First Vision Discrepancies

[Anonymous]

We have had an interesting discussion of the Discrepencies in the First Vision account over at Wheat and Tares. I thought it might be an interesting topic over here. Here are a few points that I want to make here, but you can see the whole discussion at http://www.wheatandtares.org/2012/08/13/multiple-first-vision-accounts/

In the Richard Bushman interview with John Dehlin, Bushman mostly discusses the 1832 and 1838 accounts, noting 3 main differences:

1. Who visited Joseph?

a. 1832 says “Lord” (singular)

b. 1838 says God and Jesus (2 beings)

2. Was Satan there?

a. 1832 makes no mention of Satan

b. 1838 Satan almost overcame Joseph

3. What was purpose of First Vision?

a. 1832 says it was for Joseph to receive remission of sins

b. 1838 says it was to establish “the one and only true church.”

Bushman says about these

Quote:

I find this problem perplexing in this way. For some people, this is a huge issue, he couldn’t tell the story right! How could he vary on such a significant item as who actually appeared to him and so on?

Other people say look whenever we tell a story a second time, we always tell it differently, different details spring forth into our minds and so on. So they just can’t even get excited about the problem, so I don’t know what to do about that.

Steve M posted a link to a “Synoptic” (or amalgamated) First Vision that combines all the accounts together into a cohesive narrative. See http://kevinhinckley.com/uploads/Combined_First_Vision.doc

I thought it interesting, and I put this together in a comment, specifically in regards to the solo/dual/multiple angels portion of the vision. (I should note that few people know either the 1832 singular “Lord” or the 1835 “many angels” aspect of the First Vision, which shouldn’t be construed as the First Visitation.

Quote:

[1835-Kirtland] I kneeled again, my mouth was opened and my tongue loosed; I called on the Lord in mighty prayer [1838-Kirtland] Just at this moment of great alarm I saw a … [1832] pillar of [fire] light above the brightness of the Sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me … [1838] It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound.

[1832] I was filld with the Spirit of God and the Lord opened the heavens upon me [and]… [1841-Wentworth Letter] my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded… [1835] I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision… I saw many angels.

…A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first [1841] who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness [1838] (whose brightness and glory defy all description) standing above me in the air.

One of them spake unto me calling me by name and said (pointing to the other) “This is my beloved Son, Hear him.“

[1832] Saying Joseph my Son thy Sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my Statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life

[1838] My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner therefore did I get possession of myself so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right,

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said that all their Creeds were an abomination in his sight

[1832] behold the world lieth in sin arid at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the Gospel and keep not my commandments [1838] They teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of Godliness but they deny the power thereof.” [1832] they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth …

Anyway, this post is too long. There are many interesting facts and comments there, but I wanted to see what y’all thought.

[Anonymous]

The complete post over on Wheat and Tares was very interesting. What struck me was how none of it seemed to bother Bushman. I think he’s had some many experiences as a bishop, stake president and patriarch that he’s able to compartmentalize things and not let the dissonances affect him.

[Anonymous]

I find it remarkable that Richard Bushman is able to remain a TBM in spite of what he knows about Mormon history, which is a whole lot more than I know. I don’t know if he has reached a higher echelon of spirituality and understands that the church is what it claims to be in spite of its historical and doctrinal problems or if he is simply failing to be fully intellectually honest. The LDS chemist Henry Eyring also seemed to be in this same position.

My personal opinion on the different accounts of the First Vision is that if I was personally visited by God and Jesus, I would remember it in such exquisite detail that it would be impossible to tell the story of it any other way than the way in which it actually happened. Memory is linked to emotion, and the more emotional a situation, the clearer and more detailed the memory of it.

[Anonymous]

I think the reason it doesn’t bother Bushman is because the FV was never intended to be used in the way the church currently uses it. Bushman is a historian, and if you put the story in the context of Joseph’s life, it stands up all right. He wasn’t using it as the cornerstone for missionary efforts as the church uses it today. Those who have based their testimony on it and consider it a literal event, a heavenly visit (vs. a vision or dream) are the ones who have some reason for pause – and that’s probably the majority view, which is why I’m not sure I believe it when people say it doesn’t bug them. It does take the literal idea down a peg. If I were recalling a vivid dream I had (and I’ve had many in my life), this is the way it would sound. Since I’ve never had a vision, I don’t really know how it stacks up.

[Anonymous]

2 & 3 not problems in my view. Satan was a minor nuisance and trial, and the two definitions in 3 not contradictory. As regards 3, I think Joseph was seeking.

1 is the problem.

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

2 & 3 not problems in my view. Satan was a minor nuisance and trial, and the two definitions in 3 not contradictory. As regards 3, I think Joseph was seeking.

1 is the problem.

That’s interesting Sam. I see it differently.

1 and 2 seem like details, and telling accounts of events can omit or focus on different details depending on 3. To me, 3 is the important part to work through. It sets the direction for the discussions and many of the teachings of the Church, IMO.

Maybe you can elaborate more on why you think 1 is the kicker for you.

Hawkgrrrl wrote:

Since I’ve never had a vision, I don’t really know how it stacks up.

+1

[Anonymous]

I see it like Hawk described – as a vision, not a visitation. I also read the accounts of a visionary man that include multiple visions and easily can understand how an official account could be merged into one account years after the fact. Seeing it that way removes pretty much all of the negative angst for me.

[Anonymous]

InquiringMind,

I don’t know you, but I’ll bet you finished high school, and at least had some college, or are a college graduate. You grew up in a church where journal keeping was encouraged. Joseph didn’t, and in fact had scribes do most of his writing because he was so bad at writing. The 1832 account has terrible spelling, and was written by Joseph. Joseph wasn’t even a good speaker in the early days of the church, which is why Sidney Rigdon was so important to the church in the 1830s: he was much more educated and eloquent than Joseph was. I think it is unwise to expect an itinerant farm-boy with no formal education, founder of a church just 2 years prior to give an accurate portrayal of the vision. Let’s remember that Joseph was reticent to share a lot of details because when he did share it with a Methodist minister in the 1820s, he was ridiculed. Bushman makes a big case that the only vision recorded immediately after Joseph received it was D&C 76. Other visions/visitations such as John the Baptist, Peter, James and John weren’t recorded for years. So I think we need to give Joseph a little leeway here. He was a crappy writer, which is why he relied on scribes so much.

To me, 1 and 2 are not as big of a problem as much as 3. I can identify with those that say that Joseph enhanced the vision due to the 1838 apostasy and his need to make it sound more grandiose than it was, though I think it can be explained in the paragraph I just wrote. I agree with Hawk that we should remember this was a vision, not a visitation. I know on my mission, we made a big point that God and Jesus were flesh and bones and we pointed to the First VIsion as a reference. I don’t think that the vision should be used for that purpose. I am enthralled by the 1835 account that there were “many angels”. The vision was much more expansive than has been shown in any church films. I think it is important to remember it is a vision and not a visitation. It should also be noted that when Joseph mentions struggling in darkness just before the vision, that Methodists of the day often felt such struggles were part on an authentic vision. Joseph was different from Methodists in that he attributed the struggling to Satan (Methodists don’t), but such a mention would have given authenticity to Methodist listeners. The fact that he doesn’t mention it in 1832 seems to me that he was just telling other details of the story, and that part didn’t figure in with the incomplete message of a poor writer. If he had a scribe, it might have made it into the account.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

SamBee wrote:

2 & 3 not problems in my view. Satan was a minor nuisance and trial, and the two definitions in 3 not contradictory. As regards 3, I think Joseph was seeking.

1 is the problem.

That’s interesting Sam. I see it differently.

1 and 2 seem like details, and telling accounts of events can omit or focus on different details depending on 3. To me, 3 is the important part to work through. It sets the direction for the discussions and many of the teachings of the Church, IMO.

Maybe you can elaborate more on why you think 1 is the kicker for you.

Hawkgrrrl wrote:

Since I’ve never had a vision, I don’t really know how it stacks up.

+1

I can’t speak for Sam, but 1 is a problem for me because it’s the basis for a major part of our theology. We believe God the Father and Jesus are separate beings in large part because Joseph Smith saw both of them. If he didn’t, that has pretty big implications.

Also, I want to comment about the “vision vs. actual appearance” thing. I agree that Joseph’s actual accounts of it support the view that it was just a vision, but that’s definitely not how it’s taught in the church today. It’s not what I taught on my mission. As far as church manuals are concerned, God and Jesus beamed down to the sacred grove in person. If that’s the idea that someone’s testimony is based on, how can it not be a problem that Joseph didn’t even think it noteworthy enough to mention both of them the first couple of times he wrote them down?

[Anonymous]

To add to MormonHeretic’s post above, I think it’s important to examine a couple of points in the 1838 vision:

Joseph Smith History 1:15 wrote:

…immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

When I was on my mission, we napped often in the middle of the day (It was the mission policy in Chile Santiago mission under Elder Bradford). After a while, i kept having lucid dreams — dreams where my conscious mind was aware of dreaming, and still within the dream state. I experienced in this state a type of sleep paralysis, which often was quite uncomfortable, and if the dream was very nightmarish, I was unable to speak or move and it was terrifying.

Note in Joseph’s case, that he went into a state where his tongue was bound, he felt doomed, oppressive darkness fell about him, and he was unable to respond. This is extremely similar to the feelings I had in lucid dreams.

This is not to take away from the reality of the first vision. I believe, and Section 88 of the doctrine and covenants gives me support in this, that natural processes are always involved in all things in this world: even and especially visions and miracles. A recent prophet said that visions often happen in the boundary between sleeping and awaking: viz., “Lucid Dreams”.

Then next step, Joseph sees a pillar of light. Very very important language: this is extremely common in mystical literature. Mystics have often talked about being enveloped with light; near death experiences talk of the ‘tunnel of light’, and eastern mysticism speaks of the ‘third eye’ — a vision of light centered between the eyes.

My interpretation: Joseph had a mystical experience within a lucid dream.

Now let’s look at the end of this experience:

Joseph Smith History 20 wrote:

When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home.

“When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back”. Uhhh…. is there any doubt in reading this that “he was not himself” when this all was occurring? It was a “vision” — he was NOT AWAKE, in the sense of normal consciousness; but he was AWARE during the dream: a perfect description of “Lucid Dream”.

Speaking from my own experience, as I was experimenting with living spiritually about 15 years ago, I had a powerful lucid dream, including the pillar of light, completely being enveloped in light, and having a complete release of all worldly guilt, thought, and frustration. It was beyond my imagination, and to this day I cannot think of it but be swept up in the feeling I had at that moment. I cannot say I saw a person, two people, or anything at all — it would be impossible to explain what I felt and saw, but it was as real to me then, and my memory of it as vivid as I’m typing. But I couldn’t possible explain to anyone, and if I did, it might sound like one person, two people, all sorts of variation of my account from time to time — because it’s just the nature of a spiritual/mystical experience — it defies explanation.

This was 15 years ago (actually, I’m not sure of the date), and while I can say my memory of it is vivid, it’s not like even immediately after the fact I could recall all the details — dreams fade in conscious memory quite quickly. Joseph’s first vision was in his 15th year — 1820, roughly. Or, according to the 1832 statement, it might have been in his ‘sixteenth’ year — 1821 — he doesn’t know for sure (same as me). His first account of the vision was twelve years later when he is nearly double in age: while a lucid dream of such intensity would definitely remain in memory, it would be ‘memory’, which has an interesting property to it: memory needs to be refreshed if it is to stay current, so what happens, neurologically, is that the memory synapses fire, we remember, and then the memories are re-implanted in the neural network. When the memory gets re-implanted, often other aspects of the memory become implanted with it, perhaps interpretation and additional ‘details’ that weren’t part of the original memory. The memory strengthens, and potentially morphs, each time it is told.

A mystical experience, as I noted, does not lend itself to words. So, in 1832, when Joseph is writing down the story, he puts down his verbal interpretation of a non-verbal event. His initial statements included the pillar of light and he ‘saw the lord’, who told him his sins were forgiven. This corresponds to a mystical vision perfectly. Let’s look, as well, at another thing Joseph Smith wrote in December 1832:

D&C 88:47-50 wrote:

…any man who hath seen any or the least of these [referring to the movements of the heavens] hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.

I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.

The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound.

Joseph is describing the effect of observing the power of god as reflected in nature, then speaks of a very interesting concept: that to see this power, being aware of the “Light” within them, and when you are ‘filled with light”, then you have seen god: there is NOTHING here about seeing bodies. Then shall ye know that ye have seen me — past tense — once you come to realization of being ‘quickened’. Joseph would have used the term ‘quickened’ to refer what happened to him in the first vision, because he said later about moses’ vision:

Moses 1:11 wrote:

But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.

The use of the past perfect tense “have seen” once we become quickened in D&C 88 indicates that event of seeing god was already completed before we have the point in time experience of being ‘quickened’.

So…to sum up, I believe the events show the first vision to be characterized by the following:

1. It was a lucid dream, not a physical event.

2. In memory of the lucid dream, Joseph was trying to put into words that which defies language, hence verbal descriptions (a) do not accurately portray a lucid dream, and (b) morph over time.

3. As time goes on, the added details of the dream progressively serve the agenda of establishing the validity of the ‘one true church’. This does not have to be a conscious, deceptive process, but rather, a natural cognitive feature of the neurology of memory.

4. Given the nature of memories of remote, past emotional events, relying upon the first vision account to create a doctrinal pronouncement of the nature of godhead is imprudent at best.

In short, I completely agree with MH — it’s a vision, a lucid dream, and should not be a source of doctrine, either of the “one true church” polemic, nor of the nature of godhead. I would add that there is no intential deception in this.

[Anonymous]

Simple answer and most likely correct, he made it up as he went along.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

Simple answer and most likely correct, he made it up as he went along.

Are you willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he had a mystical experience?

[Anonymous]

I found a article that seems to have my take on it. Here is the quote.

“All the sources I have considered agree that Joseph had an early vi- sion between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. Even Oliver Cowdery said this at first. All agree that Joseph was troubled about religion and that he sought the Lord in prayer. As James Allen shows,70 Joseph never cited his vision with respect to the nature of the Godhead; this use of the vision came long afterward. For Joseph, it meant something else. He was in quest of finding God in his life, to gain a forgiveness of sins, to know the Lord’s will concerning him. All accounts agree that the vision started him on the road to becoming a prophet. The 1838 account of Joseph’s negative reaction to a multitude of religious sects is critical for under- standing Mormon authoritarian institutions. It seems to me that more can be explained historically by including rather than excluding the first vision. For those who begin with an historical inquiry in mind—what happened, why, what the consequences were—this seems to be the start- ing place. For those who have other objectives, this may not be sufficient.”

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Cadence wrote:

Simple answer and most likely correct, he made it up as he went along.

Are you willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he had a mystical experience?

I do not think so. There seems to be to much circumstantial evidence that Joseph was a product of the times. Someone who lived his life by magical thinking. Remember he tried to make a living hunting for buried treasure, and seemed to have a knack for story telling. Taking the approach that the simplest answer is most likely correct, I think you have to go with he was making up as much more probable than he actual had a divine experience. If you do take the approach it was divine, I think you then must accept the hundreds of other people who make similar claims all with contradictory messages. Until someone can offer something more than just having a story to tell about an experience I think it best to hold such stories as suspect. We spend way to much time trying to parse apart his story trying to find the hidden truths within it, when it is much more logical to realize he just made it up, pending further information.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, I think there are two “simplest” explanations:

1) He was making it up as he went along.

2) He was a “visionary” person (subject to visions) and believed they came from God and were “real”.

Both are very, very simple answers – and, in some ways, they appear (manifest) themselves similarly. That’s the difficulty in deciding which is “correct” – if someone is trying to do so logically. The end result always is that people end up picking the one that matches their general perspective / orientation.

Thus, I choose the second one.

That, however, is only the first step.

[Author]

Posts