Is this the new way to address concerns that they've been talking about?

The entry on multiple first vision accounts is interesting reading.
http://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

Nothing about seer stones or second anointing.

If you are a TBM who has heard that there are various versions of the first vision and you a mildly curious, but mostly want to bolster your current faithful position, this article will do the trick. You will, of course, not take the time to click on the links and read the actual accounts, because you really don't want to know anything that might make you question. You can tell your disbelieving friend that the church has nothing to hide and they have explained the discrepancies.

If you have already researched this topic and read the various versions of the first vision, you will see that this is nothing new. Just more fluff and a pat on the head.

Ask any American where and what they were doing when Kennedy was killed. They can tell you the details. The same thing applies to the Challenger.

Now if JS saw Jesus the Christ and God the Father, an even bigger event, why is he getting the details mixed up?

As the article says have faith and prayer about. I don't have to prayer about the Kennedy or Challenger events. Like most Americans livings and its been tested they have clear recognitions of those events.

I couldn't agree with you more. I watched Challenger live on the little TV in my kitchen and worried about the fact that my two daughters were also watching it live at the elementary school. I wasn't at the launch site, I just saw it on TV and I remember. I also wasn't at Dealey Plaza when JFK was assassinated. I was in Geometry with my classmates and a very frightened Greek immigrant teacher, Mr. Politus. I remember how the intercom crackled when the Principal made the announcement. I can't imagine seeing God and Jesus (I'm not sure that they exist) but if I saw them, I'm pretty sure that even at my advanced age I could get my story straight.

For me the first vision is really important, because it is the final piece of information that took JS from fallen prophet to con man and precipitated my leaving TSCC.

They also gave an entry for Spaulding Manuscript.
I agree they are trying to inoculate members on some of these issues. I'd like to see an entry for Facsimile 3 or City Creek mall.

I love this defense of the First Vision. It's a goldmine for deconstructionists. Just look at the introduction. . .

1) There are multiple accounts of the First Vision. JS wrote a few, his scribes wrote a few, and others wrote some as well. Then, sotto voce, we know them all, so you should listen to us rather than reading all that anti-Mormon crap.

2) "These documents have been discussed repeatedly in Church magazines, in works printed by Church-owned and Church-affiliated presses, and by Latter-day Saint scholars in other venues." In other words, we haven't hidden a damn thing. If you don't know about the several versions, it's because you were too lazy to read your church magazines.

3) "The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail." Naturally.

4) "Historians expect that when an individual retells an experience in multiple settings to different audiences over many years, each account will emphasize various aspects of the experience and contain unique details." You should not be surprised that Joseph would tell one person that he saw an angel, another that he saw God, and still another that he saw two Gods. Whether Satan appeared is a mere detail.

5) "Differences similar to those in the First Vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus." Well, I'm not so sure about THAT one. Did Paul variously claim that he saw an angel, Jesus and Gods on the Road to Damascus? No? Well, maybe nobody will notice that whopper if we bury it in a sentence which is buried in a paragraph. . . Besides, the Christians will like the reference since they they think Paul was cool.

6) "A basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision." Didn't they say that already? The lady protests a lot.

Then look at the conclusion. It starts with the usual "history is irrelevant, verify our story with your emotions." Then it ends by quoting Smith: 'I had seen a vision, I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it.'" Well, we can. All we need to know is that it is not "natural" for a man who saw deity to forget if that was one God or two.

I think the only 'basic consistency' is that the dude had a hallucination in a field.

That wasn't a hallucination he had in that field: it was Fanny.

He got a lot of fannies.