Explanation for JS's initial first vision account?

[fusnik11]

His thoughts on God, what the Godhead was, were static and not set in stone at age 14?

1832 Joseph made his first real attempt to pen down his christian experience. It's an interesting read to see the anguish he stated he went through between the ages of 12 to 15. To me, he intimates he came to the knowledge of apostasy between this age before his vision. Others might read it differently. Here is the account:

http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/4

In 1835 he said he was visited by a personage who declared Jesus was the Christ and was accompanied by a large volume of angels. Makes no distinction who this personage was, but that it occurred to him when he was 14. This account is found in his personal diary.

In 1838 we get the version we are all familiar with found in the D&C.

[woot]

Originally Posted by All-American

In the Pearl of Great Price account, he said that he saw a lot more which he could not speak about at that time. I wonder if he was nervous about spilling out all the details, and as time went by, he felt comfortable sharing more significant details to the public in general.

The PoGP account was one of the later ones. 1842, as I recall. That explanation therefore doesn't work.

Edit: Swing and a miss. 1838 indeed. Still, it was one of the later accounts.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by woot

The PoGP account was one of the later ones. 1842, as I recall. That explanation therefore doesn't work.

Edit: Swing and a miss. 1838 indeed. Still, it was one of the later accounts.

The explination does work -don't let your bias get in the way of what lies before you. Further, fusnik posted some interesting information that you failed to address in your attempt to be 'right'.

By the way the prophet Darwin didn't make edits to his journals many months or even years after his initial obseervations did he?

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The explination does work -don't let your bias get in the way of what lies before you. Further, fusnik posted some interesting information that you failed to address in your attempt to be 'right'.

By the way the prophet Darwin didn't make edits to his journals many months or even years after his initial obseervations did he?

I thought it was an obvious point. Perhaps rather than claiming bias, which seems to be the result of nothing but your bias, why not actually explain what you mean and why you think Fusnik's comment remains valid after knowing that the PoGP version came after the accounts mentioning only 1 personage?

As a matter of fact, Darwin didn't make edits to his journals, at least not in the way you're thinking. That wouldn't have made any sense. He spent the rest of his life interpreting his data, not changing his data to fit his interpretations. Also, category error.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

I thought it was an obvious point. Perhaps rather than claiming bias, which seems to be the result of nothing but your bias, why not actually explain what you mean and why you think Fusnik's comment remains valid after knowing that the PoGP version came after the accounts mentioning only 1 personage?

As a matter of fact, Darwin didn't make edits to his journals, at least not in the way you're thinking. That wouldn't have made any sense. He spent the rest of his life interpreting his data, not changing his data to fit his interpretations. Also, category error.

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.

[woot]

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.

Oh I actually don't find it terribly significant, and my "apologist version" would probably be satisfactory were I looking to actually explain it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Oh I actually don't find it terribly significant, and my "apologist version" would probably be satisfactory were I looking to actually explain it.

I don't understand how antis decide only one possible interpretation flows from an ambiguous set of data points.

It is perplexing a bit why Joseph firstly only mentions one personage. And it is certainly possible one could conclude that he saw only one and only made it up. However, if one is in the business of visions and believes in them, do you believe that person would go about changing the vision? Now, of course you could argue he never had a vision.

However, it seems clear that JS did proclaim he had seen two personages and the fusnik material shows a lot of rambling and confusion.

[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.

[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