Is this comprehensive?

[CMZ]

https://history.lds.org/article/first-vision-accounts-synthesis?lang=eng

 

It seems like it leaves out where Joseph Smith said that there was a multitude of angels present and also that he was told many more things, and I think there was also an account where he specifically identified the visitors as the Father and the Son.

[Calm]

It does provide links to the four firsthand ones.

 

[JLHPROF]

Seems pretty good to me.
The problem with this issue is it's all about approach.

You compare the Mormonthink anti-Mormon graphic to the Fairmormon apologetic graphic and they show the same information with opposing approaches.
Then there's also the issue of whether to include the second hand accounts of Joseph's story or not.

Honestly, I don't worry too much about this.  I know we were told that all of Mormonism hangs on the first vision.  But it doesn't for me.
I see too many fruits and too many truths.  Honestly I don't care if Joseph made the whole thing up.  What was created from the restoration is 100% heavenly.
 

[CMZ]

Oh, I'm not coming at this from a testimony angle; I just wondered if the account was truly comprehensive.

Edited December 31, 2016 by CMZ

[Buckeye]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Seems pretty good to me.
The problem with this issue is it's all about approach.

You compare the Mormonthink anti-Mormon graphic to the Fairmormon apologetic graphic and they show the same information with opposing approaches.
Then there's also the issue of whether to include the second hand accounts of Joseph's story or not.

Honestly, I don't worry too much about this.  I know we were told that all of Mormonism hangs on the first vision.  But it doesn't for me.
I see too many fruits and too many truths.  Honestly I don't care if Joseph made the whole thing up.  What was created from the restoration is 100% heavenly.
 

Following the same train of thought, do you care whether the BOM was made up too, so long as it is part of the restoration?  

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

Following the same train of thought, do you care whether the BOM was made up too, so long as it is part of the restoration?  

I care as much about its historicity as I do about the historicity of the First Vision.
What is contained in the result is true, regardless of whether the histories of either even are accurate.

[Glenn101]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Honestly, I don't worry too much about this.  I know we were told that all of Mormonism hangs on the first vision.  But it doesn't for me.
I see too many fruits and too many truths.  Honestly I don't care if Joseph made the whole thing up.  What was created from the restoration is 100% heavenly.

All of Mormonism does hang on the reality of the "First Vision," but not on the accounts of the first vision, especially the non-canonical ones. The Holy Ghost is the best resource to obtain information on that reality.

Glenn

 

[sunstoned]

Believe what you want, You have every right to your own beliefs.  What you don't get is your own facts.  Real facts are backed up by real evidence, not feel good feelings.  I'm of the opinion the best way to obtain information is through honest research using legitimate scientific methods. We have a first person account written in Joseph Smith's own handwriting the describes his first vision, and it is not anywhere close to the "official version".

[carbon dioxide]

43 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Believe what you want, You have every right to your own beliefs.  What you don't get is your own facts.  Real facts are backed up by real evidence, not feel good feelings.  I'm of the opinion the best way to obtain information is through honest research using legitimate scientific methods. We have a first person account written in Joseph Smith's own handwriting the describes his first vision, and it is not anywhere close to the "official version".

Are you suggesting that Joseph Smith did not play any role in the 1838 account for example? 

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Believe what you want, You have every right to your own beliefs.  What you don't get is your own facts.  Real facts are backed up by real evidence, not feel good feelings.  I'm of the opinion the best way to obtain information is through honest research using legitimate scientific methods. We have a first person account written in Joseph Smith's own handwriting the describes his first vision, and it is not anywhere close to the "official version".

And?
 

[CMZ]

18 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Believe what you want, You have every right to your own beliefs.  What you don't get is your own facts.  Real facts are backed up by real evidence, not feel good feelings.  I'm of the opinion the best way to obtain information is through honest research using legitimate scientific methods.

Absolutely, that is a good thing to do but it can only take you so far. A lot of people believe things are facts that are not. Human reasoning is awesome and great and wonderful and ordained by God but at some point we need a way to tap into the wisdom of the Infinite.

[cdowis]

19 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 We have a first person account written in Joseph Smith's own handwriting the describes his first vision, and it is not anywhere close to the "official version".

Please give us the link to the "official version"

Please shows us where to find his "own handwriting" version, so that we can compare them.  I assumed that these are the same account.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Please give us the link to the "official version"

Please shows us where to find his "own handwriting" version, so that we can compare them.  I assumed that these are the same account.

 

Here is the Joseph Smith Papers link.  #1 is the original in his handwriting.  #3 is the canonized version.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-first-vision

[cdowis]

53 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

 

Here is the Joseph Smith Papers link.  #1 is the original in his handwriting.  #3 is the canonized version.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-first-vision

Ok, and now what?

Quote

it is not anywhere close to the "official version".

 Basically they are compatible, with each account filling in specific details missing in the other. Each account shows Christ speaking to Joseph Smith about the apostasy -- clearly His church is no on he earth, hypocrisy among the religious leaders,  The first goes into more details of this conversation than the official version.

There are two, in my view, minor contradictions -- his age, and whether he realized that all churches were in apostasy.f  The first is a matter of math, and the second a result of a teenager having conflicting and contradicting thoughts and conclusions.  One day thinking one thing , and the net day coming to the opposite conclusion.

Edited January 2, 2017 by cdowis

[CMZ]

Remember that being in your fifteenth year and being fourteen years old are not necessarily contradictions. After birth but before you actually hit your first birthday you are in your first year. Not sure if that's the contradiction referred to.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/30/2016 at 3:23 PM, CMZ said:

https://history.lds.org/article/first-vision-accounts-synthesis?lang=eng

It seems like it leaves out where Joseph Smith said that there was a multitude of angels present and also that he was told many more things, and I think there was also an account where he specifically identified the visitors as the Father and the Son.

Prof. Steven Harper is one of the best Church historians and teaches at BYU.  He does in this harmonized account what Mormon does with the sources he used to compose the Book of Mormon.  An editor does not include everything.  For example, Harper did not include the angels mentioned in the 1835 account, and you can read all the original accounts by clicking on them at the close of the article.