I’m interested in your choice of the word “spectre.” I’m pretty familiar with all of the First Vision accounts, and this is a new one for me. Since a “spectre” is defined as a “disembodied spirit” or a “ghost” I’d be interested in why you used it.
Good morning, Alma. sorry to be tardy getting back on this but I’ve had some distractions come up that are keeping me away. I used the word spectre because I don’t believe that Joseph Smith saw God or Jesus that morning in the woods.
My gut feeling is that the entire thing is a made-up story, and this for a lot of reasons. To list them all would take quite awhile. But it certainly is possible that Joseph saw something, just that it wasn’t God. So if it was “something” then it must’ve been a ghost or disembodied spirit, since it was hovering above the ground, and appeared in a fabulously brilliant light, neither of which things are normally associated with fleshly humans.
Your OP used the word “contradiction” while your last message used “inconsistency.”
Pacman challened my use of the word “contradiction” on grounds of definition, so I changed it to “inconsistency” because in my haste I wasn’t able to defend my use of that original word. I have here a chart that shows on one page the development of the First Vision story, as to what was added, what was changed, what was apparently removed, as the story evolved between its first known telling in 1832 and its last a month before Joseph died in 1844. I’m taking the chart at face value, but I assume things in it can be challenged.
You also claimed that “only one personage appeared to him.” I don’t know how you can conclude that only one appeared based on the comment that he only mentioned one in that specific account. Last night when I came into the house, my wife asked where I’d been. I said, “I had just been next door and seen my father.” She asked how he was and I said he was in good spirits.
I didn’t claim it, Joseph claimed it. Since 12 years elapsed between the time of the Vision and Joseph’s first known written rendition of it, I’d have thought that he would have had plenty of time to think on this event, and be clear about what he remembered of it. Two spectres vs one spectre seems significant to me, especially since the Mormon theology on nature of God hinges mightily upon it.
I don’t believe that it would be reasonable to conclude from that discussion that my father was a disembodied spirit – or that he was the only person I saw at his home. I did see and speak with my mother as well, but that didn’t come up at that time. However, this morning I remembered that my mother had asked me to take home a piece of furniture for our front porch and so I mentioned that to my wife. She didn’t think that I was inconsistent or that my report this morning was contradictory to last night’s discussion.
I see your point, but I don’t think that your interactions with your parents is of the same quality as one with God, visible, audible, in the woods early one morning. I like to think that, if
I were to have such a visitation, I’d remember whether I saw one or two beings hovering, glowing and speaking. I could be wrong. I might forget. Lord knows, I forget most everything else!
Does this mean that Peter’s account has inconsistencies or contradictions? If not, is there a different standard employed for Joseph Smith?
Just off the top of my head (I’m in a hurry here, so forgive me if I make a mistake in reasoning): Peter wasn’t alone on the mount. He had two other Apostles with him. Jesus was also there. That means there were additional witnesses, each with a variant on the event. Joseph was alone in the woods.
As far as a different standard, I’d have to say, without question there is a different standard.
