Explanation for JS's initial first vision account?

[Jim Swarthout]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

A few days ago someone posted a link to a table that showed the different attributes of each of JS' documented accounts of the FV. His first account, and I believe second account, said he saw only one being.

Here's the link you speak of:

http://www.annuitech.com/ms/ftp/Jim/ComparisonChart.pdf

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Does only mentioning one personage mean that he only claimed to see just Christ, but didn't see the Father? Yes, the omission may be a little puzzling, but is it really that significant?

Frankly, this early account is very rough, even a bit rambling, like it was done in a hurry.

No, not significant. Here's why: If you believe that Joseph saw the things he said he saw on any level, then evidence of inconsistency (implying mendacity) won't matter to you because your hopes and beliefs aren't empirically based.

This is what some people are missing. If I believe that a 14 year old boy saw God in the woods and later translated gold plates, I believe it on a spiritual level or I have suspended disbelief and chosen to believe it. Either way, apparent inconsistencies in accounts even if it is assumed they mutually excluded one another aren't going to change the spiritual belief/choice.

In the absence of those things, the whole thing is fantastical and absurd as is true with any religious tradition. But no one can convince me that chocolate and peanut butter ice cream from Baskin&Robbins isn't the very best kind of ice cream in the world by showing me evidence that 9 out of 10 prefer vanilla. That is why discussion about the likelihood of what "really" happened misses the point.

[ilmf]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Link to the entire text?

For those who have Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling, it's documented in there. His first two written accounts, the first one being several years after the first vision (without the book in front of me to reference I seem to remember it being the year 1833), reference "a personage", not two. The second account was a couple of years later.

(Before reading my post any further, understand that I am still a strong member of the church through all of this...)

I haven't read this entire thread, but I hope people aren't getting attacked for asking something like, "If JS was visited by two personages, why did he say 'a' personage?" That's a very good question isn't it? It's completely acceptable to me that people would leave the church over that, especially someone who served a mission and repeated the First Vision story over and over again in the First Discussion; "I saw two personages, standing above me in the air..." . I've had a really hard time with it since learning about it from Bushman's book, it really makes me scratch my head and I have a difficult time defending it.

Also, for those who have finished Rough Stone Rolling, does Bushman address the issues surrounding the parallels between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews? If View of the Hebrews is news to anyone here, Ethan Smith was Oliver Cowdery's pastor. In 1823, Ethan Smith wrote a book (View of the Hebrews) speculating that Native Americans were of Hebrew origin. I'm just curious if Bushman brings it up (I'm only through two chapters).

This is possibly a good topic for another thread, but do any of you get bothered when someone implies that the BOM is true if for no other reason than there's no way he could have written it based on his level of education? He was no doubt intelligent and could read and write, so what does his level of education have to do with anything?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Does only mentioning one personage mean that he only claimed to see just Christ, but didn't see the Father? Yes, the omission may be a little puzzling, but is it really that significant?

Frankly, this early account is very rough, even a bit rambling, like it was done in a hurry.

And how do we know if what he did was odd? Is there a standard to measure against? I would guess an experience like that would be pretty overwhelming and nearly impossible to describe in words.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

No, not significant. Here's why: If you believe that Joseph saw the things he said he saw on any level, then evidence of inconsistency (implying mendacity) won't matter to you because your hopes and beliefs aren't empirically based.

This is what some people are missing. If I believe that a 14 year old boy saw God in the woods and later translated gold plates, I believe it on a spiritual level or I have suspended disbelief and chosen to believe it. Either way, apparent inconsistencies in accounts even if it is assumed they mutually excluded one another aren't going to change the spiritual belief/choice.

In the absence of those things, the whole thing is fantastical and absurd as is true with any religious tradition. But no one can convince me that chocolate and peanut butter ice cream from Baskin&Robbins isn't the very best kind of ice cream in the world by showing me evidence that 9 out of 10 prefer vanilla. That is why discussion about the likelihood of what "really" happened misses the point.

I understand why people can choose to disbelieve based on the apparent inconsistencies, but for those who have chosen to disbelieve to argue that the inconsistencies are so egregious as to compel disbelief, it seems they are just the other side of the coin of faith for those who see absolutely no concern at all.

Record keeping would not have been as detailed in my opinion during the nineteenth century, and I can see how one would speak of Christ talking to him with little mention of Father if the focus was upon the discussion with Christ. OTOH, it is odd to omit such a significant personage.

[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

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I don't think the multiple accounts of the first vision is 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?

Probably the most profound doctrine in Mormonism is the idea of Theosis. I'm not sure that the First Vision sheds much light on that concept.

[creekster]

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.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Probably the most profound doctrine in Mormonism is the idea of Theosis. I'm not sure that the First Vision sheds much light on that concept.

That's certainly true. So it is fair to say that the first vision implications are incomplete in that regard. However, I mean it is not clear the Joseph Smith would have rejected the trinity based on the first vision. Clearly by 1838 he would have but what about 1832?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.

Actually, I don't assume that at all. I think quite the opposite is true. I think it is ironic that we think the theological implications are clear but I am not sure Joseph would agree at least early on.

Also, could have Joseph understanding of the Godhead affected how he retold the event? If he believed in the trinity then it hardly seems like a big deal to talk of one or multiple personages?