The First Vision Versions

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NeuroTypical said:
Wait - your first claim was the phrase “just angels”. Now you are revising your claim to what the account says to “only one person there”?

I have revised nothing. I wrote this several years ago after researching the different accounts from several sources.

Texan, where are you getting your sources, and why do you keep changing your claim about what the accounts say? It’s hard to respond to your criticisms, when they keep changing.

The only thing continually changing is LDS doctrine, but that is for a different thread (ss)

Again, the link I posted above to the source text, shows us that neither account uses the word “just”. And now that I look again, neither account makes the claim of “only one person”. Texan, you seem to be having a problem accurately relating what the different accounts actually say. I’m sure you’re not trying to be intentionally misleading here, but obviously something is going on.

No. Nothing is going on. Well, nothing other than a man who has several versions of an alleged vision

Wait a minute, Nicea. I’m not sure you understand what a contradiction is. Let’s say I tell a friend at lunch today, “I was arguing with a Catholic about contradictions this morning”. Then later this evening, I tell my wife “I was arguing online with Catholics about first vision accounts”. Have I contradicted myself? Have I lied? Of course I haven’t. Even though only one account says anything about being online, both accounts are correct. Even though one account mentions one Catholic, and the other mentions several, both accounts are correct.

bad analogy. Let me help you out.

Let’s say I tell a friend at lunch today, “I was arguing with a Catholic about contradictions this morning and they said there are contradictions in the first vision”. Then later this evening, I tell my wife "I was arguing last week with Catholics about first vision accounts and they said God would forgive my sins ". Have I contradicted myself? Have I lied? Of course I have.
Click to expand...
 
Just so everyone understands…

This is a contradiction:

“I went to lunch with my friend James today” vs. “I didn’t go to lunch with my friend James today.”

This is NOT a contradiction:

“I went to lunch with my friend James today” vs. “I went to lunch with my friend Peter today” since it is possible that I could have gone to lunch with both. A contradiction occurs when it is logically impossible to reconcile two statements.

Joseph Smith’s vision accounts do indeed contain contradictions. For example, it is impossible to be both 14 and 16 at the same time, but there are certain aspects of his visions that cannot be labeled contradictory. For example, in one vision Smith claims to have seen Christ; in another he claims to have seen Christ and God the Father. These two statements are only contradictory if Smith said “when I saw Christ I only saw Christ.” Otherwise it is not contradictory, but only problematic. The issue of the first vision accounts has been considered here:

comparativereligion32.blogspot.com/2013/03/joseph-smiths-first-vision.html
 
truthseeker32 said:
Just so everyone understands…

This is a contradiction:

“I went to lunch with my friend James today” vs. “I didn’t go to lunch with my friend James today.”

This is NOT a contradiction:

“I went to lunch with my friend James today” vs. “I went to lunch with my friend Peter today” since it is possible that I could have gone to lunch with both. A contradiction occurs when it is logically impossible to reconcile two statements.

Joseph Smith’s vision accounts do indeed contain contradictions. For example, it is impossible to be both 14 and 16 at the same time, but there are certain aspects of his visions that cannot be labeled contradictory. For example, in one vision Smith claims to have seen Christ; in another he claims to have seen Christ and God the Father. These two statements are only contradictory if Smith said “when I saw Christ I only saw Christ.” Otherwise it is not contradictory, but only problematic. The issue of the first vision accounts has been considered here:

comparativereligion32.blogspot.com/2013/03/joseph-smiths-first-vision.html
Click to expand...
I disagree. As a person who deals daily with testimony, if a person testifies 9 different ways in the same way Joe did about his first vision, the attorney would explained away the differences using your explanation would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Those are contradictions
 
TexanKnight said:
I disagree. As a person who deals daily with testimony, if a person testifies 9 different ways in the same way Joe did about his first vision, the attorney would explained away the differences using your explanation would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Those are contradictions
Click to expand...
With respect, TK, this isn’t an issue about opinion. What a contradiction is has been defined as two statements that cannot be logically reconciled. You can disagree with this statement all you want, just as I can believe dogs are reptiles. It doesn’t change what is and isn’t.

If we are going to accuse Smith of contradiction we need to point to actual contradictions. You seem to be labeling certain aspects of Smith’s testimonies that aren’t actually contradictions as such. If we apply your criticism fairly, then we must also conclude that the gospel accounts of the resurrection contradict one another, since they differ in who was present at the tomb.
 
NeuroTypical said:
Wait - your first claim was the phrase “just angels”. Now you are revising your claim to what the account says to “only one person there”?

Texan, where are you getting your sources, and why do you keep changing your claim about what the accounts say? It’s hard to respond to your criticisms, when they keep changing.

And again, I need to ask you a second time to clarify which 1835 account supposedly says “just angels” or “only one person there”.

Again, the link I posted above to the source text, shows us that neither account uses the word “just”. And now that I look again, neither account makes the claim of “only one person”. Texan, you seem to be having a problem accurately relating what the different accounts actually say. I’m sure you’re not trying to be intentionally misleading here, but obviously something is going on.

Wait a minute, Nicea. I’m not sure you understand what a contradiction is. Let’s say I tell a friend at lunch today, “I was arguing with a Catholic about contradictions this morning”. Then later this evening, I tell my wife “I was arguing online with Catholics about first vision accounts”. Have I contradicted myself? Have I lied? Of course I haven’t. Even though only one account says anything about being online, both accounts are correct. Even though one account mentions one Catholic, and the other mentions several, both accounts are correct. Even though I tell one person I’m arguing about contradictions, and I tell another person I’m arguing about first vision accounts, both accounts are correct.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Nicea325
And who cares if the word “just” is not in either of them. Remove it and says: Angels
Click to expand...
and the other account reads: Two unidentified personages and many angels
Click to expand...
How could you not see the contradictions?
Click to expand...
Nope…sorry, it is contradiction. The stories do not jive and are in clear contradictions.

Scenario 1:

I saw just men rob the bank across the street.

Meaning what? ONLY men pulled the heist.

Scenario 2:

I saw **two unidentified personages **and **many women **rob the bank across the street.

Meaning what? Two unidentifed personages (could have been men or women or unknown entities) and many women pull off the heist.

Now those two scenarios are NOT contradictions?
 
truthseeker32 said:
With respect, TK, this isn’t an issue about opinion. What a contradiction is has been defined as two statements that cannot be logically reconciled. You can disagree with this statement all you want, just as I can believe dogs are reptiles. It doesn’t change what is and isn’t.

If we are going to accuse Smith of contradiction we need to point to actual contradictions. You seem to be labeling certain aspects of Smith’s testimonies that aren’t actually contradictions as such. If we apply your criticism fairly, then we must also conclude that the gospel accounts of the resurrection contradict one another, since they differ in who was present at the tomb.
Click to expand...
I did not give opinion. I gave fact.

His statements are contradictions. You can sweeten it and justify it all you want. It changes nothing
 
truthseeker32 said:
With respect, TK, this isn’t an issue about opinion. What a contradiction is has been defined as two statements that cannot be logically reconciled. You can disagree with this statement all you want, just as I can believe dogs are reptiles. It doesn’t change what is and isn’t.

If we are going to accuse Smith of contradiction we need to point to actual contradictions. You seem to be labeling certain aspects of Smith’s testimonies that aren’t actually contradictions as such. If we apply your criticism fairly, then we must also conclude that the gospel accounts of the resurrection contradict one another, since they differ in who was present at the tomb.
Click to expand...
Bad comparison to use Jesus resurrection and Mr. Joey…bad…bad!
 
If we add the information regarding Smith’s changing doctrines of deity, it can be seen that the corruption of all churches appears in the accounts as Smith’s doctrines regarding deity deviates from Christian doctrines. The changing versions of the first vision align like so:

Monotheism (modalism): Book of Mormon (1830), the Book of Moses (1830-31), and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (1833).

1832 vision account: Who was there- The Lord
Religious Corruption- Not mentioned

The original 1830 text of the Book of Mormon reflects a doctrine of monotheism.

Binitarianism: Lectures on Faith*, approved for inclusion in the Doctrine & Covenants (1835); In 1834-35, during the Kirtland, Ohio period, Joseph Smith made a major departure from the Book of Mormon emphasis that the Father and Son are the same person. While still apparently maintaining that there is only one God (monotheism), he began to teach that there are two persons within the Godhead — the Father and the Son.

A question and answer section in Lecture Five confirms its binitarian view of the God:

Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
A. Two: the Father and the Son.

According to the Lectures on Faith, the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit (the two terms were not distinguished at this stage), is not a person, but is the shared “mind” of the Father and Son.

1835 vision account (1): Who was there- Two unidentified personages and many angels
Religious Corruption- Not mentioned

1835 vision account (2): Who was there- Just Angels
Religious Corruption- Not mentioned

Move toward plurality of Gods: D&C 121 (1839); Plurality of Gods not explicitly defined as doctrine, but the possibility hinted at: God shall give you knowledge by his Holy Spirit . . . A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest (D& C 121:26,28).

1840 vision account: Who was there- Two unidentified personages who looked exactly alike
Religious Corruption- Churches teaching incorrect doctrines

Plurality of Gods: Chapters 4-5 of the Book of Abraham (1842) Unambiguous doctrinal declarations on the plurality of Gods.

1842 vision account: Who was there- Two personages
Religious Corruption- All sects corrupt

1843 vision account: Who was there- Two personages
Religious Corruption- All sects corrupt
Regression of Gods: (1844) Related to the plurality of Gods, is Smith’s teachings that Heavenly Father is an exalted man who also has a Father. 1844 sermon recorded in the History of the Church:

I want to reason a little on this subject [that God himself has a father]. I learned it by translating the [Book of Abraham] papyrus that is now in my house. I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven . . . If Abraham reasoned thus — If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also.

1844 vision account: Who was there- Two personages, one has light complexion and blue eyes (reflects an idea of inheritance of physical traits)
Religious Corruption- All sects corrupt
As a side note: The argument can be made that Smith’s doctrines of deity were a progression of understanding. However, if we look at the chronological order of Smith’s changing doctrines of deity, it goes like this:

2000 B.C. Book of Abraham 4:3-7 Plurality of Gods
1400 B.C. Book of Moses 1:6; 2:3-7 Monotheism
600 B.C. to A.D. 400 Book of Mormon Alma 11:26-29 Modalistic Monotheism
A.D. 1830 Early (April 1830) Doctrine & Covenants 20:17, 19, 28 Monotheism
A.D. 1830 Joseph Smith Translation Modalistic Monotheism
A.D. 1834-1835 Lectures on Faith, 5th Lecture Binatarian Monotheism, or Bitheism
A.D. 1839 Later (March 1839) Doctrine & Covenants 121:26, 28, 32 Possibility of Plurality of gods
A.D. 1839-1843 Doctrine & Covenants 131:17-18; 132:20, 37 Plurality of gods (but unlike in the Book of Abraham)
A.D. 1844 King Follet Discourse Plurality of Gods

Which is not a progressive revelation of God about Himself through time, but jumbled, as though God is unsure of His own nature.
  • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition.
 
truthseeker32 said:
With respect, TK, this isn’t an issue about opinion. What a contradiction is has been defined as two statements that cannot be logically reconciled. You can disagree with this statement all you want, just as I can believe dogs are reptiles. It doesn’t change what is and isn’t.

If we are going to accuse Smith of contradiction we need to point to actual contradictions. You seem to be labeling certain aspects of Smith’s testimonies that aren’t actually contradictions as such. If we apply your criticism fairly, then we must also conclude that the gospel accounts of the resurrection contradict one another, since they differ in who was present at the tomb.
Click to expand...
There is a difference in one person giving nine different accounts, and four people giving four different accounts. If you are a witness in court, and give NINE different accounts of the same event, your testimony would be meaningless at best, a field day for the other side at worst. If four people all give the exact, same account in court, we would suspect collusion.

There is also a difference when looked at in the form of literary criticism. The authors of the NT were not concerned with exact facts of who who was there, not there, they were concerned with conveying the truth about Jesus Christ and His work among us. In the culture, as can be seen throughout the OT and NT, contradictory facts are irrelevant to the message that is being conveyed. Who is present at an event is relevant to what is being taught or portrayed about Jesus. There is no other relevance to the “extra cast” (so to speak). Regardless, the message itself, remains the same.

With Smith’s changing visions, the message changes. Both in the number of persons, which conveys a message about the nature of God Himself, and the reported message coming from the persons in the vision. Thus, the messages change. Is God ONE LORD, or two personages, one with blue eyes? Are all churches corrupt?

In cultural context, our modern culture expects that facts align exactly every time (even when that expecation is unrealistic in terms of human behavior, physiology and psychology). Applying modern expectations to the Bible will never work. The Bible is not a historical account, as we expect in modern historical accounts. It was never written as such. Mormonism claims Smith’s vision is a modern historical account, as they teach it. (As well as claiming the Book of Mormon is a historical account, but that’s another story.)
 
RebeccaJ said:
There is a difference in one person giving nine different accounts, and four people giving four different accounts. If you are a witness in court, and give NINE different accounts of the same event, your testimony would be meaningless at best, a field day for the other side at worst. If four people all give the exact, same account in court, we would suspect collusion.

There is also a difference when looked at in the form of literary criticism. The authors of the NT were not concerned with exact facts of who who was there, not there, they were concerned with conveying the truth about Jesus Christ and His work among us. In the culture, as can be seen throughout the OT and NT, contradictory facts are irrelevant to the message that is being conveyed. The message itself, remains the same.

With Smith’s changing visions, the message changes. Both in the number of persons, which conveys a message about the nature of God Himself, and the reported message coming from the persons in the vision. Thus, the messages change.

In cultural context, our modern culture expects that facts align exactly every time (even when that expecation is unrealistic in terms of human behavior, physiology and psychology). Applying modern expectations to the Bible will never work. The Bible is not a historical account, as we expect in modern historical accounts. It was never written as such. Mormonism claims Smith’s vision is a modern historical account, as they teach it. (As well as claiming the Book of Mormon is a historical account, but that’s another story.)
Click to expand...
it is a typical LDS tactic to compare like that. They compare a man giving 9 versions to 4 men giving one version each…somehow, that is similar…
 
TexanKnight said:
it is a typical LDS tactic to compare like that. They compare a man giving 9 versions to 4 men giving one version each…somehow, that is similar…
Click to expand...
It is the standard Mormon apologetic response, which I generally find are not very well thought out. 😃
 
A few things that strike me…
  1. Why on earth would he say in ANY version that he saw angels and not mention that he saw God incarnate? God’s kind of a big deal. If it’s not an outright contradiction, I’d say it’s a “contradiction by omission”. Why wasn’t Smith just upfront with that HUGE detail every time he told the story? Small details are one thing, but come on- “forgetting” to mention that you saw God and Jesus face to face? Really?
  2. It really seems like a story that just naturally evolved. Hasn’t everyone at one point or another exaggerated a story a little bit for one reason or another? Smith was just a boy when all of this started. Let’s give him some props for imagination, but we must realize that’s what it was- some fantastic storytelling by a boy that probably enjoyed the attention it brought.
The LDS people generally view Smith as an infallible, holy man. Facing the fact that he couldn’t even remember the first vision story well enough to keep it consistent would be a hard thing to do. My heart goes out to those LDS that feel like their only option is to defend it, but are having a difficult time figuring out how to do so.
 
SpeSalvi said:
A few things that strike me…
  1. Why on earth would he say in ANY version that he saw angels and not mention that he saw God incarnate? God’s kind of a big deal. If it’s not an outright contradiction, I’d say it’s a “contradiction by omission”. Why wasn’t Smith just upfront with that HUGE detail every time he told the story? Small details are one thing, but come on- “forgetting” to mention that you saw God and Jesus face to face? Really?
  2. It really seems like a story that just naturally evolved. Hasn’t everyone at one point or another exaggerated a story a little bit for one reason or another? Smith was just a boy when all of this started. Let’s give him some props for imagination, but we must realize that’s what it was- some fantastic storytelling by a boy that probably enjoyed the attention it brought.
The LDS people generally view Smith as an infallible, holy man. Facing the fact that he couldn’t even remember the first vision story well enough to keep it consistent would be a hard thing to do. My heart goes out to those LDS that feel like their only option is to defend it, but are having a difficult time figuring out how to do so.
Click to expand...
keep in mind, lots of folks in that area were claiming to have visions of God and Jesus. Joe jumped on that bandwagon and his got the most followers
 
Nicea325 said:
Nope…sorry, it is contradiction. The stories do not jive and are in clear contradictions.

Scenario 1:
I saw just men rob the bank across the street.

Meaning what? ONLY men pulled the heist.

Scenario 2:
I saw **two unidentified personages **and **many women **rob the bank across the street.

Meaning what? Two unidentifed personages (could have been men or women or unknown entities) and many women pull off the heist.
Click to expand...
So, your two scenarios do indeed contradict each other. But again, (for the third time now), the word “just” does NOT appear in Joseph’s accounts. I see you are bolding it - but what you are bolding, is a word that TexasKnight claimed is there, and not actually a word that Joseph put there. Nowhere, in either 1835 account, does Joseph use the words “just” or “only” when talking about who appeared.

If he did, please point them out, because yes indeed, that would seem to indicate a contradiction. Got link? Got source? Got image of the document? I’d love to see them.

[Edit: I’m heading home for the weekend, and will likely not be online much until Tuesday.]
 
NeuroTypical said:
So, your two scenarios do indeed contradict each other. But again, (for the third time now), the word “just” does NOT appear in Joseph’s accounts. I see you are bolding it - but what you are bolding, is a word that TexasKnight claimed is there, and not actually a word that Joseph put there. Nowhere, in either 1835 account, does Joseph use the words “just” or “only” when talking about who appeared.

If he did, please point them out, because yes indeed, that would seem to indicate a contradiction. Got link? Got source? Got image of the document? I’d love to see them.
Click to expand...
I think you are throwing red herrings out there simply because you know anything else is a losing proposition. You seemed focused on one of the versions, without thinking of the others.

Again, I WROTE what I posted. I said “just angels” because in HIS versions, all he mentioned was Angels. He did not mention God or Jesus or even “personages”…so, stop obsessing…
 
NeuroTypical said:
So, your two scenarios do indeed contradict each other. But again, (for the third time now), the word “just” does NOT appear in Joseph’s accounts. I see you are bolding it - but what you are bolding, is a word that TexasKnight claimed is there, and not actually a word that Joseph put there. Nowhere, in either 1835 account, does Joseph use the words “just” or “only” when talking about who appeared.

If he did, please point them out, because yes indeed, that would seem to indicate a contradiction. Got link? Got source? Got image of the document? I’d love to see them.

[Edit: I’m heading home for the weekend, and will likely not be online much until Tuesday.]
Click to expand...
I am sorry,but I am only posting what was given here by TexanKnight and he being a former LDS I do believe has those links. I was only trying to show how the information he provided shows clear contradictions.
 
Nicea325 said:
I am sorry,but I am only posting what was given here by TexanKnight and he being a former LDS I do believe has those links. I was only trying to show how the information he provided shows clear contradictions.
Click to expand...
and you are correct on all counts
 
Sigh…the poster from the other thread was adamant that the versions were not contradictory and told me to prove it. I started this thread for him…he never showed up to defend his statements.

what does that tell you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top