NOM

Okay, so as I said in my intro post, I'm still finding out a lot about problems with the official line. I'm still trying to validate everything I see that concerns me with the church with official church publications and positions. It's rather frustrating to see how wrong I've been this whole time. Worse is finally seeing how the church obfuscates things. Who on earth is editing their web content - they're definitely complicit in it.

Was looking at the church essay on the first vision. They acknowledge that there are four different accounts. They pass this off as differing emphasis between the four accounts. They don't talk about the fact that in the first account, he only mentions seeing the Lord. Are they really suggesting that he doesn't see fit to emphasize that there were two beings that appeared to him? It happened, but it didn't matter so much? Also not mentioned is the fact that in the journal, he says he was 16 when it happened.

More insidiously - they mention the dates of each account which all happened within a few years of each other. They mention that he was 14 when it happened. Nowhere do they mention his birth year or the year he was 14. They're great at putting dates everywhere else except the ones that would make a casual reader realize that there was 13 years between his 14th year and when he first wrote about it in a personal journal.

From a faith perspective I think the first version is actually the best. He is seeking forgiveness and gets it in a one on one with the Lord. He wrote it, it seems more earnest and creates a sense of innocence not found in the "here's my son to tell you how botched up everything is.

I find it interesting that the God is the same yesterday, today, and forever - except when he isn't. He appeared to several people, evidently, in the New England area for a few years and then stopped. Just starting to recognize all of the inconsistency.

Welcome to the rabbit hole. Try some cake.

IT_Veteran wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:41 pm
Was looking at the church essay on the first vision. They acknowledge that there are four different accounts. They pass this off as differing emphasis between the four accounts. They don't talk about the fact that in the first account, he only mentions seeing the Lord. Are they really suggesting that he doesn't see fit to emphasize that there were two beings that appeared to him? It happened, but it didn't matter so much? Also not mentioned is the fact that in the journal, he says he was 16 when it happened.

If you want to go deeper down the rabbit hole.

For me the history of the First Vision is far deeper and complex than the church even admits to in the essays. Yes, the church admits to different versions which they claim represent different emphasis. But the factual history actually shows a very different evolution of the narrative.

It appears, originally there was no First Vision story at all, then the Gold Plate Vision occurred, and then later the First Vision story morphed out of the Gold Plate Vision story into a new second story, and then this new second story later evolved from angels to God, or the Lord, or both God and Jesus, etc..

There is no record of Joseph telling any one about a vision in the grove until 1835+. It is not that the early saints didn't know about the story of the First Vision. But rather, as described by Oliver Cowdery the Gold Plate Vision had almost exactly the same elements and context as what we now think are associated with the First Vision. For all the early saints, such as Oliver Cowdery and Lucy Smith the Gold Plate Vision WAS the First Vision, The Gold Plates Vision was how Joseph found God and got his calling as a prophet.

For example, Oliver testifies in his 1834 history of the church that the context of the Gold Plate Vision is - Joseph (17) did not know if a Supreme Being even existed (3 years after the First Vision was supposed to have happened), there were revivals in the area, pastor Lane was in the area, he was confused which church to join, his family joined another church, Joseph prayed, was visited by an angel, the angel told him that his sins were forgiven, and not to join any religion, and then the angel describes the gold plates.

Around 1835, a new story developed and was told to outsiders( e.g. a Jewish Rabbi) that Joseph had a "I came unto Jesus and I'm saved experience" devoid of any of the controversy associated with the Gold Plate story. Stories like this were very common for the time period. This story is just a slight tweak of the Gold Plate Vision - it had an angel, but Joseph was 14, and the Gold Plate parts were omitted. Later the story evolved to have occurred in a grove. Later the personages testify of Christ, later it becomes the Lord, and then later God and Christ. Eventually, the elements of the original First Vision story (the Gold Plate Vision) had to be shifted forward by 3 years and reassigned to the new Grove Vision story, since these elements were why Joseph was questioning religion in the first place. One big problem is that all of the verifiable historical dates are off by 3-4 years since they were moved from the Gold Plate Vision taking place in 1823-1824 to a new Grove Vision story taking place in 1820. Dates that can be verified are the revivals, Pastor Lane, the start of the persecution, and the family joining another church. These events match the history for 1823-1824 but are entirely wrong for 1820.

If you are interested in details and references including sources from BYU - I posted on thread on this topic several months ago at Oliver Cowdery Version: Gold Plate Vision was the First Vision? viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1591&hilit=oliver+c ... Gold+Place.

The dating of the 1832 Letterbook First Vision account is also suspect which I described at "Dating of the Joseph's First Vision Letter Book Account" see viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1614

Wow, thank you for this. It’ll take some time for me to get through, but I appreciate it.

Ever notice that the official version never says God and Jesus visited JS. I only says two personnages did.

2bizE wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:19 am Ever notice that the official version never says God and Jesus visited JS. I only says two personnages did.

Church leadership are famous for setting the stage and then allowing the members/victims to draw their own conclusions. That way they have plausible deniability should they ever need it.

"One of them pointed to the other and said, 'This is my beloved son, Bill.... Hear ye him."

Nah.....

Since the 1832 version is the only one written in Joseph's own hand and since it is the closest in time to the actual event, it seems like that is the most likely to resemble the actual event (assuming it happened at all). Even at that, it sure took him a looooong time to write it down or even tell anyone about it. This version seems to be the standard story of a young minister seeking forgiveness of his sins in preparation for the undertaking of his ministry, which appearsto have been a familiar practice in the Burned-over District at the time. There is also no indication that Joseph saw a physical being of flesh and bones, or indeed that he saw anything that could not be attributed to a vision of "spiritual eyes."

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 2:54 pm Since the 1832 version is the only one written in Joseph's own hand and since it is the closest in time to the actual event, it seems like that is the most likely to resemble the actual event (assuming it happened at all). Even at that, it sure took him a looooong time to write it down or even tell anyone about it. This version seems to be the standard story of a young minister seeking forgiveness of his sins in preparation for the undertaking of his ministry, which appearsto have been a familiar practice in the Burned-over District at the time. There is also no indication that Joseph saw a physical being of flesh and bones, or indeed that he saw anything that could not be attributed to a vision of "spiritual eyes."

I totally agree, it very much more of a "and I came to the Lord, and I had a experience and he forgave my sins". It certainly doesn't fit the current accepted narrative which is probably why Joseph F Smith cut it out of the letterbook and hid it in a safe. It was not found until the 1960s. It is interesting that this account says it occurred in the 16th year of my age, and references only the Lord.

The 1832 Letterbook First Vision account is undated! it could of been produced anywhere from 1832 to 1837. The church dates it as early as possible to make the narrative seem to make sense, but the 1832 dating is based on very flimsy evidence.

el-asherah wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:13 pmThe 1832 Letterbook First Vision account is undated! it could of been produced anywhere from 1832 to 1837. The church dates it as early as possible to make the narrative seem to make sense, but the 1832 dating is based on very flimsy evidence.

I didn't know that. Another little-known fact is that Joseph Fielding Smith apparently removed 11 pages, but only restored 3 of them once he found out the Tanners were going to spill the beans.

The second paragraph in the Joseph Smith Papers introduction for the letterbook (http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... ource-note) says "The original book apparently contained nine gatherings of twelve leaves each, but eight leaves have been cut from the final gathering," and footnote 3 adds "These eight leaves have not been located."

ETA: WTF!