All Four First Vision Accounts Published In 11 Languages

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I really don't think Joseph could have honestly expected that people would nitpick things the way they do.  When something of interest happens in my life, I often don't tell it the same way to different people.  Some part of the experience I might put more emphasis on than another part.  Depending on what point that feel more impressed to talk about.  Though the details are different, I don't find anything that contradicts the other.  For example even though the 1832 account does not mention Joseph seeing two personages, he does not deny that two appeared to him.  An omission of a fact or detail is not a denial of that fact or detail.  If Joe and Steve tell Mary that the party is at 8 PM and Mary goes to Sally and says "Joe told me the party is at 8" even though she did not mention Steve to Sally does not mean that Mary is claiming that Steve is not present. 

 

That's all nice and good, and I don't disagree. You have just left off the part (which is well documented) where the stories we tell change profoundly overtime. The only way this didn't happen to Joseph is if there was divine intervention. If there was divine intervention that somehow preserved the memory intact, it would seem to me that his earlier accounts would be more consistent. This is the part where you don't get to have it both ways. Based on Joseph's account I think it is fine to say that Joseph had a profound vision. I don't think it is fair to say that based on Joseph's vision we can conclude that God and Jesus are two separate and distinct individuals. This is not something that Joseph claims to have learned from his vision, but we want to put words in his mouth and make it so.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I really don't think Joseph could have honestly expected that people would nitpick things the way they do.  When something of interest happens in my life, I often don't tell it the same way to different people.  Some part of the experience I might put more emphasis on than another part.  Depending on what point that feel more impressed to talk about.  Though the details are different, I don't find anything that contradicts the other.  For example even though the 1832 account does not mention Joseph seeing two personages, he does not deny that two appeared to him.  An omission of a fact or detail is not a denial of that fact or detail.  If Joe and Steve tell Mary that the party is at 8 PM and Mary goes to Sally and says "Joe told me the party is at 8" even though she did not mention Steve to Sally does not mean that Mary is claiming that Steve is not present.

  

That's all nice and good, and I don't disagree. You have just left off the part (which is well documented) where the stories we tell change profoundly overtime. The only way this didn't happen to Joseph is if there was divine intervention. If there was divine intervention that somehow preserved the memory intact, it would seem to me that his earlier accounts would be more consistent. This is the part where you don't get to have it both ways. Based on Joseph's account I think it is fine to say that Joseph had a profound vision. I don't think it is fair to say that based on Joseph's vision we can conclude that God and Jesus are two separate and distinct individuals. This is not something that Joseph claims to have learned from his vision, but we want to put words in his mouth and make it so.

I will add that Bushman sums up my feelings well:

I am very much impressed by Joseph Smith’s 1832 History account of his early visions. This is the one partially written in his own hand and the rest dictated to Frederick G. Williams. I think it is more revealing than the official account presumably written in 1838 and contained in the Pearl of Great Price. We don’t know who wrote the 1838 account. Joseph’s journal indicates that he, Sidney Rigdon, and George Robinson collaborated on beginning the history in late April, but we don’t know who actually drafted the history. It is a polished narrative but unlike anything Joseph ever wrote himself. The 1832 history we know is his because of the handwriting. It comes rushing forth from Joseph’s mind in a gush of words that seem artless and uncalculated, a flood of raw experience. I think this account has the marks of an authentic visionary experience. There is the distance from God, the perplexity and yearning for answers, the perplexity, and then the experience itself which brings intense joy, followed by fear and anxiety. Can he deal with the powerful force he has encountered? Is he worthy and able? It is a classic announcement of a prophet’s call, and I find it entirely believable..

[carbon dioxide]

You do not understand why people get upset with the different accounts. Have you ever spent any time in court? Compare the various accounts, written by JS or the accounts he authored to be written. The stories vary greatly about significant details. Who did Joseph see? What did the person say? What did the two persons say?

If a jury hears four different accounts of the same story, with variation about the significant details, they will question the veracity of the accounts.

Write a summary of what you think are the significant details from a collection of all four accounts. What do the accounts all boil down to? You will have trouble formulating the story into one coherent telling of the story.

Every person on a jury is supposed to use their own common sense and experience to make a decision.  I have read the various versions and went through them point by point.  The agreed on the general facts.  In no point do they disagree.  For example the 1838 Joseph mentions two personages he sees.  The 1832 version he only mentions one but does not deny the presence of a second personage.  An omission of a fact is not a denial of that fact. 

[omni]

Every person on a jury is supposed to use their own common sense and experience to make a decision. I have read the various versions and went through them point by point. The agreed on the general facts. In no point do they disagree. For example the 1838 Joseph mentions two personages he sees. The 1832 version he only mentions one but does not deny the presence of a second personage. An omission of a fact is not a denial of that fact.

.

There are two major takeaways we learn from the FV:

1) The Father and Son are two separate beings; and

2) Christ's Church was not on the Earth at the time.

Have you ever recounted the FV without mentioning these two details? I have told or been told the account of the FV hundreds of times to a variety of audiences and never once do I recall not hearing mention of two beings (outside of discussions regarding the differing accounts). I have yet to hear a good explanation for this.

I think it should also be remembered the differing FV accounts fit nicely with the evolution of the Godhead we see in Joseph's writings.

[Damien the Leper]

What I mean is, many people who have trouble with the different accounts of the 1st vision, have no problem at all with the different accounts of Paul's vision in the NT, or even the many many different and contradictory accounts of Jesus' actions and words in the four gospels.

Seems like a double standard.

There is a significant difference. The Gospels were written to different audiences whereas the FV was not and is incomparable. Keep in mind that Matthew, Mark and Luke are synoptic. The FV are not nor ever claimed to be. Edited April 30, 2015 by Valentinus

[Darren10]

There is a significant difference. The Gospels were written to different audiences whereas the FV was not and is incomparable. Keep in mind that Matthew, Mark and Luke are synoptic. The FV are not nor ever claimed to be.

The variations of the First Vision were given in order to place emphasis on different aspects of the vision. One version may focus on Joseph Smith's need to seek forgiveness of his sins whereas another, perhaps, that he spoke to angels. In the end there really isn't contradictions in the accounts. As Bluebell pointed out, Paul essentially did the same thing with his own "first vision".

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/variants-in-the-stories-of-the-first-vision-of-joseph-smith-and-the-apostle-paul/

[Damien the Leper]

The variations of the First Vision were given in order to place emphasis on different aspects of the vision. One version may focus on Joseph Smith's need to seek forgiveness of his sins whereas another, perhaps, that he spoke to angels. In the end there really isn't contradictions in the accounts. As Bluebell pointed out, Paul essentially did the same thing with his own "first vision".http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/variants-in-the-stories-of-the-first-vision-of-joseph-smith-and-the-apostle-paul/

You're grasping at straws. Name all varying accounts of Paul's vision of Christ.

Seeing God or seeing God and Jesus or seeing a host of angels are significant differences. No amount of rationalization can excuse this away. The vision accounts are not simply pieces of a bigger picture as some will erroneously assert. That is a cop out.