Problems with Joseph Smith's First Vision

[Nickerman]

…I never stopped believing in God thankfully, my belief cooled for a time, but never was destroyed by this cult. And after many years of God’s patience I listened to him, the rest is history. But I feel so sorry for those who do become atheist because of the destructive influence of finding out the truth about Mormoism, Satan really does a good job on them

I have observed through the years that even desiring to have faith in Jesus Christ truly is a precious gift. Truly happy the you found your faith in Catholicism rather than Atheism, Lynettejane.

Cheers,
~Nick

 

[TexanKnight]

Your sources err, Truth. This has always been a fundamental tenant of the LDS Church; every convert–past, present and future–knows this.

What has? Various versions of a vision?

T
~Nick

 

[twopekinguys]

Your sources err, Truth. This has always been a fundamental tenant of the LDS Church; every convert–past, present and future–knows this.

True enough, Truth. LDS Christians are taught to evaluate truth through diligent study, pondering and prayer, then inquiring of the Lord. We believe this is sort of what Paul was referring to in 1 Thessalonians.

Cheers,
~Nick

Do you not have anything to say about the few differences I pointed out earlier?

 

[Nickerman]

Do you not have anything to say about the few differences I pointed out earlier?

Nope. These claims have been around for years (nothing original here), Peking. I believe the harmonization of Joseph’s First Vision has been addressed adequately in other more appropriate venues for anyone who cares to truly understand why LDS Christians continue to testify that he was a true, modern-day, authorized prophet of God. Although I certainly know this to be a “true” statement (independent of what either of our opinions are), I also know this certainly is not the venue for me to declare or defend it. Joseph does just fine with his actual words and the legacy he left for all sincere seekers of truth to consider…

My original purpose in joining this forum (before getting a bit sidetracked by this thread ) actually was to listen and understand Catholic thinking on topics that I care deeply about–the rapid erosion of morals in the U.S. that threaten to undermine the foundations of faith in God and His hand that has often upheld America and her citizens in the past (i.e., I’ve learned much about from some of great Catholic posters about media mischaracterizations of pedophilia in the Catholic Church, the upcoming selection of the new Pontiff, etc.).

I have always viewed my Catholic friends as allies in the cause of righteousness, so will retire from the current thread and continue to monitor and contribute in friendship as appropriate on other topics as time allows.

Peace, Pekin
~Nick

 

[SteveVH]

Nope. These claims have been around for years (nothing original here), Peking. I believe the harmonization of Joseph’s First Vision has been addressed adequately in other more appropriate venues for anyone who cares to truly understand why LDS Christians continue to testify that he was a true, modern-day, authorized prophet of God.

That’s the point. We have conflicting claims that have been around for years and it appears that you wish to avoid these issues. What “more appropriate venue” is there than a thread that focuses on the very subject? And you are certainly welcome to defend your position here. This is not like the LDS forums.

Although I certainly know this to be a “true” statement (independent of what either of our opinions are), I also know this certainly is not the venue for me to declare or defend it. Joseph does just fine with his actual words and the legacy he left for all sincere seekers of truth to consider…

How does one “know” something independent of their own opinion? And Joseph does not do “just fine” with his actual words. His actual words are the reason that this thread exists and the LDS could seem to care less that his stories conflict with each other.

My original purpose in joining this forum (before getting a bit sidetracked by this thread ) actually was to listen and understand Catholic thinking on topics that I care deeply about–the rapid erosion of morals in the U.S. that threaten to undermine the foundations of faith in God and His hand that has often upheld America and her citizens in the past (i.e., I’ve learned much about from some of great Catholic posters about media mischaracterizations of pedophilia in the Catholic Church, the upcoming selection of the new Pontiff, etc.).

I have always viewed my Catholic friends as allies in the cause of righteousness, so will retire from the current thread and continue to monitor and contribute in friendship as appropriate on other topics as time allows.

Peace, Pekin
~Nick

Well, there is a lot that we can do together to stand against evil in this world. But that is not the subject matter of the thread. The longer this thread continues without an explanation concerning the variation in JS’s stories the weaker the LDS position appears. If there is an explanation why does no one want to give it?

 

[TexanKnight]

Nope. These claims have been around for years (nothing original here), Peking. I believe the harmonization of Joseph’s First Vision has been addressed adequately in other more appropriate venues for anyone who cares to truly understand why LDS Christians continue to testify that he was a true, modern-day, authorized prophet of God. Although I certainly know this to be a “true” statement (independent of what either of our opinions are), I also know this certainly is not the venue for me to declare or defend it. Joseph does just fine with his actual words and the legacy he left for all sincere seekers of truth to consider…

My original purpose in joining this forum (before getting a bit sidetracked by this thread ) actually was to listen and understand Catholic thinking on topics that I care deeply about–the rapid erosion of morals in the U.S. that threaten to undermine the foundations of faith in God and His hand that has often upheld America and her citizens in the past (i.e., I’ve learned much about from some of great Catholic posters about media mischaracterizations of pedophilia in the Catholic Church, the upcoming selection of the new Pontiff, etc.).

I have always viewed my Catholic friends as allies in the cause of righteousness, so will retire from the current thread and continue to monitor and contribute in friendship as appropriate on other topics as time allows.

Peace, Pekin
~Nick

Wow. So even though the “harmonization” has been disproved, you want to keep your head in the sand? I have a bridge I want to sell you in the Mohave Desert. PM me for a price. I can get it to you very cheap.

 

[twopekinguys]

Nope. These claims have been around for years (nothing original here), Peking. I believe the harmonization of Joseph’s First Vision has been addressed adequately in other more appropriate venues for anyone who cares to truly understand why LDS Christians continue to testify that he was a true, modern-day, authorized prophet of God. Although I certainly know this to be a “true” statement (independent of what either of our opinions are), I also know this certainly is not the venue for me to declare or defend it. Joseph does just fine with his actual words and the legacy he left for all sincere seekers of truth to consider…

My original purpose in joining this forum (before getting a bit sidetracked by this thread ) actually was to listen and understand Catholic thinking on topics that I care deeply about–the rapid erosion of morals in the U.S. that threaten to undermine the foundations of faith in God and His hand that has often upheld America and her citizens in the past (i.e., I’ve learned much about from some of great Catholic posters about media mischaracterizations of pedophilia in the Catholic Church, the upcoming selection of the new Pontiff, etc.).

I have always viewed my Catholic friends as allies in the cause of righteousness, so will retire from the current thread and continue to monitor and contribute in friendship as appropriate on other topics as time allows.

Peace, Pekin
~Nick

So, you cannot think of a reasonable explanation for Smith having 9 distinctly different versions of his “first vision”? You’ve got the burning in the bosom thing going on don’t you?

You openly defend 9 distinctly different versions? More burning in the bosom?

What is your explaination for him praying to know if there was a divine being, a full TWO YEARS after he was supposedly visited by the mormon god.

Doesn’t that throw up a really BIG RED FLAG for you? Let me guess…burning in the bosom.

 

[twopekinguys]

Wow. So even though the “harmonization” has been disproved, you want to keep your head in the sand? I have a bridge I want to sell you in the Mohave Desert. PM me for a price. I can get it to you very cheap.

Unfortunately, it is another stereotypical move.

When it can’t be defended, exit.

When it can’t be defended, hide out til it blows over.

How many times have we all seen it?

 

[CarolNoel]

Unfortunately, it is another stereotypical move.

When it can’t be defended, exit.

When it can’t be defended, hide out til it blows over.

How many times have we all seen it?

That does seem to happen quite often with the LDS. They can’t explain so high tail and leave.

 

[kimg901]

That does seem to happen quite often with the LDS. They can’t explain so high tail and leave.

It sure does. All we can do is pray for those lost souls and that they may be given mercy at the Time of Judgement

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Your sources err, Truth. This has always been a fundamental tenant of the LDS Church; every convert–past, present and future–knows this.

DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon Thought:

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF THE STORY

According to Joseph Smith, he told the story [of the First Vision] immediately after it happened in the early spring of 1820. As a result, he said, he received immediate criticism in the community. There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830s Joseph Smtih was telling the story in public. At least if he were telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it. Not even in his own history did Joseph Smith mention being criticized in this period for telling the story of the first vision. The interest, rather, was in the Book of Mormon and the various angelic visitations connected with its origin.

The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830s, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision is convincing evidence that at best it received only limited circulation in those early days.

…]

Alexander Campbell, who had some reason to be especially bitter against the Mormons because of the conversion of Sidney Rigdon in 1830, published one of the first scathing denunciations of Joseph Smith in 1832. It was entitled Delusions: An Analysis of the Book of Mormon. It contained no mention of the first vision. In 1854 E. D. Howe published Mormonism Unvailed [sic], which contained considerable damaging material against Joseph Smith, including letters of the Mormon apostate Ezra Booth, but again no mention of the first vision. In 1839 John Corrill, another Mormon apostate, published a history of the Mormons, but he made no reference at all to Joseph Smith’s claim to having conversed with the members of the Godhead. In 1842 J. B. Turner published Mormonism in All Ages, which included one of the most bitter denunciations of the Mormon prophet yet printed, but even at this late date no mention was made of the first vision. Apparently not until 1843, when the New York Spectator printed a reporter’s account of an interview with Joseph Smith, did a source publish any reference to the story of the first vision.

…]

As far as Mormon literature is concerned, there was apparently no reference to Joseph Smith’s first vision in any published material in the 1830’s. Joseph Smith’s history, which was begun in 1838, was not published until it ran serially in the Times and Seasons in 1842. The famous “Wentworth Letter,” which contained a much less detailed account of the vision, appeared March 1, 1842, in the same periodical. Introductory material to the Book of Mormon, as well as publicity about it, told of Joseph Smith’s obtaining the gold plates and of angelic visitations, but nothing was printed that remotely suggested earlier visitations. In 1833 the Church published the Book of Commandments, forerunner to the present Doctrine and Covenants, and again no reference was made to Joseph’s first vision, although several references were made to the Book of Mormon and the circumstances of its origin. The first regular periodical to be published by the Church was The Evening and Morning Star, but its pages reveal no effort to tell the story of the first vision to its readers. Nor do the pages of the Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate, printed in Kirtland, Ohio, from October, 1834, to September 1835.

In 1835 the Doctrine and Covenants was printed at Kirtland, Ohio, and its preface declared that it contained “the leading items of religion which we have professed to believe.” Included in the book were the “Lectures on Faith,” a series of seven lectures which had been prepared for the School of the Prophets in Kirtland in 1834-35. It is interesting to note that, in demonstrating the doctrine that the Godhead consists of two separate personages, no mention was made of Joseph Smith having seen them, nor was any reference made to the first vision in any part of the publication.

I see. A fundamental tenet of the LDS faith that everybody knew… but nobody talked about. I suppose all those converts of the past learned about the First Vision through telepathy?

Source:

Allen, J. B., (1966). The Significance of Joseph Smith’s First Vision in Mormon Thought. DIALOGUE: A Journal of Mormon Thought. 1(3): 31-33.

 

[dolphinlove]

Wow. So even though the “harmonization” has been disproved, you want to keep your head in the sand? I have a bridge I want to sell you in the Mohave Desert. PM me for a price. I can get it to you very cheap.

you kill me, this gave me a good belly laugh

 

[twopekinguys]

Unfortunately, it is another stereotypical move.

When it can’t be defended, exit.

When it can’t be defended, hide out til it blows over.

How many times have we all seen it?

I forgot to add:

When it can’t be defended, bear your testimony.

So we have the bear your testimony, and exit all in one post.

 

[TexanKnight]

I forgot to add:

When it can’t be defended, bear your testimony.

So we have the bear your testimony, and exit all in one post.

when you can defend, or when you realize how bad your defenses sound, you bear your testimony and run

I feel bad for our Mormon brothers. It is very taxing to defend what has no defense.

I carry a special burden for them…especially this Lenten Season

 

[Nickerman]

So, you cannot think of a reasonable explanation for Smith having 9 distinctly different versions of his “first vision”?

Certainly. Rather than relying solely on longstanding anti-Mormon polemics, I also consider specific LDS viewpoints, just as I consider the thinking and sensibilities of Catholics on issues that are important and sacred to you.

What is your explaination for him praying to know if there was a divine being, a full TWO YEARS after he was supposedly visited by the mormon god…

I think this might be a misunderstanding on your part, twopekin (no offense intended in stating this). Joseph prayed often following his “first vision” and, like many divinely-called prophets before him, had multiple “visions.” I believe the time to which you refer here Joseph was concerned about his standing before the Lord–not to what you’re attributing (not certain because of the lack of specific references).

Doesn’t that throw up a really BIG RED FLAG for you?

It might if one only “sees” and “accepts” what one wants to see, which is why it’s mostly pointless for ANY LDS Christian to engage in this forum on matters such as this. As I’ve stated previously, I am NOT here to “proselytize” or “defend” my faith (although I am sorely tempted to defend when such clear distortions of my faith are assumed as “fact”). Proselytizing from other faiths is neither appreciated nor allowed on this forum…

Let me guess…burning in the bosom

Twopekin, some of your compatriots on this beleaguered thread seem to take great glee in watching LDS folks seemingly “flee” when confronted. It’s far more the uncharitable denigration of one’s faith that stirs contention and drives people away than any fear or inability to defend one’s beliefs :tsktsk:

All the best, Twopekin.
~Nick

 

[TexanKnight]

Certainly. Rather than relying solely on longstanding anti-Mormon polemics, I also consider specific LDS viewpoints, just as I consider the thinking and sensibilities of Catholics on issues that are important and sacred to you.

ah…so 9 versions showing different ages, different visitors and different conversations is somehow "anti-Mormon polemics’? Interesting that you would take the truth about versions and paint them as anti-Mormon. Since Joe wrote them himself, or told them to others who wrote them, I guess Joe Smith was wring anti-Mormon polemics. Why would you follow an alleged prophet who wrote ant-Mormon polemics?

I think this might be a misunderstanding on your part, twopekin (no offense intended in stating this). Joseph prayed often following his “first vision” and, like many divinely-called prophets before him, had multiple “visions.” I believe the time to which you refer here Joseph was concerned about his standing before the Lord–not to what you’re attributing (not certain because of the lack of specific references).

Yes…other prophets have had more than vision. Joe is the only one with more than one VERSION

It might if one only “sees” and “accepts” what one wants to see, which is why it’s mostly pointless for ANY LDS Christian to engage in this forum on matters such as this. As I’ve stated previously, I am NOT here to “proselytize” or “defend” my faith (although I am sorely tempted to defend when such clear distortions of my faith are assumed as “fact”). Proselytizing from other faiths is neither appreciated nor allowed on this forum…

You do not defend because you cannot defend. Faced with 9 versions, the best you can do is say “it is anti-mormon”

Twopekin, some of your compatriots on this beleaguered thread seem to take great glee in watching LDS folks seemingly “flee” when confronted. It’s far more the uncharitable denigration of one’s faith that stirs contention and drives people away than any fear or inability to defend one’s beliefs :tsktsk:

wrong. It is the inability to defend 9 versions, or the inability to defend the lack of scientific evidence, or the inability to defend blatant racism, or the inability to defend horrible doctrine that you now try to hide or ignore. I am truly sorry that you view the discussion of these points…these TRUTHFUL points, as uncharitable. Do you find it just as uncharitable when LDS missionaries go to peoples’ homes and tell them their church is wrong?

All the best, Twopekin.
~Nick

 

[Nickerman]

You do not defend because you cannot defend. Faced with 9 versions, the best you can do is say “it is anti-mormon”

You apparently either neither read or simply didn’t understand my response to Twopekin, Texan :banghead:

For anyone truly interested in LDS Christian thinking on the “9 versions” diatribe (which have been selectively plucked from mostly anti-Mormon polemic sites) are addressed at the **link **I provided earlier.

All the best, Texan.
~Nick

 

[TexanKnight]

You apparently either neither read or simply didn’t understand my response to Twopekin, Texan :banghead:

For anyone truly interested in LDS Christian thinking on the “9 versions” diatribe (which have been selectively plucked from mostly anti-Mormon polemic sites) are addressed at the **link **I provided earlier.

No…I understood it perfectly. Just as I understand that you claim we picked and chose…which is a lie. And you know it. I posted the nine versions as they appeared. No cutting from anti-LDS sites. I also unerstand the silly apologetics associated with them…like “it depended on who he was talking to”. Really? Whether it happened when he was 14 or 15 depended on who he was talking to? Whether it was one personage or two depended on who he was talking to? That is ludicrous. And you know it, which is why you have, to date, refused to specifically address each version. You simply tell us to go look at LDS apologetics and then run for cover.

I am also familiar with the silly argument that there are two different versions in Luke about Pauls conversion. The comparison of Like telling two different stories about Paul 2000 years ago in a different language that has been translated is, to Mormons, just like Joe having 9 versions and HE HIMSELF writing it or telling it in English less than 200 years ago.

I understand why you do it. I would likely act the same if Jesus told us 9 versions of his crucifixion.

Be Blessed

~Nick

 

[twopekinguys]

Certainly. Rather than relying solely on longstanding anti-Mormon polemics, I also consider specific LDS viewpoints, just as I consider the thinking and sensibilities of Catholics on issues that are important and sacred to you.

So, the Journal of Discourses are “anti-mormon polemics”? BY himself disputed what Smith reported. He said Smith was not visited by the mormon god.

You don’t see the conflict between 9 versions of the “first” vision, BY’s statement, and what mormon apologists tell you to think?
Nickerman;10414622:

I think this might be a misunderstanding on your part, twopekin (no offense intended in stating this). Joseph prayed often following his “first vision” and, like many divinely-called prophets before him, had multiple “visions.” I believe the time to which you refer here Joseph was concerned about his standing before the Lord–not to what you’re attributing (not certain because of the lack of specific references).

Since he had “multiple visions”, they all can’t be the FIRST one can they.

Ummmm I gave you references with each statement. What are you lacking?

You also realize that it only takes one false prophecy to make someone a false prophet right? Smith had many failed prophecies.

Do you want a thread on that? I’m sure we could get a good conversation going.

It might if one only “sees” and “accepts” what one wants to see, which is why it’s mostly pointless for ANY LDS Christian to engage in this forum on matters such as this. As I’ve stated previously, I am NOT here to “proselytize” or “defend” my faith (although I am sorely tempted to defend when such clear distortions of my faith are assumed as “fact”). Proselytizing from other faiths is neither appreciated nor allowed on this forum…

Who has been proselytizing? Telling the truth, with giving references is not proselytizing. It is discussion. Your “sorely tempted” statement borders on being the persecution card that we have all seen played here on more than one occasion.

Twopekin, some of your compatriots on this beleaguered thread seem to take great glee in watching LDS folks seemingly “flee” when confronted. It’s far more the uncharitable denigration of one’s faith that stirs contention and drives people away than any fear or inability to defend one’s beliefs :tsktsk:

All the best, Twopekin.
~Nick

Tell you what. Look how many posts I have, or Rebecca, Marie, Texan, etc.

We have seen much more of this stereotypical behavior than you could imagine on your best day.

1. Bear your testimony
2. Cry persecution
3. Hide out til the tough stuff dies down.
4. Leave all together.
5. Lather
6. Rinse
7. Repeat.

You are not the first one to come here, and make a statement you can’t defend.

You are not the first one to come here and be unable to defend an lds doctrine.

But what we have found most common is when confronted by a poster who is a former mormon, and knows the truth behind the lds, people start pulling points 1 through 7 above.

Sorry, but the truth has to be spoken, and I am sorry if the truth offends you.

 

[Porknpie]

It sure does. All we can do is pray for those lost souls and that they may be given mercy at the Time of Judgement