Joseph’s First Vision - 1838 - fact and supposition

[Limnor]

I don’t think what malkie has said is conjecture, MG. He’s simply following the evidence, and the logic you’ve laid out.

If Joseph’s 1838 account contains the foundational truths, then what Pratt, Hyde, and Hinckley added later reads more like interpretation and insertion of details that aren’t actually there.

Your point about proximity does add helpful context, but it stumbles against your own emphasis on “foundational truths.”

If those truths can be altered or expanded, the foundation may still stand, but it ceases to be a record of what actually happened and becomes instead a foundation myth, repeated and reshaped over time, but no longer identical to the original truth it’s built upon. A distorted continuity, where the foundation endures, but its clarity fades.

Perhaps the embellishment was intentional, to add the weight of specifically referencing the presence of God. But that weight is not present in the original as written.

[sock puppet]

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

Bwah ha ha.

[MG 2.0]

Your point about proximity does add helpful context, but it stumbles against your own emphasis on “foundational truths.”

If those truths can be altered or expanded, the foundation may still stand, but it ceases to be a record of what actually happened and becomes instead a foundation myth, repeated and reshaped over time, but no longer identical to the original truth it’s built upon. A distorted continuity, where the foundation endures, but its clarity fades.

Pratt had traveled and preached with Joseph and heard him recount his early visions multiple times.

The 1835 account included details not found in the 1832 account.

Orson had been a close associate of Joseph since the early 1830's and was part of the inner circle. He likely heard multiple versions...and then some...and synthesized them.

I don't know that we can leave Pratt out of the picture and draw a direct line between President Hinckley and Joseph Smith's earliest First Vision account. There was more to draw from, and he did.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Your point about proximity does add helpful context, but it stumbles against your own emphasis on “foundational truths.”

If those truths can be altered or expanded, the foundation may still stand, but it ceases to be a record of what actually happened and becomes instead a foundation myth, repeated and reshaped over time, but no longer identical to the original truth it’s built upon. A distorted continuity, where the foundation endures, but its clarity fades.

Pratt had traveled and preached with Joseph and heard him recount his early visions multiple times.

The 1835 account included details not found in the 1832 account.

Orson had been a close associate of Joseph since the early 1830's and was part of the inner circle. He likely heard multiple versions...and then some...and synthesized them.

I don't know that we can leave Pratt out of the picture and draw a direct line between President Hinckley and Joseph Smith's earliest First Vision account. There was more to draw from, and he did.

Regards,
MG

Are you saying that Pratt's "synthesized" version takes precedence over 𝗝𝗦 𝗛-𝟭?

If so, I think you need to explain why Pratt's version was not canonized instead. Did the leaders of the church not know what they were doing in 1880?

Here's a simple test:

- Joseph said (𝗝𝗦 𝗛-𝟭) "it was X"
- Pratt's synthesis says that Joseph said "it was Y, not X"

Was it "X" or was it "Y"? Which should the church use and teach as the official version?

Dang - need to workaround autocorrect yet again!

[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

"Orson Pratt (primary source) and Orson Hyde (secondary source) ..." Really?

If we're talking about Joseph's experience, I would have said "Joseph Smith (primary source), Orson Pratt (secondary source), Orson Hyde (tertiary source).

[MG 2.0]

Pratt had traveled and preached with Joseph and heard him recount his early visions multiple times.

The 1835 account included details not found in the 1832 account.

Orson had been a close associate of Joseph since the early 1830's and was part of the inner circle. He likely heard multiple versions...and then some...and synthesized them.

I don't know that we can leave Pratt out of the picture and draw a direct line between President Hinckley and Joseph Smith's earliest First Vision account. There was more to draw from, and he did.

Regards,
MG

Are you saying that Pratt's "synthesized" version takes precedence over 𝗝𝗦 𝗛-𝟭?

If so, I think you need to explain why Pratt's version was not canonized instead. Did the leaders of the church not know what they were doing in 1880?

Here's a simple test:

- Joseph said (𝗝𝗦 𝗛-𝟭) "it was X"
- Pratt's synthesis says that Joseph said "it was Y, not X"

Was it "X" or was it "Y"? Which should the church use and teach as the official version?

Dang - need to workaround autocorrect yet again!

I'm just saying that his synthesis helped amplify and standardize the 1838 themes, based on his close association with the prophet, creating a feedback loop that influenced how Joseph Smith-H was interpreted and eventually canonized. Pratt's pamphet shaped how the vision was received and taught especially within missionary contexts. Hyde's retelling often echoed Pratt's framing.

In essence, Pratt’s version helped the story of the First Vision gain traction and theological clarity. I think that 'feedback loops' are part of the line upon line and precept upon precept process. Years ago, Elder Faust taught this principle in his talk about the 'furrows'.

At this point I'm not sure exactly why you're pushing the point you're trying to make with so much 'oomph'. I'm willing to just let it sit where it is for now with the various perspectives being presented.

If others want to join in and keep it going, great.

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

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

"Orson Pratt (primary source) and Orson Hyde (secondary source) ..." Really?

If we're talking about Joseph's experience, I would have said "Joseph Smith (primary source), Orson Pratt (secondary source), Orson Hyde (tertiary source).

What did the Church of Talmadge need it to be is the real question?

[malkie]

Are you saying that Pratt's "synthesized" version takes precedence over 𝗝𝗦 𝗛-𝟭?

If so, I think you need to explain why Pratt's version was not canonized instead. Did the leaders of the church not know what they were doing in 1880?

Here's a simple test:

- Joseph said (𝗝𝗦 𝗛-𝟭) "it was X"
- Pratt's synthesis says that Joseph said "it was Y, not X"

Was it "X" or was it "Y"? Which should the church use and teach as the official version?

Dang - need to workaround autocorrect yet again!

I'm just saying that his synthesis helped amplify and standardize the 1838 themes, based on his close association with the prophet, creating a feedback loop that influenced how Joseph Smith-H was interpreted and eventually canonized. Pratt's pamphet shaped how the vision was received and taught especially within missionary contexts. Hyde's retelling often echoed Pratt's framing.

In essence, Pratt’s version helped the story of the First Vision gain traction and theological clarity. I think that 'feedback loops' are part of the line upon line and precept upon precept process. Years ago, Elder Faust taught this principle in his talk about the 'furrows'.

At this point I'm not sure exactly why you're pushing the point you're trying to make with so much 'oomph'. I'm willing to just let it sit where it is for now with the various perspectives being presented.

If others want to join in and keep it going, great.

Regards,
MG

I can see why you might be willing to let it sit. The obvious reason I'm "pushing" it here is that there are questions unresolved that I believe a reasonable and disinterested reader might want to see answered.

Here another thought - of course, you don't have to answer this either.

If you had been giving the talk that Pres H gave in the 1998 October conference, would you have been happy implying claims that fell outside of the reference you gave to 𝗝𝗦 𝗛-𝟭, knowing that this might mislead people into thinking that Joseph himself made these claims?

Here's a possible replacement for a couple of paras of that talk - not as eloquent as Pres H would have made them :

"At the time, as recorded in 𝗝𝗦 𝗛-𝟭, Joseph said only that he saw two “personages”, but others (Orson Pratt & Orson Hyde) have recorded that at other times he said that two beings of substance were before him. He saw them. They were in form like men, only much more glorious in their appearance. He spoke to them. They spoke to him. They were not amorphous spirits. Each was a distinct personality. When D&C 130 was added to the scriptures (1843) Joseph said that they were beings of flesh and bone whose nature was reaffirmed in later revelations which came to the Prophet.

Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision as Joseph recorded it in 𝗝𝗦 𝗛-𝟭, along with testimony of others who knew Joseph."

I believe that this is a more honest representation of the known and canonized "facts".

[malkie]

"Orson Pratt (primary source) and Orson Hyde (secondary source) ..." Really?

If we're talking about Joseph's experience, I would have said "Joseph Smith (primary source), Orson Pratt (secondary source), Orson Hyde (tertiary source).

What did the Church of Talmadge need it to be is the real question?

Defenders of the church - including MG himself, I believe - I'd need to search to be sure - often complain that non-members and critics are unwilling to take Joseph at his word.

I believe it's been demonstrated in this thread that it's not always to the benefit of the church to take Joseph's words "as gospel", because his "words" need to be "amplified" (really, supplemented) or "synthesized" in order to support the official narrative. What is canonized does not always fit the bill, and so extra-canonical statements need to be shoehorned in to bridge the gap.

For me, the bottom line as far as Pres H's talk is concerned, is that he either:

• unwittingly, perhaps in a "stupor of thought", attributed to Joseph in 𝗝𝗦 𝗛-𝟭 the later words of others - for example, Pratt & Hyde (I almost typed "Pratt & Whitney' there ), or
• knowingly and deceptively led the world to believe that Joseph made claims in 𝗝𝗦 𝗛-𝟭 that he clearly did not make.

Is there another possibility that I'm somehow missing?

[I Have Questions]

The comments from Pratt & Hyde have to be discounted as heresay and/or Chinese whispers. What some people said Joseph said about something that he only “remembered” a decade or more after he said it happened, and who remembered it differently and in an embellished fashion each time he retold it after that, is not what I would call “credible”.

As per the example that MG gave in a different thread about a man wrongly convicted on the basis of witness testimony that was coordinated by an interested party, you cannot trust witness testimony. Especially when that witness only remembers an extraordinary event a decade or more after it happened, at a point in their life when something extraordinary was needed to regain leadership credibility.

The whole series of First Visions bear the hallmark of somebody making it up as they went along. Pratt & Hyde saying what they thought Joseph might have said, should not be the basis of a Prophets conference talk, especially not when that Prophet deliberately hides the fact that he’s conjecturing up doctrine out of second hand heresay. If the sources were credible, why hide them…