The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

That only Christ appeared.

But it never says only Christ appeared. It just says in a very brief few sentences that Christ did appear. For all we know he may well have seen other things. You're making an argument from silence.

If you believe only Christ appeared, why do you think that given the text. (And no, saying I'd have mentioned God the Father if he appeared isn't a real argument)

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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 difference between omission and contradiction is pretty profound. To the point of whether an argument is fallacious or not. Conflating the two is a basic logic error.  So it's not just semantics any more than the difference between addition and multiplication is just semantics.

Again, there's nothing wrong with drawing implications from the 1832 account. But my sense is people are injecting some presumptions that aren't defensible.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

But while you could argue that prior to the 1970's it wasn't part of the narrative by the 1980's it definitely was part of the narrative. Now there are some places where only the 1838 is quoted. For instance I wish the Joseph Smith priesthood manual discussed all the accounts. However the multiple accounts including the 1832 were regularly discussed in the Ensign. So I just don't accept your premise. Even if you think the use in the 80's and 90's was insufficient, in the last 10 years it's been discussed a lot including a Mormon channel series.

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

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."

I missed that. It also says "Insertion in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams. JS later recounted that this vision occurred in early spring 1820, when he was fourteen years old." So Joseph didn't even write 16. That's really interesting. I should make sure I click on those icons in the future.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Honestly, Scott, I don’t even know what post we are talking about at this point.  But it is never my intent to incorrectly attribute statements to you.  If you’d like to point me to my error, I’ll do what I can to correct it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

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."

Thank you for that observation. 

This means, of course, that he was in his 15th year, just as he said in the 1848/Pearl of Great Price account. 

When you are 14, you are in your 15th year. When you are 15, you are in your 16th year. And so forth. 

Ergo, no contradiction there. 

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But it never says only Christ appeared. It just says in a very brief few sentences that Christ did appear. For all we know he may well have seen other things. You're making an argument from silence.

If you believe only Christ appeared, why do you think that given the text. (And no, saying I'd have mentioned God the Father if he appeared isn't a real argument)

The difference between omission and contradiction is pretty profound. To the point of whether an argument is fallacious or not. Conflating the two is a basic logic error.  So it's not just semantics any more than the difference between addition and multiplication is just semantics.

Again, there's nothing wrong with drawing implications from the 1832 account. But my sense is people are injecting some presumptions that aren't defensible.

But while you could argue that prior to the 1970's it wasn't part of the narrative by the 1980's it definitely was part of the narrative. Now there are some places where only the 1838 is quoted. For instance I wish the Joseph Smith priesthood manual discussed all the accounts. However the multiple accounts including the 1832 were regularly discussed in the Ensign. So I just don't accept your premise. Even if you think the use in the 80's and 90's was insufficient, in the last 10 years it's been discussed a lot including a Mormon channel series.

I missed that. It also says "Insertion in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams. JS later recounted that this vision occurred in early spring 1820, when he was fourteen years old." So Joseph didn't even write 16. That's really interesting. I should make sure I click on those icons in the future.

I don’t believe that only Christ appeared.  

Where and when was the 1832 account inserted into the narrative in either church curriculum or in addresses from our general authorities?

I don’t pick those two areas to be nit picky and annoying.  I’m choosing to ask it that way because those are the channels with the most reach to general membership.  The curriculum which is taught each Sunday and general conference addresses.  Is there anywhere in our Sunday curriculum that included the other accounts prior to the last decade?  When has a general authority of the church taught about the different accounts?

So far I’ve heard of two Ensign articles and the Allen article in the Improvement Era that mention the 1832 account.  But I don’t recall them actually providing the text of the account.  Is there something I missed?

How many people watch the Mormon channel?  (In my house it gets turned on for general conference.)

To this day, the dominant narrative continues to be the 1838 account.  It is what every missionary memorizes.  It remains the only account in our canon.  But over the past few years it has started to show up in curriculum.  Take the Aaronic Priesthood Come Follow Me manual.  The preparation section noted the “First Vision Accounts” in gospel topics (without a link) but the “Learn Together” section still focuses on the JS-H 1838 account.  Good steps in the right direction. 

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Honestly, Scott, I don’t even know what post we are talking about at this point.  But it is never my intent to incorrectly attribute statements to you.  If you’d like to point me to my error, I’ll do what I can to correct it. 

You said back on page 5, “ One being does not equal two beings.” This was in response to a post from me. 

Later, when Kiwi responded, you told him you had been responding to me. 

So what am I to conclude other than you are claiming I said one being equals two beings — which, of course, I never said?

What was it I did say?  I said that failing to mention something (i.e. the presence of another being) is not the same thing as contradicting it. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I missed that. It also says "Insertion in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams. JS later recounted that this vision occurred in early spring 1820, when he was fourteen years old." So Joseph didn't even write 16. That's really interesting. I should make sure I click on those icons in the future.

Thank you for that acknowledgement. 

The bit about it not having entered his heart that all the churches were wrong is not a contradiction either. See my prior post on this, the one where I quoted J.B. Haws. 

If Joseph said it had never entered his <mind> that they were all wrong, a stronger case could be made for saying there was a contradiction. But he didn’t say mind, he said heart. 

So the score on attempts to identify contradictions in the First Vision accounts is so far zero for three. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you for that observation. 

This means, of course, that he was in his 15th year, just as he said in the 1848/Pearl of Great Price account. 

When you are 14, you are in your 15th year. When you are 15, you are in your 16th year. And so forth. 

Ergo, no contradiction there. 

 

Pretty sure cinepro was making a joke in reference to Helen Mar Kimball's age reference in the Gospel Topic essay (is usually 'quoted' as a 'few months shy of her 15th birthday', but is actually written as cinepro presented except "her 15th").

There is no such footnote or anything close that I found in a quick scan of the accounts on the JSP site.  Checked just in case I misjudged cine's humor.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Calm

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You said back on page 5, “ One being does not equal two beings.” This was in response to a post from me. 

Later, when Kiwi responded, you told him you had been responding to me. 

So what am I to conclude other than you are claiming I said one being equals two beings — which, of course, I never said?

What was it I did say?  I said that failing to mention something is not the same thing as contradicting it. 

That was my response to you... you said that failing to mention something is not the same as contradicting it.  Which I agree with.  And I was noting that the contradiction can be seen as “one being does not equal two”.  I’m unclear on why you thought I was somehow suggesting that you said that.  But hopefully this clears it up. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

That was my response to you... you said that failing to mention something is not the same as contradicting it.  Which I agree with.  And I was noting that the contradiction can be seen as “one being does not equal two”.  I’m unclear on why you thought I was somehow suggesting that you said that.  But hopefully this clears it up. 

But nothing in any of the accounts suggests that one being equals two — which is why I responded initially as I did. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Pretty sure cinepro was making a joke in reference to Helen Mar Kimball's age reference in the Gospel Topic essay (is usually 'quoted' as a 'few months shy of her 15th birthday', but is actually written as cinepro presented except "her 15th").

There is no such footnote or anything close that I found in a quick scan of the accounts on the JSP site.  Checked just in case I misjudged cine's humor.

If I was misled, then so was clarkgoble, who said he also saw a notation about it being an insertion in the handwriting of Frederick G Williams. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Funny.  Why would he see it that way?

I can only speak for myself. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

I think it foolish and naive to rely on artists’ conceptions for one’s understanding of history, especially when published history is available to be read and studied. 

[clarkgoble]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Where and when was the 1832 account inserted into the narrative in either church curriculum or in addresses from our general authorities?

Old manuals aren't available online so that's hard to answer. As for General Authorities, how about this one from Pres. Hinkley in 1984? "“I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the First Vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time” 

The 2013 seminary manual (see below) and the 2003 Presidents of the Church manual mention it. 

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don’t pick those two areas to be nit picky and annoying.  I’m choosing to ask it that way because those are the channels with the most reach to general membership.  The curriculum which is taught each Sunday and general conference addresses.  Is there anywhere in our Sunday curriculum that included the other accounts prior to the last decade?  When has a general authority of the church taught about the different accounts?

So far I’ve heard of two Ensign articles and the Allen article in the Improvement Era that mention the 1832 account.  But I don’t recall them actually providing the text of the account.  Is there something I missed?

I listed a bunch somewhere in this forum last week. I can't seem to find the post right now. But it was regularly in the Ensign. Not having older manuals as I said I can't check manuals prior to 10 years ago. It's in the current seminary manual although that's from 2013. I don't know if the manual before then also included it.

Here's a few I quickly found that are more than 10 years old. (Missing the sort by date feature on lds.org)

Milton &nbsp;Backman Jr 1985

Milton Backman Jr 1986

Richard Anderson 1996

Dean Jessee 1984 (Note contains full text of 1832 version)

Mark Ashurst-McGee and Alex Smith 2007

Richard Bushman 1977

James Allen 1979

That's all from a very brief search. I seem to recall there were quite a few other references.

[MiserereNobis]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it foolish and naive to rely on artists’ conceptions for one’s understanding of history, especially when published history is available to be read and studied. 

I'm not a partisan to the major issue being discussed here, but I want to respond to this claim. Art has always influenced people's perceptions, of history, of reality, of theology, of whatever. You may claim that it is naive, and that may even be true, but it doesn't discount the fact that the majority of humans rely upon art (painting, music, sculpture, architecture, etc) to help them order and organize their world. That's why art is so powerful. That's why the experience of being in a medieval cathedral is so powerful (the various genres of art are united to present a coherent theological understanding of the world).

I find it too dismissive of a basic attribute of humanity to claim that being influenced by art is foolish and naive. Art is part of what makes us human, and it can bring us closer to the truth and it can take us away from the truth. But please don't call people who are influenced by art dumb, because chances are you have been influenced by art quite a bit during your lifetime, whether it is for history or theology or whatever.

 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not a partisan to the major issue being discussed here, but I want to respond to this claim. Art has always influenced people's perceptions, of history, of reality, of theology, of whatever. You may claim that it is naive, and that may even be true, but it doesn't discount the fact that the majority of humans rely upon art (painting, music, sculpture, architecture, etc) to help them order and organize their world. That's why art is so powerful. That's why the experience of being in a medieval cathedral is so powerful (the various genres of art are united to present a coherent theological understanding of the world).

I find it too dismissive of a basic attribute of humanity to claim that being influenced by art is foolish and naive. Art is part of what makes us human, and it can bring us closer to the truth and it can take us away from the truth. But please don't call people who are influenced by art dumb, because chances are you have been influenced by art quite a bit during your lifetime, whether it is for history or theology or whatever.

 

Okay, it's one thing for people to be influenced by art. But it's quite another to look at a piece of art and assume it's supposed to represent a "Polaroid moment." Art is intended to depict concepts, not reproduce historical events with rigid verisimilitude.

Consider this parallel case: If a disaffected Catholic told you she had lost her faith because in the church of her childhood there was a statue of Peter holding a big bunch of keys, and she subsequently found out that keys of that style hadn't been invented until centuries later, wouldn't you think her expectations of religious art were just a little bit naive?

LDS artists depict the translation with the plates in front of Joseph, sometimes the Urim and Thummim as well, sometimes with a curtain hanging up, etc. This is not because the Correlation Committee (boo, hiss) imperiously ordered them to or else, but because they wanted to get all those features into a single frame. That's all.

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I was misled, then so was clarkgoble, who said he also saw a notation about it being an insertion in the handwriting of Frederick G Williams. 

Which it is. It is a cramped interlinear insertion, i.e. it was squeezed in between two existing lines of text.

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Funny.  Why would he see it that way?

Don't you just love the charming innocence of it? Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth!

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

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. 

And yet you keep right on arguing with me.

Funny how much attention you keep giving to something that doesn't interest you at all, isn't it?

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

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.

Actually I only gave the "Cliff Notes" version of the bit that talks about what a contradiction is.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Which it is. It is a cramped interlinear insertion, i.e. it was squeezed in between two existing lines of text.

I believe the exact insertion is "in the 16th year of my age".

I thought it was debatable whether it was 16th or 15th.  Have they decided for certain which one?

I will look it up myself.  Just sitting here passing time while my daughter pukes.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm not a partisan to the major issue being discussed here, but I want to respond to this claim. Art has always influenced people's perceptions, of history, of reality, of theology, of whatever. You may claim that it is naive, and that may even be true, but it doesn't discount the fact that the majority of humans rely upon art (painting, music, sculpture, architecture, etc) to help them order and organize their world. That's why art is so powerful. That's why the experience of being in a medieval cathedral is so powerful (the various genres of art are united to present a coherent theological understanding of the world).

I find it too dismissive of a basic attribute of humanity to claim that being influenced by art is foolish and naive. Art is part of what makes us human, and it can bring us closer to the truth and it can take us away from the truth. But please don't call people who are influenced by art dumb, because chances are you have been influenced by art quite a bit during your lifetime, whether it is for history or theology or whatever.

 

I never denied that people are influenced by art. I was talking about forming hardened impressions based on an artist’s conception and not recognizing that in the final analysis it is only an artist’s conception. Smac’s analogy about the statue of Peter with the keys is a good one. To carry it further, it would be like a Catholic losing the faith of her childhood because she learned that the keys were not literal — as depicted in the statue — but only a symbolic figure of speech 

Incidentally, there is such a statue. It is by Bertil Thorvaldsen, and it is in The Church of Our Lady in Copenhagen, Denmark, although that is a Lutheran, not a Catholic,  church. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

JSP has the footnote attached to the quote above as "Insertion in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams. JS later recounted that this vision occurred in early spring 1820, when he was fourteen years old. (JS History, vol. A-1, 3; compare JS, Journal, 9–11 Nov. 1835; JS, “Church History,” Times and Seasons, 1 Mar. 1842, 3:706; and JS, “Latter Day Saints,” in Rupp, He Pasa Ekklesia, 404–405.)"

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/3#full-transcript

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I believe the exact insertion is "in the 16th year of my age".

I thought it was debatable whether it was 16th or 15th.  Have they decided for certain which one?

I will look it up myself.  Just sitting here passing time while my daughter pukes.

If it says “16th year,” it would mean he was 15 years old.

But it’s a moot point anyway, because it wasn’t Joseph Smith who wrote it, it was Frederick G. Williams. Joseph himself said he was in his 15th year (14), which would be consistent with what he said about the event having taken place in the early spring of 1820. The insertion by Frederick G. Williams is quite clearly an error (or perhaps a misunderstanding) on his part. 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I can't find when or if they shifted from accepting the possibility of it being 15th year due to legibility or lack there of (reported in an 85 Ensign by Backman) to the possibility not being mentioned (the JSP and a BYU Studies article by Jessee in 2012).  Anyone have any info on if it is definite agreement as in 'for sure Williams inserted 16th year" or there is still some debate.  Looking at the actual manuscript, the number looks overwritten to me.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it says “16th year,” it would mean he was 15 years old.

But it’s a moot point anyway, because it wasn’t Joseph Smith who wrote it, it was Frederick G. Williams. Joseph himself said he was in his 15th year (14), which would be consistent with what he said about the event having taken place in the early spring of 1820. The insertion by Frederick G. Williams is quite clearly an error (or perhaps a misunderstanding) on his part. 

I am just curious.

I would be interested if they could tell if the insertion came later then where Williams took up dictation or not.  I would like to know why Joseph decided to stop writing it by himself as well.  Seems like writing was viewed as a real hassle by him, but he at least wanted to try for awhile.  Was it just too frustrating, was he interrupted and by the time he got back to it, he decided to let Williams write it?  Was Williams unavailable for a bit?

Ah well, won't know that until the next life.  Hope it still matters to me enough to ask, I can't imagine not still being a nitpicker in eternity when I have so much more time and resources to find out details.  I don't see why I shouldn't care about details just because they have no impact on me besides satisfying curiosity.  Curiosity is fun.  But perhaps I will have too many more dramatic things to study like nebulas up close.