Joseph’s First Vision - 1838 - fact and supposition

[malkie]

As long as I can remember I thought Identity for first vision was implied enough that people always thought they knew who. I am unaware of disputes in the church in the past. There may be a sort participation of the believers in thinking they know who Joseph saw.

I am unaware of disputes over physicality amongst believers.

What is interesting is that Charles Finney, William Miller, Ann Lee, and others...none of them...reported a vision with both divine figures, the Father and the Son, appearing together. Granted, this was amplified/fine-tuned as time went on, but it is Joseph's account that is unique among all the others in that time and place.

Orson Pratt (primary source) and Orson Hyde (secondary source) were the two that helped flesh out Joseph's original experience in the grove. President Hinckley then built on that.

Regards,
MG

"none of them...reported a vision with both divine figures, the Father and the Son, appearing together"

You do remember, do you not, that in Joseph Smith H-1, neither did Joseph.

When "President Hinckley then built on that" he added elements that were missing from the scripture.

[malkie]

As long as I can remember I thought Identity for first vision was implied enough that people always thought they knew who. I am unaware of disputes in the church in the past. There may be a sort participation of the believers in thinking they know who Joseph saw.

I am unaware of disputes over physicality amongst believers.

I believe (pun intended) that this was because believers had already been taught that Joseph saw "God the Father and Jesus Christ", and so, if they actually read Joseph Smith H-1, they read into the scripture what they had been told.

I don't think that a disinterested person, presented with Joseph Smith H-1, would conclude that Joseph:
1. encountered "God the Father and Jesus Christ"
2. interacted with two physical beings
3. determined that the two "personages" had bodies of flesh and bone

It's smoke and mirrors, in my opinion.

[MG 2.0]

What is interesting is that Charles Finney, William Miller, Ann Lee, and others...none of them...reported a vision with both divine figures, the Father and the Son, appearing together. Granted, this was amplified/fine-tuned as time went on, but it is Joseph's account that is unique among all the others in that time and place.

Orson Pratt (primary source) and Orson Hyde (secondary source) were the two that helped flesh out Joseph's original experience in the grove. President Hinckley then built on that.

Regards,
MG

"none of them...reported a vision with both divine figures, the Father and the Son, appearing together"

You do remember, do you not, that in Joseph Smith H-1, neither did Joseph.

When "President Hinckley then built on that" he added elements that were missing from the scripture.

Orson Pratt was uniquely privy to the talks/teachings of Joseph Smith and his experiences in the grove. Orson Hyde then picked up on what Orson Pratt had already written and published and then added a couple more elements.

Are you saying that Orson Pratt was fabricating what he wrote?

GBH was amplifying and expanding on what Orson Pratt had already put into print.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

"none of them...reported a vision with both divine figures, the Father and the Son, appearing together"

You do remember, do you not, that in Joseph Smith H-1, neither did Joseph.

When "President Hinckley then built on that" he added elements that were missing from the scripture.

Orson Pratt was uniquely privy to the talks/teachings of Joseph Smith and his experiences in the grove. Orson Hyde then picked up on what Orson Pratt had already written and published and then added a couple more elements.

Are you saying that Orson Pratt was fabricating what he wrote?

GBH was amplifying and expanding on what Orson Pratt had already put into print.

Regards,
MG

I'm saying nothing about either Orson. As recorded by Joseph in his 1838 FV account - the canonized version - Joseph did not claim to see "the Father and the Son". He could have, since he wrote the account, but he didn't. He said he saw two "personages".

In your opinion, did Orson Pratt or Orson Hyde have the authority to over-ride Joseph Smith's direct words? If so, there's a lot more explanation needed. If not, well, I think it's obvious that we can ignore them as far as this discussion is concerned.

I see that now you're conceding that Hinckley did more than "amplify" - he expanded beyond what Joseph said, and thus made claims not supported by the scripture.

[Limnor]

I don't think that a disinterested person, presented with Joseph Smith H-1, would conclude that Joseph:
1. encountered "God the Father and Jesus Christ"
2. interacted with two physical beings
3. determined that the two "personages" had bodies of flesh and bone

As a disinterested outsider, I’d have to agree. Reading Joseph Smith—History 1 on its own, I don’t see any clear indication that Joseph was describing what you’ve asserted nor specifically identifying them as God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Those interpretations seem to come later, shaped by what believers were already taught to expect rather than what the text actually says.

P.S. I think Orson Pratt was an amazing fellow, a unique frontier philosopher. He might’ve been wrong sometimes, but he was never afraid to think big.

[MG 2.0]

Orson Pratt was uniquely privy to the talks/teachings of Joseph Smith and his experiences in the grove. Orson Hyde then picked up on what Orson Pratt had already written and published and then added a couple more elements.

Are you saying that Orson Pratt was fabricating what he wrote?

GBH was amplifying and expanding on what Orson Pratt had already put into print.

Regards,
MG

I'm saying nothing about either Orson. As recorded by Joseph in his 1838 FV account - the canonized version - Joseph did not claim to see "the Father and the Son". He could have, since he wrote the account, but he didn't. He said he saw two "personages".

In your opinion, did Orson Pratt or Orson Hyde have the authority to over-ride Joseph Smith's direct words? If so, there's a lot more explanation needed. If not, well, I think it's obvious that we can ignore them as far as this discussion is concerned.

I see that now you're conceding that Hinckley did more than "amplify" - he expanded beyond what Joseph said, and thus made claims not supported by the scripture.

I'm saying that he would have been aware of Pratt's (Hyde's) writings and their proximity to Joseph. I would think that matters. It's not a straight line from President Hinckley to Joseph Smith.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I'm saying nothing about either Orson. As recorded by Joseph in his 1838 FV account - the canonized version - Joseph did not claim to see "the Father and the Son". He could have, since he wrote the account, but he didn't. He said he saw two "personages".

In your opinion, did Orson Pratt or Orson Hyde have the authority to over-ride Joseph Smith's direct words? If so, there's a lot more explanation needed. If not, well, I think it's obvious that we can ignore them as far as this discussion is concerned.

I see that now you're conceding that Hinckley did more than "amplify" - he expanded beyond what Joseph said, and thus made claims not supported by the scripture.

I'm saying that he would have been aware of Pratt's (Hyde's) writings and their proximity to Joseph. I would think that matters. It's not a straight line from President Hinckley to Joseph Smith.

Regards,
MG

To be clear (!), are you saying that Pres H, knowingly, allowed the Orsons' opinions to supersede scripture? Surely it was his choice whether to allow non-scriptural writings to interpose themselves between himself and Joseph's plain words.

in my opinion you are making this worse.

[MG 2.0]

I'm saying that he would have been aware of Pratt's (Hyde's) writings and their proximity to Joseph. I would think that matters. It's not a straight line from President Hinckley to Joseph Smith.

Regards,
MG

To be clear (!), are you saying that Pres H, knowingly, allowed the Orsons' opinions to supersede scripture? Surely it was his choice whether to allow non-scriptural writings to interpose themselves between himself and Joseph's plain words.

in my opinion you are making this worse.

No. I don't think so. You are making a giant leap of conjecture.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

To be clear (!), are you saying that Pres H, knowingly, allowed the Orsons' opinions to supersede scripture? Surely it was his choice whether to allow non-scriptural writings to interpose themselves between himself and Joseph's plain words.

in my opinion you are making this worse.

No. I don't think so. You are making a giant leap of conjecture.

Regards,
MG

I'm saying that he would have been aware of Pratt's (Hyde's) writings and their proximity to Joseph. I would think that matters. It's not a straight line from President Hinckley to Joseph Smith.

So that no leaping is required, can you explain what you meant by that? What effect would his awareness have had? In what way was the line not straight?

In his conference talk, Pres H purported to be expounding on 𝗝𝗦 𝗛-𝟭. He didn't say that he was taking anything else into account - neither Pratt's & Hyde's writings nor anything else. If he was not allowing their writings to take precedence over Joseph's, where did the non-scriptural claims come from?

I cannot be sure, of course, but I doubt that his conference talk was off the cuff. More than likely it was written and rewritten, burnished and polished.

Pres H was not a dodo (apologies as necessary) - he was a PR guy.
Surely he knew the exact sources of the various pieces of information he imparted.
Surely he knew that a (once again!) disinterested listener would expect, in the absence of other references, that each claim was supported by scripture - Joseph Smith H-1, since that was the reference he gave for that part of his talk.

[I Have Questions]

To be clear (!), are you saying that Pres H, knowingly, allowed the Orsons' opinions to supersede scripture? Surely it was his choice whether to allow non-scriptural writings to interpose themselves between himself and Joseph's plain words.

in my opinion you are making this worse.

No. I don't think so. You are making a giant leap of conjecture.

Regards,
MG

mallei is doing no such thing. He’s following the evidence available. You on the other hand…