Various accounts of the first vision and their similarities and differences

[Ran77]

Do you know your correct anniversary date?

I've already asked this, but I'll ask it again: Did Joseph Smith ever offer conflicting dates for the first vision?

 

[Moodshadow]

Another twist. It was important enough to commit to scripture, and there it stands as Church history. :o

Another twist indeed - this one authored by committees appointed by general authorities to edit/tweak/rewrite/INVENT "history."

 

[Ran77]

Another twist indeed - this one authored by committees appointed by general authorities to edit/tweak/rewrite/INVENT "history."

No. The twist was yours, as I have already pointed out. In your post you indicated that the First Vision was not important enough to include in LDS history, but do so by ignoring the fact that it achieved scripture status with its inclusion into the Doctrine and Covenants. The twist being, that the choice Joseph made to include revelation level events in the D&C has somehow become less important than those items he deemed appropriate for the non-doctrinal, non-scripture History of the Church.


:o

 

[Moodshadow]

No. The twist was yours, as I have already pointed out. In your post you indicated that the First Vision was not important enough to include in LDS history, but do so by ignoring the fact that it achieved scripture status with its inclusion into the Doctrine and Covenants. The twist being, that the choice Joseph made to include revelation level events in the D&C has somehow become less important than those items he deemed appropriate for the non-doctrinal, non-scripture History of the Church. :o

For Joseph Smith to omit in that history the event that was the entire reason for the organization of the church is like starting a book of American history with George Washington instead of Christopher Columbus. And it only "achieved scripture status" (your words) because much later church leaders decided to fabricate their version of the first vision, patching together pieces of previous versions, taking what they wanted from this one and that one and leaving out what they didn't, and include it in the D&C.

 

[drstevej]

For Joseph Smith to omit in that history the event that was the entire reason for the organization of the church is like starting a book of American history with George Washington instead of Christopher Columbus. And it only "achieved scripture status" (your words) because much later church leaders decided to fabricate their version of the first vision, patching together pieces of previous versions, taking what they wanted from this one and that one and leaving out what they didn't, and include it in the D&C.

yep

 

[Ran77]

For Joseph Smith to omit in that history the event that was the entire reason for the organization of the church is like starting a book of American history with George Washington instead of Christopher Columbus. And it only "achieved scripture status" (your words) because much later church leaders decided to fabricate their version of the first vision, patching together pieces of previous versions, taking what they wanted from this one and that one and leaving out what they didn't, and include it in the D&C.

This also seems to be a twist on the truth. According to my sources, the 1838 recounting was written initially for publication in regards to the history of the Church - contrary to your previous statement. I guess I'll have to take a look at History of the Church and see whether or not it is inculded.

It is obvious from the effort the Joseph put into accurately recounting the event that he intended it to be the source material for the first vision. I don't believe it was patched together by Church leaders. CFR - post Joseph's original document that was published in Times and Seasons and let's compare it to the D&C entry that was later officially accepted as scripture.


:o

 

[drstevej]

No. The twist was yours, as I have already pointed out. In your post you indicated that the First Vision was not important enough to include in LDS history, but do so by ignoring the fact that it achieved scripture status with its inclusion into the Doctrine and Covenants. The twist being, that the choice Joseph made to include revelation level events in the D&C has somehow become less important than those items he deemed appropriate for the non-doctrinal, non-scripture History of the Church.


:o

So LDS argue it isn't doctrine one time and it doesn't need to be doctrine other times.

 

[Ran77]

When I did an internet search for "History of the Church" by Joseph Smith, I found an annotated copy of The History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Unless you meant some other "History of the Church" book that supposedly does not contain an account of the first vision - here it is.


After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction--not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being--just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.



It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said--pointing to the other--

"THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, HEAR HIM."

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right--and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt; that "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men: having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." He again forbade me to join with any of them: and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. (19a) When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, "Never mind, all is well--I am well enough off." I then said to my mother,--"I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism(20) is not true."(21)


(Oops, time for dinner. I'll copy in the text from our scriptures later on to see how it compares.)

 

[Ran77]

So LDS argue it isn't doctrine one time and it doesn't need to be doctrine other times.

Nope. Not what I said, not what I indicated. Not what the rest of the LDS said, not what they indicated. Is it not possible for our critics to deal with what we actually believe and what we actually claim?

 

[Moodshadow]

This also seems to be a twist on the truth. According to my sources, the 1838 recounting was written initially for publication in regards to the history of the Church - contrary to your previous statement. I guess I'll have to take a look at History of the Church and see whether or not it is inculded.

It is obvious from the effort the Joseph put into accurately recounting the event that he intended it to be the source material for the first vision. I don't believe it was not patched together by Church leaders. CFR - post Joseph's original document that was published in Times and Seasons and let's compare it to the D&C entry that was later officially accepted as scripture. :o

Can you find it online? I'm rather a techno-dunce, as I've mentioned before. I did look, but all I can find when I put Times & Seasons in a search is a vast array of BYU sites, not copies of T&S pages. I was looking for two specific issues: March 15, 1842, vol. 5 no. 9, and April 1, 1842, vol. 5 no. 11.

 

[Ran77]

Indeed - and the fact that he would omit it altogether - seeing the God of all Creation with his own eyes! - from his History of the Church, and then come up with ever-changing versions of the story later in his life, doesn't exactly instill confidence in his truthfulness, either.

I see that I was mistaken about the point you made, your post does not mention that the First Vision is missing from the History of the Church but that there is no mention of seeing God. This is taken from the annotated version of that book that I found on the internet.


"It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said--pointing to the other--

"THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, HEAR HIM."


When I read it, I see that God is mentioned. That would be the individual who introduces His beloved Son. Is that not clear to you? (That is meant as a serious question and not as a means to mock you.)

 

[Ran77]

Can you find it online? I'm rather a techno-dunce, as I've mentioned before. I did look, but all I can find when I put Times & Seasons in a search is a vast array of BYU sites, not copies of T&S pages. I was looking for two specific issues: March 15, 1842, vol. 5 no. 9, and April 1, 1842, vol. 5 no. 11.

I too am not finding it. The best I can come up with is information that the article in the Times and Season is where they got the first vision account that they included in the scriptures - with a couple punctuation and grammar edits made by Joseph Smith before he died. If it's any help, some of the LDS critical sites also seem to indicate the same information.

If anyone else can shed further light on this matter, I would appreciate it.

 

[A New Dawn]

I've already asked this, but I'll ask it again: Did Joseph Smith ever offer conflicting dates for the first vision?

He didn't offer any date! All we know is that it happened sometime between the ages of 12 and 16. That's 4 years of time in which it could have happened. And, to be honest, the truth matters. If it happened when he was the age in the official account, then it couldn't have happened because there were no revivals during that time. People have looked at church records for increases in church membership during that time frame, and there is nothing that remotely suggests a swelling in membership like what would accompany a "great revival".

And as I said earlier, an encounter with the divine (if it is true) is hard (if not impossible) to forget. Yes, he should not vacillate on an important issue like that. It should be burned into his memory as with a hot iron. Most people remember the date of their marriage, the date their children were born, the year they graduated from high school and college, the year they started their job, etc. It's a natural thing to remember the things that are important to you. How much more important than all of these is an encounter with God? So if these things are all easily remembered, why would it be so hard to remember the most important occurrence that will happen in one's life?

 

[A New Dawn]

Can you find it online? I'm rather a techno-dunce, as I've mentioned before. I did look, but all I can find when I put Times & Seasons in a search is a vast array of BYU sites, not copies of T&S pages. I was looking for two specific issues: March 15, 1842, vol. 5 no. 9, and April 1, 1842, vol. 5 no. 11.

Moodshadow, for future reference, here is the link to the Times & Seasons. CenterPlace.org - Representing independent branches of Restoration RLDS Click on Library in the top blue bar then scroll down to Church History. All the early LDS publications will be found there. They are very interesting to read. The earlier ones than the Times & Seasons show just how much history and the revelations have been redacted into the history and scripture they have now.

 

[drstevej]

Great thread.

He didn't offer any date! All we know is that it happened sometime between the ages of 12 and 16. That's 4 years of time in which it could have happened. And, to be honest, the truth matters.

Well summarized.

 

[Moodshadow]

Moodshadow, for future reference, here is the link to the Times & Seasons. CenterPlace.org - Representing independent branches of Restoration RLDS Click on Library in the top blue bar then scroll down to Church History. All the early LDS publications will be found there. They are very interesting to read. The earlier ones than the Times & Seasons show just how much history and the revelations have been redacted into the history and scripture they have now.

Oh, Dawn, this is wonderful, and thank you! It is off-putting to see, when researching almost any topic contained in the Bible or Mormonism, how the LDS church has so monopolized the websites that appear on the first Google page. It happens time after time - I'm sure you must have noticed that, as well. They must spend a fortune on that every year. Anyway, I won't have time until later today but am eager to get into this Times & Seasons thing and would never have had access to this website you cited without your help. Thanks - you're an angel!

 

[Ran77]

Oh, Dawn, this is wonderful, and thank you! It is off-putting to see, when researching almost any topic contained in the Bible or Mormonism, how the LDS church has so monopolized the websites that appear on the first Google page. It happens time after time - I'm sure you must have noticed that, as well. They must spend a fortune on that every year. Anyway, I won't have time until later today but am eager to get into this Times & Seasons thing and would never have had access to this website you cited without your help. Thanks - you're an angel!

CFR. Let's pick a topic and see who the top 10 results belong to.


:o

 

[A New Dawn]

CFR. Let's pick a topic and see who the top 10 results belong to.

First Vision - link to the first google page on the first vision. https://www.google.com/#q=joseph+smith's+first+vision
- first page, 11 entries (not counting graphics) = 1 wikipedia entry, 1 entry from ULHM, 7 entries by LDS (official and otherwise), and two videos (one an official LDS video, one done by another LDS group)

Times & Seasons - google page for the first page https://www.google.com/#q=times+&+seasons
- first page, 10 entries = 2 wikipedia entries, 1 megablog (with several individual bloggers inside it, all LDS), a UPenn entry with a link to the CenterPlace link I posted, 1 entry for CenterPlace, 3 entries to a BYU site that scanned in the contents of 3 volumes of the Times & Seasons (but it is horribly slow in loading each page), 1 entry for Charisma Magazine and 1 entry for the Church of England.

 

[Ran77]

First Vision - link to the first google page on the first vision. https://www.google.com/#q=joseph+smith's+first+vision
- first page, 11 entries (not counting graphics) = 1 wikipedia entry, 1 entry from ULHM, 7 entries by LDS (official and otherwise), and two videos (one an official LDS video, one done by another LDS group)

Times & Seasons - google page for the first page https://www.google.com/#q=times+&+seasons
- first page, 10 entries = 2 wikipedia entries, 1 megablog (with several individual bloggers inside it, all LDS), a UPenn entry with a link to the CenterPlace link I posted, 1 entry for CenterPlace, 3 entries to a BYU site that scanned in the contents of 3 volumes of the Times & Seasons (but it is horribly slow in loading each page), 1 entry for Charisma Magazine and 1 entry for the Church of England.

Thank you for providing this information.

 

[Ran77]

Times & Seasons google results:

1 - Times & Seasons website. This is LDS themed and what I would expect to be a top result for a website that has the name of the text I entered into the Google search. No surprise, nor conspiracy there.

2 - Wikipedia website. I think the important thing about wiki showing up second is that it is a strong indication that any results showing up below it are not paid to be bumped up in the search results. My response on this topic, (sorry A New Dawn for sidetracking the thread) was to Moodshadow's claim of the LDS Church using the might of the organization to dominate the early search results. If not paid to do so I believe results show up based on the amount of activity drawn to the site - at least, that is how I understand it to work.

3 - Times & Seasons archive at the upenn.edu site. The third result in for an EDU site. I don't recognize UPENN as an LDS school. Again, this is contrary to a claim that the LDS Church is using its resources to dominate the early search results.

4 & 5 - Are held by BYU as part of their 19th Century Mormon Publications. Is anyone actually surprised that BYU would make copies of early LDS publications available to the public? Is that really a sign of a conspiracy?

6 - This appears to be an RLDS related site.

7 - Is the Charisma Magazine site. It appears to be a charismatic Christianity site. Not LDS in any way.

8 - Is the Church of England site. Again, not LDS in any way.

9 - Is the Times & Seasons blog. It did not appear to be LDS related.

10 - Is the Echo Park Paper Collection. I didn't check it out because my security program had a warning on the site, but it didn't appear to be LDS related.


Out of the top ten search results I received for Google on Times & Seasons search, only three were LDS sites.