Opposite Experiment

[_Aristotle Smith]

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.

The problem with the comparison is that the sources of the differences in the gospels, and the tools available to reconcile them, are very different from the problems in the First Vision accounts. Whether any of them can be reconciled, while still maintaining faith, is another matter entirely. My position is that the situations, while superficially the same, are very different once you start looking at them in detail. While it may be an easy argument to make to a faithful Mormon looking for a quick answer, I don't think it's a valid one.

[_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.

The problem with the comparison is that the sources of the differences in the gospels, and the tools available to reconcile them, are very different from the problems in the First Vision accounts. Whether any of them can be reconciled, while still maintaining faith, is another matter entirely. My position is that the situations, while superficially the same, are very different once you start looking at them in detail. While it may be an easy argument to make to a faithful Mormon looking for a quick answer, I don't think it's a valid one.

That was me exactly, and it worked at the time.

[_Aristotle Smith]

That was me exactly, and it worked at the time.

I assumed that was the case. I just wanted to add my $0.02.

[_DarkHelmet]

I don't care what the so called "scientific evidence" says. I know this church is true, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Joseph Smith was visited by an Angel name Moroni, who led him to the golden plates, which he translated by the power of god. This is 100% true, and it is awesome. It happened. There is no way it couldn't be true. I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, with every fiber of my being. We also have a Prophet today. His name is Thomas S. Monson. He is god's prophet today. I know he is, it is the truth and the truth is awesome. I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

[_thews]

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.

It's interesting how you point out that Joseph Smith was progressing... does this mean the entire monotheistic theology of God changed into henotheistic too?

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.

Why do Mormons need parallel arguments to attempt to explain away what doesn't make sense?

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.

How about starting with showing pictorials of Joseph Smith with his head buried in a hat while he used his seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon? That is how it happened. Note in the above the parallels that must be accepted to toss Christianity under the bus to explain away the hidden truths about Mormonism.

[_1 Iron]

...18 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.

Hi A. Smith,

I don't think I meant "progressing" the way you took it to mean.

When I read the earliest account, I see Joseph's account focusing on two points - he was visited by Christ (remembering that he did not enter the grove with the expectation this would occur), and he (meaning Joseph) was cleansed as well as called by Christ. Nothing in this account is particularly troubling when compared to the Wentworth letter. In fact, I find it facinating because it seems to show us Joseph's mindset at that time - focused on Christ, being cleansed from his sins, etc. Even after organising the church he seems to view the most central part of the experience to have been the most purely christian elements.

In my study of the issues, I find evidence that elements of the memory of this event seem to have taken on new significance as Joseph Smith gained experience. Facing the trials of Missouri and Kirtland may have made the actions of the dark presence more significant to him; seeing the fight against God’s church may have made the significance of the message to join no other church more significant. Gaining a better understanding of the nature of the relationship of the Father to the Son may have made the exchange between them more interesting and therefore a detail he remembered based on some other revelatory or scriptural experience and with his newly gained understanding felt was worth including.

In effect, Joseph’s accounts do not differ significantly from one another in a manner that makes them contradictory. Instead, they seem to provide us a gold-mine worth of insight into his growth and the progression of his understanding of the event itself.

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?

I didn’t notice that you answered his directly, instead focusing on what you seem to think was important (i.e. – the church ignored the multiple accounts?) Interesting response in a discussion on memory I think. Anyway, I trimmed the paragraph down to just the question to see if you, or anyone else, knew the answer.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I don't think I meant "progressing" the way you took it to mean.

When I read the earliest account, I see Joseph's account focusing on two points - he was visited by Christ (remembering that he did not enter the grove with the expectation this would occur), and he (meaning Joseph) was cleansed as well as called by Christ. Nothing in this account is particularly troubling when compared to the Wentworth letter. In fact, I find it facinating because it seems to show us Joseph's mindset at that time - focused on Christ, being cleansed from his sins, etc. Even after organising the church he seems to view the most central part of the experience to have been the most purely christian elements.

In my study of the issues, I find evidence that elements of the memory of this event seem to have taken on new significance as Joseph Smith gained experience. Facing the trials of Missouri and Kirtland may have made the actions of the dark presence more significant to him; seeing the fight against God’s church may have made the significance of the message to join no other church more significant. Gaining a better understanding of the nature of the relationship of the Father to the Son may have made the exchange between them more interesting and therefore a detail he remembered based on some other revelatory or scriptural experience and with his newly gained understanding felt was worth including.

No that's exactly how I took progressing to mean. You have essentially made the same case as the critics, you simply have chosen to view it positively and present it in a positive light.

But even on your positive reading you are making an assumption, that the experience itself was not matter of fact. It was not a normal objective experience where one can simply tick off the succession of events to provide a account of what happened. That's fine, but realize the church presents it as a matter of fact objective experience, and that's how most members view it. A lot of LDS theology is based on the assumption that it was a matter of fact experience, and allowing for reinterpretation or re-emphasis eliminates or weakens those doctrines.

Finally, your positive portrayal of the events has the first report being mostly concerned with standard protestant Christian elements, while later accounts move away from this towards more unique LDS theology. This mirrors the evolution of Joseph's thought and that that of the church itself.

The critics point is that the vision became whatever Joseph needed or wanted it to be. Not that the vision was reinterpreted, but that the vision itself changed to match the theology.

[_1 Iron]

The critics point is that the vision became whatever Joseph needed or wanted it to be. Not that the vision was reinterpreted, but that the vision itself changed to match the theology.

Good morning, A. Smith,

Perhaps I need to clarify - I have no doubt in my mind or heart that if we all were to be able to go back that point in space-time when the event occurred that Joseph Smith documented and we call the first vision we would be witness to something beyond imagination or comparison.

My testimony is that it happened, and more importantly, the canonized description of the first vision is the most clear and comprehensive.

When I describe the progression in the narratives of the event, I am not saying Joseph revised the account to make new claims. Instead, I am saying that the various accounts help us understand more about Joseph Smith and his growth as prophet at various times in his life.

Is he changing the account because, at the point earliest in his life he still is marveling at the visit by the Savior and His words telling Joseph that his sins were forgiven? Would you, as a self-sufficient human being, require more? I would argue no. And I think this shows us just how incredible this was for Joseph and how important that one message was. I know that my experiences with the forgiveness and being confronted by the reality of a Savior who’s love for us is incomprehensible formed the true beginnings of my testimony. I don’t see Joseph being much different.

Yet as Joseph’s responsibilities as prophet became more clear and Joseph grew into his role as the mouth-piece of the Lord – including seeing first hand the war against the early church, receiving revelation upon revelation through the inspired Bible translation, Book of Abraham translation, and the revelations we have in the D&C – revisiting this event took place from this position of broadened understanding. This led him to include details that he didn’t previously. Just like now, as a father and having various leadership positions in the church, I revisit experience with both my earthly as well as Heavenly Father and see them more clearly even though the events themselves did not change.

With than in mind, I should also clarify that I don’t see the later account being “more detailed”, but including more generic details. Also, I think a common issue for most critics isn’t what is actually said in the accounts, but what they think Joseph should have said. It’s imposing one’s own view onto the account. Remember, it was the church that rediscovered the 1832 account and published it. The church wasn’t hiding it that I can tell, it was just lost.