Seriously.

When it comes to trying to square up all the contradictory accounts of Joseph Smith's "First Vision," two Mormon apostles demonstrated to me that they couldn't see the forest because of the grove of trees.

As in "Timberrrrrrrr!" The whole thing fell like a house of cards.

Indeed, Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks had one hell of a time trying to convince me that the sacred grove storyline all made sense during closed-door conversations I had with them in Maxwell's LDS Church office in downtown Salt Lake City in September 1993.

Trying desperately to explain it all away, Maxwell was forced to rely on non-apostle "scholars" to do his homework for him. (Maxwell had a habit of using this tactic on me, having also given me a fax on the Book of Abraham "translation" sent up the road to him from Provo by the Church's apologetic armchair apologists at FARMS. So much for apostolic revelation).

On the various First Vision versions, Maxwell handed me two articles--one by BYU assistant professor of history James B. Allen, entitled "Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision" ("Improvement Era," April 1970, pp. 9-17) and the other by BYU professor of Church History Milton Backman, entitled, "Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision" ("Ensign," January 1985, pp. 4-13).

In his article, heralded as a "first-time . . . report on eight different accounts of the First Vision," Allen wrote:

"[T]he account [of the First Vision] was repeated several times and in several different ways, even by the Prophet, and . . . although each narrative emphasized different ideas and events, none is incompatible with other accounts. There is a striking consistency throughout all the narratives, and if one wishes he may combine them into an impressive report that in no way contradicts any of the individual reports. Moreover, the descriptions given of events related to the vision but that happened outside the grove are consistent with our knowledge of contemporary events.

"In the last analysis, the First Vision becomes truly meaningful in a personal way only when one seeks, as Joseph Smith sought, to reach God through private, earnest supplication.' (pp. 11- 12)

Backman contended in his article that "[a]ccounts of the First Vision were prepared at different times, for different audiences, and for different purposes. Each of them emphasizes different aspects of the experience . . .

"Since the 1838 recital [of the First Vision] was included in the Pearl of Great Price, an investigation of the publications of this history helps one better understand principles concerning the formation of scriptures. Joseph Smith was responsible for many changes in punctuation, spelling, and other similar revisions in his manuscript history. After a portion of this history was canonized in the 'Pearl of Great Price,' additional textual refinements were made by editors acting under the authorization of Church leaders. These revisions were apparently made in the interests of grammatical quality, clarification, and consistency. Several short paragraphs were also added that had been included as notes in the manuscript history prior to the Prophet's martyrdom. All these alterations were in harmony with precedents set by Joseph Smith in his textual revisions of latter-day scriptures. In no instance was there a change in the basic message recorded in the manuscript history concerning the historical setting of the First Vision or the truths unfolded during this remarkable experience. But changes were made in an effort to convey the truths unfolded by God in the latter-days in the best and clearest language that man could fashion." (pp. 9, 17)

Maxwell told me that, in his opinion, Backman's article was better than Allen's. And that was supposed to seal the deal?


Enter Dallin Oaks.

Oaks said that he didn't believe the various accounts of the First Vision contradicted one another. Rather, he insisted, they merely emphasized different aspects of the First Vision which were important to Joseph Smith "in his process of development' at the time he relayed them. Oaks said that we needed to keep in mind the context, circumstances and audiences to whom Joseph Smith was speaking (translation: who Smith was lying to and when).

Oaks also said the decision not to include in the Mormon Church's manuals and teaching materials all of the different versions of the First Vision was "a judgment call." Apparently he didn't trust the members of the Church to get it. He said, "We can keep things simple or we can lay out all the details and complexities." In fact, Oaks compared the Mormon Church's public presentation of the First Vision to what I did for a living, saying, "It's kind of like drawing cartoons. You keep the cartoons simple." I replied, "All my cartoons are simple because that's all I'm capable of doing--drawing simple cartoons." Oaks responded, "That's what makes them so beautiful." Maxwell made a similar analogy between the Mormon Church's decision to keep the account of the First Vision uncomplicated and the drawing of cartoons.

So, according to a Mormon apostle, the First Vision, then, was comparable to scratching out doodles. We thank thee, oh God, for cartooning.

Oaks further attempted to explain the varying accounts of the First Vision by citing then-BYU professor of literature and English as a Second Language, Arthur King, who, Oaks said, expressed gratitude that Joseph Smith gave "a ripened version of the First Vision." Oaks said this version indicated Smith was "at the crossroads of spiritual development."
_____


So, let's get this straight: The First Vision, by private admission of two Mormon apostles, was:

--1) kept cartoonishly simple so that stupid Church members would be able to comprehend it;

--2) not presented in fully-ripe condition from the get-go; and

--3) changed over time as Joseph Smith grew up spiritually.

In short: The whole thing evolved after the fact as Smith continued to make it up as he went along.

Put that in your hat and peep at it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2013 03:31PM by steve benson.

If I didn't actually read the various accounts and heard somebody say, "well, it depended on the audience, what they could understand, accept, blah, blah...". It might have a LITTLE bit of weight behind the arguement.

But the actual accounts are so different. The personages who appear, the purpose for going into the "sacred grove", etc. These are basic things that should have been able to remain consistent as they would not have provided any difficulty to any group or person he was telling the story to.

A FAR more likely reason is that he NEEDED to change the story to match up with evolving doctrine and to make the church narrative be consistent.

So, how come he wrote the Book of Mormon with a characterization of God that contradicts all of his public statements? My guess is that he hadn't thought of it yet.

"Arthur King, who, Oaks said, expressed gratitude that Joseph Smith gave "a ripened version of the First Vision." Oaks said this version indicated Smith was "at the crossroads of spiritual development."

a ripened version? That verbiage would be comical if it wasn't so sad and deluded.
I could concede that it was a ripened or maturing version if the information stayed the same while elaborating on existing details.
It changed to completely different information.
Data significantly and substantially changed so that basic and important faith tenet's from the prior visions changed entirely. In this definition the word ripe doesn't mean maturing but means rotting and putrid.

Another interesting choice of verbiage is "at the crossroads of spiritual development." That's mormonese for what other people would recognize as "story development." There was nothing spiritual about that lying, opportunistic racketeer who changed his story to suit him. God clearly wasn't omnipotent enough to transfer the right words to his prophet the FIRST time, or even the second time, or even the third time. But God is apparently devious and conniving enough and untruthful enough to sell the last version to his elect saints as though it were the first original information. The "prophets" have been selling this bill of goods for over a century!
What's the purpose of a prophet again?
Their Supposedly here to be a mouthpiece for God, one whom God can communicate *His* truth and will through for the purpose of RESTORING truth. In that case JS was a fail.

Is Oaks quite sure he's not worshipping Satan?
I mean, this sounds like something that would sound more like Satan than God. lol.

I agree. If you are "massaging" the facts, or if your story is "evolving" or "ripening", you are in fact lying with the intent to deceive me. There is no innocent explanation.

What do they do about verse 25 of the official version? I think he says in that vervse, this is the story and I can't change it. He does in that version say two personages. I guess you could question who those personages were and maybe the artwork that they put with the text is the only lie.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that he lied and like most liars he had trouble remembering the details of the lie.

I remember where I was, who I was with and what some people said when JFK was assasinated. The same is true for the space shuttle Challenger and 911. I wasn't even a part of these events and I remember the details. Because they really happened.

If Joseph saw Jesus Christ and God the Father and fought for his soul with Satan, the story should be pretty easy to remember. I would think he would even remember the date. At the very least he should remember other events that happened close to the date of his vision, so that he could narrow the time frame.

This is the one piece of evidence that toppled the shelf for me and the fact that it is taught as a nice tidy story when it is not a tidy story just infuriates me.

Sorry about the rant.

James B. Allen??? Who IS this guy?
>>...although each narrative emphasized different ideas and events, none is incompatible with other accounts. There is a striking consistency throughout all the narratives...<<

What is he talking about?!? He must be reading something different than what I've read. As far as I can tell, his explaination only works for TBMs who have never actually read the varying different first visions, and don't plan to or want to in the future. So that must be it. I answered my own question! Different audience.

It was a vision? I thought it was a visitation! Anyone can have a vision...you know, if they're smo.....um, uh, under the influence of something that is vision-inducing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2013 11:14PM by wine country girl.

wine country girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone can have a vision...you know, if they're
> smo.....um, uh, under the influence of something
> that is vision-inducing.

Hmm, maybe he partook of some mushrooms growing in the grove :-)

Thanks for this article Steve. It’s a keeper.

Like RFM’s poster releve, I too am infuriated. I echo his statement regarding the varying First vision accounts, “This is the one piece of evidence that toppled the shelf for me and the fact that it is taught as a nice tidy story when it is not a tidy story just infuriates me.”

There’s a pattern of deception perpetrated by the top 15 who advocate SIMPLICITY instead of an honest, intelligent study of all the true historical facts surrounding the First Vision accounts. They can't and won't do it. They keep their apostolic precious little wrinkly old hands clean and free from controversy and leave the dirty work to paid manipulative apologists.

In 1993 Dallin H. Oaks stated to Benson, "It's kind of like drawing cartoons. You keep the cartoons simple." SIMPLE?

What has changed in the last two decades? Well, it’s still SIMPLE. Isn't it amazing how the word SIMPLE is now a cherished Morgbot virtue?

As I read Benson’s quote of Oaks' private comments, I was instantly reminded of remarks that I heard as a TBM recently uttered by Elder Ballard at the Nov. 2010 CES broadcast held at BYU’s Marriott Center. He declared, "Keep the Gospel of Jesus Christ SIMPLE." http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1b5b4e5ca0f26210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=43d031572e14e110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

Apostle Ballard made light of tough anti-Mormon questions he once faced as a mission president years ago with one of his doubting Elders. The point of one of Ballard’s chuckles was that we must focus on the SIMPLICITY of the Gospel (there’s that word again) not its troubling details.

It is clear to me, that in the mind of LDS Mormon prophets, the word SIMPLE means “our whitewashed version.” Their posturing is SIMPLY feeble. That’s just sickening. It’s repulsive. There is a consistent pragmatic behavior by these crafty corporate executives called holy-anointed apostles who are venerated by the mere office they occupy. The 15 prefer stuffed pews and wealthy sheeple with SIMPLE minds. No thinkers are needed or wanted today. Most historical veracities aren’t welcomed any longer especially when SIMPLE facts are brought to you in living color by their enemies of all righteousness – historians who idolize the truth.

The SIMPLE truth is this ― there were numerous commonplace contemporary visionary-like epiphanies which morphed into Joe Junior’s most celebrated account. All evidence confirms a charlatan whose pious narratives lacked rudimentary consistency – the antithesis of a true prophet of God or an honorable, honest, upright citizen. The smallest life-altering detail of such a grand theophany could never be forgotten, not even for the common man. How could God be so incompetent as to choose a mortal who can’t get SIMPLE facts straight? A prophet who would usher in the last dispensation of time prior to Christ’s return?

It is SIMPLE and clear – for decades following Joe Junior’s death, his prophetic successors attested to factoids that categorically contradict today’s canonized narration. Did he, or didn’t Joe Junior see God and Jesus? Or was it just an angel as alleged by holy prophets (Young, Taylor Woodruff, Kimball etc.) who couldn’t recount the facts of the First Vision reliably? That’s the big elephant in the room that nobody was or is still looking at. Correlation has swept the SIMPLE conflicting details into the dustbin.

On this subject God was notably quite. If he took the time to visit Joe Junior with his son, than why didn’t he insist the story be consistently taught? Why didn’t the Almighty issue revelations to his first prophet or subsequent prophets mandating that records accurately detail the alleged 1820 visitation? Why wasn’t Joe Junior instructed to put the true account in the Book of Commandments or the Doctrine and Covenants or into the first published history of the Church? Wouldn’t God at least want HIS STORY to be SIMPLE and straight forward with zero defects?

Wouldn’t the all-knowing designer of the universe foresee problems with conflicting accounts? Allegedly God gave many revelations to Joe Junior on a number of topics and we are so fortunate to be bored with those tall-tales. Why didn’t God even offer a single SIMPLE revelation instructing his mortal spokesman to get the record straight from the get-go. Where was God’s incensed reprimand? Did he just appear with his Son in 1820 and then forget about the matter – meandering off to some far away galactic resort?

Individually, the First Vision accounts are by themselves SIMPLE. But this eventful, stellar, singular pillar of Mormon faith, the one that is touted by modern-day prophets as either true or a great fraud, still has one impossible colossal hurdle to overcome – the SIMPLE First Vision accounts just don't add up to a “nice tidy story” and they never will.

Steve Benson's cartoons might look SIMPLE - after all that is his unique extraordinary talent. Why is it that Steve can articulate his SIMPLE facts but God cannot or could not with his chosen peeping stone-a-holic 'n hat?

Well done Steve!

EDIT: for all you TBM lurkers, learn the facts at http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2013 08:10PM by jiminycricket.

Wow jiminy, one of the best posts (your reply) ever. So well said! Thank you.

Maybe it developed into the 'first virgin vision'...

Joe sure had a hankerin' for those 14 year old visions, er, I mean virgins...

The effort to harmonize the accounts of the First Vision reminds me of efforts to harmonize the Gospels. It can't be done without seriously violating and distorting the individual texts. But, of course, they try, because, as you say, we can't have anything complicated.

Calling it "ripened" makes it sound like it was "developing" and "not fully grown yet" before it was finalized in the scriptures.

I went through an "other worldly event" about 40 years ago. My version hasn't changed one iota. I clearly remember every detail like it was yesterday.
I've never seen God or Jesus. If I did, I can promise you that I would tell the same exact story yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Extreme other worldly events are burnt into your mind like nothing else. They're so out of the norm that you couldn't forget the details even if you wanted to.

Joseph's different stories convinced me he was lying.

One version of the temple ceremony film "included 350 feet from Disney's 'Fantasia' to provide lava for the creation episode."

(Ostling, Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling, "Mormon America: The Power and the Promise," p. 199 [HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 2007])

http://books.google.com/books?id=5h6paNzoIOIC&pg=PA199&dq=%2Bdisney+%2Bfantasia+%2Bmormon+%2Btemple&hl=en&ei=B_TaTey-HYmssAO8iNnHDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%2Bdisney%20%2Bfantasia%20%2Bmormon%20%2Btemple&f=false



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2013 03:18AM by Fetal Deity.

The link you provided showed this interesting comment:
(a topic de-rail)

"Buerger reported, according to the actor who played the minister in the third filmed version, the role of Satan was to have originally be filled by an African American, but due to protests by LDS Polynesians, a Caucasian filled the role."

Another example of mormonism changing not from God's prophetic revelation - or even from ethical intentions - but because of coercion and potential numbers fall-out.

Thank you, Steve, for your article. This is a keeper. You are a valuable voice of reason and intelligence.

"Put that in your hat and peep at it." I'm still laughing at that.

I can still remember the first time I saw Barbi Benton.

Vividly.

Should I start my own Cult?

If a police suspect had that many different stories, no one would believe him.

Haha we thank thee oh god for cartooning.

What they think they are:
King of the Hill
He-Man and the Masters of the Universe


What they really are:
Non-sequitur
Beavis and Butt-head
2 Stupid Dogs

I remember one apologist saying that it was like "Different witnesses to an accident describing it; they would describe the same thing, but a little differently." Maybe, but they would all say "The Ford ran the stop sign and hit the Oldsmobile", even if other details were hazy.


No--this was one guy describing it. If he was on an episode of 'Law and Order' Detective Goren woulda nailed him easily

Thanks for posting this, Steve. I always learn something from your postings.

Yes very Cartoon like...

http://www.mormoninfographics.com/2012/09/joseph-smiths-first-vision-and-his.html

Hear Hear

And now it's so ripe it stinks.