Joseph’s First Vision - 1838 - fact and supposition

[malkie]

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.

"So we should treat what Joseph claimed he saw with a high degree of skepticism."

But, as you confirm, even if we take Joseph at his word, it doesn't fix the problem for the church - Joseph simply did not say what they need him to have said.

The almost inevitable result is that church leaders lie about what Joseph said, or try to deflect from his words, in order to maintain the false narrative.
Naïve faithful members, secure in the knowledge that their leaders will not lead them astray, unwittingly repeat the same falsehoods.
Faithful members who are not so naïve, and see the falsehoods, have to deal with the cognitive dissonance.

Remind me, what is the church standard on being truthful?

[I Have Questions]

Remind me, what is the church standard on being truthful?

Which one? The standard for members, or the standard used by apologists and leaders?

[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.

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 admit I didn’t grasp the weight of your argument at first.

Let me rephrase in my own words for clarity to be clear

- 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.

You are saying that the canonical FV account has been added to by Hinckley to reflect something significantly different, probably in an attempt to reconcile the canonical FV account with later explanations about the nature of God, and he likely did so in a deliberate attempt to “correlate” the changing views?

[Limnor]

But, as you confirm, even if we take Joseph at his word, it doesn't fix the problem for the church - Joseph simply did not say what they need him to have said.

The almost inevitable result is that church leaders lie about what Joseph said, or try to deflect from his words, in order to maintain the false narrative.

Interesting.

So the implication is the canonical FV account refers to the personages as “spirit,” but Hinckley needs the personages to be of “flesh and bone” because that’s the official view of God’s substance?

Didn’t Orson Pratt or someone say that spirit is simply a more refined version of matter? Or something like that, I can’t remember for sure.

Found it:

“All spiritual substance is material, but of a nature more pure, elastic, and refined than gross matter. It is matter possessing the power of thought, reason, and motion.”
— The Seer, Vol. 1 (1853), p. 24

“The substance of which the spirit is composed is capable of thinking, reasoning, and moving of itself… Spirit is only a finer form of matter.”
— The Seer, p. 23–24

Whew.

I’m not sure why Pratt was thinking along these lines, but there could have been some correlation to Hinckley’s effort to reconcile the FV with later thought.

[malkie]

But, as you confirm, even if we take Joseph at his word, it doesn't fix the problem for the church - Joseph simply did not say what they need him to have said.

The almost inevitable result is that church leaders lie about what Joseph said, or try to deflect from his words, in order to maintain the false narrative.

Interesting.

So the implication is the canonical FV account refers to the personages as “spirit,” but Hinckley needs the personages to be of “flesh and bone” because that’s the official view of God’s substance?

Didn’t Orson Pratt or someone say that spirit is simply a more refined version of matter? Or something like that, I can’t remember for sure.

Almost. Joseph referred to the entities as "personages", without specifying anything about their physical or spiritual nature. In particular, notwithstanding Hinckley's "additional scaffolding", he does not claim that they were "of substance" - that is, physical beings rather than spirits. He also makes no claim about their physical constitution - specifically, contra Hinckley, he does not say that they had bodies of "flesh and bone".

If I recall correctly (and I admit that I'm out of my depth here), the "flesh and bone" idea was intended to indicate that these personages did not have blood in their bodies - blood having been thought of by some as the means by which the perfection of the Garden of Eden was corrupted and became the fallen terrestrial world. I found a reference to that idea here:

The fig leaves of Adam and Eve’s own invention were insufficient, for what was actually involved here was the need for spiritual covering, something which would be accomplished only by faith in shed blood (Hebrews 9:22). God graciously provided for their nakedness with “coats of skin.” “Perhaps they silently and sorrowfully waited as God selected two of their animal friends, probably two sheep, and slew them there shedding the innocent blood before their eyes. They learned, in type, that an atonement (or covering) could only be provided by the shedding of blood upon the altar.” (Dr. Henry Morris, The Beginning of the World, p. 77)

CORRUPTION: The Problem Of Evil, Part 3 - The Promised Redeemer
I also remember there being a concept in Mormonism of spirit being a more refined version of matter. I think that this statement has been touted as the speaker (whether Pratt or not) seeing the future mass/energy equivalence expressed in Einstein's famous equation: E=mc²

[Limnor]

Got it.

I have to admit that bits of Mormon thought fascinate me to no end - flesh and bone and e=mc2, just wow.

[MG 2.0]

Got it.

I have to admit that bits of Mormon thought fascinate me to no end - flesh and bone and e=mc2, just wow.

The point I made earlier is that Joseph went through a developmental process in understanding/comprehending both the work and the theology that he was introducing to the world. In regard to the First Vision Joseph’s original account is theologically minimalist. Later leaders, including President Hinckley, built doctrinal structures atop it...structures that reflect evolving understandings of God’s nature, embodiment, and the materiality of spirit.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Got it.

I have to admit that bits of Mormon thought fascinate me to no end - flesh and bone and e=mc2, just wow.

The point I made earlier is that Joseph went through a developmental process in understanding/comprehending both the work and the theology that he was introducing to the world. In regard to the First Vision Joseph’s original account is theologically minimalist. Later leaders, including President Hinckley, built doctrinal structures atop it...structures that reflect evolving understandings of God’s nature, embodiment, and the materiality of spirit.

Regards,
MG

I don’t think the presentation by malkie is that it was theologically minimalist - it has to do with what Joseph claims to have actually seen vs what others have added.

It’s worth restating:

In particular, notwithstanding Hinckley's "additional scaffolding", he does not claim that they were "of substance" - that is, physical beings rather than spirits. He also makes no claim about their physical constitution - specifically, contra Hinckley, he does not say that they had bodies of "flesh and bone".

[MG 2.0]

The point I made earlier is that Joseph went through a developmental process in understanding/comprehending both the work and the theology that he was introducing to the world. In regard to the First Vision Joseph’s original account is theologically minimalist. Later leaders, including President Hinckley, built doctrinal structures atop it...structures that reflect evolving understandings of God’s nature, embodiment, and the materiality of spirit.

Regards,
MG

I don’t think the presentation by malkie is that it was theologically minimalist - it has to do with what Joseph claims to have actually seen vs what others have added.

It’s worth restating:

In particular, notwithstanding Hinckley's "additional scaffolding", he does not claim that they were "of substance" - that is, physical beings rather than spirits. He also makes no claim about their physical constitution - specifically, contra Hinckley, he does not say that they had bodies of "flesh and bone".

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

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I don’t think the presentation by malkie is that it was theologically minimalist - it has to do with what Joseph claims to have actually seen vs what others have added.

It’s worth restating:
[…]

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

Regards,
MG

I'm expecting the church to either support the content of their scriptures, or explain why not. Be honest about it, adhere to the organization's standards of truthfulness.

I'm not expecting the kind of devious mangling of canonized scripture that Hinckley's talk illustrates so well.

But, in the end, I'm not surprised that you seem to be OK with your leaders exemplifying this kind of deceit. When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done.

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan — it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the Kingdom of God."

https://archive.org/stream/improvemente ... 5/mode/2up

It's true that the then President of the church, when challenged on this statement, walked it back. However, any member who publicly disagrees with their leaders - especially GAs - might expect to have their motives questioned, and perhaps their membership restricted or withdrawn.