https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

Why don't they talk about how the 1832 account says that Joseph Smith decided on his own that no church was true, while the later canonized version claims that he did not know until Jesus told him that.

Here is the 1832 version, written in Joseph's own handwriting.

"by searching the scriptures I found that mand <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament"
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/2

Here is the canonized version.

"it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong. (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)"
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.17

The church essay says nothing about this glaring contradiction made by Joseph Smith.

The same reason they do not tell the missionaries to include a stone in a hat fact for translation during their proselytizing, or that the so-called metal plates were never in the same room or building during this hat trick translation process. So why do you even needed the plates if they were never used? Why? Because the missionaries would look even more foolish than they do now.

In copies of the Pearl of Great Price which I own, those published up through 1949 did NOT contain that phrase in parentheses " (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)"

The essay also does not note that in the first published "history" of Mormonism, written by Oliver Cowdery and Smith in 1834, it says that Mormonism began with the appearance of the angel telling Smith about the buried plates. No mention of God the Father and his Beloved Son.

Nor does it note that Brigham Young and Heber C.Kimball seemed to be unaware of the "First Vision" account in the PoGP. In fact, both of them said specifically in general conference talks that God did NOT come himself, but "sent a messenger."

I didn't know that. Thanks Richard.

That is exactly right. And when people asked BY about the First Vision, he answered by talking about Moroni's visitation and the discussion about the plates. BY never knew about the First Vision as the appearance of God either alone or with Jesus, depending on the version of that event one consults.

The First Vision was something that came to the fore in the 1870s. I believe it was George Q. Cannon who taught it in Conference and made it the cornerstone of the JS story.

But what about all of the people who persecuted the young Joseph Smith when he told him of the First Vision?

;)

Thanks, Richard.

Do you have links to or references for the 1834 Cowdery and Smith church history, or to the Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball's quotes? I'd love to be able to quote the original sources when sharing this bit of church history! It's so much fun using official and approved church sources when teaching people church history that they consider to be "anti-Mormon."

What a tangled web we weave. No wonder recovery is so tedious.

The person who wrote the First Vision Essay must be a contortionist. It takes some real twisting to include even the minimal facts that they did and still pretend that it's faith promoting.

Agreed. Seems the so-called prophet and apostles are too busy with their real estate empire to deal with trivial matters of belief. They farmed it out to mopologists.

There's real downside to having the apostles do it since anything they write becomes difficult to disavow. Having a researcher or a bureaucrat produce a history or a policy gives the church more room to reject that history or policy later.

I agree, though they are getting pretty good at throwing dead prophets and apostles under the bus. Nelson basically said that the Meet the Mormons campaign was a victory for Satan. It just doesn't get any better than this. What a time to be alive. Just hope I don't run out of popcorn. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2019 12:36PM by mikemitchell.

I visited the sacred grove. Well, not the real sacred grove, nobody knows where it is. Since the visitation occurred the year before the Smith family moved onto the property, even Joseph Smith himself didn’t know.

I did too, with a musical group I was touring with. I didn't feel anything and couldn't get past the staggering number of bugs descending on us. I just knew I was a spiritual failure.

I can still find illustrations online of JS translating the golden plates with spectacles holding two crystals/stones/lenses in a wire frame as he concentrates on the images engraved on the golden plates.

About when did the official story move from urim & thummin as the magical device, replaced with the chocolate-colored steerstone in the hat? Anybody know when, or have any knowledge on the details behind that change in the narrative?

Especially curious about the "when."

As a personal aside, although I never put any credence in either story, I thought the urim & thummin device was, dramatically speaking, much more interesting--that these hieroglyphics magically transformed into King James English through some mystical process. A story worthy of Indiana Jones!

I don't know. Maybe in the last 10 years or so. In the 60s and early 70s I was told that the stone in the hat was an anti-Mormon lie. I believed that and didn't think about it anymore it until it popped up after I resigned.

Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation said the seer stone was not used.
https://archive.org/stream/JFSDoctrinesOfSalvation/JFSDoctrinesofSalvationv1-3#page/n587/mode/1up

I gather that JFS considered himself something of an authentic LDS scholar and historian, but the recent leadership has a problem with him. Do you think it is because (1) he wasn't the intellectual heavyweight he thought himself to be, or because (2) he articulated (at some length, apparently) doctrine, history, and positions the more recent leadership doesn't hold?

Or both?

JFS was taken VERY seriously, and his views were transmitted through his son-in-law Bruce McConkie as very near scripture. Those two men virtually defined orthodoxy and some combination of their books rested on every serious Mormon's bookshelf for decades.

The church still hasn't embraced the rock-in-a-hat story. In 1993 Holland wrote an article in which he mentioned it, which was a pre-emptive strike: an attempt to create the option for the church to come clean on the issue. But then followed many years of silence.

Now the essay mentions the rock, but that essay gets no publicity. And while the U&T photos are quietly withdrawn, they are not denounced. So I'd say the membership doesn't even realize a change is occurring. That'll take a decade or two.

(I didn't mean to get so alliterative, honestly!)

In other words, the dichotomy (ulp!) between "what we officially believe" and "what we say we believe." Perhaps we should throw in "what we think we believe?"

Christian Science is going through this with the matter of medical care. When I grew up in the 50s and 60s, the official Mother Church (their term) held closely to Mary Baker Eddy's explicit teaching that spiritual and material (medical) healing could not be combined, as they were irreconcilable opposites.

Then in the 1970s and 80s there were a number of high-profile CS deaths, especially children (notably the Robin Twitchel death; google it) and measles deaths at their church-affiliated Principia College (Elsah, IL, near St. Louis). The Mother Church was sued, lost, but won on appeal.

Now their position is that healing care is "an individual matter," with an evolved softer stance on members who do resort to medical care. Before, CS'ists who went to doctors weren't officially shunned but were looked down upon as very unspiritual. Not really sure now (I'm not in much touch), I gather it's no big deal.

Happy to report that CS branch churches are emptying out (often because of oldsters' deaths unfortunately) and being sold.

Are the members called christian scientists ? Do they wear white lab coats and have pocket protectors ?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The church still hasn't embraced the rock-in-a-hat
> story. In 1993 Holland wrote an article in which
> he mentioned it, which was a pre-emptive strike:
> an attempt to create the option for the church to
> come clean on the issue. But then followed many
> years of silence.
>
> Now the essay mentions the rock, but that essay
> gets no publicity. And while the U&T photos are
> quietly withdrawn, they are not denounced. So I'd
> say the membership doesn't even realize a change
> is occurring. That'll take a decade or two.

So you think TCOJCoLdS is moving to the peepstone position? If so, why? Could there be persuasive documentation (letters, diaries, etc.) favoring the peepstone history? As I stated above, the U&T explanation makes for a more attractive, exotic narrative (not that either is very believable).

I think the church is de-emphasizing the U&T story because it is indefensible. Will they renounce it? Probably not.

They are edging into a neutral position and hope that will suffice. Then, if push comes to shove, they can go either way and claim plenty of backing in church educational materials.

"Old news. We dispensed with that issue long ago."

They'll ultimately take the usual "it doesn't matter how it was translated. It only matters if it is true. Read it n pray about it" position they take about everything.

Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie's books were doctrine to my mother, much of what I learned in my youth came from those sources through her.

It was only after I resigned that I learned about the 1832 first vision account. And only in the past few years did I learn that those pages had been removed from the letter book and kept in a safe in Joseph Fielding Smith's office.

The church discusses it now in the Joseph Smith papers.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1#source-note

I have changed my opinion of Joseph Fielding Smith quite drastically over the past few years. How could he know that contradiction between Joseph Smith's own words, in his own handwriting and the canonized version and just keep it hidden? What reason now is there to trust any general authority of the church? The essay is just another attempt to fabricate an illusion. What else might be hidden to this day?

actors from medical drama TV shows who sell pharmaceutical products in commercials and introduce themselves by saying something like: "I'm not a real doctor, but I play one on TV...."

JFS and BRM were not real scholars (or apostles or prophets for that matter), but they put on a good show for the flock when they pretended to be deep, deep scholars and authorities on everything.

They thundered and pronounced and announced with a great air of authority. It was never "on the one hand, but on the other hand...and we can't be certain, but..." type stuff.

It was always authoritative pronouncements: "The Lord does not and never will [blah, blah, blah]" or "It has always been thus from the very foundation of the plan of salvation".

Their act was highly effective because a lot of Mormons craved the kind of certainty that the black-and-white pronouncements made by JFS and BRM seemed to provide. Deep down, most Mormons seem to alway feel a bit uncomfortable with the unsatisfying answers that most of the GAs give when asked to explain many of the incomprehensible doctrinal conundrums that are so numerous that the members are constantly tripping over them.

"Well, we cannot really understand the entirety of God's plan at this level of our spiritual development and we will just have to wait for the answers to these questions to be revealed to us at a later time."

JFS and BRM probably did their share of dissembling too, but they generally were much bolder than the other General Authorities in settling doctrinal issues with strongly worded pronouncements of doctrine. (Of course most of their pronouncements haven't held up very well and after they died their books and talks almost immediately got tossed by the other leaders into the "no further need to pay heed" trash bin.

who spilled the beans on it and, in his own way, made it "official".

That was in 1992:

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

It's always been a matter of record, based on accounts told by Joseph Smith's contemporaries and collaborators (such as David whitmer and Emma Smith). But that fact was steadfastly omitted from all official lesson manuals, missionary materials and publications and never brought up by church leaders for about 3 generations. Instead, they consistently presented a false portrayal that actually had no basis in the historical record.

For a long time, whenever non-Mormons or ex-Mormons brought up the facts about the rock-in-the-hat translation gimmick, they were called liars and when Whitmer's or Emma's or Martin Harris's statements were brought up, other excuses were given. ("We can't trust those statements. They were probably not correctly recorded" or "They made those statements out of spite after they had a falling out with the prophet".)

But when Nelson gave his talk in 1992, it was very useful in shutting up the mindless apologists. But it didn't get any traction inside the church because none of the other leaders followed suit. So about the only attention it got from the church members was from those who paid attention when the talk was first given and those who were confronted with it later on when an exmo or nonmo brought it up.

In his own way, Nelson's been a bit of a troublemaker for the Mormon establishment. I wonder how many of the current Apostles are quietly seething with resentment against him.

I think that presentation was a calculated effort at inoculation. Once that article was in print, the church could always say "we talked about that long ago. It's never been hidden."

The church does that all the time. The essays, written in half-way true form but then hidden on the website, are just more assertive efforts to achieve the same effect. They allow the church to say "we never hid that fact." They don't want this material in wide circulation, but they want it on the record.

"They don't want this material in wide circulation, but they want it on the record." ... Nailed it !

Around 2015 the church announced that it was in possession of Smith's magic turd. The rock-in-the-hat story appeared in the Ensign back in July 1993. The great irony is that the church has always declared that ANYTHING that is printed in the Ensign is not scripture/doctrine/revelation according to the church. The church has always wanted an escape from responsibility when their own words are contradictory.

To my knowledge the church is still sending out missionaries with the whitewashed version despite acknowledging the rock-in-the-hat story.

Just saw this. I agree.

Brigham Young: "But as it was in the days of our Savior, so was it in the advent of this new dispensation. It was not in accordance with the notions, traditions, and pre- conceived ideas of the American people. The messenger did not come to an eminent divine of any of the so-called orthodoxy, he did not adopt their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. **The Lord did not come** with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek, the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowlege of God. **But He did send His angel** to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him." - JoD 2:171 (February 18, 1855)

Mormon scholars have been unable to find any indication that Brigham Young ever referred to the account of Joseph Smith's First Vision as it now appears in the Pearl of Great Price. Hugh Nibley admitted: "A favorite theme of Brigham Young's was the tangible, personal nature of God, which he never illustrates by any mention of the first vision." (Improvement Era, November 1961, page 868)

From "Changing World of Mormonism" ch. 6
[ http://utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech6.htm#160 ]

In the early years of the Mormon church the members were taught that the first vision Joseph Smith had was in 1823 when he was seventeen years of age, and that the personage who appeared was an angel (not God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ) who told him about the Book of Mormon. Oliver Cowdery, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon and the first church historian, wrote a history of Mormonism which was published in the Messenger and Advocate—the official church organ at that time. This history shows that the story of the visit of the Father and the Son was not taught to the Mormon people. Francis W. Kirkham, in his book A New Witness For Christ In America, (vol. 1, p. 17), says:

The first published consecutive account of the origin of the Church began in the October, 1834, issue of the Messenger and Advocate. It consists of eight letters written by Oliver Cowdery to W. W. Phelps. This account is very important as Oliver Cowdery claims in a letter published in the October, 1834, issue, but dated September 7, 1834, that Joseph Smith assisted him in the writing of the letters.

The Messenger and Advocate, (vol. 1, p. 13), said that it would be a "full history of the rise of the church," and on page 42 of the same volume we read that it would contain "a correct statement of events." In the February, 1835, issue of the Messenger and Advocate, Oliver Cowdery told how Joseph Smith made his first contact with God:

"You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. Smith Jr's age—that was an error in the type—it should have been in the 17th.—You will please remember this correction, as it will be necessary for the full understanding of what will follow in time. This would bring the date down to the year 1823.... while this excitement continued, he continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him....

"On the evening of the 21st of September, 1823, previous to retiring to rest, our brother's mind was unusually wrought up on the subject which had so long agitated his mind—his heart was drawn out in fervent prayer.... While continuing in prayer for a manifestation ... on a sudden a light like that of day, ... burst into the room.—... and in a moment a personage stood before him ... he heard him declare himself to be a messenger sent by commandment of the Lord, to deliver a special message, and to witness to him that his sins were forgiven ... " (Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1, pp. 78-79).

Several things should be noted concerning this history: first, that it was supposed to be a "correct" account; second, that Joseph Smith assisted in the writing; third, that the date of the religious excitement in Palmyra was 1823; fourth, that Joseph Smith desired to know at this time "if a Supreme being did exist"; fifth, that a "messenger sent by commandment of the Lord" appeared to him and told him that his sins were forgiven. If the reader examines this account carefully, he will see that it is absolutely impossible to reconcile it with Joseph Smith's later story that he saw the Father and the Son in 1820.

For those who want to read the original, it can be found at

https://archive.org/details/latterdaysaintsm01unse/page/78

Thanks!

Thanks for the references. This is one of the reasons I love RfM! Not only do you get all the correct information on this site, you get it with footnotes to official Mormon sources!

and especially that you took not of this thread. Cheers!

There has been talk on these boards about whether Apostles in TSCC believe or not.

With what Russell Nelson has done, is it possible he actually doesn't believe in it at all. That he has been part of these forums and others for years and this is just his way of trying to break down and destroy TSCC from within?

He now has the power to do so, so it's possible that this is his way of doing it without killing his cash cow immediately while he is still alive?

It was brought up here he mentioned this years ago. It could be that he is trying to put out some of the stuff we read here, but doesn't want to be too open about it so he doesn't get kicked out as well.

OF course, if a Mormon Prophet did go all destructive to the church, what would they do?

> OF course, if a Mormon Prophet
> did go all destructive to the
> church, what would they do?
>

Storm the jail and throw him out a second story window?

Nelson is 94. If he were to do that, he'd (probably) want to attempt some radical actions in short order. "I'm a prophet, seer, and revelator, and I have just had a vision that the entire JoJCoLdS is a big, money-making fake!"

I'm a never-Mo, just a layman with a cursory understanding of LDS history. My hunch is that Nelson has his own take on what LDS history really is, and how it should be presented, and is advancing that kind of agenda. Throw in the "no-longer-'Mormon'" issue and there is a picture of a crotchety oldster who has long had his own ideas of the way things ought to be. That makes him a reformer,* not a revolutionary.

Moving on, does anybody know anything about "Peepstone Joe and the Peck Manuscript" by Lu B. Cake (sic)? It's late 19th or early 20th century, available as public domain from a few sources. I gather it has somebody's assertion or recollection that JS admitted that he made up the entire BoM Golden Plates story.

*"reformer" in this sense means somebody who wants to "improve" an institution but not make fundamental changes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2019 10:06PM by caffiend.

I hadn't heard of it.

Have Spaulding's Manuscript Found.

He did make it all up, and laughed until the day he cried, I mean died.

But how to tell - if he didn't say AND write it down, OR it got erased - or he'd made bail and/ or rather gone on to hell, instead of just jail (AGAIN)?

By the LACK OF LOOK in his eye, which has been doctored so much that Michael Jackson always looked the same or there is really only one Mary Jane. Jesus!

The MORMON (LDS) 'church' has fabricated its history SO MUCH there is no truth left in it.

Joe was ROTTEN.
Mormonism STINKS!

Thanks for the link, I think

As a convert first and then as a missionary, I was never ever told at any point about the rock and the hat translation of BOM or how other versions of First Vision differed (they were supposedly made up by apostates) or even that it was never told to the people around Joseph when he had the visions at that time or even in subsequent years all the heavenly visitors to members of church. Talk about truth in advertising, lol!

This is why one would call it a scam. We were told to tell the truth nobly and independently but Prophets and Apostles deemed the truth could not stand on its own without a seriously revised (ie fraudulent) faith story.

Makes you also wonder what sort of persecution Joseph was actually under that we claim he was so valiant for and a hero for bearing one for Team Jesus. Maybe it was really being "persecuted" much like criminals today play the victim card, of course only after committing their crimes.

People back then had morals without a church telling them to were probably on to the fact that Joseph was downright con artist at the start until the Church could come up with a favorable PR spin on his origin story.

Yes Praise to a Man, who did more than save Jesus only.

You're right MML-

VICTIM card from the valient deck all the way.

The 'church' tells LIES.

It it TRUE!

'if only' ChurchCo lies & obfuscations were for a noble purpose, it would attract a better-educated crowd of people whose focus wasn't a Dead End.

So much energy that could be used for bona-fide worthwhile purposes.

reminder: My first tip-off occurred when Juanita Brooks died & I bought her book MMM.

I would like to imagine that Nelson is a reformer.Deep down I know he isn't. If he were to launch a departure from the usual inflexibility and orthodoxy, it would simply be reversed when Dallin H. Oaks eventually takes over.

Perdition, is that you!?

It's me--Dad!!

My talk is about the first vision, which is the one that started it it all. Joseph was too tired to work in the field, and he had spiritual matters in mind. For instance, the collection plate at the Methodist church would fill with coin every Sunday without a lick of fieldwork from the fat and happy minister. This weighed heavily upon young Joseph. A man could haul rocks out of a field all day and receive no more compensation than a dinner. A minister could talk for no more than two hours and somehow own the finest horse and carriage in town. And that two hours was once a week!

How do I fill my plate thus, oh Lord, Joseph prayed in the grove. The Lord appeared and told Joseph that he needed his own Bible. God recommended a start-up for young Joe. With a few investors and some help from family, it just might work. Thanks, God, said Joseph, on account of God being such a pal, and all. Holy Ghost for a wingman, too.

For full disclosure I must insert my testimony here before concluding that Jesus is Lord, etc.