First Of A Series Of Tough Issues Tackled By Lds.org

[DBMormon]

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

 

I believe this is the first in a series of tough issues tackled by the Church. 

 

One blurb from the lengthy article:

The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details. Indeed, differences similar to those in the First Vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and the Apostles’ experience on the Mount of Transfiguration.³ Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented.

 

 

[bluebell]

I love that the church is discussing these issues on their website now.  But I don't know that differing accounts of the First Vision would equal a 'tough' issue.  It's a popular issue with critics for sure, but overall this issue seems fairly tame.

 

Most bible adherents don't even bat an eye when this problem occurs in the bible, showing just how much of a non-issue most of Christianity really believes it to be.

Edited November 21, 2013 by bluebell

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Cool. 'Bout time.

[Duncan]

First vision accounts have been online on LDS.org for a long time now and certaintly the Ensign people have raised the issue before as the footnotes on the bottom of the article attest

[bluebell]

First vision accounts have been online on LDS.org for a long time now and certaintly the Ensign people have raised the issue before as the footnotes on the bottom of the article attest

 

Very true!  For some reason, people don't seem to count it when the Ensign has those kinds of articles.

[volgadon]

First vision accounts have been online on LDS.org for a long time now and certaintly the Ensign people have raised the issue before as the footnotes on the bottom of the article attest

 

Exactly. Milton Backman also wrote a lengthy Ensign article on this back in 1985, so the new article is not quite as novel as people think.

[Avatar4321]

This is a tough issue?

[Tacenda]

First vision accounts have been online on LDS.org for a long time now and certaintly the Ensign people have raised the issue before as the footnotes on the bottom of the article attest

That's what I thought.  Is this a newer version?

[volgadon]

This is a tough issue?

 

It can be.

[Palerider]

Just skimming over the LDS explanation, it strikes me that just because they say the accounts are consistent doesn't make it so.

I know how badly they want them to be......

Since they use Paul's account of the appearance of the Savior to him as an example, I think I would be somewhat puzzled if Paul later added a third or fourth account where suddenly God the Father is making an appearance in the same vision as well.

[thesometimesaint]

Just skimming over the LDS explanation, it strikes me that just because they say the accounts are consistent doesn't make it so.

I know how badly they want them to be......

Since they use Paul's account of the appearance of the Savior to him as an example, I think I would be somewhat puzzled if Paul later added a third or fourth account where suddenly God the Father is making an appearance in the same vision as well.

 

We don't know if Paul told more than two accounts of the incident. We do know that he told at least two. History, and the editors of the Bible, have forgotten if there were any others. IE; Most modern day Americans are unaware that there are 5 known versions of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. But get all upset when someone uses a different version.

Edited November 21, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Duncan]

That's what I thought.  Is this a newer version?

 

 

they took the part out where Joseph was making s'mores and then saw his vision!

[Calm]

I don't see the Church claiming that this is a "tough issue", did I miss that or is it just DB's description?  

 

It is a topic on pretty much all the anti sites that list their perceived problems with the Church in my experience and thus is a good topic to start any collection of answers to likely questions that people will have if they come across such sites.

 

See Palerider's post for why some might see it as "tough" as his response is typical in my experience.  Most critics do not take the time to study other references that demonstrate that the Father or Christ's appearance was not a sudden novelty or an alteration in Joseph's story.

 

For example:  http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/First_Vision_Concerns_%26_Questions#.22There_is_absolutely_no_record_of_a_First_Vision_prior_to_1832.22

 

The newspaper article which reports the missionaries’ teachings refers to “God” twice but also to “Christ” once and the “Holy Spirit” once. Hence, all three members of the Godhead appear to be represented individually in the document. In this context, a natural interpretation demands that “God” refer to the Father and the statement made by the missionaries would therefore mean that sometime before November 1830 ("about the first of Nov last [year]), Joseph Smith had seen God the Father “personally.”

 

 

Only the first account, 1832, is uncertain whether it refers to one "Lord" or two.  The rest refer to two, so Palerider comparing this possible discrepancy to Paul suddenly adding God the Father in a third or fourth account isn't accurate.

Edited November 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Just skimming over the LDS explanation, it strikes me that just because they say the accounts are consistent doesn't make it so.

I know how badly they want them to be......

Since they use Paul's account of the appearance of the Savior to him as an example, I think I would be somewhat puzzled if Paul later added a third or fourth account where suddenly God the Father is making an appearance in the same vision as well.

Adding more details doesn't detract from being consistent.  It's only when some information contradicts some other information that the consistency is more uncertain.

 

For example, if Paul had said in one account that the Lord appeared to him and then in another account said it wasn't the Lord, who would think it was the Lord?

[David T]

My favorite part is where it links to the original manuscript images and transcripts of the accounts from the JSP. Awesome marriage of lds.org and the JSP.

[Scott Lloyd]

Cool. 'Bout time.

I agree.

 

But I'm not optimistic this will abate the carping to any great degree.

[Scott Lloyd]

I love that the church is discussing these issues on their website now.  But I don't know that differing accounts of the First Vision would equal a 'tough' issue.  It's a popular issue with critics for sure, but overall this issue seems fairly tame.

It's never been a problem with me either. But if, as you say, it is indeed "a popular issue with critics" and with members feeling doubts, it's probably as good a place as any to start.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 so Palerider comparing this possible discrepancy to Paul suddenly adding God the Father in a third or fourth account isn't accurate.

Say it isn't so. Palerider said something that isn't accurate. Nooooooooooo.

[Calm]

I agree.

 

But I'm not optimistic this will abate the carping to any great degree.

I don't think it will "abate the carping" but it is already the second item that comes up on a search of "different accounts of the First Vision" so it meets the need for those who are sincere in seeking information searching on the internet looking for an official source.  FairMormon gets dismissed as useless quite a bit since we are not "official".

[BCSpace]

Very true!  For some reason, people don't seem to count it when the Ensign has those kinds of articles.

 

The same applies to many other issues such as BoM translation methods or the BoA papyri (Improvement Era in that case iirc)

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think it will "abate the carping" but it is already the second item that comes up on a search of "different accounts of the First Vision" so it meets the need for those who are sincere in seeking information searching on the internet looking for an official source.  FairMormon gets dismissed as useless quite a bit since we are not "official".

Yes, having it appear with the imprimatur of the Church, as on the official website, makes a great deal of difference.

 

One point to bear in mind: There are probably many, many such people who are, as you say, "sincere in seeking information" who are satisfied by explanations such as this or those provided by FairMormon. We never hear about such people, because, once their doubts are assuaged, they don't ever bring the matter up again. By and large, the only ones we ever hear from are the malcontents for whom it seems no explanation, no matter how reasonable, is satisfactory.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Danzo]

I don't see how this is anything new.

 

Does anyone know anyone who tells the same story exactly the same way every time without a script or massive amounts of coaching?

[omni]

It's never been a problem with me either. But if, as you say, it is indeed "a popular issue with critics" and with members feeling doubts, it's probably as good a place as any to start.

 

I wouldn't expect it to be an problem for you (or many of the other believing members on this board), you are well aware of the issues and still ratain a strong testimony.  For many others this is a very real problem, one in which they are never able to fully reconcile.

[pogi]

Do you have information that this is the "first of a series", or just wishful thinking?

[bluebell]

I wouldn't expect it to be an problem for you (or many of the other believing members on this board), you are well aware of the issues and still ratain a strong testimony.  For many others this is a very real problem, one in which they are never able to fully reconcile.

 

I think it's weird that it's a problem that 'they are never able to fully reconcile'.

 

1-In real world situations (like interrogations), having a story change slightly (rather than be exactly the same at every telling) is a sign that someone is telling the truth.  As long as the stories don't contradict each other, of course.  Once someone understands how recalling experiences actually works, shouldn't that help with the reconciliation?

 

2-many of these people who can never reconcile this issue, have no problem believing in the bible, which has the same problems.