NOM

Someone posted this doozy on Facebook:

http://ldsmag.com/why-the-other-account ... our-faith/

I don't really like the way the article is so dismissive of some pretty serious problems with the First Vision account. I have to remind myself that the purpose of articles like this is merely to help the believing keep believing, and not to engage the subject in any meaningful way. But it is pretty offensive and condescending to those of us who do see some devastating inconsistencies with all the different accounts of the First Vision.

I see the inconsistencies in the first vision account and recognize that they could very well be a flag for..... Hmmmm. What is the right word?

Those variations and inconsistencies could be red flags for an "evolving" story.

I really don't like the starting premise of the article, and that is telling you what you should be thinking. That is usually a red flag for me that someone is trying to shut down critical thinking as opposed to trying to explore truth as best as we can.

It's not a big deal that JS couldn't tell a consistent account of the foundational event of the Restoration! You just lack faith and want to sin, you execrable taffy-puller!

Hopefully I won't repsond to every post, but I'm just so giddy that NOM is back I can't help myself! But this is an interesting point, because I suspect we ALL do this to some extent - tell a story, leave a few details out, exaggerate the details later to make the telling even better, etc. So I'm not sure I will subscribe deliberately fraudulent motivations on this score, when I've seen tons of people do the exact same thing with the stories they tell. What I object to the most about the different versions of the visions, is that the church ONLY uses the JS-H one, as the AUTHORATIVE version, and doesn't even mention the others in any setting. Or even ADMIT that it is possible that the story got exaggerated over time, which it probably did, and has now become canon. It's disingenuous.

Mormorrisey wrote:Hopefully I won't repsond to every post, but I'm just so giddy that NOM is back I can't help myself! But this is an interesting point, because I suspect we ALL do this to some extent - tell a story, leave a few details out, exaggerate the details later to make the telling even better, etc. So I'm not sure I will subscribe deliberately fraudulent motivations on this score, when I've seen tons of people do the exact same thing with the stories they tell. What I object to the most about the different versions of the visions, is that the church ONLY uses the JS-H one, as the AUTHORATIVE version, and doesn't even mention the others in any setting. Or even ADMIT that it is possible that the story got exaggerated over time, which it probably did, and has now become canon. It's disingenuous.

You are right, it is disingenuous to only talk about the one account. And you are also right, we all leave details out when we tell stories sometimes. But all the same I myself am bothered by the differing accounts - yeah, I might leave some details out talking about something I did in high school, it may change over the years, I might forget who was there - but if I met the freakin' Creator of the Universe and His Resurrected Son you can be sure I'd remember - and mention - that both of them were there. Whether there was one Being there, or two, whether there were a truckload of angels or not - these are all integral to the meaning of the alleged experience, and the omission of any one of these significant details in any account of that alleged experience calls said alleged experience into question, at least in my mind anyway.

Not Buying It wrote:

Mormorrisey wrote:Hopefully I won't repsond to every post, but I'm just so giddy that NOM is back I can't help myself! But this is an interesting point, because I suspect we ALL do this to some extent - tell a story, leave a few details out, exaggerate the details later to make the telling even better, etc. So I'm not sure I will subscribe deliberately fraudulent motivations on this score, when I've seen tons of people do the exact same thing with the stories they tell. What I object to the most about the different versions of the visions, is that the church ONLY uses the JS-H one, as the AUTHORATIVE version, and doesn't even mention the others in any setting. Or even ADMIT that it is possible that the story got exaggerated over time, which it probably did, and has now become canon. It's disingenuous.

You are right, it is disingenuous to only talk about the one account. And you are also right, we all leave details out when we tell stories sometimes. But all the same I myself am bothered by the differing accounts - yeah, I might leave some details out talking about something I did in high school, it may change over the years, I might forget who was there - but if I met the freakin' Creator of the Universe and His Resurrected Son you can be sure I'd remember - and mention - that both of them were there. Whether there was one Being there, or two, whether there were a truckload of angels or not - these are all integral to the meaning of the alleged experience, and the omission of any one of these significant details in any account of that alleged experience calls said alleged experience into question, at least in my mind anyway.

Not to mention that the BOM has a lot of trinitarian doctrine contained in it, and only several years into church organization does Joseph begin to expound a doctrine of plurality of gods to fit the vision he had. No, you are correct on that score, it is disturbing the omitted details of the various versions, and it just seems to me that the story fits the evolving doctrine, rather than establishing the doctrine BECAUSE of the recorded event. Which I suspect is the challenge of the various versions in the first place.

They should label them numerically - First Vision 1.0, First Vision 1.1, First Vision 1.2 - etc. etc.

But - I really hope there are some who had not heard there were multiple visions before reading that article. Just another example of the church finally acknowledging the contradictions, fictions and other issues and digging their own hole deeper as they do. The wording of the article is insane - "The first vision was blah-blah-blah, but the one people are most familiar with is so & so, but there's also this one, and that one..." If you put a witness on a stand and got that sort of answer, the person would be dismissed and the testimony would be considered laughable.

They can say that the various version should not challenge your testimony. Indeed, we have plenty of scholars and apologists who confidently proclaim that. But would they allow unfettered discussion and critical examination of each version of the First Vision? Hilariously and ironically, the article has a section heading titled "If any one of them be right, which is it?" JS-H 1:10. I agree. Which version of the First Vision should we draw our doctrine from? You can still be a devout Trinitarian in the 1832 and 1835 versions, after all.

This is the famous infographic of the four major versions. At best this radically modifies the ideas of what a prophet can say and do. I also has serious implications for how inspiration is received and distributed. It's another case of firmly asking us to "give Brother Joseph a break" but never specifying details of what Joseph did that required us to forgive him.

I can't remember where I read this comment (in response to this topic) but it was something like...if you told the police 16 versions of an event and all were significantly different...the conclusion would be that you're lying. When I read the quote from someone in the church saying it should actually "strengthen my testimony" my shelf cracked.

Mormorrisey wrote:Hopefully I won't repsond to every post, but I'm just so giddy that NOM is back I can't help myself! But this is an interesting point, because I suspect we ALL do this to some extent - tell a story, leave a few details out, exaggerate the details later to make the telling even better, etc. So I'm not sure I will subscribe deliberately fraudulent motivations on this score, when I've seen tons of people do the exact same thing with the stories they tell. What I object to the most about the different versions of the visions, is that the church ONLY uses the JS-H one, as the AUTHORATIVE version, and doesn't even mention the others in any setting. Or even ADMIT that it is possible that the story got exaggerated over time, which it probably did, and has now become canon. It's disingenuous.

Does it make a difference whether you are telling your buddy about the 8/22/135 pound fish/alligator/cthulhu you caught last weekend on your fishing/hunting/safari trip or about a vision that you tell people to convince them that you should be prophet/priest/king of the world?

I agree, details do get lost in the retelling and stories get embellished, but differences can have varying levels of importance to people depending on the subject matter. Some people say that the differences are only minor details, other people say that the differences aren't in the details but in major elements of the story. Ultimately it's their truth.

I default to the position of "you don't get to tell people how to feel" but I can understand how people that are convinced that they have exclusive truth are tempted to violate that principle. Some people operate under the perspective of there being correct and incorrect feelings.

nibbler wrote:Does it make a difference whether you are telling your buddy about the 8/22/135 pound fish/alligator/Cthulhu you caught last weekend on your fishing/hunting/safari trip...?

Meridian Magazine would suggest that it does not matter since everything caught is rather fishy.

I respect their point of the story being geared for the particular audience as well. If I was waxing on about the eternal nature of Santa Claus to wide-eyed and vulnerable Virginia, I might tell it with the surety and bombast of a 19th Century newspaper editor. If I was speaking to an assembled crowd of true believing Trump supporters, I might bear my testimony that he was the true Trump, throw in a touch of hate at Rome for good measure, then put at an exclamation point behind the finale of catching Cthulhu with a 15-pound nylon filament test line. If I was speaking to a gathering of the Newly Awakened I might do so with my tongue-in-cheek and a twinkle in my eye, you know, the old Midrash approach. If the fish story needed punching up for a questioning crowd, I might embellish it with some colorful side stripes and very racy fins and even throw in a visit from old Neptune himself.

moksha wrote: Meridian Magazine would suggest that it does not matter since everything caught is rather fishy.

Thanks for a great laugh.

When I hear the older dudes in HPG telling amazing, miraculous stories from their mission 50 years ago, in extreme detail, right down to word-for-word dialog, I always wonder what REALLY happened. Same with the official FV story.

I think we need look no further than the before and after appearance of Peter, James and John between the BoC and D&C to understand Joseph's process of embellishment, bless his heart.

This is just one of the many things that don't add up for me. My shelf was pretty much broken before I really looked into the different accounts. The line that they are different because they were meant for different audiences just doesn't hold water for me. Those differences can't be reconciled in my thinking unless you go with an evolving story.