Quote:
Originally Posted by pelagius
I don't think the multiple accounts of the first vision are irrelevant in terms of the veracity of the first vision but I would like to ask another question about it.
Today, we use the first vision as a watershed moment that changed our understanding of the Godhead. Or the first vision gives us or allows us to understand the true nature of God (at least incrementally better than before). However, given the multiple accounts and their differences it is hard to argue that this is true for Joseph Smith. I suppose we can argue that it is true for Joseph Smith but only after 20 years of reflection about the event (and after other revelations clarified the nature of the Godhead).
Does this suggest we should be careful in this regard? Did the vision really give Joseph and consequently us a better understanding of the Godhead? Does Joseph Smith's multiple accounts imply limitations about what one can infer or learn from a single theophany?
Note:
A better link to some of the first vision accounts: The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision
Dean C. Jessee, BYU Studies 1969
http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/M...did=662&type=7 |
Your question assumes, at least to some extent, that JS had a clear mindset on the Godhead at the time of the first vision. Perhaps he was not clear at the time. Perhaps it did nto occurr to him to try to specifiy the relationship of the members of the godhead until later when he was more doctrinally mature. He may not have appreciated how revolutionary some of the details were/are.
I am no scholar in this area, as you know, and this is only my own specualtion, which is relatively uninformed.