| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 67.1 | Recalling Past Events | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 11:52 | 68 |
| When people describe events from their earlier life, we have to realize that
they are not necessarily giving a detailed documentary of their life. It is
common for persons to omit details which they think are not of concern to the
persons being addressed. In addition, unless they have been keeping a daily
journal, the accuracy of their remarks is a function of their ability to
recall details from memory.
Consistency in Describing an Event
----------------------------------
As an example of this, let us consider a situation from the Bible in which a
historical event was described three times, and let us see how well the three
descriptions agree with each other.
Descriptions of Paul's conversion are given in three places in Acts.
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined
round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard
a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he
said, Who are thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou
persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he
trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And
the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told
thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood
speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the
earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by
the hand, and brought him into Damascus. (Acts 9:3-8)
And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto
Damascus about noon, suddenly there shown from heaven a great light round
about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me,
Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord?
And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And
they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they
heard not the voice of him that spake to me. (Acts 22:6-9)
At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the
brightness of the sun,shining round about me and them which journeyed with
me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking
unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou
me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said who art
thou, Lord? And he said I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. (Acts
26:13-15)
The first was related by Luke and the other two by Paul.
If we compare the three versions, we quickly see that there are differences
between them. If we consider the account in chapter 9 as the "basic" story,
we gain additional information from the versions in chapter 22 and in chapter
26.
From chapter 22, we gain the following: the vision occurred about noontime,
his companions were afraid, his companions saw the light but heard not the
voice (a direct contradiction with the story in chapter 9), and his blindness
was due to the glory of the light.
From chapter 26, we learn that the light was above the brightness of the sun,
his companions fell to the ground, the Lord spoke in Hebrew, and Paul was
given an overview of his mission.
Should the differences in the three accounts cause us to lose faith in the
Bible? No, of course not. With the exception of the direct contradiction
between chapters 9 and 22 concerning what Paul's companions saw and heard, we
realize that the differences are probably due to the level of detail being
given by the person relating the story. None of the accounts was intended as
a detailed documentary of Paul's experience, and we thus allow for the human
element in Luke and Paul as they told the story.
|
| 67.2 | My Sources of Information | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 11:52 | 12 |
| In discussing Joseph Smiths vision, I am using as my sources of information
the following two books:
1. "The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision", written by Dean
C. Jessee, a member of the staff at the LDS Church Historian's
Office, published by Mormon Miscellaneous, 8865 South 1300 East,
Sandy, Utah 84092, (801) 561-5103, 1984.
2. "Joseph Smith's First Vision", written by Dr. Milton V. Backman,
Jr., a professor of Church History at Brigham Young University,
published by Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, Second Edition, 1980.
|
| 67.3 | My Overall Impressions | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 11:53 | 64 |
| In reading the four accounts of the vision, I believe they have good agreement
with one another, and I don't see any serious conflicts between them.
All of the accounts agree that Joseph was concerned about religion while a
youth. They all agree that he was confused due to the differences among the
various denominations. They all agree that he prayed to God and received a
glorious vision. They all agree that God was surrounded with great glory,
described as "fire" or "light", both terms being attempts to describe
celestial glory with mortal words.
As one would expect, there are differences between them. This is to be
expected when we realize that (a) Joseph did not have a formal education, (b)
he was recalling from memory events that occurred about 10 years earlier, and
(c) three of the four versions were not intended to be "formal" histories; the
1838 version was intended to be a "formal" history, but even it was not
intended to have the amount of detail that we might expect from a documentary
as we know such things today.
Among the differences are the following:
The 1835 and 1838 accounts indicate that Satan tried to overpower him. They
agree that Satan prevented him from speaking. The other two versions do not
mention this.
The 1832 account states the vision occurred in his 16th year (15 years old),
while the 1838 account states it was in his 15th year (14 years old). The
1838 account also used the word "thereabouts" to indicate that the age
specified was an approximation. The other two accounts state he was "about
14"; notice the word "about" to again indicate an approximate age. There is
only one year difference in his age among the four accounts, which I feel is
acceptable considering the time lapse since the vision and the lack of family
records to pin-point his age.
The 1832 account mentions one personage while the other three accounts mention
two personages. We need to keep in mind that the 1832 account did not say
that only one personage appeared, and I do not consider this a difference
between the accounts.
The 1832 account states that his religious interest began at about the age of
12, while the 1842 account states that about 14 years of age he began to
reflect upon his salvation. I do not consider this difference important,
because we do not know exactly what Joseph had in mind when he made those two
statements. The 1832 account indicates his interest extended from age 12 to
age 14, and in the 1842 account, Joseph may have been thinking of the climax
of his interest, or something similar. In interpreting historical documents,
we need to avoid "second guessing" the person being studied. We need to
realize that we have only a partial knowledge of the event and that we can not
read the mind of the person and thus know what he or she tried to express in
words.
The 1832 account stated that he had determined from Biblical study that none
of the denominations were right, while the 1838 account states that the
thought that none of them might be right had not occurred to him. Again, we
have a minor difference due to a hazy memory of his youth. Please keep in
mind that we do not claim that Joseph was without mistakes.
The 1832 account mentioned that Joseph's sins were forgiven, and this was not
mentioned in the other accounts. The 1835 account gave more detail than the
other accounts about the attempt of Satan to over power him, and about the
vision also involving angels. The 1832 and 1838 accounts mentioned that
people did not believe his story of the vision. We need to keep in mind that
Joseph did not claim that any of the accounts gave a complete description of
the vision. People who quibble over such differences are letting their
anti-Mormon zeal override their interpretation of historical records.
|
| 67.4 | Joseph Commanded to keep a History | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 11:54 | 29 |
| In a revelation given on April 6, 1930, the Lord commanded "Behold, there
shall be a record kept among you...." (D & C 21:1). Obedient to that command,
Joseph began a history of his life . The history was begun sometime between
the summer of 1831 and November 1832. An analysis of the handwriting shows
that the narrative was penned by Frederick G. Williams, scribe to Joseph.
This record contained a description of the vision.
In November 1832, Joseph began having his scribe keep a daily journal, and
under the date of November 9, 1835, the scribe (Warren A. Cowdery) described
a conversation between Joseph and a Jewish minister in which the vision was
described.
Five days later, on November 14, 1835, the scribe recorded in the journal the
visit of a man named Holmes who inquired of Joseph about the establishment of
the Church and was given a brief description of the events, including a
mention of the vision; no details about the vision were recorded.
Three years later in 1838, Joseph began preparation of a formal and more
complete history, and his clerk James Mulholland began recording the history
on June 11, 1839. This is the history that I quoted in note 4 in describing
the vision.
In 1842, Joseph Smith prepared a very brief statement on his history for John
Wentworth, editor of the 'Chicago Democrat'.
In discussing these accounts of the vision, I will list and compare the
information given in the records. Because of length, I will not give the
accounts verbatim. Persons wishing verbatim copies can refer to the books by
Jessee or Backman.
|
| 67.5 | The 1832 Recital of the Vision | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 11:54 | 39 |
| This record gave the following information about the vision.
1. Joseph did not have have a formal education but was given religious
instruction by his parents.
2. Joseph became concerned about his spiritual welfare "at about the age
of twelve."
3. From the age of twelve to fifteen he "pondered many things in my
heart".
4. Through searching the scriptures he found that the world had departed
from the "true and liveing faith and there was no society or
denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded
in the new testament".
5. He prayed to God "in the 16th year of my age".
6. A pillar of light brighter than the sun appeared and rested on him.
7. He was filled with the Spirit of God.
8. He saw the Lord in the light.
9. Jesus said, "Joseph my son thy Sins are forgiven thee."
10. He was told to follow Christ and keep His commandments.
11. He was told, "the world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good
no not one they have turned asside from the Gospel and keep not my
commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts
are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of
the earth".
12. Joseph's soul was filled with love for many days after the vision.
13. Joseph rejoiced with great joy.
14. He "could find none that would believe the hevenly vision".
|
| 67.6 | The 1835 Recital of the Vision | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 11:55 | 44 |
| This account, in the words of the scribe, gave the following
information.
1. Joseph "knew not who was right or who was wrong" with respect
to religion.
2. He "called on the Lord for the first time".
3. His tongue "seemed swollen in my mouth, so that I could not
utter".
4. "I heard a noise behind me like some one walking towards me".
5. "I strove again to pray, but could not".
6. "the noise of walking seemed to draw nearer".
7. "I sprang upon my feet and looked around, but saw no person,
or thing".
8. "I kneeled again, my mouth was opened and my tongue was
loosed; I called upon the Lord in mighty prayer."
9. A pillar of "fire" appeared above his head, rested upon him.
10. He was filled with "unspeakable joy".
11. The pillar of "flame" was "spread all around and yet nothing
consumed."
12. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame.
13. "Another personage soon appeared like unto the first".
14. The second personage told him his sins were forgiven.
15. The second personage testified that Jesus Christ is the son
of God.
16. Joseph saw many angels in this vision.
17. "I was about 14 years old when I received this first
communication"
|
| 67.7 | The 1838 recital of the Vision | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 11:56 | 83 |
| In 1838, Joseph Smith began preparing a history of the Church, and be began
dictating it to his scribe in 1839. His reason for preparing the history was
"Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil disposed
and designing persons in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints...I have been induced to write this history
so as to disabuse the public mind, and put all enquirers after truth into
possession of the facts as they have transpired in relation both to myself and
the Church as far as I have such facts in possession." This is the version
that is published in "The History of the Church" and also in the "Pearl of
Great Price".
That history gave the following information about the vision.
1. "there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the
subject of religion."
2. "[the interest in religion] commenced with the Methodists, but soon
became general among all the sects in that region of country, indeed
the whole district of Country seemed affected by it".
3. "I was at this time in my fifteenth year". Towards the end of the
account, he said he was "only between fourteen and fifteen years of
age or thereabouts".
4. Joseph gave serious reflections to religion and had deep feelings
about it.
5. He "kept myself aloof from all these parties [various
denominations]".
6. "I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would
permit".
7. His mind became partial to the Methodists and "I felt some desire to
be united with them".
8. Because of contention among the denominations, "it was impossible for
a person young as I was and so unacquainted with men and things to
come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong."
9. "I often said to myself, what is to be done? Who of all these
parties are right? Or are they all wrong together? And if any one
of them be right which is it? And how shall I know it?"
10. He decided to pray because of the influence of James 1:5 on his mind.
11. This was his first attempt to pray vocally.
12. He knelt in prayer and "began to offer up the desires of my heart to
God".
13. "I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some
power which entirely overcame me and had such astonishing influence
over me as to bind my tongue So that I could not speak."
14. "Thick darkness gathered around me and it seemed to me for a time as
if I were doomed to sudden destruction."
15. He called upon God for deliverance from this power and "saw a pillar
of light exactly over my head above the brightness of the sun, which
descended gradually until it fell upon me."
16. "It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy
which held me bound."
17. "When the light rested upon me I saw two personages (whose brightness
and glory defy all description)."
18. One personage spoke and said "This is my beloved Son, Hear him."
19. "I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all
the sects was right, (for at this time it had never entered into my
heart that all were wrong) and which I should join."
20. "I was answered that I must join none of them".
21. "He again forbade me to join with any of them".
22. "many other things did he say unto me which I cannot write at this
time."
23. He was persecuted for telling others of his vision.
|
| 67.8 | The 1842 recital of the Vision | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 11:56 | 24 |
| This account gave the following information.
1. "When about fourteen years of age I began to reflect upon the
importance of being prepared for a future state, and upon
enquiring the plan of salvation."
2. He found there was "a great clash in religious sentiment".
3. He believed "that if God had a church it would not be split
up into factions".
4. Being motivated by James 1:5, he prayed to God.
5. He "saw two personages, surrounded with a brilliant light
which eclipsed the sun at noon-day."
6. "They told me that all religious denominations were believing
in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was
acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom."
7. "I was expressly commanded to 'go not after them,'
8. He received "a promise that the fulness of the gospel should
at some future time be made known unto me."
|
| 67.13 | Religious Activity in NY in 1820 | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 12:21 | 22 |
| Historians and theologians who oppose the Church criticize Joseph Smith's
story of his vision in 1820. These people say that historical evidence does
not justify Joseph's claim of high religious interest occurring in the area
where he lived. Let's look at the issues involved.
In discussing this topic, I am using as my source of information a book called
"Joseph Smith's First Vision". It is written by Dr. Milton V. Backman, Jr.,
a professor of Church History at Brigham Young University. It is published by
Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, Second Edition, 1980. My goal is to give a brief
overview of the situation, using comments from Dr. Backman. We need to
realize, however, that not all historians (including some LDS historians)
completely agree with Dr. Backman. Historical data is always open to more
than one interpretation. The important point that we must realize is that the
issue is not as clear-cut as the opponents of the Church would make it seem.
Based upon current historical data, there are valid questions that can be
asked about the religious activity in Joseph's area in 1820. Likewise, there
are valid evidences that indicate that there was a high interest level in that
area. When studying history, we must keep an open mind and allow for
additional research to bring out new information.
Persons desiring a more comprehensive discussion can refer to Dr. Backman's
book which contains an extensive Bibliography.
|
| 67.14 | Joseph Smith's Statement | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 12:22 | 55 |
| First, let us review the statements made by Joseph Smith about the religious
activity in his area. In his 1838 history, Joseph said the following.
Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was
in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of
religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general
among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole
district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united
themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small
stir and division amongst the people, some crying, "Lo, here!" and
others, "Lo there!" Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some
for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist. (Joseph Smith--History
1:5)
Joseph said that there was an "unusual" excitement or interest in religion
"in the place" where he lived, and that this excitement also existed in the
"whole district". He said the excitement began with the Methodists, but he
did not say that it began with them in Palmyra. He did not say in what
locality the excitement began, only that it existed in Palmyra and had begun
with the Methodists. He said the interest spread to the "whole district",
but he did not say that the interest spread from his local area to the "whole
district".
In other words, the religious excitement was *not* local to the Palmyra area
but coexisted in a larger area. Joseph additionally said that "multitudes"
in the "whole district" joined various denominations. These are key points.
Joseph went on to say
During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious
reflection and great uneasiness, but though my feelings were deep and
often pungent, still I kept myself aloof from these parties though I
attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit....My
mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and
incessant....In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I
often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are
right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right,
which is it and how shall I know it? While I was laboring under the
extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of
religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter
and fifth verse,...At length I came to the conclusion that I must either
remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs,
that is, ask of God. (Joseph Smith--History 1:8-11,13)
In giving that quotation, I omitted details that do not pertain to the
time-sequence of events. As I read that statement, I get the impression that
Joseph's interest and investigation of the churches occurred over a longer
time-span than a revival period. Notice the following phrases that imply a
relatively long time, because they refer to periods of interest and activity
and periods of inactivity. "During this time of great excitement". "My mind
at times was greatly excited". "I kept myself aloof from these parties
though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit."
"My mind at times was greatly excited". "I often said to myself: What is to
be done?" "I was one day reading the Epistle of James". "At length I came to
the conclusion..."
|
| 67.15 | Dr. Backman's Description | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 12:23 | 62 |
| In his book, Dr. Backman describes the religious activity in the general area
in which Joseph Smith lived, an area known to historians as the "burned-over
district". Revivals, quickenings, awakenings, and religious excitement are
terms used interchangeably by authors of the early nineteenth century to
describe an increased interest in religion. Revivals and camp meetings were
common, often being conducted by itinerant preachers who traveled from town to
town. It was common for farmers to travel ten or fifteen miles to attend camp
meetings.
According to Backman, "Ecclesiastical records clearly reveal that unusual
gains in church membership occurred in 1819 and 1820 in many communities
located within a radius of twenty miles of the Smith farm." (p. 82) He gives
details of growth for the Presbyterians, Freewill Baptists, Quakers,
Methodists, and other groups in towns near Palmyra. The Methodists reported
an increase of 2,256 members in 1820 in the "burned-over district".
One town that had very high interest in religion was Phelps, a town about nine
miles from the Smith farm. "Approximately one hundred Methodist ministers
gathered in this small village during that summer [1919] to resolve
controversies, and to receive edification, instruction, and annual
appointments....In addition to the special services which were held in
connection with this conference, camp meetings were conducted following the
deliberations; and during the ensuing twelve months (from the summer of 1819
to the summer of 1820) a 'flaming spiritual advance' occurred in that region."
(p. 81) The "Palmyra Register" reported, for example, that a camp meeting was
held in Palmyra in June, 1820.
"When Sarepta Marsh Baker, one of the converts of the Great Revival of
1819-1820, who lived in Phelps, recalled the quickenings which followed the
annual Methodist conference held in her community in 1819, she employed an
expression remarkably similar to Joseph's account. 'The revival,' she
observed, 'was a religious cyclone which swept over the whole region round
about and the kingdom of darkness was terribly shaken.'" (p. 89)
"Accounts of the enlivenments which occurred in western and upstate New York
in 1819 and 1820 were advertised in Palmyra, and the record number of baptisms
occurring in the area east of Lake Cayuga and in the region of Albany was
enumerated in the local newspaper, the 'Palmyra Register'. Joseph Smith
therefore undoubtedly knew that unusual religious quickenings were occurring
in New York in 1819 and 1820, that great numbers were joining churches, and
that additions were being made in the various denominations located in the
vicinity where he lived." (p. 88-89)
Backman concluded his description by saying
Although one cannot define precisely what Joseph meant by "the place where
we lived" and the "whole district of country" by employing the tools of
modern historical research, various primary sources clearly demonstrate
that there were substantial increases in church membership in many
sections of western New York at the time of the First Vision. There is
not only evidence of religious excitement occurring in the area where
Joseph Smith lived in 1820, but one can substantiate the Prophet's
accounts of great multitudes joining churches in the whole region of
country by defining district of country as an area within twenty, fifty,
or one hundred miles of the Smith farm, or by adopting a definition of
western or upstate New York. The most reliable sources, therefore, reveal
that Joseph Smith's brief description of the historical setting of the
First Vision is in harmony with other contemporary accounts of the great
awakening which occurred in New York in 1819 and 1820. Indeed, the Mormon
Prophet penned a brief but reliable description of the enlivenment which
occurred in the "Burned-over District" at the time he launched his quest
for religious truth. (p. 89)
|
| 67.16 | My Observations | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 12:23 | 40 |
| As I read reviews of research reports on early LDS history, I observe that
historians seem to be "nit pickers" of the first degree. The religionists who
use the results of historical research to either defend or criticize the LDS
church seem to be even worse "nit pickers", letting their religious zeal
overshadow what seems to me to be common sense.
These people take ambiguous statements by Joseph Smith and attempt to
interpret them with preciseness one would expect from a modern scientific
journal. They seem to forget that we do not know what Joseph was thinking
when he spoke of "the place where we lived" and the "whole district". They
quibble whether this-town and that-town were close enough to the Smith farm to
be part of "the place where we lived" or part of the "whole district." They
compare and argue about statements made by Joseph, his neighbors, his family
members, other church leaders, etc. as if those statements were taken from
daily diaries. They seem to forget that the persons making those statements
were for the most part not highly educated and were likely speaking from
memory.
Even today, in our "age of enlightenment" when we have become accustomed to
think and express ourselves with a high degree of preciseness and clarity, it
is common for us to misunderstand what others are really saying when they talk
to us. It is common for people to have to go through several iterations of
explaining their thoughts before we finally understand their thoughts and
statements. As we study historical sources, we can not ask Joseph what he
really meant, what really happened. We have only a partial account of the
events, yet we attempt to interpret the events as if we had the "full story".
I believe that if we attempt to look at the broad picture without getting lost
in ambiguous details, we have to agree that the people in Western New York
were interested in religion and that revivals and camp meetings were being
held. We have to agree that Joseph Smith was concerned about religion and had
some type of spiritual experience in his youth that changed the direction of
his life and of the lives of thousands of others.
We each have to make our own decision whether we accept Joseph Smith as a
modern prophet, one who held the Apostolic authority of God, and through whom
God restored His church to the earth in these latter days, or whether we
accept him as a misguided farm boy caught up in the religious zeal of his
time. I believe that we can not objectively make that decision if we rely
wholly upon a historical perspective.
|
| 67.17 | Personal Revelation from God | CACHE::LEIGH | | Mon Feb 22 1988 12:26 | 10 |
| I believe that we must at some point in our lives we must take this
question to God in prayer and sincerely and intently ask if Joseph
Smith was a true prophet, for as James said
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all
men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But
let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is
like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let
not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
(James 1:5-7)
|
| 67.18 | IN PERSPECTIVE | RANGLY::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Mon Feb 22 1988 14:28 | 15 |
|
YES,JOSEPH SMITH WAS A TRUE PROPHET,but,also a young man at the
time of the first vision,which lead him to make many mistakes,which
he was chastised for.He grew alot in the years since the first vision,
and became a great leader and prophet,but again we must take into
account the great burden that he shouldered,and the times in which
he lived.It was a time of great growth and expansion for the new
country,and a time of disorder and lawlessness.He did the best he
could to spread the word,but also as a man,made errors,which he
paid dearly for.He stirred up all the evil of men against him,but,
he knew what his mission was.At times things got so bad he would
dig down to the very depths of his soul and cry for deliverence
from his sufferings,but,he did what he knew was the lords will.A
TRUE PROPHET to the end.
|
| 67.9 | The Many Visions of Joseph Smith | DISSRV::LEZAS | | Wed Mar 02 1988 11:13 | 59 |
| Sorry Allen, but it seems this should be titled "The Many Visions
of Joseph Smith".
I am deviating from my normal "calmness and logicalness" and am
letting a little of my personal emotion come into play here.
This is almost an insult to my intelligence. Here's why:
I can remember my conversion to Christ (almost 13 years ago - I
was 15) to the tee. I could tell you the story every 4 years and it
would still come out the same. It was the most important day of my
life. I've never written any of it down.
I can also tell you the exact time when I backslid and fell away
from God and then when I turned around and rededicated my life to
Him. I can't remember exact dates, but I can give the months.
You want me to accept that Joseph Smith - on probably the most
incredible day in his life - could not remember what happened?
Granted, we can give him some slack on actual dates - but the rest:
NO WAY. Come on Allen! If God came down and visited you face to
face - wouldn't you remember that - even if you did not write it
down? But here we have accounts that angels visited him, that then
one person visited him, that then 2 people visited him. You did
not mention that there wasn't even a revival going on until 1824,
yet Joseph's visions were around 1820.
There are too many differences here! As I stated in my report,
I can accept that maybe Joseph had a vision. But which one is really
true? Why do we accept the latest version as true and not the first?
Did he see the Father and Son or did he only see angels? Do we
accept them because they are the most recent therefore they must
be the most correct? Or did Joseph decide that that version made
his vision seem the best?
When you talk about the example of Paul's conversion, there are
different people telling the same story - I can accept differences
there. But we are talking about different versions of a vision,
seen by the one and the same man! Also, at least the different
versions of Paul's conversion are in the Bible, so you can
see for yourself. You have to do some study to find the different
versions of Joseph's vision.
Please understand my frustration Allen. There is alot of energy
put forth to justify things that don't mesh. I could not - in my
own mind - justify these differences in the vision when I thought
about going into Mormonism. If you have been able to justify these
differences in your own mind, and can live with them, then fine.
I couldn't.
My faith is built on the solid rock of Jesus Christ alone. There
is no shifting sand in my beliefs. These different versions are
to "shifting' for my faith.
In Love (although it may not sound like it)
Leza
|
| 67.10 | The 1869 reference to "angel" | CACHE::LEIGH | | Thu Mar 03 1988 07:50 | 77 |
| Re 38.3
>To further complicate matters in J of D 13:77-78, we see that an angel
>appeared unto Joseph Smith not the Father and Son as printed in the 1842
>Time and Seasons. (Almost 22 years after the vision allegedly occurred!)
Let's take a closer look at that discourse to see who is speaking and what
was said. The speaker was George A. Smith. The date was June 20, 1869.
His sermon was a historical discourse about the Church.
When Joseph Smith was about 15 years old there was in the western
part of the State of New York, a considerable excitement upon the
subject of religion. The various denominations in that part of the
country were stirred up with a spirit of revival. They held protracted
meetings and many were converted. At the end of this excitement a scramble
ensued as to which of the denominations should have the proselytes.
Of the family of Joseph Smith, his mother, his brothers Hyrum and Samuel,
and sister Sophronia, became members of the Presbyterian Church. Joseph
reflected much upon the subject of religion, and was astonished at the
ill-feeling that seemed to have grown out of the division of the spoils,
if we may so use the term, at the close of the reformation. He spent
much time in prayer and reflection and in seeking the Lord. He was led
to pray upon the subject in consequence of the declaration of the Apostle
James: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of god that giveth to all
men liberally and upbraideth not." [James, 1st chap., 5th verse] He
sought the Lord by day and by night, and was enlightened by the vision
of an holy angel. When this personage appeared to him, one of his first
inquiries was, "Which of the denominations of Christians in the vicinity
was right?" He was told they had all gone astray, they had wandered into
darkness, and that God was about to restore the Gospel in its simplicity
and purity to the earth; he was, consequently, directed not to join any one
of them, but to be humble and seek the Lord with all his heart, and that
from time to time he should be taught and instructed in relation to the
right way to serve the Lord. (Journal of Discourses, 13:77-78)
Leza's concern is that Elder Smith used the word "angel" in referring to the
personage and used the singular, implying only one personage.
First, let's consider Elder Smith's use of the word "angel". In 1843 Joseph
Smith gave the following instruction to the Church.
There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are
resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones--
For instance, Jesus said: 'Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh
and bones, as ye se me have'.
Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not
resurrected, but inherit the same glory. (D & C 129:1-3)
Thus, we see that it was proper, although from our use of language today a bit
unusual, for Elder Smith to use the word "angel".
Next, let's Elder Smith's use of the singular. His sermon was given in 1869.
As far as I know, there are no historical documents that explain why he used
the singular. So let's speculate a bit.
Perhaps he did not know that two personages appeared. Since he was one of the
General Authorities of the Church and we assume was well founded in Mormon
doctrine, that is not likely. In addition Joseph Smith's 1838 history that
specifically spoke of two personages had been published for many years, and I
think we all agree that Elder Smith would have been familiar with that account.
Perhaps he did not accept the 1838 account as being accurate. Not likely since
he was a General Authority.
It seems to me that his attention was focused on Jesus Christ and that he spoke
in a general way, using the singular "angel" to refer specifically to Jesus and
generically to refer to the Godhead. He was giving an overview of the history
of the LDS church, and I expect he was not paying much attention to the specific
words he used. Was he careless in his use of the singular? From our
perspective we would say yes. However, we need to be cautioned to not judge
people by the particular words they use but instead try and understand the
meaning they are trying to convey.
Allen
|
| 67.11 | the 1832 account | FAST::LEIGH | | Thu Mar 03 1988 17:37 | 17 |
| Re 38.3
>Again, it wasn't until the 1842 account that Joseph saw the Father
>and Son.
As explained in 67.5 through 67.8, Joseph said he saw two personages in all
of the accounts except the 1832 account. In that account he said
and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he Spake
with me Saying Joseph my Son thy Sins are forgiven thee.
Please notice that he did not say he saw only the Lord, just that he
saw the Lord. As a historical document, the 1832 account should only be
used for what it says, that he saw the Lord. Other documents would be needed
to determine if he saw only the Lord.
Allen
|
| 67.12 | | CIMNET::REEVES | | Thu Jan 05 1989 17:29 | 6 |
| An interesting observation.
In the present version of the 1st Vision, if you read super carefully,
you'll notice that Joseph Doesn't identify who the people are at
all. He refers to them simply as "Two Personages". We draw the
conclusions and make the assumptions.
|