- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
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.He may have believed they came from God but that does not make it so. The only difference I see in your two examples is that on one had he knowingly decieved and on the other he was a pious fraud. In both cases the end result is he dispensed a fabricated story. So yes either of those examples seems to be a simple answer to me.
No, Cadence, those aren’t the only possibilities – which is why I said making an initial decision is only the first step. The second possibility contains lots and lots of subsequent possibilities – and it’s those possibilities that create the vast tapestry of religious beliefs. One of them is that the visions were simple delusions of no great power or meaning, but there are lots of others, as well. You see them as the same thing precisely because you see no other logical possibilities. That’s not a small point, frankly.
BTW, the same thing can be said of any and all “visionary” people – even outside of religion.
Old-Timer wrote:No, Cadence, those aren’t the only possibilities – which is why I said making an initial decision is only the first step.
The second possibility contains lots and lots of subsequent possibilities – and it’s those possibilities that create the vast tapestry of religious beliefs. One of them is that the visions were simple delusions of no great power or meaning, but there are lots of others, as well. You see them as the same thing precisely because you see no other logical possibilities. That’s not a small point, frankly.
BTW, the same thing can be said of any and all “visionary” people – even outside of religion.
I understand the concept of faith and visions, it just does not work for me. For me it works better to just approach it in what I consider a logical manner and see where it leads. I just can not seem to generate the energy required to nuance these things to the point that I can accept them. Not saying I am correct but for me multiple stories of the first vision is a red flag. It just seem to make sense to simple say he made it up as he went along. I am open to any evidence to the contrary, or something I can sink my teeth into more than just Joseph said so.
I have never really seen Joseph as a great deceiver because it seems to me that he really did believe that he was a prophet. My best guess is that Joseph did have a vision of the sort that he described in 1832, and that vision was of either mystical or biological origin. The story of the vision became increasingly embellished over time, as is the tendency for stories of supernatural events. It seems to me that the stories of Jesus are the same. It would make sense that there was a remarkable man named Jesus whose parentage was uncertain, and he taught great moral lessons, and after his death the stories of his life became increasingly embellished until they were written down, at least 40-ish years later, first by Mark, and then by others. InquiringMind wrote:I have never really seen Joseph as a great deceiver because it seems to me that he really did believe that he was a prophet. My best guess is that Joseph did have a vision of the sort that he described in 1832, and that vision was of either mystical or biological origin. The story of the vision became increasingly embellished over time, as is the tendency for stories of supernatural events. It seems to me that the stories of Jesus are the same. It would make sense that there was a remarkable man named Jesus whose parentage was uncertain, and he taught great moral lessons, and after his death the stories of his life became increasingly embellished until they were written down, at least 40-ish years later, first by Mark, and then by others.
I think that is a viable yet realistic theory.
Having read all of versions and not necessarily being troubled here is my take: 1st one is a protestantized version that is put forth by the Community of Christ, the typical Jesus forgives sins. Joseph knew what the Bible said about seeing God. The NT in at least three places says that no man can see God and live. I remember an Evangelical said to me that he didn’t have a hard time believing that JS saw Jesus, it was the seeing God part that bothered him. I believe JS was aware of this. He obviously read the Bible many times. It seems like this version is your typical I want to fit in with the rest of Christendom and minimize conflict.
The minister Jonathan Edwards had a vision of Jesus as well, so a vision of Jesus was not unheard of in the world of protestant Christianity.
The second is my favorite, and not too different from the canonized version in JS History.
As a student of history I realize that perceptions change on one’s own experience and that narratives and meanings may be changed over time on personalized history.
The third FV account is much like that. JS mentions the creeds were an abomination in Jesus’ sight. Joseph is better versed in scripture and even has Jesus quoting an Isaiah verse about how lips speak of him but hearts are far from him. I think Joseph knew that since this account would be the “official final word on the subject” that it becomes more complete and panoramic if you will.
I personally have had dreams that I cannot write down. There is too much blurred details and symbolism that I know once I start writing it down it changes what I saw to a lineal account that didn’t happen linearly in my consciousness, where it had very little meaning. The grandeur and awe of the event is too overwhelming to put into words. I add the meaning later and then when I read it, my memory of the event fades since it is now written down.
I have a difficult task upon me to write my mission history since I lost my journals that were stolen. I have such a different perception now that many events are skewed. Writing of poignant memories 18 years later is a difficult task.
After sharing the FV account too many times on my mission, I realize now that Joseph did not like to tell it since it was too personal. I think that a vision of God is too sacred to even put into words, especially to an ever skeptical world that slams any vision of God that is outside of the Bible context as false, because of the scriptures that state no man can see God and live. The FV account is used to dispel the creeds of apostate Christendom and the Trinity as taught by such creeds. It also establishes that JS was a Prophet because of the Experience. (See also Isaiah Chapter 6 where he sees the Lord and has his sins forgiven). The third account has his historical context like the second one. It has a solid purpose to slam the apostasy and to establish credence to the Restoration and that a new dispensation was ushered in by God the Father and Jesus.
It is clearly used to teach in a simple linear fashion something that was more complex and layered in nature.
Side notes:
Compared to the Story of the Virgin of Guadalupe which was said to have occurred in 1531 in Tepeyac Mexico (that story did not get written down until 1648). Joseph Smith has the vision in 1820 and it gets recorded in 1832, 1835, and then in 1838. The Nican Mopohua “Here it is Narrated about the Virgin of Guadlupe’s appearance to an indigenous peasant in 1531 was written and published way after, yet it is the foundation of Mexican Catholicism. Thus, I don’t see many problems in the honesty, purpose, and historicity of the First Vision accounts and they can fit as an amalgamation as cited above. A lot changes in a boys mind from age 14 to age 30. The significance of the vision had more weight as Joseph was 30 compared to when he was 14. When Joseph was 14 he was more worried about his personal salvation. By age 30 Joseph was concerned about the longevity of the Church especially answering the published anti-Mormon accounts, especially by Alexander Campbell of the Disciples of Christ movement. Certainly the FV had to be canonized to solidify the Church’s longevity as a legitimate faith tradition and solidify JS’s tenure as prophet-especially of the restoration.
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.
No. 1 is the “kicker”, because it’s all about the Trinity/Godhead. If JS had seen God, then I suspect he would have not remained undecided on the matter. No 1 raises fundamental questions about God and the Universe.
Satan is a nasty element in the Universe, but even within our theology, he’s actually just an irritation in the end up, because he will be defeated.
I think also Joseph’s prayer was probably long and thoughtful, and he was seeking more than looking for specific Q&A.
Quote: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.
Exactly. It’s a large part of what makes the Restoration different and unique.
I make the following observations as an admitted non-believer: – I’ve had experiences in my lifetime and tried to convey them in words to other people and found that it’s really hard to do so, and still maintain the overall experience.
– Second-hand listeners of a story bring their own context to a story and fill in their own mental picture.
– Jamison mentioned trying to recall missionary experiences. I have a couple of major experiences from my mission, long ago, that I still remember fondly. Life-changing happenings. A few years ago, I went back to my journal, and found that I hadn’t recorded them at all. I think, in part, because at the time I was writing, it hadn’t sunk in, but over time, they became the most important things that had happened to me.
So, I guess for me, I’m just not that excited by variant tellings of a story. I don’t know that the differences are so stark that they couldn’t have originated from the same experience (whether literal of visionary). It just seems like one of the weaker protestations about the history of the church.
I’ve been thinking about this subject alot. I’ve read everyone’s replies & agree with most of them. Jamison said:
Quote:…I realize that perceptions change on one’s own experience and that narratives and meanings may be changed over time on personalized history.
I’ve thought about my own Introduction & how it’s changed over time. Does it mean I’m deceitful? No, it means my story is different depending when I told it & who (I perceive) the audience is.
On Own Now said:
Quote:I’m just not that excited by variant tellings of a story. I don’t know that the differences are so stark that they couldn’t have originated from the same experience (whether literal of visionary). It just seems like one of the weaker protestations about the history of the church.
I feel the same way.
When I took the Missionary discussions & prayer about JS & the 1st vision, I got an answer that worked for me & I joined the Church.
This hasn’t bothered me either.
Mike from Milton.
Ressurecting this thread as I am pretty new so this was of interest as I stumbled on another blog talking about this subject. It lead me the FAIR on the subject: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Accounts/1832/Only_one_Personage_appears My impression was that FAIR is doing all sorts of backflips involving etemology, etc…some in my opion actually make their case worse (comparing Josephs writing style to Nephi…um…that would imply the same author fellas). I was going to start a new thread asking opinions then thought I would do a search (see I can be taught) and found this.
Now all the new folks can read it as I found the comments insightful….and in many cases a better argument then that on FAIR.
So eman, Ann, Southerner…I reccomend this as a good read.
I’m unsettled by versions of the vision, but I am super-bothered by what the church did/does with those versions. So, in a couple of weeks how would I teach Lesson 6 in Primary 3, Choose the Right B, Ages 4- 7 (c. 1994) to trusting 4 year-olds?
Display picture 3-10. The First Vision. Who is in this picture? (Heavenly Father, Jesus, and Joseph Smith.) What happened when Joseph Smith prayed to find out which church was true? (Heavenly Father and Jesus appeared to him. Jesus told him not to join any of the churches because none of them were true.) Explain to the children that the true Church was not on the earth at that time. Jesus wanted his teachings and his true Church restored to the earth.
Ann, I have some of those same feelings which is why i posted this thread. I see some of the points made and it helps some…though the concept of a Lucid dream with a spiritual experience (which makes it sound more like Buddha) that has been “polished up” to fit a nice corporate image disturbs me. I am generally ok with going to church but there is this nagging little irritated thing inside me that feels like someone is telling fibs and that just always bugs me
That being said I think of the quote at the end of “Who shot Liberty Valance” :
Ransom Stoddard: You’re not going to use the story, Mr. Scott?
Maxwell Scott: No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
Quote:
So, in a couple of weeks how would I teach Lesson 6 in Primary 3, Choose the Right B, Ages 4- 7 (c. 1994) to trusting 4 year-olds?I would teach them things that can be gleaned from any account.
-JS had a problem so he read the scriptures and prayed, we can read the scriptures and pray when we have problems too
-Heavenly Father answered Joseph’s prayer, but it took a lot of work and time before Joseph got what he wanted
-Beings from heaven aren’t like us, they go around in different way, and they are shiny, but they still love us and care about us.
Now who wants to color?
Ann wrote:So, in a couple of weeks how would I teach Lesson 6 in Primary 3, Choose the Right B, Ages 4- 7 (c. 1994) to trusting 4 year-olds?
Ann, you got some great advice from rebeccad. Love that approach. In general, a couple of things have helped me when I’ve taught kids of all ages, as well as adults.– This is what their parents expect you to teach them. It is their family faith. I expect my kids’ teachers in school to teach them evolution. I don’t care if the teachers believe it or not and I don’t want their christian caveats about it, either.
– I use phrases like “Our doctrine teaches that…” or “In our church, we believe…” or “We read in Alma that… ” or in this case, pretty simple, “Joseph Smith said that…” After all, the canonical (literally) version that we teach in church is straight from JS’s own account. Sure there are other versions that are also from him, but none of them are in the LDS scriptures.
-If certain elements are too uncomfortable, then either work your way around it in a way that makes you feel better about it or get a sub. When I was a gospel doctrine teacher, I got a sub for the week we covered I and II Timothy, because I don’t view those to be authentic letters of Paul. When we rolled into the BofM year, I asked to be released. I’ve subbed in Gospel Doctrine during BofM year, however, and for those one-off lessons, I just focus less on the story and more on what we learn from the story and how we make it a part of ourselves.
FAIR is an apologetic site. They publish some wonderful stuff and some crap. They are one more source among many, and they aren’t “the Church” any more than I am.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.