DaddyB

I see what you are saying here and understand now your meaning in the use of inconsistent vs contradictory. It is important to be aware, however, that the issue of being inconsistent is much different with Joseph Smith's accounts than with a witness to an accident. The obvious expectation of a witness to an accident would be to tell everything relevant to the accident. When telling a story of a personal experience the expectation is much different. It is more about what is relevent to the purpose for telling the story. In different settings I will leave many details out of a story that I don't feel are as important as the details I include. I may tell the same story a dozen times and each time this true story would be "inconsistent" per your definition, yet that inconsistency would not be a reason to doubt the truthfulness of the story. I can see two reasons for the difference in how different LDS respond to first leaning of the varying accounts. One is who they learn it from. If they read about it in the Improvement Era article in 1970, I can't imagine anyone having any cognitive dissonance over it. Where the doubt problems come in is where they hear it first from a critic where it is presented as a problem. The second reason is the state of that person's faith and desires toward the church. If the person discovering this information is looking for reasons for doubt, this will work as well as anything else they don't immediately completely understand. I think we would be wrong in assuming that since we don't have a documented account means it was not taught. There is good historical evidence that it was taught and told from the beginning. The most obvious evidence is the fact that you don't find any contemporary critics bringing this up as something suspicious. I have never heard of any leader or even member stating that the idea of their being multiple accounts of the fist vision is from anti sources. I guess it is possible, but I would guess too rare to be worthy of comment. I can imagine, however that if asked if Joseph told contradictory stories of his first vision the answer would often be that that is from anti sources, which would be a very accurate answer. It is all in the way the question is being asked.

You make a good point here. But John Dehlin's piece misses a lot as well. The respondents to his questions were people who were already sensitive to the oft repeated reason of being offended and purposely avoided going there explicitly. But in their answers the influence of how they were treated by others was a significant factor. They just avoided using the word offended. The only reason the idea of being offended is brought up to explain why people are inactive is because we have heard it so much from those people directly. Although I admit it is not the real reason, it is indeed an excuse I have heard and continue to hear from inactives. I personally know the stories of several people who have left the church and without exception, the explanation they now give for their leaving leaves out the core reason. In my opinion, that is the glaring flaw in the well known study by John Dehlin.

RMGuy, you have spoken well here, but some of your logic is puzzling to me. You claim that the different accounts of the first vision are not consistent. That assumes they contradict one another. I have studied the different accounts and the only contradiction I have found is in the first account where the age is one year off. Everything else is completely consistent. Just what do you see in the accounts that are contradictory? I am trying to figure out how this analogy relates to the Joseph Smith story. Could you please elaborate?

Suzie, I like the reasoning here. For more on the first vision accounts, you can check out this series of videos on the subject. The descriptions below each video also add a lot of insight. First Vision | Mormon Challenges