Joseph’s First Vision - 1838 - fact and supposition

[Limnor]

I think that malkie is demanding historical fidelity to Joseph’s own words. Nothing more, nothing less.

I see this as a reasonable expectation.

[MG 2.0]

I think that malkie is demanding historical fidelity to Joseph’s own words. Nothing more, nothing less.

I see this as a reasonable expectation.

We should also keep in mind that believers and skeptics are going to be operating under different premises. Believers are coming at all of this with the underlying belief that God reveals his will in an ongoing fashion according to the understanding of men and that He intervenes in human history/affairs. Differences in what Joseph said and what President Hinckley amplified are seen as organic and natural occurrences linked to expressions of memory, audience, and especially evolving understanding. Believers don't see it as purposeful deception.

Critics have a difficult time making it to square one. Revelation from God.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

If “ongoing revelation” can keep reshaping earlier claims, how do we tell the difference between new understanding and revision of facts?

For an outsider, that doesn’t appear as rejecting revelation, it’s asking how you could place any confidence in what actually happened.

I’ll maintain that it is a reasonable expectation.

[MG 2.0]

If “ongoing revelation” can keep reshaping earlier claims, how do we tell the difference between new understanding and revision of facts?

For an outsider, that doesn’t appear as rejecting revelation, it’s asking how you could place any confidence in what actually happened.

I’ll maintain that it is a reasonable expectation.

Retroactive revision, for an outsider to the faith, is going to provide significant tension. I get that. Members of the church tend to look at historical revisions as being examples of a deepening understanding that comes through revelatory and/or natural means. In respect to the First Vision and the developmental history that occurred in its content and explanative power, we/I don't see it as negating and/or erasing that past...it's more like an unfolding of the past. Kind of like watching a landscape come into view as the fog lifts. The terrain was always there, we (church leaders and/or members) just didn't and sometimes don't (present tense) see it clearly at first.

Believe it or not, many members...including myself...wrestle/struggle with consistency, context, and coherence. But we more often than not default towards trusting that God works through time and through people...even imperfect people...to accomplish His purposes.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I see this as a reasonable expectation.

We should also keep in mind that believers and skeptics are going to be operating under different premises. Believers are coming at all of this with the underlying belief that God reveals his will in an ongoing fashion according to the understanding of men and that He intervenes in human history/affairs. Differences in what Joseph said and what President Hinckley amplified are seen as organic and natural occurrences linked to expressions of memory, audience, and especially evolving understanding. Believers don't see it as purposeful deception.

Critics have a difficult time making it to square one. Revelation from God.

Regards,
MG

As I have said a few times, and in slightly different ways, I see the lack of transparency as purposeful deception, and I'm finding it difficult to understand why believers who support the standard of truthfulness that their church espouses are OK with it.

If I'm typical of non-believers, skeptics see no reason to believe that any god reveals his will in any way, or that He intervenes in human history/affairs, because of lack of convincing evidence.

Pres Hinckley didn't amplify - he went far beyond Joseph's plain words in LDS scripture to make it look as if Joseph said things that he demonstrably did not say. Changing "personage" to "person with a physical body of flesh and bone" is not mere amplification. Changing "personages" to "God the Father and Jesus Christ" is not mere amplification.

Why have canonized scripture at all, if someone can just come along and change it without even acknowledging that that's what they are doing? Again, if I can speak for skeptics, I don't find this to be an example of "truthfulness" worth following.

[MG 2.0]

We should also keep in mind that believers and skeptics are going to be operating under different premises. Believers are coming at all of this with the underlying belief that God reveals his will in an ongoing fashion according to the understanding of men and that He intervenes in human history/affairs. Differences in what Joseph said and what President Hinckley amplified are seen as organic and natural occurrences linked to expressions of memory, audience, and especially evolving understanding. Believers don't see it as purposeful deception.

Critics have a difficult time making it to square one. Revelation from God.

Regards,
MG

As I have said a few times, and in slightly different ways, I see the lack of transparency as purposeful deception, and I'm finding it difficult to understand why believers who support the standard of truthfulness that their church espouses are OK with it.

If I'm typical of non-believers, skeptics see no reason to believe that any god reveals his will in any way, or that He intervenes in human history/affairs, because of lack of convincing evidence.

Pres Hinckley didn't amplify - he went far beyond Joseph's plain words in LDS scripture to make it look as if Joseph said things that he demonstrably did not say. Changing "personage" to "person with a physical body of flesh and bone" is not mere amplification. Changing "personages" to "God the Father and Jesus Christ" is not mere amplification.

Why have canonized scripture at all, if someone can just come along and change it without even acknowledging that that's what they are doing? Again, if I can speak for skeptics, I don't find this to be an example of "truthfulness" worth following.

Another thing to keep in mind. There were more things to draw from besides what Joseph initially described and what morphed into the 1838 version. Granted, we weren't there and we don't know what encounters Joseph did or did not have with the divine. In the last sermon before his death, however, we have this:

I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. . . . I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), p. 370.

In 1843 we have this:

Any person that had seen the heavens opened knows that there are three personages in the heavens who hold the keys of power, and one presides over all.

Sabbath address in Nauvoo, IL, 11 June, 1843. In The Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, p. 298.

Joseph may have grown line upon line and precept upon precept in his understanding of the godhead, but his understanding became fully fleshed out throughout his life as he naturally grew and matured.

This paper really goes into it at the 'wonky' level if you're interested:

https://www.andrewmbailey.com/trinity/J ... rinity.pdf

David Paulsen, if I'm not mistaken, was one of the church's more well-known philosopher/academics.

You've brought up some interesting points/dilemmas, malkie. Before 1838 things are sparse. This has been an interesting thread for me. Hopefully for others also. When it comes down to it I think President Hinckley had a number of sources to look to as he put the 1838 First Vision account at the forefront.

Thanks.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

As I have said a few times, and in slightly different ways, I see the lack of transparency as purposeful deception, and I'm finding it difficult to understand why believers who support the standard of truthfulness that their church espouses are OK with it.

If I'm typical of non-believers, skeptics see no reason to believe that any god reveals his will in any way, or that He intervenes in human history/affairs, because of lack of convincing evidence.

Pres Hinckley didn't amplify - he went far beyond Joseph's plain words in LDS scripture to make it look as if Joseph said things that he demonstrably did not say. Changing "personage" to "person with a physical body of flesh and bone" is not mere amplification. Changing "personages" to "God the Father and Jesus Christ" is not mere amplification.

Why have canonized scripture at all, if someone can just come along and change it without even acknowledging that that's what they are doing? Again, if I can speak for skeptics, I don't find this to be an example of "truthfulness" worth following.

Another thing to keep in mind. There were more things to draw from besides what Joseph initially described and what morphed into the 1838 version. Granted, we weren't there and we don't know what encounters Joseph did or did not have with the divine. In the last sermon before his death, however, we have this:

I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. . . . I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), p. 370.

In 1843 we have this:

Any person that had seen the heavens opened knows that there are three personages in the heavens who hold the keys of power, and one presides over all.

Sabbath address in Nauvoo, IL, 11 June, 1843. In The Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, p. 298.

Joseph may have grown line upon line and precept upon precept in his understanding of the godhead, but his understanding became fully fleshed out throughout his life as he naturally grew and matured.

This paper really goes into it at the 'wonky' level if you're interested:

https://www.andrewmbailey.com/trinity/J ... rinity.pdf

David Paulsen, if I'm not mistaken, was one of the church's more well-known philosopher/academics.

You've brought up some interesting points/dilemmas, malkie. Before 1838 things are sparse. This has been an interesting thread for me. Hopefully for others also. When it comes down to it I think President Hinckley had a number of sources to look to as he put the 1838 First Vision account at the forefront.

Thanks.

Regards,
MG

Do I really need to say it again - am I so bad at explaining?

Oh well, ...

[MG 2.0]

Do I really need to say it again - am I so bad at explaining?

Say what you want, one more time.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

If “ongoing revelation” can keep reshaping earlier claims, how do we tell the difference between new understanding and revision of facts?

For an outsider, that doesn’t appear as rejecting revelation, it’s asking how you could place any confidence in what actually happened.

I’ll maintain that it is a reasonable expectation.

Retroactive revision, for an outsider to the faith, is going to provide significant tension. I get that. Members of the church tend to look at historical revisions as being examples of a deepening understanding that comes through revelatory and/or natural means. In respect to the First Vision and the developmental history that occurred in its content and explanative power, we/I don't see it as negating and/or erasing that past...it's more like an unfolding of the past. Kind of like watching a landscape come into view as the fog lifts. The terrain was always there, we (church leaders and/or members) just didn't and sometimes don't (present tense) see it clearly at first.

Believe it or not, many members...including myself...wrestle/struggle with consistency, context, and coherence. But we more often than not default towards trusting that God works through time and through people...even imperfect people...to accomplish His purposes.

Regards,
MG

Understandable.

How do you distinguish between “unfolding” and “revision?”

For example, “revision” happened between the “Book of Commandments” and the “D&C” in the early 1830s - which version is “true?”

[I Have Questions]

When it comes down to it I think President Hinckley had a number of sources to look to as he put the 1838 First Vision account at the forefront.

Are you able to list of few of the specific sources that you think Hinckley used when embellishing upon First Vision accounts?