http://new.lds.org/study/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

Snippets:

"During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church."

"...Joseph Smith did not prepare a single, comprehensive account describing everything he experienced and learned from his initial vision but, rather, he presented several accounts at different times..."

"...Joseph Smith emphasized different aspects of his vision according to the audience he was addressing and his understanding of the event...."

"...Different scribes prepared each account of the First Vision, often years apart. Each account reflects a particular perspective for distinct audiences and purposes....These accounts complement each other.

"...In 1832, he concentrated more on his search for forgiveness, and in 1838 he emphasized God's declaration regarding the true Church."

---------------------------------------------------------
Differences are complementary....hahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahhahahah

ok for xmas hohohohoohohohohoohohohoohohohoohohohooho

Complementary?

Jesus was there.

Jesus wasn't there.

I can see why different audiences would want it one way or the other. Sure. Jesus wouldn't care if you ignored him.

Neither would God and the angel doesn't care if JS got the name wrong.Hey, I'm not good with names either. However, it doesn't seem to much to ask that he remember the number of personages who appeared. At 14, counting to three doesn't seem too hard.

Love that...counting to three part.... and so true.

They've admitted to multiple accounts for decades. See the refs at the bottom, they go back to 1985.

The problem is, they won't admit it poses a problem for Smith's credibility.

Of course they don't actually let the Morgbots read the actual accounts for themselves. They just use selective quotes and interpret the multiple accounts for them.

It was in Richard L. Anderson's "Three Witnesses" class. I see they have quoted one of Anderson's articles as sources, but he's not as concise there as he was in class. Anderson handed out a single sheet of paper with all four of Smith's first hand accounts without commentary and let us decide for ourselves. At the time I just thought they were merely increasingly detailed over time, but now it's pretty obvious that Smith was changing the story as he adopted more doctrines for his church.

BTW, I've never seen a more hated professor than Richard L. Anderson by students. He said once that obeying the Word of Wisdom isn't much of a challenge for Utah Mormons, because it's already part of the culture. Students were seething over that. He was also very straightforward about church history. He just gave us the information and let us decide. I think that may have been the actual source of a lot of the student irritation.

12 Yea, aflesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;
13 And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

...

16 All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground—
17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.


So I'm guessing that 'Utah Culture' for summer cook-outs has nothing to do with hot dogs, hamburgers, grilled chicken, BBQ, steak, corn on the cob?

It takes a special kind of logic for Mormons to believe that they 'follow the Word of Wisdom' while they're gobbling down meat in the middle of the summer.

Hell, it's hard to argue that the '...only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine' even applies to modern day Utah in the winter.

Someone recently started a thread asking those of us old enough to remember, where we were when we found out that Pres. Kennedy had been shot. A series of replies demonstrated that all of us clearly remembered our personal circumstance at that moment.

The O.P. questioned why, then, it should be difficult for Joseph Smith to remember clearly a supposed visit from Nephi, er--Moroni--er, HF and Christ, when we had no problem at all remembering where we were and what we were doing upon learning of Kennedy's assassination 47 years ago?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2010 09:12PM by WiserWomanNow.

WiserWomanNow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone recently started a thread asking those of
> us old enough to remember, where we were when we
> found out that Pres. Kennedy had been shot. A
> series of replies demonstrated that all of us
> clearly remembered our personal circumstance at
> that moment.
>
> The O.P. questioned why, then, it should be
> difficult for Joseph Smith to remember clearly a
> supposed visit from Nephi, er--Mormoni--er, HF and
> Christ, when we had no problem at all remembering
> where we were and what we were doing upon learning
> of Kennedy's assassination 47 years ago?


I have brought up that point too. I was 14, the same age as JS. JS didn't have 47 years to forget. I have and I can remember where I was, who told me , my reaction, what I did, what I was wearing and even what I had for lunch. This was a memorable event, but it pales in comparison with a visit from God, Jesus or an angel and if it happened to me I think I could remember who visited me. After all, I can remember the shoes I was wearing on Nov 22, 1963.WHich is more important?

Excellent point. I remember on 9/11 EXACTLY where I was, what I was doing, who I was with, etc. when the planes hit the twin towers. Every detail. And I can tell it over and over as if it happened yesterday.

You mean to tell me GOD and JESUS (or ANGELS whatever) came to visit you and you can't get the story straight?

I called bullshit the moment I discovered there were multiple accounts of the first vision.

goldenrule Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excellent point. I remember on 9/11 EXACTLY where
> I was, what I was doing, who I was with, etc. when
> the planes hit the twin towers. Every detail. And
> I can tell it over and over as if it happened
> yesterday.
>
> You mean to tell me GOD and JESUS (or ANGELS
> whatever) came to visit you and you can't get the
> story straight?
>
> I called bullshit the moment I discovered there
> were multiple accounts of the first vision.

And the Kennedy assassination was 47 years ago. Old Joe didn't even live for 47 years. In 47 years, I suspect you will still remember the details of 9 11, just as my mother remembered Pearl Harbor until her dying day.Some things are burned in your memory.

I could understand if JS couldn't remember the day, month or even year of the FV— but to omit the appearance of God the Father in your first account of the event is just too much to swallow.

It doesn't work.

badseed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I could understand if JS couldn't remember the
> day, month or even year of the FV— but to omit
> the appearance of God the Father in your first
> account of the event is just too much to swallow.
>
>
> It doesn't work.


Even if he wasn't sure who the personages were, he should have been able to tell us how many there were. There were at most two. Doesn't take a genius to remember that.

My favorite is when they say he told it according to the audience.

Okay, so Oliver Cowdery was trusted enough to translate the plates but not to hear about the 1820 version?

What the "according to the audience" really says, is that basically Joseph Smith jr lied EVERY time he told the story.

Every time he told somebody a different version, it was essentially a lie. So there is no reason what-so-ever to believe any of his versions.

God is a loving parent. He may remain the same, but vary his message according to the needs of His children. I thought it answered a great deal of my concerns about prophecy, revelation, etc.

Slowly, however, I began to realize that I no longer trusted that I was one of the children who needed to hear what the mormon leaders are teaching. Maybe I could learn to recognize that God spoke to other children in other ways. And maybe the mormons marched to a drum that held no power for me.

So, I broke stride. I started to realize just how brainwashed I had once been.

I am no longer a sheep, following the dictates of some unseen master.

I make my own way.

Check out this quote from fairlds...its at the bottom of the page.

http://en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision/Accounts/1832/Vision_set_in_heaven_or_on_earth

"Conclusion

Details about Joseph Smith's First Vision experience are best interpreted by taking all of the extant accounts into consideration. A myopic focus on a limited number of historical documents can only lead to misunderstanding of the past and a twisted sense of the message that the storyteller is trying to convey."

Really? So TSCC shouldn't just focus on one of Joseph Smith's accounts of the first vision? Interesting. I do agree that JS was a storyteller...he loved to tell tales...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2010 06:00PM by evolution.

"Conclusion

Details about Joseph Smith's First Vision experience are best interpreted by taking all of the extant accounts into consideration. A myopic focus on a limited number of historical documents can only lead to misunderstanding of the past and a twisted sense of the message that the storyteller is trying to convey."

So what the Mopps are saying is that the "official" version is a misunderstanding, twisted and myopic.

That's the conclusion that I came to! I'll be darned!

This is eerily simlar to the message given at the start of the American invasion of Iraq.

Something to the effect of "I guarentee that there are no American troops in Bahgdad".

This is just another example of 1) bringing to light only that which they are forced to...and 2) putting a nice spin on it so that members do not feel compelled to look it up for themselves.

I HATE being told how to interpret something.
Just give me the DAMN FACTS and let me make my own decisions.

Dufusses.

The Church for the most part let this sort of thing slide by with explanation figuring it was worth the few people it lost. If anything they just left it up to the apologists to handle the issues. Now the info is everywhere online and they have to take action.

Sadly for many LDS this will be enough to stop any further study of the matter.

On the bright side it will now be harder for ignorant TBMs to claim it's all anti lies.

Jeeze the tscc has more records of every date of everything Mo except the date of the first vison..

wonder why?

when was the priesthood restored? Who knows?

When you reverse engineer a history dates become very problematic.

I remember dates of far less importance in my life.

My first grade teacher was Mrs. Kennedy. I am 100% sure that was her name. I've never thought at any point it was someone else, and barring senility at some point, I doubt I will vary from my claim.

If I can remember such a mundane thing as that, then why cannot JS recall with 100% consistency who was present at one of the most monumental events in history?

As I've heard it explained there are two types of memory: semantic and episodic. Semantic memory is fairly reliable and is the recollection of basic facts like, who was there, what time of year was it, your age at the time, etc. Episodic memory is who said what which is not terribly reliable. That JS's versions has errors of semantic memory tells me it's B.S.

At what age generally do we learn that people who tell inconsistent stories are lying? It's pretty obvious Ol' Joe was making it up as he went along.

because of the multiple versions, but now that it is all cleared up I can't wait to get back.

Their gymnastics are impressive.

The fact that the original team of 'apostles' left Joseph Smith says it all.

There was nether a vision nor any angel visitation.

Different accounts for different audiences?

So when I tell some people about my getting married, I say it was a justice of the peace that married me. For other audiences I say it was an LDS bishop. Other times I say it was an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas.

It all just depends on what I want to emphasize and who the audience is. Makes total sense right?

But how many people are ACTUALLY going to be reading about it?

I first heard about the multiple accounts at BYU in the mid 80s. My D&C teacher gave an explanation almost exactly like what the OP quoted from the LDS site. So I guess that's the standard schtick for this one.

Honestly, I didn't totally buy into the explanation. I thought that it sounded like he couldn't get his story straight. But I somehow managed to shove it out of my mind and forgot about it for about 15 years.

Until I started having other doubts. THEN it all came back, and I knew that the "anti-mormons" weren't lying. There WERE multiple versions and we had gone over them in detail in class, at BYU. And NOW it finally made sense. JS WAS lying about the first vision, and he was juicing up his story as he went along.

My now ex spouse had a "vision" once while on the toilet!!! LOL. I wonder if this is how Monson gets his?