Joseph’s First Vision - 1838 - fact and supposition

[MG 2.0]

My guess is that you're going to bring up either some inconsistencies or anachronistic associations if one holds to the 1838 version of the First Vision. Go to it!

Regards,
MG

Ummmm - no need for your guessing, or urging - I already did bring up some concerns about the canonized FV narrative. Perhaps you responded without reading them.

But, once again, I'm pleased to see that you appear to accept these statements as facts.

I don't know that there is any real misalignment with the factual groundwork of the discussion you've started, even if there may be a divergence in regard to interpretation or implications.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Ummmm - no need for your guessing, or urging - I already did bring up some concerns about the canonized FV narrative. Perhaps you responded without reading them.

But, once again, I'm pleased to see that you appear to accept these statements as facts.

I don't know that there is any real misalignment with the factual groundwork of the discussion you've started, even if there may be a divergence in regard to interpretation or implications.

Regards,
MG

I'm confused - does that mean that you also agree with with what I said in the 5th part of my OP? - in my opinion, Pres. Hinckley has clearly gone beyond what Joseph said in Joseph Smith-H 1

Great if you do, but a bit surprising.

[MG 2.0]

I don't know that there is any real misalignment with the factual groundwork of the discussion you've started, even if there may be a divergence in regard to interpretation or implications.

Regards,
MG

I'm confused - does that mean that you also agree with with what I said in the 5th part of my OP? - in my opinion, Pres. Hinckley has clearly gone beyond what Joseph said in Joseph Smith-H 1

Great if you do, but a bit surprising.

I don't have any qualms with what you said:

With minimal assumptions, and putting no words in Joseph’s mouth:
while Joseph was praying, two (male?) personages appeared
he didn’t know who either was
he didn’t know what either was - “spirit” or physical
he did not claim that there was any physical interaction with either personage
neither personage introduced himself or the other, except that one said the other was his son
if they had introduced themselves, how could Joseph have known if they were telling the truth?
Joseph and the personages had a conversation about some things Joseph was concerned about.

When we take the 'devotional assumptions' out we are left with only a textual scaffolding of what may have happened. President Hinckley has added to the scaffolding. Joseph's words are the hinge, as President Hinckley put it, not because it’s airtight, but because it’s catalytic. In some ways, one might interpret and/or look at the 1838 'finalized' First Vision account as a theological Rorschach test. It actually invites interpretive analysis knowing that it is to be held up against the other 'versions'.

The thing is, we only have Joseph's word and not external verification of what happened or didn't happen in the grove on that spring morning. You are correct in saying that the original text is rather sparse and epistemically ambiguous. It does come down to a matter of trust as in many other matters dealing with the metaphysical. Who are you going to believe?

As with many other things in the church we see/observe a gradual distillation of some of the original experiences and writings of the First Saints.

Canonization has been the result.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I'm confused - does that mean that you also agree with with what I said in the 5th part of my OP? - in my opinion, Pres. Hinckley has clearly gone beyond what Joseph said in Joseph Smith-H 1

Great if you do, but a bit surprising.

I don't have any qualms with what you said:

With minimal assumptions, and putting no words in Joseph’s mouth:
while Joseph was praying, two (male?) personages appeared
he didn’t know who either was
he didn’t know what either was - “spirit” or physical
he did not claim that there was any physical interaction with either personage
neither personage introduced himself or the other, except that one said the other was his son
if they had introduced themselves, how could Joseph have known if they were telling the truth?
Joseph and the personages had a conversation about some things Joseph was concerned about.

When we take the 'devotional assumptions' out we are left with only a textual scaffolding of what may have happened. President Hinckley has added to the scaffolding. Joseph's words are the hinge, as President Hinckley put it, not because it’s airtight, but because it’s catalytic. In some ways, one might interpret and/or look at the 1838 'finalized' First Vision account as a theological Rorschach test. It actually invites interpretive analysis knowing that it is to be held up against the other 'versions'.

The thing is, we only have Joseph's word and not external verification of what happened or didn't happen in the grove on that spring morning. You are correct in saying that the original text is rather sparse and epistemically ambiguous. It does come down to a matter of trust as in many other matters dealing with the metaphysical. Who are you going to believe?

As with many other things in the church we see/observe a gradual distillation of some of the original experiences and writings of the First Saints.

Canonization has been the result.

Regards,
MG

If, for the sake of argument, I were to believe what Joseph said - to take Joseph's word for what he said happened - and considering the inferences I made in the second part the thread, I'd have to disbelieve Pres Hinckley. After quoting him correctly from Joseph Smith-H 1, Pres H is putting words in Joseph's mouth, and representing Joseph as making claims that the canonized scripture does not contain. You call that "adding scaffolding", I call it deliberate dishonesty.

But if you're OK with that, ...

[malkie]

I'm confused - does that mean that you also agree with with what I said in the 5th part of my OP? - in my opinion, Pres. Hinckley has clearly gone beyond what Joseph said in Joseph Smith-H 1

Great if you do, but a bit surprising.

I don't have any qualms with what you said:

With minimal assumptions, and putting no words in Joseph’s mouth:
while Joseph was praying, two (male?) personages appeared
he didn’t know who either was
he didn’t know what either was - “spirit” or physical
he did not claim that there was any physical interaction with either personage
neither personage introduced himself or the other, except that one said the other was his son
if they had introduced themselves, how could Joseph have known if they were telling the truth?
Joseph and the personages had a conversation about some things Joseph was concerned about.

When we take the 'devotional assumptions' out we are left with only a textual scaffolding of what may have happened. President Hinckley has added to the scaffolding. Joseph's words are the hinge, as President Hinckley put it, not because it’s airtight, but because it’s catalytic. In some ways, one might interpret and/or look at the 1838 'finalized' First Vision account as a theological Rorschach test. It actually invites interpretive analysis knowing that it is to be held up against the other 'versions'.

The thing is, we only have Joseph's word and not external verification of what happened or didn't happen in the grove on that spring morning. You are correct in saying that the original text is rather sparse and epistemically ambiguous. It does come down to a matter of trust as in many other matters dealing with the metaphysical. Who are you going to believe?

As with many other things in the church we see/observe a gradual distillation of some of the original experiences and writings of the First Saints.

Canonization has been the result.

Regards,
MG

When we take the 'devotional assumptions' out we are left with only a plainly worded and canonized description of what may have happened.

• Joseph had every opportunity to say that the personages were "of substance", but, even in 1838, he did not.
• Joseph had every opportunity to say that the personages were "of flesh and bone", but, even in 1838, he did not.
• Joseph had every opportunity to say that the personages were God the Father and His Beloved Son, but he did not.

The Lectures on Faith were taught in the School of the Elders in the winter of 1834–35 - long after the date of the First Vision. They were canonized in 1835, and remained so until 1921. In them "God the Father" is clearly described as a “personage of spirit”, which could easily explain why Joseph did not describe the personages in 1838 as "of substance", or "of flesh and bone".

Pres H said that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, "all else of which he spoke is true". If he believed that, why did he not let Joseph's words - plain in what they said and did not say - stand? Why embellish them?

By the way, I'm sure that Pres H knew that even if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, it does not follow that "all else of which he spoke is true".

Canonization was not the result of incorporating Pres H's going beyond what Joseph said, since Joseph Smith H-1 was added to the scriptures in 1880 - more than 100 years earlier. I see no reason whatsoever to trust Pres H's additions, especially since he was not upfront about the act that he was going well beyond Joseph's words, and must have done so knowingly.

You previously agreed that both Joseph and the leaders of the church effectively put their stakes in the ground with the 1838 narrative and its later canonization. If Pres H wanted to go beyond what was clearly said and done in the past, I believe he should have made it clear that that was what he was doing.

And, I'm sorry, but I'm not the least bit impressed by your appeal to "catalytic" and "interpretive analysis" - looks to me like throwing in buzz words to deflect and obfuscate.

I'll leave it up to someone better informed than I to make the connections to the evolution of the Mormon view of god - knowledge of which is supposedly the first principle of the gospel.

[Limnor]

“it’s catalytic. In some ways, one might interpret and/or look at the 1838 'finalized' First Vision account as a theological Rorschach test. It actually invites interpretive analysis”

If the 1838 account serves as a theological Rorschach, how is an official version ever established?

If the inkblot is interpretive, anyone can claim their own as the “real” one.

My own reading that the FV was borrowed by Joseph from an experience Alvin had with others is therefore just as “true” as Hinckley’s interpretation.

[malkie]

“it’s catalytic. In some ways, one might interpret and/or look at the 1838 'finalized' First Vision account as a theological Rorschach test. It actually invites interpretive analysis”

If the 1838 account serves as a theological Rorschach, how is an official version ever established?

If the inkblot is interpretive, anyone can claim their own as the “real” one.

My own reading that the FV was borrowed by Joseph from an experience Alvin had with others is therefore just as “true” as Hinckley’s interpretation.

To me, it appears that Hinckley was in effect trying to rewrite the canonized words - regardless of their origin - in a manner intended to introduce ideas that were simply not there. Of course, I could not look inside Pres H's head, but I cannot see how he could fail to know that his superimposing of ideas on Joseph's words was deceptive.

[I Have Questions]

“it’s catalytic. In some ways, one might interpret and/or look at the 1838 'finalized' First Vision account as a theological Rorschach test. It actually invites interpretive analysis”

If the 1838 account serves as a theological Rorschach, how is an official version ever established?

If the inkblot is interpretive, anyone can claim their own as the “real” one.

My own reading that the FV was borrowed by Joseph from an experience Alvin had with others is therefore just as “true” as Hinckley’s interpretation.

To me, it appears that Hinckley was in effect trying to rewrite the canonized words - regardless of their origin - in a manner intended to introduce ideas that were simply not there. Of course, I could not look inside Pres H's head, but I cannot see how he could fail to know that his superimposing of ideas on Joseph's words was deceptive.

He certainly appears to have been trying to “spin” things. Given his history in PR that’s not unsurprising. What I would find interesting is to know why he thought he needed to do that. What did he find so unpalatable that he needed to change it? Perhaps looking at the specific things he changed might tell us what the Church didn’t want to stand behind.

[malkie]

To me, it appears that Hinckley was in effect trying to rewrite the canonized words - regardless of their origin - in a manner intended to introduce ideas that were simply not there. Of course, I could not look inside Pres H's head, but I cannot see how he could fail to know that his superimposing of ideas on Joseph's words was deceptive.

He certainly appears to have been trying to “spin” things. Given his history in PR that’s not unsurprising. What I would find interesting is to know why he thought he needed to do that. What did he find so unpalatable that he needed to change it? Perhaps looking at the specific things he changed might tell us what the Church didn’t want to stand behind.

The common First Vision narrative in the church is that Joseph saw God the Father and His Beloved Son, that they were personages "of substance", and "of flesh and bone", even though Joseph says none of this. in my opinion it has become necessary for people to ignore what Joseph actually said, and reinforce the false teachings.

I cannot help wondering what a disinterested person would make of the canonized story: would they infer what Hinckley claims on behalf of Joseph, or would they realise that Joseph was, perhaps remarkably, vague about the characteristics of the personages.

When I was a new member in Scotland, the missionaries gave a fireside in which one of the local members was "accused" of being a Christian and a Mormon, and "lawyers" from the "prosecution" and the "defence" tried the case in front of a "judge". I wonder how Hinckley's case would stand up in similar circumstances.

The Significance of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” in Mormon Thought explains how the church used the FV story:

One of the earliest recorded sermons to make this use of the story was given by George Q. Cannon on October 7, 1883. Said President Cannon,

Joseph Smith, inspired of God, came forth and declared that God lived. Ages had passed and no one had beheld Him. The fact that he existed was like a dim tradition in the minds of the people. The fact that Jesus lived was only supposed to be the case because eighteen hundred years before men had seen him. . . . The character of God—whether He was a personal being, whether His center was nowhere, and His circumference everywhere, were matters of speculation. No one had seen him. No one had seen any one who had seen an angel. . . . Is it a wonder that men were confused? that there was such a variety of opinion respecting the character and being of God? . . . Brother Joseph, as I said, startled the world. It stood aghast at the statement which he made, and the testimony which he bore. He declared that he had seen God. He declared that he had seen Jesus Christ.

After that revelation faith began to grow up in men’s minds and hearts. Speculation concerning the being of God ceased among those who received the testimony of Joseph Smith. He testified that God was a being of body, that He had a body, that man was in his likeness, that Jesus was the exact counterpart of the Father, and that the Father and Jesus were two distinct personages, as distinct as an earthly father and an earthly son.

[I Have Questions]

Yes Malkie. They seem to be crawling over and under what Joseph actually said. We know from many studies that witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. So we should treat what Joseph claimed he saw with a high degree of skepticism. Not only that, we know from many studies that memory deteriorates over time. So the first time Joseph recounted what he claimed he witnessed is the one least likely to have been influenced by false memory. With the last one being the least reliable of notoriously unreliable testimony. What makes it even more unreliable, if that is possible, is that Joseph himself never mentioned such a life changing event until years after it supposedly happened. The account the Church now uses is one that has been embellished and altered via several iterations, and which was written 20 years or more after the event is supposed to have happened.