Moroni's anniversary

[Malc]

30 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

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

You might well infer that, but I'm trying to find a direct statement by Joseph that avoids the need for inferences.

It would have been ideal, would it not, if Joseph had said that he saw God and Jesus in the grove, because that is how the "personages" identified themselves. But not only does he not make that claim, he does not say that he assumed that they were God and Jesus, staying with the references to "personages" as his description of what he experienced.

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Malc said:

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 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.

Edward Stevenson 

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/54337/54337-h/54337-h.htm

"In that same year, 1834, in the midst of many large congregations, the Prophet testified with great power concerning the visit of the Father and the Son, and the conversation he had with them. Never before did I feel such power as was manifested on these occasions, and, although only a small percentage of those who saw and heard him accepted the restored Gospel, there was not one who dared to dispute it. Many of our neighbors were heard to say: “Well, if Mormonism is true, it will stand; if not true, it will fall.” Many of them lived to see it stand and increase, and while they themselves passed away in death’s embrace, the work continued to flourish and prosper."

 

I didn't indicate that Lorenzo Snow " did not say that Joseph saw God and Jesus during the first vision, nor, incidentally, did he say that he did so during his experience." I suggested that Lorenzo Snow prayed and found out that "I then received a perfect knowledge that God lives, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and of the restoration of the holy Priesthood, and the fulness of the Gospel. . . ."

[Duncan]

8 minutes ago, Malc said:

You might well infer that, but I'm trying to find a direct statement by Joseph that avoids the need for inferences.

It would have been ideal, would it not, if Joseph had said that he saw God and Jesus in the grove, because that is how the "personages" identified themselves. But not only does he not make that claim, he does not say that he assumed that they were God and Jesus, staying with the references to "personages" as his description of what he experienced.

That is why I say others said he told them he saw both God and Christ. I say find out for yourself by asking God, he was there and he'll tell you in his own time and own way. We can only go so far on the testimony of others

[InCognitus]

18 minutes ago, Malc said:

You might well infer that, but I'm trying to find a direct statement by Joseph that avoids the need for inferences.

It would have been ideal, would it not, if Joseph had said that he saw God and Jesus in the grove, because that is how the "personages" identified themselves. But not only does he not make that claim, he does not say that he assumed that they were God and Jesus, staying with the references to "personages" as his description of what he experienced.

I think the answer is much simpler than that.  In his 1838 account of the vision Joseph is simply being precise in his description of what happened. 

And, it's not unlike the gospels accounts of Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, with Peter, James, and John, where it is said, "a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."  (Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, Luke 9:35).  Compare that to the baptism of Jesus, where it was said, "And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mark 1:11, Matthew 3:17, Luke 3:22).   None of those accounts include the identity of the voice from heaven, but it is obvious from the context it is the voice of a Father speaking to a Son, and the other individual (Jesus) is identified as the Son.  

The first vision account is very similar in that regard.  Joseph wasn't being intentionally vague, he was just being precise. 

Edit to add:  Incidentally, Peter later wrote about his experience on the mount of transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:17, where he identified the voice from heaven as "God the Father":   "For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.  And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."  (2 Peter 1:17–18)

Edited September 24, 2023 by InCognitus

[Malc]

7 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I think the answer is much simpler than that.  In his 1838 account of the vision Joseph is simply being precise in his description of what happened. 

And, it's not unlike the gospels accounts of Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, with Peter, James, and John, where it is said, "a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."  (Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7, Luke 9:35).  Compare that to the baptism of Jesus, where it was said, "And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mark 1:11, Matthew 3:17, Luke 3:22).   None of those accounts include the identity of the voice from heaven, but it is obvious from the context it is the voice of a Father speaking to a Son, and the other individual (Jesus) is identified as the Son.  

The first vision account is very similar in that regard.  Joseph wasn't being intentionally vague, he was just being precise. 

Edit to add:  Incidentally, Peter later wrote about his experience on the mount of transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:17, where he identified the voice from heaven as "God the Father":   "For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.  And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount."  (2 Peter 1:17–18)

Clearly you and I see this very differently. For me, if this was Joseph being precise, then I would say that he did not see God and Jesus. Precision would demand that, if he did see them, he should say so, and not refer to them as "personages". 

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, Malc said:

Clearly you and I see this very differently. For me, if this was Joseph being precise, then I would say that he did not see God and Jesus. Precision would demand that, if he did see them, he should say so, and not refer to them as "personages". 

He referred to Moroni as a "personage" as well, that's part of the precise description.  A true witness statement gives the actual events as they transpired.  

[Malc]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Edward Stevenson 

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/54337/54337-h/54337-h.htm

"In that same year, 1834, in the midst of many large congregations, the Prophet testified with great power concerning the visit of the Father and the Son, and the conversation he had with them. Never before did I feel such power as was manifested on these occasions, and, although only a small percentage of those who saw and heard him accepted the restored Gospel, there was not one who dared to dispute it. Many of our neighbors were heard to say: “Well, if Mormonism is true, it will stand; if not true, it will fall.” Many of them lived to see it stand and increase, and while they themselves passed away in death’s embrace, the work continued to flourish and prosper."

 

I didn't indicate that Lorenzo Snow " did not say that Joseph saw God and Jesus during the first vision, nor, incidentally, did he say that he did so during his experience." I suggested that Lorenzo Snow prayed and found out that "I then received a perfect knowledge that God lives, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and of the restoration of the holy Priesthood, and the fulness of the Gospel. . . ."

Thank you, Duncan. Your powers of research are clearly better than mine, and I appreciate your finding the info I've been looking for.

[Malc]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

That is why I say others said he told them he saw both God and Christ. I say find out for yourself by asking God, he was there and he'll tell you in his own time and own way. We can only go so far on the testimony of others

My reason for commenting on this topic has nothing at all to do with my belief or unbelief. I was simply trying to find a clear statement from Joseph that referred to his seeing God and Jesus, and not un-named personages, in the grove. Thanks again for finding what I could not.

[Malc]

3 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

He referred to Moroni as a "personage" as well, that's part of the precise description.  A true witness statement gives the actual events as they transpired.  

If you and I met for lunch, and you wrote about it in your diary (since it was such a significant experience for you 🤣), would you write: "I met a person for lunch today - the experience was everything I could have hoped for!", and left it to others to infer that it was I you spent a delightful 60 minutes with?

If I later needed an alibi for that precise period of time, would you simply tell the police that you had lunch with someone at that day and time, without naming the person you had lunch with? (yeah, that's stretching things to breaking point - I'm sure you would tell them you have no idea who I am 🙃)

[Malc]

11 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

He referred to Moroni as a "personage" as well, that's part of the precise description.  A true witness statement gives the actual events as they transpired.  

You're in a room with some people. Later you are asked: precisely who was there?

Which is more precise: "people", or "Adam, Brenda, and Charlie"?

precise  adjective
pre·cise pri-ˈsīs 

1 : exactly or sharply defined or stated
2 : minutely exact
3 : strictly conforming to a pattern, standard, or convention
4 : distinguished from every other
 

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, Malc said:

If you and I met for lunch, and you wrote about it in your diary (since it was such a significant experience for you 🤣), would you write: "I met a person for lunch today - the experience was everything I could have hoped for!", and left it to others to infer that it was I you spent a delightful 60 minutes with?

If I later needed an alibi for that precise period of time, would you simply tell the police that you had lunch with someone at that day and time, without naming the person you had lunch with? (yeah, that's stretching things to breaking point - I'm sure you would tell them you have no idea who I am 🙃)

True witness reports are always intended to lay out just the facts, not an interpretations of the facts.  

As an example from a personal experience I had that has always annoyed me because of the way it was reported, I was one time visiting a company to install and implement some software.  While I was in one of the offices that had a glass window with a view of the shop, we heard a commotion in the shop.  It turned out that one of the employees was cleaning out a pickup truck, and he picked up a pistol that was in the truck and it fired, and the employee got shot (it turned out to not be life threatening).  But when the owner of the company called 911 (as I was standing there watching) he reported to the 911 operator that "an employee in our shop tried to commit suicide and shot himself".  The only fact in his report was that an employee was shot.  The rest was pure speculation. 

So it's always good to stick with the facts as you know them instead of trying to put an interpretation on it.  I see the gospel accounts describing only the voice from heaven as doing the same sort of thing.  And I think Joseph Smith reporting of his first vision was intended to be completely in line with the way the gospel accounts reported similar events (I'm pretty sure Joseph had those in mind).  I also think Joseph was being precise to alleviate persecution somewhat, given his prior experiences with telling of his vision to religious leaders when he was young.

[Malc]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

True witness reports are always intended to lay out just the facts, not an interpretations of the facts.  

As an example from a personal experience I had that has always annoyed me because of the way it was reported, I was one time visiting a company to install and implement some software.  While I was in one of the offices that had a glass window with a view of the shop, we heard a commotion in the shop.  It turned out that one of the employees was cleaning out a pickup truck, and he picked up a pistol that was in the truck and it fired, and the employee got shot (it turned out to not be life threatening).  But when the owner of the company called 911 (as I was standing there watching) he reported to the 911 operator that "an employee in our shop tried to commit suicide and shot himself".  The only fact in his report was that an employee was shot.  The rest was pure speculation. 

So it's always good to stick with the facts as you know them instead of trying to put an interpretation on it.  I see the gospel accounts describing only the voice from heaven as doing the same sort of thing.  And I think Joseph Smith reporting of his first vision was intended to be completely in line with the way the gospel accounts reported similar events (I'm pretty sure Joseph had those in mind).  I also think Joseph was being precise to alleviate persecution somewhat, given his prior experiences with telling of his vision to religious leaders when he was young.

It's almost 1am where I live, so I'm done for the night.

But let me sum up what I'm getting from your statement about the shooting, and how it applies to the first vision, and to our hypothetical lunch. I'll try not to put too much of my own interpretations on the occurrences.

The shooting

I agree that the employer's account stated as fact things that he assumed. Let me go overboard, perhaps a little, though. What could the owner really say, if he were to be precise.

"I was in my office and heard a noise that sounded like a gunshot coming from the direction of the shop. When I went to the window, and looked down into the shop, I saw someone who looked very like one of my employees. It appeared that this person had been shot." 

The first vision

In the JSH, Joseph reported that he had had an encounter (first vision) with two "personages", because at the time he had no proof, or even any real evidence, of who they were, because they did not identify themselves, and he had no means of ascertaining who they really were. Some time later (thanks, @Duncan)  one person, Elder Stevenson, claimed that he heard Joseph say that he had visited with the Father and the Son, and inferred that Joseph was referring to the first vision,  and that he had somehow concluded (at least, before the year 1834) that the personages he encountered in the first vision really were God and Jesus. Although Elder Stevenson didn't quite say that - I am also making some inferences here. But perhaps this is as close as we are going to get to a direct first-person statement from Joseph about who he saw.

Your lunch with someone

You can honestly tell the police that you met someone who introduced himself as Malc. At the time you had no reason to suspect that anything was amiss, and so you didn't ask this 'Malc' person to prove who he was. And, yes, the person that the police asked you to identify seems to be the same person, but, you have to admit, it could be an entirely different person who has a very similar appearance, so unfortunately you cannot provide an alibi that would hold up under a good cross-examination in court.

I assume (oops!) that in your normal life you accept that you and others make apparently reasonable assumptions all the time. However, in a high-stakes situation you may feel that you have to put your assumptions aside, and report "the facts, just the facts", and/or be explicit about the assumptions that you implicitly make.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Malc said:

The first vision

In the JSH, Joseph reported that he had had an encounter (first vision) with two "personages", because at the time he had no proof, or even any real evidence, of who they were, because they did not identify themselves, and he had no means of ascertaining who they really were. Some time later (thanks, @Duncan)  one person, Elder Stevenson, claimed that he heard Joseph say that he had visited with the Father and the Son, and inferred that Joseph was referring to the first vision,  and that he had somehow concluded (at least, before the year 1834) that the personages he encountered in the first vision really were God and Jesus. Although Elder Stevenson didn't quite say that - I am also making some inferences here. But perhaps this is as close as we are going to get to a direct first-person statement from Joseph about who he saw.

In the first vision (unlike your fictional lunch example), the personages didn't introduce themselves by name.  However, it is certainly clear enough from the context who is speaking when the Father introduces the Son, and later on it's apparent that Joseph knew them to be God the Father and the Son.  So it still comes down to Joseph being precise in reporting what transpired in the first vision.  Why does he need to explain it any further?

[Malc]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

In the first vision (unlike your fictional lunch example), the personages didn't introduce themselves by name.  However, it is certainly clear enough from the context who is speaking when the Father introduces the Son, and later on it's apparent that Joseph knew them to be God the Father and the Son.  So it still comes down to Joseph being precise in reporting what transpired in the first vision.  Why does he need to explain it any further?

He didn't seem to have any problem naming names in the account by Elder Stevenson. Should he not have been equally precise there?

My problem is with the idea that, rather than being explicit, you seem to be suggesting that it is OK for the context to carry the weight of identification. I might equally well ask, if Joseph knew (by whatever means) who the personages were, why not remove all doubt. It seems that he knew and was willing to reveal "spoiler" information in 1834. But then, later, went back to being precise, and letting people come to their own conclusions. There are lots of other possibilities for unidentified floating personages, even if one of them claims that the other is his son.

The idea of precision of this sort could probably be fruitfully explored in a lot of other contexts, both within and outside the church, but (clearly) not here.

Anyway, I think we're now going in circles, so perhaps the this part of the thread at least has run its course. I thank you, and @pogi and @Duncan for engaging with me on the topic. 

[Stargazer]

On 9/21/2023 at 12:34 AM, Malc said:

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.

I was baptized as a convert in 1966, and served a mission to Germany in 1972-74, and I definitely remember being taught, and teaching that the First Vision showed that they were separate personages.