know more than all that's been written on the subject.'

[why me]

This is silly for many reasons, one of which is that the differing four accounts of the first vision can be read on lds.org. I see no hiding.

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

And they are also explained in this article from the Ensign:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

So, if a church member would type in accounts of the first vision in the lds.org search engine they would find the first link.

[cksalmon]

Extra credit for my friend, M.

Please supply the referent for ANACO's and Why Me's "this," as used in the sentence, "This is silly."

In the interest of full disclosure, I don't have any idea what they intend to communicate there.

cks

[ANACO]

"This" as in a cover-up. No offense intended. Please don't take any.

Again, Joseph Smith didn't relate all that was told him during the First Vision. He wasn't covering anything up.

He was told he couldn't relate some things told to him. There's precedence for that in the scriptures.

Ex: The Brother of Jared was told to seal up his vision.

And Joseph Smith was persecuted for telling of the account, as noted in his history.

So why shouldn't he have had written accounts with different details depending on his "audience?"

Some can't even handle the idea of the God the Father and His Son having appeared to him.

So why should he go into more detail? To throw pearls at swine who would turn and rend him?

To condemn unbelieving sinners with sacred knowledge they would never act on?

[why me]

Extra credit for my friend, M.

Please supply the referent for ANACO's and Why Me's "this," as used in the sentence, "This is silly."

In the interest of full disclosure, I don't have any idea what they intend to communicate there.

cks

The silly is in claiming that the church covers up the accounts of the first vision. It doesn't. It is on the church's website. My response to you was simple: it is even more silly for people to claim a cover up. It was not addressed to you but to all concerned.

[sunstoned]

I'd love if we canonized all of Joseph's First Vision accounts. They're all beautiful and they all testify of Jesus Christ and the truthfulness of the event.

This is a great idea. My favorite is the one the 1835 account when just one personage appeared to him.

[why me]

This is a great idea. My favorite is the one the 1835 account when just one personage appeared to him.

You are mistaken. Here is what the 1835 account stated:

and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me, and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God;

http://www.mormonstu.../js/fv1835.html

Any problems?

Edited July 5, 2012 by why me