The First Vision

[Brent]

If you're having an issue with friends or relatives about the honesty of the Church don't have that argument. Instead, direct them to:
http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... mer-1832/1. This will take them to the Joseph Smith Papers and the only version of the First Vision written by Joseph's hand. It will not match what they've been taught, but that's OK the fact it is different isn't the something for you to push, let that ferment. Rather, point out the beauty of a early teen who's fearing for his very salvation, looking for forgiveness, and sorrowing over state of the world and himself.

It really is a beautiful thing. Joseph is in the pit of despair, calls out to God, God personally answers and absolves Joseph of his sin and then gives him a pep talk and sends him down the road.

Beautiful, yes? Not a matter of truth just a touching, intimate encounter with the divine. It's the better story, it's not self-serving and it's the story the Church will be telling in 50 years.

[deacon blues]

When guys from the ward/HP group call to visit, I say, "well I don't want a visit, but I would like someone to come over and read and discuss the 1832 account of the first vision." So far, no takers.

[20/20hind]

I used to think the first vision was really a great thing. Because i was indoctrinated into believing it since i was a child. I taught it to people on a mission. That was supposed to be one of the more spiritual discussions with investigators. Holding up the small flip chart with joseph getting visited. Looking back i think close to 100 percent of the time that part of the lesson was a one sided spiritual experience. Majority of the time it was met with blank stares. And we were avoided for follow up lessons or asked not to come back.

There are different accounts of the experience. And they have promoted the version that best fits the motivation of the church.

I think they are getting a little better at being transparent, compared to; lets say scientology.

[Brent]

The first, in Joseph’s hand version would serve the church best, it's about the issues members currently have.

[Palerider]

I'm sticking with the Biblical scriptures here, Exodus 33:20: "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time.." Obviously there were times when men in the past stated figuratively that they had "seen" God. I think the Apostle John was well aware of those scriptures from the Old Testament when he made his statement. What John is really saying here is that all men who have experienced theophanies with God did so in a veiled or "less than full glory" way. And they did NOT look directly upon the face of God the Father for no man can do so directly. Perhaps in vision as did the martyr Stephan, but not the way Joseph Smith tells his tale.

The fact that Joseph Smith describes his experience as speaking with and looking directly upon both the Father and the Son with no veil between them is a huge red flag for the veracity of his account. The later evolution in the telling of the story, combined with the evolving doctrine concerning the physical attributes of God the Father, only work to confirm our suspicions that this entire episode is as phony as a three dollar bill.

[MalcolmVillager]

I used to think the first vision was really a great thing. Because i was indoctrinated into believing it since i was a child. I taught it to people on a mission. That was supposed to be one of the more spiritual discussions with investigators. Holding up the small flip chart with joseph getting visited. Looking back i think close to 100 percent of the time that part of the lesson was a one sided spiritual experience. Majority of the time it was met with blank stares. And we were avoided for follow up lessons or asked not to come back.

There are different accounts of the experience. And they have promoted the version that best fits the motivation of the church.

I think they are getting a little better at being transparent, compared to; lets say scientology.

I remember a few burning mission discussions where the spirit was undeniably strong. When we asked investigators how they felt, they told us we were weird and crazy.

I guess they were just past feeling right?!

[Abinidied]

I'm sticking with the Biblical scriptures here, Exodus 33:20: "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time.." Obviously there were times when men in the past stated figuratively that they had "seen" God. I think the Apostle John was well aware of those scriptures from the Old Testament when he made his statement. What John is really saying here is that all men who have experienced theophanies with God did so in a veiled or "less than full glory" way. And they did NOT look directly upon the face of God the Father for no man can do so directly. Perhaps in vision as did the martyr Stephan, but not the way Joseph Smith tells his tale.

The fact that Joseph Smith describes his experience as speaking with and looking directly upon both the Father and the Son with no veil between them is a huge red flag for the veracity of his account. The later evolution in the telling of the story, combined with the evolving doctrine concerning the physical attributes of God the Father, only work to confirm our suspicions that this entire episode is as phony as a three dollar bill.

Interesting. Respectfully, I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that these statements quoted from the bible haven't gone through the same evolutionary process as the first vision narrative. I couldn't agree more that the first vision 'is as phony as a three dollar bill'. It's what I believe right now. I don't know if I will still believe that next week and I certainly believed it was absolutely true in it's current version a few years back.

After listening this morning to the new Mormon Free Radio podcast, 'The Amazing Contradicting Joseph Smith', I'm not so sure that the evolutionary doctrine or rather process for determining doctrine is/was such a bad thing. I now have a different view of Joseph Smith (which has also evolved) from Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, to extraordinary savant, to evil pervert, to progressive philosopher willing to contradict even himself in his quest for truth. I still think he was either delusional, meaning he convinced himself his unique talents and abilities were directives from deities specifically intended to save the world, or he recognized and developed a unique formula as a way to make bank beyond his wildest dreams. Regardless, I think the 'evolution' of the first vision absolutely discounts it's authenticity as God-directed. Coming from a scientific background, I very much relate to this podcasts version of Joseph Smith. Again, this is how I see it right now. Don't know what I'll think down the road as new info comes to light.

Here's the link to the podcast. It's absolutely stunning. It exposes the current and historic church in a way I haven't heard anywhere else. Simply one of the most powerful podcasts I've ever heard while working through my faith crisis.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/ ... eph-smith/

[Palerider]

Respectfully, I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that these statements quoted from the bible haven't gone through the same evolutionary process as the first vision narrative.

The LDS approach to the Bible seems to be one of cherry picking what supports their doctrine and then spinning, re-interpreting or just plain avoiding anything that doesn't. I like being able to use the Biblical scriptures to defend my position because I think they have much more depth and power than the LDS give them credit for. So in that sense I think Mormons are forced to give respect to a well thought out scriptural exegesis that gives them pause about their own doctrine.

That being said, the more I study the Biblical scriptures even from a more conservative point of view, the more I realize that they represent what men of those epochs were able to comprehend at the time. As an example I recently read that as one progresses through the genealogies of the Old Testament there are times where numerous generations are skipped in the patriarchal lineages. In other words, the scripture may say that (let's just say) James was the father of Judah who begat Joseph, when in reality there might have been 3 or four generations that were skipped between Judah and Joseph and Judah may have actually been Joseph's great, great, great, granddaddy.

The upshot is that the Bible in some ways can't be taken quite as literally as some would like to but if given the time and study it deserves it actually makes a lot more sense than people think, who only scratch the surface.

For instance, if you were to take this issue of skipping generations when attempting to calculate the times both pre and post flood, one could see that there may be many generations or hundreds (maybe thousands or tens of thousands) of years that could have past both before and after the flood that have gone unaccounted for. So even though some say there is no evidence of a "global" flood I think there is evidence for nearly global catastrophes that very well would have involved an unimaginable flood. To wit, an asteroid strike similar to one that wiped out the dinosaurs. There seems to be evidence for a number of those occurrences. Did it happen that way? I have no idea. But one still has to stop and wonder why nearly every ancient culture on every continent has this odd "flood mythology" in their background even before they were exposed to the Bible.

So I see the Bible as being a relatively accurate yet naïve record of things that have occurred with regards to earth, God and man, but one that can lead to difficulties when viewed through eyes that are used to empirical and technological measurements of accuracy.

For me the challenge isn't, "Well, how can we tell what parts of the Bible are true or accurate and which parts aren't?" and thus the need for a "modern prophet". The challenge is can we give God and those peoples of those ages the credit due them in slowly developing a model for human behavior that progressively (and I say that in the pure sense of the word) brings man into reconciliation with God and with his fellow man and contains enough information to provide salvation? Or do we throw the entire thing out because it doesn't reach our standard of exactness that we think is demanded?

My opinion is the communication (or communion) between God and man brings happiness and understanding to the extent that it can be experienced in this life, while "religion" creates bondage by virtue of attempting to control man through uniformity and empty ritual practice. True communication from God brings a desire for unity both with Him and our fellowman.

[Brent]

Wait. Belief systems aren't internally consistant? Mind blown.

[Palerider]

Wait. Belief systems aren't internally consistant? Mind blown.

Feel free to expand........

[Brent]

At rhe end of the day Latter-day Saints aren't worried about which church is true, they're terrified of losing their salvation through the simplest acts. Joseph apparently suffered much the same. So which narrative would your company embrace?

[Palerider]

At rhe end of the day Latter-day Saints aren't worried about which church is true, they're terrified of losing their salvation through the simplest acts. Joseph apparently suffered much the same. So which narrative would your company embrace?

I've come to the conclusion that Joseph used the confusion and difference between religions to exploit a need in people to be in the "right way". And he used that desire to be right with God, as a motivator to persuade people to believe in him as a prophet. He used that confidence which people exhibited to slowly create a dependency upon the arm of flesh in the guise of revelation. "Revelation" that took on the character of a "legalist" system of salvation. A system of fabricated ordinances designed to hamstring the unwary.

But I don't think Joseph himself was too concerned about his own salvation (in spite of what he said). He had received enough of a "Universalist" upbringing from his father that I think he figured in the eternal perspective, God would overlook any of his peccadillos because as Joseph knew only too well, the true church was not upon the earth. Temporally he had caught a wave and was just riding it as far as it would go. Of course he suffered temporally from time to time but he couldn't extricate himself from his own addiction to power and the adulation especially of women.

I prefer to embrace the path (not the religion) that the Savior laid out in the New Testament. All of the information necessary for salvation is there for you or anyone to peruse.

[20/20hind]

Joseph was not worried about his salvation at all. He had entered into the new and everlasting covenant (polygamy)132 said as long as you did that you could do about anything but shed inocent blood and you would receive salvation. Never mind jesus and all that stuff. Its all about the covenant.

[2bizE]

I'm sticking with the Biblical scriptures here, Exodus 33:20: "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time.." Obviously there were times when men in the past stated figuratively that they had "seen" God. I think the Apostle John was well aware of those scriptures from the Old Testament when he made his statement. What John is really saying here is that all men who have experienced theophanies with God did so in a veiled or "less than full glory" way. And they did NOT look directly upon the face of God the Father for no man can do so directly. Perhaps in vision as did the martyr Stephan, but not the way Joseph Smith tells his tale.

The fact that Joseph Smith describes his experience as speaking with and looking directly upon both the Father and the Son with no veil between them is a huge red flag for the veracity of his account. The later evolution in the telling of the story, combined with the evolving doctrine concerning the physical attributes of God the Father, only work to confirm our suspicions that this entire episode is as phony as a three dollar bill.

Interesting. Respectfully, I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that these statements quoted from the bible haven't gone through the same evolutionary process as the first vision narrative. I couldn't agree more that the first vision 'is as phony as a three dollar bill'. It's what I believe right now. I don't know if I will still believe that next week and I certainly believed it was absolutely true in it's current version a few years back.

After listening this morning to the new Mormon Free Radio podcast, 'The Amazing Contradicting Joseph Smith', I'm not so sure that the evolutionary doctrine or rather process for determining doctrine is/was such a bad thing. I now have a different view of Joseph Smith (which has also evolved) from Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, to extraordinary savant, to evil pervert, to progressive philosopher willing to contradict even himself in his quest for truth. I still think he was either delusional, meaning he convinced himself his unique talents and abilities were directives from deities specifically intended to save the world, or he recognized and developed a unique formula as a way to make bank beyond his wildest dreams. Regardless, I think the 'evolution' of the first vision absolutely discounts it's authenticity as God-directed. Coming from a scientific background, I very much relate to this podcasts version of Joseph Smith. Again, this is how I see it right now. Don't know what I'll think down the road as new info comes to light.

Here's the link to the podcast. It's absolutely stunning. It exposes the current and historic church in a way I haven't heard anywhere else. Simply one of the most powerful podcasts I've ever heard while working through my faith crisis.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/ ... eph-smith/

Wait. So the theory of the godhead was developer in 1893_1894 and then in 1911 by Talmage, Widstoe, and BH Roberts...mind blown. The holy ghost was not considered to be part of the godhead until this time? See the references from the mormon free radio. This academic research work was done by BYU professors. None of the early beliefs of the saints were what we believe now.

[Palerider]

Wait. So the theory of the godhead was developer in 1893_1894 and then in 1911 by Talmage, Widstoe, and BH Roberts...mind blown. The holy ghost was not considered to be part of the godhead until this time? See the references from the mormon free radio. This academic research work was done by BYU professors. None of the early beliefs of the saints were what we believe now.

Haven't listened to the podcast yet but it's quite obvious from the Lectures on Faith (I think it's in lecture 5? Not sure...) where Joseph describes the Godhead as TWO personages, Father as being of Spirit, Son as being of flesh and bone, Holy Ghost as simply an "influence" not a personage at all, that the theory/doctrine of the Godhead hadn't been established at all by the "First Vision" as we have been told.

Which underscores even more the phoniness of that fairytale.

I had the audacity to ask my mission president about this while reading the Lectures on my mission. Put up a smoke screen.