The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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. 

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  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.

President Hinckley only mentioned that there are multiple accounts, he didn’t share any details. 

As far as I can tell, from what you’ve shared here, the full text of the 1832 account was only published in the 1984 Ensign article authored by someone who was not a general authority. 

My point was that the 1832 account was not a part of the church narrative.  And in looking at the links you provided, that seems to be true.  Per your list, it appears that prior to the 2003 institute manual, the 1832 account had been published just once, likely not in the curriculum*, and only alluded to by any general authorities. Have I missed something?

* I agree that it’s tough to draw conclusions regarding curriculum since the old manuals aren’t online.  But we know that the TOTP: Joseph Smith manual did not cover it and that seems like the most likely place.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

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?

Not really.  I’m just interested in discussing my ideas.

[hope_for_things]

8 hours 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 would agree that I don't think people should expect art to reflect serious scholarship.  But to call it silly or foolish doesn't seem fair either.  Art has a huge influence on societal conceptions of historical events.  This is not a unique Mormon phenomenon.  Art and film are very influential and persuasive ways of communicating.  If you like podcasts, you may enjoy this episode I listened to recently.  

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/10/24/yanss-113-the-power-of-fiction-to-change-peoples-minds/

 

 

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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. 

I'm not sure what this is referencing but to be clear the 1832 version has it that Joseph claimed the first vision occurred when he was 15 not 14.  It says 16th year, not 15 year.  my best bet at how to square this is...as Lehi says a vision and dream are synonymous, and it's likely that if a first vision then Joseph also dreamed about the vision.  Waiting a decade or in some cases two before trying to relay the story of it may likely then cause him to confuse some of the aspects of his dreams (again likely if he had a vision he dreamed about and if dreamed about it once likely dreamed about it multiple times) and the first vision (which happens to also be a dream, according to Lehi).  Also, when considering this, his doctrine seemed to have developed in his life, evolved or changed to some degree.  Many have noted that his concept of God had changed from the time of the Church being restored and the last years of his life in Nauvoo.  His telling in the later years seemed to have some element of wanting to square his evolving doctrine with what was his first vision.  This feels like a far better explanation of why no mention of the Father in '32, not because he didn't later really believe the Father was there separate from the Son in his first vision, but because he didn't really see a doctrinal reason to separate the two in '32.  It also addresses his contradiction about when it happened.  It happened, essentially, many times over if he dreamed about it.  He may have tried to be more careful in 1838 when trying to define in his head when it happened, as he tried to reference other elements of his life, but it also could be he had it rather confused due to his many dreams which he was unable to separate in large measure from the main dream or what we call first vision.  

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

My point was that the 1832 account was not a part of the church narrative.

I guess I'm not sure then what you mean by "not a part of the church narrative." To me acknowledging it and discussing it, especially in long prominent Ensign articles is doing that. However if you mean from a theological standpoint I guess I've no idea what you mean. What exactly is it you want? 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

I guess I'm not sure then what you mean by "not a part of the church narrative." To me acknowledging it and discussing it, especially in long prominent Ensign articles is doing that. However if you mean from a theological standpoint I guess I've no idea what you mean. What exactly is it you want? 

I think the main reason the '32 account is not preferred in the narrative is because Joseph wanted his later version to be the official version.  It is that which he put out as the story of his first vision, which he has every right to do.  my interest in it is, wow, things really changed for Joseph over those 6 years or so.  We all know they did, in many ways.  He got far more comfortable with what his doctrines were, for one.  The contradictions inherent in the accounts help show that.  But it does say a lot about what we've used the First Vision to mean.  It isn't so good to use to say "at the moment, at 14, Joseph knew more about God than all the great religious minds of his day" type of stuff.  For one, I think what we learn is the First Vision might not have happened when he was 14 at all.  For another, it doesn't seem like his first vision clarified much about God for him at all.  The greater more impactful element of what taught him about God was his experience in trying to define Him.  

It's all just very interesting.  I think the Church would really benefit about exploring these types of ideas.  of course the Church is far more about controlling things to promote business and such, then it is about trying to uncover and develop doctrine/ideas these days.  

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I guess I'm not sure then what you mean by "not a part of the church narrative." To me acknowledging it and discussing it, especially in long prominent Ensign articles is doing that. However if you mean from a theological standpoint I guess I've no idea what you mean. What exactly is it you want? 

What is generally taught to church members each Sunday and in general conference is the 1838 version.  What is generally taught to investigators is the 1838 version.  What is predominately quoted in general conference is the 1838 version.  That’s what I mean by the narrative. 

What do I want?  Not that it should be about me, but since you asked...

Acknowledgement that members who were shocked and hurt when they learned of the multiple accounts and differences therein are not the ones to be blamed for not knowing.  I would love it if the Brethren would publicly admit that the Church was not as forthright and transparent as it ought to have been regarding the content of the multiple accounts.  And, we ought to include teaching the text of the first vision accounts in our Sunday curriculum (youth curriculum is part way there, not sure about adult gospel doctrine).

[Calm]

The main church history manual for Institute (as well as available online on LDS.org) since the early 90s has several quotes from the 1832 account.  The footnotes from the First Vision chapter demonstrate a good percentage of the material is from the 1832 account (the JS-H is cited without footnotes as other scriptures are):

"Gordon B. Hinckley, in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, pp. 90–91; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, p. 71.

2. See Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, ed. Preston Nibley (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958), pp. 63–64.

3. “History of Joseph Smith By Himself,” 1832 (written in Kirtland, Ohio, between 20 July and 27 Nov. 1832), LDS Historical Department, Salt Lake City, p. 1; see also Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984), p. 4 (contains a printing of all the known holographic writings of Joseph Smith).

4. “History of Joseph Smith By Himself,” p. 1; spelling, punctuation, and capitalization standardized; Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 4.

5. This paragraph is derived from
Milton V. Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980), pp. 71, 73.

6. Smith, History of Joseph Smith, p. 68.

7. “History of Joseph Smith By Himself,” pp. 1–2; spelling, punctuation, and capitalization standardized; Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, pp. 4–5.

8. Joseph Smith, “History A-1,” Nov. 1835, LDS Historical Department, Salt Lake City, p. 120.

9. “History of Joseph Smith By Himself,” p. 2; spelling, punctuation, and capitalization standardized; Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 5.

10. See “History of Joseph Smith By Himself,” p. 3; Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 6.

11. History of the Church, 4:536. This statement is part of a reply written by Joseph Smith to Mr. John C. Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat. Mr. Wentworth had written in behalf of a friend of his, Mr. Bastow (his actual name was George Barstow), who was writing a history of New Hampshire and wished to include “correct information” respecting the rise and progress of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

12. “History of Joseph Smith By Himself,” p. 3; spelling, punctuation, and capitalization standardized; Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 6.

13. In J. W. Peterson, “Another Testimony, Statement of William Smith, Concerning Joseph the Prophet,” Deseret Evening News, 20 Jan. 1894, p. 11.

14. In Peterson, “Another Testimony,” p. 11.

15. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939), pp. 495–96."

-----

The text mixes the various accounts starting with two quotes from the 32 account:

"Revivals and camp meetings affected young Joseph. He wrote in his personal history that “at about the age of twelve years, my mind became seriously impressed with regard to the all important concerns for the welfare of my immortal soul.”7 This, in turn, led him to search the scriptures and seek for forgiveness of his sins. As for the claims put forth by the various teachers of religion, he said, “I knew not who was right or who was wrong, but considered it of the first importance to me that I should be right, in matters . . . involving eternal consequences.”8...

Starts on page 31 of the book, 40 of the PDF:

[Exiled]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

The main church history manual for Institute (as well as available online on LDS.org) since the early 90s has several quotes from the 1832 account.  The footnotes from the First Vision chapter demonstrate a good percentage of the material is from the 1832 account (the JS-H is cited without footnotes as other scriptures are):

"Gordon B. Hinckley, in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, pp. 90–91; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, p. 71.

2. See Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, ed. Preston Nibley (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958), pp. 63–64.

3. “History of Joseph Smith By Himself,” 1832 (written in Kirtland, Ohio, between 20 July and 27 Nov. 1832), LDS Historical Department, Salt Lake City, p. 1; see also Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984), p. 4 (contains a printing of all the known holographic writings of Joseph Smith).

4. “History of Joseph Smith By Himself,” p. 1; spelling, punctuation, and capitalization standardized; Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 4.

5. This paragraph is derived from
Milton V. Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980), pp. 71, 73.

6. Smith, History of Joseph Smith, p. 68.

7. “History of Joseph Smith By Himself,” pp. 1–2; spelling, punctuation, and capitalization standardized; Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, pp. 4–5.

8. Joseph Smith, “History A-1,” Nov. 1835, LDS Historical Department, Salt Lake City, p. 120.

9. “History of Joseph Smith By Himself,” p. 2; spelling, punctuation, and capitalization standardized; Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 5.

10. See “History of Joseph Smith By Himself,” p. 3; Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 6.

11. History of the Church, 4:536. This statement is part of a reply written by Joseph Smith to Mr. John C. Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat. Mr. Wentworth had written in behalf of a friend of his, Mr. Bastow (his actual name was George Barstow), who was writing a history of New Hampshire and wished to include “correct information” respecting the rise and progress of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

12. “History of Joseph Smith By Himself,” p. 3; spelling, punctuation, and capitalization standardized; Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 6.

13. In J. W. Peterson, “Another Testimony, Statement of William Smith, Concerning Joseph the Prophet,” Deseret Evening News, 20 Jan. 1894, p. 11.

14. In Peterson, “Another Testimony,” p. 11.

15. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939), pp. 495–96."

-----

The text mixes the various accounts starting with two quotes from the 32 account:

"Revivals and camp meetings affected young Joseph. He wrote in his personal history that “at about the age of twelve years, my mind became seriously impressed with regard to the all important concerns for the welfare of my immortal soul.”7 This, in turn, led him to search the scriptures and seek for forgiveness of his sins. As for the claims put forth by the various teachers of religion, he said, “I knew not who was right or who was wrong, but considered it of the first importance to me that I should be right, in matters . . . involving eternal consequences.”8...

Starts on page 31 of the book, 40 of the PDF:

What about prior to the 1990's? What did the church teach then? Did the manuals mention the 1832 account in the 1970's or 1980's?

[Calm]

The previous Institute manual was Barrett's Joseph Smith and the Restoration,  at the moment I can't type in the footnotes, but there are 5 referring to Backman's work, 4 referring to Jessee' stuff, including quotes from both papers that are half page quotes of the 32 account, if my fading brain is reading it correctly.

This was written in 67 and used at least to late 70s when my husband took the class.  Iirc, itwas used until the Fullness of time took over.

https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Restoration-Ivan-Barrett/dp/B0007ED2SQ

When I wake up, I will try and remember to get the right citation, but if you have the book, they are easy to find, third chapter First Vision.

Unfortunately I have given away all my other old manuals.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Calm

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

The previous Institute manual was Barrett's Joseph Smith and the Restoration,  at the moment I can't type in the footnotes, but there are 5 referring to Backman's work, 4 referring to Jessee' stuff, including quotes from both papers that are half page quotes of the 32 account, if my fading brain is reading it correctly.

This was written in 67 and used at least to late 70s when my husband took the class.  Iirc, itwas used until the Fullness of time took over.

So do you think the members should be blamed for not knowing about the various accounts? Do you think putting something in a footnote is enough notice? How about when the teacher doesn't mention the other accounts notwithstanding the footnotes? 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

If, as an exalted being, you inherit God-like attributes, I daresay you will know by virtue of omniscience without having to investigate it -- at least not in the earthly sense that we understand investigation.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So do you think the members should be blamed for not knowing about the various accounts? Do you think putting something in a footnote is enough notice? How about when the teacher doesn't mention the other accounts notwithstanding the footnotes? 

The accounts are mentioned and quoted in the text.  I put up the footnotes to show how often they were referenced in the text, took up less room than pasting the chapter, plus easier to identify.  They are not only mentioned in the footnotes, those primarily are the citations for the quotes, with a few having additional info.

I think anyone who took the Church .history Institute class from 67 to current (I think it is still in use) should be aware of the various accounts, of much of their content, and if not, they apparently didn't do their homework and read the textbook like they should.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure what this is referencing but to be clear the 1832 version has it that Joseph claimed the first vision occurred when he was 15 not 14.  It says 16th year, not 15 year. 

I already addressed this. Did you not get that it was not Joseph saying this, but rather, an insertion in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams? An insertion, by the way, whose handwriting is illegible, as Calm noted in a very recent post on this thread?

I think there are a few posts you need to catch up on if you have not already done so.

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I would agree that I don't think people should expect art to reflect serious scholarship.  But to call it silly or foolish doesn't seem fair either.  Art has a huge influence on societal conceptions of historical events.  This is not a unique Mormon phenomenon.  Art and film are very influential and persuasive ways of communicating.  If you like podcasts, you may enjoy this episode I listened to recently.  

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/10/24/yanss-113-the-power-of-fiction-to-change-peoples-minds/

 

 

Being influenced by art is one thing; letting it drive your hard-and-fast conclusions about reality and then taking umbrage when you learn better is another.

This is especially the case with cinematic art. I learned long ago not to trust Hollywood to provide a straight story when supposedly depicting true events. It is axiomatic that artistic license will be taken, whether it be to make the story more entertaining, more comprehensible, to collapse time frame or whatever.

 

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Being influenced by art is one thing; letting it drive your hard-and-fast conclusions about reality and then taking umbrage when you learn better is another.

This is especially the case with cinematic art. I learned long ago not to trust Hollywood to provide a straight story when supposedly depicting true events. It is axiomatic that artistic license will be taken, whether it be to make the story more entertaining, more comprehensible, to collapse time frame or whatever.

Whether we like it or not, as a culture we are highly influenced by the visuals arts.  I agree with you that we need to teach critical thinking skills when it comes to the media that we consume as a culture. 

The church also knows of the power of media presentations and art.  As a missionary I frequently used video presentations.  The authors of these video presentations could seek to produce robust and historically accurate events, but that is often not the goal and actually may work against the desires of the producers.  Doesn't the church have a trademark called heartsell, that has received some criticism for its blatant attempts to influence people via emotional manipulation?  

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Whether we like it or not, as a culture we are highly influenced by the visuals arts.  I agree with you that we need to teach critical thinking skills when it comes to the media that we consume as a culture. 

The church also knows of the power of media presentations and art.  As a missionary I frequently used video presentations.  The authors of these video presentations could seek to produce robust and historically accurate events, but that is often not the goal and actually may work against the desires of the producers.  Doesn't the church have a trademark called heartsell, that has received some criticism for its blatant attempts to influence people via emotional manipulation?  

I've not heard of such a thing.

Edited to add:

I just Googled "Heartsell," and I see that almost all of the hits are to websites where anti-Mormons and apostates are spun up over it.

It appears to be a concept that Bonneville Communications had going for a while. Which doesn't surprise me. Bonneville is largely a marketing organization that produces public service spots for the Church, for the Boy Scouts and for other secular entities.

Yeah, I know that Bonneville is Church-owned, but is it fair to blame the Church for something Bonneville came up with in the course of operating their for-profit business? That would be like blaming the Church for the Deseret News having taken an editorial position you didn't like (say, calling for Trump to resign his presidential election campaign last year), even though it did not reflect the position of the Church itself.

Or it would be like blaming the Church for Deseret Book selling the Harry Potter series (if it did; I'm not sure it does).

Edited December 6, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So do you think the members should be blamed for not knowing about the various accounts?

That's not the question. It's whether they should blame others -- or anyone at all -- for their not knowing.

I note that Smac has twitted you for your seeming obsession for fixing blame. I see you are still at it.

 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've not heard of such a thing.

There have been threads on reddit and other places if you are interested in some of the Heartsell debate if you google it you'll find more.  This archived link has the Bonneville communications statement.  

https://web.archive.org/web/20150219201604/http://www.bonneville.com/?nid=32

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think the main reason the '32 account is not preferred in the narrative is because Joseph wanted his later version to be the official version.  It is that which he put out as the story of his first vision, which he has every right to do.  my interest in it is, wow, things really changed for Joseph over those 6 years or so.  We all know they did, in many ways.  He got far more comfortable with what his doctrines were, for one.  The contradictions inherent in the accounts help show that.  But it does say a lot about what we've used the First Vision to mean.  It isn't so good to use to say "at the moment, at 14, Joseph knew more about God than all the great religious minds of his day" type of stuff.  For one, I think what we learn is the First Vision might not have happened when he was 14 at all.  For another, it doesn't seem like his first vision clarified much about God for him at all.  The greater more impactful element of what taught him about God was his experience in trying to define Him.  

It's all just very interesting.  I think the Church would really benefit about exploring these types of ideas.  of course the Church is far more about controlling things to promote business and such, then it is about trying to uncover and develop doctrine/ideas these days.  

I don't mind talking about such issues. I'm not necessarily it's the appropriate focus for church lessons which are more devotional, motivational and doctrinal. It seems just a fact that the '32 version isn't that useful pedagogically. The elements it has are also had in the other accounts. So beyond mentioning it's existence and dealing with purported implications from it, I guess I just don't see why it'd be used rather than the '38 or even '35 version.

Even if you're focused on what changed for Joseph, it's not at all clear that the '32 text is the ideal text to discuss that. It simply doesn't deal with most of the major changes in theology.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

What is generally taught to church members each Sunday and in general conference is the 1838 version.  What is generally taught to investigators is the 1838 version.  What is predominately quoted in general conference is the 1838 version.  That’s what I mean by the narrative. 

Well I agree but as I said to Stemelbow I don't see that as a problem given the focus. Further what's generally taught doesn't mean the other isn't taught. However again the '32 version just isn't as useful for most things one wants to teach. I could point at lots of scriptures that don't get quoted or even historical texts by Joseph Smith.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Acknowledgement that members who were shocked and hurt when they learned of the multiple accounts and differences therein are not the ones to be blamed for not knowing.  I would love it if the Brethren would publicly admit that the Church was not as forthright and transparent as it ought to have been regarding the content of the multiple accounts.  And, we ought to include teaching the text of the first vision accounts in our Sunday curriculum (youth curriculum is part way there, not sure about adult gospel doctrine).

Yeah I just disagree with that. I think people have a duty to learn. Most people don't. Blaming the Church when they've clearly done a reasonable job on the issues seems silly. Further I think conflating "the narrative" with putting the facts out is mixing two completely different issues. More or less it makes the following argument:

1. people do the absolute minimum and only pay attention to what's forced repeatably in Sunday School although they'll never do the reading

2. some people freaked out when finding out there were multiple first vision accounts despite it being mentioned fairly often

3. therefore the church should make sure people who do the minimum amount of study possible know about what freaked those people out

4. if the Church doesn't get it so people who do the minimum amount of study possible know about this they aren't being transparent

I just think that a horrible argument. The fact is it gets regularly quoted from in the Ensign. General Authorities have discussed it including President Hinkley. It's in any biography of Joseph Smith. Clearly people aren't still finding it so you want a full lesson on it which is more or less acknowledging that it's there but people aren't finding it. 

The question becomes why, since the 1832 account is only a problem in strained readings, the Church should focus on it to that degree? Wouldn't other items that people are also ignorant of also need addressing? I recognize that it seems like the Church might just do this. I'm not sure that's wise of the Church and would actually tell them not to do it if I were advising them. And that's coming from someone who's a big advocate of the inoculation approach to controversy. The one exception would be the Joseph Smith Priesthood manual which I think should have had all four accounts in the chapter on the First Vision. There I think you have a point.

Edited December 6, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Exiled]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's not the question. It's whether they should blame others -- or anyone at all -- for their not knowing.

I note that Smac has twitted you for your seeming obsession for fixing blame. I see you are still at it.

 

Didn't calm say that its a lack of study on the part of the member for why the member didn't know? And you liked her post. Why are you so obsessed with blaming the members? You have to acknowledge that a lack of understanding is an issue and some members fault the church for it and frankly the manuals haven't been as open in the past as they are today. So, the church should shoulder some of the responsibility, shouldn't it? Isn't this problem of not being as up front one of the reasons why the manuals were changed to have a section devoted to the multiple first vision accounts?

[Anijen]

There is no culpability neither on the Church nor on Joseph Smith. Over time, priorities will change and the context we wish to teach will change. Note: I said context and priorities change, not the facts of the event. These changes could reasonably occur when we address different audiences, when we want to emphasize a certain key point or focus on a certain doctrine, e.g. the nature of the godhead, or if Satan exist, etc.. Because of this focus on a doctrine or to emphasize a point will in no way diminishes or magnify any of the accounts, but are used for a specific purpose.

If they try in sincerity try to attach some sort of falsity or culpability because there are differences in the accounts, then they are simply being ignorant and or silly.

However, to maliciously attach some sort of falsity or culpability to the Church or its present or past leaders for having multiple accounts of the First Vision, then the answer is simply they themselves are guilty of the act that they are making against the church or its leaders. And, IMO they are mini-anti-Christs.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Anijen

[Anijen]

Further considerations:

If we look at the differing versions of Christs life in the four gospels we can find the same reasoning I posited in my previous post. In the Gospel of John we find only one visit to Jerusalem (the new/old capital of Israel I might add) and in other versions we find multiple visits to Jerusalem. This does not make any of the versions false or make the motives of the authors suspect. It simply means they were emphasizing certain points, certain focuses of teaching. It neither changes the doctrine nor does it magnify or diminish the message.

Edited December 6, 2017 by Anijen

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Further considerations:

If we look at the differing versions of Christs life in the four gospels we can find the same reasoning I posited in my previous post. In the Gospel of John we find only one visit to Jerusalem (the new/old capital of Israel I might add) and in other versions we find multiple visits to Jerusalem. This does not make any of the versions false or make the motives of the authors suspect. It simply means they were emphasizing certain points, certain focuses of teaching. It neither changes the doctrine nor does it magnify or diminish the message.

Good example.

[Exiled]

26 minutes ago, Anijen said:

There is no culpability neither on the Church nor on Joseph Smith. Over time, priorities will change and the context we wish to teach will change. Note: I said context and priorities change, not the facts of the event. These changes could reasonably occur when we address different audiences, when we want to emphasize a certain key point or focus on a certain doctrine, e.g. the nature of the godhead, or if Satan exist, etc.. Because of this focus on a doctrine or to emphasize a point will in no way diminishes or magnify any of the accounts, but are used for a specific purpose.

If they try in sincerity try to attach some sort of falsity or culpability because there are differences in the accounts, then they are simply being ignorant and or silly.

However, to maliciously attach some sort of falsity or culpability to the Church or its present or past leaders for having multiple accounts of the First Vision, then the answer is simply they themselves are guilty of the act that they are making against the church or its leaders. And, IMO they are mini-anti-Christs.

I don't think the issue is whether the church is culpable for merely possessing multiple accounts, it's the lack of openness, in the past, regarding the multiple accounts that people find problematic.  Also, calling the questioner a mini-anti-christ doesn't seem to be helpful.