The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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

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.

I thought I was leaving the contradiction argument to the side and asking how one explains the ommission or "difference" as you say. How do you resolve the differences? How do you explain how the account gets more detailed as time goes on when usually it is the opposite for people?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

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.

I don’t see anything that shows that 14 and 15 are the same age, for instance.   Just because there are contrqdictions doesn’t mean its unreasonable that there are .  That was the point of my post.  

[california boy]

16 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

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.

I think I was pretty clear that I didn't agree with your explanation and personally found it unbelievable for me.  I also explained why I didn't personally find it believable.   But I also acknowledged that you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  Just because you have figured out a way for the two First Vision accounts to work with your faith does not mean that others find the same kind of reconciliation possible.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, readstoomuch said:

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.  

I agree that his publishing of the 1838 account gives it some extra weight.  (I presume that its publication in the Times and Seasons was under the direction of the prophet.)

But I also feel that the 1832 account carries some weight since it was written by the prophet in his autobiography six years earlier. 

[california boy]

8 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Of course I think it is fair to make assumptions.  Every single poster on this subject is making assumptions.  None of us have any actual knowledge of what Joseph Smith meant or why he wrote multiple accounts of his vision.  I personally find it unreasonable that anyone who saw God and Jesus Christ would ever leave one of them out.  Others think it is perfectly reasonable to not mention God.  Why do they make those assumptions?  I am assuming it is because they view the telling of such an important vision different than I do.  And some have expressed why they make those assumptions.  Often they compare their own experiences such as their weddings or a party they attended.  I personally think that this event would be so overwhelming and important in my life if I had such an experience. I could not possibly leave out God appearing when telling what happened.  Ever.  

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

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

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.

And that omission just happens to be God.      That’s a significant omission.  In the 1835 account he says that “a personage” appeared to him   Is that an omission?  No, because he identified the vision as just one person. So that solidifies what can be called a contradiction.

 

[kiwi57]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And that omission just happens to be God.      That’s a significant omission.  In the 1835 account he says that “a personage” appeared to him   Is that an omission?  No, because he identified the vision as just one person.

Now now, Rockpond.

In the 1835 account Joseph said a personage appeared, and then another personage appeared.

You were saying?

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So that solidifies what can be called a contradiction.

Given that you haven't responded to my post on the first page discussing contradictions and how they are defined, I take it you are persisting in arguing in ignorance of the state of the discussion.

Here is the Cliff Notes version:

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?

If the answer to both questions is "nothing" - or at least nothing as relates to the appearance of the Father and the Son, which is the point under discussion - then there's no "contradiction" in view.

[kiwi57]

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think I was pretty clear that I didn't agree with your explanation and personally found it unbelievable for me.

Yes, but you didn't address any part of my actual argument.

Quote

 I also explained why I didn't personally find it believable.

Yes, you fell back on the counter-argument which I had already addressed, and identified as a change of subject.

IOW, you were talking about something that troubles you, but which has essentially nothing to do with what a contradiction is.

Quote

  But I also acknowledged that you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  Just because you have figured out a way for the two First Vision accounts to work with your faith does not mean that others find the same kind of reconciliation possible.

Or desirable?

Edited December 6, 2017 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

1 hour 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?

If you were to read the post to which I keep trying to direct people (first page of the thread, about halfway down) you will find the answers to your questions.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don’t see anything that shows that 14 and 15 are the same age, for instance.   Just because there are contrqdictions doesn’t mean its unreasonable that there are .  That was the point of my post.  

Actually, if you read the footnote in the Joseph Smith Papers it appears that he meant to say it was "several months before his 16th year."

[Calm]

2 hours 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.)

If you post it as a link (see the black band at bottom of reply that holds editing choices, it will take a second to appear and say "display as a link"), it will appear.  Otherwise it tries to post it as a visual and that gets locked out since the last update.

I am assuming it is this one:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69928-the-1832-first-vision-account-needed-to-be-hidden/?do=findComment&comment=1209777198

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Calm

[kiwi57]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you post it as a link (see the black band at bottom of reply that holds editing choices, it will take a second to appear and say "display as a link"), it will appear.  Otherwise it tries to post it as a visual and that gets locked out since the last update.

I am assuming it is this one:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69928-the-1832-first-vision-account-needed-to-be-hidden/?do=findComment&comment=1209777198

 

That's the one. Thank you for your help.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

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

That God the Father appeared with the Son.

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

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

That only Christ appeared.

See - not that tough.

But for me, these are silly semantic games.  Contradiction, difference, true, false.  There are variations in the accounts - some find them significant, some don't.

The title of the thread asks about the 1832 account needing to be hidden.  Of course it didn't need to be hidden.  And of course, applying that word "hidden" immediately throws some people into a defensive mode.

Here's the thing - the 1832 version has been left out of the narrative.  The church decided to favor the 1838 version.  At first, that may have been because it was the most widely published.  At some point the 1832 version came to light but the church didn't bother to insert that account into its narrative.  We could debate the reasons for that and there isn't likely one simple reason.   But now here we are in the 21st century and more members are finding out about the differing accounts.  Some members find the differences troubling.  I see enough discrepancies that I can validate those members who incurred doubts because of the differing accounts.  I don't need to dismiss them and try to pretend that all the accounts are in complete agreement when they aren't.

I welcome the increased openness and hope that it will continue -- especially throughout the church curriculum.

Edited December 6, 2017 by rockpond

[kiwi57]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That God the Father appeared with the Son.

But the 1832 account doesn't say that the Father didn't appear, so that's not a contradiction. In fact, if you would bother to read the post which you are so studiously ignoring, you might learn that the Father is present in the 1832 account.

Quote

That only Christ appeared.

But the 1832 account doesn't say that "only" Christ appeared. You are "improving" your source.

Thank you for demonstrating that without such improvements, there isn't a contradiction. I really appreciate your help on that point.

Quote

See - not that tough.

But for me, these are silly semantic games.  Contradiction, difference, true, false.  There are variations in the accounts - some find them significant, some don't.

It might be a silly semantic game to you; but some here have insisted that not only are there "variations," but the number of beings is a "contradiction."

And it isn't.

If that's just a "silly semantic game," then why are you only scolding those who are responding to it?

Quote

The title of the thread asks about the 1832 account needing to be hidden.  Of course it didn't need to be hidden.  And of course, applying that word "hidden" immediately throws some people into a defensive mode.

Yes, being on the receiving end of an attack can do that.

Quote

Here's the thing - the 1832 version has been left out of the narrative.  The church decided to favor the 1838 version.  At first, that may have been because it was the most widely published.  At some point the 1832 version came to light but the church didn't bother to insert that account into its narrative.  We could debate the reasons for that and there isn't likely one simple reason.   But now here we are in the 21st century and more members are finding out about the differing accounts.  Some members find the differences troubling.  I see enough discrepancies that I can validate those members who incurred doubts because of the differing accounts.  I don't need to dismiss them

Not everyone who disagrees with you does so because they "need to dismiss" someone. Just so you know.

Quote

and try to pretend that all the accounts are in complete agreement when they aren't.

And who is trying to "pretend" something like that?

Quote

I welcome the increased openness and hope that it will continue -- especially throughout the church curriculum.

I hope it will spread in other directions, too.

Edited December 6, 2017 by kiwi57

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

But the 1832 account doesn't say that the Father didn't appear, so that's not a contradiction. In fact, if you would bother to read the post which you are so studiously ignoring, you might learn that the Father is present in the 1832 account.

But the 1832 account doesn't say that "only" Christ appeared. You are "improving" your source.

Thank you for demonstrating that without such improvements, there isn't a contradiction. I really appreciate your help on that point.

It might be a silly semantic game to you; but some here have insisted that not only are there "variations," but the number of beings is a "contradiction."

And it isn't.

If that's just a "silly semantic game," then why are you only scolding those who are responding to it?

Yes, being on the receiving end of an attack can do that.

Not everyone who disagrees with you does so because they "need to dismiss" someone. Just so you know.

And who is trying to "pretend" something like that?

I hope it will spread in other directions, too.

Your hypothetical posed the situation of one being true and the other being false.  If you are going to put it in those terms, I stand by my responses.  I’m not “improving” my sources, I’m taking them as true as they are written. 

I’m not scolding or attacking.  I’m sorry if you feel that way.  And I’m glad to hear that you aren’t dismissing those who have suffered blows to their faith when learning a narrative that differed from the one they were taught by the church.  (Unless I have misunderstood you.)

[kiwi57]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your hypothetical posed the situation of one being true and the other being false.

Because, after all, that's what contradiction entails.

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 If you are going to put it in those terms, I stand by my responses.

Even after they've been shown to be wrong?

Okay.

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 I’m not “improving” my sources, I’m taking them as true as they are written. 

Since the 1832 account doesn't say that "only" Christ appeared, it follows that the 1838/9 account doesn't contradict that assertion. It's not asserted, so it's not there to be contradicted.

If it is true that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith as attested in the 1838/9 account, then it is necessarily true that the Son appeared to Joseph Smith as attested in the 1832 account. The 1838/9 account does not contradict the 1832 account on this point; rather, it fully supports it.

On the other hand:

If it is true that the Son appeared to Joseph Smith as attested in the 1832 account, then it remains potentially true that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith as attested in the 1838/9 account. The 1832 account does not contradict the 1838/9 account on this point; rather, it partially supports it.

This is not a matter of how "important" anyone might judge the appearance of the Father to be. It is exclusively, and only, a matter of logic.

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m not scolding or attacking.  I’m sorry if you feel that way.  And I’m glad to hear that you aren’t dismissing those who have suffered blows to their faith when learning a narrative that differed from the one they were taught by the church.  (Unless I have misunderstood you.)

No, you haven't misunderstood me. I'm not dismissing any people who had that experience.

However, neither am I tolerating those predatory individuals who consciously attempt to inflict such "blows."

My post on the first page of this thread - so far unread by you, as far as I can tell - demonstrates with a pretty high degree of confidence that the Father is present in the 1832 account. It also demonstrates with complete rigor what is required to show a contradiction.

An argument that is not addressed is an argument that is not refuted.

Since you've been able to withstand so much "vitriol" from me over the last couple of pages, you might as well just read that post. You never know; you might even learn something.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

Well then you falsely characterized what I said. 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well then you falsely characterized what I said. 

How so?

[rockpond]

41 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Because, after all, that's what contradiction entails.

Even after they've been shown to be wrong?

Okay.

Since the 1832 account doesn't say that "only" Christ appeared, it follows that the 1838/9 account doesn't contradict that assertion. It's not asserted, so it's not there to be contradicted.

If it is true that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith as attested in the 1838/9 account, then it is necessarily true that the Son appeared to Joseph Smith as attested in the 1832 account. The 1838/9 account does not contradict the 1832 account on this point; rather, it fully supports it.

On the other hand:

If it is true that the Son appeared to Joseph Smith as attested in the 1832 account, then it remains potentially true that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith as attested in the 1838/9 account. The 1832 account does not contradict the 1838/9 account on this point; rather, it partially supports it.

This is not a matter of how "important" anyone might judge the appearance of the Father to be. It is exclusively, and only, a matter of logic.

No, you haven't misunderstood me. I'm not dismissing any people who had that experience.

However, neither am I tolerating those predatory individuals who consciously attempt to inflict such "blows."

My post on the first page of this thread - so far unread by you, as far as I can tell - demonstrates with a pretty high degree of confidence that the Father is present in the 1832 account. It also demonstrates with complete rigor what is required to show a contradiction.

An argument that is not addressed is an argument that is not refuted.

Since you've been able to withstand so much "vitriol" from me over the last couple of pages, you might as well just read that post. You never know; you might even learn something.

Well I’m not one of the predatory individuals.  I’m not troubled by the differing accounts.  As I mentioned earlier, I taught them (in a faith affirming manner - which is easy to do) to a group of 14-15 year old young men. 

And, no, I haven’t read your post.  And likely won’t at this point, mostly because your opinion doesn’t interest me at all. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

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

Kiwi was not the only one who saw in it veiled accusations. 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

And, no, I haven’t read your post.  And likely won’t at this point, mostly because your opinion doesn’t interest me at all. 

Then you shouldn't be engaging him in conversation at all because he put effort into that post to explain his reasoning and if you are refusing to deal with it, you shouldn't act like you are responding to him rather than just repeating your own opinion without knowing all the details of his reasoning.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Which means he was in his 15th year* — just as he said in the 1838/Pearl of Great Price Version. 

*If a person is 14 years of age, he is in his 15th year. 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How so?

You implied that I made a statement that I didn’t make. 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Kiwi was not the only one who saw in it veiled accusations. 

Funny.  Why would he see it that way?

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then you shouldn't be engaging him in conversation at all because he put effort into that post to explain his reasoning and if you are refusing to deal with it, you shouldn't act like you are responding to him rather than just repeating your own opinion without knowing all the details of his reasoning.

He engaged me.  I responded to him to defend my statements.  Then he gave a “cliff’s notes” version of his post and asked for my response.

Edited December 6, 2017 by rockpond