The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

May we stay on topic, please?

 

Sorry...

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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:
 

To put it more precisely you can accept in theory the possibility of something (i.e. that none of the churches were right) while not embracing or believing it (i.e. having it enter your heart).

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.

 

I think it needs to be acknowledged that Joseph's omission of God the Father from his first written account of the vision can justly be considered a contradiction.  I recognize that others (perhaps you are in this group) just consider that something that he failed to mention.  But, since the 1832 account was the one that Joseph was having transcribed into his journal, I think it's fair for people to compare the two accounts and conclude that one being in the pillar of light vs two beings in the pillar of light is a contradiction.

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Sorry...

I'll PM u later. At the drs. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think it needs to be acknowledged that Joseph's omission of God the Father from his first written account of the vision can justly be considered a contradiction.  I recognize that others (perhaps you are in this group) just consider that something that he failed to mention.  But, since the 1832 account was the one that Joseph was having transcribed into his journal, I think it's fair for people to compare the two accounts and conclude that one being in the pillar of light vs two beings in the pillar of light is a contradiction.

Then you obviously fail to grasp the meaning of the term contradiction. Failing to mention something is, quite plainly, not the same thing as contradicting it. Kiwi has been at pains to explain this, and after all that, if you still don't get it, I don't see how I can help you.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then you obviously fail to grasp the meaning of the term contradiction. Failing to mention something is, quite plainly, not the same thing as contradicting it. Kiwi has been at pains to explain this, and after all that, if you still don't get it, I don't see how I can help you.

From Merriam-Webster:

Quote

 

Definition of contradiction

1 : act or an instance of contradicting the defendant's contradiction of the plaintiff's accusations
2 a : a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something
… both parts of a contradiction cannot possibly be true … —Thomas Hobbes
b : a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other a round square is a contradiction in terms
3 a : logical incongruity
b : a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

 

While I am comfortable looking at the omission of God the Father from the earlier account as just that... something that he failed to mention but that does not invalidate the event.  I do think that the two accounts meet the above definition of the word contradiction.  And I leave space for those who find it concerning that in the earliest written account that we have, Joseph would neglect or forget to mention God the Father.  That he would only say there was one heavenly being rather than two.

As for what Kiwi may have said on the matter, I don't read all of his posts because I find his vitriol to be too much to take and it brings down the tone of the board.

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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.

I agree they are good people.  I think the people at Disney are good people too.  I don't agree that they portray what is accurate, the evidence shows otherwise.  Even the church has thrown the artists under the bus with that article about the seer stones in the Ensign a couple years ago, saying it was the artists fault, even though its the correlation committee that approves and sometimes directly commissions the art that is used by the church.  

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From Merriam-Webster:While I am comfortable looking at the omission of God the Father from the earlier account as just that... something that he failed to mention but that does not invalidate the event.  I do think that the two accounts meet the above definition of the word contradiction.  And I leave space for those who find it concerning that in the earliest written account that we have, Joseph would neglect or forget to mention God the Father.  That he would only say there was one heavenly being rather than two.

Your dictionary definition does not sustain your labeling something a contradiction that is in fact not a contradiction.

Quote

As for what Kiwi may have said on the matter, I don't read all of his posts because I find his vitriol to be too much to take and it brings down the tone of the board.

He was very measured and reasonable in explaining the correct concept of contradiction. You can ignore it if you like, out of spite or whatever, but that doesn't excuse you from the responsibility to grasp the correct meaning of terms.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your dictionary definition does not sustain your calling something a contradiction that is in fact not a contradiction.

He was very measured and reasonable in explaining the correct concept of contradiction. You can ignore it if you like, out of spite or whatever, but that doesn't excuse you from the responsibility to grasp the correct meaning of terms.

One being does not equal two beings.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree they are good people.  I think the people at Disney are good people too.  I don't agree that they portray what is accurate, the evidence shows otherwise.  Even the church has thrown the artists under the bus with that article about the seer stones in the Ensign a couple years ago, saying it was the artists fault, even though its the correlation committee that approves and sometimes directly commissions the art that is used by the church.  

The only thing that approaches being as silly and trivial as the adieu-in-the-Book-of-Mormon complaint is the complaint that takes too literally artists' conceptions of scenes from Church history.

 

[stemelbow]

I'm surprised people are quick to suggest that a contradiction is not a contradiction after all.  Of course stories told years apart contradict in some measure.  The added bonus with this is the 1832 account was closer to the time of the occurrence.  I don't mean to suggest that it means it's more accurate.  But it does make you wonder what Joseph started thinking from that time until 1838.  I'm with the description of Lehi though--I have dreamed a dreamed, or seen a vision.  I suppose if it happened, Joseph likely dreamed about it, either while asleep or awake enough times to mixup most of the details.  And as he tried to be the author of religion, more and more, no doubt his story took some instruction on his experience.  I'm guessing a vision is much like a dream like state.  It'd be hard to near impossible for him to know what details were from God in His 1st encounter and which ones were added by his own imagination as he learned more and more.  

With that said, perhaps it is possible he had convinced himself in time, that the Father was also in vision before him with Jesus.  Maybe he dreamed that part and it was only Jesus.  I can't imagine it not getting mixed up.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

One being does not equal two beings.

Joseph did not say it did. This is a distortion.

 

[rockpond]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Joseph did not say it did. This is a distortion.

I didn't say Joseph said that either.  That's a distortion by you.

[kiwi57]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

From Merriam-Webster:

While I am comfortable looking at the omission of God the Father from the earlier account as just that... something that he failed to mention but that does not invalidate the event.  I do think that the two accounts meet the above definition of the word contradiction.  And I leave space for those who find it concerning that in the earliest written account that we have, Joseph would neglect or forget to mention God the Father.  That he would only say there was one heavenly being rather than two.

As for what Kiwi may have said on the matter, I don't read all of his posts because I find his vitriol to be too much to take and it brings down the tone of the board.

Do you think it raises the tone of the board for you to comment on a thread in which you refuse to engage the thread originator?

And make pointed personal attacks thereto?

If it's too far beneath your magnificent dignity for you to lower yourself to notice what I've written, then perhaps you ought not to comment upon what you haven't read.

[kiwi57]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I didn't say Joseph said that either.  That's a distortion by you.

Well then, what was the point of "One being does not equal two beings?" If that wasn't supposed to summarise something Joseph said, what purpose did it serve?

[kiwi57]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm surprised people are quick to suggest that a contradiction is not a contradiction after all.

While I'm surprised by the number of people who express similar surprise, without having read my discussion of the nature of contradictions and the 1832 account, about halfway down the first page of the thread.

I've twice tried to paste in a link, but the posts keep disappearing.

Please take a look at it. Your surprise may diminish.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Do you think it raises the tone of the board for you to comment on a thread in which you refuse to engage the thread originator?

And make pointed personal attacks thereto?

If it's too far beneath your magnificent dignity for you to lower yourself to notice what I've written, then perhaps you ought not to comment upon what you haven't read.

I was responding to Scott's comment.  Not yours.

[kiwi57]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

I wonder if passive-aggressive behaviour is also mentioned? I'll have to check it out.

This thread is not about me. Please do not try to divert it in that direction.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Well then, what was the point of "One being does not equal two beings?" If that wasn't supposed to summarise something Joseph said, what purpose did it serve?

I was clarifying where the contradiction, for some people, exists.

The 1832 account identifies one heavenly being.  The 1838 account identifies two.  While I accept that there are explanations for that difference and have made my own peace with those explanations, I also accept that there are church members who, in good faith, see that as a troublesome contradiction in the two accounts.  I think that is also the reason why the 1832 account (once recovered) did not make it into church curriculum and wasn't published to members of the church until recently.  While it ought to be a faith affirming document, it does not seem to be the case for many.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I wonder if passive-aggressive behaviour is also mentioned? I'll have to check it out.

This thread is not about me. Please do not try to divert it in that direction.

I wasn't making it about you.  I was responding to Scott's comment regarding the guidelines.

[hope_for_things]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The only thing that approaches being as silly and trivial as the adieu-in-the-Book-of-Mormon complaint is the complaint that takes too literally artists' conceptions of scenes from Church history.

Care to explain why my comment about how artist conceptions have influenced modern Mormon ideas about deity is silly and trivial?  I think its obvious, are you saying that art doesn't influence ideas or that Mormons are somehow immune from being influence by art?  

[kiwi57]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I was clarifying where the contradiction, for some people, exists.

The 1832 account identifies one heavenly being.  The 1838 account identifies two.  While I accept that there are explanations for that difference and have made my own peace with those explanations, I also accept that there are church members who, in good faith, see that as a troublesome contradiction in the two accounts.  I think that is also the reason why the 1832 account (once recovered) did not make it into church curriculum and wasn't published to members of the church until recently.  While it ought to be a faith affirming document, it does not seem to be the case for many.

I have tried to paste in a link several times, but it keeps disappearing.

About halfway down the first page of this thread, I wrote a fairly long discussion of (1) the nature of a contradiction, and (2) whether there is one divine being or two in the 1832 account. If you'd rather dismiss it unread as containing too much "vitriol" then that is, of course, your right; but if you'd actually prefer to be informed about what's been discussed, you might like to take a look at it. (Even if you do have to hold your nose.)

[kiwi57]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't making it about you.  I was responding to Scott's comment regarding the guidelines.

Oh, so it was completely coincidental that you happened to pick the three guidelines you did? Right.

[readstoomuch]

I tried to imply this in a previous post, but I will state it more plainly.  The 1832 is in his handwriting, but he also never took the time to publish it.  It is a lovely account and I only see Lord when I read it also.  It doesn't fully state there were two beings.    Was it a rough draft?  Was he looking for others to help him put it into a publishable form?  He must have known the 1832 account was out there, yet he opted to print the 1838 version.  I think they get compared as two apples, when they are not both officially printed, corrected and "finalized" for lack of a better term.  I know in some people's  book the handwritten version should be given more sway.  Yet, for the most part he dictated his documents.  Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith Translation, Book of Abraham, and Doctrine and Covenants.  That medium seems more comfortable to him than the handwritten process.  Not that he wasn't articulate or intelligent.  That is a different conversation than whether he could write as well as he could dictate.  

[Exiled]

30 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I have tried to paste in a link several times, but it keeps disappearing.

About halfway down the first page of this thread, I wrote a fairly long discussion of (1) the nature of a contradiction, and (2) whether there is one divine being or two in the 1832 account. If you'd rather dismiss it unread as containing too much "vitriol" then that is, of course, your right; but if you'd actually prefer to be informed about what's been discussed, you might like to take a look at it. (Even if you do have to hold your nose.)

Leaving aside whether one contradicts two, don't you find it odd that God himself was left out of the 1832 account? How do you explain that? Simple slip up? God wasn't that important to Joseph Smith at the time? He just plain forgot?

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Leaving aside whether one contradicts two, don't you find it odd that God himself was left out of the 1832 account? How do you explain that? Simple slip up? God wasn't that important to Joseph Smith at the time? He just plain forgot?

God wasn't left out. He just didn't mention the Father except indirectly. (Jesus is fully God)

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I was clarifying where the contradiction, for some people, exists.

The 1832 account identifies one heavenly being.  The 1838 account identifies two.  While I accept that there are explanations for that difference and have made my own peace with those explanations, I also accept that there are church members who, in good faith, see that as a troublesome contradiction in the two accounts.  I think that is also the reason why the 1832 account (once recovered) did not make it into church curriculum and wasn't published to members of the church until recently.  While it ought to be a faith affirming document, it does not seem to be the case for many.

Just to be a semantic stickler while it's reasonable to say that if Joseph saw two beings he'd have mentioned it in every telling, technically not mentioning one being is not a contradiction. It's at best a problematic omission. (Sorry for being the stickler, came from being a TA in too many philosophy classes where such things matter)

There are contradictions in the accounts - the exact age and whether he was convinced all churches were wrong before the vision or after. But the number of beings isn't a contradiction it's a difference.

Edited December 6, 2017 by clarkgoble