The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[california boy]

Just now, Calm said:

"But if it's in real life, not say a vision or in the mind, I can definitely say that one would not be changing their story much"

I really have to wonder sometimes how much attention people pay to what others say when they say things like that.

Maybe they just remember themselves as saying things a different way.

I find it remarkable how years later I may first hear a key part of a story about a relationship (family history is so convoluted and always morphing in my experience, from what I have heard reported business stories change as well...all because what is most important to the person changes overtime).

I can see why you would have such experience.  But was it God and Jesus Christ appearing to you?  You think you would be confused about something like that?  Or that you would tell such an event and leave out God?  For me that is so unlikely that it personally becomes problematic.  But I also acknowledge that I don't need to rely on the First Vision as a foundation of my faith.  If I did have to rely on that vision, I am sure I would be right in there with the rest of you trying to reconcile the inconsistencies of the accounts.  I am sure perspective makes a difference.

[kiwi57]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Again (and I see we are going around and around on this) it's not evidence of "hiding" unless there's no other valid reason to want to take a document out of a common archive, or to move it from one place to another"

I am not getting your use of "evidence" here.  You seem to be using it closer to "proof".

For the easiest analogy, a defense attorney and a prosecutor can use the same fingerprint evidence to argue different interpretations,  just because they come to different conclusions about the same data doesn't mean the data gets labeled as something besides "evidence".

 

Not really. I'm using it like evidence.

That something is taken from one place and put into another is not evidence evidence of "hiding." It's not even prima facie evidence thereof.

Granted that in order to "hide" something it is necessary to remove it from wherever it might be publicly visible or accessible and put it where it is not; but there's more to it than that. Yesterday, I removed some food from the supermarket and put it in my refrigerator. (Aha!) Note that my refrigerator has all the elements of Joseph Fielding Smith's safe: It's under my direct control; I can get to it whenever I like; I control access to it. Nobody can get into it without my consent (or perhaps by some criminal activity.) But is anyone really going to insist that that is evidence of "hiding?"

Stan Larson's essay, once we strip away all the editorialising, opining, mind-reading and frank speculation that drives its conclusions, is actually rather helpful here. For one thing, it details occasions on which JFS showed the history to people. Granted that he showed it under conditions of confidentiality - but he still showed it to them. And who were they? Well, apparently they were scholars doing serious historical research. With what end in mind? Well, as it turns out, publication.

Hiding? I don't think so.

[kiwi57]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

We just see the different accounts in a different light.  I don't fault you for your opinions.  I just don't share those opinions.  I have clearly stated why.

And I don't fault you for your opinions either, for what it is worth.

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

 And I understand your need to quibble over what I have stated.

I'm not "quibbling." I'm trying to get you to agree on something that ought to be entirely non-controversial, namely, the nature of what a contradiction actually is.

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

 It is pretty consistent in the way you like to post on this forum.

Oh really?

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

I can see why you would have such experience.  But was it God and Jesus Christ appearing to you?  You think you would be confused about something like that?  Or that you would tell such an event and leave out God?  For me that is so unlikely that it personally becomes problematic.  But I also acknowledge that I don't need to rely on the First Vision as a foundation of my faith.  If I did have to rely on that vision, I am sure I would be right in there with the rest of you trying to reconcile the inconsistencies of the accounts.  I am sure perspective makes a difference.

I am not saying people are confused in their own heads, just that a lot of times they make assumptions about how they are understood by others and these assumptions change over time so they change the way they say things.

For example, there is an account we know that Joseph wrote to those who were new to the story.  Otoh, I don't think we can tell with other accounts if he always framed it in that context.  If he was making assumptions that certain accounts would be read by people familiar with the story, he might have intentionally framed it different or just assumed the readers would take certain things as givens.

I don't try to reconcile inconsistencies in stuff I don't need to, too much work. The First Vision accounts fall into that category for me because I don't need to act on it, just learn from it.  I accept inconsistency as an attribute of human interaction.  In cases where action is expected of me (say caring for my mom), I try to get consistent info from everyone involved, but still it never happens.

When I talk about my wedding, I don't often specify my husband or parents were there or I may not identify him as "my soon to be husband".  If I ever wrote about Snookums, no one but my old roommates would likely know for sure I was talking about my husband because that was a nickname they gave him unless the context made it very clear.  If I was talking about going up to Cascade Springs, the most important part was that it was my husband who took me on our first serious date...but again in a letter to my roommates of that year, I would feel little need to share that info because I knew they already knew it.

Givens don't need to be repeated even if very important.  The problem with written accounts is we don't always know the audience and/or the context the writer is writing in or the assumptions of knowledge the writer is making about his audience.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

And I don't fault you for your opinions either, for what it is worth.

I'm not "quibbling." I'm trying to get you to agree on something that ought to be entirely non-controversial, namely, the nature of what a contradiction actually is.

Oh really?

Yes really.  I am sure you are aware of your history on this forum.  It hasn't been all roses and unicorns.  This is your third incarnation that I am aware of.  It didn't just happen by accident.  Why do you think you keep getting banned by moderators that share your same faith?

[Calm]

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Not really. I'm using it like evidence.

That something is taken from one place and put into another is not evidence evidence of "hiding." It's not even prima facie evidence thereof.

Granted that in order to "hide" something it is necessary to remove it from wherever it might be publicly visible or accessible and put it where it is not; but there's more to it than that. Yesterday, I removed some food from the supermarket and put it in my refrigerator. (Aha!) Note that my refrigerator has all the elements of Joseph Fielding Smith's safe: It's under my direct control; I can get to it whenever I like; I control access to it. Nobody can get into it without my consent (or perhaps by some criminal activity.) But is anyone really going to insist that that is evidence of "hiding?"

Stan Larson's essay, once we strip away all the editorialising, opining, mind-reading and frank speculation that drives its conclusions, is actually rather helpful here. For one thing, it details occasions on which JFS showed the history to people. Granted that he showed it under conditions of confidentiality - but he still showed it to them. And who were they? Well, apparently they were scholars doing serious historical research. With what end in mind? Well, as it turns out, publication.

Hiding? I don't think so.

It certainly isn't sufficient evidence, but being part of an evidence chain is still being evidence in my view.

I think the problem is that most in casual conversation use "evidence" not as part of a story, but all of it.  For example, saying it being in the vault is evidence it was hidden and then continuing the conversation as if it being hidden is now a given.

Added:  Perhaps it would be clearer to use "possible evidence"...as in a particular datapoint adds information that taken with other information may lead to a possible conclusion.  

The removal and placement of the text is part of the information available on the fate of the 1832 account.  It is evidence of what happened to it and may eventually contribute to the why also.

Perhaps it is premature to call it evidence for anything save for that is happened, but I do think in certain contexts the term is useful such as taking blood tests is collecting evidence, but their existence could not be said to be evidence of a certain blood disorder without more information, and even coming up with symptoms of a certain blood disorder to link them to would not lead a good doctor to settle on one theory until they have examined other potential disorders that could share symptoms or other medically important stuff.  

Edited December 5, 2017 by Calm

[cinepro]

1832 Account:

Quote

Thus, from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind, the contentions and divisions, the wickedness and abominations, and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind. My mind became exceedingly distressed, for I became convicted of my sins, and by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith, and there was no society or denomination that was built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament. I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world, for I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday, today, and forever, that he was no respecter of persons, for he was God. 

(emphasis added)

1838 Account:

Quote

My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner therefore did I get possession of myself so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right, (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join.

Yeah, that there's what we would call our garden-variety "con-tra-diction."  Easily found in the wild on the internet, but this one is rare because some people can see it while others find it to be totally invisible.

Edited December 5, 2017 by cinepro

[Bobbieaware]

20 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Then by all means, tell us: What are the contradictions?

If we accept that the 1832 account is true, then what is there in the 1838/9 account that must be false?

If we accept that the 1838/9 account is true, then what is there in the 1832 account that must be false?

Because that what a contradiction is, you see.

 

It apparently has never dawned on those who obsessively harp on the differences in First Vision accounts that in the earlier versions of the vision the prophet Joseph Smith thought it wise, based on his own very traumatic past experiences, to not disclose all at once a full rendering of what took place when he was ministered to by the personages of the Father and the Son. According to the later and more complete account of the First Vision canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, when soon after his epiphany young Joseph related his experience in the grove to a local Methodist minister the news of the vision spread like wildfire and all hell broke loose...

21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

22 I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.

23 It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself. (Joseph Smith — History) 

In light of the fact that the gates of hell opened and bitter persecution was heaped upon young Joseph after naively disclosing to a local religious leader his First Vision, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the older, wiser and more fully-inspired prophet would opt for a ‘dribs and drabs’ approach when it came to disclosing what actually occurred in his vision in the grove. Doesn’t it seem reasonable and even likely that after the horrors he experienced as a boy the prophet would be reluctant to tell the world all at once that God the Father, — a being the non-LDS Christian world has firmly believed for nearly two millennia to be an immaterial, non-human entity —  is an exalted man?!?

 I believe that by the time of the writing of the Wentworth Letter the prophet knew by revelation the time was finally right to reveal to the Church and the world that God the Father is a Man of Holiness and the Son of God is the Son of Man. Strong circumstantial evidence exists that supports this last point: The content of the Wentworth Letter was First published in the Times and Seasons on March 1, 1842 and the following excerpt from Doctrine and Covenants was presented to the Church only 13 months and 1 day later...

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also... (D&C 130)

So it wasn’t until 1842 that it was revealed to the world God the Father has the appearance of a man, and it wasn’t until 1843 that it was clearly and unambiguously revealed to the Church at large that God the Father has a tangible human body of flesh and bone. And get this — the fact that it wasn't until April of 1843 that the Lord finally allowed it to be revealed to the Church God the Father has a glorified material human body could very well explain why this fact wasn’t clearly spelled out in the Lectures on Faith!!! In short, it appears the Lord didn’t want it plainly revealed to the Church and the world that God the Father is a human being until the span between March 1 of 1842 and April 2, of 1833. This also explains why the earlier versions of the first vision were deliberately left incomplete.

But most assuredly, none of this will mean anything to those who are bound and determined to find fault with the prophet Joseph Smith. Like you’ve said, because these people start out believing the prophet Josep Smith is dishonest, there can be no place in their minds and hearts for anything that appears to vindicate him. So be it — they will reap what they sow.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[kiwi57]

55 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes really.  I am sure you are aware of your history on this forum.  It hasn't been all roses and unicorns.  This is your third incarnation that I am aware of.  It didn't just happen by accident.  Why do you think you keep getting banned by moderators that share your same faith?

We are not discussing me. Such is not the topic of this thread.

But if you want to go into "history," may I point out that your history in this thread hasn't exactly been spotless. I have, however, chosen to overlook your little personal jabs. As I will again, this time.

So, let's get back to the discussion at hand, shall we?

I wrote a fairly long and detailed post, back on the first page of this thread, in which I discussed what a contradiction is and how it can be recognised. Summary: A contradiction exists when two statements cannot simultaneously be true. A contradiction does not exist just because someone thinks Joseph should have done something different.

Remember that post?

You claim to have read that post, but you did not address my argument in any way; instead, you talked right past me and went right on calling a non-contradiction a contradiction because it was just too important. Or something.

Now it just so happens that an argument that is unaddressed is an argument that stands unrefuted; for the rather good and sufficient reason that you cannot claim to have refuted something if you haven't addressed it.

Thus, it is settled: A contradiction exists when two statements cannot simultaneously be true. A contradiction does not exist just because someone thinks Joseph should have done something different.

So, is there anything else you'd like to talk about? Apart from me, that is.

[kiwi57]

29 minutes ago, cinepro said:

1832 Account:

1838 Account:

Yeah, that there's what we would call our garden-variety "con-tra-diction."  Easily found in the wild on the internet, but this one is rare because some people can see it while others find it to be totally invisible.

Thank you, Cinepro. Magnanimously ignoring your sarcastic little jab at the end, I'm happy to agree that you've found something valid. We'll come back to that in due course.

[clarkgoble]

57 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Yeah, that there's what we would call our garden-variety "con-tra-diction."  Easily found in the wild on the internet, but this one is rare because some people can see it while others find it to be totally invisible.

That's exactly the sort of minor contradiction (did I think them all wrong before praying or did I finalize my beliefs after) that one expects from separated accounts. Here's a fun experiment if you've not read old journals in a while. Write down your memory of a major event and then read what you wrote years earlier and I suspect you'll find very similar errors.

Note that both accounts agree in thinking all sects wrong. Also in both accounts he's searching the scriptures because of his frustrations with the contradictions of the religion.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

We are not discussing me. Such is not the topic of this thread.

But if you want to go into "history," may I point out that your history in this thread hasn't exactly been spotless. I have, however, chosen to overlook your little personal jabs. As I will again, this time.

So, let's get back to the discussion at hand, shall we?

I wrote a fairly long and detailed post, back on the first page of this thread, in which I discussed what a contradiction is and how it can be recognised. Summary: A contradiction exists when two statements cannot simultaneously be true. A contradiction does not exist just because someone thinks Joseph should have done something different.

Remember that post?

You claim to have read that post, but you did not address my argument in any way; instead, you talked right past me and went right on calling a non-contradiction a contradiction because it was just too important. Or something.

Now it just so happens that an argument that is unaddressed is an argument that stands unrefuted; for the rather good and sufficient reason that you cannot claim to have refuted something if you haven't addressed it.

Thus, it is settled: A contradiction exists when two statements cannot simultaneously be true. A contradiction does not exist just because someone thinks Joseph should have done something different.

So, is there anything else you'd like to talk about? Apart from me, that is.

Actually I did.  I wrote at least two posts that explained how a inconsistency can become a contradiction.  If you re read my posts, you will see exactly what I wrote several times addressing that very issue.

[california boy]

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's exactly the sort of minor contradiction (did I think them all wrong before praying or did I finalize my beliefs after) that one expects from separated accounts. Here's a fun experiment if you've not read old journals in a while. Write down your memory of a major event and then read what you wrote years earlier and I suspect you'll find very similar errors.

Note that both accounts agree in thinking all sects wrong. Also in both accounts he's searching the scriptures because of his frustrations with the contradictions of the religion.

I actually agree with you and believe that the reason for praying might very well have been forgotten or less clear over time.  I have not been particularly bothered by that difference.  But not stating that God was part of the vision is much more problematic for me.  I also think in one version he says he was 14 and in another he says he was 16.  If that is actually true, I find that a bit problematic as well.  Fro such an important life changing event a visit from God and Christ would be, I would always remember exactly how old I was when that happened.  I realize my views are not shared by others, but none the less, they are a bit of an issue for me.  The explanations I have heard that dismiss these issues don't really ring true to me.  

[clarkgoble]

Just now, california boy said:

But not stating that God was part of the vision is much more problematic for me.

Why? He covers the entire vision in a few sentences. He's clearly not telling everything that happens.

The full account of the vision is: "piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life <behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to thir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is?] written of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father"

Jesus mentions the Father but it's very short. Almost certainly there was more to it. It seems weird to find a problem with him not emphasizing the two persons aspect.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I also think in one version he says he was 14 and in another he says he was 16.  If that is actually true, I find that a bit problematic as well. 

In the 1832 account he starts getting focused on the "which church is true" at 12 and he says this continued until he was 15. He says the 16th year of his life which is 15. In the 1838 version he says his 15th year and explicitly says the year is 1820 but he turns 16 in 1820.

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Why? He covers the entire vision in a few sentences. He's clearly not telling everything that happens.

The full account of the vision is: "piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life <behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to thir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is?] written of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father"

Jesus mentions the Father but it's very short. Almost certainly there was more to it. It seems weird to find a problem with him not emphasizing the two persons aspect.

In the 1832 account he starts getting focused on the "which church is true" at 12 and he says this continued until he was 15. He says the 16th year of his life which is 15. In the 1838 version he says his 15th year and explicitly says the year is 1820 but he turns 16 in 1820.

Because I think that both God and Christ appearing would be worth mentioning each and every time I ever related that experience for the rest of my life.  I can't even conceiving overlooking mentioning them both, EVER.

 

Thanks for clarifying the age thing.  I wasn't sure.  

[readstoomuch]

In 1981-1983 I was exposed to the multiple accounts.  This is a very complicated subject.  Much easier for someone to spit out a few statements that seem earth shattering such as the CES Letter.  Of all of the sources I read James Allen and Milton Backman (article by Allen, book by Backman)were the best sources I read.  There was also this big pamphlet passed around my mission called A Response to Mormonism:  Shadow or Reality by an Anonymous LDS Historian.  I thought the  anonymous critique brought up some very good things.  After having digested all of it and reading all of the accounts, a few things became obvious to me.  The First Visitation was not discussed early on in the Church as much as Moroni`s appearance.  The date and time of his event was somewhat nebulous to him.  He saw it more as a personal experience early on.  The 1832 version is the only one in his handwriting.  I have some suspicion that he didn't feel like it was a polished enough version to publish.  He was not as articulate when he was writing himself, compared to the revelations he was dictating.  His letters to Emma are an obvious reference point.  The visitation appeared to be between him being 14-15.  A year or so ago, I realized it could be hard for us in this modern age with smartphones, watches and reference points to understand someone not remembering the exact day something happened.  Since we don't know what it was like, I suspend judgement on it.  I don't want to practice presentism when judging Joseph Smith's situation.  I also find Steven Harper`s book and articles useful.  

So in the end I thought all of the versions were faith promoting.  Harper brings up some issues about how memories are formed, which are worth taking note.  I never saw the First Visitation in quite the same terms after reading all of them.  I don't think it is cut and dry as we can make it sound sometimes.  Much like trying to understand what Joseph`s translation process meant.  I can forgive the Church for not trying to teach all of the versions in Sunday School.  I think scholars are still coming to grips with the subtleties involved.  The appearance and its meaning took years for him to understand.  

I apologize if I don't respond to someone asking about my statements.  Very busy.  

A final thought I just had is that all of the ensign articles were very easy to find compared to the books in 1983.  Even as a missionary.  I had copies of the articles on my mission.  The pamphlet by an anonymous LDS historian was readily available to missionaries, but many weren't concerned.  I think that says much to the issues now.  Most people/members are not really that concerned about the nitty gritty of history.  I, on the other hand, was greatly concerned.  The sources were not that hard to come by.  I always thought that they (the First Vision accounts and other historical items) should be talked about more often.  I even started to write an account trying to use all of the documents that I had.  Its not an easy task.  Since I was never able to write something, maybe others struggled with trying to discuss the complexities of the First Vision account in Church publications.  

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Actually I did.  I wrote at least two posts that explained how a inconsistency can become a contradiction.  If you re read my posts, you will see exactly what I wrote several times addressing that very issue.

Yes, I read your posts. Several times - completely ignoring my argument - you merely asserted that a non-contradiction somehow magically becomes a contradiction if you think Joseph should have said something else.

And yet again: that's not what a contradiction is.

A contradiction doesn't exist because Joseph doesn't say what you think he should say. A contradiction only exists where two assertions are made that cannot be simultaneously true.

1832 asserts Jesus appeared and spoke to Joseph. 1838 asserts the Father and the Son appeared and spoke to Joseph. If 1838 is true then 1832 is necessarily true. If 1832 is true then 1838 is potentially (but not necessarily) true. No part of this is a contradiction.

A contradiction, you see, is exclusively a matter of logic, CB. It has nothing to do with preference.

Merely asserting that you can't figure out why Joseph would not mention the Father in 1832 if He really had appeared does not create a contradiction.

Your argument was non-responsive, and actually "explained" nothing at all.

So not only did you not respond to that part of my post, you also failed to even notice the second part, wherein I demonstrated that Joseph uses "the Lord" both for the Father and the Son as of 1832, and that the presence of the Father was certainly implied in that account.

I don't expect you to agree with me, CB. But it would be nice if you actually bothered to acknowledge that I'd argued something; and then, instead of merely carrying on as if nothing had even been said, if you then took the time to address it.

[rchorse]

Given the well documented fallibility of human memory, my faith is not shaken by minor contradictions in accounts that were separated by several years. I've gone back and read my own journal and found that I misremembered some details of pivotal events in my life. Our memories, of even very traumatic or important events, are so easily modified by changes in our thought patterns and other influences, that I find the minor differences in the accounts to be of little value in determining whether it actually happened and how it actually happened. 

References on the fallibility of memory:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4409058/

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/18/health/lifeswork-loftus-memory-malleability/index.html

https://www.nature.com/news/evidence-based-justice-corrupted-memory-1.13543

 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Yes really.  I am sure you are aware of your history on this forum.  It hasn't been all roses and unicorns.  This is your third incarnation that I am aware of.  It didn't just happen by accident.  Why do you think you keep getting banned by moderators that share your same faith?

I’ll haveto check, but I’m pretty sure there’s a board guideline against personal attacks and provocations such as this. 

[Five Solas]

17 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

In another thread (I'm redirecting that discussion here) Exiled wrote:

Was there only one being?

First of all, let us accept, arguendo, that the 1832 account only mentions one being. Does that mean that it unambiguously asserts that there was only one being?

Consider these two statements:

1. I was at a party on Saturday, and I saw Bill.
2. I was at a party on Saturday, and I saw Jane.

Do those statements "contradict" each other? I think a reasonable person would say no, there is no contradiction between them. If 1 is true, there's no reason 2 can't also be true. Now a third statement:

3. I was at a party on Saturday, and I saw Bill and Jane.

Does 3 contradict 1? Does it contradict 2? Again, I think a reasonable person would say no, there is no contradiction anywhere in view. All three statements can simultaneously be true. In fact, statement 3 absolutely entails statements 1 and 2. But what about this?

...

You might win a point for the technical merit of your argument, kiwi--but it completely misses what's at stake here.  The later account differs radically from the earlier. 

Seeing "the Lord" doesn't contradict a Trinitarian understanding of God (even if the claim itself is a bald-faced lie).  Claiming to see multiple embodied Gods thumbs its nose at traditional Christianity & substitutes polytheism in its place.  That's a radical difference.  Your Jane/Bill analogy obfuscates the fact.  

--Erik

______________________________________

Take a look at the lawman
Beating up the wrong guy
Oh man! Wonder if he'll ever know
He's in the best-selling show
Is there life on Mars?

--David Bowie, 1971

[Exiled]

30 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

You might win a point for the technical merit of your argument, kiwi--but it completely misses what's at stake here.  The later account differs radically from the earlier. 

Seeing "the Lord" doesn't contradict a Trinitarian understanding of God (even if the claim itself is a bald-faced lie).  Claiming to see multiple embodied Gods thumbs its nose at traditional Christianity & substitutes polytheism in its place.  That's a radical difference.  Your Jane/Bill analogy obfuscates the fact.  

--Erik

______________________________________

Take a look at the lawman
Beating up the wrong guy
Oh man! Wonder if he'll ever know
He's in the best-selling show
Is there life on Mars?

--David Bowie, 1971

I don't think he is ready to admit to the obvious contradiction. However, that change was a huge move away from where christianity was at the time. He also said God the father had a body of flesh and bones as tangible as a man's around that time too if I recall correctly.

[Tacenda]

Could someone please clarify what the First Vision was? Was it in his mind or was it real life? I know to some this is a real dumb question, but those that know me, know that even though a life long Mormon, I probably missed a lot of things. 

vi·sion

ˈviZHən/

noun

1.

the faculty or state of being able to see.

"she had defective vision"

synonyms:eyesight, sight, observation, (visual) perception; More

2.

an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition.

"the idea came to him in a vision"

synonyms:apparition, hallucination, illusion, mirage, specter, phantom, ghost, wraith, manifestation; More

Edited December 5, 2017 by Tacenda

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Because I think that both God and Christ appearing would be worth mentioning each and every time I ever related that experience for the rest of my life.  I can't even conceiving overlooking mentioning them both, EVER.

But is it fair to assume that because you'd do that everyone else would? I mean if it happened to me I'd probably never talk about it. Joseph seems to not share the first vision often. It wasn't seen as foundational until much later. Something to keep in mind when looking at the 1832 account. We tend to view it through the lens of how the later 1838 account was used by the Church.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

You might win a point for the technical merit of your argument, kiwi--but it completely misses what's at stake here.  The later account differs radically from the earlier. 

Seeing "the Lord" doesn't contradict a Trinitarian understanding of God (even if the claim itself is a bald-faced lie).  Claiming to see multiple embodied Gods thumbs its nose at traditional Christianity & substitutes polytheism in its place.  That's a radical difference.  Your Jane/Bill analogy obfuscates the fact.  

Most people can't comprehend the Trinity. Talk to your typical Evangelical today and you'll get a description that is either modalism or polytheism even though both are heretical. There's not a lot of evidence that Joseph ever really understood the Trinity. Even most lay Mormons today think the Trinity is technically something closer to modalism. 

So in terms of orthodox obscure esoteric theology you're completely correct. However in terms of logic the Jane/Bill example showcases the logic quite a bit. But in any case Mormons don't accept either trinitarianism, polytheism, nor modalism. So you're objection is ultimately moot. The question is whether Joseph's accounts have a logical contradiction relative to the persons of the godhead. It just doesn't. There's a few minor contradictions such as they age issue, but I think they're fairly minor and expected.

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I can see why you would have such experience.  But was it God and Jesus Christ appearing to you?  You think you would be confused about something like that?  Or that you would tell such an event and leave out God?  For me that is so unlikely that it personally becomes problematic.  But I also acknowledge that I don't need to rely on the First Vision as a foundation of my faith.  If I did have to rely on that vision, I am sure I would be right in there with the rest of you trying to reconcile the inconsistencies of the accounts.  I am sure perspective makes a difference.

I don't know as a knowledgeable LDS bases their Testimony of Christ on the First Vision. Do other Christians base their Testimony of Christ on the various accounts of Saul/Paul's vision.