New First Vision Video

[Atheist Mormon]

On 3/4/2017 at 6:59 PM, Freedom said:

Why would the authors of the gospels wait 30 or more years to write their testimonies? 

Very astute observation.....Of course fundamentalist Christians who are quick to accuse Joseph of embellishment plead amnesia when somebody points out to them discrepancies of 4 Gospels. 

Anyway....The green color of the movie (in the beginning) is very impressive. I have a wonderful memory of my mother, when I took her to First Vision screening in 1990 (or so), she was visiting from Europe, she just loved it...She had no doubt the event had transpired the way it was depicted......

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

His family being journal writers presents us with the issue that his family did not record a first hand hearing of his First Vision account. And even when his mother writes his history after his death, Lucy Mack Smith also omits the First Vision and speaks of, at most, only angelic appearances.

I do understand that the narrative then was not the narrative we have now. Historical revision almost inevitably refashions old product and evidence into a new shape in order to fit the current needs.

It is possible that the vacuum created by the current absence of spiritualism of the Smiths' time--something that we relate with much less today--is now filled by The-First-Vision-as-Seminal-Event today.  Back then, spiritual experiences and second sight were much more commonplace. I can imagine that the First-Vision-for-us was even redundant to most early followers then. They were already immersed in what they believed was spiritual revival.

Yes.  When we approach the issue in this manner, we do much less violence to actual history.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

It's citing a member of the 70.  It shows that even in the 1950's, some in church leadership didn't want to accept the 1832 account.  It took the church until the 1970's to publicly acknowledge the 1832 account.  

That may all be true, but it isn't a reply to what was said and which you were supposedly replying to.  You need to at least acknowledge that the other guy has a valid point.  Among professional historians, the opinion of a member of the Seventy is irrelevant.  If your only objective is anti-Mormon tirade, perhaps this is the wrong board for you.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I stopped holding JS to a high standard once I realized he married 14-year-old teenage girls and married other men's wives...

When have you ever evinced high standards on this board?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Perhaps it is because some of my interaction is with less active members.  The fact that you point out that "hardly any members actually know of such variations" is troubling because it can cause them a great amount of difficulty once they realize the narrative they were taught their entire life is, in fact, not what it is or seems to be.  

Most people have more important things to do than debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  They have education, jobs, children, etc., which take the bulk of their time.

Naturally, if you hang out with the anti-Mormon crowd, you will hear a litany of excuses from them about why they left -- much of it gleaned from anti-Mormon publications which they read after the fact of their apostasy for emotional reasons.  They are uninterested in hearing both sides of any argument, because then they might lose face in having to admit that they were wrong.  The dilemma for them is real.  They have abandoned the true faith for largely personal reasons, and they must justify that or feel like fools.  The same pattern is played out among former Protestant and Catholic Christians, and with the same sad results -- not realizing that they have gulped down fake facts about the Bible and history, jettisoning any connection with reality.

[Ouagadougou]

59 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That may all be true, but it isn't a reply to what was said and which you were supposedly replying to.  You need to at least acknowledge that the other guy has a valid point.  Among professional historians, the opinion of a member of the Seventy is irrelevant.  If your only objective is anti-Mormon tirade, perhaps this is the wrong board for you.

My objective isn't to go on an "anti-Mormon tirade," I just came to a different conclusion with regard to trying to reconcile the various first vision accounts.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

45 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most people have more important things to do than debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  They have education, jobs, children, etc., which take the bulk of their time.

Naturally, if you hang out with the anti-Mormon crowd, you will hear a litany of excuses from them about why they left -- much of it gleaned from anti-Mormon publications which they read after the fact of their apostasy for emotional reasons.  They are uninterested in hearing both sides of any argument, because then they might lose face in having to admit that they were wrong.  The dilemma for them is real.  They have abandoned the true faith for largely personal reasons, and they must justify that or feel like fools.  The same pattern is played out among former Protestant and Catholic Christians, and with the same sad results -- not realizing that they have gulped down fake facts about the Bible and history, jettisoning any connection with reality

There are people who spiral into a faith crisis primarily or soley due to historical issues. I am one of them. Here is a collection of stories of individuals' faith crisis. Some of them come in response to deeply studying Mormon history. These are outstanding Mormons with firm testimonies and fruits of faith prior to their faith crisis.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FaithCrisisStoriesMD.pdf

Edited March 6, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Ouagadougou]

59 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When have you ever evinced high standards on this board?

I have never claimed to be a shining example, especially since I openly drink tea, which many Mormons do not like. 😀

[Ouagadougou]

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most people have more important things to do than debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  They have education, jobs, children, etc., which take the bulk of their time.

Naturally, if you hang out with the anti-Mormon crowd, you will hear a litany of excuses from them about why they left -- much of it gleaned from anti-Mormon publications which they read after the fact of their apostasy for emotional reasons.  They are uninterested in hearing both sides of any argument, because then they might lose face in having to admit that they were wrong.  The dilemma for them is real.  They have abandoned the true faith for largely personal reasons, and they must justify that or feel like fools.  The same pattern is played out among former Protestant and Catholic Christians, and with the same sad results -- not realizing that they have gulped down fake facts about the Bible and history, jettisoning any connection with reality.

Trust me...I know...I have kids of my own...

I don't hang out or interact with just an "anti-Mormon" crowd.  I have very active friends/family members, along with less active and even those that left the church.  Many of my friends are not even LDS and are either atheists or members of another church.  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Not a bias -- I just don't hold him to a high standard as somebody with "high moral character" in some areas.  He was a very polarizing individual, IMO. I think he was a brilliant person and a master at remixing, especially at remixing masonry and religion.   

This now shows that your issue with the various First Vision accounts is based on a preexisting moral bias and not an objective high-quality historical study, which is also clearly betrays a bias. As with with these other sidetracks.

[hope_for_things]

On 3/4/2017 at 5:09 PM, Ouagadougou said:

https://history.lds.org/story/first-vision?lang=eng

I'm sure some have seen this already, but the church released a new first vision video (see link above).  

A few questions came up after I watched this video:

- 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)?  

Joseph Smith History 
Chapter 1:

 "19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches

Finally, the article below, IMO, highlights many of the problems with the first vision accounts.  How do you make the different accounts harmonize, given the many inconsistencies?  

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

 

I find the evolution of the first vision narrative and its importance in contemporary Mormonism to be a fascinating study.  I first saw the new video in the recently renovated Church History Museum.  A few thoughts that I have on this subject.    

1.  The way we use the first vision narrative today is much different than how it was used in the early church.  We use it as proof of the divinity of the mission of Joseph Smith, and the first event to usher in the restoration.  Early church members would not have understood the vision in these same terms.  Visions like Joseph had were common place, there are multiple accounts of similar experiences throughout the burnt-over district.  This was not a unique experience, this was a common experience, and one that Joseph was earlier criticized for not having a "Christian experience".  For a very interesting treatment of this subject, I suggest reading Richard Van Wagoner's new book "Natural Born Seer".  

2.  Joseph borrowed from the accounts of others, Richard Bushman agrees with this, so the question is what elements were borrowed/embellished, and what were unique.  I think we should rely on the 1832 account which is the first and only account in Joseph's hand writing.  Joseph prayed to receive a forgiveness of sins.  The story about darkness surrounding him and binding his tongue isn't there, the story about God telling him other churches weren't true isn't there, the persecution narrative didn't exist.  And his view of deity (one personage) all reflect a less intentionally crafted narrative and more personal experience.  As far as evidence is concerned, these elements should be the first things we look to because of the primacy of this account.  The other elements added should be viewed as potentially embellished and likely borrowed from other narratives or crafted for a specific theological and or institutional purpose.  

3.  Lastly, what is a vision and how does that inform our religious teachings?  I view visionary experiences as profoundly personal and motivational moments for the individuals that experience them.  The early church encouraged people to have their own visionary experiences for precisely this reason, however, when those experiences started to threaten institutional authority, that's exactly when more embellished and dramatic versions of these visions were narrated to try and shore up claims to authority.  To me, this is when these experiences transitioned away from personally motivating and inspiring experiences, to being wielded as weapons of institutional power and authority.  Today, the institution and culture have transitioned away from embracing personal visionary experience, much like many of the religions of Joseph's day that viewed Pentecostal type expressions as excessive.  

 

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

There are people who spiral into a faith crisis primarily or soley due to historical issues. I am one of them. Here is a collection of stories of individuals' faith crisis. Some of them come in response to deeply studying Mormon history. These are outstanding Mormons with firm testimonies and fruits of faith prior to their faith crisis.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FaithCrisisStoriesMD.pdf

But as long as people reveal preexisitng bias and transference, it is pretty clear that crisis begins before an incidental exposure to and engendering of historical questions. There is no question people suffer a crisis over any number of many things, but the last straw is not the root cause. Outstanding Mormons with firm testimonies, especially in their own estimation and in retrospect, may not recognize the escalation of unresolved (denied or unrecognized) issues leading to their succumbing to crisis.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most people have more important things to do than debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  They have education, jobs, children, etc., which take the bulk of their time.

Naturally, if you hang out with the anti-Mormon crowd, you will hear a litany of excuses from them about why they left -- much of it gleaned from anti-Mormon publications which they read after the fact of their apostasy for emotional reasons.  They are uninterested in hearing both sides of any argument, because then they might lose face in having to admit that they were wrong.  The dilemma for them is real.  They have abandoned the true faith for largely personal reasons, and they must justify that or feel like fools.  The same pattern is played out among former Protestant and Catholic Christians, and with the same sad results -- not realizing that they have gulped down fake facts about the Bible and history, jettisoning any connection with reality.

I'd say you have more to learn about the process. Moroni's promise does in fact challenge people to seek a likely emotional response. This type of epistemology is prevalent in Mormonism.

As I said previously in this thread,  an emotional trauma enabled me to think about the truth claims more objectively. Someone once said, "You cannot disbelieve something rationally if you believed emotionally." And there can be an enormous amount of emotional pressure to maintain membership in the Church.

I can honestly say that as an LDS my reflex was to always defend the Church. It took extra effort to deny my bias and endeavor to think critically. And when I did, I discovered where the weaknesses were in my Church testimony (not to be confused with my testimony of Jesus Christ.) For instance,  I came to know that if Joseph Smith were a prophet, than God must allow people who have frequently lied about important things to represent Him in this last dispensation.

Objectively, I knew that the claims of the Restoration hinge on that completely.

(And so my trauma showed me that a person who frequently lies about important things cannot be a prophet. It was both an emotional and intellectual lesson...)

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This now shows that your issue with the various First Vision accounts is based on a preexisting moral bias and not an objective high-quality historical study, which is also clearly betrays a bias. As with with these other sidetracks.

That's not a fair appraisal of the poster's bias. You cannot know when the conclusions were drawn and on what basis. 

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's not a fair appraisal of the poster's bias. You cannot know when the conclusions were drawn and on what basis. 

I think it is, since the poster said, in giving context to his defense in taking issue with Joseph Smith's record-keeping, that he had previously stopped holding Joseph Smith to a high moral standard.

[Benjamin Seeker]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But as long as people reveal preexisitng bias and transference, it is pretty clear that crisis begins before an incidental exposure to and engendering of historical questions. There is no question people suffer a crisis over any number of many things, but the last straw is not the root cause. Outstanding Mormons with firm testimonies, especially in their own estimation and in retrospect, may not recognize the escalation of unresolved (denied or unrecognized) issues leading to their succumbing to crisis.

Sure. However you want to dress it up is fine. I'm saying the root cause can be historical issues. I remember the very first thing that caused me to question was JS' polygamy/polyandry. I got a spiritual witness that tided me over, allowing me to shelve the issue, and it took years for me to build up to my faith crisis after that with the many more historical, doctrinal, and social/policy straws that followed.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Sure. However you want to dress it up is fine. I'm saying the root cause can be historical issues. I remember the very first thing that caused me to question was JS' polygamy/polyandry. I got a spiritual witness that tided me over, allowing me to shelve the issue, and it took years for me to build up to my faith crisis after that with the many more historical, doctrinal, and social/policy straws that followed.

And none of these issues occur in a vacuum. Church history affects doctrine affects policy affects culture affects teachings effects personal experience, which as we know affects history which affects doctrine and so on.

So it is natural that an issue in any part of the process can undermine the others and effectively unravel the system.

It should also be noted how critical the legitimacy of any one major founding event is for Mormonism. Just as many have said from the pulpit: if the BOM is true, then Joseph was a prophet and all the rest is true. But if not, the dominos fall.

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

Ben,

The Coltrin recollection is late, 1883.  http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/ZebC.html

Also, even if that were an accurate representation of what Coltrin thought in 1833, I'm still not sure that it contradicts a modalistic view of the Godhead which is what many scholars believe is most compatible with the early BoM text.  A different form of God, (Father or Son) could have walked through the room at different times, and this is totally consistent with that view of the Godhead.  

 

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Sure. However you want to dress it up is fine. I'm saying the root cause can be historical issues. I remember the very first thing that caused me to question was JS' polygamy/polyandry. I got a spiritual witness that tided me over, allowing me to shelve the issue, and it took years for me to build up to my faith crisis after that with the many more historical, doctrinal, and social/policy straws that followed.

Was "JS' polygamy/polyandry" fundamentally for you a moral / spiritual issue (taking exception to the practices as you understood them) or an historical issue (taking exception to the quality of accounts)?

[Benjamin Seeker]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ben,

The Coltrin recollection is late, 1883.  http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/ZebC.html

Also, even if that were an accurate representation of what Coltrin thought in 1833, I'm still not sure that it contradicts a modalistic view of the Godhead which is what many scholars believe is most compatible with the early BoM text.  A different form of God, (Father or Son) could have walked through the room at different times, and this is totally consistent with that view of the Godhead.  

 

Hope, I think we've talked about this before and I've recognized the lateness of the account, etc. I think if we take JS' 1844 perception of mainstream Christianity as a starting point we can begin to understand the differences JS perceived in his doctrine  vs. general Christianity, which at the least consists of physical separateness in his doctrine vs. his perceived physical oneness in mainstream doctrine (I'll try to do some more reading/research at some point and see if there are any earlier comments that can help push the date of this understanding backward). Using that as a guide, JS' comments recorded by Coltrin and their relationship to the vision take on clear meaning (if they are accurately recorded considering the late date of the recollection). JS specifically pointed out the separate nature of God the Father and the Son as a kind of specialized qualifying truth, and he uses the visions as evidence of said truth.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Was "JS' polygamy/polyandry" fundamentally for you a moral / spiritual issue (taking exception to the practices as you understood them) or an historical issue (taking exception to the quality of accounts)?

Good point. I didn't realize we are working under such precise definitions, and I'm not convinced that other people are debating with such specific categories. Of course, I was troubled with the morality of the issue, but I'm placing this into a general "church history" category in my comments, if that makes sense. To be fair to you and other posters, the discrepancies in the First Vision accounts was never significant in my list of issues. However, the general evolution and editing of narratives and documents by JS has now become an important topic for me.

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Hope, I think we've talked about this before and I've recognized the lateness of the account, etc. I think if we take JS' 1844 perception of mainstream Christianity as a starting point we can begin to understand the differences JS perceived in his doctrine  vs. general Christianity, which at the least consists of physical separateness in his doctrine vs. a his perceived physical oneness in mainstream doctrine. Using that as a guide, his comments recorded by Coltrin and their relationship to the vision take on clear meaning (if they are accurately recorded considering the late date of the recollection). JS specifically pointed out the physically separate appearances as a kind of specialized qualifying truth.

Yeah, I couldn't remember if we'd talked about that Coltrin account before or not, but it did seem familiar.  I think where we differ is on the assumption you're making that the JS of 1844 view of the Godhead is consistent with the Joseph of 1833 view, which I don't believe the evidence supports.

I don't think the late Coltrin account says anything about physicality of these sightings.  Assuming for a moment that Coltrin's late recollection accurately reflects the experience, I think you can read this as being completely consistent with the Lecture's on Faith view of the Godhead, one where Jesus is the a being of tabernacle, and God the Father is being of spirit only.  My challenge to you is to show evidence for a physical God the Father doctrine in the early 1830s.  

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Isn't that assumption the "cousin of presentism" you referred to before, expecting people to do what you would do?

Please consider that there is genuine, legitimate concern over church history.  There are many who started researching in order to bolster their defenses against critics of the Church, only to have their hearts broken and testimonies of the Church shattered.

The "cousin of presentism", that I referred to earlier, is "parochialism".  Which is:

"Parochialism is the state of mind, whereby one focuses on small sections of an issue rather than considering its wider context. More generally, it consists of being narrow in scope. In that respect, it is a synonym of "provincialism". It may, particularly when used pejoratively, be contrasted to universalism. The term insularity (related to an island) may be similarly used."

Ouagadougou's thing about 14-year-old brides is presentism and parochialism.  It is not customary in modern Western culture to give mid-teens like this in marriage, but it was once acceptable, even when it was less common.  As I indicated earlier, my step-mom's marriage at 15 years old (and she could have married at 14 where she was living at the time) was legal with parental permission.  In these modern times, in this Western milieu, it is "horrifying".  Kind of like cold pizza for breakfast to some people.  And a perfect example of presentism.

As for "marrying other men's wives," it is a "bait and switch".  He didn't marry other men's wives, he was sealed to them by their consent, while their earthly marriage remained intact.  As one example we have Orson Hyde, who was married for time to a woman who was sealed to Joseph Smith.  By their consent.  And I am "married to another man's wife" at this time.  Of course, in this instance he is deceased and I am married to her only for time.  The only difference between Joseph Smith, Orson Hyde and myself is that my wife's eternal companion isn't currently in the picture.  And this is where the parochialism comes in.  Ouagadougou, by his own admission (see "Why I continue to go to church"), doesn't have a testimony of Joseph Smith as an actual Prophet, nor of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the authoritative church of Jesus Christ.  I don't know if he has a testimony of Christ as the Redeemer, but this hardly relates to the present discussion.  He doesn't like plural marriage.  He doesn't like how the church treats gays.  he doesn't believe that the Word of Wisdom is divinely sourced.  And it wouldn't stop there.  Abraham deserves scorn for his dismissal of Hagar and her (and his) son Ishmael, and for nearly sacrificing his son Isaac.  Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all despicable for their plural marriage.  It doesn't matter that God apparently commanded, or at the very least, permitted all this shameful behavior, so, it follows that He doesn't exist, and everything we do is nothing more than tradition based in nothing more than our good pleasure.  That some of it might be uplifting is admitted, and he is going to treat it all like a cafeteria, where you take what you like and reject the rest.  But the narrowness of scope, for parochialism in this context, is to consider only those things that one doesn't care for, or that makes one feel uncomfortable, and ignore the fact (or possibility) that what one doesn't like is what God has commanded or permitted, in a literal sense. 

And yes, I do consider that there is a genuine, legitimate concern over church history.  And I sympathize with those who have lost their testimony over their discoveries in Church history.  I don't know what to tell them to assuage their anguish, but I do not have a testimony of Church history.  I have a testimony, through the Spirit, that God lives, Jesus is the Christ, and Joseph Smith was a genuine Prophet of God, charged with authority to restore the Church of Jesus Christ in these latter days.  I wish I could transfer a portion of this testimony to those whose testimonies have become weak, like a Vulcan mind-meld or something like that, but alas it is not possible.  Each person must recharge his or her own testimonial batteries. 

Oh, well, this is quite a threadjack, but Ouagadougou brought it up himself, so there we are.

[Benjamin Seeker]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Yeah, I couldn't remember if we'd talked about that Coltrin account before or not, but it did seem familiar.  I think where we differ is on the assumption you're making that the JS of 1844 view of the Godhead is consistent with the Joseph of 1833 view, which I don't believe the evidence supports.

I don't think the late Coltrin account says anything about physicality of these sightings.  Assuming for a moment that Coltrin's late recollection accurately reflects the experience, I think you can read this as being completely consistent with the Lecture's on Faith view of the Godhead, one where Jesus is the a being of tabernacle, and God the Father is being of spirit only.  My challenge to you is to show evidence for a physical God the Father doctrine in the early 1830s.  

No, I'm with you on God the Father being a personage of Spirit according to 1833 theology. When I say "physically separate" I don't mean two physical beings, I just mean two separate beings, and according to Lectures on Faith one believed to be a physical tabernacle and the other spirit. Spirits appearing in a body-like form have the 1829 precedent in the Brother of Jared's Christ-theophany.

So, I don't think JS' view of the Godhead is the same in 1844 and 1833, but I do think it's very possible that his perception of traditional Christianity's doctrine on the nature of God is the same in 1844 and 1833. Of course, that could be debated, but it's at least a possibility.

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yeah, I couldn't remember if we'd talked about that Coltrin account before or not, but it did seem familiar.  I think where we differ is on the assumption you're making that the JS of 1844 view of the Godhead is consistent with the Joseph of 1833 view, which I don't believe the evidence supports.

I don't think the late Coltrin account says anything about physicality of these sightings.  Assuming for a moment that Coltrin's late recollection accurately reflects the experience, I think you can read this as being completely consistent with the Lecture's on Faith view of the Godhead, one where Jesus is the a being of tabernacle, and God the Father is being of spirit only.  My challenge to you is to show evidence for a physical God the Father doctrine in the early 1830s.  

Also, I should add, now that I've explored the evolving Priesthood narrative in more detail, I find it less likely that the 1832 account represents some kind of misrepresentation of his true First Vision experiences for the benefit of the uninitiated. One of the things that tipped me off is that he included the reception of Priesthood by the ministering of angels in his 1832 history, which was pretty cutting edge doctrine for the time period and wouldn't really get elaborated or preached until later on, which leaves me asking why would he hold back in one area and not another?

Previously I felt more strongly that there may have been an inner circle already talking about the separate nature of God the and the Son prior to the 1832 history, and there is definitely a theological shift between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses' portrayals of God the Father and the Son. However, with more understanding of JS' tendency to let doctrine evolve, I'm coming to see the 1832 history as more likely representing a sincere entry in JS's evolution as opposed to a watered down version for the masses.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker