That quotation is from Kathleen Flake; she used it during the PBS documentary on the Church. And since it’s just her, I should really say “a historian” has noted…but hey, I need to enhance my own importance at every turn, right?

Oooh, that’s a nice (and apt) analogy. Can you tell me the source of it?

I think you missed the point of my post. I didn’t say that something didn’t happen, I merely pointed out that different versions of the event do conflict with each other. What you’re saying is that there may be a very logical explanation for the contradictions. I’m not trying to make this a first vision discussion so I won’t go further into it; my point is simply that there are conflicts in the statements. How one deal’s with the conflicts depends on your bias, but let’s at least agree that there are significant differences that do conflict with each other.

Thanks!

I can sympathize with you to a degree. Even I’ll acknowledge that for this memory business really to be meaningful, we have to be cognizant of the documents before us. Before one can revel in the ambiguity, one must know that there is ambiguity. As far as the first vision accounts, I don’t want to thread-jack either. But I will say that there are as many problems with those who cry foul at the changes as those among the Church who remain naive to the differences. Incidentally, Marvin Hill provides an excellent historiographical discussion on interpretations of the First Vision in Dialogue, Summer 1982.

Yet my very point was as Hawk pointed out–if we become bogged down in parsing first vision accounts, we might be missing the point of the Joseph that exists in the eyes of God.

I understand why there could be different accounts but why is it taught in the church that the story happened exactly a specific way? When we don’t really know how it happened. I know history is biased, all of it is It is based on interpretations of events.. even church history.

But if I bring up the fact that the history of the church could be little different than what we are taught, I’m treated as though I’m an apostate. I just wish that the church would just acknowledge the fact that the history may be a little inaccurate.

In the interest of keeping this an honest discussion and in fairness to those who have heard of different accounts of the first vision, but not actually read them. I think you have to take a very narrow (read, ignore the conflicting points) view of those accounts to not see the glaring conflicts between them.

For example, in the 1832 account JS goes to great lengths to explain how he came to the conclusion that all religions he was familiar with were false and therefore incapable of helping him be forgiven of his sins. He therefore is going to pray to find out if he can be forgiven of his sins. The answer is yes, his sins are forgiven. In the 1838 account, he doesn’t know which church to join, (it hasn’t even occurred to him that they all might be wrong) he therefore goes to pray to find out which church to join and accordingly is answered to join none of them. Also in the 1832 account we see were Christ calls Joseph his son to start the vision, where as the 1838 account, the father introduces Christ as His son. JS age is also problematic although not as glaring a conflict as the purpose and background for going to pray and the answers received.

These are either two different visions entirely or they are conflicted. We can argue about whether not mentioning two personages in the 1832 account, seeing angles, or being overcome by the devil is a conflict or just an omission. But you can’t say there are not serious conflicts between versions in what he knew before he prayed, what motivated him to pray, what he asked, what answers he got, and who actually spoke to him and why.

Ok, end of thread jack. Please continue with the discussion…

:3

What would happen if the core claims were embellishment?

just wondering.

because…

people seem to have “understandings” from the Holy Ghost (or related entities in other traditions) for a *lot* of things.

they can’t all be true, can they?

Could it be that, in matters of faith, we suppose that the hard details and the documentation are simply not available, so we must protect our investing instead of our investments?

The only problem comes in when there is a clash between stories (e.g. the middle east or evangelicalism vs. Mormonism) and people forget that these are stories, not facts. Do they have some basis in reality? Probably most of them do. But it is the interpretation of the facts and the creation of the story that we mis-label “fact,” giving us a mistake or overinflated sense of superiority, patriotism, and phantom adversaries.

…my inner violent streak wants to read more about this “rambunctious boy who literally beat fellow workers into submission.”

my inner child hearkens back to English class lessons about symbolism in novels and thinks all of that symbolism was really farfetched and most of it wasn’t all that obvious. He thinks they just put those symbols there to make kids’ lives suck.

In the end, Joseph Smith as a symbol seems to face a similar fate. >_>

I like the symbol idea because it looks at the results of Joseph rather than the person, himself. I think that can eliminate the speculation about his ultimate character, which, I might add, is not an issue for me personally. In many ways, Jesus, himself, is a representation of what is written about Him. Unless of course, we have first-hand knowledge of Him.