Various accounts of the first vision and their similarities and differences

[Ran77]

A google search for First Vision did come up with a paid google ad on top for mormon.org. It is clearly listed as an ad. However, the next result is wikipedia and I feel confident that anything that appears below wiki is there due to the number of hits the site receives and not because an organization has used its might to manipulate the search results. The result directly below wiki was for First Vision Bank. They are in TN and I suspect not LDS related at all.


I see no evidence of a conspiracy from these two searches.


Now, with my apologies to A New Dawn for sidetracking this discussion, I return to the topic at hand.

 

[Moodshadow]

I see no evidence of a conspiracy from these two searches.

There is a world of difference between what I said and "conspiracy." And you keep accusing me of twisting your words??!!??

 

[A New Dawn]

A google search for First Vision did come up with a paid google ad on top for mormon.org. It is clearly listed as an ad. However, the next result is wikipedia and I feel confident that anything that appears below wiki is there due to the number of hits the site receives and not because an organization has used its might to manipulate the search results. The result directly below wiki was for First Vision Bank. They are in TN and I suspect not LDS related at all.

There are people/companies/site owners who pay google to place their sites at the top when certain subjects are googled. I assume that Wikipedia does that, I also assume that the LDS church does it, too, because when I google things that are equally LDS and RLDS related, the LDS things show up pages before the RLDS things do. In fact, I often have to add the word "restorationist" in to the search parameters in order to not have to go through pages of LDS stuff before getting to the RLDS stuff.

 

[Ran77]

There is a world of difference between what I said and "conspiracy." And you keep accusing me of twisting your words??!!??

What word would you like me to use?

Here is your comment: "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."

What would you call a plan, by the LDS to monopolize the websites that appear on the first Google page? In fact, an activity which you claim is funded by the them. What would you call that?


Dictionary dot com gives this as definition number 5:

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

That means any combination of actions that bring about a given result. This is how I meant it. Please explain to me how that is inappropriate when compared to the quote above?


Then the second point is that you didn't address how the facts I displayed are contrary to your original statement anyway. There was not evidence that the LDS Church monopolized the first page of Google results. Perhaps the accusation of my twisting your words is merely a distraction.


:o

 

[Ran77]

There are people/companies/site owners who pay google to place their sites at the top when certain subjects are googled. I assume that Wikipedia does that, I also assume that the LDS church does it, too, because when I google things that are equally LDS and RLDS related, the LDS things show up pages before the RLDS things do. In fact, I often have to add the word "restorationist" in to the search parameters in order to not have to go through pages of LDS stuff before getting to the RLDS stuff.

I am not certain what to do at this point. When I previously asked a question of you - a few weeks ago - you told me that I should not engage you in discussion on the forum. I recognize that I have posted "thank yous" since then, but that hardly seems a violation of any forum rules. I have no desire to be banned because I disregarded your previous instructions to me.

And I'm not trying to be difficult either. My thoughts and my motivations are exactly as I have stated them in this post.

 

[Ran77]

For thos interested in how the Google search results function, I have two links.


This first one explains that basically the more helpful and relevant a site is the higher it ranks on the search.

https://www.google.com/competition/howgooglesearchworks.html


This second one explains that while Google does have ads, it has never allowed sites to be ranked higher by paying for that priveledge.

https://www.google.com/competition/howgoogleadswork.html


If a person uses their resources properly and designs a website intelligently they can ensure that they are ranked higher in search results than those who don't. Of course, I'm not seeing where that is in any way a bad thing. Good websites get better search results. Isn't that what everyone should work towards?

 

[Moodshadow]

What word would you like me to use?

Here is your comment: "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."

What would you call a plan, by the LDS to monopolize the websites that appear on the first Google page? In fact, an activity which you claim is funded by the them. What would you call that?


Dictionary dot com gives this as definition number 5:

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

That means any combination of actions that bring about a given result. This is how I meant it. Please explain to me how that is inappropriate when compared to the quote above?

Then the second point is that you didn't address how the facts I displayed are contrary to your original statement anyway. There was not evidence that the LDS Church monopolized the first page of Google results. Perhaps the accusation of my twisting your words is merely a distraction.:o

I am well aware of what I said, thank you, so the reiteration was unnecessary. There was zero implication in my remark that there was a conspiracy - by anyone's definition of the word. I still believe my point to be valid and am apparently not the only one here who agrees, and in fact the point was supported by perfectly good evidence posted by Dawn, so I didn't even bother. I strongly suggest that we just get back to the OP, with apologies to the poster.

 

[Ran77]

I am well aware of what I said, thank you, so the reiteration was unnecessary. There was zero implication in my remark that there was a conspiracy - by anyone's definition of the word. I still believe my point to be valid and am apparently not the only one here who agrees, and in fact the point was supported by perfectly good evidence posted by Dawn, so I didn't even bother. I strongly suggest that we just get back to the OP, with apologies to the poster.

You dodged my question: which word should I use?

Rather than merely complain that I have twisted your meaning, provide me the right word so that I can avoid doing so again.

 

[Moodshadow]

You dodged my question: which word should I use?

Rather than merely complain that I have twisted your meaning, provide me the right word so that I can avoid doing so again.

In case you didn't notice, I didn't pull this sort of puerile stupidity on you when the shoe was on the other foot. Could you kindly extend the same courtesy to ALL concerned (not just me) and just get back to the topic of the thread, please?

 

[A New Dawn]

I am not certain what to do at this point. When I previously asked a question of you - a few weeks ago - you told me that I should not engage you in discussion on the forum. I recognize that I have posted "thank yous" since then, but that hardly seems a violation of any forum rules. I have no desire to be banned because I disregarded your previous instructions to me.

And I'm not trying to be difficult either. My thoughts and my motivations are exactly as I have stated them in this post.

I do not recall saying that, specifically, can you send me a reference to me in a PM or bump the previous discussion? If you do not wish to discuss this with me, I am fine, but I won't be prohibited from discussing the topic in my own thread.

 

[Ran77]

I do not recall saying that, specifically, can you send me a reference to me in a PM or bump the previous discussion? If you do not wish to discuss this with me, I am fine, but I won't be prohibited from discussing the topic in my own thread.

I have not suggested, nor thought, that you should be prevented from discussing the topic.

 

[Phantasman]

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?

I don't know if I would let penmanship mistakes shake my faith. Did the thieves both condemn Jesus as Mark says, or did one side with him as Luke says? You can't trust everything you read.

 

[A New Dawn]

I don't know if I would let penmanship mistakes shake my faith. Did the thieves both condemn Jesus as Mark says, or did one side with him as Luke says? You can't trust everything you read.

I don't believe that you can forget an encounter with the divine. If you can, perhaps it wasn't as divine as you are thinking it was. However, there were other problems with the different versions. Age was just one factor. Another factor is who was he even talking to? Some versions say it was an angel, some say it was Christ and some say it was God the Father and Christ. Again, if you had an encounter with God, how can you forget that? And if you did have an encounter with God, why was it not mentioned prior to 10 years later?

 

[Phantasman]

I don't believe that you can forget an encounter with the divine. If you can, perhaps it wasn't as divine as you are thinking it was. However, there were other problems with the different versions. Age was just one factor. Another factor is who was he even talking to? Some versions say it was an angel, some say it was Christ and some say it was God the Father and Christ. Again, if you had an encounter with God, how can you forget that? And if you did have an encounter with God, why was it not mentioned prior to 10 years later?

I'll agree with your words. And I do not believe JS ever spoke to the Father, in my current belief status. I am not LDS, but I do find the JS analogy interesting in it's description of Orthodox thought. I also believe that once a divine presence is placed anywhere on this Earth, it is immediately attacked with an anti divine presence in which to cause a chaotic and ignorant effect to those who wish to gain from it's wisdom and knowledge.

Whether it's true or not is more spiritual than physical. If you don't experience it, don't believe it. The truth is in what it produced, not in what he wrote.

 

[Ran77]

I don't believe that you can forget an encounter with the divine. If you can, perhaps it wasn't as divine as you are thinking it was. However, there were other problems with the different versions. Age was just one factor. Another factor is who was he even talking to? Some versions say it was an angel, some say it was Christ and some say it was God the Father and Christ. Again, if you had an encounter with God, how can you forget that? And if you did have an encounter with God, why was it not mentioned prior to 10 years later?

I've been meaning (and still do) to get back to discussing the other differeneces. Maybe in the next couple of days.

 

[Ran77]

My apologies. It took longer to get back to this thread than I had anticipated. Let's look at the 1832 account of the first vision again.

" . . . I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and (1) while in (the) attitude of calling upon the Lord (in the 16th year of my age) a (2) piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and (3) I was filled with the spirit of god and (4) the (Lord) opened the heavens upon me and I saw (5) the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph (my son) thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy (way) walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life (behold) the (6) world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not (my) commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and (7) mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which (hath) been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud (clothed) in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart . . ."


Here are the points that are made:

1) Joseph prayed (for mercy).

2) A pillar of light/fire descended upon Joseph.

3) Joseph was filled with the spirit.

4) The Lord opened the heavens.

5) Jesus tells Joseph that his sins are forgiven.

6) Jesus tells Joseph that the world is in a sinful state and have turned away from the Gospel.

7) Jesus tells Joseph that soon will be brought about that which the prophets have spoken.


Next I will compare these points to the the 1835 account.

 

[Ran77]

Here is the 1835 account:

" . . .I commenced giving him a relation of the circumstances connected with the coming forth of the book of Mormon, as follows being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right, in matters that involve eternal consequ[e]nces; being thus perplexed in mind (1) I retired to the silent grove and bow[e]d down before the Lord, under a realising sense that he had said (if the bible be true) ask and you shall receive knock and it shall be opened seek and you shall find and again, if any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men libarally and upbradeth not; information was what I most desired at this time, and with a fixed determination to obtain it, I called upon the Lord for the first time, in the place above stated or in other words I made a fruitless attempt to p[r]ay, my toung seemed to be swolen in my mouth, so that I could not utter, I heard a noise behind me like some person walking towards me, I strove again to pray, but could not, the noise of walking seemed to draw nearer, I sprung up on my feet, and and looked around, but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking, I kneeled again my mouth was opened and my toung liberated, and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, (2) a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me head, (3) and filled me with Joy unspeakable, (4) a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, (5) another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, (6) he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and (7) I saw many angels in this vision I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed . . ."


The points of interest in this version are:

1) Joseph prayed (to find out which religion was correct).

2) A pillar of fire descended upon Joseph.

3) Joseph was filled with unspeakable joy.

4) A personage appeared.

5) A second personage appeared and told Joseph his sins were forgiven.

6) The second personage told Joseph that Jesus was the son of God.

7) Joseph saw many angels during the vision.


So how do these compare?

 

[Ran77]

What I see is that points 1, 2, and 3 match very well.

Point 4 (heavens open) in the 1832 account could very well match to Point 7 (saw many angels) in the 1835 account.

In the 1832 account Jesus is specified as the personage who told Joseph that, Point 5, his sins were forgiven and in the 1835 account, Point 5, an unidentified personage tells him that. The only thing out of place with it is that, Point 6, in the 1835 account lists the second personage as telling Joseph that Jesus was the Son of God. Which seems a bit unusual for Jesus to have said about Himself.

The 1835 account seems to be a more capsulated telling of the events and I can see from the two of them that Joseph clearly was emphasizing certain elements for his audience. I definately don't get any hint that it was meant as a full account of the event.

 

[Ran77]

Here is the 1838 account:



13 At length (1) I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to "ask of God," concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.

15 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 (2) 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.

16 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 (3) a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me (4) 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 (5) said, pointing to the other — This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 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 (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)÷and which I should join.

19 I was answered that (6) 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."

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and (7) many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. 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.


The points of interest in this version are:

1) Joseph prayed (to find out which religion was correct).

2) A dark power overcame Joseph.

3) A pillar of light descended upon Joseph.

4) Joseph saw two personages.

5) The first personage introduce the other as His beloved Son.

6) Joseph is told not to join any of the churches because all of them are wrong.

7) Joseph was told many other things which he cannot speak about.


How does this compare with the other accounts?

 

[Ran77]

Here is the 1844 account:

"When about fourteen years of age, I began to reflect upon the importance of being prepared for a future state; and upon inquiring the place of salvation, I found that there was a great clash in religious sentiment; if I went to one society they referred me to one place, and another to another; each one pointing to his particular creed as the "summum bonum" of perfection. (1) Considering that all could not be right, and that God could not be the author of so much confusion, I determined to investigate the subject more fully, believing that if God had a church, it would not be split up into factions, and that if he taught one society to worship one way, and administer in one set of ordinances, he would not teach another principles which were diametrically opposed. Believing the word of God, I had confidence in the declaration of James, "If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him."

I retired to a secret place in a grove, and began to call upon the Lord. While fervently engaged in supplication, my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enrapt in a heavenly vision, and (2) saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in features and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light, which eclipsed the sun at noonday. They told me (3) that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as His Church and Kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to "go not after them," at the same time receiving a promise that the fullness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me."


The points of interest are:

1) Joseph prayed (to find out which religion was correct).

2) Joseph saw two personages.

3) Joseph is told not to join any of the churches because all of them are wrong.


It's very obvious from this account that Joseph was telling it with a point in mind. That being the need for the restoration of the Gospel. I can see he has left out the parts that do not directly support the point he is trying to make. Otherwise, it fits with the rest of the accounts.