The First Vision accounts


Latter Days Guy
 Share

Recommended Posts

In reality John Dehlin did an interesting study on why people leave. While I don't agree with him on a lot, I think this was pretty well done. If someone was interested in better understanding this they could Google John Dehlin Why People Leave.

Here's a hint...it's not because they were offended.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaddyB,

I'm happy to try to clarify as best I can. Please note that my original statement is that these accounts are not consistent not that they are contradictory. While that may be a fine line to draw, I believe it is an important one.

Perhaps an example. If I made a statement to a police officer about an accident I had observed and said for example that I saw Car A hit Car B, and then later made a statement saying that I saw Car A hit Car B because Car C had caused Car B to swerve that story is not consistent. In other words, one may rightfully ask why I neglected to mention Car C in the first statement.

If I made an original statement along the lines of there were only two cars present and Car A hit Car B, and then later stated that I saw Car A hit Car B because Car C had caused Car B to swerve that statement is contradictory.

In the first instance it is inconsistent because I neglected to mention Car C the first time around. The second example is contradictory because I said there were only two cars present, so where did car C come from? Both statements in the second example cannot be true.

I think the former is what we are dealing with in the first vision accounts. They are inconsistent. It is not that they cannot be reconciled. I think that there are many faithful members of the church that are aware of the different versions of the story and have, for themselves, seen how those stories can work together. There are numerous examples in this thread alone testifying to that. However I can see where others see those same stories and question how could Joseph have had this experience and then neglected to mention various aspects of the story. I believe this is exactly why they church has written the essays available on LDS.org about this issue. They recognize the cognitive dissonance that this can cause for members. While I have no desire to add fuel to that particular fire there are numbers of inconsistencies between the various accounts more than just the year being off including number of personages, whether they were spirits or not, and the years in which it occurred (not to mention ages). Additionally, I can see why people wonder why this was not taught for many years after. As an aside, if anyone can provide a documented account of this story prior to 1831 then I have a $1000 for you. Doesn't exist as far as we know and I think people wonder why.

As for the second question, it is simply illustrative. It is why some individuals feel as though they have been lied to. Please note I'm not saying that they have, rather that is how they feel. They have been told their entire lives (for those BIC), that this is the Joseph Smith story. Many times when they first learn about various other accounts and ask about it, they are told they are anti-mormon lies, only to find out later that they are in fact true. They begin to feel as though they were lied to, and I would go so far as to counter that if they have asked a legitimate question and have not been given full and complete information that this perhaps borders on the fraudulent yes.

-RM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaddyB,

Perhaps an example. If I made a statement to a police officer about an accident I had observed and said for example that I saw Car A hit Car B, and then later made a statement saying that I saw Car A hit Car B because Car C had caused Car B to swerve that story is not consistent. In other words, one may rightfully ask why I neglected to mention Car C in the first statement.

If I made an original statement along the lines of there were only two cars present and Car A hit Car B, and then later stated that I saw Car A hit Car B because Car C had caused Car B to swerve that statement is contradictory.

-RM

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.

However I can see where others see those same stories and question how could Joseph have had this experience and then neglected to mention various aspects of the story. I believe this is exactly why they church has written the essays available on LDS.org about this issue. They recognize the cognitive dissonance that this can cause for members.-RM

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.

Additionally, I can see why people wonder why this was not taught for many years after. As an aside, if anyone can provide a documented account of this story prior to 1831 then I have a $1000 for you. Doesn't exist as far as we know and I think people wonder why. -RM

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.

As for the second question, it is simply illustrative. It is why some individuals feel as though they have been lied to. Please note I'm not saying that they have, rather that is how they feel. They have been told their entire lives (for those BIC), that this is the Joseph Smith story. Many times when they first learn about various other accounts and ask about it, they are told they are anti-mormon lies, only to find out later that they are in fact true. They begin to feel as though they were lied to, and I would go so far as to counter that if they have asked a legitimate question and have not been given full and complete information that this perhaps borders on the fraudulent yes.

-RM

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Missed my point entirely. I never said that someone causes someone else to go inactive.

It certainly that persons choice. However, what choice does someone have when they feel they have been lied to and people around them that are supposed to be there for support, treat them as second class and say things like "They just wanted to sin", or "They never had a strong testimony.". What sane, rational person would want to keep going to that place?

One choice is to just keep doing what you know is right. You could choose to ignore what people are saying. You could choose to continue to have faith. You could think back on those experiences you have had that have confirmed to you that God loves you and cares about you. You can make the choice to not assume that someone has lied to you. There are many good alternatives to making the choice to be offended or to begin to doubt all of your experiences in the gospel.

If someone was telling me that I am having doubts because I just want to sin I would have a hard time disagreeing with them. For me, and I might just be a weirdo, there are many sins that I want to do and when I do commit them it is absolutely because I want to. Me wanting to sin is a given. At the same time its probably true that the person who is saying such things to you is being a hypocrite and likely condescending. But, that isn't my problem. That's their problem.

If I'm being honest with myself I must admit that my testimony is not very strong. I know for a fact that I don't have the faith to move a mountain so my faith at the moment is not even the size of a mustard seed. Someone pointing that out to me isn't particularly helpful most of the time but I know from experience that how I feel doesn't have to be governed by how others might feel about me and how they express their feelings to me.

As far as being treated as a second class citizen. I'd first make sure that this was actually happening and I'm not just thinking that I'm being treated that way. I would ask why are you treating me as a second class citizen or maybe something along the lines of, "Hey, I feel like you are treating me as a second class citizen. It doesn't make me feel real good and it takes some of the pleasure out of coming to church. Are my feelings justified or am I being too sensitive?"

The bolded part is exactly what has been said and is exactly the attitude that disgusts me. "If you testimony was real before you wouldn't have these issues." "How weak is their testimony that a little thing like not knowing whether there were two people or one can shake their faith."

This is the attitude that my wife faces every Sunday. How Christ like!!

The bolded part is a truth. It isn't an attitude, although that truth ought to shape our attitude. That doesn't mean that people are justified in being mean spirited or making unrighteous judgements. However, our testimony ought to be above the imperfections and ignorant comments of mankind. To have a testimony like that is Christ like. Jesus did not allow anything that was said or done to Him to cause Him to falter. It is the atonement of Jesus Christ that provides us that enabling power to be able to overcome the times that we struggle.

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One choice is to just keep doing what you know is right. You could choose to ignore what people are saying. You could choose to continue to have faith. You could think back on those experiences you have had that have confirmed to you that God loves you and cares about you. You can make the choice to not assume that someone has lied to you. There are many good alternatives to making the choice to be offended or to begin to doubt all of your experiences in the gospel.

If someone was telling me that I am having doubts because I just want to sin I would have a hard time disagreeing with them. For me, and I might just be a weirdo, there are many sins that I want to do and when I do commit them it is absolutely because I want to. Me wanting to sin is a given. At the same time its probably true that the person who is saying such things to you is being a hypocrite and likely condescending. But, that isn't my problem. That's their problem.

If I'm being honest with myself I must admit that my testimony is not very strong. I know for a fact that I don't have the faith to move a mountain so my faith at the moment is not even the size of a mustard seed. Someone pointing that out to me isn't particularly helpful most of the time but I know from experience that how I feel doesn't have to be governed by how others might feel about me and how they express their feelings to me.

As far as being treated as a second class citizen. I'd first make sure that this was actually happening and I'm not just thinking that I'm being treated that way. I would ask why are you treating me as a second class citizen or maybe something along the lines of, "Hey, I feel like you are treating me as a second class citizen. It doesn't make me feel real good and it takes some of the pleasure out of coming to church. Are my feelings justified or am I being too sensitive?"

The bolded part is a truth. It isn't an attitude, although that truth ought to shape our attitude. That doesn't mean that people are justified in being mean spirited or making unrighteous judgements. However, our testimony ought to be above the imperfections and ignorant comments of mankind. To have a testimony like that is Christ like. Jesus did not allow anything that was said or done to Him to cause Him to falter. It is the atonement of Jesus Christ that provides us that enabling power to be able to overcome the times that we struggle.

-Finrock

Let me know when you break out of the rose coloured bubble you seem to live in.

Thanks. I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Morning Canuck Mormon. I hope you're doing well! :)

Let me know when you break out of the rose coloured bubble you seem to live in.

What if I have never been in a rose coloured bubble, either figuratively or literally?

Thanks. I'm done.

You're welcome.

-Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Alls I have to say is that the flavor of each ward is very different, the gospel and principles are the same but the people are different. I have felt very comfortable im most wards I have been in and I have also felt like an outcast in one particular ward.

 

it is no different from a work environment and classroom environment. Every where you go there are people, every where you go there will be people problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bolded part is exactly what has been said and is exactly the attitude that disgusts me. "If you testimony was real before you wouldn't have these issues." "How weak is their testimony that a little thing like not knowing whether there were two people or one can shake their faith."

This is the attitude that my wife faces every Sunday. How Christ like!!

Dunno what kind of ward you live in, but we've had several people leave our ward. Yes, there are some who whisper about this and that but they are in the minority. The majority of the ward either don't know, don't care, or try to even be more loving about it.

But see, this is what perks my interest. You say this is your wife. YOUR wife. A wife gets her strength and protection and safe haven from her husband moreso than the ward. And you seem to be a really positive, supportive, protective individual, so I'm sure that is not lacking. Now, it's really hard for me to believe that EVERYBODY in your ward are hateful. But, I'll cede on this a bit and let's say 90% of your ward (although that still kinda gets my eyebrows raising) are hateful and only 10% are loving/don't know/don't care. Then that's where your wife needs to focus on - you and the 10%. And you also need to focus on that as well. I mean, dude, this world is gigantic! If you can't stand tall as a minority in a crowd, you're not gonna make it too far out of your doorstep.

So, I tend to think that when we see ourselves bucking the viewpoint of the majority, we automatically put on the defensive barriers and start pointing out the hatefulness of others (either real or perceived) just so we'll feel validated to reject their viewpoints and embrace our own.

And I'm willing to bet that that's the truth.

So, Finrock is one of the nice ones - the 10%. Yet, you put him down by accusing him of being in a bubble. So, my two cents is this: instead of pointing out "oh, you're hateful, this is hateful, what you're saying is hateful, you're driving my wife away from the Church"... what you need to be doing is recognizing and pointing out the nice things and magnifying those - you need to find the good and nice thing that Finrock is saying instead of just painting everything as hateful. Because, my brother, that is going to get you sucked into the abyss.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share