The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Exiled said:

History interpretation is based on probabilities or percentages of what likely occurred. If you see a couple together all the time and one of them turns up pregnant, one certainly includes the other in the paternity test because it is likely that that person is the father.

As for the incomplete history, one could assume that Joseph Smith was intimately involved in it (a more likely scenario since it involved his personal history directly). It seems more likely still that he stayed involved until abandonment as it was his project to begin with. Nevertheless, it is still possible that he abandoned it and FGW continued on. It just doesn't seem probable that FGW did so without JS knowing about it and authorizing it. Nevertheless, historical analysis is never foolproof imo and people do things different than the usual practice all the time.

But aren't we talking about a couple of hours project since it only involved three pages.  A possible scenario...they took turns writing or copying it for an hour or so, Joseph wandered off to do other things while Williams spent sometime editing it at which time he inserted the comment and then when he was done, the book was put aside and then ignored until the letterbook was decided to be used for copying outgoing letters, at which time it was turned over and the back turned into the front.  

There appears to be no indication the three pages were worked over more than once for the original writing and then once for Williams' editing.

Is there anything in the letterbook or other documented practices that would indicate my scenario is unlikely or less likely than Joseph being in charge of the editing even if it was in Williams' handwriting?

Devoting the book to a completely different purpose seems to convey a dismissal of the history's usefulness or at least a lack of interest.  The history isn't even listed in the index of the book (though that is incomplete, the history was the first thing in the book).

Edited December 7, 2017 by Calm

[stemelbow]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

"There's no reason to assume Joseph told him to do so."

Or perhaps even if Joseph knew it was there.  The letterbook seems to have existed for record keeping purposes as the rest of it was mainly copies of letters.****  If there was no reason for Joseph to consult the attempt at putting together a history, why would he look?  And since he didn't go on to publish the account, is there any evidence indicating he had a reason to look?

We apparently know Oliver used the account, but he used the same age that Joseph referred to elsewhere rather than repeating William's likely error, so that wouldn't have brought Joseph's attention to the insertion.

"Two years later, Oliver Cowdery had Joseph's 1832 history in his possession when he began publishing history of the Church in late 1834 in the Latter-day Saints' Messenger and Advocate. Oliver clearly established Joseph's age as 14 ("the 15th year of his life") during the period of religious excitement (although Oliver ultimately never described the actual First Vision at this time). Once the date of the First Vision was correctly established it remained steady throughout all subsequent recitals as the "15th year" or "age 14.""

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Accounts/1832/Different_age_provided

****Beginning on the recto of the fourth leaf in the front of the book (immediately following the history) are ninety-three pages of copied outgoing letters, dated 14 June 1829 through 4 August 1835, in the handwriting of Williams, JS"

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1#source-note

Well sure, anything is possible.  But that hardly means there is no contradiction between the two accounts as has been alleged.  It's also not likely the Williams just guessed the year, or pretended to know it, or anything.  It's quite likely he got that piece of info from Joseph.  So we can say, "well no other accounts say he was 15, therefore the one account that says 15 is wrong" or we can also say, "it's quite possible that Joseph himself mixed up years, confused the events over time with other events (afterall a vision is a dream and he likely had many dreams and probably many dreams related to his vision/dream)".  It could be if he later wanted to nail down the year, after feeling confused, thought 14 was his age, when it actuality it was 15, 16, or 17.  But we'd never know.  Anything is possible.  

I don't see the reasoning able to dismiss this discrepancy.  Any of course there are other discrepancies to consider anyway.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

But aren't we talking about a couple of hours project since it only involved three pages.  A possible scenario...they took turns writing or copying it for an hour or so, Joseph wandered off to do other things while Williams spent sometime editing it at which time he inserted the comment and then when he was done, the book was put aside and then ignored until the letterbook was decided to be used for copying outgoing letters, at which time it was turned over and the back turned into the front.  

There appears to be no indication the three pages were worked over more than once for the original writing and then once for Williams' editing.

Is there anything in the letterbook or other documented practices that would indicate my scenario is unlikely or less likely than Joseph being in charge of the editing even if it was in Williams' handwriting?

Devoting the book to a completely different purpose seems to convey a dismissal of the history's usefulness or at least a lack of interest.  The history isn't even listed in the index of the book (though that is incomplete, the history was the first thing in the book).

I think the thing is, anything is possible.  But just because it's possible does not make it some sort of fact.  The accounts contradict each other.  There's plenty of ways to theorize why that is.  no one is more right than the other just because.  

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

But aren't we talking about a couple of hours project since it only involved three pages.  A possible scenario...they took turns writing or copying it for an hour or so, Joseph wandered off to do other things while Williams spent sometime editing it at which time he inserted the comment and then when he was done, the book was put aside and then ignored until the letterbook was decided to be used for copying outgoing letters, at which time it was turned over and the back turned into the front.  

There appears to be no indication the three pages were worked over more than once for the original writing and then once for Williams' editing.

Is there anything in the letterbook or other documented practices that would indicate my scenario is unlikely or less likely than Joseph being in charge of the editing even if it was in Williams' handwriting?

Devoting the book to a completely different purpose seems to convey a dismissal of the history's usefulness or at least a lack of interest.

I am not saying yours is not a possible scenario. It is also possible that joseph reviewed what was done and then wandered off as you say. I think it is one of those questions that can't be answered difinitively. In my opinion, I think Joseph Smith probably monitored what FGW did as it was JS's project to begin with. But yours is not out of the question.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

I don't think we know what happened here.  But usually leaders of organizations are consulted in these matters of official histories, especially when it concerns their own personal history.  However, if it is necessary in defending Joseph Smith to say otherwise, then 

The organization consisted of a handful of people with little educational background or experience. You really think that's a fair comparison?

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Whatever the case, I'm feeling more settled in my own ideas previously shared.  The attempts to address this issue by those who are pretending no contradiction are really quite bankrupt. 

Of course, on your last point though, if we are pretending that his scribes are not speaking for him in his writings, then it's not Joseph contradicting himself but one scribe contradicting another.  Either way, I'm happy to note the accounts show contradiction, which was really the point I was commenting on (not that Joseph contradicted himself).  

I think there's a contradiction. The question is its significance and meaning.

 

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The organization consisted of a handful of people with little educational background or experience. You really think that's a fair comparison?

 

Yes, he was the leader, it was his project, and leaders like to be consulted regarding organizational histories, especially founders when speaking of the founding. Sophisticated or not, I think the comparison is reasonable.

I think you are assuming formalism when formalism doesn't matter. Ordinary unsophisticated people, it would seem, like to be involved in telling their own history.

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The organization consisted of a handful of people with little educational background or experience. You really think that's a fair comparison?

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Please explain

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think there's a contradiction. The question is its significance and meaning.

 

I think it's far more about it says rather than whether the nature of the contradictions are significant.  I'm not really concerned with whether it happened, but what does it really entail.  

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Please explain

The evidence is pretty strong that Joseph didn't like writing. Likewise the evidence is overwhelming he didn't exactly want to do histories and preferred others do it for him. This is simply not a person who was carefully putting out a narrative. He was pretty ignorant of history and and was uneducated. If we project expectations of what someone with experience would do onto Joseph Smith I think we're making a questionable hermeneutic decision. The frankly limited record of Joseph's sermons and teachings and the errors in the same strongly suggests we should treat this scribal addition with caution. The assumption that anything written related to Joseph was carefully examined and corrected by Joseph seems to lack any evidence at all and faces considerable evidence against. It's projection pure and simple IMO. The only examples I can think of Joseph doing anything like that are his checking the Book of Mormon for errors for its second edition. For the first edition it's very clear he didn't review and revise. Indeed it appears he spent about 15 minutes total at the print shop and left correcting errors to others.

So the question becomes, given that pattern, why on earth should we assume he treated the 1832 writing differently? This simply isn't an educated 20th century leader carefully checking a project. This is an inexperienced uneducated farmer doing his best to avoid the type of work he didn't like.

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's far more about it says rather than whether the nature of the contradictions are significant.  I'm not really concerned with whether it happened, but what does it really entail.  

I'm not at all sure what you're saying here.

 

[Five Solas]

On 12/5/2017 at 1:14 PM, kiwi57 said:

No. It does not.

And even if it isn't. Do please try to keep your outbursts of anti-Mormon bigotry in check.

No. It does not.

Thank you for accusing me of dishonesty.

I am "obfuscating" nothing. The Jane/Bill analogy illustrates what is or is not a "contradiction." It does not address, and was never intended to address, what might irritate the self-appointed arbiters of other peoples' faith.

On the subject of contradictions, here's one:

1. Sola Scriptura insists that nothing is to be believed if it is not found in the Bible.
2. Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible.

I'm happy to discuss that, if you like. But fanatical shouts of "polytheism" are not going to be entertained in this thread.

A little funny you'd be "happy to discuss" a matter completely off the topic of your thread, kiwi.  Perhaps you've grown bored with it and you're hoping someone will step up & provide you a distraction?  Well, see what I can do...

;0)

But if you did still have some interest, you could address the substance of my post--that Smith's early account is consistent with the Christian understanding of God (expressed as "Trinity") while the latter upends it completely.  Alternatively you could continue to make bald assertions that I'm wrong & I'm a bigot--if you find that easier and more satisfying.  That, and you could play the victim card (imagining yourself accused of "dishonesty" because I told you your Jane/Bill analogy obfuscated the aforementioned fact) and you could also insinuate I make "fanatical shouts"--because our readers will certainly find that persuasive & agree with you wholeheartedly (rest assured at least one of them will). 

One further consideration for you. The rabidly anti-mormon collective known as "Google" defines polytheism as "the belief in or worship of more than one god."  Now, how many gods did Smith claim to see in that later version?  D'oh!  See what they did to you?  Bump. Set. Spike.  Fanatics indeed!  But the real question is, what are you going to do about it?  Orchestrate a boycott, perhaps?  

--Erik

_________________________________________________________

I'll be a pharaoh soon
Rule from some golden tomb
Things will be different then
The sun will rise from here
Then I'll be ten feet tall
And you'll be nothing at all
Sonic reducer, ain't no loser

--Dead Boys, 1977

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, Five Solas said:

A little funny you'd be "happy to discuss" a matter completely off the topic of your thread, kiwi.  Perhaps you've grown bored with it and you're hoping someone will step up & provide you a distraction?  Well, see what I can do...

You will change the subject and refuse to address your own contradictions. That's what you will do.

Indeed, that's what I fully expected you to do. That's why I knew I was safe mentioning it - it has no chance of derailing this thread, because you will run away from it.

Quote

;0)

But if you did still have some interest, you could address the substance of my post--that Smith's early account is consistent with the Christian understanding of God (expressed as "Trinity") while the latter upends it completely.

Joseph's early account, being lighter on details, is compatible with many views. His later account, while remaining fully compatible with the earlier one, is nonetheless more detailed, and therefore is less easily reconciled with quite so many views.

It is, however, fully compatible with the pre-creedal Christian understanding of God held by the earliest Christians and Latter-day Saint Christians.

The "substance" of your post was a thread derail. The question was whether Joseph's First Vision accounts substantially contradicted each other, not whether one or the other of them contradicted trinitarian incoherence.

Quote

  Alternatively you could continue to make bald assertions that I'm wrong & I'm a bigot--if you find that easier and more satisfying.  That, and you could play the victim card (imagining yourself accused of "dishonesty" because I told you your Jane/Bill analogy obfuscated the aforementioned fact)

The accusation is vacuous. The Jane/Bill analogy wasn't talking about theological concepts, but simply logical ones. It "obfuscates" trinitarian theology to exactly the same extent that it "obfuscates" pastry cooking, in that it talks about neither subject. Accusing me of "obfuscating" was and remains dishonest. I invite you to cease from repeating it.

I have no interest in the pointless nonsense that constitutes the rest of your post.

 

Edited December 10, 2017 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

On 12/8/2017 at 8:11 AM, Exiled said:

History interpretation is based on probabilities or percentages of what likely occurred. If you see a couple together all the time and one of them turns up pregnant, one certainly includes the other in the paternity test because it is likely that that person is the father.

As for the incomplete history, one could assume that Joseph Smith was intimately involved in it (a more likely scenario since it involved his personal history directly). It seems more likely still that he stayed involved until abandonment as it was his project to begin with.

You may be shocked to hear this, but I agree with you. (It must be Christmas.) It's entirely reasonable, absent any evidence to the contrary, to assume that Joseph remained involved with the project. What's not reasonable is to try to draw conclusions from that assumption.

People who have examined the original have suggested that the 6 "16th" is or could be a badly written 5. Handwriting is a vanishing art, but it was never a science. To the best I can make out (from only seeing scans) the character looks more like a 6 than a 5 to me, but I'm no expert. The point is that there aren't a lot of serious conclusions that anyone can draw about this.

On 12/8/2017 at 8:11 AM, Exiled said:

Nevertheless, it is still possible that he abandoned it and FGW continued on. It just doesn't seem probable that FGW did so without JS knowing about it and authorizing it. Nevertheless, historical analysis is never foolproof imo and people do things different than the usual practice all the time.

Very true.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/7/2017 at 12:22 PM, stemelbow said:

I think it's a nice try to dismiss the contradiction like this, but it also raises a few other problems.  Perhaps since Joseph's own handwritten version has his scribe insert the year, it is more accurate than the one in which he did not write, years later.  Of course if Joseph objected to the dating offered by his scribe in the '32 account he could have said so and your point would carry at least some weight.  But without it, it's really just an effort to pretend the obvious is not true, which is a really weird way to go about this.  

Whatever the case, I'm feeling more settled in my own ideas previously shared.  The attempts to address this issue by those who are pretending no contradiction are really quite bankrupt. 

Of course, on your last point though, if we are pretending that his scribes are not speaking for him in his writings, then it's not Joseph contradicting himself but one scribe contradicting another.  Either way, I'm happy to note the accounts show contradiction, which was really the point I was commenting on (not that Joseph contradicted himself).  

 

That’s not what I asked. In the future, if you ever bring this up, will you be conscientious and transparent enough to make it clear that the erroneous or inconsistent time frame was written not by Joseph himself but by someone else (Frederick G. Williams) with an interlinear insertion?

[kiwi57]

On 12/8/2017 at 8:30 AM, stemelbow said:

Well sure, anything is possible.  But that hardly means there is no contradiction between the two accounts as has been alleged.  It's also not likely the Williams just guessed the year, or pretended to know it, or anything.  It's quite likely he got that piece of info from Joseph.  So we can say, "well no other accounts say he was 15, therefore the one account that says 15 is wrong" or we can also say, "it's quite possible that Joseph himself mixed up years, confused the events over time with other events (afterall a vision is a dream and he likely had many dreams and probably many dreams related to his vision/dream)".  It could be if he later wanted to nail down the year, after feeling confused, thought 14 was his age, when it actuality it was 15, 16, or 17.  But we'd never know.  Anything is possible.  

I don't see the reasoning able to dismiss this discrepancy.  Any of course there are other discrepancies to consider anyway.  

Between any two authentic accounts of an actual event, there will be discrepancies. The question is whether any of them, or all of them together, are significant enough to have probative value.

The 15th vs. 16th point is real, but undeniably trivial. The question of whether Joseph had already made up his mind that all churches were wrong or if he was still hoping to find the true Church upon the earth somewhere - perhaps outside of his ordinary orbit - is likewise real, but is consistent with normal variations in honest memory over time.

The vastly more important question of how many  beings appeared to Joseph was addressed by me, early in the thread. Nobody has even tried to engage my argument, so I think we can safely say that the Father is present in both accounts.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

You may be shocked to hear this, but I agree with you. (It must be Christmas.) It's entirely reasonable, absent any evidence to the contrary, to assume that Joseph remained involved with the project. What's not reasonable is to try to draw conclusions from that assumption.

People who have examined the original have suggested that the 6 "16th" is or could be a badly written 5. Handwriting is a vanishing art, but it was never a science. To the best I can make out (from only seeing scans) the character looks more like a 6 than a 5 to me, but I'm no expert. The point is that there aren't a lot of serious conclusions that anyone can draw about this.

Very true.

Part of the problem in deciphering the figure is that it is overwritten by the tail of the letter y written just above it. 

Thing is, this whole matter is so trivial and fraught with problems in interpretation that the fact the faultfinders are making such an issue of it is rather telling. That is to say, if this is the best instance they can come up with of a “contradiction,” it’s safe to assume there are no contradictions of any great substance or moment. 

And to reiterate, a variation in presentation does not equal a contradiction. 

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Between any two authentic accounts of an actual event, there will be discrepancies. The question is whether any of them, or all of them together, are significant enough to have probative value.

The 15th vs. 16th point is real, but undeniably trivial. The question of whether Joseph had already made up his mind that all churches were wrong or if he was still hoping to find the true Church upon the earth somewhere - perhaps outside of his ordinary orbit - is likewise real, but is consistent with normal variations in honest memory over time.

The vastly more important question of how many  beings appeared to Joseph was addressed by me, early in the thread. Nobody has even tried to engage my argument, so I think we can safely say that the Father is present in both accounts.

And J. B. Jaws, in the link I cited earlier, pretty much neutralized the argument about whether Joseph contradicted himself on the matter of concluding beforehand that all existing churches were wrong. 

[Five Solas]

22 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

You will change the subject and refuse to address your own contradictions. That's what you will do.

Indeed, that's what I fully expected you to do. That's why I knew I was safe mentioning it - it has no chance of derailing this thread, because you will run away from it.

Joseph's early account, being lighter on details, is compatible with many views. His later account, while remaining fully compatible with the earlier one, is nonetheless more detailed, and therefore is less easily reconciled with quite so many views.

It is, however, fully compatible with the pre-creedal Christian understanding of God held by the earliest Christians and Latter-day Saint Christians.

The "substance" of your post was a thread derail. The question was whether Joseph's First Vision accounts substantially contradicted each other, not whether one or the other of them contradicted trinitarian incoherence.

The accusation is vacuous. The Jane/Bill analogy wasn't talking about theological concepts, but simply logical ones. It "obfuscates" trinitarian theology to exactly the same extent that it "obfuscates" pastry cooking, in that it talks about neither subject. Accusing me of "obfuscating" was and remains dishonest. I invite you to cease from repeating it.

I have no interest in the pointless nonsense that constitutes the rest of your post.

 

Appreciate you acknowledging the substance of the previous post, kiwi. 

And in hindsight, I regret my choice of the word "obfuscates" to describe your analogy.  And while I never think an obfuscating or otherwise bad analogy makes a dishonest or otherwise bad person--I can understand how it could be understood as insinuation of such.  So please accept my apology. 

But I will defend comparing & contrasting Joseph Smith's competing "First" visions with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity--because I think it really does illuminate an important way in which the versions differ from, and yes--contradict each other.  I observe in Smith's early writings real care in not contradicting the Trinity.  And even when the Book of Mormon (an example of an early writing) slips into the heresy of Modalism (Mosiah 15)--it seems likely (to me at least) that Smith had a careless moment--rather than intended to make an important theological point for his followers to adhere to. 

It's several years later that Smith stops tip-toeing around Christian sensibilities and comes out explicitly in favor of multiple Gods (what our definition-writing friends at Google call "polytheism").  We see this most jarringly in the Book of Abraham with its rewrite of the Genesis account--and yes, we see it in the later, canonized version of the First Vision.  That's why my point is relevant.  That's why your latest "pastry cooking" analogy fails.  Now why Smith avoids contradicting the Trinity in his early writings, then changes his mind and does so blatantly with his later ones--I have no idea.  But it's an interesting fact from his record to consider, is it not?

LDS don't seem to appreciate the very notion of theology.  I'm lazy or I'd dig up and link a few threads where LDS deny even having a theology, systematic or otherwise--just to illustrate my point.  So my using a theological point to demonstrate inconsistency between the vision versions must be tedious in the extreme to some of our readers here.  I get that.  But here's something fun that you'd miss completely if you turn a blind eye to theological distinctive.  As a New Zealander, I'm guessing you have access to plenty of BBC programing.  And that includes their brilliant reboot of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, staring Benedict Cumberbatch.  And it also includes a very different but no less compelling (in my mind) reboot of G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown, staring Mark Williams as the crime solving priest.  By now you may be tempted to roll your eyes and respond with something snarky--but stay with me.  You can't fully understand these contradictory characters (Holmes and Brown) without understanding the theology behind them.  You see, the Catholic Chesterton wrote Brown as a rebuttal to the Protestant Holmes.  Now, doesn't knowing that expand your perspective and make you appreciate their respective works more?  Aren't you glad you took the trouble to consider them--through the lens of theology?  That's really all I'm asking you to do with regards to Smith's early and later writings, including his vision versions. 

:0)

And now, just to be an obstinate contrarian and prove you wrong, I will address the very thing you said I wouldn't do.  Your claim--"Sola Scriptura insists that nothing is to be believed if it is not found in the Bible"--is wrong.  I went round & round with another LDS poster on another thread over this very issue.  She had a curious little straw-man in her head she was certain would be the doctrine's undoing.  Here it is for your benefit (skip to my third paragraph if you're pressed for time).  Afraid she may have come away disappointed.  But feel free to respond here, if you wish.  Just don't say I ignored you. 

--Erik 

___________________________________________________________

Oh it's a mighty rough road from Lynchburg to Danville
For the line has a three-mile grade
It was on that grade that he lost his airbrakes
You can see what a jump that he made.

He was goin' down grade makin' 90 mile an hour
When the whistle broke into a scream!
He was found in the wreck with his hand on the throttle
All scalded to death by the steam

--Vernon Dalhart, 1924

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate you acknowledging the substance of the previous post, kiwi. 

And in hindsight, I regret my choice of the word "obfuscates" to describe your analogy.  And while I never think an obfuscating or otherwise bad analogy makes a dishonest or otherwise bad person--I can understand how it could be understood as insinuation of such.  So please accept my apology. 

 Apology accepted.

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

But I will defend comparing & contrasting Joseph Smith's competing "First" visions with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity--because I think it really does illuminate an important way in which the versions differ from, and yes--contradict each other.

Do you?

If the First Vision accounts (scare quotes not needed for those discussing the matter in good faith) contradict each other, then they contradict each other without having to shore up the argument by dragging in external factors, because (and I grow weary of repeating myself) that's what contradiction entails.

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

  I observe in Smith's early writings real care in not contradicting the Trinity.  And even when the Book of Mormon (an example of an early writing) slips into the heresy of Modalism (Mosiah 15)--it seems likely (to me at least) that Smith had a careless moment--rather than intended to make an important theological point for his followers to adhere to. 

One of the features of a discussion in good faith is that one does not attempt to smuggle one's own assumptions into the discussion and then appeal to them as if they were accepted facts. Joseph always insisted that he didn't write the Book of Mormon; and so did absolutely every one of the people who were in a position to plausibly claim first-hand knowledge of the events surrounding its coming forth.

The Book of Mormon is not one of Joseph's early writings. Nor is it one of his late writings. Its contents represent no ideas of his, because it is simply not his writing.

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon doesn't contradict Protestant theology largely because it is not a book of theology. It is a book of stories, and the people who lived and recorded those stories understood God in terms of how He impacted their lives, not in terms of speculative creedal formulations. As a Protestant - and apparently a rather rigid and dogmatic one - you judge everyone by how they relate to your theology. (You can't very well judge them by their works, as God does, because that would be "works-righteousness," the greatest and most scandalous heresy in the Protestant edition of Malleus Maleficarium.) Apparently everyone who believes as you do is good, and everyone who doesn't will spend all eternity as guests of honour at their own barbecue; and serves them right, too. So since the Book of Mormon doesn't throw creedal Protestantism under the bus, you're fine with that. But that simply demonstrates how you allow your assumptions to control your conclusions even before the evidence is examined.

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

It's several years later that Smith stops tip-toeing around Christian sensibilities and comes out explicitly in favor of multiple Gods (what our definition-writing friends at Google call "polytheism").  We see this most jarringly in the Book of Abraham with its rewrite of the Genesis account--and yes, we see it in the later, canonized version of the First Vision.  That's why my point is relevant.  That's why your latest "pastry cooking" analogy fails.

Actually it is your long and rather laboured argument that fails. You assume that my analogy fails only because you fundamentally don't understand it; evidently you are too busy trying to push your own barrow to bother to even try.

My "Bill and Jane" analogy didn't talk about theology, or pastry cooking. It talked about logic only. It explored what a contradiction is and how to recognise one. To assert that there's a contradiction because the 1832 First Vision account is all good from a creedal Protestant perspective while the 1838/9 account is not, is to privilege your rather incoherent creed and make it the measure of all things. But even if I were so easily bamboozled as to accept that silly assertion, your argument would still fail, because that's still not what a contradiction is.

To discover if there is a contradiction between the two accounts, we must only ask ourselves two questions, to wit:

1. If the 1832 account is true, what is there in the 1838/9 account that must be false?
2. If the 1838/9 account is true, what is there in the 1832 account that must be false?

That's how you detect a contradiction. Not by blowing theological smoke in our eyes and trying to pull a fast one.

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

 Now why Smith avoids contradicting the Trinity in his early writings, then changes his mind and does so blatantly with his later ones--I have no idea.  But it's an interesting fact from his record to consider, is it not?

A fact? No, it's not.

It's an assumption derived from your ideology, and nowhere else. Once again, you've tried to smuggle your own assumption into the discussion, and this time, the attempt was clearly a conscious one.

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

LDS don't seem to appreciate the very notion of theology.  I'm lazy or I'd dig up and link a few threads where LDS deny even having a theology, systematic or otherwise--just to illustrate my point.  So my using a theological point to demonstrate inconsistency between the vision versions must be tedious in the extreme to some of our readers here.  I get that.  But here's something fun that you'd miss completely if you turn a blind eye to theological distinctive.  As a New Zealander, I'm guessing you have access to plenty of BBC programing.  And that includes their brilliant reboot of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, staring Benedict Cumberbatch.  And it also includes a very different but no less compelling (in my mind) reboot of G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown, staring Mark Williams as the crime solving priest.  By now you may be tempted to roll your eyes and respond with something snarky--but stay with me.  You can't fully understand these contradictory characters (Holmes and Brown) without understanding the theology behind them.  You see, the Catholic Chesterton wrote Brown as a rebuttal to the Protestant Holmes.

Did he?

I wonder if he was ignorant of the fact that Arthur Conan Doyle was a Catholic? (He became a spiritualist later in life, of course, but he was a Catholic first.)

Fun fact: I read all of the Sherlock Holmes short stories - every last one of them - more than once, before my 13th birthday. Holmes is in no sense a "Protestant." He's not remotely religious at all, and in fact has practically nothing to say about religion. You can claim him as a Protestant if you want; he could just as easily be claimed as a Hindu, for all that he ever says or does to disprove the claim. It's rather hard to contradict Protestant theology when one doesn't discuss it at all.

On your logic, you might as well claim a knitting pattern as a Protestant writing because nothing in it contradicts any Protestant ideas.

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

  Now, doesn't knowing that expand your perspective and make you appreciate their respective works more?  Aren't you glad you took the trouble to consider them--through the lens of theology?

Not really, no.

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

  That's really all I'm asking you to do with regards to Smith's early and later writings, including his vision versions. 

My starting point will be to accept as Joseph's "early and later writings" those that he claims for himself, not including his translations.

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

:0)

And now, just to be an obstinate contrarian and prove you wrong, I will address the very thing you said I wouldn't do.  Your claim--"Sola Scriptura insists that nothing is to be believed if it is not found in the Bible"--is wrong.  I went round & round with another LDS poster on another thread over this very issue.  She had a curious little straw-man in her head she was certain would be the doctrine's undoing.  Here it is for your benefit (skip to my third paragraph if you're pressed for time).  Afraid she may have come away disappointed.  But feel free to respond here, if you wish.  Just don't say I ignored you.

No, you tried to change the subject. The "historical context" has nothing to do with whether Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory.

Here's how your buddies at Wikipedia define it:

Quote

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.

Now: is Sola Scriptura found in the Bible? If so, then it's at least a little bit circular; but if not, then it negates itself. If the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, and Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible, then Sola Scriptura cannot be accepted as a rule of faith.

You see, that's what a contradiction is.

Going forward: Joseph Smith demonstrated his sincerity far more convincingly than you have: he laid down his life instead of walking away. Such a demonstration of sincerity deserves a degree of respect which you have hitherto not shown. So I'll thank you to no longer casually assume that he just made it all up. Instead, we shall continue the discussion by accepting, as a starting point, that Joseph wrote what he said he wrote, translated what he said he translated, and saw what he said he saw.

Unless, of course, you happen to have done what none of your predecessors ever has, and actually produce evidence to the contrary. (FYI: Your Protestant dogma is not evidence.)

[Five Solas]

19 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

 Apology accepted.

Do you?

If the First Vision accounts (scare quotes not needed for those discussing the matter in good faith) contradict each other, then they contradict each other without having to shore up the argument by dragging in external factors, because (and I grow weary of repeating myself) that's what contradiction entails.

One of the features of a discussion in good faith is that one does not attempt to smuggle one's own assumptions into the discussion and then appeal to them as if they were accepted facts. Joseph always insisted that he didn't write the Book of Mormon; and so did absolutely every one of the people who were in a position to plausibly claim first-hand knowledge of the events surrounding its coming forth.

The Book of Mormon is not one of Joseph's early writings. Nor is it one of his late writings. Its contents represent no ideas of his, because it is simply not his writing.

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon doesn't contradict Protestant theology largely because it is not a book of theology. It is a book of stories, and the people who lived and recorded those stories understood God in terms of how He impacted their lives, not in terms of speculative creedal formulations. As a Protestant - and apparently a rather rigid and dogmatic one - you judge everyone by how they relate to your theology. (You can't very well judge them by their works, as God does, because that would be "works-righteousness," the greatest and most scandalous heresy in the Protestant edition of Malleus Maleficarium.) Apparently everyone who believes as you do is good, and everyone who doesn't will spend all eternity as guests of honour at their own barbecue; and serves them right, too. So since the Book of Mormon doesn't throw creedal Protestantism under the bus, you're fine with that. But that simply demonstrates how you allow your assumptions to control your conclusions even before the evidence is examined.

Actually it is your long and rather laboured argument that fails. You assume that my analogy fails only because you fundamentally don't understand it; evidently you are too busy trying to push your own barrow to bother to even try.

My "Bill and Jane" analogy didn't talk about theology, or pastry cooking. It talked about logic only. It explored what a contradiction is and how to recognise one. To assert that there's a contradiction because the 1832 First Vision account is all good from a creedal Protestant perspective while the 1838/9 account is not, is to privilege your rather incoherent creed and make it the measure of all things. But even if I were so easily bamboozled as to accept that silly assertion, your argument would still fail, because that's still not what a contradiction is.

To discover if there is a contradiction between the two accounts, we must only ask ourselves two questions, to wit:

1. If the 1832 account is true, what is there in the 1838/9 account that must be false?
2. If the 1838/9 account is true, what is there in the 1832 account that must be false?

That's how you detect a contradiction. Not by blowing theological smoke in our eyes and trying to pull a fast one.

A fact? No, it's not.

It's an assumption derived from your ideology, and nowhere else. Once again, you've tried to smuggle your own assumption into the discussion, and this time, the attempt was clearly a conscious one.

Did he?

I wonder if he was ignorant of the fact that Arthur Conan Doyle was a Catholic? (He became a spiritualist later in life, of course, but he was a Catholic first.)

Fun fact: I read all of the Sherlock Holmes short stories - every last one of them - more than once, before my 13th birthday. Holmes is in no sense a "Protestant." He's not remotely religious at all, and in fact has practically nothing to say about religion. You can claim him as a Protestant if you want; he could just as easily be claimed as a Hindu, for all that he ever says or does to disprove the claim. It's rather hard to contradict Protestant theology when one doesn't discuss it at all.

On your logic, you might as well claim a knitting pattern as a Protestant writing because nothing in it contradicts any Protestant ideas.

Not really, no.

My starting point will be to accept as Joseph's "early and later writings" those that he claims for himself, not including his translations.

No, you tried to change the subject. The "historical context" has nothing to do with whether Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory.

Here's how your buddies at Wikipedia define it:

Now: is Sola Scriptura found in the Bible? If so, then it's at least a little bit circular; but if not, then it negates itself. If the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith, and Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible, then Sola Scriptura cannot be accepted as a rule of faith.

You see, that's what a contradiction is.

Going forward: Joseph Smith demonstrated his sincerity far more convincingly than you have: he laid down his life instead of walking away. Such a demonstration of sincerity deserves a degree of respect which you have hitherto not shown. So I'll thank you to no longer casually assume that he just made it all up. Instead, we shall continue the discussion by accepting, as a starting point, that Joseph wrote what he said he wrote, translated what he said he translated, and saw what he said he saw.

Unless, of course, you happen to have done what none of your predecessors ever has, and actually produce evidence to the contrary. (FYI: Your Protestant dogma is not evidence.)

Well, I have to admit I didn't expect to have to come back to defend the respective theologies seen in Holmes vs. Brown.  I certainly wasn't making this up, you can learn a bit more from the wikipedia page on Father Brown, if you're interested.  I obviously like this sort of thing--as I'm sure you can tell.  Whether it was really worth the sentences I devoted to it in the previous post, I leave to our readers to decide.       

You're a bit harsh, kiwi.  When I put quotes around "first" in the third (or was it fourth?) First Vision account--it's not "scare quotes" indicative of bad faith.  It's merely to acknowledge that there's at least a little humor to be found in all these multiple firsts--spanning a decade, with all their improbably greater depth of recollection & detail as the years go by.  You can see at least a little humor there, can't you? 

And your arguments concerning Sola Scriptura--I don't see you saying anything Jane_Doe didn't previously argue (see my previous link).  It's funny to me (and perhaps to other readers as well) how you refuse to look at anything in its context, whether we're talking about Smith's writings (yes, I'm going to keep calling them that--because that's what I'm persuaded they are) vis-a-vis the Trinity or Sola Scriptura vis-a-vis the Magisterium.  Insisting on looking at things in isolation is what allows you to claim there's contradiction in the case of the latter but no contradiction in the case of the former.  Only by ignoring context can you win your arguments.  But it isn't helpful and it doesn't further anyone's understanding of the real questions/issues, in my opinion. 

Afraid we've taken this about as far as we can and we'll just have to agree to disagree, for now. 

:0)

--Erik

[Calm]

I was not personally impressed by the Mark Williams' version of Father Brown.  While Father Brown was a rational thinker, he was  profoundly devoted Catholic  and the stories were full imo of respect for the Catholic faith.  Chesterton' stories were in part a gentle way of defending the Faith.  Otoh, in the series, iirc, there were a number of immoral or unethical priests, most concerned with personal advancement or worse, the only other decent priest that I can remember leaves the priesthood.  Mark Williams' Brown's Catholic faith seems to be more of all are equally valid as well, I am not that familiar with day to day life, but William's comes across like a generic minister to me save for his defense of the confessional.

I have no clue if I am correct, but it came across as Catholicism written by nonCatholics...lower priests are viewed as "nice" people, but any with a bit of power are not to be the least trusted and their faith is all out show and looking good for others at best.

The books on the other have show a deep respect of the faith and the organization.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Calm

[kiwi57]

15 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Well, I have to admit I didn't expect to have to come back to defend the respective theologies seen in Holmes vs. Brown.  I certainly wasn't making this up, you can learn a bit more from the wikipedia page on Father Brown, if you're interested.  I obviously like this sort of thing--as I'm sure you can tell.  Whether it was really worth the sentences I devoted to it in the previous post, I leave to our readers to decide.  

Wikipedia reports that an Italian Marxist thought Holmes was a "Protestant" in quotes because of the way he starts from physical evidence, etc. Colour me unimpressed.

15 hours ago, Five Solas said:

You're a bit harsh, kiwi.  When I put quotes around "first" in the third (or was it fourth?) First Vision account--it's not "scare quotes" indicative of bad faith.  It's merely to acknowledge that there's at least a little humor to be found in all these multiple firsts--spanning a decade, with all their improbably greater depth of recollection & detail as the years go by.  You can see at least a little humor there, can't you? 

I can certainly see how someone to whom nothing is sacred would have no trouble at all mocking matters that are sacred to others.

The First Vision refers to an event. That there are multiple accounts of this event is not remotely surprising, and the fact that those accounts weren't all issued at exactly the same time is as trivially obvious as it is irrelevant.

15 hours ago, Five Solas said:

And your arguments concerning Sola Scriptura--I don't see you saying anything Jane_Doe didn't previously argue (see my previous link).  It's funny to me (and perhaps to other readers as well) how you refuse to look at anything in its context,

I don't "refuse to look at anything in its context." I refuse to be distracted by verbal legerdemain masquerading as "context." There's a difference.

15 hours ago, Five Solas said:

whether we're talking about Smith's writings (yes, I'm going to keep calling them that--because that's what I'm persuaded they are) vis-a-vis the Trinity or Sola Scriptura vis-a-vis the Magisterium.  Insisting on looking at things in isolation is what allows you to claim there's contradiction in the case of the latter but no contradiction in the case of the former.  Only by ignoring context can you win your arguments.  But it isn't helpful and it doesn't further anyone's understanding of the real questions/issues, in my opinion.

Afraid we've taken this about as far as we can and we'll just have to agree to disagree, for now. 

Thank you for your opinion.

Your "argument" appears to be that the 1832 account "contradicts" the 1838/9 account because the theology you see in the 1832 account is "compatible" with creedal trinitarianism, while the 1838/9 account is not. That's a shell game, of course, because what little theology there is in the 1832 account is equally compatible with that of the 1838/9 account. To put it another way: what you choose to imagine about the 1832 account contradicts what you choose to imagine about the 1838/9 account. Okay, fine; but that's not a contradiction between the accounts.

Sorry.

I'm not "ignoring context." I'm ignoring irrelevancies. Your imaginings (or to be generous, let us call them interpretations) are extrinsic to the accounts themselves. If you choose to interpret them in ways that make them contradict each other, that is entirely your affair, and has nothing to do with what the accounts actually say. It is also a completely wrong-headed way of interpreting texts.

[Benjamin Seeker]

1829 BOM, vision of God by the Brother of Jared: 1 Person explicitly appears = Christ 

BOM language leans towards trinitarianism or some form of it: Mary the mother of God, Christ is the eternal father and the son, etc.

1830 Book of Moses, vision of God by Moses: 1 Person explicitly appears = Father, also inferred in 1:17 to be the same that called on Moses from the bush, which would be Jehovah, an obvious tension with current LDS theology

1832 First Vision Account: 1 Person explicitly appears = Christ

1832 or 1833 Vision at the school of the prophets: Father and Son explicitly seen, one after the other. Zebedee Coltrin recollects that after seeing the vision, Joseph told them, "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."

1832 (Feb.) Vision of the 3 kingdoms (D&C) 76: Father and Son explicitly seen together, verses 20 & 23 

So, if this timeline is correct, then the ability of the Father to appear separate from Christ had already been established in 1830, making the 1832 account’s 1 personage appearing less theologically significant. While, I see Smith’s theology developing over time, it seems like the theology needed for the 1838 account was  either nearly developed in 1832 or already in place.

However, the Moses stuff was only intended for the inner circle as indicated by the last verse of chapter 1. The school of the prophets vision was also clearly an inner circle event, and JS’ commentary can be interpreted as communicating priveleged information. That could signify contrasting public doctrine vs. inner circle doctrine, which is consistent with JS’ development of doctrine among an inner circle, especially well attested in Nauvoo.

I’d like to know when D&C 76 went public. It was apparently not included in the 1833 Book of Commandments.

If all of the above is more or less accurate, then it could be that the 1832 and 1838 accounts of the first vision are both in accordance to the respective public doctrines at the time they were written, but that doesn’t necessarily reveal anything about the root experience.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

Also, current scholarship has the 1832 history penned sometime in the summer of 1832. Meanwhile the D&C 76 vision, in which Joseph and Sidney behold the Father and the Son separately (though invoking New Testament language from Stephen's vision), occurs and is written in February of 1832 from what I understand. This sequence of documents really complicates a straight forward developing-doctrine theory, meaning a theory that posits that the 1832 and 1838 accounts simply represent conflicting and evolving theology from the respective times of composition.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[blueglass]

On 12/7/2017 at 2:22 PM, stemelbow said:

I think it's a nice try to dismiss the contradiction like this, but it also raises a few other problems.  Perhaps since Joseph's own handwritten version has his scribe insert the year, it is more accurate than the one in which he did not write, years later.  Of course if Joseph objected to the dating offered by his scribe in the '32 account he could have said so and your point would carry at least some weight.  But without it, it's really just an effort to pretend the obvious is not true, which is a really weird way to go about this.  

Whatever the case, I'm feeling more settled in my own ideas previously shared.  The attempts to address this issue by those who are pretending no contradiction are really quite bankrupt. 

Of course, on your last point though, if we are pretending that his scribes are not speaking for him in his writings, then it's not Joseph contradicting himself but one scribe contradicting another.  Either way, I'm happy to note the accounts show contradiction, which was really the point I was commenting on (not that Joseph contradicted himself).  

 

Before the 16th year insert, joseph does give his age.  It's confirmed to be in JS handwriting.  It switches to JS handwriting at the phrase, "The kees of the kingdom of God".  Then Joseph says that by searching the scriptures he found contradictions between how they lived their life and what he found in that "sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind"  Then he becomes distressed, convicted of his sins, and studies the scriptures and discovers the apostasy of all the churches which had departed from the New Testament.  The footnote refers to the disciples of christ group and other primitivists which thinking prevailed at the time.   

[stemelbow]

44 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Before the 16th year insert, joseph does give his age.  It's confirmed to be in JS handwriting.  It switches to JS handwriting at the phrase, "The kees of the kingdom of God".  Then Joseph says that by searching the scriptures he found contradictions between how they lived their life and what he found in that "sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind"  Then he becomes distressed, convicted of his sins, and studies the scriptures and discovers the apostasy of all the churches which had departed from the New Testament.  The footnote refers to the disciples of christ group and other primitivists which thinking prevailed at the time.   

Excellent point.  I think it's also worth pointing out in each of the descriptions it seems obvious Joseph conflates the sequence of events, sometimes gets vague and isn't very concerned with an attempt to describe it with accuracy.  

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

1829 BOM, vision of God by the Brother of Jared: 1 Person explicitly appears = Christ 

BOM language leans towards trinitarianism or some form of it: Mary the mother of God, Christ is the eternal father and the son, etc.

1830 Book of Moses, vision of God by Moses: 1 Person explicitly appears = Father, also inferred in 1:17 to be the same that called on Moses from the bush, which would be Jehovah, an obvious tension with current LDS theology

1832 First Vision Account: 1 Person explicitly appears = Christ

I agree that by 1832 there's two beings seen. Again the idea that only Christ was seen in Joseph's 1832 first vision account is an argument from silence. So I think we have to be careful.

For the earlier accounts, while the Father is talked about he's typically not seen. So 3 Nephi 11 has both father and son but only the son is seen. While the vision of Moses in Moses 1 only sees the Son, the translation of Genesis 3 in Moses 4 has both the father and son present. "And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten: Behold, the man is become as one of us." Also Moroni 9:26 has the Son on the right hand of God. Again not seen in vision but the content is there.

It's also worth noting, since those raising these issues typically assume Joseph is copying the First Vision from contemporaries that many other visions of this sort involve multiple persons. (Say the Norris Stearns vision) Even visionaries who didn't see two personages, such as Charles Finney, accept a trinity and not modalism.