The church was open about First Vision accounts.

[Rivers]

I came across this very well written Ensign article from 1985 (before I was born) on the First Vision accounts.  It's better than the Gospel Topics essay IMO.  I thought I'd share it. 

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

This shows that the church has been much  more open about these sorts of thing than many people assume. These kinds of topics just weren't always at the forefront.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Rivers

[JLHPROF]

I think people would have preferred it if we had all 4 versions like we have all 4 gospels, differences included.

I think the big complaint is that one of the 4 became "the official version".  Which is a bit silly if you ask me.
Maybe if we made Luke the official version of Christ's life instead of allowing all 4 it would be upsetting too.

[consiglieri]

20 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I came across this very well written Ensign article from 1985 (before I was born) on the First Vision accounts.  It's better than the Gospel Topics essay IMO.  I thought I'd share it. 

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

This shows that the church has been much  more open about these sorts of thing than many people assume. These kinds of topics just weren't always at the forefront.

It bears repeating that Joseph Fielding Smith cut the earliest First Vision account (1832) out of the book in which Joseph Smith wrote it and hid the three pages containing it in his safe for decades.

It was only after its existence was leaked to the Tanners in 1964 that Joseph Fielding Smith taped the pages back into the book and alerted Paul Cheeseman to its existence so he could use it (for the first time ever) in his 1965 Master's Thesis.

So yes, once the existence of this account was leaked, "the church has been much more open about these sorts of things." 

 

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think people would have preferred it if we had all 4 versions like we have all 4 gospels, differences included.

I think the big complaint is that one of the 4 became "the official version".  Which is a bit silly if you ask me.
Maybe if we made Luke the official version of Christ's life instead of allowing all 4 it would be upsetting too.

Depends on when you were born.,,I didn't see this..and yes, that is my fault.  But being born in the 50's I had already believed...with primary pictures too..of the only vision I knew of.

Joseph..the Father..and the Son.

[Rivers]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

It bears repeating that Joseph Fielding Smith cut the earliest First Vision account (1832) out of the book in which Joseph Smith wrote it and hid the three pages containing it in his safe for decades.

It was only after its existence was leaked to the Tanners in 1964 that Joseph Fielding Smith taped the pages back into the book and alerted Paul Cheeseman to its existence so he could use it (for the first time ever) in his 1965 Master's Thesis.

So yes, once the existence of this account was leaked, "the church has been much more open about these sorts of things." 

 

Why did he cut it out?  The 1832 version is awesome!  Its so genuine and beautifully written. It's Ruchard Bushman's favorite too. 

Edited July 26, 2016 by Rivers

[cinepro]

One aspect to this that never seems to get brought up is that the Missionary Discussions used in the early 1990s actually cut out the part about Satan trying to stop the first vision.  So in effect, investigators were taught yet another version of the First Vision, and they would only learn about Satan's visit if they did independent study after the fact (which, pre-internet, wouldn't be so easy).

It's obviously not a huge deal, but those ellipses always gave me a funny feeling when we would teach.

[Rivers]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

One aspect to this that never seems to get brought up is that the Missionary Discussions used in the early 1990s actually cut out the part about Satan trying to stop the first vision.  So in effect, investigators were taught yet another version of the First Vision, and they would only learn about Satan's visit if they did independent study after the fact (which, pre-internet, wouldn't be so easy).

It's obviously not a huge deal, but those ellipses always gave me a funny feeling when we would teach.

The Satan stuff still gets skipped in the missionary lessons.  Unless things have changed in the last ten years.  

[Danzo]

19 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So in effect, investigators were taught yet another version of the First Vision, and they would only learn about Satan's visit if they did independent study after the fact (which, pre-internet, wouldn't be so easy).

 

Or they could have, you know, read the pamphlet that we gave them.

[consiglieri]

49 minutes ago, Rivers said:

 

Why did he cut it out?  The 1832 version is awesome!  Its so genuine and beautifully written. It's Ruchard Bushman's favorite too. 

Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith didn't see it that way.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Depends on when you were born.,,I didn't see this..and yes, that is my fault.  But being born in the 50's I had already believed...with primary pictures too..of the only vision I knew of.

Joseph..the Father..and the Son.

Now that you know that the church published an article about it in the 80s does it change your belief that the church was deceptive about the first vision accounts?

[Danzo]

19 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Apparently Joseph Fielding Smith didn't see it that way.

Which is why he took steps to preserve and protect it, rather than destroying it was one would expect if he didn't want anyone to find out about it.

[Kevin Christensen]

41 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Now that you know that the church published an article about it in the 80s does it change your belief that the church was deceptive about the first vision accounts?

And before that, BYU Studies in 1969, and in the April 1970 Improvement Era.  And Desert Book carried Milton Bachman's book on Joseph Smith's First Vision, and there has been much more, by many more people in a range of books and journals, and perspectives, such as Tim Barker's study a few years ago that included reminiscent accounts by people who claimed to have heard the story before 1832.  Those with a real hunger and thirst for knowledge can find out all sorts of things.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

I came across this very well written Ensign article from 1985 (before I was born) on the First Vision accounts.  It's better than the Gospel Topics essay IMO.  I thought I'd share it. 

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

This shows that the church has been much  more open about these sorts of thing than many people assume. These kinds of topics just weren't always at the forefront.

I have often pointed that out to critics, but they took credit for it by pointing out that it was there actions on the Internet...before 1985 when put in the Ensign, most people did not even own computers in their homes, and the "WWW" was not used very much by even more. Maybe they think we were "hiding it in plain site". 

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Which is why he took steps to preserve and protect it, rather than destroying it was one would expect if he didn't want anyone to find out about it.

That is an interesting question. 

Why did he preserve it if he believed it was harmful and no one should ever know about it's existence?

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And before that, BYU Studies in 1969, and in the April 1970 Improvement Era.  And Desert Book carried Milton Bachman's book on Joseph Smith's First Vision, and there has been much more, by many more people in a range of books and journals, and perspectives, such as Tim Barker's study a few years ago that included reminiscent accounts by people who claimed to have heard the story before 1832.  Those with a real hunger and thirst for knowledge can find out all sorts of things.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

That's way cool.  Do you have a link to Tim Barker's study?

I will say because the Church has been open to considering the multiple accounts it does not mean the hiding of the 1832 account never was. 

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

One aspect to this that never seems to get brought up is that the Missionary Discussions used in the early 1990s actually cut out the part about Satan trying to stop the first vision.  So in effect, investigators were taught yet another version of the First Vision, and they would only learn about Satan's visit if they did independent study after the fact (which, pre-internet, wouldn't be so easy).

It's obviously not a huge deal, but those ellipses always gave me a funny feeling when we would teach.

When I was a missionary, 87-89, we cut that part out on our own.  Just seemed to be getting into stuff that wasn't the point of the lesson.

[Kevin Christensen]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's way cool.  Do you have a link to Tim Barker's study?

I will say because the Church has been open to considering the multiple accounts it does not mean the hiding of the 1832 account never was. 

See, 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

Enjoy,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That is an interesting question. 

Why did he preserve it if he believed it was harmful and no one should ever know about it's existence?

I guess only he knows the answer to that (unless he wrote about it or told someone why he preserved it who recorded the reason).  I would imagine he'd have thought it was valuable enough to at least hold onto and not destroy.  Wasn't it in Joseph's own handwriting?  (I need to refresh my memory here....).  If so, I can't imagine he would destroy a record of the first vision written by Joseph Smith.

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I guess only he knows the answer to that (unless he wrote about it or told someone why he preserved it who recorded the reason).  I would imagine he'd have thought it was valuable enough to at least hold onto and not destroy.  Wasn't it in Joseph's own handwriting?  (I need to refresh my memory here....).  If so, I can't imagine he would destroy a record of the first vision written by Joseph Smith.

If he perserved it, then I think it is likely that he thought other people should know about it, or might find out about it.  That is usually why one preserves things.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Which is why he took steps to preserve and protect it, rather than destroying it was one would expect if he didn't want anyone to find out about it.

Whatever helps you get to sleep at night.

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Whatever helps you get to sleep at night.

I'm not the one that seems to be  losing sleep over it.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If he perserved it, then I think it is likely that he thought other people should know about it, or might find out about it.  That is usually why one preserves things.

You can't know this, but you're of course entitled to your opinion here.  I really cannot imagine that he'd destroy a copy of the first vision written by Joseph Smith, himself.  That would have been a horrible thing for him to destroy something so valuable (and I'm not speaking in terms of $).

[stemelbow]

I think it rather likely that he hid the account because he didn't think members would benefit from it.  Control the narrative was important and it presented information that would bring in questions and concerns.  he simply didn't trust members enough to figure it out. 

Why he didn't destroy it is because, I'd guess, he couldn't quite bring himself to go that far.  luckily for all of us.

[Calm]

There are collectors who go to great lengths to preserve stuff they personally feel is valuable but have no desire to share those collections with others.  I don't see preservation as automatically implying someone thought others should know about it, though in this case I would assume he at least meant for a few to be aware of it eventually since he would have realized it would not always be in his custody.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are collectors who go to great lengths to preserve stuff they personally feel is valuable but have no desire to share those collections with others.  I don't see preservation as automatically implying someone thought others should know about it, though in this case I would assume he at least meant for a few to be aware of it eventually since he would have realized it would not always be in his custody.

So was he a collector of things?  I thought he was the historian.  There seems to be a big difference between a person collecting historic items and an organizations historian who carries the charge of representing history for that organization. 

I think it true he probably trusted few people with the 1832 account.  I don't know that he ever thought/expected/ or hoped it would be out there for anyone's consumption.  It seems he simply didn't trust the masses to me.