First vision... is this really true?

[_harmony]

Who would have written it other than Joseph Smith? Was Joseph, who had little time or inclination to write, supposed to pen a spiritual autobiography in his teens?

Are you sure you want to say that? He had to have written something then, since the Book of Mormon was published in March of 1830.

You might say he was too busy because he was tied up with the Book of Mormon, but to say he had no time or inclination to write just doesn't quite jive with reality. He had time and he certainly had the inclination to write.

[_Nevo]

Who would have written it other than Joseph Smith? Was Joseph, who had little time or inclination to write, supposed to pen a spiritual autobiography in his teens?

Are you sure you want to say that? He had to have written something then, since the Book of Mormon was published in March of 1830.

You might say he was too busy because he was tied up with the Book of Mormon, but to say he had no time or inclination to write just doesn't quite jive with reality. He had time and he certainly had the inclination to write.

Joseph started dictating the Book of Mormon in April 1828, when he was 22 years old, but as far as I know he didn't write a word of it. When I say he had little inclination to write, I mean that he disliked putting pen to paper. If he'd had an amanuensis when he was 15, who knows?

[_Inconceivable]

The 1829/30 reference to the First Vision in D&C 20:5, and the 1832 and 1835 accounts of the First Vision, all portray the vision primarily in terms of forgiveness of sins. Yet you write, "The first vision had nothing to do with forgiveness. Nothing." And I'm supposed to take you seriously?

Why should anyone expect to find a pre-1832 account of the First Vision? Who would have written it other than Joseph Smith? Was Joseph, who had little time or inclination to write, supposed to pen a spiritual autobiography in his teens? How many written sources are there for Norris Stearns's vision, apart from his own 1815 account?

You keep repeating this mantra about there being no pre-1832 account of the First Vision as if the absence of such a document is somehow significant. It isn't.

You're mixing up 2 or more visions, Nevo.

Go back and read your scriptures first (Joseph Smith History) and then we can talk.
Maybe you ought to take Smith and those that cut and pasted this doctrine into your scriptures seriously, I guess.

There is only one official account. You question its accuracy by comparing it to non official accounts. Still no-one had ever recorded this singular red letter day epic event in world history for over a decade.

The significance that there is no shred of pre 1832 first vision accounts is that the vision most likely never occurred.

[_Sethbag]

Sorry Nevo for the tardy reply.

I don't think you get to keep using D&C 20:5 in the way you are. For clarity's sake, I'll quote that verse here.

5 After it was truly manifested unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world;

That doesn't specifically reference the First Vision. How many LDS would believe they had been forgiven of their sins, and only claim a good feeling as confirmation? Why does this manifestation of forgiveness imply a direct visitation by Jesus and God?

Your argument is begging the question. You assume that the First Vision was known prior to D&C 20:5 being written, and references it. But you are using this verse as evidence that the First Vision was known at the time D&C 20:5 was written in the first place.

Let's try an exercise here. Can you think of any possible interpretations of D&C 20:5 that don't include the First Vision?

At any rate, the point has been made, and not refuted, that the First Vision story was not generally known, apparently, either within or without the church. You have tried to offer some excuses as to why this should actually be the case, but it's not convincing. Joseph's own history, as contained in the canonized scriptures today, talk of a general uproar of all of the sects in his area against him because of his claim. And yet nobody has documented such an uproar - even by those people inclined to be against Joseph from these early days, who brought up many things against Joseph Smith, but never that he'd claimed to see God and Jesus.

[_Nevo]

Why does this manifestation of forgiveness imply a direct visitation by Jesus and God?

Because two years later Joseph Smith wrote a detailed description of this particular manifestation.

Your argument is begging the question. You assume that the First Vision was known prior to D&C 20:5 being written, and references it. But you are using this verse as evidence that the First Vision was known at the time D&C 20:5 was written in the first place.

The 1832 history is the earliest known account of the First Vision. In light of that account, it is difficult to see D&C 20:5 as anything other than an allusion to the First Vision. But I'm sure some will keep trying.

[_Sethbag]

So, the only way Joseph Smith could have his sins forgiven him is if God and Jesus actually showed up, in person, and told him the news?

No wonder some Mormons never really feel like they've been forgiven, and suffer so much guilt!

The whole point of this thread is to point out how little known the First Vision story is supposed to have been in during the early days of the church. Then you come along and say well, actually, in D&C 20:5 it mentions Joseph having had his sins forgiven. And, um, two years later Joseph wrote the earliest First Vision accounts that we have, and although it doesn't mention God and Jesus coming down to tell Joseph that all the churches were wrong, and not to join any of them, etc., it did mention Joseph being forgiven by an angel, so obviously the two things must be referencing the same event. And therefore, D&C 20:5 serves as evidence that the First Vision story must in fact have been known prior to 1832.

You really can't see how much of a stretch that is?

[_Nevo]

The whole point of this thread is to point out how little known the First Vision story is supposed to have been in during the early days of the church. Then you come along and say well, actually, in D&C 20:5 it mentions Joseph having had his sins forgiven. And, um, two years later Joseph wrote the earliest First Vision accounts that we have, and although it doesn't mention God and Jesus coming down to tell Joseph that all the churches were wrong, and not to join any of them, etc., it did mention Joseph being forgiven by an angel, so obviously the two things must be referencing the same event. And therefore, D&C 20:5 serves as evidence that the First Vision story must in fact have been known prior to 1832.

You really can't see how much of a stretch that is?

It's not a stretch at all if you take the time to actually read the 1832 account.

"I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life <behold> the world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned aside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth."

I think it's a stretch to suppose that this is referring to something other than the First Vision.

[_Sethbag]

And that was written in 1832. What evidence can you offer that this story was known by others prior to that 1832 FV story, such that D&C 20:5 would have been understood by its target audience at the time it was written to have referred to the FV?

How do you know that the 1832 FV story wasn't made up in, say, 1832, and simply included a forgiveness of sins because such had already been referred to in D&C 20? With no evidence that the story was known prior to 1832, one would have to conclude that such an ordering was not only eminently possible, but indeed more likely. Unless you can come up with some direct reference to the First Vision story from before D&C 20 was written.

The bottom line is that D&C 20 does not directly reference the First Vision. It only includes one element that is in common with the later 1832 First Vision account. And it's an element that could very well mean anything, from Joseph prayed for forgiveness and felt good afterward, to Joseph asked God to forgive him in his heart, and two seconds later lightning struck a tree up the hill from his home, and Joseph interpreted that as a sign.

D&C 20:5 sharing one element from the later 1832 First Vision account, which does not require the other elements of the First Vision account to make sense, does not imply that the other elements of the First Vision account were known at the time D&C 20 was penned.

It might make sense, within your worldview, that they reference the same story, but that has not been demonstrated based on the evidence. Nor has it been demonstrated why the First Vision story having been known at the time D&C 20 was written is the only, or even best interpretation of verse 5.

[_Scottie]

The concept of being forgiven for your sins is hardly a groundbreaking idea. It is quite likely that both accounts used this independently without any reference between each other.

[_Nevo]

D&C 20:5 sharing one element from the later 1832 First Vision account, which does not require the other elements of the First Vision account to make sense, does not imply that the other elements of the First Vision account were known at the time D&C 20 was penned.

No, it doesn't. So what? That's not what I argued. I said that D&C 20:5 alluded to Joseph's First Vision. I don't know if D&C 20's "intended audience"--whoever that was--got the allusion or not. I have no idea what elements of the story were known, or who knew them, in 1829 or 1830 or 1832 or 1835 or 1840. Evidently the story had a limited circulation throughout the 1830s.

But why Joseph would invent such a story and then keep it largely to himself for a decade or more is something you guys will have to discuss among yourselves.