If you were to pick your preferred version of the First Vision...

[sock puppet]

On Apr 1, 2020 (about 3 weeks into the COVID lockdown, to give you a frame of reference), Jack Welch published on Book of Mormon Central an article, "Celebrating the Restoration Day 3: Differences and Similarities in the First Vision Accounts." At the end are no less than 5 tables indicating how the different versions treated 74 items on which the 9 versions differ. https://bookofmormoncentral.org/blog/ce ... n-accounts

I suppose those still drinking the Kool Aid (actually, it was Flavor Aid at Jonestown), they will no doubt and without question pick the official version.

Those that are ex-mo atheists/agnostics likely would simply disregard all of them an mere fancies of Joseph Smith's imagination, and find no one of them any more or less appealing than the other eight.

For the rest of our valued readers, which of the 9 versions holds the greatest appeal and why?

[malkie]

My very favouritest version of the First Vision is the version canonized in JSH.

16 ... I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

I like this version for two reasons:

• It is official doctrine, I believe - as much as anything can be said to be so. As far as I'm aware, no GA of the church has suggested that it is not completely reliable. And it has been quoted many times in GC talks, by a variety of GAs. I'll concede, for the sake of discussion, that this was a real live actual experience, and not just a dream.
• In spite of all of the ballyhoo made about this description of Joseph's experience, it is notable (along with other versions, of course) in that Joseph does not say that he this was an encounter with God and/or with Jesus Christ! Actually, it is completely open to interpretation as to who the "Personages" were. For all we know, either of them could have been Satan. We don't even know for sure that one was the son of the other - only that the claim was made.

[tagriffy]

For the rest of our valued readers, which of the 9 versions holds the greatest appeal and why?

This is a case where it depends on which "hat" I happen to be wearing, as it were. If I'm wearing my historian hat, I'm inclined to favor the earliest accounts that came directly from Joseph. If I'm wearing my theologian hat, I'm inclined to favor the canonical account.

[Shulem]

For the rest of our valued readers, which of the 9 versions holds the greatest appeal and why?

Jack Welch is a douchebag who hasn't taken all things into proper consideration. No mention of Smith's 1844 Freudian slip! Joseph Smith revealed that his belief of the Father and Son being separate Persons began when he started translating the Egyptian papyrus in 1835. Smith's last documented sermon in 1844 reveals important information and helps us to understand how the 1832 account described exactly what he thought of God at that time and that his beliefs later changed when he got the Egyptian papyri.

Puppet, please see my thread in the Celestial forum and then return and report:

The First Vision

Unfortunately, critics other than myself have failed to capitalize on this important observation in various podcasts that talk about the different accounts of the First Vision. And now we have Welch who is spreading more poop for dodo Mormons to feast on. How sad!

Welch, you're a dodo! You idiot.