- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
http://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng a blurb from the lengthy article (has lots of awesome resources for reading original documents:
Quote:The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail. 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. Indeed, differences similar to those in the First Vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus and the Apostles’ experience on the Mount of Transfiguration.3 Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision. Some have mistakenly argued that any variation in the retelling of the story is evidence of fabrication. To the contrary, the rich historical record enables us to learn more about this remarkable event than we could if it were less well documented.
Thanks, great minds think alike… I just posted this in the “quotes thread”: Multiple accounts of the first vision on lds.org is a pretty big deal.
Quote:…Joseph shared and documented the First Vision, as it came to be known, on multiple occasions; he wrote or assigned scribes to write four different accounts of the vision.
Joseph Smith published two accounts of the First Vision during his lifetime. The first of these, known today as Joseph Smith—History, was canonized in the Pearl of Great Price and thus became the best known account. The two unpublished accounts, recorded in Joseph Smith’s earliest autobiography and a later journal, were generally forgotten until historians working for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rediscovered and published them in the 1960s.
The various accounts of the First Vision tell a consistent story, though naturally they differ in emphasis and detail… Yet despite the differences, a basic consistency remains across all the accounts of the First Vision…
1832 Account.
The earliest known account of the First Vision, the only account written in Joseph Smith’s own hand, is found in a short, unpublished autobiography Joseph Smith produced in the second half of 1832. In the account, Joseph Smith described his consciousness of his own sins and his frustration at being unable to find a church that matched the one he had read about in the New Testament and that would lead him to redemption. He emphasized Jesus Christ’s Atonement and the personal redemption it offered. He wrote that “the Lord” appeared and forgave him of his sins. As a result of the vision, Joseph experienced joy and love, though, as he noted, he could find no one who believed his account.
Read the 1832 account here1835 Account… emphasizes his attempt to discover which church was right, the opposition he felt as he prayed, and the appearance of one divine personage who was followed shortly by another… also notes the appearance of angels in the vision.
1838 Account. The narration of the First Vision best known to Latter-day Saints today is the 1838 account. First published in 1842… Whereas the 1832 account emphasizes the more personal story of Joseph Smith as a young man seeking forgiveness… the central question of the (1838) narrative is which church is right.
1842 Account. Written in response to Chicago Democrat editor John Wentworth’s request for information about the Latter-day Saints, this account was printed in the Times and Seasons in 1842.
Secondhand Accounts. Besides these accounts from Joseph Smith himself, five accounts were written by contemporaries who heard Joseph Smith speak about the vision.
Read these accounts here
Oh yeah! I just read that from John Dehlin’s Facebook page! That was a fantastic article by the church! This is a spin job and in the first paragraph where they talk about how opened they been in the past, dare I say it hasn’t been over the pulpit in GC. This make me even less trusting but maybe it will help others. church0333 wrote:This is a spin job and in the first paragraph where they talk about how opened they been in the past, dare I say it hasn’t been over the pulpit in GC. This make me even less trusting but maybe it will help others.
I agree it is hugely spun. There’s a saying in Yorkshire: “Owt’s better than nowt.” (AKA “Something’s better than nothing.”)
There’s very little in the article that answers the fundamental issues that remain, for me, concerning about the first vision accounts.
But I’m excited because it’s even on the website at all. I can now legitimately bring up multiple accounts of the vision at church.
I agree there is some spin there, and I also agree that the church as not been nearly as open and forthright as they claim until recently and that much of this has been as a result of outside pressure. Nevertheless, the accounts are linked to in the article, making them easy to find and read and decide for oneself. I find it a bit like the Fox News motto “we report, you decide” where clearly they’ve already decided but the info you need is there. I think all of these accounts were available online in the past, but you had to hunt to find them and frequently they showed up on anti sites with their spin. I actually appreciate the church doing this, perhaps another step in airing some of the dirty laundry that keeps some away. I guess it’s perhaps fair to call the Church’s article “spin,” but the Church is hardly an objective, disinterested commentator. I would expect no less than the Church presenting its views and interpretation of the historical record. I don’t think I’ve read anything on early Church history that wasn’t “spun.” You don’t think Fawn Brodie, Richard Bushman, Grant Palmer or Truman Madsen have a bias one way or another? Does anyone think it’s even remotely possible for the Church to say “You know what, turns out we’ve been wrong all these years; looks like Joseph probably didnt’ actually see God.”? Of course not, nor do I even want them to. I don’t want the Church to agree with me — I want it to concede that it’s okay for me to think and beleive what I do, and still remain a fully-credentialed member of the Church. To me, this isn’t huge because of the contents of the Church’s explanation. It is huge because of the underlying premise this dicussion represents — that there are multiple recountings of the FV, that they don’t necessarily agree on a number of issues, and that the Church is making the original documents available for research and perusal.
So, do I agree with the Church’s spin on this? No, I don’t. Am I at least grateful that they’ve taken this step? Yes, I am.
I like the fact that these are all readily available now. They say that God moves in mysterious ways, maybe this is one of them. Multiple emphasis generally works for me, but there are some major contradictions.
My big question is whether JS claimed to have seen bright lights or distinct clear cut images.
SamBee wrote:My big question is whether JS claimed to have seen bright lights or distinct clear cut images.
Read them and decide for yourself….This is the first step of many toward being more open about the complexities of history and for that I applaud it and say it’s long overdue. The internet has made us information rich, but it’s also made it easier for negative stuff to stick and not be understood in context either (some of which doesn’t improve on closer inspection, but some does). I’m excited that they are finally doing this, even if it’s only because they’ve let it get sideways for so many years that it’s really out of control. To do it right does require this kind of approach (putting originals out there). It was only a few years ago I got taken to task for talking about multiple FV accounts as a RS teacher, but now church members can tell themselves that they knew it all along and that the church has always been open about it. I’ll take that reconstructed memory over the lived reality any day.
I swear it seems like the church can take anything that makes you question and spin it to say there is no problem here, everything is as we have been telling you. All is well in Zion. Perhaps that is to be expected, but it is obvious there is no real answering of the question, just spin that there is no contradiction between accounts. hawkgrrrl wrote:This is the first step of many toward being more open about the complexities of history and for that I applaud it and say it’s long overdue. The internet has made us information rich, but it’s also made it easier for negative stuff to stick and not be understood in context either (some of which doesn’t improve on closer inspection, but some does). I’m excited that they are finally doing this, even if it’s only because they’ve let it get sideways for so many years that it’s really out of control. To do it right does require this kind of approach (putting originals out there).
It was only a few years ago I got taken to task for talking about multiple FV accounts as a RS teacher, but now church members can tell themselves that they knew it all along and that the church has always been open about it. I’ll take that reconstructed memory over the lived reality any day.
It’s a good point that they’re trying to say “we were telling you this all along, it’s been common knowledge… you just hadn’t noticed until now.” But it’s also very good to have them all on LDS.org – especially the full accounts. That’s a big step that was never available before. It means they can be printed out (if you like) and brought in as a legitimate LDS resource. People who get shirty about using “unapproved” resources now can’t on this topic. I hope it’s the first of many.
mackay11 wrote:hawkgrrrl wrote:This is the first step of many toward being more open about the complexities of history and for that I applaud it and say it’s long overdue. The internet has made us information rich, but it’s also made it easier for negative stuff to stick and not be understood in context either (some of which doesn’t improve on closer inspection, but some does). I’m excited that they are finally doing this, even if it’s only because they’ve let it get sideways for so many years that it’s really out of control. To do it right does require this kind of approach (putting originals out there).
It was only a few years ago I got taken to task for talking about multiple FV accounts as a RS teacher, but now church members can tell themselves that they knew it all along and that the church has always been open about it. I’ll take that reconstructed memory over the lived reality any day.
It’s a good point that they’re trying to say “we were telling you this all along, it’s been common knowledge… you just hadn’t noticed until now.” But it’s also very good to have them all on LDS.org – especially the full accounts. That’s a big step that was never available before. It means they can be printed out (if you like) and brought in as a legitimate LDS resource. People who get shirty about using “unapproved” resources now can’t on this topic. I hope it’s the first of many.
They are trying to say just that, mackay11, and that’s sort of what bugs me. While I agree the information was there all long, it wasn’t necessarily very accessible (only a very select few have ever visited the church archives and read the JS papers before now, for instance). The internet has changed that as has the apparent willingness on the part of the church to be more open. I think someone in the hierarchy has realized that it’s going to get out sooner or later anyway so they should pre-empt and and get it out there first, which appears more open and honest. I’m sure there are some who just “didn’t notice” and I’m sure there are some who still don’t notice.
Of course, in the end I agree that it’s better that the church has made it available and easy to find.
Cadence wrote:I swear it seems like the church can take anything that makes you question and spin it to say there is no problem here, everything is as we have been telling you. All is well on Zion. Perhaps that so to be expected but it is so obvious there is no real answering of the question, just spin that there is no contradiction.
Don’t you think, Cadence, that is really how they see it? “It’s really not a problem.”
For someone else to claim it is a serious problem…they probably view that as the spin.
So…who does the spinning?
(These are sincere questions…I’m not attacking your post or suggesting something, nor saying you are the problem…simply thinking about it and interested on how others like Cadence would respond).
I talk to my brother a lot. His faith helps him, and these things are really not a problem for him in the slightest. The church’s response satisfies him completely. I just don’t see it the same way he does, and things aren’t so simple.
Thing is, some people are so certain the vision happened that there could be an account featuring a dead parrot and there would somehow be consistency.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.