Opposite Experiment

[_Nightlion]

And I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all.

What's up, new guy? Are you aware that this thread is to pretend to the opposite of what you really believe? Do not want to mis-peg you.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Just thought I'd note that although I was "playing the part of an apologist" in my post above, it actually does represent my genuine opinion. I really do consider the First Vision discrepancies to be fairly unproblematic for the Church, in the big scheme of things.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I've always found the First Vision differences to be one of the least compelling criticisms....

I think the differences in the story are readily explainable as a product of Joseph's evolving understanding of an ineffable experience....

This is even more obvious when you take into account the visionary quality of the experience. It's hard enough to hold onto memories of things that happened in the physical world. How much moreso something that something that happened in a vision or an altered state of consciousness?

Regarding the first point above. From a purely historical standpoint, I think you are correct. A historian approaching it from a naturalistic perspective is just going to see small details changing and say, "Big Deal."

Regarding your second point above. This is where things become problematic for the church. If it was just history then this wouldn't be a problem. But, the LDS church relies on the First Vision to carry some serious theological baggage, baggage that I don't think it can carry. First and foremost, it can't be seen as an ineffable experience subject to reinterpretation. It has to be physical and relatively interpretation free, the idea that all the churches are false would also be subject to reinterpretation. If that is negotiable, the entire reason for the existence of the LDS church is negated. Likewise, so much LDS theology derives from the idea that God is essentially an exalted man, which gets its main impetus from this vision. Again, if it's subject to re-interpretation, a huge chunk of LDS theology goes down the tubes.

But even more than this, the LDS church makes a bad situation worse by hiding or not dealing with all of the accounts. Worse still they did not canonize the autobiographical 1832 account which surely is historically more valuable. It would be the equivalent of the early Christians only canonizing Luke, but then later having Mark, Matthew, and John discovered but failing to acknowledge them. That's not necessarily wrong, but it would create confusion and mistrust.

Regarding the third point about ASC's. I don't think that's a winning issue for the LDS church theologically. It might make sense to compare Joseph with other anthropological models for ASC's, but I'm not sure that continuous reinterpretation of ASC's makes sense from an anthropological point of view. From my very limited reading, people who assert religious authority via ASC's continue to have ASC's and don't really sit around reinterpreting past ASC's. Why bother when a new ASC will give new religious information? Also, perhaps you know this better than I do, but it seems that Joseph's ASC's really tapered off over time. Does this fit the model of a religious leader who derives authority from ASC's? I would say no, but I'm woefully uninformed on this.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Greetings all. My name's Blue. I'm a 22 year old born and raised Latter Day Saint recently returned missionary. On my mission, I had been presented by one former member with a bit of information that I found disturbing. Now that I'm finally home, I want answers.
I was told that there was a number of First Vision accounts before the one we know and teach today. Is this true? Surely Joseph Smith didn't forget details so important, and suddenly recall them later on?

Remember how good you felt on your mission? You were not questioning these fictional historical accounts at that time, you were learning about your faith, your testimony and about the truth. Avoid these lies, run from them if you can and follow the Prophet and the Lord will bless you for it. It is said that Joseph Smith's name will be taken for good and for evil, the one you choose to accept will be a reflection of who you are and who you will become?

[_Obiwan]

Funny.... It's clear who actually understands who. The anti's in this thread who are pretending to be Mormon apologists blatantly and clearly misrepresent the LDS Apologist position and various facts, etc. They don't know us at all. They remind me of how liberals misrepresent and lie about things conservatives say and believe, complete perversion, falsehood, childish judgments and thinking, etc.

On the other hand, I can mimic them perfectly.... For one thing, I WAS them once, having left the Church myself and was anti-mormon and anti-religion. So, here's my mimic of an anti-mormon....

Joseph Smith was a pedophile and adulterer. He slept with many women, after all some testified to it, and there was Fanny Alger, and the secret marriages, etc. etc. etc.

Got it right didn't I?

[Guest]

Regarding your second point above. This is where things become problematic for the church. If it was just history then this wouldn't be a problem. But, the LDS church relies on the First Vision to carry some serious theological baggage, baggage that I don't think it can carry. First and foremost, it can't be seen as an ineffable experience subject to reinterpretation. It has to be physical and relatively interpretation free, the idea that all the churches are false would also be subject to reinterpretation. If that is negotiable, the entire reason for the existence of the LDS church is negated. Likewise, so much LDS theology derives from the idea that God is essentially an exalted man, which gets its main impetus from this vision. Again, if it's subject to re-interpretation, a huge chunk of LDS theology goes down the tubes.

Hi A. Smith,

I've thought about this issue myself. In some ways, I think the issue you raise is not applicable to the accounts themselves but really applies best when considering later statements regarding the visions made in teaching manuals and by General Authorities when they are commenting on the first vision. While I agree with the significance of the event and what it means to us as members today, I am no more concerned about the apparent evolution of Joseph's understanding reflected in them then I am of the evident progression apparent in the Doctrine and Covenants. Or in the New Testament. Or any other set of teaching presented by mortal men. We can look to the teachings of the church in 1832 compared to 1844 and know that Joseph continued to receive new understanding, new knowledge that he simply did not possess in 1820, or 1830. He was progressing as we all do.

In a very real way, it seems apparent to me that the church was a "true and living" church as the Lord declared in Section 1, and not a fossil or composed of old growth. Joseph, as the prophet, was as much a part of this growth and evolution as Paul was to the growth of Christianity in the 1st Century. Does the fact that Paul helped the apostles realize that the gospel needed to go beyond the jews, and that non-Jewish converts did not require the law of Moses to be children of Christ negate the gospels that were written prior to his ministry? I’m not comfortable with that line of reasoning.

Unlike some people I've read, I do wish the church would present the full picture in adult lessons, certainly in settings like HP group or even EQ meetings. But that’s not my calling to fulfill. I enjoyed the fact that portions of these other accounts are arising in new lessons. Perhaps someday. Until then, I think that there are as many pressing issues that Christians should be uniting over that overshadow our differences.

I do have a question that could help the discussion – I seem to recall that the 1832 account was found in the church archives sometime in the ‘60s and subsequently published in the 1969 BYU Studies. Do you, or someone else on the board, have more information on the circumstances that led to the finding of the account? To me, it seems odd to claim the church is hiding the information when it was the church that discovered the document and then published on it. But I may be missing part of the story. My understanding is that the early church did not “canonize” the account in any form whatsoever. Since the official version is more or less contained in the Wentworth letter, which also served as the foundation of other portions of the Pearl of Great Price, I am not as concerned as you seem to be that the church did not canonize all of the accounts. In some ways, could these other accounts be like the lost gospels and other apocryphal writings that failed to be included in the biblical canon? Rather than compare them to Mark or John, perhaps it is better to compare them to the reported lost books of the Old Testament? Or perhaps the “Q” sources that Luke and Matthew used to compile their accounts of the Savior’s ministry?

I enjoy your manner in conversation, by the way. I hope that if anything I have said above comes across as arrogant or dismissive of your POV, it is not intended.

[_1 Iron]

Found this. Maybe it will help the conversation? I couldn't find the answer to my question in a quick scan of the texts, but maybe it's in there and I missed it in my quick skimming of the chapter.
BYU Studies

[_Aristotle Smith]

I've thought about this issue myself. In some ways, I think the issue you raise is not applicable to the accounts themselves but really applies best when considering later statements regarding the visions made in teaching manuals and by General Authorities when they are commenting on the first vision. While I agree with the significance of the event and what it means to us as members today, I am no more concerned about the apparent evolution of Joseph's understanding reflected in them then I am of the evident progression apparent in the Doctrine and Covenants. Or in the New Testament. Or any other set of teaching presented by mortal men. We can look to the teachings of the church in 1832 compared to 1844 and know that Joseph continued to receive new understanding, new knowledge that he simply did not possess in 1820, or 1830. He was progressing as we all do.

The problem is you just made the critics' argument for them. They acknowledge that the doctrine was developing and evolving. Their point is they say that the account of the vision itself mirrors that evolution. But how can a matter of fact vision evolve? The best defense is probably Chris' defense, that it wasn't matter of fact and that it was subject to reinterpretation. But that adds its own set of problems as I pointed out above.

Does the fact that Paul helped the apostles realize that the gospel needed to go beyond the jews, and that non-Jewish converts did not require the law of Moses to be children of Christ negate the gospels that were written prior to his ministry? I’m not comfortable with that line of reasoning.

Almost all scholars (liberal, conservative, and atheist) agree that Paul's letters were written before the gospels. I actually don't know of a single one who argues otherwise, but I'm hedging. As for the Jewish apostles realizing that the gospels needed to go beyond the Jews, Paul makes it fairly clear that he just went and that there was always disagreement about how to go about converting gentiles. There is some conflict in the accounts here, between Galatians 1-2 and Acts 10-15. However, I'm inclined to say that Paul is the source that should be trusted more because it's first hand and earlier. By the way, this is why I think the 1832 account of the first vision is so crucial, just like Galatians, it's first hand and earlier.

I do have a question that could help the discussion – I seem to recall that the 1832 account was found in the church archives sometime in the ‘60s and subsequently published in the 1969 BYU Studies. Do you, or someone else on the board, have more information on the circumstances that led to the finding of the account? To me, it seems odd to claim the church is hiding the information when it was the church that discovered the document and then published on it. But I may be missing part of the story. My understanding is that the early church did not “canonize” the account in any form whatsoever. Since the official version is more or less contained in the Wentworth letter, which also served as the foundation of other portions of the Pearl of Great Price, I am not as concerned as you seem to be that the church did not canonize all of the accounts.

Yes this is all true. The church basically ignores it. However, even Bushman ignores the story in Rough Stone Rolling, I think because if he were to take it into account it would force a radical reassessment of Joseph's story, one that is very different than the story Mormons are comfortable with. This was one of my biggest complaints with RSR, this is something a historian has to deal with, but he doesn't.

In some ways, could these other accounts be like the lost gospels and other apocryphal writings that failed to be included in the biblical canon? Rather than compare them to Mark or John, perhaps it is better to compare them to the reported lost books of the Old Testament? Or perhaps the “Q” sources that Luke and Matthew used to compile their accounts of the Savior’s ministry?

The comparison doesn't work because all of these works discovered in modern times are later than and most derive from the canonized books. If someone discovered an even later account of the First Vision, I would agree that it could be safely ignored. The comparison with "Q" doesn't work because it's a hypothetically reconstructed document, not an actual document.

[_just me]

Funny.... It's clear who actually understands who. The anti's in this thread who are pretending to be Mormon apologists blatantly and clearly misrepresent the LDS Apologist position and various facts, etc. They don't know us at all. They remind me of how liberals misrepresent and lie about things conservatives say and believe, complete perversion, falsehood, childish judgments and thinking, etc.

On the other hand, I can mimic them perfectly.... For one thing, I WAS them once, having left the Church myself and was anti-mormon and anti-religion. So, here's my mimic of an anti-mormon....

Joseph Smith was a pedophile and adulterer. He slept with many women, after all some testified to it, and there was Fanny Alger, and the secret marriages, etc. etc. etc.

Got it right didn't I?

LOL, I wasn't pretending to be an apologist at all. I was giving the TRUE answer from my personal TBM POV as I would have answered when I believed. I can easily recall many times telling people that things they read were not true or were twists of the truth. That actually seems to be your argument. Looks like I understand very well.

Looks like it is you who does not understand the criticism of the multiple First Vision accounts at all. Multiple First Vision accounts has nothing to do with polygamy.

[_Buffalo]

I'll use the one that helped me put it on the shelf as a TBM - compare it to the four gospels, all of which differ significantly in key points about the life of Jesus.

Of course, that sort of apologetic (point out flaws in the Bible to excuse flaws in the LDS theology and scriptures) only works as long as you can sustain a belief in the Bible).