Okay, so last night Richard J. Maynes of the Presidency of the Seventy tells of 4 accounts of the First Vision.

I recently went to the newly renovated Church History Museum in SLC that reopened about six months ago. There's a First Vision video shown on this cool movie screen that says there were 9 versions of the First Vision.

So LDS Church, which is it? 4 or 9? Will you please quit muddying the water up more than it already is?

This link might explain it:

http://firstvisiontimeline.com/#0

There are versions from other church leaders and their journals. Perhaps these are referred to in the history exhibit bringing the total number to nine versions.

Let me just say right now that if I saw God and Jesus Christ, and they told me to do something, I would have remembered exactly what they said the first time.

See below RP's post



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2016 10:54PM by pathdocmd.

It is hard to tell a fabricated story over and over without augmenting it. This is human nature.

When a third person tells the "fish story" the fish that got away usually gets bigger with each telling.

The problem is not just the differing versions which exist.

There is also the problem of the versions that DO NOT exist:

- no mention of the first vision in the first history of the church, written by Oliver Cowdery with the assistanct of Joseph Smith -

- no mention in contemporary accounts, by pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon writers, of any such first vision

- no record of the persecution which Smith reported (in the official PofGP account) because of his having reported the FV

- no mention of the FV in sermons by Brigham Young or other early Mormon leaders (in fact, BY asserted that God did NOT appear to JS, and Heber C Kimball also denied that God appeared to JS)

- no Mormons in the 1830s report any knowledge of such a FV (David Whitmer, etc.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2016 02:05PM by RPackham.

Let me add:

In 1833 the Church published the Book of Commandments, forerunner to the present Doctrine and Covenants. No reference was made to Joseph's first vision, although several references were made to the Book of Mormon and the circumstances of its origin.

The first regular periodical to be published by the Church was The Evening and Morning Star, but its pages reveal no reference to the first vision. These letters were written with the approval of Joseph Smith, but they contained no mention of any vision prior to those connected with the Book of Mormon.

The “Lectures on Faith," a series of seven lectures which had been prepared for the School of the Prophets in Kirtland in 1834-35, in demonstrating the doctrine that the Godhead consists of two separate personages, no mention was made of Joseph Smith having seen them, nor was any reference made to the first vision in any part of the publication.

The first important missionary pamphlet of the Church was the Voice of Warning, published in 1837 by Parley P. Pratt. The book contains long sections on items important to missionaries of the 1830's, such as fulfillment of prophecy, the Book of Mormon, external evidence of the book's authenticity, the resurrection, and the nature of revelation, but nothing on the first vision.

The Times and Seasons began publication in 1839, but the story of the vision was not told in its pages until 1842.

From all this it is crystal clear that the general church membership did not receive information about the first vision until the 1840's, and even then it was not accepted by the early leadership, including Brigham Young, which denied it from the pulpit as mentioned above.

(The information above is summarized from James B. Allen, 1966 Dialogue, Vol.1, No.3, p.31 - p.32)

Also, William E. McLellin was an apostle that left the church because of a disagreement over the military activity of the church in Missouri (not from a dispute over "a quart of cream" as taught by the church for may years). McLellin remained friendly to the church after his departure. He retained his belief in the divinity of the Book of Mormon and kept in contact with former colleagues in the Quorum of the Twelve. He resigned from the quorum in 1836 and was excommunicated in 1838. Some of his writings were published (The William E. McLellin Papers, Signature Books, January 2008, compiled by Stan Larson) McLellin visited the church several years after he left and observed how the church changed during his separation. McLellin said that in his five years of activity in the church, he never once heard of Joseph Smith's First Vision.

HERE IS A SERIOUS, LEGITIMATE OFFER FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO DISPROVE THE ABOVE: I, pathdocmd, will pay $5,000 cash to anyone that can produce a legitimate, verifiable document that was unequivocally produced prior to 1838 that reports that Joseph Smith claimed to have seen both God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate beings in bodily form side by side. The money will be paid within 72 hours of the document's verification. Good luck.

Feel free to share this offer with anyone, anywhere, on any website, at anytime. There is no time limit on this offer.
- Pathdocmd

The apostle whom church leaders and apologists claim left the church because of an argument over "a quart of cream" was Thomas Marsh, not McLellin.
Read details at

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1762096,1762096#msg-1762096

Perhaps the silliest argument I've heard from a Mormon apologist re: the first vision discrepancies came from the mind of Hugh Nibley, in his book "Censoring The Joseph Smith Story":

"If William Smith and Oliver Cowdery give confusing accounts of the first vision, we must remember that the Prophet knew from the first that those men were not to be trusted with too much information."

Here's an old post putting that nonsensical assertion in context:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1723438,1724951#msg-1724951

And here's a post from yesterday detailing the discrepancies, quoting the accounts of William Smith, Cowdery, and Lucy Mack Smith:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1809358,1809616#msg-1809616

Thank you for the correction. You are right as usual.

"Thank you for the correction. You are right as usual."

Really? My wife would beg to differ. :-)

The real count is zero. It didn't happen.

^^^This!^^^

How very like Pinocchio this sketch of Holy Joe whose nose turned sword-shaped with every evolution of his handlers' fictions.

http://www.utlm.org/images/changingworld/chwp453generalsmith.gif

We all grew up into church thinking that Joseph left the grove and immediately went out and told the story exactly as we were all taught it- that Heavenly Father and JC appeared to JS and the whole "this is my beloved son hear him" thing happened. Some time following that Moroni appeared and lead him to the plates.

However, just to be clear, if there is no documented account of the First Vision (as we know it) by early leaders as stated above- then what exactly was the official early account of the origins of how the BOM was discovered by JS?

Was it Just Moroni?

I'm not sure what is the earliest official account, but the account of the origins of the Book of Mormon published in Nauvoo in 1842 clearly specifies an angel who called himself Nephi(!) appeared in JS' bedroom and subsequently led him to the plates.

I wonder by whom & when were the now-used version put into play (i.e. who decided to use the current published version?

any hints?

Wow, I am constantly amazed at how they try and spin obvious lies into a "fantastic" Church history lesson. It seems they put out an esay every few months trying to explain away the fabricated information they are faced with. The big problem is the blind faithful see these esays as revelation, never questioning, nevering researching only being sheep.

I work with some of the smartest people around, they are very skeptical about most things, other than the church. They will defend it to the death.

What is "not" in this or that account of The First Vision is what's often the story here because there are certain elements in these accounts so dramatic one just couldn't as easily diminish them with time assuming a functioning capacity for memory. We're not talking about minor differences or small creeping changes anymore. It strains credulity beyond its breaking point to say that components such as whether God the Father and Jesus were there together on not, let alone absent altogether in favor of an angel, can be explained away based on the vague areas of human memory. If Joseph Smith was inconsistent in a detail such as whether the pearly gates behind the vision were swinging in a certain way or whether the background angels were humming this hymn or that is something I would actually find forgivable, assuming I was still inclined, in the context of believing this story.

There's such deep inconsistency surrounding this tall tale now, though, that barring the problems with the details and recall I couldn't make anything cohesive enough from it to make it a useful point of faith at this point even if I possessed that desire. Could any two Mormons, in this atmosphere, claim to know for sure that they believe in the same First Vision without talking it out in its entirety? This story may be lost entirely in a maze of interpretation at this rate.

Okay it's obvious that all the accounts of the first vision are goofed up and wrong (not hard to do since it's a fraud ).

But what about today's church history?

Have they accurately detailed important stuff for future posterity such as the first sale at city creek mall?

This is super important stuff for Monson's tremendous legacy.