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

[Calm]

 And yet there's nothing from the family, nothing from the neighbors, and nothing from the persecutors about either the vision or any persecution. 

Do you mean from that time period or ever?

[Scott Lloyd]

Not only that, but it wasn't even mentioned in the 1833 edition of the Book of Commandments or in the 1835 edition of D&C.  Most members were completely unaware of it until years later when it was published in The Times and Seasons.

 

 

 

Yet it wasn't important enough for the general membership to know or to include in some of our most sacred writings.

All of which is easily explained in terms of Joseph's "sacred sensibility" as discussed by Ron Barney in his FairMormon Conference presentation.

 

jkwilliams has not said whether he has bothered to read that yet. Have you?

 

Here, once again, is the link.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The article's explanation for only one personage in the 1832 account is one that I have never heard before. Joseph uses the term "The Lord" to refer to both the Father and the Son? Does anyone find that interpretation plausible?

In a theological sense, I do. the Book of Mormon in more than one passage refers to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as "one God."

[jkwilliams]

Do you mean from that time period or ever?

 

Do you know any sources that recount the circumstances of the First Vision other than the insertion of the Wentworth Letter account into Lucy Smith's history?

[Calm]

For shared items among the versions, this may be helpful:

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/The_First_Vision.pdf

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, are you sure there are absolutely no contradictions between the accounts, even small ones?  The 1832 account says that the vision happened "in the 16th year of my age."  The 1838 (official) account says it happened "in my fifteenth year."  Now, for me, being off by one year doesn't matter a bit.  My memory certainly isn't perfect.  I would not hold Joseph to a higher standard.  Moreover, historians believe that the age specified in the 1832 account was added by Fredrick G. Williams.  So it is quite possible that Joseph did not misremember.  But it is not correct to say there are no contradictions between the accounts.  There is at least one small contradiction between the 1832 and 1838 accounts as to Joseph's age, however immaterial that contradiction may be.

 

Instead of (unnecessarily) creating a standard of perfect alignment between the accounts, I think it best to acknowledge that there may be some contradictions and deal with them.  To that end, I think the statement in the official LDS article in the OP is a better way to phrase it - namely, "The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail," though even that statement can be read to wrongly imply that there are no contradictions. 

FairMormon Answers provides a good response to this point to the degree that I scarcely regard it as worth worrying about.

[jkwilliams]

All of which is easily explained in terms of Joseph's "spiritual sensibility" as discussed by Ron Barney in his FairMormon Conference presentation.

 

jkwilliams has not said whether he has bothered to read that yet. Have you?

 

I thought I'd read it before, but I just reread it again to make sure. A reluctance to share the particulars makes sense to me, but once it was shared (and Joseph says it was), it became public enough that Joseph felt persecuted for it. I can't figure out how the neighbors would have learned about the First Vision and the family didn't. Again, even if they didn't know the details, they would have known about the persecution, and yet no one, friend or foe, mentions any of this.

 

I suppose this is one of those things that other people can reconcile, and I can't.

[Calm]

The article's explanation for only one personage in the 1832 account is one that I have never heard before. Joseph uses the term "The Lord" to refer to both the Father and the Son? Does anyone find that interpretation plausible?

Here is an interesting (to me at least) analysis of the phrasing from a now gone poster, consiglieri:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/40720-joseph-smiths-four-accounts-of-the-first-vision/?p=1208576536

 

The book I have with me is The Keystone of Mormonism: Early Visions of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by Paul Cheesman, (Eagle Systems International: Provo, UT) 1988, which collects in the appendices all the different First Vision versions. 

The 1832 account

The 1832 account states, in relevant part (original spelling and grammar retained): 

 

Quote

". . . while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the [unclear word] year of my age a piller of light above the brighness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the Spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son Thy Sins are forgiven thee, . . ."

Here, Joseph does not specifically mention seeing two personages, which has caused some controversy. (By the way, my dearest friend, an RM, left the Church in the late 1980's, citing this as a major contributing factor.)

Apologists are quick to point out that Joseph Smith doesn't say he saw only one personage, and some say that the mention of "Lord" twice refers to "two Lords" and that two personages can therefore be inferred.

The 1835 account

The 1835 account mentions the fact that the two personages did not appear simultaneously:

Quote

"A pillar of fire appeared above my head; which presently rested down upon me and filled me with unspeakable joy. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed.Another personage soon appeared like unto the first; he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee."

A Comparison of the 1832 and 1835 Accounts

Comparing the 1832 account with the 1835 account at this point, there is a strong similarity. The 1835 account refers clearly to two different personages, one appearing before the other, and the second one speaking to Joseph and saying, "Thy sins are forgiven thee."

The 1835 account refers to both beings with the same noun, "personage."

It is not unreasonable to look at the 1832 account in a similar way, having Joseph Smith describing the same event, but instead of using the same word, "personage" to describe the two beings, he uses the same word, "Lord."

The 1832 account could then be understood to say that "the Lord opened the heavens upon me," referring to the first personage the 1835 account; and then going on to say, "and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me," referring to the second personage of the 1835 account.

This is not the most natural reading of the 1832 account; but mainly, that has to do with the fact that we tend to think of the phrase "the Lord" as being applicable to only one being, and not two, whereas we have little difficulty understanding the phrase "the personage" as not unique to only one being; something that Joseph Smith may not have considered at the time of the 1832 account dictation; and could very well have been why he changed the "the Lord" in the 1832 account to "the personage" in the 1835 account; not necessarily because he was changing his story on this detail, but because he wanted to be more clear.

But considering that the 1832 account appears to have remained in rough draft form; was dictated to a scribe (likely Frederick G. Williams, as Lamanite pointed out); and also keeping in mind that the 1835 account was written only three years later; all of this together with the fact that these two passages appear to be describing the exact same part of the event; it is not implausible to read the 1832 account as being open to the interpretation that Joseph Smith was not talking about only one "Lord."

The Omitted Portion of the 1838 Account

The 1838 account, as I mentioned above, becomes interesting in view of the fact that the 1832 and 1835 accounts refer to only one of the "Lords" or "personages" speaking to Joseph Smith; that being the second one.

Here is the relevant section of the 1838 account, which also mentions that only one of the "personages" spoke to Joseph Smith, although he now mentions having heard the first one speak, as well, but only by way of introducing the second.

Quote

"So it was with me, I had actually seen a light and in the midst of that light I saw two personages, and they did in reality speak unto me, or one of them did, and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true . . . "

Of course, the bold-faced parenthetical statement was omitted from the canonized version, so we have it in the PGP as follows:

Quote

"So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Persaonges, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; . . ."

Now, obviously the removal of the parenthetical statement, "or one of them did," makes the sentence run more smoothly, and increases the power of the testimony, so it is understandable why the change may have been made.

It may also have been thought strange to include the phrase "or one of them did," right after Joseph Smith describes one of the two Personages as saying the following to him:

Quote

"One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other--This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

The answer given to Joseph Smith in response to his query as to which of all the sects is right, and which he should join, is inferred to be given by the second Personage, though I might note that the text does not specifically state this.

(This inference is warranted, inasmuch as why would the first Personage introduce the second Personage, with the admonition for Joseph to "Hear" the second Personage, if the second Personage never said anything?)

But the parenthetical comment, "or one of them did," serves as a connecting link between the 1838 account and the 1832 account.

Regardless of the fact that the first Personage spoke to Joseph, calling him by name and introduced the second Personage, it looks like Joseph Smith did not really consider that brief introduction to amount to "speaking" to him; and hence his qualifier, "I saw two personage, and they did in reality speak unto me, or one of them did."

I say this may be a connecting link because it sounds similar to the 1832 account:

Quote

the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son Thy Sins are forgiven thee.

In other words, the first "Lord" mentioned in the 1832 account only "opens the heavens" and the second "Lord" mentioned "spake unto me."

This is similar to the first Personage of the 1838 account addressing Joseph and introducing his Son; but is only similar because even in the 1838 account Joseph Smith indicates that he doesn't really consider this speaking to him; and that it was the second Personage who spoke to him. 

This important point would be overlooked if we went only by the PGP First Vision account, and were not aware of the omitted parenthetical statement in the original 1838 account on which it is based.

The 1832 account of the first "Lord" "opening the heavens" is also similar to the 1835 account that one "personage" appeared first (hence "opening the heavens") and the second "personage" to appear was the one that "spoke" to Joseph.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Depends on what they are being trained for...apologetics, yes, that is lacking.

Which would be consistent with the fact that the missionaries are not sent out to argue or debate people into the Church.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

FairMormon Answers provides a good response to this point to the degree that I scarcely regard it as worth worrying about.

 

But that's the whole point.  FAIR provides a reasonable response to the contradiction.  It does not say "there is no contradiction," as you said.  FAIR admits the contradiction and argues (persuasively IMO) why that contradiction should not be worrisome.  That's all I'm saying.  Let's not set the bar higher than we need to by wrongly saying "there are no contradicitions."  The contradiction may not worry you.  And I hope it does not worry church youth and investigators either.  But if we make a demonstrably false statement, the youth and investigators may trip over that instead.  Kind of like how some criminals get convicted of lying to the police rather than the underlying offense. 

[Calm]

In a theological sense, I do. the Book of Mormon in more than one passage refers to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as "one God."

I believe the argument is more that he is using the term "Lord" as a noun applied to the two different individuals....as consig points out in the same way he later uses "personages".

[Calm]

Do you know any sources that recount the circumstances of the First Vision other than the insertion of the Wentworth Letter account into Lucy Smith's history?

Your comment was unclear to me so I was just clarifying it, not challenging.

 

So you are saying that there are no sources ever from the family and surrounding neighbour about the persecution, etc., right?

[Buckeye]

Which would be consistent that the missionaries are not sent out to argue or debate people into the Church.

 

But they should also be instructed not to speak beyond their own knowledge.  I've heard many missionaries (myself included) say objectively false things that they whole-heartedly believed.  That can do real damage to the investigator (or member's) faith in the missionaries. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I thought I'd read it before, but I just reread it again to make sure. A reluctance to share the particulars makes sense to me, but once it was shared (and Joseph says it was), it became public enough that Joseph felt persecuted for it. I can't figure out how the neighbors would have learned about the First Vision and the family didn't. Again, even if they didn't know the details, they would have known about the persecution, and yet no one, friend or foe, mentions any of this.

 

As I already suggested, even if they did know about it, it wouldn't mean they would be disposed to talk or write about it. Joseph, with his "sacred sensibility," might have admonished them not to.

 

And there is much that the "foes," hostile as they were, might not have been aware of.

 

 

I suppose this is one of those things that other people can reconcile, and I can't.

 

Unfortunate, but it doesn't make it irreconcilable.

[jkwilliams]

Your comment was unclear to me so I was just clarifying it, not challenging.

 

So you are saying that there are no sources ever from the family and surrounding neighbour about the persecution, etc., right?

 

Not that I am aware of, but I could well be wrong.

[Calm]

Thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

But they should also be instructed not to speak beyond their own knowledge. 

Agreed. As should any member of the Church. Including those who frequent this board.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Calm]

But they should also be instructed not to speak beyond their own knowledge.  I've heard many missionaries (myself included) say objectively false things that they whole-heartedly believed. 

How are they supposed to know that they don't know something when they think they do?

[Buckeye]

As I already suggested, even if they did know about it, it wouldn't mean they would be disposed to talk or write about it. Joseph, with his "sacred sensibility," might have admonished them not to.

 

 

In a spirit of overall fairness, I should mention that I fully agree with your view here.  It's a subjective view, obviously.  But I come to the same place.  It was quite reasonble for Joseph to keep the first vision from the public because it was a personal experience.  Now, that also calls into question why we feel to make it such a big deal in our church narrative, but that's a different issue.

[jkwilliams]

As I already suggested, even if they did know about it, it wouldn't mean they would be disposed to talk or write about it. Joseph, with his "sacred sensibility," might have admonished them not to.

 

And there is much that the "foes," hostile as they were, might not have been aware of.

 

Unfortunate, but it doesn't make it irreconcilable.

 

Barney says that Joseph's sacred sensibility changed over time, such that he was more at ease discussing these things as he got older, hence the public accounts in 1838 and 1842. I don't know why anyone would be reluctant to discuss it after Joseph had. I would not expect the "foes" or neighbors to know much about the details, but surely someone in the neighborhood must have heard about it, or there wouldn't have been persecution.

 

Like I said, it doesn't make sense to me, but clearly you think it can be reconciled.

[Buckeye]

How are they supposed to know that they don't know something when they think they do?

 

Quality peer-review. When a WML, Zone Leader, Bishop, Mission President, or any other member they work with hears the missionaries say something that is not correct, call them on the carpet and ask for their source. Do it nicely, yes, but help them to develop a discomfort for speaking beyond their knowledge. The same practice would do wonders for gospel doctrine class.

 

Also, teach the missionaries that when they confront information that seems to contradict what they are teaching, do not assume the information is false. In my experience, most of the time the facts stated are true. The spin may be false, and the facts may be incomplete, but more often than not the claimed facts are true.

[Scott Lloyd]

In a spirit of overall fairness, I should mention that I fully agree with your view here.  It's a subjective view, obviously.  But I come to the same place.  It was quite reasonble for Joseph to keep the first vision from the public because it was a personal experience.  Now, that also calls into question why we feel to make it such a big deal in our church narrative, but that's a different issue.

Probably because Joseph eventually did give a written account of it, it became part of the official history of the Church, and prophets and apostles over the years have felt inspired to have it proclaimed to the world as part of the message of the Restoration.

[canard78]

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

 

But until now they hadn't linked to the actual full accounts (only referenced that they existed).

 

I'm pleased overall. I'm glad to have these resources from "official channels."

[Scott Lloyd]

Barney says that Joseph's sacred sensibility changed over time, such that he was more at ease discussing these things as he got older, hence the public accounts in 1838 and 1842.

Yes. This is hardly surprising. Circumstances change over time to the effect that while it might be appropriate to keep something undisclosed at one point, there may be propriety in disclosing it later. The events on the Mount of Transfiguration are an example of this, where the Savior enjoined his apostles to tell no one of it at the time, yet it was later included as part of the scriptural record.

 

I don't know why anyone would be reluctant to discuss it after Joseph had.

 

Maybe because he had told them not to, and they were under the impression it was best left to Joseph to discuss it.

 

 

I would not expect the "foes" or neighbors to know much about the details, but surely someone in the neighborhood must have heard about it, or there wouldn't have been persecution.

 

 

As I said, a garbled rumor regarding angelic visitation but not mentioning a visit from Deity might well have been enough to excite persecution -- and to discourage Joseph from saying much more about the experience.

 

Like I said, it doesn't make sense to me, but clearly you think it can be reconciled.

 

And, like I said, your lack of acceptance of a possible explanation does not make the matter irreconcilable.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Scott Lloyd