New First Vision Video

[Calm]

"I did not presume to create some absolute history rules out of thin air, I simply described how his family was and what could be reasonably expected of them"

Lucy is not the entire family, but one individual.  I am the only one among my siblings and my own family that writes in any significant way about the Church.  If the norm of the family were to be taken from my behaviour or my mother's, it would be way, way off.  My mom and I are the odd balls in our families.  I have a feeling that few of Mom's letters are saved.  My writings will only be saved because the board and other venues do it, not because of any effort on my part or my family.

Perhaps I have missed it, but has there been any writings from other members of the family early on?  Anything besides Lucy's 1831 letter or her memoirs that were more or less pushed upon her?

Both my grandmother and my husband's grandmother had visions.  My grandmother claimed an angel visited her in answer to a question troubling her.  It was an important vision to her and altered her life and led to the existence of her family. I know of no written record about that vision. I suspect the only record of my husband's grandmother's vision is in her son's autobiography written 50 years later, though I am not certain it is in there or if it is anyway close to how she would have told the story given how I heard his wife tell it starting from the premise his grandmother was afraid of something rather silly.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

The presentation I referred to in a previous post:

http://www.fairmormon.org/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/2013-joseph-smiths-visions-his-style-and-his-record

"Joseph Smith left a tradition wherein it is clear that he claimed to have experienced a number of divine encounters with heavenly beings. Brodie, Decker, and Hunt would have you believe that any reasonable person, after witnessing these heavenly manifestations, would have run home, grabbed his diary to carefully describe in great detail what he experienced before sprinting from neighbor to neighbor shouting, “Guess what happened to me?” And then after the next heavenly event he witnessed, they demand, he would have done the same thing: “Guess what happened to me this time,” and so on. The best historical evidence demonstrates that this line of thinking concerning Joseph Smith is a defective premise, entirely.

The first point that I wish to make identifies how Joseph Smith reacted to the heavenly visitations in which he participated. I proceed with the supposition that if he truly did have heavenly experiences there would likely be a consistency of principles and procedures that bear the same authentic markers of prophetic figures who preceded him. The abundant documentation from the modern revelations that Joseph received bear that authenticity. Let me illustrate with just a few of many examples of this divine protocol...."

[Meadowchik]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

The norms of his time were the norms...meaning average, even if a majority of people did something, there were still many people who didn't (save for extreme behaviour, which .I am assuming you don't see not journal keeping as).

Even in our world with the ease of computer journaling, days planners, bullet journals, scrap booking, high literacy, and easy and cheap access to pen and paper, do you believe the majority of people keep journals or keep track of their writings effectively?

I have a huge container of my uncle's letters to my mom, he must have written hundreds.  He has been dead for many years, when my mom dies, chances are those letters will be tossed unread because all the ones I have seen have little to no family history value, but are his musings about life and faith and the nature of the Universe.

There may be a nugget of wonder in there, perhaps he shares a religious experience I might value, but the chance of that happening is low enough I likely won't push myself to read them.  He doesn't even engage with what my mom writes, but just navelgazes so I am seriously not interested.

I am not equating Joseph Smith to my uncle, though he equated himself that way in my view at times (he had a bit of a messiah complex).  I am just using him as an example of how things can be lost even if the person journaled.  I can guarantee all the equally numerous letters my mom sent him have gone into landfills, if not by his own hand, those who cleaned out his belongings.  I don't think appealing to norms are that useful unless one establishes the person and those around him abide by them.

A better argument is to point to the obsessive record keeping that took place later, but what do we have of the Smith family pre1832?  Do we have any of Joseph Smith, Sr's writings?  Did he keep a journal?  What do we have of Lucy's writings beyond the memoirs she dictated? late in her life?  What about Joseph's siblings, what writings do we have of theirs?

For patterns of behaviour, I would first look at different time periods in a person's life, including did he do any personal writing that we know of as opposed to dictation?  How were the record keeping behaviour of his family and extended family, especially considering how poor they were through much of the time period and how much they moved around (records get lost in moves, we couldn't find either the marriage or the birth certificate of my mom or the family history book with original writings she put together of her grandparents even though we all saw it before the second to last move)..  I don't think for stuff like journals and personal accounts I would look much at a community unless it was a vast majority characteristic as from what I have seen, early life record keeping---both the writing and the saving---is most influenced by family.  If your parents don't save your letters, school reports, etc., you don't bother to do so either.  My uncle who spent hours every day of his older life writing in journals, letters, and such and trying to get them published, we don't have any of his stuff from his youth (I am the keeper of the records for the extended family, so got everything my grandparents had as well as my parents) or up to his thirties (and I doubt his exwife or his kids do either since they had no contact with him since he decided they had no value in his life back in his thirties).

 

These are all good questions,  and pointing out that some writings could have been lost is valid.

Yet the internal logic of the combined writings we do have and the discrepencies between them already present problems.

I would posit that given the whole of the history we do have, most of us would not let the Smith mythologies make the cut. That is, if we had full disclosure of them all before developing an emotional attachment to the Church. And not because it's fantastic in nature...

(I grew up in the Church...questioning them rationally like I am is only possible because a trauma cut that emotional connection. Being in this place is scary as heck, even if it does seem more clear and correct. )

Edited March 5, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

I think you can get in trouble if you assume your current position is inherently more rational.  I have seen reasonable (in my view) evidence rejected out of hand because it doesn't fit with new assumptions too often.  All positions have emotional biases embedded in them, even if we aren't aware of them.  Better not to elevate your current analysis over your past ones and just treat it as a new perspective that has more value to you now than your old one. 

[CV75]

22 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

- How do you reconcile the differences between the 1832 account and the 1838 account?  (i.e. JS seeing just Christ in 1832; and seeing both Christ and God in 1838)? 

- Why would JS wait 12 years to record such an important event, along with so many varying accounts (the church admits to nine)? 

- Did JS join and/or attend a Methodist church following the 1st vision when he was commanded not to (as stated below)?

How do you make the different accounts harmonize, given the many inconsistencies? 

 

- Both accounts are accurate, and neither is a transcription of what the Lord dictated. In 1832, Joseph at age 26 wrote about what was important and personally meaningful to him; in 1838 he wrote about what would be important to the world as he became more mature and able to deal with the pressures placed upon him, including how many specifics to share about what. Would it be more important and meaningful to you know from the Lord that your sins are forgiven, or that you saw Him and the Father (what are the fundamental principles of the LDS religion?)? We each differ in what is important to us at different stages of life.

- I don’t know why he waited, but more importantly, I don’t know that he did. The varying accounts are covered in lds.org and elsewhere. Better late than never.

- He attended a Methodist congregation. When I was forbidden to have contact with the LDS Church as a teenager, even though I had my own personal revelation that she is true, I attended a weekly youth Bible study/activity as the best (and about the only) religious outlet with which I was comfortable, and which my parents permitted Better to do the best you can with what you’ve got.

I don’t need them to harmonize, but more importantly, I’m not sure they do not harmonize more than they do. Harmony is not necessarily uniformity. Harmony requires differences, as in sounds producing chords and progressions that create beautiful musical compositions.

[dberrie2000]

51 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The eventual Mormon doctrine that the Father and the Son were not one in the trinitarian sense, something that was being discussed as early as 1833-34 (or maybe earlier).

Hi Benjamin:

Could you give us an example? Any reference to the differences were not specifically related to the first vision, that I am aware of.

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you can get in trouble if you assume your current position is inherently more rational.  I have seen reasonable (in my view) evidence rejected out of hand because it doesn't fit with new assumptions too often.  All positions have emotional biases embedded in them, even if we aren't aware of them.  Better not to elevate your current analysis over your past ones and just treat it as a new perspective that has more value to you now than your old one. 

I am fairly certain that I am more rational on it than I was a year or ten or twenty or thirty years ago. Thirty years ago anything impugning Smith's character was immediately rejected...since then as I've become less naive I've developed a higher tolerance for complex explanations.

I do think I learned a whole lot in the intellectual exercise of apologetics, and in fact it has led to where I am now. All that was really needed was trauma cutting off the emotional connection to some extent. I would bet that if I had not thought through things in defending the Church for the vast majority of my life that I would have found a way to reattach myself...Now my intellectual and spiritual development have partnered together so long that the weakest links were well-established. Once broken, it was clear.

 I am glad the Church is becoming more open about its history. Better for people who join to do so with eyes wide open.

[Calm]

But the trauma has more than likely created its own set of emotional connections.  I am just suggesting being cautious in making assumptions about your assumptions.

[Ouagadougou]

20 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Of course they do.  The First Vision is something that one has to take on faith, as Joseph Smith is the only mortal witness to the event.  But applying the logic of since I would do X everyone else who has the same experience, if they are telling the truth about their experience, would do X also, is a formula for much disappointment in life.

It's not the logic of what I would have done; rather, it's the logic that some of the different accounts contradict each other, IMO. 

[Ouagadougou]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A past post of mine on this topic might bear repeating:

As I've indicated several times before in this forum (see here, here and here), as a professionally trained historian, I find nothing odd or troubling whatsoever in the accounts of the First Vision. To paraphrase myself:

Retellings are always tailored to fit a specific audience and a unique narrative context. As a consequence, when multiple accounts of an event exist, as is not infrequently the case, this is a bonus for the historian because such accounts tend to be mutually complementary and help in the construction of a fuller retelling. And it's an added bonus when the accounts don't contain any genuine contradictions or mutually exclusive details because very often they do, though thankfully usually only of the minor kind -- incorrect names and/or discrepancies in age, date, or other numbers, as a few examples.

Over the past decade, much of my research has involved the personal writings of Catholic priests/missionaries serving in the East/Pacific in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. One of the hallmarks of this research has been work with multiple accounts of events. In preparation for the annual arrival of European ships, it was not at all unusual for a single Jesuit priest to compose separate letters or reports for the Society's headquarters in Rome, for the provincial superior in India, and for one or more of his fellow missionaries elsewhere in the East and/or in Europe. These texts would provide a summary of events from the past year, and unsurprisingly they tend to differ strongly in content and degree of detail -- despite in some cases being composed over the course of a single day -- simply because each retelling served a different purpose.

Details included in one letter may not appear at all in another. In other cases, what earns a passing mention in one report forms the central focus in a different report. Retellings of conversations with, for example, local chiefs often differ from one text to the next, not because the priest made up all these accounts but because choosing which parts of a (sometimes long) interaction to report -- and who exactly was involved -- depended on audience and context. Reports to superiors tend to be more cautious and less detailed in some cases than reports to peers. I can think of a few cases where comparing the former with the latter clearly shows how carefully missionaries picked and chose details to give a completely honest report whilst still holding back the more complete picture.

This is what real history looks like, and Joseph's narratives fit perfectly into the pattern. If there is anything even remotely noteworthy about the existence of or the content in the various accounts of the First Vision, it is how consistent and lacking in contradictions they are.

*****

I maintain that there is nothing uniquely or tellingly dissonant about the various First Vision accounts. Consider the following hypothetical (inspired by my own research):

• In 1562 a Jesuit missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the ruler told him that he was happy to have the priest in his island.
• In 1565 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met first one and then another ruler of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; a number of local chiefs were also present during this audience.
• In 1568 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the queen and king of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the king told him that he hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting his island.
• In 1572 the missionary reports that upon having visited a certain Pacific Island he met the rulers of the island in a palace set on 18 poles; the rulers told him that they hadn't been particularly impressed with the Muslim traders who had been visiting their island.

If I were to present the above in a seminar and express concern over the dissonance caused thereby, I would be met with quizzical, probably embarrassed looks. And yet these hypothetical accounts exactly parallel the supposedly difficult-to-reconcile differences in the First Vision accounts.

*****

I personally think we are doing people an enormous disservice -- at minimum, on an intellectual level -- by not pointing out (lovingly and patiently, of course) when their 'historical concerns' are based on false assumptions and/or historiographical naivety.

If the 1st Vision account is so solid and has nothing troubling/conflicting, then why did the church release an entire church essay on this subject, a new video, and mention that there are various accounts?  If it wasn't a problem, then the church wouldn't be focusing on it so much.  The amount of attention the church has given to this subject clearly highlights, IMO, that it is a problem for many because of the discrepancies.  

 

[Ouagadougou]

20 hours ago, Freedom said:

Then I would suggest you consider that Joseph was not you. I am not a journal keeper. Other than my mission, I have recorded perhaps 1,000 words over my life. You see contradiction, historians see normal journal writing. You may be 100% confident that you would not wait 12 years, but you are not the standard. Joseph is. But please explain why the gospels were written so many years later? And why do they 'contradict' according to your standard? Have you read journals of other historical figures? You are setting an impossible standard has not credible value. You would expect someone to record every detail of every event, every time they write about it. I challenge you to find a qualified historian that would agree with you. 

IMO, just mentioning Jesus in one account and then mentioning both God and Jesus in a later account is a pretty big discrepancy, especially with regard to how we understand the godhead.  If the first vision has no discrepancies, then why is the church giving it so much attention?  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_47.pdf

 

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

But Joseph's family were journal writers. His aunt had a near death experience and shared it with others and it was recorded.  It is reasonable to expect a trail more close to when the first vision occured and it is reasonable to expect a certain degree of accuracy in any account. 

It would seem so at first glance, but bear in mind that Joseph was not a journal keeper.  Indeed, what items he did write were nearly illiterate -- as his wife confirmed.  He did improve over the years, it is true, but that only tells us that his development was in process, not complete.  Many of us go through the same progressive sequence into adulthood, becoming more polished with time and experience.  We must not assume what has to be proved.  QED.

Moreover, the argument that an experience will be told in manifold ways is always relevant, as we have found in discussion on this board:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58038-joseph-smith’s-first-vision-accounts-more-mormon-church-suppression-and-cover-up/page__st__120 .

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58691-your-vision-of-the-first-vision/ .

What is even more important, according to cinepro last year (May 3, 2016), was the stark lack of knowledge of the First Vision within and without the LDS faith:

Quote

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.

Presentism often leads us to imagine a past reality which simply did not exist.  We are the victims of a world in which the First Vision is of prime importance.  This was simply not true in Joseph's own time.

[Ouagadougou]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is the problem with presentism -- it assumes (with 100% confidence) that historical events must proceed the way we in modern times want them to, which is contrary to fact.

IMO, the first vision is still a problem for many in and out of the church today, not because of presentism, but because there are discrepancies and major differences in some of the accounts.  Some might might be able to reconcile the differences, while others may not come to the same conclusion.  

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

If the 1st Vision account is so solid and has nothing troubling/conflicting, then why did the church release an entire church essay on this subject, a new video, and mention that there are various accounts?  If it wasn't a problem, then the church wouldn't be focusing on it so much.  The amount of attention the church has given to this subject clearly highlights, IMO, that it is a problem for many because of the discrepancies.  

 

Sometimes people create problems where none exist or more often blow the problem out of proportion.  Most often in my experience this happens because of lack of information, not because of too much...though if tons of info is dropped on one at once and one doesn't have the time to properly weigh it (value to oneself as well as importance to the historical or other narrative), one can be overwhelmed and draw conclusions based on only a superficial understanding of the issues.

It seems rather contradictory to argue there is an issue based on the Church sharing more information.  Is it not possible that the Church wants to resolve imagined or minor issues by promoting better sharing of information?  (They have published multiple accounts in the past, having a permanent obvious presence on its website  as well as covering it in seminary and institute will hopefully draw enough attention to provide people with the information they desire.)

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Benjamin:

Could you give us an example? Any reference to the differences were not specifically related to the first vision, that I am aware of.

I know of two occasions in which Joseph used the physical separate nature of the Father and the Son to contrast his teachings with mainstream Christianity or with some misconception of the nature of God.

Here are some of his comments in 1844 where he charicatures mainstream Christianity's view of God. Notice his empasis on physical oneness.

Quote

Men say there is one God--the Far. Son & the H. G. are only 1 God--it is a strange God any how 3 in 1 & 1 in 3. it is a curious thing any how--Far. I pray not for the world but I pray for those that thou givest me &c &c all are to be crammed into 1 God--it wod. make the biggest God in all the world--he is a wonderful big God--he would be a Giant

The second example comes from the school of prophets and is dated to 1832 or 1833. According to Zebedee Coltrin and another witness, the men participating in the school of the prophets experienced a vision of God the Father and Christ. First they saw Christ walk through the room, and following that, they saw God the Father walk through the room. After the vision, Joseph Smith told the men there,"Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages."

Joseph/Coltrin associated the appearance of two beings with their separate nature and with the knowledge necessary to be an apostle. This very well could imply that others weren't privy to this doctrine at the time or that it was a significant doctrine that set Mormon leadership apart from other religious leaders.

Edited March 5, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

If the 1st Vision account is so solid and has nothing troubling/conflicting, then why did the church release an entire church essay on this subject, a new video, and mention that there are various accounts?  If it wasn't a problem, then the church wouldn't be focusing on it so much.  The amount of attention the church has given to this subject clearly highlights, IMO, that it is a problem for many because of the discrepancies. 

Highlighting "problems" over discrepancies is a very shallow way of creating general problem for others. Because enough interests are irresponsibly misrepresenting the meaning and significance of the various versions out of bias against the faith, the Church is exposing the pseudo-scholarship behind these faulty interpretations so that those who look into the history in good faith have some decent scholarship at their disposal.

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

IMO, just mentioning Jesus in one account and then mentioning both God and Jesus in a later account is a pretty big discrepancy, especially with regard to how we understand the godhead.  If the first vision has no discrepancies, then why is the church giving it so much attention? 

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

IMO, the first vision is still a problem for many in and out of the church today, not because of presentism, but because there are discrepancies and major differences in some of the accounts.  Some might might be able to reconcile the differences, while others may not come to the same conclusion.  

The First Vision has been a "problem" from Day One, for one reason or another. Today, enough interests are irresponsibly misrepresenting the meaning and significance of the various versions out of bias against the faith, and the Church is exposing the pseudo-scholarship behind these faulty interpretations so that those who look into the history ("discrepancies" and all) in good faith have some decent scholarship at their disposal.

Joseph Smith wasn't a historian, and evidently neither are those who get all gummed-up over the history he left.

Edited March 6, 2017 by CV75

[Tacenda]

Has anyone mentioned sleep paralysis, or could Joseph Smith have had a vision and could the vision be just that? Not an actual visit from God/Jesus? 

Or they should call it a visit not a vision, right? ETA: In this article I read a few "visitations vs. visions", so I guess they're called either/or here. http://www.eldenwatson.net/wmsmith.htm

Edited March 6, 2017 by Tacenda

[Freedom]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Those areas of the country where Joseph's family and he lived, among spiritualists who gravitated away from a church home, are the places of this subculture...And instead of addressing what I actually say you're creating strawmen:

I did not say there must be such and such, I spoke about certain expectations NOT being examples of presentism.

I did not presume to create some absolute history rules out of thin air, I simply described how his family was and what could be reasonably expected of them.

Now why would Lucy Mack Smith omit the seminal event of the Restoration from her retelling of his life?

I would suggest you take some history lessons and find out for yourself why such a seminal event would not be mentioned. You say something should have been expected of them, yet you are unable to provide any evidence that they would have behaved as expected. 

[Freedom]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

IMO, the first vision is still a problem for many in and out of the church today, not because of presentism, but because there are discrepancies and major differences in some of the accounts.  Some might might be able to reconcile the differences, while others may not come to the same conclusion.  

Some uneducated and uninformed have problems, but you will not find a single qualified historian that sees a problem. 

[dberrie2000]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I know of two occasions in which Joseph used the physical separate nature of the Father and the Son to contrast his teachings with mainstream Christianity or with some misconception of the nature of God.

Here are some of his comments in 1844 where he charicatures mainstream Christianity's view of God. Notice his empasis on physical oneness.

The second example comes from the school of prophets and is dated to 1832 or 1833. According to Zebedee Coltrin and another witness, the men participating in the school of the prophets experienced a vision of God the Father and Christ. First they saw Christ walk through the room, and following that, they saw God the Father walk through the room. After the vision, Joseph Smith told the men there,"Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages."

Joseph/Coltrin associated the appearance of two beings with their separate nature and with the knowledge necessary to be an apostle. This very well could imply that others weren't privy to this doctrine at the time or that it was a significant doctrine that set Mormon leadership apart from other religious leaders.

Hi Benjamin:

Thanks for the info. I don't see anything definitive within those references that connects tangible differences to the first vision----and a belief in two separate personages differs nothing from Trinitarian theology, that I am aware of.

Trinitarians believe in three distinct personages within the Godhead, for the main. I have heard or read where LDS point out that two different personages constitute a difference to the prevailing theology(Trinitarianism)--but that just is not so, IMO.

Where the LDS differ is not in two distinct personages--but two different Gods--and in the fact the LDS believe both have bodies of flesh and bones. Those differences were not connected to the first vision during Joseph Smith's lifetime.

 

 

 

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Benjamin:

Thanks for the info. I don't see anything definitive within those references that connects tangible differences to the first vision----and a belief in two separate personages differs nothing from Trinitarian theology, that I am aware of.

Trinitarians believe in three distinct personages within the Godhead, for the main. I have heard or read where LDS point out that two different personages constitute a difference to the prevailing theology(Trinitarianism)--but that just is not so, IMO.

Where the LDS differ is not in two distinct personages--but two different Gods--and in the fact the LDS believe both have bodies of flesh and bones. Those differences were not connected to the first vision during Joseph Smith's lifetime.

 

 

 

 

 Obviously, my evidence doesn't deal directly with the first vision.  However, it really can't be mistaken that JS is contrasting Mormon doctrine with a physical oneness of God he perceived in mainstream Christianity in his 1844 caricature. I understand typical trinitarianism, but Joseph seemed to understand mainstream Christianity differently in his critique. The 1833 or 34 school of the prophet is consistent with that perception. I'm sure there's more evidence that could be dug up from Joseph Smith's sermons that would help us more conclusively understand JS' perception.

edit: I'm not sure why that sentence is a different font size and I'm not sure how to fix it from my phone. Sorry.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

IMO, the first vision is still a problem for many in and out of the church today, not because of presentism, but because there are discrepancies and major differences in some of the accounts.  Some might might be able to reconcile the differences, while others may not come to the same conclusion.  

One can choose to make a mountain out of a molehill if they want.  Having reviewed the 3 different version of Paul's visit with Christ in Acts, I don't see much difference between those 3 versions and the First Vision versions.  It is not uncommon for people when they retell an event they don't tell it exactly the same time every time. Often they leave a lot of details out.  I do all the time so I see no reason to bash Joseph for doing what I would do.

[Benjamin Seeker]

 The discrepancies in the First Vision accounts should also be viewed in context with other JS-related narratives that appear to evolve over time as well as his editing of revelations/translations. Here is a quick list off the top of my head:

1. First Vision
2. Priesthood Restoration
3. Aquiring the Gold Plates
4. Editing the Book of Mormon to more clearly reflect JS' understanding of the nature of God.
5. 1838 History of the Church's complete omission of the seer stone.
6. "Reformation" of the churches in original revelation eventually edited out. 

Each of these have been countered with apologetic arguments, some weaker and some stronger, and I think looking for all the angles will help us arrive to the most accurate understanding of JS and early Mormon history. That being said, their collective existence suggests that at the very least, JS' understanding evolved over time, though there is also the possibility that JS elaborated on sincere experiences or fabricated things entirely.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

Some uneducated and uninformed have problems, but you will not find a single qualified historian that sees a problem. 

A member of the 70 thought the 1832 version was a problem in the 1950's.  Back in the 1950's some church leadership did agree with the 1832 account; Elder Young of the 70 said the following in 1957:

"I cannot remember the time when I have not heard the story,.concerning the coming of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith.
I am concerned however with one item which has recently been called to my attention on this matter. There appears to be going about our communities some writing to the effect that the Prophet Joseph Smith evolved his doctrine from what might have been a vision, in which he is supposed to have said that he saw an angel, instead of the Father and the Son. According to this theory, by the time he was inspired to write the occurrence in 1838, he had come to the conclusion that there were two beings.
This rather shocked me. I can see no reason why the Prophet, with his brilliant mind, would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of that eventful day. I can remember quite vividly that in 1915 I had a mere dream, and while the dream was prophetic in nature, it was not startling. It has been long since fulfilled, but I can remember every detail of it as sharply and clearly as though it had happened yesterday. How them could any man conceive that the Prophet, receiving such a vision as he received, would not remember it and would fail to write it clearly, distinctly, and accurately?"

https://ia800801.us.archive.org/20/items/improvementera6006unse/improvementera6006unse.pdf

Improvement Era, June 1957, p 436

And FAIR Mormon states the following about the 1832 account

"Question: Did Joseph Fielding Smith remove the 1832 account of Joseph Smith's First Vision from its original letterbook and hide it in his safe?

It is not known who removed the pages from the book or why, nor is it known when or why they were restored to the book"

It goes on to say at the bottom...

"His curiosity was excited when reading in Roberts' Doc. History reference to 'documents from which these writings were compiled.' Asked to see them. Told to get higher permission. Obtained that permission. Examined the documents. Written, he thought, about 1837 or 1838. Was told not to copy or tell what they contained. Said it was a 'strange' account of the First Vision. Was put back in vault. Remains unused, unknown." [2]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_Joseph_Fielding_Smith_remove_the_1832_account_of_Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision_from_its_original_letterbook_and_hide_it_in_his_safe%3F

It seems it wasn't until the 1960's that church leadership fully admitted to the 1832 account.   

 

[Ouagadougou]

54 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

One can choose to make a mountain out of a molehill if they want.  Having reviewed the 3 different version of Paul's visit with Christ in Acts, I don't see much difference between those 3 versions and the First Vision versions.  It is not uncommon for people when they retell an event they don't tell it exactly the same time every time. Often they leave a lot of details out.  I do all the time so I see no reason to bash Joseph for doing what I would do.

It seems that back in the 1950's, some in the church leadership would have agreed with me that there is no reason why JS, "with his brilliant mind, would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of that eventful day."

https://ia800801.us.archive.org/20/items/improvementera6006unse/improvementera6006unse.pdf