1832 1st Vision Account

[_1 Iron]

A serious, unbiased reading of his first vision accounts does not reveal changes of content, only changes in focus.

I think it may be more accrurate to change unbiased to biased here. :)

Well said, themis. I know I have my bias here and while what I said in jest to Joseph are my true feelings and beliefs your point is well taken.

That said, I doubt very many have left the church due to this issue alone. There are much bigger problems then this, but yes there are some problems with the differeent accounts. In the 1832 account you have Joseph commenting that he had already found out that all the churches had apostatised before even going to God, while the canonized account Joseph says it never entered his mind. Seems a little wierd that he would have fairly opposite recollections of the same event. We also see that God and Jesus appearing only later on while early accounts have only Jesus, and some evidence says only an angel. Now if I had God and Jesus appear I don't think I would ignore either of them, and maybe even worse is that the evolution from One being to two fits with Joseph changing view of the Godhead. If he had indeed seen both God and Jesus, that should have been doctrine from the b4eggining and not a triniatrain view of the Godhead we see from the Book of Mormon and early church teachings.

You raise good points. I have my view of this, which is that Joseph's 1832 account is focused on a specific issue – his desire to find forgiveness of his sins, followed by the completely unexpected and glorious visit where the Savior tells him he is forgiven of his sins.

Again, and to your specific point, my view is that the mention of God the Father at this time wasn’t really the core purpose of this telling, but is reflected in other contemporary sources such as his and Sidney Rigdon’s vision from 1831 contained in the D&C. We see him mentioning God the Father elsewhere at this time so the exclusion of this detail in the account isn’t as big a deal to me. One aspect I find compelling is we see even more detail in this account regarding the reason why he went to God. This account begins with him being 12 years of age, only four years after his brush with death that is now legend with typhoid fever and his leg infection – much earlier than the later accounts. It’s something to be expected of an earlier account as well. And it takes us through four years of biblical and prayerful searching for the purpose I outlined above.

In the later accounts, and more specifically the one canonized in the Pearl of Great Price we see a Joseph Smith recounting the same story from the view of one who has seen even mightier revelations for mankind (but could there be a more mighty revelation for him as a man? I think not), withstood tar and feathering, seen women and children cast out into the snow to die for the work set in motion by this revelation – of course he would recall it differently.

Interestingly, on this board I was made to recall a detail about a memory I had forgotten for years about a family memorial day tradition. Four hours ago, I would not have be able to tell you we had taken small flags to place at the grave sites/memorials of my great-uncles who had either served or had died in WWII. Yet a tiny bit of information brought that detail back.

I’m not convinced that revelation and personal life experience could not have had the same effect on Joseph as a simple internet search had on me.

[_Joseph]

When did God and Jesus become part of the deal?

Sounds more like Satan fooling a gullible young kid.

[_thews]

Joseph Smith was a man who was called as a prophet of God. He was blessed by God to help usher in the restoration in this last dispensation.

Joseph Smith was a money digger who used his props (seer stones) to start a cult for his personal gain. When he couldn't sell his book (whoever wrote it) for $3000, he and his Masonic pals organized the cult to obtain child brides.

A serious, unbiased reading of his first vision accounts does not reveal changes of content, only changes in focus.

As you selectively pick and choose which account to acknowledge, what you fail to see is that they changed. When someone sees God face to face, this isn't something that changes. Regarding your statement above, you are completely wrong.

http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm

The First Vision wasn't even known by church members until 1842, and even then it wasn't very important. Joseph said that he was persecuted for telling people that he had seen a vision. There is simply no evidence that Joseph told anyone about the vision until many years later and not until after the Book of Mormon was published. There are no accounts in the newspapers, by neighbors, preachers or even by the members of Joseph's own family. There is much evidence to indicate that the First Vision either never really happened or was very different than we've been taught.

James B. Allen, who served as assistant church historian, frankly admitted that the story of the first vision "was not given general circulation in the 1830's." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.33). Dr. Allen makes some startling concessions in this article. He admits, for instance, that "none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830's, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision...." Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830's "the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it." Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45.

"As far as Mormon literature is concerned, there was apparently no reference to Joseph Smith's first vision in any published material in the 1830's. Joseph Smith's history, which was begun in 1838, was not published until it ran serially in the Times and Seasons in 1842. The famous "Wentworth Letter," which contained a much less detailed account of the vision, appeared March 1, 1842, in the same periodical. Introductory material to the Book of Mormon, as well as publicity about it, told of Joseph Smith's obtaining the gold plates and of angelic visitations, but nothing was printed that remotely suggested earlier visitations."

"In 1833 the Church published the Book of Commandments, forerunner to the present Doctrine and Covenants, and again no reference was made to Joseph's first vision, although several references were made to the Book of Mormon and the circumstances of its origin."

In the first actual first vision, Joseph Smith claimed he saw angles. He then ripped off the story of James G. Marsh:

http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm

James G. Marsh, 1828

Michael Quinn, in his book "The Mormon Hierarchy : Origins of Power" mentions that in 1838 a 14 year-old Mormon boy had a vision of God and Jesus and talked to them "face to face."

"7 May, 1838. James G. Marsh, 14-year-old son of the president of the Quorum of Twelve, dies. The Elder's Journal issue of July notes that at age nine this boy "had a remarkable vision, in which he talked with the Father and many of the ancient prophets face to face, and beheld the Son of God coming in his glory." No publication at this time had yet referred to Smith's vision of the Father and the Son."

(D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p.628)

It's interesting to note that this boy's first vision-type story was published just before Joseph Smith's secretary wrote the "official" first vision story with the Father and the Son.

Joseph Smith was the editor of the Elders Journal when the boy's obituary appeared:

Elder's Journal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Far West, Missouri, July 1828

Regarding monotheism vs. henotheism, this isn't something that changes if Joseph Smith actually saw what he claimed to see.

http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm

Joseph did not change all the verses however. The following verses in today's Book of Mormon still support the idea that God the Father and Jesus are one being:

Ether 3:14 "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light... they shall become my sons and my daughters."

Mosiah 15: 1, 2, 5 "And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son... And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation..."

Alma 11: 28-29

Alma 11: 44

2 Ne. 31: 21

Morm. 7: 7

Declaration of the Three Witnesses: "And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."

You'd be a better person if you'd focus on things that are good, beautiful, and true rather than whatever makes you such a sour person as you appear to be in these posts.

You'd be a better person if you focused on the truth instead of hiding behind what you consider "good" to rationalize the supposed insignificance of what is not true. The LDS version of the first vision is not true.

There - we both can say things that we believe are true without having to make an actual case. How fun!

You can say anything you want, including not making sense, but ignorance of the truth is intentional.

[_Themis]

You raise good points. I have my view of this, which is that Joseph's 1832 account is focused on a specific issue – his desire to find forgiveness of his sins, followed by the completely unexpected and glorious visit where the Savior tells him he is forgiven of his sins.

I think this is more a poor excuse for why two individuals were not mentioned.

Again, and to your specific point, my view is that the mention of God the Father at this time wasn’t really the core purpose of this telling, but is reflected in other contemporary sources such as his and Sidney Rigdon’s vision from 1831 contained in the D&C. We see him mentioning God the Father elsewhere at this time so the exclusion of this detail in the account isn’t as big a deal to me.

Core purpose does not mean Joseph would fail to bring up that two individuals showed up. In fact the real problem is that at this time God the Father and Jesus were thought of as the same entity. This really is where the core problem is. Later when this idea is changed by Joseph we see the emergence of two individuals. If Joseph had indeed seen two individuals I think we would also have seen this taught in regards to the Godhead.

Interestingly, on this board I was made to recall a detail about a memory I had forgotten for years about a family memorial day tradition. Four hours ago, I would not have be able to tell you we had taken small flags to place at the grave sites/memorials of my great-uncles who had either served or had died in WWII. Yet a tiny bit of information brought that detail back.

I’m not convinced that revelation and personal life experience could not have had the same effect on Joseph as a simple internet search had on me.

Very doubtful You are talking about minor details of an event in your life. This would be similar to whether they were wearing shoes or not. We really should not compare trival details easily forgotten for major details of supposedly Glorified being/s appearing. Again I can understand why you and other do, so as to protect belief.

[_1 Iron]

For Thews,

My friend, the post you felt to dissect with such vitriol and precision was spoken in jest to Joseph in response to his anti-testimony. While I appreciate you bearing your anti-testimony to me as well, you have your facts confused about the lack of accounts prior to Marsh's. Quinn's statements being accurate, I wonder how he feels regarding your misuse of his research? I doubt you'll find Michael Quinn claiming that there were no prior accounts (to be distinguished from published accounts) of the first vision.

Which reminds me: I take back what I said regarding precision. With vitriol? that stands as stated.

[_1 Iron]

You raise good points. I have my view of this, which is that Joseph's 1832 account is focused on a specific issue – his desire to find forgiveness of his sins, followed by the completely unexpected and glorious visit where the Savior tells him he is forgiven of his sins.

I think this is more a poor excuse for why two individuals were not mentioned.

Perhaps. Yet we are now at the point we both are using phrases like, "I think..." My opinion is that the evidence can tilt either way. And for me, it fails to outweigh where I have come to believe the church is true, but more importantly living. So, I suspect that it tilts in favor of Joseph's integrity.

Core purpose does not mean Joseph would fail to bring up that two individuals showed up. In fact the real problem is that at this time God the Father and Jesus were thought of as the same entity. This really is where the core problem is. Later when this idea is changed by Joseph we see the emergence of two individuals. If Joseph had indeed seen two individuals I think we would also have seen this taught in regards to the Godhead.

You see, the challenge we have here is the use of the word "changed". We both are speculating on what Joseph Smith believed here. I suspect your evidence, like mine, is less associated with the details of the first vision, and more with other events. The challenge to first vision is hardly compelling to someone who has no reason to discount it otherwise. And in fact, to a person who has other reason to believe, the multiple accounts can be edifying to read. They show Joseph Smith in a more human light at different times in his life and make him more accessible. I've attempted to show why I see it this way, in particular quoting the 1832 account to help clarify this.

Perhaps you will forgive if I feel that most of the arguments against my view seem founded on a desire to disbelieve Joseph rather than on evidence. At least, I am not sure other than in Thews odd and angry attempt that any contrary evidence has been presented. But then, maybe I missed it?

by the way - I happened to start the OP with a question asking about the discovery of the 1832 account. As I pointed out then, it seems that a member of the church found it, and a church source published it. While I haven't seen many details on how it was found which is why I started the thread, I find it hard to feel the church is being the deceptive party when they are the one's disclosing evidence. All the critical response appears to be is commentary that shifts as the church presents more and more in support of it's veracity.

[_1 Iron]

For Thews -

I was going to overlook this because I am sure to misspell words and use improper grammar in every post. Yet, sometimes misspellings result in errors that are too humorous to not point out. I particularly enjoyed this statement -

"In the first actual first vision, Joseph Smith claimed he saw angles."

I have never heard the critical argument that Joseph changed his claim from seeing the resurrected Pythagoras to later claim it was God the Father and Christ before. I have to admit, if true it's a real curve ball.

[_thews]

For Thews,

My friend, the post you felt to dissect with such vitriol and precision was spoken in jest to Joseph in response to his anti-testimony. While I appreciate you bearing your anti-testimony to me as well, you have your facts confused about the lack of accounts prior to Marsh's. Quinn's statements being accurate, I wonder how he feels regarding your misuse of his research? I doubt you'll find Michael Quinn claiming that there were no prior accounts (to be distinguished from published accounts) of the first vision.

Which reminds me: I take back what I said regarding precision. With vitriol? that stands as stated.

You're ignorance is transparent. In a very typical Mormon retort, you ignore the main point and claim to answer the data. Mormonism, based on the Book of Mormon, is monotheistic. When Joseph Smith placed his occult seer stones in a hat and supposedly translated the Book of Mormon, the end result was not henothestic. As you use "progressed" to imply Joseph Smith's knowledge grew, you are correct. As he studied along the way, his view changed, so the doctrine changed to reflect it. Here's something Mormons don't use, ever... data:

http://20truths.information/Mormon/vision.html

William Smith - "He accordingly went out into the woods and falling upon his knees called for a long time upon the Lord for wisdom and knowledge. While engaged in prayer a light appeared in the heavens, and descended until it rested upon the trees where he was. It appeared like fire. But to his great astonishment, did not burn the trees. An angel then appeared to him and conversed with him upon many things. He told him that none of the sects were right..." (William Smith On Mormonism, by William Smith, Joseph Smith's brother. pg. 5 (1883))

Brigham Young - "Do we believe that the Lord sent his messengers to Joseph Smith, and commanded him to refrain from joining any Christian church, and to refrain from the wickedness he saw in the churches, and finally delivered to him a message informing him that the Lord was about to establish his kingdom on the earth..." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 18, pg. 239

Brigham Young - "[When Mormonism began] the Lord did not come - but He did send His angel." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. II, p. 171).

John Taylor - "None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 167 (1879))

Church Historical Record - "The angel again forbade Joseph to join any of these churches, and he promised that the true and everlasting Gospel should be revealed to him at some future time. Joseph continues: 'Many other things did he (the angel) say unto me which I cannot write at this time'." (Church Historical Record, Vol. 7, January, 1888) [Note that in this quote the first reference to "the angel" was later changed to "the Holy Being" and the second reference to "the angel" was changed to "the Christ"]

Regardless of your ignorance about the evolution of the first vision, what can't be denied is that Joseph Smith used seer stones placed in a stove-pipe hat to translate it. Does this make sense to you?

[_Themis]

You see, the challenge we have here is the use of the word "changed". We both are speculating on what Joseph Smith believed here. I suspect your evidence, like mine, is less associated with the details of the first vision, and more with other events.

My evidence? It just the evidence. The evidence is that Joseph did not mentioned two beings in earlier ones and he did in later ones. Considering that two Gods presenting themselves before you is no small thing, so the maybes believers bring out are just not credible. The real problem though is that the evolution from one being to two matches the same evolution in Church doctine of the Godhead.

Perhaps you will forgive if I feel that most of the arguments against my view seem founded on a desire to disbelieve Joseph rather than on evidence.

I have basically stated the evidence and have no problem with it. Maybes are not evidence. Also this issue is small to the real issues that challenge Joseph Smith and the LDS churches truth claims. I would never have changed my understandings based on this alone, or even just looking at the physical evidence. I had to analyze the spiritual as well.

[_1 Iron]

http://20truths.information/Mormon/vision.html

Thews,

I've made a point of not including descriptions of the first vision that post-date the publication of the account in 1838 in fairness to the argument. With your link, you allow me to include accounts such as Lorenzo Snow's 1831 description of first hearing Joseph teach where the first vision was part of the message shared in a street sermon. There are many, many others just like those you linked to that support what I am asserting. In the interest of keeping this within the bounds most critics require, I have tried to respect that boundary. Needless to say, this isn't my first rodeo dealing with this subject.

Regardless of your ignorance about the evolution of the first vision, what can't be denied is that Joseph Smith used seer stones placed in a stove-pipe hat to translate it. Does this make sense to you?

At the risk of derailing my own thread, and therefore making it clear this is the only time in this thread I will address your fascination with seer stones - the Book of Mormon frequently makes mention of the use of such, from the Brother of Jared using them to light the way to the Americas to Mosiah it's a part of LDS teaching. I don't see your problem here. Does it make sense? Does a man walking on the water to get to a boat that was recently nearby make sense? or God sending manna from heaven like rain for food? or having Moses break a rock to get water? or having a man stand with both hands outstretched to influence the outcome of a battle make sense? Each of the above are examples of times when God tried mens faith to their betterment. Your issue with the seer stones is no different. I'm sorry you lost your faith when it was placed on the line.