The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[hope_for_things]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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

All the descriptions of Joseph's experiences, the FV and others sound to me like they were happening in a waking dream kind of state.  I think the way correlated Mormonism has portrayed these events in video form and in art are the reason that today many people think of these visions as tangible visitation experiences.  I know Joseph in Nauvoo in 1843 (D&C 129) talked about discerning spirits with handshakes, and Angels as resurrected tangible beings, but this concept was not present in the earlier visionary experiences and is anachronistic.   

I put the blame partially on correlated Mormonism, and on those that approve the production of art and videos.  Sometimes I call correlated Mormonism the Disney version of Mormonism.  

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

All the descriptions of Joseph's experiences, the FV and others sound to me like they were happening in a waking dream kind of state.  I think the way correlated Mormonism has portrayed these events in video form and in art are the reason that today many people think of these visions as tangible visitation experiences.  I know Joseph in Nauvoo in 1843 (D&C 129) talked about discerning spirits with handshakes, and Angels as resurrected tangible beings, but this concept was not present in the earlier visionary experiences and is anachronistic.   

I put the blame partially on correlated Mormonism, and on those that approve the production of art and videos.  Sometimes I call correlated Mormonism the Disney version of Mormonism.  

I know it hasn't been proven that JS did this, but I know that people get visions by using something like shrooms or Datura, which was apparently available in the area Joseph lived. But I understand how repulsed some might be by this idea of Joseph using such things, I totally understand the reasoning behind that one. I wish the leaders hadn't mentioned that the FV was the end all be all of the LDS church, because the church IMO, could stand on it's own without it being a tangible visit, since there are some wonderful attributes in the church that help so many. My sons that moved back home are not happy with the church and I was shocked at myself because I was defending the church to them, and the opportunities it gives to those that may have grown up with hard times as far as a good family environment and they find "family" in the church. Or the church can help them as Christians gain spirituality, or many service ops. 

http://realbookofmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SunstoneFinal-RealBom.pdf

This article above may or may not been descredited by FairMormon. I wonder what they might think about it. But I've also wondered why JS had a seerstone that resembles a mushroom top. Here: http://www.geocities.ws/avalonianchurch/spheresmormonpics.html

Edited December 5, 2017 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

SEE

 

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

I put the blame partially on correlated Mormonism, and on those that approve the production of art and videos.  Sometimes I call correlated Mormonism the Disney version of Mormonism.  

You do realize that there are good people who work very hard on producing art, videos, and other visual media for the church.  At times they go to great lengths to ensure that what is portrayed is as accurate as possible.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

It's not at all clear. Different people believe different things about the first vision. Often the person having the vision can't tell themselves. Compare to say 2 Cor 12:2. I tend to think it was an appearance but I don't feel strongly enough to have much problem with people who think it wasn't.

Quote

Kingfisher

You do realize that there are good people who work very hard on producing art, videos, and other visual media for the church.  At times they go to great lengths to ensure that what is portrayed is as accurate as possible.

However historically most church visual aids haven't worried about that as much, as even a quick look at standard LDS art attests. They're more focused on it today, but that's a fairly recent concern outside of a few things like pictures of angels not having wings. I think that the seer stone translation issue in particular made the Brethren worry about this more. I personally wish they'd started worrying about it decades earlier but c'est la vie I guess. Better late than never. Hopefully over the next decade we'll have much better visual resources for lessons and articles.

That said I think there's still a problem of art presuming the problematic readings of the Book of Mormon. So you still have a lot of art where the Nephites look northern European and are using Roman gladiuses as swords. I'd like to see more art that's at least open to the apologists' points about archaeology and population dynamics. i.e. have the Lamanites with skin marked by tatoos or paint. Use non-European swords more in keeping with American archaeology. Make Nephites darker skinned rather than Irish or Scandanavian looking. I will say that Book of Mormon Central of late has been hitting it out of the park with a lot of great art they've been commissioning I believe by John Fulmer.

Edited December 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

You are correct, per the guidelines, banned behaviors include:  personal attacks, judging others' worthiness/sincerity, and creating another user name to get around suspension or banning.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours 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.

 

15 hours 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.

Church history scholar J.B. Haws deals with this apparent, minor (and it is minor) contradiction with this treatment.

The whole thing is worthy of reading and pondering, but here's an excerpt (I am highlighting in bold some passages I wish to emphasize):

Quote

 

Here is the essence of that trouble, as some have seen it. In Joseph’s 1838–39 [2] dictated account (the account that would eventually find its way into the LDS Church’s canon as the official Joseph Smith—History), he described his youthful confusion about the competing religious sects that he encountered in these words: “In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together?” (Joseph Smith History 1:10). According to this narrative, it seems that fourteen-year-old Joseph had already considered the possibility that all churches could be “wrong together.” Yet only eight verses later (by the account’s current scriptural format), Joseph reported what seems like surprise in response to the divine injunction that he must join no church, “for they were all wrong”—and “it had never entered into [his] heart that all were wrong” (JS—H 1:18–19). But didn’t we just read that the “all were wrong” possibility had entered his heart in verse 10? Why such an apparently careless and contradictory oversight in the narrative?

Some critics have held up this sequence of verses as yet another example of the inconsistencies that reveal Joseph’s story to be what they believe it really is: a convoluted fabrication that he composed, piecemeal, over time. [3] However, these critics seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill—especially in light of the recently published transcriptions of several manuscript versions of Joseph Smith’s history as part of the larger Joseph Smith Papers Project. [4] In this case specifically, and in the case of so many other Joseph Smith documents generally, closer attention to textual clues and to the composition process of scribing and editing and publishing complicates these types of superficial dismissals of Joseph Smith’s personal narrative. A fresh take on these First Vision passages is just one such possibility that the Joseph Smith Papers manuscripts can offer.

Even without recourse to those manuscripts, though, many readers are not really troubled by the apparent contradiction since it can be (and has been) handled satisfactorily in a number of ways. First of all, it would seem only fair-minded to agree that we tell our stories similarly, in that it is natural to project what we have learned from an experience onto our narration of that experience. We see things differently when we know the end from the beginning, and we highlight those important awakenings, especially as we are better equipped, with hindsight, to sift out the crucial moments. In that sense, Joseph Smith’s 1838 retelling feels like an authentic and matter-of-fact recollection; we can relate to that kind of story. [5]

... Second, some readers have appropriately highlighted the importance of the word heart in verse 18 of Joseph Smith—History. The pivotal distinction in this way of thinking is that while Joseph may have theoretically considered the idea that all religions were false (v. 10), such a reality had never entered into his heart—into that symbolic center of being that represents surety and conviction, such that he had never really given serious credence to that theoretical possibility before (vv. 18–19). That explanation also seems to fall within the believability and commonality of the human experience. Many of us can probably think of analogous “I never really thought that was possible” experiences in our personal histories. [7]

 

 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Church history scholar J.B. Haws deals with this apparent, minor (and it is minor) contradiction with this treatment.

The whole thing is worthy of reading and pondering, but here's an excerpt (I am highlighting in bold some passages I wish to emphasize):

 

 

Good insight by Haws.  It’s just too bad that we damaged (sometimes irreparably) the faith of some church members by favoring the 1838 account to the exclusion of the 1832 account. Hopefully between the JS Papers Project and Elder Ballard’s 2016 call for inoculation, we’ll be able to eliminat this concern within the next couple decades. I’ve tried to do my part in my current calling by introducing all four of Joseph’s accounts to my Teachers Quorum. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Good insight by Haws.  It’s just too bad that we damaged (sometimes irreparably) the faith of some church members by favoring the 1838 account to the exclusion of the 1832 account. Hopefully between the JS Papers Project and Elder Ballard’s 2016 call for inoculation, we’ll be able to eliminat this concern within the next couple decades.

Perhaps it would be well in the future to avoid damaging the faith of still other Church members by treating this so-called "contradiction" as though it were a thing worth worrying about instead of what Haws characterized as a mountain made out of a molehill.
 

Quote

 

I’ve tried to do my part in my current calling by introducing all four of Joseph’s accounts to my Teachers Quorum. 

 

Well good for you.

Of course, that doesn't exactly put you ahead of the curve, as the Church itself is doing this very thing. See, for example, the current main-floor Church history exhibit in the newly renovated Church History Library in Salt Lake City, which includes the First Vision Theater and the new film, which draws upon all of the accounts.

 

[Bobbieaware]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps it would be well in the future to avoid damaging the faith of still other Church members by treating this so-called "contradiction" as though it were a thing worth worrying about instead of what Haws characterized as a mountain made out of a molehill.
 

Well good for you.

Of course, that doesn't exactly put you ahead of the curve, as the Church itself is doing this very thing. See, for example, the current main-floor Church history exhibit in the newly renovated Church History Library in Salt Lake City, which includes the First Vision Theater and the new film, which draws upon all of the accounts.

 

Scott, If you haven’t already done so, I hope you will read my previous post in response to Kiwi on this thread. It’s on page 3. There are some things I wrote therein that I’d like you to read and consider because I believe they effectively address and settle the so-called “contradiction” issue.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps it would be well in the future to avoid damaging the faith of still other Church members by treating this so-called "contradiction" as though it were a thing worth worrying about instead of what Haws characterized as a mountain made out of a molehill.

As I indicated, the "contradiction" isn't the thing worth worrying about.  Never has been.

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course, that doesn't exactly put you ahead of the curve, as the Church itself is doing this very thing. See, for example, the current main-floor Church history exhibit in the newly renovated Church History Library in Salt Lake City, which includes the First Vision Theater and the new film, which draws upon all of the accounts.

While the Church History Library in SLC may be something close to you on a daily basis, it's not much of a factor for those of us living outside Utah.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I know it hasn't been proven that JS did this, but I know that people get visions by using something like shrooms or Datura, which was apparently available in the area Joseph lived. But I understand how repulsed some might be by this idea of Joseph using such things, I totally understand the reasoning behind that one. I wish the leaders hadn't mentioned that the FV was the end all be all of the LDS church, because the church IMO, could stand on it's own without it being a tangible visit, since there are some wonderful attributes in the church that help so many. My sons that moved back home are not happy with the church and I was shocked at myself because I was defending the church to them, and the opportunities it gives to those that may have grown up with hard times as far as a good family environment and they find "family" in the church. Or the church can help them as Christians gain spirituality, or many service ops. 

http://realbookofmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SunstoneFinal-RealBom.pdf

This article above may or may not been descredited by FairMormon. I wonder what they might think about it. But I've also wondered why JS had a seerstone that resembles a mushroom top. Here: http://www.geocities.ws/avalonianchurch/spheresmormonpics.html

I agree that some leaders have been very literalistic when reading scripture and interpreting history.  I personally think that this kind of hyper-literalism is the problem.  As for the hallucinogens, I can't rule it out completely, but from what I've read of these theories I find them really just creative guesses without any strong evidence.  Also, from what I've read about the visionary and ecstatic experiences of others, many people have these experiences, some while performing meditation, so I don't see a need for using a substance for someone to have an experience like this.  

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Could someone please clarify what the First Vision was?

It was what it was.  (How's that for clarity?)

Quote

Was it in his mind or was it real life?

It was in real life.  Per Joseph Smith:

Quote

So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me...

"Actually."

"In reality."

I think Joseph Smith was physically transfigured during the First Vision (see here).

Quote

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

Vanilla definitions from secular dictionaries are probably insufficient to capture the nuances of what happened to Joseph Smith in 1820.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 5, 2017 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As I indicated, the "contradiction" isn't the thing worth worrying about.  Never has been.

While the Church History Library in SLC may be something close to you on a daily basis, it's not much of a factor for those of us living outside Utah.

That's merely an example. The Gospel Topics essays are another.

Besides, the film itself is accessible on the Internet, which is available outside Utah.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's merely an example. The Gospel Topics essays are another.

Besides, the film itself is accessible on the Internet, which is available outside Utah.

Yep -- publishing all four accounts to the gospel library app is another.  I think the church has made great progress on this.  I hope the first vision accounts will make their way into all the curriculum as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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 persecuted was heaped upon young Joseph after naively disclosing to a local religious 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.

 

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Scott, If you haven’t already done so, I hope you will read my previous post in response to Kiwi on this thread. It’s on page 3. There are some things I wrote therein that I’d like you to read and consider because I believe they effectively address and settle the so-called “contradiction” issue.

That is indeed insightful, Bobbieaware. Thank you for drawing my attention to it as, obviously, there are some posts on this thread, yours included, that I had not viewed.

Apropos of your post, I wish to draw attention to this 2013 lecture by Ron Barney given at the FairMormon Conference in which he makes a strong case that it was entirely in character for Joseph Smith to be guarded about his spiritual experiences. In light of this, it is not hard at all for me to understand that Joseph Smith would have kept his theophany very close to the vest for even years before finally giving a full and official account of it.

The fussing over the varying accounts of the First Vision or the fact that it was not extensively publicized initially strikes me as much ado about nothing and a tragically inadequate pretext on which to abandon one's faith in the restored gospel of Christ.

Edited to add: Here's a copy-and-paste from the transcript of Barney's lecture:
 

Quote

 

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

During the course of translating the Book of Mormon he verbalized this significant passage to Oliver Cowdery, his scribe: “It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart, only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men.” 3 Those who receive revelation from God, it states, are “under a strict command” to keep it to themselves and share it only as appropriate. While receiving the revelation known as the Book of Moses he was told twice, “Show them not unto any except them that believe,” and “See thou show them unto no man, until I command you, except to them that believe.” 4 Clearly there is a sensibility emphasized here that could not have escaped Joseph imposing restraint in revealing the revelations of God.

Now we will look at documentation that shows that not only was Joseph tutored by the Lord through revelation about this important expectation about keeping sacred confidences, from Joseph’s own history we learn that he also had a natural instinct for this qualification even before his prophetic role was made known to him. There is a popular Church film about Joseph Smith’s First Vision, The Restoration, one that I actually like very much, that, however, erroneously shows Joseph running from the Grove, yelling, “Mother, mother,” suggesting that the first thing he did after the remarkable encounter was to race home to tell his mother. However, his own account, the one that he had prepared to represent his experiences and the one now identified by the LDS Church as the authorized account, contains this revealing expression about his immediate behavior upon leaving the grove. When he reached home Joseph said, “I leaned up to the fire piece [place]. Mother enquired what the matter was.” 5 In other words, his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, recognized that something had happened to her boy and she wanted to know what it was. Instead of relieving her mind by describing the otherworldly event he had just witnessed he simply said, “Never mind. all is well, I am well enough off.” He chose to keep silent. The extent of what he told her was that “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” 6

Not only did he initially refrain from describing his experience to his mother, he apparently told no one in his family at the time, though it is certain that he told them later. The one person he did tell, according to his record, was one of the local clergymen of the area, a man of the cloth whom he thought would understand and one whom he could trust. Instead, Joseph said that upon relating the experience he was rebuffed and ridiculed by the man he trusted: “he treated my communication not only lightly but with great contempt, saying it was all of the Devil.” 7 He evidently also shared his experience with a few other locals who, he said, heaped upon him “severe persecution.” 8 Naturally, after a while the teenaged Joseph learned his lesson. Thereafter, he was particularly careful about divulging what had happened to him, and when he did relate his experience, he had specific reasons for doing so. 9

We know, of course, that later Joseph actually wrote about or had published accounts of his heavenly experiences, but these reports were proposed several years after 1820. So what I am asserting is that:

1. initially, Joseph had personal instincts that precluded him from flaunting his experiences
2. despite this instinct, in his youth he apparently shared the vision with people he thought would sympathize with his circumstances
3. being subject to rejection and disdain from these confidences he learned his lesson thereafter and protected his experiences
4. eventually he sensed the need of informing his intimates of what had happened to him
5. later his audience broadened to others outside his immediate circle
6. he made an early attempt to establish his story in writing in 1832 but the project stalled for reasons about which we can only speculate
7. finally, recognizing the necessity of publishing his story as a counter to his contemporary critics to advance the cause of the Church, he had prepared what we now     know as the History of the Church [published between 1902-1912].

 

 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

Just to add that the Feb 16, 1841 discourse has the following:

 "Joseph said Concerning the Godhead it was Not as many imagined--three Heads & but one body, he said the three were separate bodys--God the first & Jesus the Mediator the 2d & the Holy Ghost & these three agree in one & this is the maner we Should aproach God in order to get his blessings"

The main issue of D&C 130 is whether the Father has a body of spirit or a body of flesh. However as we can see by his many discussions of identifying angels by touch, he thought spirit bodies were material but merely vaporous and thus visual but not able to be felt (like a gas). Even in the above quote it demonstrates his confusion over the trinity since the trinity isn't the doctrine that there's one body but one metaphysical substance. 

[kiwi57]

5 hours 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. 

No. It does not.

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Seeing "the Lord" doesn't contradict a Trinitarian understanding of God (even if the claim itself is a bald-faced lie).

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

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

  Claiming to see multiple embodied Gods thumbs its nose at traditional Christianity & substitutes polytheism in its place.

No. It does not.

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

  That's a radical difference.  Your Jane/Bill analogy obfuscates the fact.

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.

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

I don't think he is ready to admit to the obvious contradiction.

Please see my earlier post about what a contradiction is. It's a bit long, but it sets out my position in some detail

Then, having read that, please come back and tell us a bit more about this "obvious contradiction."

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

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.

However "huge" it was, it wasn't a contradiction.

[Tacenda]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

That is indeed insightful, Bobbieaware. Thank you for drawing my attention to it as, obviously, there are some posts on this thread, yours included, that I had not viewed.

Apropos of your post, I wish to draw attention to this 2013 lecture by Ron Barney given at the FairMormon Conference in which he makes a strong case that it was entirely in character for Joseph Smith to be guarded about his spiritual experiences. In light of this, it is not hard at all for me to understand that Joseph Smith would have kept his theophany very close to the vest for even years before finally giving a full and official account of it.

The fussing over the varying accounts of the First Vision or the fact that it was not extensively publicized initially strikes me as much ado about nothing and a tragically inadequate pretext on which to abandon one's faith in the restored gospel of Christ.

Edited to add: Here's a copy-and-paste from the transcript of Barney's lecture:
 

 

I'm fairly open to the idea that Joseph had these capabilities, as well as I'm open to my dear niece who is a Medium. She converses with those on the other side and even gave me a reading that was pretty awesome. I think there are people out there that have that gift and maybe a lot of others have it that don't hone in on it. 

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Church history scholar J.B. Haws deals with this apparent, minor (and it is minor) contradiction with this treatment.

 

 

The reason it is an "apparent" contradiction is because it is a contradiction.  

I agree that it is "minor." I only posted it because there had been a dearth of actual citations in this thread, and some seemed to be saying that there were no actual contradictions between the accounts, when in fact this is a very clear and easy one to cite.  

 

Obviously, the bigger problem (and apparent contradiction) is the story itself.

In the 1832 version, the story is of young Joseph searching the scriptures and being convinced of his sinfulness (and also the lack of a "true" Church on the Earth), so he goes in his 16th year and prays.  Jesus appears to Joseph and forgives him of his sins and sends him on his way.

When the details are parsed and dissected into oblivion, any explicit "contradiction" might be made to disappear or be beaten into irrelevance, but the general problem is that it is most fundamentally a different story than the one told in 1838.  That's what bugs some people, and no amount of hand waving can change what is so simple and plain to see. 

I think it's great that people have come up with explanations that seem to make sense and help preserve the faith of so many, but if those explanations are based on an insistence that there are no contradictions to begin with, or that the stories are essentially the same, then they are doomed to fail and will only be convincing to those who don't actually read and think about the accounts, or who are so desperate to maintain belief that they'll believe anything.

Edited December 5, 2017 by cinepro

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm fairly open to the idea that Joseph had these capabilities, as well as I'm open to my dear niece who is a Medium. She converses with those on the other side and even gave me a reading that was pretty awesome. I think there are people out there that have that gift and maybe a lot of others have it that don't hone in on it. 

Actually,,.I have been wondering if she could help me.  Just one huge question would be asked.  I have not yet received an answer to prayer...perhaps she might be the answer.

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The reason it is an "apparent" contradiction is because it is a contradiction.  

I agree that it is "minor." I only posted it because there had been a dearth of actual citations in this thread, and some seemed to be saying that there were no actual contradictions between the accounts, when in fact this is a very clear and easy one to cite.  

I quite disagree that it is beyond dispute a contradiction. Haws does a very good job of explaining why it need not be viewed as such:
 

Quote

 

Second, some readers have appropriately highlighted the importance of the word heart in verse 18 of Joseph Smith—History. The pivotal distinction in this way of thinking is that while Joseph may have theoretically considered the idea that all religions were false (v. 10), such a reality had never entered into his heart—into that symbolic center of being that represents surety and conviction, such that he had never really given serious credence to that theoretical possibility before (vv. 18–19). That explanation also seems to fall within the believability and commonality of the human experience. Many of us can probably think of analogous “I never really thought that was possible” experiences in our personal histories. [7

 

 

 

To put it more concisely you can accept in theory the possibility of something (i.e. that none of the churches were right) while not until later embracing or believing it (i.e. having it enter your heart). Just because you can intellectually raise the question (are they all wrong together?) does not mean you viscerally believe the answer is yes.

Moreover, Haws goes on to highlight textual considerations illuminated by the Joseph Smith Papers project that complicate the cursory conclusion that Joseph contradicted himself here.

I'm guessing you haven't carefully considered the piece by Haws that I linked to. If you have, you are not demonstrating any comprehension of it.

In short, even this trivial matter can not conclusively be regarded as a contradiction.

Edited to add:

If I may present an analogy, consider the presidential election of 2016.

Prior to November of that year, though any rational human being would acknowledge the theoretical possibility that Donald J. Trump would be elected president of the United States, many, many people rejected it as a credible likelihood. To this day, you can find video compilations on YouTube of celebrities reacting with great hilarity over the prospect. Many pundits felt the same way, I'm sure. One could say that, prior to election night, it had "never entered into [their] heart" that Trump could be victorious in the election.

That all changed, of course -- literally overnight.

Do you see the comparison? Though they could entertain in theory the possibility, they could not in their "heart" see it as a credible likelihood.

 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm fairly open to the idea that Joseph had these capabilities, as well as I'm open to my dear niece who is a Medium. She converses with those on the other side and even gave me a reading that was pretty awesome. I think there are people out there that have that gift and maybe a lot of others have it that don't hone in on it. 

 

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Actually,,.I have been wondering if she could help me.  Just one huge question would be asked.  I have not yet received an answer to prayer...perhaps she might be the answer.

May we stay on topic, please?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Obviously, the bigger problem (and apparent contradiction) is the story itself.

In the 1832 version, the story is of young Joseph searching the scriptures and being convinced of his sinfulness (and also the lack of a "true" Church on the Earth), so he goes in his 16th year and prays.  Jesus appears to Joseph and forgives him of his sins and sends him on his way.

When the details are parsed and dissected into oblivion, any explicit "contradiction" might be made to disappear or be beaten into irrelevance, but the general problem is that it is most fundamentally a different story than the one told in 1838.  That's what bugs some people, and no amount of hand waving can change what is so simple and plain to see.  I

think it's great that people have come up with explanations that seem to make sense and help preserve the faith of so many, but if those explanations are based on an insistence that there are no contradictions to begin with, or that the stories are essentially the same, then they are doomed to fail and will only be convincing to those who don't actually read and think about the accounts, or who are so desperate to maintain belief that they'll believe anything.

I believe Kiwi has repeatedly and convincingly explained why accounts that differ from one another do not necessarily contradict one another.

No one denies that the fact they differ "bugs" some people. Whether their feeling bugged about it is justifiable is a matter for debate.