The greater fraud?

[_Nightlion]

Kish, good to see your true face again. What would greatly resolve the problem of, BC Space, would be to hear the voice of her clear bluish monotone drone.

I posted that a long time ago, Nightlion. What do you mean by my "true face"?

That's what I do mean. The face of yore.

[_Kishkumen]

That's what I do mean. The face of yore.

Ah. Snape. Gotcha. Whew! Good to see you too Nightlion, albeit in the guise of someone long past.

[_Nightlion]

That's what I do mean. The face of yore.

Ah. Snape. Gotcha. Whew! Good to see you too Nightlion, albeit in the guise of someone long past.

I could not resist Oh, my gosh, i cannot recall just now who it is!

[_Willy Law]

I've had to change my interpretation about the First Vision over the years based on information I obtained from the Ensign about multiple versions. I take the basic story as fact,

After studying the different accounts of the first vision and comparing them to Joseph's evolving theology, which parts of the basic story (found in JSH) do you take as fact?

[_Kishkumen]

I could not resist Oh, my gosh, i cannot recall just now who it is!

There is a resemblance at least in the purposeful determination of his gaze.

[_Nightlion]

I could not resist Oh, my gosh, i cannot recall just now who it is!

There is a resemblance at least in the purposeful determination of his gaze.

I can gaze purposefully in my own right, but that beard, man, who can do that?
It gives to a purposeful gaze stage presence.

[_asbestosman]

if you use that paradigm to disregard the negative claims about Joseph Smith, then why don't you use that same paradigm to disregard the positive claims about Joseph Smith? 'Cause it's really, really looking like a double-standard from this end.

What positive claims do you have in mind? Most positive claims I take at face value if they're mundane. If it's positive claims involving the supernatural, then I use a couple of things to bolster my confidence: 1) the results from those claims and 2) the witness from the Spirit.

1) includes corroborating evidence such as NHM, chiasmus, etc.

[_asbestosman]

After studying the different accounts of the first vision and comparing them to Joseph's evolving theology, which parts of the basic story (found in JSH) do you take as fact?

The ones found in JSH. ;)

Stuff he left out in JSH might have included other angels. It's been a while since I looked at the other accounts.

The one thing that strikes me as odd in the JSH version is that in the beginning he questions who of all the competing churches is right or if they're all wrong, but when he sees Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ he says that at the time he hadn't considered that they may all be wrong. It's a small thing, but there it is in the official version.

[_Some Schmo]

I missed this thread when it was first written, so I must thank Shades for bringing it back.

That really was a brilliant OP, and it's a great thread. It should be archived.

[_Willy Law]

After studying the different accounts of the first vision and comparing them to Joseph's evolving theology, which parts of the basic story (found in JSH) do you take as fact?

The ones found in JSH. ;)

Stuff he left out in JSH might have included other angels. It's been a while since I looked at the other accounts.

The one thing that strikes me as odd in the JSH version is that in the beginning he questions who of all the competing churches is right or if they're all wrong, but when he sees Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ he says that at the time he hadn't considered that they may all be wrong. It's a small thing, but there it is in the official version.

What made you decide to ignore the "facts" in the earlier versions of the first vision to accept the JSH version as fact?
If you accept the JSH version as fact, then the earlier versions are not factual correct?