The Nine First Visions

  • Thread starter Thread starter SirThomasMore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SirThomasMore

Guest
VERSION ONE
Code: 
 Block One of the Quilt depicts the 1831-1832 Version, which is the earliest known account in Joseph’s own handwriting.  It has been in the hands of the Mormon Church and was suppressed for over 130 years.  It first came to light in 1965 when published by Jerald and Sandra Tanner.  Paul Cheesman, a Mormon, wrote a Master’s Thesis concerning the accounts of Joseph’s “First Vision” and reproduced this account.

 In this version Smith said he was 16 years old and already knew that all the churches were wrong from his reading of the Bible.  In this story Joseph was seeking forgiveness and it was Jesus alone who appeared to him and granted him pardon.  Let’s look at the differences from the “Official Version”:
  1. Joseph is 16 years old
  2. Already knew churches were wrong
  3. Joseph was seeking forgiveness
  4. Jesus alone appeared to him
VERSION TWO
Code: 
 Block Two of the Quilt portrays the 1835 Version of the “First Vision” that Joseph dictated to Oliver Cowdery and was published in the Mormon newspaper Messenger & Advocate (February 1835 pp. 78-79).

 In this telling, Joseph claimed to be 17 years old.  The Revival that supposedly happened in 1820 is placed at 1823.  Joseph wonders whether a Supreme Being exists and whether his sins could be forgiven.  Instead of Jesus appearing as in the 1831-1832 Version, “A Messenger From God” appears and forgives his sins.  Let’s look at the differences from the “Official Version”:
  1. Joseph is 17 years old
  2. Revival in 1823 vice 1820
  3. Joseph wonders whether a Supreme Being

    exists
  4. Joseph wonders whether his sins could be

    forgiven
  5. A “Messenger From God” appears and

    forgives his sins
VERSION THREE
Code: 
 Block Three of the Quilt is from Joseph Smith’s 1835-1836 Diary, dictated by him to his scribe, Warren Parrish.  This version, which was first published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1971, pp. 86-87, gives Joseph’s age as about 14.  Here is the first mention of an evil power which came upon Joseph.  He related that his tongue seemed swollen and at first he could not pray.  The diary states “…a personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame…another personage soon appeared like unto the first…”  Notice here by these statements that the two personages are not identified as the “Father and the Son.”  Also the personages did not appear at the same time as they do in the “Official Account.”  Joseph also claimed to have seen “many angels.”

 The diary continues by saying: “…He testifyed (sic) unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God…”  Note that this statement is in the 3rd person.  If the Father or Jesus would have been those persons in the vision, they would not have made a 3rd person statement – they would have made a 1st person statement, i.e., “I am the Son of God” or “This is my Beloved Son” – like what is claimed in the “Official Version.”  So, in the 1835-1836 Diary account, God the Father and Jesus the Son are absent as well.  Let’s look at the differences from the “Official Version”:
  1. Joseph is about 14 years old
  2. First mention of an evil power coming

    against him
  3. Two personages – not the Father or the

    Son
  4. Joseph saw many angels
VERSION FOUR
Code: 
 Block Four of the quilt represents the 1837 account by Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt, which is recorded in William Appleby’s Diary (typed transcript pp. 30-31).  There are several glaring errors from the “Official Version.”

 First off, Joseph is said to be in his 17th year.  The date of the revival in Western New York is given as 1822 vice 1820.  The beings who appear to Joseph “declared themselves to be angels.”  These angels forgave Joseph of his sins.  Let’s look at the differences from the “Official Version”:
  1. Joseph is in his 17th year
  2. The year of the revival is 1822, vice 1820
  3. Beings who declared themselves “angels”

    appeared to Joseph
  4. These angels forgave Joseph’s sins
Once again the age, the revival dates, who was there and what happened are glaringly different from the official version.
 
VERSION FIVE (THE “OFFICIAL VERSION”)
Code: 
 Block Five of the Quilt portrays the Mormon Church’s “Official Version” of the “First Vision.”  This account was first written in 1838, but was not published until April 1, 1842, in the Times and Seasons, pp. 748-749 (Quite a coincidence that the “Official Version” of the “First Vision” was first published on April Fools’ Day, don’t you think?).  

 This account is the accepted “Official Version” of the “First Vision” and is found in the Pearl of Great Price, which is one of the extra books of Mormon scripture; it is part of the Mormon canon.  Let’s look at the high points of the “Official Version”:
  1. Joseph is 14 years old
  2. An evil power is present at the start of the

    vision
  3. The revival date is 1820
  4. God the Father and Jesus Christ appear

    together, arriving at the same time
  5. Joseph is told all churches are wrong
  6. Joseph is told don’t join any church
  7. All Christian preachers are corrupt
  8. All Christian creeds are an abomination

    Historical records now clearly show that the revival did not happen until the year 1824. None of the early Mormon Church accounts or accounts of individuals (Mormon or non-Mormon) shows a knowledge of God and Jesus appearing to Joseph Smith.

    Joseph claims in this vision that in 1820 he is instructed by Jesus himself that all churches are wrong, their creeds are an abomination in His sight and that all Christian Pastors are corrupt; yet, in 1828 Joseph joined the Methodist Church in Harmony, Pennsylvania, as reported in the Amboy Journal, April 30, 1879. Of note, this date of 1828 where Joseph joins the Methodist Church, according to “official Mormon history,” is one year after Joseph was supposed to have been given the “Golden Plates” by the angel Moroni to translate into the Book of Mormon – 1827.
VERSION SIX
Code: 
 Block Six of the Quilt records an April 18, 1841, interview concerning the “First Vision” given by Joseph’s brother, William Smith, to James Murdock.  This is taken from William Smith on Mormonism as quoted in Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America, Vol 2, pp. 414-415.

 In this account by Joseph’s own brother, who should well have known what happened in that grove of trees in Western New York, once again we have glaring errors when compared to the “Official Version”:
  1. Joseph is 17 year old
  2. No evil power is mentioned
  3. One “glorious angel appeared,” – not God

    the Father and Jesus Christ
VERSION SEVEN
Code: 
 Block Seven of the Quilt presents another Nauvoo period account from a letter by Joseph Smith to John Wentworth.  This letter was published one month before the “Official Version” in the Mormon newspaper, Times and Seasons, March 1, 1842, pp. 706-707.

 In this telling, Joseph’s age is stated as about 14 years of age.  Two personages who are not identified but look like each other appear and “They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of Go (sic) I was expressly commanded to ‘go not after them,’"….  Let’s look at the differences from the “Official Version”:
  1. Age given as “about fourteen years of age”
  2. No evil power is referred to
  3. Two personages – which are not identified
  4. Both personages instruct Joseph (“They

    told me”)
  5. Instruction wording different “go not after

    them”
VERSION EIGHT
Code: 
 Block Eight of the Quilt represents an 1843 interview with Joseph Smith by the Editor of the Pittsburg Gazette which was printed in the New York Spectator, September 23, 1843, and partially published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Autumn 1966, pg 43.  This version is short and sweet, much less elaborate than the “Official Version.”  Let’s look at the differences from the “Official Version”:
  1. No evil power is referred to
  2. The Father and Son are present, yet the

    dialogue between them is different
  3. Joseph asks a single question: "O Lord,

    which church should I join?”
  4. Nothing is said about creeds being an

    abomination, or Pastors being corrupt
  5. Joseph is told to join no church and the

    vision ends

    Compared to the “Official Version” this vision is very abrupt. The “Official Version” is much more elaborate and much more is discussed.
VERSION NINE
Code: 
 The final Block of this Quilt shows Alexander Niebaur’s 1844 diary account of Joseph Smith’s telling his “First Vision” story, written under the date of May 24, 1844.  This version is partially published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pp. 43-44.



 In this account no age is given for Joseph.  Like the “Official Version” an evil power is present, and God the Father and Jesus Christ are present; however, unlike the “Official Version” God arrives first and then Jesus a little later.  This version describes God as having a light complexion and blue eyes.  Joseph is also specifically told that the Methodists are not God’s people.  Let’s look at the differences from the “Official Version”:
  1. No age for Joseph is given
  2. God the Father and Jesus are present – but

    God arrives first then Jesus a little later
  3. God has a light complexion and blue eyes
  4. Joseph is specifically told the Methodists

    are not God’s people
 
If God truly did visit you, don;t you think you would remember when and where it happened?
 
SirThomasMore said:
If God truly did visit you, don;t you think you would remember when and where it happened?
Click to expand...
40.png
Answersplease:
You have an excellent point.

I find it far more plausible that Joseph Smith either made it all up.

Joseph Smith was a money digger who used magic to search for lost money.

What better way to get fame, status, and at least attempt to get money…
than to make up your own fabricated religion.

Joseph Smith started his own bank, but that went sour and he was charged with bank fraud.

Joseph Smith tried to sell the Book of Mormon copyright claiming that he got a revelation to sell the copyright, but the people he sent failed to sell the copyright and returned without money.

Joseph Smith was a con man but not a very professional con man.
Click to expand...
 
I am afraid that Joseph Smith could not win on this one. If you gave the same story to perfection, he would now be called a con man for getting his story right over and over again. On the other hand, he is still called a conman for not rehearsing his story.

Joseph gave specific details to specific audiences.
 
SirThomasMore said:
If God truly did visit you, don;t you think you would remember when and where it happened?
Click to expand...
40.png
Answersplease:
You have an excellent point.

I find it far more plausible that Joseph Smith either made it all up or was not in his right mind.

Joseph Smith was a money digger who used magic to search for lost money.

What better way to get fame, status, and at least attempt to get money…
than to make up your own fabricated religion.

Joseph Smith started his own bank, but that went sour and he was charged with bank fraud.

Joseph Smith tried to sell the Book of Mormon copyright claiming that he got a revelation to sell the copyright, but the people he sent failed to sell the copyright and returned without money.

Joseph did succeed in getting a lot of women.

Joseph Smith got the fame, status, and women.

Joseph Smith was a con man but not a very professional con man.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I love how the apologetics for this struggle. First, they claim he tailored his story for his audience. Lol. So, the truth changed depending on to whom he was talking. Then they try to say that only a con man would get the story the same every time. How odd. People who tell the truth get it pretty near the same every time. People who lie forget details. Does it look like he forgot details in the various versions? Finally, they try comparing to paul. Two versions written by Luke that he gotfrom who k OSS who is the same as nne versions all given by Joseph. It is truly laughable.

As an attorney, Joseph would have been easy pickings on the witness stand. I have shown witnesses to be dishonest when they have only two versions of an ncident. Joseph has nine. THAT would be fun. A litigator’s dream.
 
CLAIM: Joseph Smith gave nine different accounts of what happened during the First Vision. He just couldn’t keep his story straight, even when it came to who his heavenly visitors were.
Code: 
* The first three non-Mormon accounts listed (Willard Chase - written 6 years after the fact; John Clark - written 15 years after the fact; Peter Bauder - written 4 years after the fact) are obviously not about the 1820 First Vision, but rather the 1823 angel Moroni visitation. Either the critics are misinformed or they want to make it appear as though Joseph Smith's first claimed visionary experience was of an angel and that he later changed it into an encounter with Deity to be more impressive—the angel story then being refashioned as a second meeting with divine beings. The records do not support this scenario. 

* The fourth account listed is from an 1832 unpublished history which was written partly by the Prophet himself. Critics focus on the fact that in this text, only Jesus Christ is described as making an appearance to Joseph Smith—the Father is mentioned by name but not as a visitor. But they fail to notice that the testimony given by the Father during the First Vision (which is recited in the 1838 account as, "This is my Beloved Son") is, in fact, referred to in the opening paragraph of the 1832 document and directly precedes the recounting of the First Vision event. And they also do not seem to be aware of the fact that the Prophet deliberately constructed the 1832 narrative to parallel the theophany experienced by the apostle Paul (which accounts for the document's focus on the appearance of the Savior but not the Father). FAIRWiki link 

* The fifth account listed onscreen as 1834 was produced by Oliver Cowdery in 1834 and 1835. The critics do not tell their audience that this two-part narrative began by telling the orthodox First Vision story but then suddenly switched over to the Book of Mormon story because of a written request made by William W. Phelps. When this document is carefully evaluated its usefulness for the anti-Mormon agenda quickly evaporates. FAIRWiki link 

* The sixth account is 1835a. It could also be labeled as the Robert Mathias interview of November 9th. The two personages who are listed as appearing in this recital are obviously the Father and the Son. This becomes apparent when the text is compared to Joseph Smith's 1832, 1838, and 1842 accounts. 

    1835a - "another personage soon appeared like unto the first" 
    1842 - "two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness" 

    1835a - "he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" 
    1838 - "This is my beloved Son" 

    1835a - "he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee" 
    1832 - "he spake unto me saying, 'Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee'" 

* The seventh account is 1835b. It could be referred to as the Erastus Holmes interview of November 14th. The critics cry "inconsistency" when they point out that the Prophet says in this text that when he was fourteen years old he had his "first visitation of angels." But just five days previous—in the 1835a account—the Prophet stated that he saw "many angels" in addition to the two main personages of the vision. Thus, it is proper to say that Joseph Smith's first visitation of angels occurred during the First Vision experience, but they were not the only heavenly beings who were present. 

* The eighth account listed on the DVD is the 1838 recital which was eventually included in the canon of the LDS Church. The two celestial visitants are clearly identifiable in this document as the Father and the Son. 

* The ninth account is from an 1844 book on religions in the United States by I. Daniel Rupp. The statement in the DVD that the two personages in this account are "unidentified" is quite pointless since Rupp's book simply reprinted a slightly modified version of the Prophet's 1842 Wentworth Letter. This letter was published in the LDS Church's newspaper exactly one month before Joseph Smith printed the History of the Church First Vision recital (initially written down in 1838) which clearly identifies the Father and the Son.
The DVD fails to mention a substantial number of additional First Vision recitals given during the Prophet’s lifetime:
Code: 
* 1831 sermon by the Prophet reported by Lorenzo Snow
* 1833 remarks by the Prophet reported by John Alger
* 1834 sermon by the Prophet reported by Joseph Curtis and Edward Stevenson
* 1835 missionary statements reported by Samuel Richards
* 1837 sermon by the Prophet reported by Mary Horne
* 1839 interview with the Prophet's parents reported by Wandle Mace
* 1840 missionary pamphlet published by Orson Pratt
* 1842 missionary pamphlet published by Orson Hyde
* 1843 sermon by the Prophet reported by Levi Richards
* 1843 interview with Joseph Smith published in the Pittsburgh Gazette
* 1844 interview with the Prophet reported by Alexander Neibaur
These eyewitnesses badly damage the anti-Mormon viewpoint on Joseph Smith’s First Vision story because they demonstrate consistency in identifying the visitors in the Sacred Grove.

en.fairmormon.org/Search_for_the_Truth_DVD/First_Vision

I think that this says it all.
 
SirThomasMore said:
Yes, it does. It says the first vision was a fabrication
Click to expand...
I will give you my own take on it. First, no one to my knowledge left because of different versions of the first vision at the time of Joseph Smith because the versions are not that drastic. Also, Joseph did speak about his first vision experiences in sermons…which I referenced above. And if you noticed it is again for the most part what was reportedly said by him. 🙂 The first vision was not that important for him. But what was important was establishing the church and organizing it. This was his task.

The first vision occured when he was a teenager. Not exactly a mature time of one’s life. And that must also be taken into consideration. But the gist is: he claims that it happened. The purpose was to instruct him to join no church and wait. And wait he did.

Now FAIR gave a good rebuttal to your ideas. These things that concern you have been batted around for quite some time. Nothing new.

Should he have been more careful in relating the first vision account…maybe if he were a conman. But not being a conman he really didn’t think it mattered.
 
why_me said:
I will give you my own take on it. First, no one to my knowledge left because of different versions of the first vision at the time of Joseph Smith because the versions are not that drastic.

First, I doubt many knew of all the various versions. Secind, yes, they are VERY drastic differences. They range from how old he was, to where he was , to why he was to how many angels, to how many personages, to what was said. YOu can hardly get more drastic than that

Also, Joseph did speak about his first vision experiences in sermons…which I referenced above. And if you noticed it is again for the most part what was reportedly said by him. 🙂 The first vision was not that important for him.

Sure it was. That is why it took 9 versions to get one they could fly with

The first vision occured when he was a teenager. Not exactly a mature time of one’s life. And that must also be taken into consideration.

With all due respect, that is hog wash. There are things that happened when I was 14 that I remember very well. And nothing that happened to me when I was 14 could compare to a visit from the Almighty. Heck, I will do you one better…I sang my first solo when I was 6. That was 44 years ago. I can tell you when, where, what I wore, and what the song was. And even that was not as spectaculor as having the Almighty visit me.

But the gist is: he claims that it happened.

So did Mohammed…so what? Anyone can claim anything.

The purpose was to instruct him to join no church and wait. And wait he did.

No, the purpose was…well, it depends on which version you buy

Now FAIR gave a good rebuttal to your ideas. These things that concern you have been batted around for quite some time. Nothing new.

No, Fair did the best they could do with a bad situation. They came across like a defense attorney trying to convince a jury that just because their client had three different stories about where he was the night of the crime does not mean his client is lying.

Should he have been more careful in relating the first vision account…maybe if he were a conman. But not being a conman he really didn’t think it mattered.

lol…yeah…the Almighty visiting was just no big deal.

You are simply wrong. I do not say this in disrespect. I have been an attorney for 20 years. I have tried more cases than I can count. It is the liars who never tell the same story twice. Granted, if a story is TOO pat, it comes across rehearsed, but when the stories vary as wildly as these 9 versions, the man is lying.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top