Moroni's anniversary

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Although given the explicit text in Genesis, one would have expected this, if one were truly a Bible believer. 

This ignores that one might be taught or assume the Bible was using an analogy or was symbolic or was talking about non physical aspects and be thoroughly believing in this biblical interpretation, after all there are sections that talk about God having wings or being fire.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God~s-Wings

Edited September 20, 2023 by Calm

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I seem to recall that we used to teach investigators (and children of record) that the First Vision taught Joseph that God has a physical body,

My recollection is we taught that the Father and the Son had separate bodies, but it was a long time ago for me.

[pogi]

It should also be noted that when the first edition of the D&C was published in 1835, it included the Lectures on Faith, which speaks of the Father as a "personage of Spirit", while stating that Jesus was a personage of "tabernacle".   This is one of the reasons that the Lectures on Faith were dropped from the D&C.  This is more evidence that Joseph didn't learn from the first vision that God had a body, as has been taught before. 

 

 

[Malc]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

If you are asking if I am sure that it doesn't change the validity - yes, I feel confident.  Whether God communicates through vision, dream, voice in our head, or personal visitation, it is all valid if it is genuinely from God.   

"if it is genuinely from God." 

Aye, there's the rub. I know of no reliable method to determine that. 

[Malc]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

I think that is a fair question.    

My best answer would be to suggest that one of the primary roles of the Holy Ghost is to testify of the Father and the Son.  Maybe that is why he was confident in who they were. But other than that, you are right, there is no strong evidence.  It doesn't sound like he used the handshake test to verify if they were resurrected heavenly beings, or devils impersonating angels of light.

It seems like a safe assumption that the Holy Ghost would have been present on such an occasion, testifying to Joseph about who he was communicating with.  It seems like a safe assumption that he knew through the Holy Ghost who they were.  Given the later revelation in 1843 about the tangible body of God, it doesn't seem like such a safe assumption that he had revealed to him, and knew, before then that they had tangible bodies, however.

If the two personages were not the Father and the Son (and I believe that we have already established that the JSH does not in any way confirm that they were), what are the grounds for assuming the Holy Ghost would have been present? Once again, Joseph does not tell us that.

And even if he did, I would have to ask how he could possibly know.

[Malc]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I seem to recall that we used to teach investigators (and children of record) that the First Vision taught Joseph that God has a physical body, but I agree with you that it really didn't. It did teach him the Father and the Son were separate and distinct beings, which was important.

I've just skimmed through "Teach My Gospel," and I cannot find it where investigators are told that the First Vision taught Joseph about God's body. So perhaps we have abandoned this as a teaching tool.

I had the same recollection, but didn't mention it because I also could find no reference for that idea. It may have been in the late 1960s, or early 1970s.

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

This ignores that one might be taught or assume the Bible was using an analogy or was symbolic or was talking about non physical aspects and be thoroughly believing in this biblical interpretation, after all there are sections that talk about God having wings or being fire.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/God~s-Wings

The genre of the particular Bible text helps determine whether it symbolic or analogy or if we should understand it more literally.  All the "God having wings" verses are either in the Psalms (poetry) or are obvious similes (like "As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him." Deuteronomy 32:11-12).  

The genre of Genesis is a little more tricky, however.  But of course someone who understands the six days of creation as literal 24 hour days with a literal serpent in a literal garden in Genesis 1-3 should also understand that man was literally created in God's image and likeness, and God was literally walking in the garden like a man as well, right?   

[Dario_M]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

If you are asking if I am sure that it doesn't change the validity - yes, I feel confident.  Whether God communicates through vision, dream, voice in our head, or personal visitation, it is all valid if it is genuinely from God.   

Yeah agree. I didn't understand the question of the other person at first sight. But now i do. I should have read the whole discussion a little better. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Dario_M

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Malc said:

"if it is genuinely from God." 

Aye, there's the rub. I know of no reliable method to determine that. 

It's no different than anything else spiritual.  We rely on faith.  Do your best to follow the light you have been given. 

I'm not sure what you are getting at though, or how this supports your original line of thought.

15 hours ago, Malc said:

If the two personages were not the Father and the Son (and I believe that we have already established that the JSH does not in any way confirm that they were), what are the grounds for assuming the Holy Ghost would have been present? Once again, Joseph does not tell us that.

And even if he did, I would have to ask how he could possibly know.

Again, I'm not sure where you are going with this line of thought, or how it supports your original response to me. 

You are LDS, right?  It seems strange to ask how one could possibly know if the Holy Ghost is witnessing to you.  Our entire faith is built upon this idea of personal revelation via the Holy Spirit to direct us and inform us.  That is the foundation of testimony.  Are you questioning that foundation?

Edited September 21, 2023 by pogi

[InCognitus]

From the Church Newsroom this morning:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/200-years-angel-moroni-book-of-mormon

Quote

200 Years Ago: An Angel’s Visit that Led to the Book of Mormon

President Nelson and Elder Stevenson share comments on social media

September 21 is a significant day in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On the evening of that day in 1823, Joseph Smith was visited by an angel named Moroni — a visit that revealed the existence of gold plates that became the Book of Mormon.

On the 200th anniversary of that special day, Church President Russell M. Nelson and Elder Gary E. Stevenson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles shared social media posts about the importance of the Book of Mormon.

The newsroom article has Instagram links to videos and other social media content.

[InCognitus]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

It should also be noted that when the first edition of the D&C was published in 1835, it included the Lectures on Faith, which speaks of the Father as a "personage of Spirit", while stating that Jesus was a personage of "tabernacle".   This is one of the reasons that the Lectures on Faith were dropped from the D&C.  This is more evidence that Joseph didn't learn from the first vision that God had a body, as has been taught before. 

I'm not sure if what you say above is completely accurate.  First of all, there's good evidence that Joseph Smith didn't write the Lectures on Faith, Sydney Rigdon did.  See The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lectures on Faith, and LDS Perspectives Podcast Episode 44: Mystery Solved: Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith? with Noel Reynolds (or audio here).  So I'm not sure the Lectures can be used to show absolutely what Joseph believed about God the Father.

Furthermore, the Lectures on Faith portion of the 1835 D&C was the lesson manual of the day, and was distinguished from the revelation portion of the publication.  This was simply a way to get some kind of lesson material published in 1835.  Additional lesson material was published separately later on.  So there was no longer a reason to include the Lectures along with the publication of the scriptures.  The reason it was removed is stated in the preface to the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants:

Quote

Certain lessons, entitled "Lectures on Faith," which were bound in with the Doctrine and Covenants in some of its former issues, are not included in this edition. Those lessons were prepared for use in the School of the Elders, conducted in Kirtland, Ohio, during the winter of 1834-1835; but they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons. 

I think it's also possible that the doctrine of the Lectures was considered outdated or too confusing for the reasons you say, and that was another reason they were removed.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I'm not sure if what you say above is completely accurate.  First of all, there's good evidence that Joseph Smith didn't write the Lectures on Faith, Sydney Rigdon did.  See The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lectures on Faith, and LDS Perspectives Podcast Episode 44: Mystery Solved: Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith? with Noel Reynolds (or audio here).  So I'm not sure the Lectures can be used to show absolutely what Joseph believed about God the Father.

While Joseph may not have actually penned the document, he did oversee it.  According to Church History, "the Prophet himself had the final revision of them".  They were agreed upon by unanimous vote by the committee which Joseph presided over.  So, it seems like a pretty reasonable conclusion that Joseph agreed and approved of what was written at the time. 

Quote

 

Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith?

It is a common understanding that Joseph Smith wrote the Lectures on Faith. Often we hear or read statements like “The Prophet Joseph Smith taught” as an introduction to a quotation from the Lectures. Those who have carefully studied the historical sources agree to the Prophet’s close involvement with the Lectures, but acknowledge that others contributed heavily in their preparation, as the following representative quotations from Church leaders and others show:

1. The idea has been expressed that Sidney Rigdon wrote these lectures, but they were compiled by a number of the brethren and the Prophet himself had the final revision of them (Smith, Church History 137).
2. “Lectures on Faith” written by Sidney Rigdon and others . . . (Widtsoe 2).
3. Joseph Smith was not their sole author, but they were written by a committee over which he presided. . . . It is not known specifically which member, or members, of the committee put the Lectures on Faith in their written form. But there can be no doubt that the theological ideas which they contain came from Joseph Smith. All the major ideas within them can be found in his revelations and teachings before 1834 (Andrus 20 fn).
4. These statements that I now read were in part written by the Prophet and in whole approved by him and taught by him in the School of the Prophets (McConkie 4).
5. My analysis of the Lectures on faith [sic] leads me to three somewhat tentative conclusions: First, although Joseph Smith did not write the lectures as they appear in the 1835 version, his influence can be seen in images, examples, scriptural references, and phrasing. Second, Sidney Rigdon may well have prepared them for publication; however, the style throughout is not consistently his. Third, the lectures in their published version represent a compilation or collaboration rather than the work of a single person (Partridge 28).

It is instructive to review the evidence that links Joseph Smith and others to the writing of the Lectures. First, perhaps, it should be noted that a committee of four men—Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick O. Williams (all presiding officers in the Church)—was appointed 24 September 1834 “to arrange the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, for the government of the Church of Latter-day Saints. These items are to be taken from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date, or that shall be given until such arrangements are made” (HC 2:165). That committee reported to the priesthood councils of the Church nearly one year later, 17 August 1835, recommending the publication of a book they had prepared (HC 2:243–51). That book consisted of two parts. The first contained the Lectures on Faith; the second consisted of selected revelations and inspired declarations received since the beginning of this dispensation. The two parts together made up what were called the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church. The priesthood councils and other Church members assembled accepted the committee’s recommendation. The result was the publication of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which came off the press about the middle of September 1835. [1]

Authorship and History of the Lectures on Faith | Religious Studies Center (byu.edu)

 

 

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Furthermore, the Lectures on Faith portion of the 1835 D&C was the lesson manual of the day, and was distinguished from the revelation portion of the publication.  This was simply a way to get some kind of lesson material published in 1835.  Additional lesson material was published separately later on.  So there was no longer a reason to include the Lectures along with the publication of the scriptures.  The reason it was removed is stated in the preface to the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants:

I think it's also possible that the doctrine of the Lectures was considered outdated or too confusing for the reasons you say, and that was another reason they were removed.

The Lectures on Faith were published as the "doctrine" section.  The revelations were the "covenant" section. 

Quote

All seven lectures were published together later that year in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the lectures constituting the “doctrine,” and Joseph Smith’s revelations, the “covenants.”

Lectures on Theology (“Lectures on Faith”) (churchofjesuschrist.org)

Here are some reasons apologists say they were removed - including the physical body issue (Talmage):

Quote

 

Mormon apologists give several reasons to explain why the Lectures were removed from the scriptural volumes of the LDS Church. According to church apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, the reasons were:

"(a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.

"(b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.

"(c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.

"(d) It was thought by James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants."^[9]

 

Lectures on Faith - Wikipedia

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by pogi

[Malc]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

On 9/20/2023 at 7:24 PM, Malc said:

"if it is genuinely from God." 

Aye, there's the rub. I know of no reliable method to determine that. 

It's no different than anything else spiritual.  We rely on faith.  Do your best to follow the light you have been given. 

I'm not sure what you are getting at though, or how this supports your original line of thought.

On 9/20/2023 at 7:31 PM, Malc said:

If the two personages were not the Father and the Son (and I believe that we have already established that the JSH does not in any way confirm that they were), what are the grounds for assuming the Holy Ghost would have been present? Once again, Joseph does not tell us that.

And even if he did, I would have to ask how he could possibly know.

Again, I'm not sure where you are going with this line of thought, or how it supports your original response to me. 

You are LDS, right?  It seems strange to ask how one could possibly know if the Holy Ghost is witnessing to you.  Our entire faith is built upon this idea of personal revelation via the Holy Spirit to direct us and inform us.  That is the foundation of testimony.  Are you questioning that foundation?

Sorry if I've been less than clear.

I am LDS, but you might think of me as a MINO - an inactive nonbeliever. I would have thought that was clear from my previous comments here, but perhaps not.

So, yes, I'm questioning everything.

The reason I jumped into this thread is that I wanted to start from a canonized scripture (JSH) that I had never questioned when I was an active believer, and see where the plain words of Joseph's story took me, without factoring in what I was taught that it meant.

What did the missionaries tell me (and church lessons subsequently reaffirmed) about what the First Vision meant, and what we could learn from it? I was taught that, on that spring morning, Joseph learned that God answers prayers, that God and Jesus were separate beings, and that God had a physical, tangible body. You said earlier that "It seems like a safe assumption that the Holy Ghost would have been present on such an occasion, testifying to Joseph about who he was communicating with."

When I really looked at it, I was surprised to notice that everything in the previous paragraph is an assumption, because all that Joseph said was that there were two "personages", one of whom said that the other was his son, but neither of them identified himself, and Joseph did not claim (again, in the canonized version of the FV story) that he knew who either was, much less that one was God and the other was Jesus. That is simply how we have been taught to interpret that scripture.

I hope that clears up any questions or concerns you had about my comments, and "where I was going". If not, I hope you'll have patience with me and ask me to explain further.

 

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Malc said:

Sorry if I've been less than clear.

I am LDS, but you might think of me as a MINO - an inactive nonbeliever. I would have thought that was clear from my previous comments here, but perhaps not.

So, yes, I'm questioning everything.

The reason I jumped into this thread is that I wanted to start from a canonized scripture (JSH) that I had never questioned when I was an active believer, and see where the plain words of Joseph's story took me, without factoring in what I was taught that it meant.

What did the missionaries tell me (and church lessons subsequently reaffirmed) about what the First Vision meant, and what we could learn from it? I was taught that, on that spring morning, Joseph learned that God answers prayers, that God and Jesus were separate beings, and that God had a physical, tangible body. You said earlier that "It seems like a safe assumption that the Holy Ghost would have been present on such an occasion, testifying to Joseph about who he was communicating with."

When I really looked at it, I was surprised to notice that everything in the previous paragraph is an assumption, because all that Joseph said was that there were two "personages", one of whom said that the other was his son, but neither of them identified himself, and Joseph did not claim (again, in the canonized version of the FV story) that he knew who either was, much less that one was God and the other was Jesus. That is simply how we have been taught to interpret that scripture.

I hope that clears up any questions or concerns you had about my comments, and "where I was going". If not, I hope you'll have patience with me and ask me to explain further.

 

I thought I remembered you being an inactive nonbeliever, but it looked to me like you were trying to defend the traditional physical visitation of the Father and Son to Joseph Smith, so I wasn't sure.  I see know that I misunderstood you. 

As far as what we can infer from the vision, it all depends on several "ifs" - the first being "if" it really happened.  Obviously, this is a matter of faith.   If it did happen, there is no good reason for me to believe that the Holy Ghost wouldn't have performed its primary role of testifying of the Father and the Son, especially in the absence of any other way to confirm their identity.  That seems like a safe inference based on what has been taught about the Holy Ghost, its purpose, etc.  Of course, all that is based on the assumption that what we have been taught about the Holy Ghost is true.  Again, that is a matter of faith and something that we can test for ourselves.  Yes, there are a lot of ifs.  Faith is not something that comes without testing these ifs for yourself.  If you are looking for solid proof outside of personal spiritual confirmation, you are going to come up disappointed every time. 

I don't think there is any way that Joseph could have known if they had tangible bodies, whether he saw them with his physical eyes or not (in vision).  I personally think that is a problematic inference regardless.   

Also, we don't need the first vision to understand that God answers prayers and is not something that we genuinely learn from the first vision.  In fact, one can't infer that from the first vision in isolation from their own prayer to verify its truthfulness.  The only way we can truly learn that God answers prayers is by testing it out ourselves.   It seems circular to suggest that we learn from the first vision that God answers prayers when we can't learn if that is true without praying about it ourselves.  It would be kind of like the circular saying that the Bible is true because it says so.  We have to confirm that all individually.  We should not make any inferences in that regard based simply on the say so of others. 

Edited September 22, 2023 by pogi

[Malc]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

I thought I remembered you being an inactive nonbeliever, but it looked to me like you were trying to defend the traditional physical visitation of the Father and Son to Joseph Smith, so I wasn't sure.  I see know that I misunderstood you. 

As far as what we can infer from the vision, it all depends on several "ifs" - the first being "if" it really happened.  Obviously, this is a matter of faith.   If it did happen, there is no good reason for me to believe that the Holy Ghost wouldn't have performed its primary role of testifying of the Father and the Son, especially in the absence of any other way to confirm their identity.  That seems like a safe inference based on what has been taught about the Holy Ghost, its purpose, etc.  Of course, all that is based on the assumption that what we have been taught about the Holy Ghost is true.  Again, that is a matter of faith and something that we can test for ourselves.  Yes, there are a lot of ifs.  Faith is not something that comes without testing these ifs for yourself.  If you are looking for solid proof outside of personal spiritual confirmation, you are going to come up disappointed every time. 

I don't think there is any way that Joseph could have known if they had tangible bodies, whether he saw them with his physical eyes or not (in vision).  I personally think that is a problematic inference regardless.   

Also, we don't need the first vision to understand that God answers prayers and is not something that we genuinely learn from the first vision.  In fact, one can't infer that from the first vision in isolation from their own prayer to verify its truthfulness.  The only way we can truly learn that God answers prayers is by testing it out ourselves.   It seems circular to suggest that we learn from the first vision that God answers prayers when we can't learn if that is true without praying about it ourselves.  It would be kind of like the circular saying that the Bible is true because it says so.  We have to confirm that all individually.  We should not make any inferences in that regard based simply on the say so of others. 

Thanks, Pogi - you have helped me to clarify in my own mind where I was going with this.

Can I refine your phrase "if it happened" as "if it happened in the way that the church currently teaches"?

We have more than 200 years of church teachings since the date of Joseph's first vision. Back in the spring of 1820 there was no set of manuals, and no missionary lessons, telling us how to interpret what happened, who was there, what it all meant. All there was was an experience that was first published in 1842, and that the church canonized as JSH about 40 years later.

If we can imagine being without the teachings of the intervening years, and simply reading the words of the account of the vision, we are left with Joseph's vague references to "personages". 

IMO, your supposition that the spirit would have been there to testify of the Father and the Son has no foundation in the story, because we have no indication from what Joseph said that they were there to be testified of. All of that came later, as various people imposed their interpretations on the event as Joseph described it, and inferred that the personages must have been the Father and the Son. That interpretation became the official teaching of the church, unsupported by the scripture.

For example, the church Essay on the first vision starts off:

Quote

Joseph Smith recorded that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in a grove of trees near his parents’ home in western New York State when he was about 14 years old.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

However, if we are reading the canonized version of the first vision, and take Joseph at his word, we know that that statement is/was not true: that is distinctly not what he "recorded".

In fact, of the four first vision versions written or dictated by Joseph, one (1832) mentions "the Lord", and the other three (1835, 1838, 1842) talk only of "personages".

So, it seems to me that, for a foundational story on which to base a religion, the first vision story, and in particular the official JSH version, leaves a lot to be desired. And important details of what the church teaches about it is the result of later interpolations, not Joseph's actual words.

[webbles]

21 hours ago, Malc said:

However, if we are reading the canonized version of the first vision, and take Joseph at his word, we know that that statement is/was not true: that is distinctly not what he "recorded".

In fact, of the four first vision versions written or dictated by Joseph, one (1832) mentions "the Lord", and the other three (1835, 1838, 1842) talk only of "personages".

So, it seems to me that, for a foundational story on which to base a religion, the first vision story, and in particular the official JSH version, leaves a lot to be desired. And important details of what the church teaches about it is the result of later interpolations, not Joseph's actual words.

Do any early saints who knew Joseph personally say Heavenly Father and Christ appeared to Joseph?  I'm wondering how long it took before the First Vision was taught to have been a visit by Heavenly Father and Christ.  If it occurred while Joseph was alive, I think we can say it wasn't a later interpolation.

[Duncan]

15 minutes ago, webbles said:

Do any early saints who knew Joseph personally say Heavenly Father and Christ appeared to Joseph?  I'm wondering how long it took before the First Vision was taught to have been a visit by Heavenly Father and Christ.  If it occurred while Joseph was alive, I think we can say it wasn't a later interpolation.

The 4 missionaries sent to the Lamanites in Nov. 1830 said that Joseph had seen God "personally". The newspaper that reported what they were teaching came out in Feb. 1831 and used "God" and "Christ" and the "Holy Spirit", as if Joseph knew who they were and that they were different.  Lorenzo Snow  and Edward Stevenson knew that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph by at least 1831 and 1834 respectively, besides of which section 20 is a passing reference to the First Vision. It was known for sure, how well and by whom I dunno.

Edited September 23, 2023 by Duncan

[InCognitus]

21 hours ago, Malc said:

However, if we are reading the canonized version of the first vision, and take Joseph at his word, we know that that statement is/was not true: that is distinctly not what he "recorded".

In fact, of the four first vision versions written or dictated by Joseph, one (1832) mentions "the Lord", and the other three (1835, 1838, 1842) talk only of "personages".

So, it seems to me that, for a foundational story on which to base a religion, the first vision story, and in particular the official JSH version, leaves a lot to be desired. And important details of what the church teaches about it is the result of later interpolations, not Joseph's actual words.

At least one non-friendly account reports that Joseph Smith had seen God as early as February 14, 1831 (happy Valentine's Day).  In Palmyra, THE REFLECTOR (newspaper) on that date, published that their "Painesville correspondent" had informed them of a visit to that area of Oliver Cowdery and "three others" in November 1830, saying of Joseph, "Smith (they affirmed) had seen God frequently and personally", and that "Cowdery and his friends had frequent interviews with angels". 

Obviously that doesn't say "God the Father and Jesus Christ", but at least it lets us know that Joseph Smith had told others that he had seen God.

[InCognitus]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

The 4 missionaries sent to the Lamanites in Nov. 1830 said that Joseph had seen God "personally". The newspaper that reported what they were teaching came out in Feb. 1831 and used "God" and "Christ" and the "Holy Spirit", as if Joseph knew who they were and that they were different.  Lorenzo Snow  and Edward Stevenson knew that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph by at least 1831 and 1834 respectively, besides of which section 20 is a passing reference to the First Vision. It was known for sure, how well and by whom I dunno.

You were posting this at about the same time as I provided the reference.  Yes, it's interesting that the same article in THE REFLECTOR mentions both Christ and the Holy Spirit as part of the ministry.

[Malc]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Do any early saints who knew Joseph personally say Heavenly Father and Christ appeared to Joseph?  I'm wondering how long it took before the First Vision was taught to have been a visit by Heavenly Father and Christ.  If it occurred while Joseph was alive, I think we can say it wasn't a later interpolation.

If it occurred because Joseph said that that was who he saw, I'd agree with you. If someone else made the claim, but Joseph did not verify it, I'm not so sure.

[Malc]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

The 4 missionaries sent to the Lamanites in Nov. 1830 said that Joseph had seen God "personally". The newspaper that reported what they were teaching came out in Feb. 1831 and used "God" and "Christ" and the "Holy Spirit", as if Joseph knew who they were and that they were different.  Lorenzo Snow  and Edward Stevenson knew that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph by at least 1831 and 1834 respectively, besides of which section 20 is a passing reference to the First Vision. It was known for sure, how well and by whom I dunno.

But did Joseph actually say it?

Or do we simply accept it as true because someone else said so?

Even today, with all of the information we have access to, the church's official essay on the first vision does not explain the statement that "Joseph Smith recorded that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in a grove of trees near his parents’ home in western New York State when he was about 14 years old." We know that the source of that statement cannot be simply the JSH, because we know that these words are not included in the JSH, although that statement claims that Joseph said who the "personages" were, without telling us when and where he said it.

 

[Malc]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

At least one non-friendly account reports that Joseph Smith had seen God as early as February 14, 1831 (happy Valentine's Day).  In Palmyra, THE REFLECTOR (newspaper) on that date, published that their "Painesville correspondent" had informed them of a visit to that area of Oliver Cowdery and "three others" in November 1830, saying of Joseph, "Smith (they affirmed) had seen God frequently and personally", and that "Cowdery and his friends had frequent interviews with angels". 

Obviously that doesn't say "God the Father and Jesus Christ", but at least it lets us know that Joseph Smith had told others that he had seen God.

Well ... it tells us that others said that Joseph had seen God. It still doesn't tell us who the "personages" were who are referred to in the first vision.

Sorry to be pedantic on this, but it seems that accepting second & third party statements is what got us here: "Joseph saw 'personages'" morphed into "Joseph saw God and Jesus" in the grove, and, apparently, not validated in any way.

Of course, I may simply not have found the validating information, but so far it seems that others involved in this thread have not done so either.

We may just be waiting for the right person to show up.

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, Malc said:

Well ... it tells us that others said that Joseph had seen God. It still doesn't tell us who the "personages" were who are referred to in the first vision.

Sorry to be pedantic on this, but it seems that accepting second & third party statements is what got us here: "Joseph saw 'personages'" morphed into "Joseph saw God and Jesus" in the grove, and, apparently, not validated in any way.

Or, Joseph told others (including Oliver Cowdery) that he had seen God, and they were repeating what Joseph had told them.  

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Malc said:

But did Joseph actually say it?

Or do we simply accept it as true because someone else said so?

Even today, with all of the information we have access to, the church's official essay on the first vision does not explain the statement that "Joseph Smith recorded that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in a grove of trees near his parents’ home in western New York State when he was about 14 years old." We know that the source of that statement cannot be simply the JSH, because we know that these words are not included in the JSH, although that statement claims that Joseph said who the "personages" were, without telling us when and where he said it.

 

Is there any evidence of collusion? Do we have statements indicating that all 4 missionaries plus Lorenzo Snow, Edward Stevenson plus others say that Joseph told them to lie about it? What advantage would they get to lie for Joseph? Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery left the church later on, but they didn't say they were told to lie for Joseph Smith. Besides of which Elder Edward Stevenson said that the "Prophet related" so he heard from the Prophet himself what he had experienced. Lorenzo Snow got his own witness, independant of anyone else, that the work is true, why don't you get the same?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2012-05-0501-preparation-of-lorenzo-snow-complete-baptism-and-silken-robes?lang=ase&alang=eng&collectionId=6fd906523bdc31f355474fd2bbe8187fd5ba3cf9

[Malc]

32 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Is there any evidence of collusion? Do we have statements indicating that all 4 missionaries plus Lorenzo Snow, Edward Stevenson plus others say that Joseph told them to lie about it? What advantage would they get to lie for Joseph? Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery left the church later on, but they didn't say they were told to lie for Joseph Smith. Besides of which Elder Edward Stevenson said that the "Prophet related" so he heard from the Prophet himself what he had experienced. Lorenzo Snow got his own witness, independant of anyone else, that the work is true, why don't you get the same?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2012-05-0501-preparation-of-lorenzo-snow-complete-baptism-and-silken-robes?lang=ase&alang=eng&collectionId=6fd906523bdc31f355474fd2bbe8187fd5ba3cf9

I've been looking for a clear statement from Joseph of what he saw in the first vision - not, for example, inferences based on others' accounts. If I inadvertently suggested collusion, and/or a pact to lie, or Joseph telling anyone to lie, I'm sorry - not what I intended. I also apparently missed where Elder Edward Stevenson said that the "Prophet related" to him that he saw God and Jesus in the grove.

Can you point these out to me in the foregoing comments?

Lorenzo Snow, as far as I can tell, had an experience similar in some ways to Joseph's, but at least in the video you linked to he did not say that Joseph saw God and Jesus during the first vision, nor, incidentally, did he say that he himself did so during his experience.

As for me, I'm clearly not worthy of an experience similar to Snow's. But regardless, that is not the point of this discussion - at least as far as I'm concerned.

Edited September 24, 2023 by Malc