Joseph's First Vision--official contradiction?

[_asbestosman]

Yesterday we studied the First Vision (although not the first, First Vision). In it, I remembered a strange contradiction in the actual text.

JSH 1:10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?

contradicts:

JSH 1:18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

Unfortunately I didn't get the chance to bring it up in priesthood. They were too busy talking about useful things (reading scriptures with your kids as Joseph did with his family).

[_charity]

Yesterday we studied the First Vision (although not the first, First Vision). In it, I remembered a strange contradiction in the actual text.

JSH 1:10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?

contradicts:

JSH 1:18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

Unfortunately I didn't get the chance to bring it up in priesthood. They were too busy talking about useful things (reading scriptures with your kids as Joseph did with his family).

Shall I just summarize the discussion about this on MA&D and save us a lot of trouble.

1. Joseph didn't keep notes and may have been doing a little retroactive enlightenment.
2. He could have been referring to only the sects in his local area and been surprised at the revelation that ALL the churches were wrong.
3. We are guilty of presentism. In an era when everything is caught on video we expect everyone to have detailed data banks with which to reconstruct past events.

[_asbestosman]

Shall I just summarize the discussion about this on MA&D and save us a lot of trouble.

1. Joseph didn't keep notes and may have been doing a little retroactive enlightenment.
2. He could have been referring to only the sects in his local area and been surprised at the revelation that ALL the churches were wrong.
3. We are guilty of presentism. In an era when everything is caught on video we expect everyone to have detailed data banks with which to reconstruct past events.

I should specify that the contradiction isn't a big deal. One finds similar contradictions in the Bible such as whether those with Saul/Paul saw a light and heard a voice.

I wanted to bring the question up in priesthood to see what others would say about it.

Anyhow, I find answers 1 and 3 to be problematic--what else did Joseph get wrong in his account?

[_charity]

Anyhow, I find answers 1 and 3 to be problematic--what else did Joseph get wrong in his account?

A more pertinent question would be, what does it matter if a detail here or there is out of place, or misremembered?

An even more pertinent question would be, what should I take from the lesson which will improve my life and the lives of those around me?

I am not criticizing being aware of these kinds of things. But spending a lot of time on them is not productive. Could this be the kind of thing Elder Packer meant when he said not every little piece of history is useful?

[_asbestosman]

Anyhow, I find answers 1 and 3 to be problematic--what else did Joseph get wrong in his account?

A more pertinent question would be, what does it matter if a detail here or there is out of place, or misremembered?

You mean like when the priests miss a word on the sacrament prayer? ;)

An even more pertinent question would be, what should I take from the lesson which will improve my life and the lives of those around me?

Well, for one thing it could have gotten the class to think about how scritpures aren't necessarily accurate in all details. Such things may make it a bit easier to concentrate on the importatn things such as the message of the Book of Mormon (Jesus was indeed resurrected and baptism is vital) instead of details like how much Israelite DNA we should expect to find in the Americas.

Could this be the kind of thing Elder Packer meant when he said not every little piece of history is useful?

In context it appears that Elder Packer was talking about things like Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives and similar uncomfortable events.

[_Who Knows]

Could this be the kind of thing Elder Packer meant when he said not every little piece of history is useful?

I'm sure this is exactly the sort of thing packer was referring to. In other words, if it causes you to question the validity of the LDS church, it's not very useful. red flag...

What I don't understand is why this contradiction appears in the same writing, only a few verses later.

Shall I just summarize the discussion about this on MA&D and save us a lot of trouble.

1. Joseph didn't keep notes and may have been doing a little retroactive enlightenment.
2. He could have been referring to only the sects in his local area and been surprised at the revelation that ALL the churches were wrong.
3. We are guilty of presentism. In an era when everything is caught on video we expect everyone to have detailed data banks with which to reconstruct past events.

Joseph Smith himself said that he told the account of the vision numerous times soon after he had the vision. So while he didn't 'keep notes', he certainly must have had the story down pretty good. (this, though, brings up other issues regarding the first vision - ie., that it was pretty much unknown till the 1830's). And this also creates another problem - how are the later accounts more 'accurate' than the earlier accounts?

[_moksha]

Did anyone's Gospel Doctrine class have a discussion on there being more than one version of the First Vision?

[_charity]

We had ward conference this week. I will report back next week after we have this lesson.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Did anyone's Gospel Doctrine class have a discussion on there being more than one version of the First Vision?

LOL! Good one.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I think it's also important to remember that this was written in 1838, 18 years after the event supposedly happened. I imagine he forgot many of the details, perhaps subconsciously added stuff, as we are all prone to do when looking back to our past. I'm sure much of what Joseph said about the first vision was just his opinion. Also, If I recall correctly, he dictated this to a scribe. It is quite possible his scribe messed up on things, so we need to take the First Vision with a grain of salt.