First Vision Accounts : An Offcial response

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

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.

I’m now thinking of Monty Python skits. 😆

But seriously, faith goes too far when you ignore facts right in front of you, just to protect belief. I think it is better to look at the facts, and then allow faith to help you when you belief in the unseen that goes beyond the knowable. I guess it all comes down to interpretations do know where to place faith and belief. Each person sees things their own way. I am only interested in trying to see it as clearly as I can, with all the facts incorporated to help me do my best, realizing that despite my best, I may still not see it all. So others can see it different.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

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.

No one expects the First Vision

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

mackay11 wrote:

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.

I’m now thinking of Monty Python skits. 😆

But seriously, faith goes too far when you ignore facts right in front of you, just to protect belief. I think it is better to look at the facts, and then allow faith to help you when you belief in the unseen that goes beyond the knowable. I guess it all comes down to interpretations do know where to place faith and belief. Each person sees things their own way. I am only interested in trying to see it as clearly as I can, with all the facts incorporated to help me do my best, realizing that despite my best, I may still not see it all. So others can see it different.

I agree, and while members of the church are guilty of this, others are as well. We all really only have what we experience to go on, but we certainly can’t ignore evidence. I struggle with this in others. It is seriously difficult for me to have a conversation sometimes when the evidence is so overwhelming but someone else is stuck in blind faith mode.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

mackay11 wrote:

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.

No one expects the First Vision

I suppose he did pray in a shrubbery.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

mackay11 wrote:

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.

I’m now thinking of Monty Python skits. 😆

But seriously, faith goes too far when you ignore facts right in front of you, just to protect belief. I think it is better to look at the facts, and then allow faith to help you when you belief in the unseen that goes beyond the knowable. I guess it all comes down to interpretations do know where to place faith and belief. Each person sees things their own way. I am only interested in trying to see it as clearly as I can, with all the facts incorporated to help me do my best, realizing that despite my best, I may still not see it all. So others can see it different.

It never ceases to amaze me how two people can know identical facts and reach opposite conclusions.

I’ve read the accounts and, for me, there is a clear evolution of perspective represented in the accounts. I don’t see the same view of God in all 4. But I think I can accept that. I know my view of God is evolving. I was recently trying to write about some spiritual experiences a few years ago. I needed to check some dates so dug out a journal. The way I described them at the time was almost alien to me. I know I felt that way at the time because it’s in writing. But the “new” version of the account, based on my current paradigm sounded like something different.

I don’t know where to rest my conclusion. I’m not sure whether he had the vision or not. I’m not even sure it’s as important as leaders make it out to be. I believe Joseph was inspired and left behind some important concepts and scripture. I don’t know about the origins but I know I still like the output.

[Anonymous]

For me, there are three things that come out of the accounts –

* The profound dissatisfaction with pre-existing churches.

* Joseph felt forgiven and that he had won over evil.

* A lowly teenager could receive profound wisdom.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

SamBee wrote:

No one expects the First Vision

I suppose he did pray in a shrubbery.

and when he told the local preacher his experience, he was taunted a second time.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

mackay11 wrote:

SamBee wrote:

No one expects the First Vision

I suppose he did pray in a shrubbery.

and when he told the local preacher his experience, he was taunted a second time.

[Anonymous]

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.

Was the page edited or am I missing that somehow?

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.

I understand this view in general, but it doesn’t seem to me that the church is saying “everything is as we have been telling you” in this case. It’s interesting that it doesn’t even imply that the canonized version is really the way it happened. It only says, “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.”

So it does not appear to me that the church is saying “Look, what we have consistently taught from the Pearl of Great Price is exactly what happened.”

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

I’m not sure whether he had the vision or not. I’m not even sure it’s as important as leaders make it out to be. I believe Joseph was inspired and left behind some important concepts and scripture. I don’t know about the origins but I know I still like the output.

+1

I really like this perspective Mackay.

Though having this perspective (underlined part) justifies the first line of thinking. Unfortunately the church does little to help us develop this type of thinking.

I for one am happy to see this stuff on LDS.org no matter how white washed they make it. as others of you have said, it opens doors to discuss these issues in church.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

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.

I guess that is what troubles me. Anyone can spin what they want to fit what is in their best interest. It is done in business, in politics, in education, etc. some spin is more blatant than others. In this case if you were to just read the accounts without the spin first you would never conclude they were the same account. It takes some real mental gymnastics for someone to take the point of view there is no contradiction. It is the problem that faith creates in people. When you arrive at your conclusion first your are forced to retro fit all the facts to conform to your belief you arrived at by faith. Damn the evidence it is of no consequence, because you know it is true. Then you leave rational people shaking their heads and frustrated how they can even carry on a conversation with you when you are so vested in one point of view

All this being said I do not think this is any kind of smoking gun. It is a curiosity that does not fit the narrative the church has put out. What is the most blantant spin is how the church claims this has always been out there and has been studied forever. That is not spin that is a lie.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

I would be curious for those who see this as a serious problem with which there is no reconciling, what are the three greatest contradictions in these accounts

1.) 1832 – Joseph only mentions Lord and seems to leave out.or not mention of the the other member – HF/JC

2.)

3.)

Don’t get me wrong, I see contradictions but none of them seem beyond my own experience of sharing something from my teens, many years later and having told the story in ways that contradicted other times I have told the story. And this in an age where we record & photograph our most precious moments to remind us of how events transpired.

Bill

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

I would be curious for those who see this as a serious problem with which there is no reconciling, what are the three greatest contradictions in these accounts

1.) 1832 – Joseph only mentions Lord and seems to leave out.or not mention of the the other member – HF/JC

2.)

3.)

Don’t get me wrong, I see contradictions but none of them seem beyond my own experience of sharing something from my teens, many years later and having told the story in ways that contradicted other times I have told the story. And this in an age where we record & photograph our most precious moments to remind us of how events transpired.

Bill

I’d probably add:

– Angels in 1835

– 1832 no mention of going to enquire which church is true.

And remember “The Lord” mentioned in 1832 makes reference to “the Father” so the mentions of “the Lord” can only mean, for me, one person (Jesus).

– Age confusion

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

I would be curious for those who see this as a serious problem with which there is no reconciling, what are the three greatest contradictions in these accounts

1.) 1832 – Joseph only mentions Lord and seems to leave out.or not mention of the the other member – HF/JC

2.)

3.)

Don’t get me wrong, I see contradictions but none of them seem beyond my own experience of sharing something from my teens, many years later and having told the story in ways that contradicted other times I have told the story. And this in an age where we record & photograph our most precious moments to remind us of how events transpired.

Bill

I do not think it is a matter of contradictions per se. The issue is that they all tell a different story. It is as if they are independent accounts of different events. I one day I told you about my trip to Disneyland in California and then a year latter I told you about my trip to Disneyworld in Florida they may have something in common but they are separate events and unique. That is how they read to me. Separate events trying to be melded together.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

In this case if you were to just read the accounts without the spin first you would never conclude they were the same account. It takes some real mental gymnastics for someone to take the point of view there is no contradiction.

This is the bottom line for me. I am thrilled to know about the 1832 account. I wish they would just let me enjoy that. Stop being so heavy-handed and strenuously telling me what I should think, what I should conclude.

[Author]

Posts