- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
I personally feel that no one could have a vision at age 14 and NOT remember that both God and Jesus were present.
Two quick points on this: 1) just because the 1832 version doesn’t include it doesn’t mean he forgot it. There are other reasons that the versions might differ (Bushman theorizes that JS was focused on the fact that he was forgiven of his sins, which is what the 1832 account emphasizes, rather than any significance for the church or the world–he implies JS was experiencing personal doubts about his worthiness, which also fits nicely with the year 1832). He was writing down his thoughts years after the fact in both cases, and 2) it’s called the first vision, not “visit” which could mean it was more like a dream. Dreams are subjective, and often layered with meaning. The meaning dreams hold for the individual changes over time. The other thing that helps me with this one is the fact that it simply wasn’t a topic of discussion until so much later. JS was not out broadcasting it, and it wasn’t part of the missionary message at all. Members didn’t know about it. We hear about it pretty regularly, but early church members hadn’t heard of it outside JS’s own family. I’m not a big fan of how much extra meaning we’ve layered into it over time, but I’m not the boss of it I guess.
Quote:We hear about it pretty regularly, but early church members hadn’t heard of it outside JS’s own family.
To add to what Hawk said, just for some Biblical perspective:
Luke 2:17-19 — “And when they (the shepherds) had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.” Luke 2:46-51 — “And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them:
but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.“ It appears to me that we probably have most of what we know of Jesus’ birth and early childhood because Joseph shared it – or because Jesus himself shared what He had been told as a child and/or adolescent. The one person who we would expect to have been the one to give us a clear account of what happened (Mary) apparently didn’t talk much about it for a long, long time – if ever. Why? She was “pondering them in her heart”.
I think sometimes we hold Joseph to an impossible expectation.
Holding JS to an impossible expectation reminded me of myself. I kept my issues around my spiritual life a secret from all but my husband for years. I have shared it only with two Bishops so far and will likely not attempt to share it again with anyone else in the next few years. It is as though it is better for all to keep quiet. OK OK I have shared a bit here too. grin Quoting hawkgirl “JS was not out broadcasting it, and it wasn’t part of the missionary message at all. Members didn’t know about it. We hear about it pretty regularly, but early church members hadn’t heard of it outside JS’s own family.”
Where I must respectfully disagree here is that JS claims that he, in fact, made known his FV to a Methodist minister directly after it happened and that it was well enough known in his community such that he and his family suffered persecutions because of it. This is in the canonized version, of course. We can write that version off if we want to but that is what he said. So not sure where you are coming from here.
One of the most damaging evidences against the FV is the fact that JS claims in his canonized version that he was attacked for claiming, AT THE TIME, that he had such a vision, and yet there is very little evidence suggesting that anybody actually knew of this at that time, as you say. Even his own mother, in her memoir, I believe,from 1952, did not mention the FV, but only the visit from Moroni, three years after the fact. The church, under BY’s direction, asserted JS’s own account of those events into her memoir but they were not in the original. Interestingly, though, she does mention that when JS was fourteen someone shot at their house.
Just not sure the point here. JS totally canonized a specific version of the FV in the 1838 account. Missionaries to this day teach it as fact.
Curt
Old-Timer wrote:JS claims that he, in fact, made known his FV to a Methodist minister directly after it happened and that it was well enough known in his community such that he and his family suffered persecutions because of it. This is in the canonized version, of course.
That’s a problem with the canonized version, for sure. I think everybody here realizes Brother Joseph was no white-hat, spotless icon of truth, morality, faith, and magnanimity. And I simply don’t see that recollection from the story as squaring with the other historical evidence. His first vision appears to have been–while transcendent, glorious, and ineffable–quite commonplace, unnoticed, and unremarkable. It was, to borrow from another thread, in his secret world.
Like you, I see the 33-year-old Joseph as beset with worldly interests, cares, goals, troubles, temptations, and headiness that appear to have led him to press narratives into the service of his calling, whatever he saw that calling as entailing. Do I think it was often despicable? Absolutely! Do I think he was a black-hat character? Absolutely not.
We all own two pure-color hats we wear alternately.
KM
Quote:I simply don’t see that recollection from the story as squaring with the other historical evidence.
I agree with KM on this one. JS’s perception of having been persecuted for telling his story simply doesn’t have much supporting evidence. Perhaps he shared the story with the minister and felt that he was discouraged. Perhaps the minister didn’t hear him correctly or thought he was speaking hypothetically. Perhaps Joseph never really told him, but the minister preached against visions and he felt it was directed at him. Joseph seems to me to be a person who is subject to both wishful thinking and paranoia at times (aren’t we all? although he seems particularly susceptible), or as his mother put it, a youth with great depth of feeling.
Another possiblility may be that Joseph experienced people talking about him for all his “spiritual” experiences and “gifts”, which probably included all his various uses of seer stones, etc. – basically combining them all together in his mind. I don’t know if this is kosher, but I am having trouble settling my mind about the First Vision and searched for an older thread. I wondered if anyone old had anything more to add, or if anyone new here might…. I’m having all the “common” doubts. Nothing that is exactly crippling in terms of my participation at church or my general faith. I could have a fairly positive conversation with my kids at the table after church about the different accounts, but I couldn’t teach out of a manual, at least not the ones I’ve seen in recent past – maybe something new is out.
FS has never been a deal breaker for me. I see something and change it when i speak ALL the time. I am very much an “impression” person and not a specific/literal person when it comes to memories. I noticed the other day – when talking to my wife about uchtdorfs talk – that I was paraphrasing him loosely and then I listened to the talk once more and discovered that I had paraphrased him VERY loosely. In fact I was saying things he didn’t say but they were in the general ideological vain of the the actual talk but still different topics. Not his actual words not even close.
I REALLY enjoyed the talk and it made a great impression on me. But I still got it pretty wrong.
I guess I have no problems with the differences in the FV because I honestly easily could see myself doing as Joseph.
Using the general impressions I got when I was present and reinterpreting then when I was re telling the story without even knowing it.
I do that all the time and on top of that I have a pretty bad memory:)
Why should JS be any different.
I don’t know.. It makes great sense to me at least.
You just described me, Bear – but I even have no problem taking a bit of creative license with my already poor memories in order to make a point or teach a lesson I want to share. I don’t lie, but I certainly walk the creative edge on occasion. A really good example of this is something I learned in the Deep South. Rather than say, “I learned from my father in various ways, including actual words, watching his actions, gaining impressions of what he believed, etc., that he believed . . .” people would use shorthand by saying, “My daddy taught me . . .” or even, “My daddy used to say . . .” It saved a lot of time, and people didn’t care if the hearer thought what was shared was spoken when it actually was just learned by observation and a bit of osmosis.
Memories are tricky already, and when time has passed and there is an “agenda” involved . . . Frankly, I see that in Mormon’s abridgment of the historical records and Nephi’s retrospective account of his life. I believe there was a bit of selection bias and creative reinterpretation over time, but it happens in every account that is written long after the fact or to share a legacy of some kind.
Quote:I guess I apply the phrase from the introduction of the 1830 Book of Mormon: ‘if there are mistakes they are the mistakes of man’ meaning if some details are not accurate they simply demonstrate the ability of man to insert his fallibility into the work. To me this has become an important lesson on what to do with every word that I read or hear. To me (at least presently) nothing physical is infallible…. For the most part I have come to grasp that God speaks to all men according to their personal understanding, no human voice is infallible. Orson
I hate that we call it “The word of God.” The Bible doesn’t call itself the word of God but many Christians do make that claim about it. Then JS uses that phrasing to describe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly (notice that errors apparently diminish being fully “the word of God”) and the BOM. Now his phrasing of “the word of God” is in our scriptures and we are generally stuck with it.Quote:I remember the feeling and the general experience, and, because of that, I tend to imbue my current perceptions and understanding into past events – since it all blurs in my mind after a while. Ray
This is general human nature. There was a study of college students that were polled about their political beliefs and then some years later the same participants were polled again. Those that had experienced a change or evolution of political beliefs couldn’t remember not having held those views some years back and seemed to have imbued their “current perceptions and understanding into past events.” At least you are aware that you have this tendency.Quote:Our Church may now be partially the victim of our own interpretations of Joseph’s “First Vision” experience — taking meaning that Joseph didn’t even pull from it. Brian
Yesterday, DW asked me about a spiritual experience that I had 3-4 years ago. I told her that I don’t even remember the moment of receiving the impression anymore – I remember being physically drained, emotionally raw, and recovering from having nearly passed out during vicarious temple sealing ceremonies. I remember writing this impression down as soon as I got home and I recounted to her a summary of what I remember writing.DW told me that my experience and the experience of another woman we know led DW to a belief that life events are predetermined and happen for a divine purpose – no accidents. This interpretation gives her hope. I told her that I respect her belief and that many interpretations are possible. It was a good talk and we both felt listened to.
So DW is taking meaning from my experience that I personally don’t pull from it. Does that lessen the validity of her hope? I don’t think so.
Ann wrote:I’m having all the “common” doubts. Nothing that is exactly crippling… but I couldn’t teach out of a manual, at least not the ones I’ve seen in recent past – maybe something new is out.
I’m interested in what you’re thinking about, Ann.What are some of your doubts? That it happened the way we were taught, especially since there are multiple versions of the account?
Also, why do you think you can’t teach it out of the manuals?
I’d like to hear more about your thoughts on this. I sometimes doubt the details of the events as it is recorded in manuals. What parts do you struggle with?
We use the First Vision as “proof” that Heavenly Father has a body of flesh and bones but I don’t recall anything besides seeing it but not touching. I had a thought during conference that since Heavenly Father is all powerful he can appear to us in any form he wants. He might appear to us in an image and likeness that we can easily comprehend.
Heber13 wrote:What are some of your doubts?
I don’t doubt that God and Christ
couldappear in the flesh or in a vision to anyone they choose, but I doubt that they didappear to him. It sounds terrible, but there is part of me that just doesn’t want to waste one more precious moment of life trying to figure it out. I wish I had Richard Bushman’s comfort with the inconsistencies – “As Joseph became more confident, more details came out.” I just don’t. I stress about my kids as missionaries memorizing word for word the canonized account and going out into the world declaring it true in a very specific, literal sense. curt wrote:I personally feel that no one could have a vision at age 14 and NOT remember that both God and Jesus were present. That 18 years or so later JS told the story this way means that is what he wanted the world to believe.
What did he see? (Assuming he saw it) Everything crystal clear and defined, or blurred light? If he saw the latter then this is more plausible.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.