First vision accounts getting detailed attention in CES devotional

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

You might find this context interesting:

Many factors contributed to the relative lack of interest in the First Vision by nineteenth century believers and nonbelievers. Most have been identied by Latter-day Saint scholars in a variety of articles attempting to validate the historicity of the event or its relationship to developments in L.D.S. doctrine.  Though these studies disagree on the First Vision’s theological implications, what matters for our purposes is that all agree, in the words of James B. Allen, author of the most extensive study, that “the weight of evidence would suggest that it [the First Vision] was not a matter of common knowledge, even among church members, in the earliest years of Mormon history .” As Allen’s research makes apparent, though the First Vision is used in a sermon as early as 1883, the turning point in the status of the First Vision occurs during the administration of Joseph F. Smith and, signicantly for the purposes of this essay , contemporaneous with the Smoot hearing and its immediate aftermath. The story is first used in Latter-day Saint Sunday School texts in 1905; in priesthood instructional manuals in 1909; as a separate missionary tract in 1910; and in histories of the church in 1912. Moreover, in 1907, the Smith family farm in Palmyra, New York, was purchased and passed into church ownership in 1916. A grove of trees on the site where Joseph Smith was assumed to have had the First Vision became an increasingly popular pilgrimage site, culminating in centennial celebrations in 1920. By mid-century, Joseph Smith’s account of his theophany was denominated “The Joseph Smith Story.” Eventually, this story would be granted the status of “the beginning point, the fountainhead, of the restoration of the gospel in this dispensation.”  In the First Vision, Progressive-Era president Joseph F. Smith, whose tenure lasted until his death in 1918, had found a marker of L.D.S. identity whose pedigree was as great as, and would be made greater than, that of plural marriage for the twentieth-century Saints.

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/kathleenflake/files/2012/01/RAC-Re-placing-Memory.pdf

Thanks cinepro, this is interesting and I hadn't read it before.  I knew the early church members were not really aware of the first vision (from what I've read).

I have also read that Lucy Mack Smith's first version of the history of Joseph Smith and the church that she wrote, didn't even include or mention the first vision.  The title of her history was Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations  and it was published in 1853. Brigham Young ordered the members to destroy their copies of this history in 1865. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm not sure whom you mean here by we, but I certainly don't teach that, and I've even written on this topic in this and subsequent posts in the same thread.

"We" as in the institutionalized church. See here for just one example: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-3-i-had-seen-a-vision?lang=eng

Quote

What are some of the truths we can learn from the First Vision? 

<snip>

1. The Father and the Son are real, separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bones.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

Besides Allen's important essay on the pedagogical use of the First Vision, his "The Emergence as a Fundamental" in The Journal of the Mormon History, there is also Tim Barker, “The First Vision in the Formative Years of the Church” at LDS Studies: A Personal Study of Mormon Scripture, Doctrine, History, and Culture, 4 July 2011, online at http://lds-studies.blogspot.com/2011/07/first-vision-in-formative-years-of.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When we teach that from the first vision, Joseph knew that HF and JC were two separate and distinct physical beings and hence the trinity is false, we are going beyond what Joseph ever claimed or taught.

It makes perfect sense.  Let's take look at another astonishing fact.  In the account, he never said that he saw and spoke to Christ -- he uses the word "personage".

So, with your brilliant insight, we can now question where he was talking about Christ, or some other angel.  Now the "first personage" said that this was His son, perhaps this was the father of John the Baptist.  Who knows, and you showed us that we cannot assume ANYTHING unless JS actually tells us.  Now later, perhaps he says that it was Christ, but that's only because that is what the church now teaches.

Brilliant insight.  We are free from using common sense to interpret the events from the obvious interpretation.  Joseph Smith actually saw a "one substance entity".

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

You might find this context interesting:

 

 

Yes I did find that context interesting.  I wasn't aware of many of those details including Joseph F. Smith's promotion of that vision.

I still think it doesn't get the attention that it deserves, though.  I think there needs to be a LOT more talk about God being the same kind of being we are.  The word God itself promoted as being synonymous with human, as the kind of being we are as a species.  

Promoted correctly even atheists would agree with us even if they didn't believe we have ancestors living "in outer space".

[Ahab]

45 minutes ago, cdowis said:

It makes perfect sense.  Let's take look at another astonishing fact.  In the account, he never said that he saw and spoke to Christ -- he uses the word "personage".

So, with your brilliant insight, we can now question where he was talking about Christ, or some other angel.  Now the "first personage" said that this was His son, perhaps this was the father of John the Baptist.  Who knows, and you showed us that we cannot assume ANYTHING unless JS actually tells us.  Now later, perhaps he says that it was Christ, but that's only because that is what the church now teaches.

Brilliant insight.  We are free from using common sense to interpret the events from the obvious interpretation.  Joseph Smith actually saw a "one substance entity".

Even if that "personage" (a high fallutin from of the word "person" I reckon) referred to as the son of the other was not Jesus we have other evidence in the form of first-hand testimony telling us what Jesus looked like, in form, after he was resurrected.  So Jesus and that "son" would still have had the same form.

And which person is which isn't even the most important detail we get out of that vision.

The core idea is that they are like us, in form, because they are the same kind of being we are.  Or if you prefer and want to get really technical you could say that we are like them, in form, because we are the same kind of being they are.

That's the main idea I get out of the 'First Vision'.

The form and substance of God, as a kind of being.  

That we are the same kind of being as God.

Whether you use the term human or God we are talking about the same kind of being.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Ahab
typo

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I think Joseph Smith's first account of his first vision is much more likely to reflect what he experienced at the time than subsequent accounts, which seem to have been altered to reflect changes to LDS theology. 

I've thought so too. But I recently read an article by Steven Harper that made me question this conclusion. Harper suggests that the 1832 account is likely not the most accurate or complete account of the vision:

Quote

His 1832 autobiography is “a traditional form of spiritual autobiography familiar to him and those around him.” Joseph remembered his vision in terms of acceptable spiritual discourse, mimicking a generic style and tone that emphasized personal sinfulness and redemption by Christ. There are reasons to question whether Joseph’s 1832 autobiography was satisfying to him and to surmise that he felt conflicted about its contents. He probably intended this document to serve as source material for the Church’s historians, Oliver Cowdery and John Whitmer, who began their histories where this one ends. Neither of them, however, seemed to know it existed. Joseph Smith never published it and probably did not circulate it. He appears to have regarded it as an unusable draft. Perhaps he thought it too marred by his being “deprived of the bennifit of an education,” but it seems most likely that the perspective that came with the passage of time and subsequent experiences made this memory sound increasingly unsatisfying to his ears. It is the memory of a teen aspiring to convince an evangelical clergyman of his legitimate conversion experience. . . .

Joseph’s original, unrecorded telling led to rejection by the minister and the world he represented. When Joseph worked up the will to tell it again in his 1832 autobiography, he recast the story as an evangelical script, conforming to his culture and seeking validation. There is no evidence that he did so conspiratorially or even consciously, but rather as part of the ongoing process of [memory] consolidation. Joseph was apparently reticent to tell his story at all after it was initially rejected, which explains both why the 1832 story says what it does and why Joseph seems not to have favored or shared it. The past Joseph Smith recorded in 1832 may have been more pleasing to the minister than Smith’s original telling, but it did not resonate with Joseph’s present. Whatever the reasons, the 1832 consolidation of Joseph Smith’s memory was not the memory that would develop.

— Steven C. Harper, "Remembering the First Vision," in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History, ed. Laura Harris Hales (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book/RSC, 2016), Kindle locations 378–388, 416–422.

Harper notes that Joseph's spontaneous 1835 telling was not influenced by the Methodist minister and therefore includes elements not present in the 1832 account:

Quote

Joseph’s autobiographical act of composing the 1832 narrative required a different type of memory retrieval than the November 1835 journal entry that captures his unplanned telling of the story. He composed the 1832 document in an act of intentional, explicit remembering, which required a systematic search of memory known as strategic retrieval. But when telling the story of his vision to a visitor in the autumn of 1835, Joseph relied on associative retrieval, resulting in a memory formed automatically by an unsolicited cue rather than by a systematic search.

The 1832 and 1835 records are thus two unique memories of the same event, each formed when different kinds of cues activated different pieces of the past stored in different parts of Joseph’s brain. Because the memories are of the same event, they are quite similar, but because their retrieval cues enabled Joseph to recover varied pieces of the past, they are also quite distinct.

The 1835 record of spontaneous memory shows that, given the right cues and context, Joseph could produce a memory of the event that did not depend on or respond to the Methodist minister, either attempting to please him, as in 1832, or lashing back at him, as in 1838–39. (Harper, "Remembering the First Vision," Kindle Locations 425–433)

Joseph's 1835 account does, of course, mention all the major elements found in the later accounts, including the initial satanic opposition and seeing two heavenly personages descend.

Harper's insight (which I've also heard Richard Bushman express) that Joseph "consciously experienced the vision as it occurred, but ... also reexperienced and interpreted it over time," is, I think, sound, and helps explain—at least to some degree—the discrepancies between the accounts.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Nevo

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

What are some of the truths we can learn from the First Vision? 

<snip>

1. The Father and the Son are real, separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bones.

 

There's the point I was trying to make earlier. Joseph saw them; but how does him seeing them at that first vision tell us they had bodies of flesh and bone? He only saw the two personages; he did not feel them.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

There's the point I was trying to make earlier. Joseph saw them; but how does him seeing them at that first vision tell us they had bodies of flesh and bone? He only saw the two personages; he did not feel them.

I agree. And given that Christians who believe in the trinity accept Acts 7:55 (Stephen's theophany) where two personages were seen, its not clear to me that you could conclude that just because you have seen the father and the son at the same time, the doctrine of trinity is false. 

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I agree. And given that Christians who believe in the trinity accept Acts 7:55 (Stephen's theophany) where two personages were seen, its not clear to me that you could conclude that just because you have seen the father and the son at the same time, the doctrine of trinity is false. 

The trinity is essentially the idea of 3 in unity.

By seeing 2 of those 3 as separate persons you would then see that they are not the same person, at least, although you could still wonder how they are in unity.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The trinity is essentially the idea of 3 in unity.

By seeing 2 of those 3 as separate persons you would then see that they are not the same person, at least, although you could still wonder how they are in unity.

This is off topic, but (and I will probably butcher this) the trinity teaches that three distinct persons co-exist as one God. Hence the Father and the son can manifest at the same time. You are thinking modalism perhaps?

[JAHS]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I agree. And given that Christians who believe in the trinity accept Acts 7:55 (Stephen's theophany) where two personages were seen, its not clear to me that you could conclude that just because you have seen the father and the son at the same time, the doctrine of trinity is false. 

I do believe it is false, because Joseph Smith did receive revelation telling us that they both have separate bodies of flesh and bone. (D&C 130: 22)

I suppose God being God, even as a trinity, could show himself as two separate beings; but why would He do that?

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is off topic, but (and I will probably butcher this) the trinity teaches that three distinct persons co-exist as one God. Hence the Father and the son can manifest at the same time. You are thinking modalism perhaps?

As long as we're sticking to the same thing that Joseph saw in the 'First Vision' I think we'll be staying on topic. 

The idea of what and who God is can now be defined as a (a as in one) particular kind of being, not necessarily only one person. 

So the Father can be referred to as God,  and so can his son Jesus, and so can the Holy Spirit because each of those 3 is the same kind of being we refer to as God.  And not only those 3 persons but any other person as well as long as that person is the same kind of being they are.  And each one of us is, even though we are not as perfect or in unity as much as they are right now.

So even if you do not agree with me you are still the same kind of being as I am and as our Father in heaven is too.  We are all the one and only true God. 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is off topic, but (and I will probably butcher this) the trinity teaches that three distinct persons co-exist as one God. Hence the Father and the son can manifest at the same time. You are thinking modalism perhaps?

I think an actual problem is the idea that the Father is pure spirit and invisible (a Trinitarian can correct me if I am wrong).  Modalism, which iirc applies to faiths such as Oneness Pentacostals, would be contradicted by two personages, but not mainstream beliefs in the Trinity, which is three persons in one Being.

I have heard/read Evangelicls who state that Stephen's vision was symbolic because the Father can't be seen.  I don't know if this is widespread or applies to other forms of the Trinity.

[Calm]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

See 241

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c3a8.htm

See 689

Edited May 3, 2016 by Calm

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I imagine if I were telling a story to different people and the story-telling was separated by a few years each, I could imagine quite a bit of variation in the accounts without me even realizing it.  Our perception is an interesting thing, and our change in perception over time is palpable, at least it has been for me.  In that sense, I'm not too concerned about the varying accounts in the first vision or visitation of angels or whatever we want to call it. 

With that said, it seems obvious we want to put more stock into the story than Joseph did. 

That's what SeekingUnderstanding mentions above; the operations (and limitations) of human memory have been well studied in the past few decades, and what we're discussing with the different versions of the First Vision story is actually exactly what would be expected with normal memory function. 

Basically, our brains aren't like computer hard drives that store every bit of data that happens in our lives 24/7.  Memory is subjective and sporadic, and ultimately when we remember an event we aren't remembering the actual event, but instead are remembering the last time we remembered the event, with additional "information" possibly added to it.

For example, in the original Star Wars movie there were scenes filmed of Luke and his friends on Tatooine that appeared early on (during the first space battle).  These scenes were cut before the film was released to theaters, but the comic books and novelization (which were written before the final edit) did include the dialogue and pictures of these scenes.

But because some peoples' memories of the film included not only seeing it in the theater but reading the comic books and novelization, there are people who are 100% convinced that they saw an early film print that still had these scenes in it.  They can actually remember sitting in the theater and seeing those scenes (and they even create theories about all the prints being changed after release).

So we would expect Joseph Smith's story to change over the years as he remembers things differently and as his religious views developed over time.  But one thing we wouldn't expect is (to the degree that the First Vision was an objective, actual event) for his memory to get more accurate over the years.  We can theorize divine intervention so that the memory was specially preserved, or perhaps new information (for example, Jesus visiting him in 1837 and saying "Hey, remember the time my Dad and I visited you in the grove and told you ....?")  But what we see with the different versions is exactly what would be expected without divine intervention or new information. 

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

I agree....but...in my profession, as a litigator, I have cross-examined many a witness and destroyed them due to various versions of a story.  But...I also understand, in my experience, that people tell stories differently depending on to whom they speak.

I got upset at my wife once for interrupting me constantly while I told her a story.  She finally said, "I would not interrupt if you have told me all the details from the beginning".  The problem was, I did not think those details were pertinent in telling HER the story......so I left them out.

Wow, that hit close to home for me!  Also gave me a chuckle, for which I thank you!

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I imagine if I were telling a story to different people and the story-telling was separated by a few years each, I could imagine quite a bit of variation in the accounts without me even realizing it.  Our perception is an interesting thing, and our change in perception over time is palpable, at least it has been for me.  In that sense, I'm not too concerned about the varying accounts in the first vision or visitation of angels or whatever we want to call it. 

With that said, it seems obvious we want to put more stock into the story than Joseph did. 

I've told my conversion story to many people over the years, and I have picked and chosen the elements that I have shared according to whom I was telling it, and according to time available and appropriateness at the moment I told the story.  I recently got remarried after my wife passed away last year, and in my retellings of both events, I have done the same.  Yesterday, my very good friend Daren, whom I have not spoken with in several months, stopped by.  Because of his depth of spirituality and testimony of the gospel, and because of his experience of being present with his mother when she passed away, not to mention our personal closeness, I gave him the entire detailed story of my wife's passing, and the miraculous (to me) events of my later courtship and marriage.  He got the lion's share of it all, whereas I have told more casual acquaintances far less, with far less personal details.  Yet I was telling the truth in all instances.  

[JAHS]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think an actual problem is the idea that the Father is pure spirit and invisible (a Trinitarian can correct me if I am wrong).  Modalism, which iirc applies to faiths such as Oneness Pentacostals, would be contradicted by two personages, but not mainstream beliefs in the Trinity, which is three persons in one Being.

I have heard/read Evangelicls who state that Stephen's vision was symbolic because the Father can't be seen.  I don't know if this is widespread or applies to other forms of the Trinity.

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,  56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.," (Acts 7: 55-56)

I have heard these scriptures explained  by other Christians that there were not two separate beings but that Stephen saw Jesus exalted, standing in the glory of God or in the splendor of God. Other explanations are so convoluted that I can't understand what they are trying to say. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, JAHS said:

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,  56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.," (Acts 7: 55-56)

I have heard these scriptures explained  by other Christians that there were not two separate beings but that Stephen saw Jesus exalted, standing in the glory of God or in the splendor of God. Other explanations are so convoluted that I can't understand what they are trying to say. 

That would be more plausible if there were not the direct statement about Jesus "standing on the right hand of" (not "in the glory of") God.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

That's what SeekingUnderstanding mentions above; the operations (and limitations) of human memory have been well studied in the past few decades, and what we're discussing with the different versions of the First Vision story is actually exactly what would be expected with normal memory function. 

Basically, our brains aren't like computer hard drives that store every bit of data that happens in our lives 24/7.  Memory is subjective and sporadic, and ultimately when we remember an event we aren't remembering the actual event, but instead are remembering the last time we remembered the event, with additional "information" possibly added to it.

For example, in the original Star Wars movie there were scenes filmed of Luke and his friends on Tatooine that appeared early on (during the first space battle).  These scenes were cut before the film was released to theaters, but the comic books and novelization (which were written before the final edit) did include the dialogue and pictures of these scenes.

But because some peoples' memories of the film included not only seeing it in the theater but reading the comic books and novelization, there are people who are 100% convinced that they saw an early film print that still had these scenes in it.  They can actually remember sitting in the theater and seeing those scenes (and they even create theories about all the prints being changed after release).

So we would expect Joseph Smith's story to change over the years as he remembers things differently and as his religious views developed over time.  But one thing we wouldn't expect is (to the degree that the First Vision was an objective, actual event) for his memory to get more accurate over the years.  We can theorize divine intervention so that the memory was specially preserved, or perhaps new information (for example, Jesus visiting him in 1837 and saying "Hey, remember the time my Dad and I visited you in the grove and told you ....?")  But what we see with the different versions is exactly what would be expected without divine intervention or new information. 

Yeah, but I also find it possible that later tellings are fuller and more complete.  Earlier tellings might be more raw, assuming a more accurate portrayal, but it's also possible a later telling considers accuracy or completeness in a way earlier tellings did not.  I guess tellings isn't a word.  But there it is four times in this one little paragraph anywho. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Yeah, but I also find it possible that later tellings are fuller and more complete.  Earlier tellings might be more raw, assuming a more accurate portrayal, but it's also possible a later telling considers accuracy or completeness in a way earlier tellings did not.  I guess tellings isn't a word.  But there it is four times in this one little paragraph anywho. 

If one were to ask me what is more accurate, thorough, comprehensible and closer to the truth between my hastily scrawled, handwritten notes and my carefully crafted news story in its final draft, I would respond without hesitation that it is the latter.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If one were to ask me what is more accurate, thorough, comprehensible and closer to the truth between my hastily scrawled, handwritten notes and my carefully crafted news story in its final draft, I would respond without hesitation that it is the latter.

It may depend on how much time transpires between the two versions.  Are we talking hours, days, weeks, or years?

I would think writing details down right after you witnessed something would be more accurate (when the event was still fresh in your mind).  

(Also, the words "carefully crafted" sound a bit suspect to me  )

Edited May 3, 2016 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It may depend on how much time transpires between the two versions.  Are we talking hours, days, weeks, or years?

I would think writing details down right after you witnessed something would be more accurate (when the event still was fresh in your mind).  

 

You've never seen my handwritten notes.

Quote

(Also, the words "carefully crafted" sound a bit suspect to me  )

Why would it necessarily be suspect? My crafting is to make the account readable and comprehensible and to ensure there is sufficient explanatory content.

If you think the crafting is for the purpose of alteration, distortion or deception, I could see why you would be suspicious, but I don't cop to that sort of thing.

And an immediate record is not necessarily a more truthful one. There is something to be said for the benefit of perspective and understanding that might not be present until after some time has passed.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You've never seen my handwritten notes.

Why would it necessarily be suspect? My crafting is to make the account readable and comprehensible and to ensure there is sufficient explanatory content.

If you think the crafting is for the purpose of alteration, distortion or deception, I could see why you would be suspicious, but I don't cop to that sort of thing.

Ok (I was just teasing you anyway  )

But, I do think at least for me, the notes or record I made closer to anything I'd witnessed would be more accurate than trying to compose something after very much time had passed.

Edited May 3, 2016 by JulieM