The First Vision

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

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 know where you’re coming from Ann, it takes time to sort things out and make new sense out of things as you include all the information. Can I offer a perspective on this Bushman quote? It doesn’t hit me as incompatible with even a non-literal view, the point is as Joseph became more confident in his leadership of the church he gave more details of founding events.

I imagine the vision as a dream like experience. He did after all say he “came to” afterward suggesting he was not fully conscious during the vision. From that perspective it is easy for me to imagine the experience as somewhat fuzzy, even though it left him with a powerful lasting impression.

[Anonymous]

I don’t believe for a moment that any of the earliest experiences were physical visitations. Joseph didn’t describe them that way, so I don’t see them that way. I also think it’s silly that we use the First Vision to teach that God has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as ours. There is nothing in that account to even imply Joseph understood anything about God’s body as a result of that vision. That understanding came years afterward.

Someone, at some point, made the incorrect connection, it sounded good to someone else, it stuck and we’ve been mindlessly repeating it for a long time. It’s what we humans do.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for rehashing something you’ve all talked about before. The first time I ever “felt the spirit” when reading an account of the First Vision was actually this last year, when I finally read the earliest account. In RSR: “It was the message of forgiveness and redemption he had wanted to hear.” I guess it was also the message I needed to hear about Joseph Smith because I could believe it.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I don’t believe for a moment that any of the earliest experiences were physical visitations. Joseph didn’t describe them that way, so I don’t see them that way. I also think it’s silly that we use the First Vision to teach that God has a body of flesh and bones, as tangible as ours. There is nothing in that account to even imply Joseph understood anything about God’s body as a result of that vision. That understanding came years afterward.

Someone, at some point, made the incorrect connection, it sounded good to someone else, it stuck and we’ve been mindlessly repeating it for a long time. It’s what we humans do.

I think that, too. It’s even called The First Vision. There is no indication that Joseph was invited to come forth and feel the nail prints, etc., and he describes them as “personages.” LDS teachings also indicate that one of the reasons for temples is that they are “The House of the Lord,” and further that temples are where the Lord can appear because of their holiness. I realize that OT & BoM prophets did have experiences outside of temples but it’s also not always clear whether these involved actual, physical visitations. I do believe Joseph’s testimony, but I also believe there are some Mormon myths associated with it – as Ray said, it’s what we humans do.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Someone, at some point, made the incorrect connection, it sounded good to someone else, it stuck and we’ve been mindlessly repeating it for a long time. It’s what we humans do.

Yes, exactly. I mean, with this same logic of accounts of visions giving “proof” of God…why not have all pictures of God as burning bushes as evidence of what God was like? Because we proof-text. We pick the connections that help our story in our head…then we run with it. We put paintings of Joseph with Golden plates as if he translated character by character…and it conveys a story…and we run with it.

Ann has expressed EXACTLY the feeling and testimony I have of Joseph’s experience:

Ann wrote:

The first time I ever “felt the spirit” when reading an account of the First Vision was actually this last year, when I finally read the earliest account. In RSR: “It was the message of forgiveness and redemption he had wanted to hear.” I guess it was also the message I needed to hear about Joseph Smith because I could believe it.

That is something I can believe happened, and something that teaches me of the characteristics of God and His dealings with us.

[Anonymous]

Like the OP, this wasn’t an issue that originally bothered me much. I actually just came across personal journal notes from over a year ago where I stated that I felt like this was an overblown issue, and that it didn’t bother me.

However, I stumbled upon an analysis by Grant Palmer from just a couple weeks ago that raised a new eyebrow for me. You can see an outline here (http://mormonthink.com/grant12.htm). The correlation I had never noticed was that the First Vision story developed with some interesting parallels to Joseph’s general doctrine on the Godhead. There’s pretty interesting correlations between changes in the FV story and changes made to the BOM and D&C to support a development from Trinity to Godhead to Many Gods.

This kinda reopened the issue for me a little bit, and I’m not sure quite what to think any more.

[Author]

Posts