The 1838 account is not just what Joseph said, it’s what the Church chose to say about what Joseph said. There is no evidence he was coerced, or that he later tried/attempted to retract or revise its core claims. When the LDS Church canonized that version in 1880, it did so deliberately. This one was the one that best aligned/fit with the theological and institutional doctrinal development that was taking shape. That choice wasn’t forced...again, it was intentional.
And the First Vision account from 1838 has remained stable for nearly a century and a half. I'm trying to determine what your overriding concern is?
Regards,
MG
By 1880, the 1838 account was the most convenient. And so it was so chosen.
Convenience doesn't rule out sincerity or spiritual discernment. The 1838 account reflects a matured theological framework. Also, all historical narratives involve selection, but that doesn't invalidate them.
The fact is, the 1838 account of the First Vision is the most comprehensive. Your responses seem to take a short-sighted view.
By 1880, the 1838 account was the most convenient. And so it was so chosen.
Convenience doesn't rule out sincerity or spiritual discernment. The 1838 account reflects a matured theological framework. Also, all historical narratives involve selection, but that doesn't invalidate them.
The fact is, the 1838 account of the First Vision is the most comprehensive. Your responses seem to take a short-sighted view.
Regards,
MG
Oh, I think that some of those 1880 clowns were sincere in believing their LDS delusions.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
Convenience doesn't rule out sincerity or spiritual discernment. The 1838 account reflects a matured theological framework. Also, all historical narratives involve selection, but that doesn't invalidate them.
The fact is, the 1838 account of the First Vision is the most comprehensive. Your responses seem to take a short-sighted view.
Regards,
MG
Oh, I think that some of those 1880 clowns were sincere in believing their LDS delusions.
Yep. Sarcasm and mocking those that you may not understand will get you a long way, right?
in my opinion, Pres. Hinckley has clearly gone beyond what Joseph said in Joseph Smith-H 1
To illustrate this, let me first summarise Joseph’s narrative, picking out points that Joseph did actually make, and points on which Joseph was silent. Then I'll respond to several of Pres Hinckley’s statements.
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
Taking each of the highlighted phrases in Pres. Hinckley’s talk, with reference to Joseph Smith-H 1:
“It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another”
- if this is true, then I wonder if there is anybody in the Mormon church who satisfies the “first principle of the Gospel”. I have certainly not heard of anyone who claims to exercise that principle. This may be just my personal failing, but I might expect anyone who has that knowledge and makes use of it to tell the members about it.
Two beings of substance were before him
- Joseph identified them as “personages”, without describing their composition.
They were beings of flesh and bone
- Joseph identified them as “personages”, without describing their composition.
whose nature was reaffirmed in later revelations
- since Joseph did not affirm their nature (at least as beings of substance - flesh and bone ), he could not reaffirm it later
Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. … Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration.
- since Pres Hinckley materially misrepresents the “initial declaration”, might it be that the “entire case” is made invalid?
if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true.
- there need be no connection between whom Joseph talked with and the truth or otherwise of any other statement
The 1838 version was the last significant embellishment by Joseph Smith of his original tall tale.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
Joseph Smith wrote what he wanted in his record of the First Vision.
he had 12+ years to decide what he wanted to say.
he deliberately said what he wanted to say - no more, no less.
I have seen no indication that he was coerced to write the 1838 version, or any other version; or that he was coerced to write the words it contains; or that he ever wanted to retract any elements of the account.
There has been some discussion about whether Joseph may have “enhanced” the account, due to being under some pressure regarding his leadership of the church, but I don't think that really matters.
he may or may not have had the 1832 and 1835 versions at hand when writing the 1838 version, but I’m not sure that it matters either way.
In 1880 the LDS church chose what the then leaders wanted to be the official record of the First Vision. It contains what leaders from then until now have wanted to be the official record of the First Vision.
they had about 35-40 years to decide on the official narrative.
I have seen no indication that they were coerced to select an official version at all.
when the 1838 version of the First Vision was canonized in 1880, the church had had free choice of what version (or what synthesized account) to adopt as the official account. They could choose from four primary accounts given directly by Joseph Smith: 1832 (hidden by Joseph Fielding Smith around 1930), 1835, 1838, 1842. There were also several second-hand accounts.
while at least one other canonized scripture (“The Lectures on Faith”) has been decanonized, I have seen no indication that church leaders, over the past 145 years, have wanted to decanonize Joseph Smith-H 1.
From the various First Vision accounts, we know only what Joseph Smith said about an experience he claimed to have had while praying, some time in his teens.
The 1838 account is not just what Joseph said, it’s what the Church chose to say about what Joseph said. There is no evidence he was coerced, or that he later tried/attempted to retract or revise its core claims. When the LDS Church canonized that version in 1880, it did so deliberately. This one was the one that best aligned/fit with the theological and institutional doctrinal development that was taking shape. That choice wasn’t forced...again, it was intentional.
And the First Vision account from 1838 has remained stable for nearly a century and a half. I'm trying to determine what your overriding concern is?
Regards,
MG
I'm happy to see that you are in agreement about the inferences. Can I assume, since you didn't didn't object to the two preceding parts of the thread (the OP and the "Facts?"), that you likewise have no objection to what I've said there?
My concern will become clear later - for now I'm simply trying to establish a common understanding and agreement first.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
in my opinion, Pres. Hinckley has clearly gone beyond what Joseph said in Joseph Smith-H 1
To illustrate this, let me first summarise Joseph’s narrative, picking out points that Joseph did actually make, and points on which Joseph was silent. Then I'll respond to several of Pres Hinckley’s statements.
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
Taking each of the highlighted phrases in Pres. Hinckley’s talk, with reference to Joseph Smith-H 1:
“It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another”
- if this is true, then I wonder if there is anybody in the Mormon church who satisfies the “first principle of the Gospel”. I have certainly not heard of anyone who claims to exercise that principle. This may be just my personal failing, but I might expect anyone who has that knowledge and makes use of it to tell the members about it.
Two beings of substance were before him
- Joseph identified them as “personages”, without describing their composition.
They were beings of flesh and bone
- Joseph identified them as “personages”, without describing their composition.
whose nature was reaffirmed in later revelations
- since Joseph did not affirm their nature (at least as beings of substance - flesh and bone ), he could not reaffirm it later
Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. … Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration.
- since Pres Hinckley materially misrepresents the “initial declaration”, might it be that the “entire case” is made invalid?
if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true.
- there need be no connection between whom Joseph talked with and the truth or otherwise of any other statement
===========================
What do you think - and why?
Right - I had assumed that by breaking down my "story" into consecutive parts, it might be obvious that I was trying to establish certain points - facts and inferences - before using them to examine the content of Joseph Smith-H 1 and Pres. Hinckley's talk in which he quoted Joseph's canonized narrative and extrapolated from it.
But it's all good - I'm happy to see that MG is sufficiently content with the Inferences that, in addition to confirming them, he even paraphrased parts of the comment in an approving manner.
Facts?
Here are some things that I believe fit into the category of facts:
canonization is of significance in the Mormon church. It gives the stamp of authority to scriptures that other statements lack.
the “Standard Works” is a recognized, authoritative collection of books considered sacred by Mormons.
the 1838 version of the First Vision was canonized in 1880 as Joseph Smith—History Chapter 1 (Joseph Smith-H 1). This was after the canonization of D&C Sections 1–137.
the 1838 version of the First Vision is still (October 2025) part of the Pearl of Great Price, one of the Standard Works of the LDS church.
talks given by General Authorities during General Conference, and / or published on official church channels - e.g., church magazines, churchofjesuschrist.org - while not canonized, and unless withdrawn or contradicted by higher authority, are reliable sources of the official teachings of the church.
For the above reasons I intend to address the 1838 version of the First Vision (Joseph Smith-H 1), and to use Pres Hinckley’s October 1998 General Conference talk, What Are People Asking about Us?, as reported in the Ensign in November 1998, as a wrapper that helps to illustrate some points about the content of Joseph Smith-H 1.
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!
Facts?
Here are some things that I believe fit into the category of facts:
canonization is of significance in the Mormon church. It gives the stamp of authority to scriptures that other statements lack.
the “Standard Works” is a recognized, authoritative collection of books considered sacred by Mormons.
the 1838 version of the First Vision was canonized in 1880 as Joseph Smith—History Chapter 1 (Joseph Smith-H 1). This was after the canonization of D&C Sections 1–137.
the 1838 version of the First Vision is still (October 2025) part of the Pearl of Great Price, one of the Standard Works of the LDS church.
talks given by General Authorities during General Conference, and / or published on official church channels - e.g., church magazines, churchofjesuschrist.org - while not canonized, and unless withdrawn or contradicted by higher authority, are reliable sources of the official teachings of the church.
For the above reasons I intend to address the 1838 version of the First Vision (Joseph Smith-H 1), and to use Pres Hinckley’s October 1998 General Conference talk, What Are People Asking about Us?, as reported in the Ensign in November 1998, as a wrapper that helps to illustrate some points about the content of Joseph Smith-H 1.
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
And implicit therein is MG 2.0 acknowledging that there are in fact inconsistencies and anachronisms in the 1838 account. Yet he still tenaciously "believes" in that which he so acknowledges is inconsistent and anachronistic. MG 2.0's shelf must be made of titanium.
"There will come a time when the rich own all the media, and it will be impossible for the public to make an informed opinion." Albert Einstein, ~1949 "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire
Facts?
Here are some things that I believe fit into the category of facts:
canonization is of significance in the Mormon church. It gives the stamp of authority to scriptures that other statements lack.
the “Standard Works” is a recognized, authoritative collection of books considered sacred by Mormons.
the 1838 version of the First Vision was canonized in 1880 as Joseph Smith—History Chapter 1 (Joseph Smith-H 1). This was after the canonization of D&C Sections 1–137.
the 1838 version of the First Vision is still (October 2025) part of the Pearl of Great Price, one of the Standard Works of the LDS church.
talks given by General Authorities during General Conference, and / or published on official church channels - e.g., church magazines, churchofjesuschrist.org - while not canonized, and unless withdrawn or contradicted by higher authority, are reliable sources of the official teachings of the church.
For the above reasons I intend to address the 1838 version of the First Vision (Joseph Smith-H 1), and to use Pres Hinckley’s October 1998 General Conference talk, What Are People Asking about Us?, as reported in the Ensign in November 1998, as a wrapper that helps to illustrate some points about the content of Joseph Smith-H 1.
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.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
