To everyone else who so kindly tried to help me on this blog, I say thank you. It is wonderful that you are willing to let people express their true thoughts here - it is a good place to be able to vent a little.

Fwiw, Doug, I wish everyone had that same attitude. Just remember that it would be nice if tigers brushed their teeth. *grin*

“While it is true that I think most of you good folks are naïve or perhaps even deceived, that doesn’t mean you’re not good people or that your heart isn’t in the right place.”

Interesting. That’s how I view most non-Mormon Christians. *huge grin*

“You made me grin with this comment Doug. I almost find it a compliment that you find my attitude naive. I know a wonderful woman who has a strong faith that Joseph Smith had a vision of Deity”

Rigel, I suspect I owe you an apology for my posting above. I do need to learn to put my comments in a less offensive way. While it is true that I think most of you good folks are naïve or perhaps even deceived, that doesn’t mean you’re not good people or that your heart isn’t in the right place. I also think that believing JS had a vision of Deity isn’t going to affect your salvation one way or the other. Salvation, IMHO, is based on much more important things such as loving God and your fellow man. All the rest of this is just trappings…As I’ve stated before, I think God just barely tolerates religion in general…

The real question is, does your particular religion provide you with meaningful opportunities to provide service and does it charge your spiritual battery by participating. If you can answer yes to these questions, then why would someone even care if any of the restoration claims of the church are true? I think someone already made this point earlier. Most members haven’t looked into the history and they don’t want to. Trust me on this point, if you don’t want to know, nothing in this world is going to make you study and find out.

For me, and this is just for me, church stopped filling my spiritual battery years ago. I found meetings focused on anything but the Savoir and lots of assignments that didn’t seem to be making a difference to anybody. Don’t get me wrong, I always had more than enough to do, but none of it was truly helping anyone. Home teaching families that almost cheered if we were out of their home in 10 minutes or less. Sunday school classes with youth that didn’t want to be there and made it their goal to disrupt the lesson. Lots of trips to the temple doing work for the dead, at the expense of doing things for the living. (In the grand scheme of things I can’t believe in a God who would hold someone back because I was too lazy to do their temple work.) The list goes on and on, so finding out that the restoration claims of JS were questionable, it wasn’t a big leap for me to decide that this was just another man made religion with a mixture of good and bad people, just like all the rest. For others, it is all they could have ever hoped for and a bag of chips. I don’t want to ruin it for them, so I take out my beliefs on you folks who for whatever reason, want to look into the mouth of the tiger.

Sorry this was long…Again, please except my apology for calling you naïve. The fact that you’re here means you obviously are not…

I think part of the problem is that local leaders are simply not always equipped to deal with some of the questions. Maybe we catch them on a bad day. In my case I can assure you that my bishop thought I was crazy when I said I struggled with woman’s role. He could have handled me having lots of promiscuous sex, stealing money, etc. but to have an issue with a core issue in the gospel was beyond what he could deal with. Anyone not knowing him who heard the conversation would have thought he was a first class jerk, and at first I did. Then I realized with time that my questions were so outside his grasp of understanding that he didn’t know what to say. After much thought I also realized that “men can just do some things that women can’t” was not something God would have said to me. At that point he was not representing God, but simply a man doing his best when he was beyond tapped. And I think the fact that he couldn’t solve this one scared him.

I think part of the struggle is finding where we can go with our serious questions. Many local leaders don’t know about aspects of church history and docterines that make some of us feel uncomfortable. They are so busy with their 4 millions hours a week of meetings-of the husband/wife in the abusive relationship, the family who has someone with cancer, the family that cannot pay their bills, the teenager in to drugs, etc-not to mention their own family concerns and their own career. If they haven’t devoted time before their calling to understand all of the this, they simply may not be able to deal with this one. The question is where can people go with their questions to someone who can genuinely relate and do their best to explain, offer insight, or just plain be compassionate.

Whatever your reasons are, they are certainly real to you, and certainly nobody here wants you to fall away or go inactive. My words are observations, and aren’t judgements of your situation. They are what I see, not what you see, and certainly you can see something I don’t, especially if your ward is different than my ward, since I certainly don’t live in your ward, and perhaps not in your area. But really all we can do is make suggestions to you, and you would have to act if any of this is of help to you. And, aside from what I have already said, I would suggest that you seek the Spirit, and try to find good reasons to stay if the old reasons you have no longer work for you.

I was just studying more on conversion during a Saturday stake conference meeting when the talks were starting to make me drowsy, and I agree with you here. In the LDS scripture Bible Dictionary, we are taught, “complete conversion comes after many trials and much testing.” So what is “complete conversion”? (The type that “will change a natural man into a sanctified, born again, purified person–a new creature in Christ Jesus”?) Studying this concept makes me well aware that this is a level of conversion I have yet to acheive. Coming to this conclusion is, for me, a good thing! It helps me see that quote about the brother who had never been truly converted in a new light.

Matthew 18:3 refers to the level of conversion needed as becoming as a little child, and verse 4 expands that it involves “humbling himself as this little child.”

Re 56 “Perhaps Rigel Hawthorne gives us a clue about how to stay naïve.”

You made me grin with this comment Doug. I almost find it a compliment that you find my attitude naive. I know a wonderful woman who has a strong faith that Joseph Smith had a vision of Deity. She chooses not to research historical details, and with young kids, barely has time to check her own email. In fact, I should probably be helping her fold clothes right now rather than blog! One could consider her faith to be naive, but hers is the type of faith that I aspire to.

I decided once that I no longer needed to read every document about why the church couldn’t be true in order to have a testimony of the church. If you call that “the ability to read into history what you want it to mean,” I wouldn’t say that is unfair. I believe that Joseph did learn line upon line, and that sometimes he was allowed to learn some doctrinal details incorrectly before later gaining better light, as part of his progression. This doesn’t make him a false prophet, IMO. It actually deepens my respect for his challenges, and it is something I relate to.

I once asked my mission president why a verse quoting Isaiah in 2nd Nephi (the purer translation from the brass plates, as I learned in seminary) was different than the same verse of Isaiah in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Old Testament. Why wouldn’t they be the same, by nature of his prophetic ability? His answer was not helpful to me, but the still small voice whispered an answer that was what I needed.

Intensity of belief has nothing to do with accuracy of perceptions - if anything, there is a reverse corollary. And as I said before, intensity of feeling, so easily manipulated by religious and political ideas, has nothing to do with testimony. The difference I see in where you and I are is that I take the Holy Spirit as a source of truth, and you rather take it to be an emotional experience analagous to any number of others. It is right enough to say that there is a subjective element in all our experiences. However, in the end, it is up to us individually to determine how and where and if we will seek, and we are answerable to God and not to the religious experiences of other people - for which we neither can nor can be expected to give an account. From an outside perspective, with all the systems and variations on belief, what is the chance that the one you’re following has any claim to exclusiveness in any respect? The answer is none. All the same, straight is the way and narrow is the gate and few there be that find it.

~

“I don’t choose to be offended by the things that get said here. And I try to be straight forward in my writing as I would in a conversation. If that is offensive to you and others, I am sorry about that.”

It’s all good, don’t lose any sleep over it and I won’t either.

Bruce,

I live in Northern Utah and I think it would be great to meet you. I believe you have my e-mail address, go ahead and send me a note and we’ll set something up…

Thanks,

I apologize. I re-read and I can see what you mean. I feel very bad about the way it came out. Please accept my apology, workingmother.

Please allow me to explain myself more fully now that the kids are in bed and I’m not in such a hurry.

Yes, I most certainly think starting with the assumption that if Joseph didn’t mention the first vision at first that it must have been made up later does in fact cause a person to fail to see other completely legitimate possiblities. And yes, I am of the opinion (I’m entitled to my opinion) that this is what you are doing.

However, if you read much of what I say, then this next statement won’t shock you: I do the same thing only in reverse. We all do. We see what we want to see in history… or more to the point, once we’ve been shown a pattern, it’s really really hard to break it.

I’m going to venture a guess that you didn’t find out about JS not mentioning the first vision in his 1835 account in a pro-Mormon book. And I’m going to venture a guess that once you had the thought stuck in your head (from wherever you originally found out about it) that this might be evidence that it never happened, that you couldn’t help but see it that way even if you wanted.

Meanwhile, I found out about that same fact in a pro-Mormon book that was not trying to hide that fact at all because they used it as proof of the first vision (complicated to explain. If you let me write to you I will.)

So my mind latched on to that pattern and I have a hard time breaking it (and don’t want to anyhow.)

We both latched on to patterns and we couldn’t help it. Our choice was which books to read and how to receive the information.

*whew* that was a lot to say…

So in other words, what I meant by “ask that question without assuming it’s fall false (and do so prayerfully) you’ll find it an incredibly enlightening questions worthy of your time.” was simply that if you start to recognize that there are multiple possible reasons for a set of facts, you’ll find your mind is very good at coming up with alternative possiblities. But! you have to want it. If you don’t want it, it can’t happen. (thus the reference to prayer.)

“Your last paragraph was also unwarranted IMHO. You put words in my mouth that I never said, then insulted me by saying that it doesn’t make any sense at all.”

This was bad of me too. I am sorry.

Again, I didn’t take enough care on how I worded things. What I meant here was it would never make sense to assume that if something didn’t happen the way we thought it should have to have the first thought be “it’s all made up.” Can you think of any case where this would be true? Would, for example, coming to realize that Columbus didn’t really prove to the world that the world was round mean that Columbus made up his voyage altogether?

History just doesn’t work that way. History rarely if ever unfolds the way we expected it or the way it was “whitewashed” for us as children (or even as adults that didn’t bother to look into it further). There is nothing in American history, for example, that you have learned that coulnd’t be challgened by an anti-American scholar. If you were, you’d quickly find that you have a “whitewashed” view of American history.

But this would rarely mean that it’s all made up. Instead, it forces us to understand the great complexity of life and humanity.

I think Church history is exactly the same way. Joseph Smith did indeed supress the first vision for years. We know this factually because he wrote it down in 1832 but didn’t publish it and then OC left it out in the 1835 history even though he was aware of Joseph’s written account. Presumably OC was asked not to include it.

I’m asking you to start with the assumption that there might just be a reason for the supression and it might be a really good reason. It might even be a reason you’d agree with.

I can only tell you my theory as to why (which I personally think is pretty dang good! ) but I can’t tell you the REAL reason, and I and know one on earth can tell you with certainty the real reason. Such is how history works. It’s all guess work.

But why start with the assumption it’s all false and never even explore any other possiblities? That would be a “groundless” assumption in the case of Columbus, wouldn’t it? (Don’t read too much into my “groundless” wording. I should not have said it that way.) I just meant that in the case of JS it’s insufficient to make a case by itself.

(Update: Saying your assumption is ‘groundless’ makes it sound like I’m saying you are saything unreasonable or stupid, which is not what I meant. What I really meant was that your assumption that this means it’s made up and not a historical event is no better or worse an explanation than simply treating it like a real historical issue — history is full of such things that seem odd to us because life is just that way — and making an attempt to come up with an explanation. Also, the only reason you are considering this evidence of non-occurance is because it’s a religious truth claim instead of a more objective seeming non-religious event. So your view is certainly not “groundless” but there are not “stronger grounds” for it compare to just assuming it happened as JS said it did and then looking into reasons for the surpression.)

Again, I apologize for my bad use of words. I really was in a hurry and I woulnd’t have made that mistake (or needed to give you this long explanation) if I had chosen my words better.

“Jeff, you certainly like to dish it out with statements like the ones above and yet you don’t see why folks, such as myself, get offended at your tone and want to bring you down a notch or two.”

I don’t choose to be offended by the things that get said here. And I try to be straight forward in my writing as I would in a conversation. If that is offensive to you and others, I am sorry about that.

One person’s history is another person fairy tale. I like how Ray and Bruce put it. And you didn’t address the example about scientists looking at the same data and drawing different conclusions. That is equally valid here as well. i choose to put my trust in what I have studied and the spiritual witnesses I have received.

Your Bishop might or might not be correct; he might or might not be insensitive; he might or not be a good man *and* a jerk. I don’t know, but all I can say is, “Follow the dictates of your conscience. You don’t have to “know” nearly as much as most members assume. You can believe those who feel they know, or you can not believe and still participate in the organization and try to become more Christ-like.

Suffice it to say that many of us have considered and studied everything you have considered and studied and have chosen to remain and believe - and even believe we “know” some foundational things. Deep down in your heart, what do you want to DO? Figure that out and then do it - whatever it is. It is your choice - nobody else’s.

Fwiw, my views on many things are not common in the Church. I hold a visible calling of relative authority in the Church, so I’m sure most members believe I am a standard, ultra-conservative Mormon - but that’s because I am able to address my unique perspectives from within a scriptural framework, so my unorthodox beliefs sound orthodox. (I think it helps that they are correct, and so the Spirit testifies when I speak from the pulpit, but that might simply be hubris. *grin*) I would never dream of discussing things like some of the topics on this blog, since I don’t see Church as the proper venue for these discussions. I see Church as the place to strengthen understanding and conviction of basic Gospel principles and to help people commit to LIVE the Gospel more fully. If many members knew how I view some of the more esoteric doctrinal questions of the Church, they would be shocked. I’m fine with that, since I probably would be shocked at many of theirs.

I don’t think that many members are choosing to do anything other than just stand fast in the faith. The majority are not confronted with these things. And I can assure you that from what I have seen, they wouldn’t care even if they were confronted. It is only the overly curious or overly intellectual that even care about these things. The majority of people that go inactive go inactive for much more mundane things that this sort of stuff. Not to say that any soul isn’t precious. Maybe I’m wrong, but this is my perception.

Your last paragraph was also unwarranted IMHO. You put words in my mouth that I never said, then insulted me by saying that it doesn’t make any sense at all.

I do, in fact, consider you a friend. Do you, by any chance, live in Utah so that we can meet and do lunch?

workingmother asks: “…motive for suppressing this amazing experience of incredible importance to the church.”

Workingmother, I’m afraid I am out of my alloted time. I suppose the short answer is that I have strong reason to believe Joseph was indeed trying to supress the first vision exactly as you indicate… just not for the reason that you indicate (i.e. that he was making it up.)

And while we are on the subject, how in the world do you explain that he had already mentioned the first vision twice by then, once in 1832 and once in 1835. Doesn’t sound like your interpretation fits the facts, to me. I can’t even begin to figure out how you fit those facts into your concern that Joseph Smith might have made it up. The simple fact is that Joseph had already reported the first vision by then so it’s obvious he chose to not include it. Your theory that he made it up after that point simply cannot be true. At a minimum he must have made it up prior to that point.

The real question you should be asking is why would Joseph supress the first vision to his 1835 Church. If you ask that question without assuming it’s fall false (and do so prayerfully) you’ll find it an incredibly enlightening questions worthy of your time.

Workingmother, I have enjoyed this conversation. If you are serious about wanting to know my take on why Joseph Smith would want to supress the first vision, I would have to write to you privately. With your permission I will (and I’ll then later turn it into a post.)

But for now, let’s just say that I feel you are starting with the assumption that if history didn’t unfold the way *you personally* think it should have that it must all be made up. I think this is a groundless assumption. In fact, I don’t see why you would assume that… it just doesn’t make any sense at all.

BTW, I did ask God if Joseph saw Him and Jesus. I did not get an answer - just nothing. Are you just going to tell me to keep trying until I get the right answer (which I guess by definition is a positive answer)? I am almost 60, have read the BoM daily for years, have always been active, have served as RS president twice, and many other callings, etc., etc. I am not any more of a sinner than most other Mormons out there (TR worthy I think the term is).

I wonder if your answer to just pray about it, is any better than what I am getting from my bishop.

May I respectfully ask, why do you want to talk about these things to uninformed people who can’t help you anyway? You have now joined the ranks of people such as us who are really the only type of people that can even fathom what you are saying. Forgive me but the bottom line is, 99% of Church membership are naive, and most don’t care anyway. It seems to me that you have already found people like ourselves that are on blogs such as this that can even deal intellectually with what you are saying, and now you are talking to us. It sounds like you have found somebody to talk to, and I think if I were in your shoes, I’d stick to talking about these things with people online. If you have doubts about foundational stories, then I suggest that you seek revelation from the Spirit of the Lord on the foundational stories. Perhaps not about each and every detail of these things that are somewhat contradictory. But why don’t you ask simple questions to God and simply try to get testimonies of each question, like “Did Joseph Smith really see both Elohim and Jesus?” That is a very simple question to test with the spirit, and if you get a positive answer, all the details and contradictory garbage in the historical accounts doesn’t mean a hill of beans. This may not help you, but this is the way I see things from my point of view. You need specific questions answered about historical quagmires, or at least, I know some people do. I don’t know whether you fit the description of one of those that do.

Also, where is your evidence that he told the first vision to a minister, was persecuted for it, so shut up about it? There are absolutely no contemporary accounts that I am aware of that indicate this was the case.

I posted that one before I read your response.

On your other point about the whether the event actually occured. I think if you go back and read my past posts, you’ll see that I already made that very point. I’ve never made statements on this thread about whether or not the vision occured. That’s a job for another day…

Doug, you aren’t undertanding. No one is arguing this point with you.

There are two theories on the table, neither of which is what you claim we are saying:

1. William conflated the first vision with the Moroni visit (i.e. he’s talking about both but thinks he’s talking about the Moroni visit)
2. William Smith is correctly reporting a made up account of his brother that hadn’t yet emerged into the first vision (i.e. he’s talking about an early version of the Moroni visit that at that time had elements of the first vision that later separated into two distinct accounts.)

Either way, you are correct that he’s talking about the Moroni visit… and yet, that was never the point being made. You have misunderstood what we are saying. (Or at least what I am saying.)

For what it’s worth, I always enjoy your take on things and the way you present them. You know we seldom agree, but that shouldn’t prevent us from being friends…

Thanks,

Sorry, that was one more then one last thing…

What I am saying is that the fact that Joseph apparently didn’t talk to his family about the first vision tells us nothing about whether nor not it happened. There are two possibilities that are both equally possible:

1. He didn’t have the first vision and made it up later
2. He did have it and didn’t tell his family.

See, it tells us nothing at all. And yet some people (such as workingmother) feel very comfortable holding that fact up as a counter evidence to the existence of the first vision. But that doesn’t compute. That’s not evidence that the first vision didn’t happen, it’s simply lack of evidence that Joseph told his family before 1832.

Actually, I’m not sure he told his family after 1832 even though he had written it down by then. I’m not sure his family every did know about the first vision prior to the published 1839 account (which I believe came out in 1840.)

I see nothing unreasonable about this at all. Workingmother and Doug are free to dream up their own non-historical explanations such as “I think it is highly unlikely a 14 year old boy saw what he saw and never told anyone until at least three years later.”

Such statements go so far beyond the reality of history that it’s strange to even say it. It’s really just a very personal non-historical opinion. The fact is that we just don’t know if Joseph told someone until years later or not. If, for example, he really did tell a minister that attacked him over it, that minister didn’t leave a record so we have no way of verifying it. Workingmother is extending well beyond reason in expecting anyone to accept this as a “historical” view.

But again, for all I know Joseph did not tell anyone for a long while. I just don’t know. But I’m perfectly willing to entertain that idea. In fact, it used to be my prevailing theory, it’s just that I assumed he told a minister and then felt attacked and clamed up and had to be commanded by Moroni to tell his family about the Moroni visit.

HOWEVER, the William Smith book really makes me rethink that theory. Here is a guy who was actually quite hostile to Joseph in a lot of ways and certainly hostile to the LDS Church, yet he has all these memories of essentially the first vision story. He’s clearly not colluding on the Joseph Smith account, so I can rule that out. In fact, I think we can pretty well assume he’s telling the truth because of that. So here we have almost in it’s entirety the first vision story coming from essentially a hostile source — and one that anti-Mormons try to use to disprove the first vision story… And YET he’s confirming almost all the details from it…

Do you see my point?

Finding out about the William Smith story forced me to rethink my opinion that Joseph didn’t tell his family. I think he probably did now. I’m not saying it was that night, or even that year, or even within three years. But it’s clear to me now that at some point he told them something very close to the first vision story and William (ignoring Joseph’s later accounts, perhaps not even aware of them) knew about it.

Now the fact is that he conflates the two stories, as Doug points out. So is this a proof for or against? Really neither. Conflating is a reality of history. We’d be amazed how much we do it (if we had proof of it). On the other hand, the facts also fit the theory that Joseph improved upon the story over time and William is giving us an earlier view.

It’s a matter of faith either way because frankly both stories are just so dang plausible.

In reference to William Smith’s book, did anyone read the preface?

“If the story of the angel’s visit to Joseph Smith, was so enormously strange as to excite the priesthood of the age to all this calumny upon the character of the prophet, why should we believe in the angel stories that are told us in the Bible. Bible believers should know that the whole Scripture Revelation is founded upon visions and dreams, and angel visits to man. And why should not God send angels to deliver messages to his servants in these latter days, as well as in olden times. Readers, read and ponder these questions and answer them for yourselves, God helping you to choose the right and to give a righteous judgment, as honest men and women should do. The strange inconsistency of persons professing to believe the Bible and still denying what they profess to believe, is plainly seen; for angels, saith the Scriptures, are ministering spirits to those that are heirs of salvation. Heb. 1:14.
In conclusion, the Church now presided over by Joseph Smith, the son of the martyred prophet, has no sympathy nor connection whatever with the Church of Polygamous Mormons in Utah.”

Gentlemen,

Here we go again with the” I’m right and so obviously your all wrong” thing. If you read at least through page 13, it becomes quite obvious to me that the angel he’s referring to is Moroni….

Doug, I will be merciful toward you. *huge, tongue-in-cheek grin*

Seriously, thanks for the clarification in #68. I disagree a bit with the *way* you made your earlier points, but if you meant only what you said in #68, please be merciful toward me. *grin*

*Bruce whistles innocently and pretends like he didn’t hear*

I didn’t use it as a defense, per se. I was defendings Rigel’s right (and intelligence) in using it that way. I did, on the other hand, point out that Williams book makes collusion with the family very unlikely. (A point you didn’t make so I wasn’t talking to you on that.) I think I’m correct on this point. If you have a counter interpretation, feel free to explain yourself.

>>> All I’ve done is asked you good folks to think about what you use as defense when trying to make a point

Doug, I think that is the issue. The fact that this statement implies (or might imply) we aren’t thinking or at least not thinking as well as you.

I feel that Rigel’s point was more valid that you are giving credit for due to your own biases. (I’m not suggesting you are MORE biased than someone else. I’m just saying we are all biased.) The William Smith account has always struck me as highly confirming of much of the restoration precisely because he was hostile to the LDS (Utah) Church.

That being said, perhaps what you are really getting at is that you want to put alternative interpretations out there as food for thought. Since this is what I’m doing… guess I have no right to complain, now do I?

>>> Bruce, I’ve taken my fair share of whippings here and usually deserved, but I’m not the only one who has instigated discussion with the premise that I’m right and therefore anyone that doesn’t agree is wrong. BTW, I am right you know…(grin)

ROFL :P I have to admit that I’ve been guilty of this many times and that I really don’t know anyone that hasn’t. That being said, that just means we all need to improve in this regard.

I’m a reasonable guy; the initiation of this whole discussion was my request for Ray to provide a reference to someone in the Smith family having knowledge of the first vision prior to 1832. I think it’s interesting that you use William Smith’s book to defend Rigel here when his book is used to discredit JS by anti-mormon folks so often. Having said that, I certainly respect your right to read into the history anything you wish. For me, a visit of God Himself to JS wouldn’t get written as an angle especially when William’s timeframe is the very day of Moroni’s visit repeating Joseph’s claim that he had a vision in the field in which Moroni repeated everything he had told him the night before including the forgiveness of his sins. As Joseph was very open about this vision, I think it’s fair to say that William is referring to the angle Moroni or Nephi or whoever the heck it was in this account.

All I’ve done is asked you good folks to think about what you use as defense when trying to make a point. We are not going to agree about history as we are looking at it from different world views. I totally accept that no-one here has the complete truth including me. I do apologize if my viewpoints come across rather strong. I certainly don’t wish to offend anyone nor do I believe that you, Rigel, Jeff, Ray, or any of the other folks commenting here are deliberately trying to deceive anyone. I just ask for the same consideration. I’m not out to deceive anyone either or try and make converts to my particular religious beliefs. In the case of religion, I completely agree with Jeff, it’s a very personal thing based on spiritual experiences and backgrounds.

Bruce, I’ve taken my fair share of whippings here and usually deserved, but I’m not the only one who has instigated discussion with the premise that I’m right and therefore anyone that doesn’t agree is wrong. BTW, I am right you know…(grin)

Workingmother, your point is well taken. As a personal statement I see exactly what you are saying.

>>> I think it is highly unlikely a 14 year old boy saw what he saw and never told anyone until at least three years later.

I am certainly not offended by your opinions or take. But I think I will add that I find this emminently believable. In fact, it seems downright human to me. If Joseph and family were colluding together we’d have exactly one story and it would always be the same. But if we have a 14 (or 16) year old boy that had an incredible experience and then told a preacher about it and got laughed at, I think we’d probably find that he wouldn’t tell anyone else about it for a long while. In fact, this explain precisely why Joseph was so scared to tell his father about the visit of the angel and had to be commanded to do so. (A striking fact that never made sense to me until I had this perspective.)

You see, it fits so well that I can’t even begin to believe in collusion.

Now as for you theory that maybe he had an epiphany and then enhanced it over the years, well, that’s a viable theory, of course. But it’s just one theory and it’s frankly no more viable then mine or any one else’s.

(I should also through in that your theory has no way to prove or disprove it — or even find support really — from the historical record and thus we can’t really call it “historical” in any meaningful sense. However, it is certainly a plausible explanation of why we have differing views. Also note, you just came up with a conspiracy theory on the part of Joseph. This is what I really meant.)

This just proves my point. Since history is so dang interpretative, there is no rational reason for you to feel like you have to check in your brain on what will ultimately amount to a pure matter of faith (either faith that it did happen or faith that it didn’t happen) either way. Indeed, both possibilities fall within the realm of complete plausability.

You draw an excellent point regarding what is the church? Is it a building, is it the leaders of the church, is it the Jewish PR firm that the church hired, is the church all the members?

I should clarify when I say “the church”, I am referring specifically to the church leadership. My experience has been that the things that the church leadership has taught me through official publications and lesson manuals is incongruent with history, or I feel that they have purposefully left out important information.

For example, let’s say the early leaders of the church were 30% good, 30% bad and 40% “normal”. A historian could sift through the historical documents and pluck just the good 30% and make it seem like it was 100% of the time. Then, another historian could use the SAME historical documents and make it look like the bad 30% was 100% by intentionally leaving out all the good things, or all the things they did that were good.

I apologize. I should have said that it seems to me I am required to check my brain at the door - that does not work for me. I did not mean to imply that everyone has that same experience, or that it is not possible for equally or more intelligent people than myself to have a very different experience. In fact I imagine most people attending church don’t feel that way.

Believe me when I say, I wish I did NOT feel that way - but I do - and there seems to be no way for me not to feel that the church at the least has not whitewashed history. However, if you reread what I stated, I in no way accused the church of a conspiracy here. Myths and whitewashing built up over 200 years is not the same as a conspiracy.

As to the rest of your comments, they don’t seem to shed any light on the first vision for me - I have read all that - and am still not convinced. I think it is highly unlikely a 14 year old boy saw what he saw and never told anyone until at least three years later. I am the mother of 5 children, and have had some spiritual experiences myself, and it is just not human nature not to tell at least someone something about something so powerful. It seems more probable to me (and believe me I do not take any joy in thinking this - I preferred the whitewashed version), that he probably had some sort of a spiritual epiphany but that it may not have been all that he later said it was. Just my take. Please do not be offended.

One point only: We don’t believe what we see; we see what we believe.

I think both sides are saying the EXACT SAME THING at the most basic level - namely, “This is how I see it, and I believe you are wrong.” The only difference is that Doug is saying, “This is how I see it, and you are stupid (or lying) if you don’t understand that.”

Fwiw, Doug, I don’t think you are stupid or a liar. I just think we believe differently, so we see differently.

I’m certain I wouldn’t be active in any church if it weren’t for the manifestations of the Spirit I’ve been given. The social aspect of the church is nice, but this alone is insufficient.

“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, except he has the Spirit of God”. JST 1 Cor. 2:11

Jeff–thanks for an interesting topic and thanks to all who made comments. I thought the discussion was elevated by the kindness exhibited by people who disagree, yet were respectful to others points of view.

“I also can’t quite understand why it is those members, former members and upset members use terms like “the church lied,” “misled.,” or “made up history,” when I never really heard or read a respectable historian or life-long student of the Church say these things. it seems a rationalization to support their disenchanted position.”

and

“I don’t seek to do that for anyone else. If someone tells me they got a witness that the church was not true, I accept it and move on. I don’t try to convince they they are wrong.”

and

“ The thing that is amusing about your statement is that I and “99% of the worlds religious scholars” would agree probably more than we disagree. So that argument doesn’t stand up too well”

Jeff, you certainly like to dish it out with statements like the ones above and yet you don’t see why folks, such as myself, get offended at your tone and want to bring you down a notch or two. You are certainly free to believe whatever you like but the first statement above makes you guilty of the very thing you’re complaining about. So let me had one more barb to the discussion, I think your actions here are hypercritical. Now that we have that out of the way I feel better…

“The same way scientists get it wrong. Or not exactly wrong, but not quite right. The key word you use is “intelligent.” People that use intelligence to determine spiritual things are bound to get it wrong. “….for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (Matthew 16:17)”

I hope you can take this in the way its intended without getting all offended again. There is a huge difference between learning spiritual truths about salvation as opposed to discussing what did or did not happen in history. See that’s the problem here, you and many like you want all of us boarderlander type Mormons to just believe based on feelings and ignore the actual historical record. I have no problem with believing in God and accepting many things on faith alone as that is what’s expected. I do have a problem with being asked to believe a whitewashed history that I’ve been fed all my life and told that to question it is apostasy and the fast road to hell. (Now please don’t tell me what I’ve been told all my life is not whitewashed history as you don’t have any idea what I’ve been taught.)

Here’s the big picture Jeff, I’m not your enemy nor is my position any less valuable then your own. Of course we both can’t be right and so we take advantage of this form to discuss it. If my lack of faith in the historical facts surrounding the restoration is offensive to you, how would you propose we discuss it? I don’t think starting a fight is going to be very fun for anyone, what do you think?

It also seems to me that you are not even opening your mind up to the possibility that there might be more than one interpretation of history. This seems a bit odd to me as it’s clearly true that different people will interpret it in different ways.

While I don’t blame you for your negative interpretation of Mormon history (I once held such a negative interpretation myself) I do have to take issue with you building it all into a lie or conspiracy theory when in fact most of the difference can be explained as honest difference in interpretation.

Let me use Doug G’s comment as an example (which will also allow me to respond to it): “Perhaps Rigel Hawthorne gives us a clue about how to stay naïve. Rigel quotes a piece of William Smith’s book that is obviously referring to Moroni and somehow tries to twist it into covering the visit of God and Jesus. When you have the ability to read into history what you want it to mean, I suspect anything becomes possible”

Doug G is in fact insulting Rigel for honestly interpreting history differently than him. But I can see both sides of the argument, personally. Maybe it does seem a little weird that Joseph didn’t run home and tell his whole family about the first vision. Heck, *I would have* right? And yet, there really is nothing particularly weird about it at all. The fact is that Joseph rarely mentioned the first vision to anyone prior to 1839. However, it is not true that he made it up then, as Fawn Brodie once tried to claim prior to the crushing evidence coming out that proved her wrong beyond doubt — such as an identifiable 1832 account done by Joseph Smith.

Now did William Smith know about the first vision? Well, he sort of did, and sort of didn’t. He was pretty young when the Church was founded and he seems to have conflated the first vision and the Moroni visit together or at least made them much closer together. For example, see if you can pick out the hidden first vision details in this quote from him: (hint: I’m being sarcastic… they are pretty dang obvious.)

At length he [Joseph Smith] determined to call upon the Lord until he should get a manifestation from him. He accordingly went out into the woods and falling upon his knees called for a long time upon the Lord for wisdom and knowledge. While engaged in prayer a light appeared in the heavens, and descended until it rested upon the trees where he was. It appeared like fire.
But to his great astonishment, did not burn the trees. An angel then appeared to him and conversed with him upon many things. He told him that none of the sects were right; but that if he was faithful in keeping the commandments he should receive, the true way should be made known to him; that his sins were forgiven, etc.

To make things more interesting, William says that this is a separate vision from the famous Moroni visit. That is to say, he definitely says there were two completely different visions. But he put them very close together in time. (Days, actually.)

But here’s the issue: How in the world did William get the details of the first vision so exactly if Joseph just made it all up later? I mean if it’s all fake and Joseph never mentioned it at all until 1839, and William was colluding with Joseph, then William was pretty stupid to not just follow Joseph’s party line. On the other hand, if Joseph started with the visit of Moroni (which is amply attested to in multipl