Joseph Smith, the Father, and the Son

[JohnsonJones]

Something that's been spread around in recent years are different versions of Joseph Smith's vision.  One of the interesting aspects I've noted is that it seems there has been a blending of his FIRST Vision and his SECOND Vision, or...that of his vision when he was visited by the Father and the Son and that when he was visited by an Angel, namely, the Angel Moroni.

In one he was asking for knowledge of the true church (and possibly, but not definitively, for forgiveness).  In the second, he was asking for forgiveness for light mindedness and sins of a more non-serious nature. 

One of the big things that people try to claim is that the idea of two personages, that of the Father and the Son, being separate beings, was not originally one of the things Joseph Smith said or even talked about.  They claim that it was not until later after the church was organized, the Book of Mormon Published, and he was giving an account of the First Vision formally for writing after this, which is where the Church History account comes from.

Researching some of this I stumbled upon an interesting item...that the claim that the Father and the Son were two separate individuals has at least one reference from BEFORE the Church was ever established.  It came BEFORE the Book of Mormon was published.  It is verifiable to exist and is right before our very eyes.

Quote

8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.

9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.

10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.

1 Nephi 1:8-10

It's right there at the beginning.  It's blatant, it's obvious.  The idea of the Father and the Son being separate, at least to me, is obviously presented right here in these verses.  You see the Father sitting upon his throne and you also see one at the same time descending out the midst of heaven.

This idea of the two being separate was NOT a new idea that Joseph suddenly came up with and that he tried to rewrite his First vision account to comply with this new idea, it was there from the very beginning of the Church.

I would posit he was being absolutely honest in his relation of the First vision (the one that we use) and this was what happened, but if we want to see a second witness that this idea was not a new thing later on when he wrote it, but instead had existed from early on, we have no further to look than the first few verses of the Book of Mormon today.

Edited February 7, 2020 by JohnsonJones
Clarify something to try to make it more clear to the reader

[Jonah]

On 2/7/2020 at 6:27 AM, JohnsonJones said:

Something that's been spread around in recent years are different versions of Joseph Smith's vision.  One of the interesting aspects I've noted is that it seems there has been a blending of his FIRST Vision and his SECOND Vision, or...that of his vision when he was visited by the Father and the Son and that when he was visited by an Angel, namely, the Angel Moroni.

I don't know how authentic the Joseph Smith papers are, but one section reveals the
angel's name was Nephi.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-1841-draft-draft-3/20#full-transcript

[Moonbeast32]

13 minutes ago, Jonah said:

I don't know how authentic the Joseph Smith papers are,

They are the culminative life work of Dean Jesse, who has long been considered the premiere authority for documents, articles, quotes, references, stories, biographies, and everything else pertaining to the Prophet Joseph Smith. I think they're pretty trustworthy.

[Jane_Doe]

17 minutes ago, Jonah said:

I don't know how authentic Joseph Smithare, but one section

Jonah, if you're trying to understand LDS Christian doctrine, I recommend you stick too scriptures.  Those are doctrinal sources.  It seems like you spend a LOT of time in non-doctrinal sources like Joseph Smith papers and others.  Get information from the BEST sources, not lower tiers.  

[JohnsonJones]

15 hours ago, Jonah said:

I don't know how authentic the Joseph Smith papers are, but one section reveals the
angel's name was Nephi.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-1841-draft-draft-3/20#full-transcript

That has been brought up before by some and there is actually a good answer to it.  Unfortunately, it's been awhile, so the explanation is off the top of my head right now rather than fresh with sources.

The specific account, ironically was written by Joseph Smiths Secretary and not Joseph Smith himself.  The actual writings of Joseph Smith show that he ALWAYS used the name Moroni when discussing the angel of this particular event and situation...INCLUDING Joseph Smith when giving the account personally in front of others as well as in his writings.

Those who had heard him all also stated Joseph Smith stated it was Moroni.

The sources for the word Nephi seem to all come from a singular account that was written up by another (speculation on the actual individual varies) with later sources being derived from that account as seen by the wording and phrasing of them (sometimes precisely).  Later accounts that used this wording were normally gathered from several accounts as a historical stating of the vision you list there.

I believe the 1834 statements about it being the angel Moroni predate this document and other ones (some dating to 1837 or 1838).

In theory, statements by his family would predate, but those against the church always call them into question as saying the statements may be of items prior to the writing, but the actual statements were made after, thus if one distrusts the Smiths, they could not be considered valid witnesses of the truth.

However, we have documentation (actually multiple) from Joseph, both before and after the writing of the source document that Joseph always stated that it was the Angel Moroni, rather Nephi.

For example, one of interest that has it's source supposedly (at the moment cannot verify the history of it's source to it's current incarnation if one asked directly) from 1830 is this from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Doctrine and Covenants...

Quote

1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim;

The beginning of Section 27.

I suppose it boils down to whether you believe Joseph and multiple other accounts (who claimed it was Moroni who visited in this situation) from prior and after the singular source that wrote down it was Nephi (and as I said, most assume it is from another author writing down the account, and later ones coming from those who utilized the summation of conglomeration of various accounts to make a singular narrative...similar to what we use today in many of our uses) or put more value on that singular contradicting document.

In reference to this in regards to the Book of Mormon above, what this shows is that the idea of two individuals appeared as early as 1829 and 1830...NOT later on as many try to claim.  Joseph had two different visions though in the years preceding the Book of Mormon, something some do not seem to take into account at times.  Both of them occurred in his teens.  One was with an Angel, and so when he references seeing a singular angel, one wonders if he actually is referring to the second vision (at least in my mind, not enough study has been done on this accord) rather than the even earlier vision of the Father and the Son.  It is obvious that he knew about them being two separate individuals from the Book of Mormon (of which, in this case, he never corrected or countered later on, whereas he specified Moroni in the situation you are talking about throughout his life countering a singular document in his own words on that aspect).

He had multiple occasions to do so and changed some aspects of the scriptures even in his life, or at least approved of a change or two.

And that is probably on that...there is more to say on the First vision itself that is my personal opinion, which I'll relay below rather than include in this already somewhat lengthy post.

Edited February 10, 2020 by JohnsonJones
Added D&C 27:5 later as I had a little more time to give information than directly off my head as I originally was doing

[JohnsonJones]

Another thing that my personal opinion is, is that he was wary of those he relayed the first vision to at times.  I can take a prime example in my own life.

Normally I say nothing at all, and people have no idea that I have had a personal experience of a heavenly nature.

Other times I will say that I have had a change to know of heaven and the angels there and that is it.

In truth, I saw the Lord and he spoke to me.  I testify he lives.  I KNOW he lives and that he is the Savior of the world.

Even with that, I am not going to say what he said to me or other things, probably for the same reasons that I expect Joseph did say it to everyone he met earlier in life.

This is because people do not take you seriously, or cannot accept or understand the vision.  Thus, he writes or states as much of it as he felt people would accept.

In this you could say you were visited by the Lord, but not a soul then would have probably accepted that it was TWO personages (even Catholic Priests back then and as educated on the matter as they should have been, many of them, if we take their writings and their statements from the local area, understood the trinity more in a modalist model rather than the model some divinity scholars use now.  Though such an idea of Father and son appearing at the same time would not confound most educated Catholic Priests today, one of that time period in his area may have denied such an idea of the trinity in favor of a more modalist form of the trinity instead.  History is a funny thing at times).

Even at this time, people on this forum will know what I have claimed...

To have seen the Lord and talked with him,

But beyond that they do not know what occurred.  Due to this experience and others is what has convinced me that the experiences listed in the Pearl of Great Price with Joseph Smith's first Vision actually happened because they are the ONLY account that I've ever read that come close to mirroring some of my own.

There is very little though that people will be able to say in what I actually saw and experienced, and if I expound on it at a later date because I feel the audience that will be listening is better able to accept what I saw and experienced, then I probably will.  That does not mean what I said here or before is different, but that I am expanding upon it because the people that are listening are probably more accepting than the general audience here, or in other situations where I might just say that I've seen heavenly messengers personally or have obtained a personal witness of the Plan of Salvation, of repentance, and the power of the Lord rather than a more full account.

That's one of my personal opinions on why Joseph did not say as explicitly concerning his first vision as he did at times in his later account or accounts, but, as I said, that's a personal opinion based upon personal experiences in that manner.  It is not something official and is more of a personal reason rather than anything of an official nature from the Church itself.

One could call it a personal witness and a personal experience that also is testifying of the Lord.  It is one I can give, but whether people accept it or not is something else.  I expect there may be those that would call the simple information I have relayed here various things under the sun rather than accept that I am trying to be as honest and truthful as I can be on the experience.  If I went further I know there would be those who would have an even greater difficulty accepting what happened and what occurred.

That said, because of it I can testify the Lord lives.  I can testify he can forgive sins and is the Savior.  I can say I know he is our redeemer.

Edited February 10, 2020 by JohnsonJones

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

I recently came upon this talk by Elder Packer to Educators. Many of our problems are because of the things he warned about in 1981:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/the-mantle-is-far-far-greater-than-the-intellect?lang=eng

[Guest Scott]

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Those who had heard him all also stated Joseph Smith stated it was Moroni.

The sources for the word Nephi seem to all come from a singular account that was written up by another (speculation on the actual individual varies) with later sources being derived from that account as seen by the wording and phrasing of them (sometimes precisely). 

That's not quite true.  There were many who said Nephi, not just a singular account.  There was also an article in the Times and Seasons, which Joseph is the author to, that says Nephi.    Joseph's mother, for example also said that it was Nephi.  The original Pearl of Great Price also said it was Nephi (though it is possible that this one came from Mulholland's trasncription; see below).   

Quote

That has been brought up before by some and there is actually a good answer to it.  Unfortunately, it's been awhile, so the explanation is off the top of my head right now rather than fresh with sources.

Maybe this is your source?

https://www.ldsliving.com/Was-Joseph-Smith-Visited-by-the-Angel-Nephi/s/89055

The article claims that the errors were all due to Mulholland's clerical errors, but that's not quite true.   There are other accounts that said Nephi that have nothing to do with Mulholland's doumentation.  
________________________________________________________________________________________

Anyway, I'm not claiming that one or the other accounts is false.    Here's what John Taylor said (I added the bracketed word, but everything else is an exact quote):

Afterwards the Angel Moroni came to him [Joseph] and revealed to him the Book of Mormon, with the history of which you are generally familiar, and also with the statements that I am now making pertaining to these things. And then came Nephi, one of the ancient prophets, that had lived upon this continent, who had an interest in the welfare of the people that he had lived amongst in those days.

According to John Taylor's account at least, it was both.  The above quote is in the Journal of Discourses 21:19 pg. 161.

As to why both aren't mentioned in several accounts, but usually only one or the other, I don't know.   John Taylor at least, says that it was both (and for different, but specific reasons).   Maybe there is a lot more that happened that we don't have a full account of.  

Edited February 10, 2020 by Scott
fix punctuation

[JohnsonJones]

39 minutes ago, Scott said:

That's not quite true.  There were many who said Nephi, not just a singular account.  There was also an article in the Times and Seasons, which Joseph is the author to, that says Nephi.    Joseph's mother, for example also said that it was Nephi.  The original Pearl of Great Price also said it was Nephi (though it is possible that this came from Mulholland's trasncription; see below).   

Maybe this is your source?

https://www.ldsliving.com/Was-Joseph-Smith-Visited-by-the-Angel-Nephi/s/89055

The article claims that the errors were all due to Mulholland's clerical errors, but that's not quite true.   There are other accounts that said Nephi that have nothing to do with Mulholland's doumentation.  
________________________________________________________________________________________

Anyway, I'm not claiming that one or the other accounts is false.    Here's what John Taylor said (I added the bracketed word, but everything else is an exact quote):

Afterwards the Angel Moroni came to him [Joseph] and revealed to him the Book of Mormon, with the history of which you are generally familiar, and also with the statements that I am now making pertaining to these things. And then came Nephi, one of the ancient prophets, that had lived upon this continent, who had an interest in the welfare of the people that he had lived amongst in those days.

According to John Taylor's account at least, it was both.  The above quote is in the Journal of Discourses 21:19 pg. 161.

As to why both aren't mentioned in several accounts, but usually only one or the other, I don't know.   John Taylor at least, says that it was both (and for different, but specific reasons).   Maybe there is a lot more that happened that we don't have a full account of.  

I didn't use  source, I said it off the top of my head from memory.

And yes, it's from a singular source, all the documents that use it are traced back to one, I want to say, from 1937 or something like that.

I didn't say it was specifically from Mulholland's account, I said it was from a singular account written by his secretary which we can trace the lineage.  I believe people have speculated it was from Joseph's Scribe, but I don't think we know the author exactly (I could be wrong, as I said, this is not me doing specific research on it right now).  It generally is attributed to his secretary or scribe whom I think people think was Mulholland, but I'm not certain it was Mulholland or not.

In History, for those who don't understand it, everything has to come from a primary source, normally one that is pretty well documented (and the reason, as we were discussing valid sources, why for D&C 27 I made the unusual remark that I had not actually done the research to see it's own lineage to know whether it was the original wording or had been changed).

If we are going by the other angels that visited Joseph, documents indicate it was more than just Nephi, but several prophets from the Book of Mormon including Lehi, but that was not what that specific item that was posted was about.  Those documents are not the ones were are referring to here...because in the item Jonah listed, it was specifically one that has been erroneously used in the past and is traceable directly back to one single document which started the entire thing.  It was about an entry that had its source from a singular document in regards to using the name Nephi.

Most of the time I see people trying to list documents in this, they are untrained in history and how to source a primary source (or, though I do not expect it would happen on this site, they are deliberately lying about the truth of it so that they can cast shade on Joseph Smith and his accounts).  This is why it may appear there are multiple documents or statements, but in essence there is only one document that had this written, but has been quoted a bit since then.  In the past it was not a problem for Joseph Smith and later prophets to simply corrected those who did this in what was supposed to have been written there, but in more recent times anti-Mormons have tried to inflate it into an issue larger than it actually is.  I suppose that could bring confusion to those who do not know the history (or a historians method and craft of documenting and sourcing back to original documents in their research) of that particular item.

It is somewhat interesting that one would bring up John Taylor's statement in that regard as it isn't necessarily in reference to the documents that list Nephi as the Angel of that particular vision that relayed the knowledge of the Book of Mormon.  In fact, it seems to COUNTER that statement.  It more specifically would appear to be stating the visits Joseph had from prophets, not just NEPHI, but LEHI and others in the similar time periods AFTER he saw Moroni.  I'm not sure why you would bring that one up when in truth, I don't see the sources as being the same source for the information given. It has no connection to the singular document in question, and there's no reason for any connection between the two to be there.  He is not saying it was Nephi instead of Moroni who delivered and gave the Gold Plates, instead he is giving something entirely different which historians already are aware of.  It has no connection to the singular document notation of Nephi being the Angel of Vision with the horn in the midst, but rather he specifies that it is Moroni who came to Joseph.  He then starts to discuss the others who also came and visited Joseph after that.  There's no reason to have any connection between the documents from 1937 or John Taylor's statement in this regard.

For starters, John Taylor had no need to rely on that document for information from the First Vision, as he knew Joseph personally, as well as others who relayed their side of the stories of the visions of Joseph during his Teenage  years.  Secondly, rather than assume he was talking about that document, why would he not have been talking about others which specifically made reference to the visits of these Book of Mormon (and other) prophets to Joseph and were NOT countered by Joseph at later dates? 

I have seen some from anti-Mormons try to trace this idea of John Taylors statement to Joseph, which I suppose could confuse a member who doesn't know how to research it, but most of those statements take it for granted that John Taylor didn't know Joseph and couldn't talk to him or find out such information from Joseph, his peers, or Joseph's family and relatives, much less friends and such.

There's no reason John Taylor had to rely on anything other than his own personal first hand discussions and experiences with Joseph Smith and those who knew him.  It would be questionable why he would use a document or rely on it in order to say anything to that regard as he knew Joseph personally. Also, he said a LOT more than what that one statement infers he said.  It looks good in regards to our conversation when stated solely, but in context, I'm not so sure it says what some think it says (it could be interpreted to say something, but at the same time could be interpreted to say something entirely different).  As I said, Nephi was just one of the prophets that visited Joseph Smith during the time of the Plates (or from the time Moroni first visited him the first time that night to when he finished four years after that...others mentioned I believe were not just Book of Mormon prophets but also Biblical prophets).  That said, it would still be a secondary source (as John Taylor did not experience it himself and was only relaying it second hand, if that) at best.

Edited February 10, 2020 by JohnsonJones
Clarity to try to avoid misunderstanding of what I wrote

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

That's not quite true.  There were many who said Nephi, not just a singular account.  There was also an article in the Times and Seasons, which Joseph is the author to, that says Nephi.    Joseph's mother, for example also said that it was Nephi.  The original Pearl of Great Price also said it was Nephi (though it is possible that this one came from Mulholland's trasncription; see below).   

Maybe this is your source?

https://www.ldsliving.com/Was-Joseph-Smith-Visited-by-the-Angel-Nephi/s/89055

The article claims that the errors were all due to Mulholland's clerical errors, but that's not quite true.   There are other accounts that said Nephi that have nothing to do with Mulholland's doumentation.  
________________________________________________________________________________________

Anyway, I'm not claiming that one or the other accounts is false.    Here's what John Taylor said (I added the bracketed word, but everything else is an exact quote):

Afterwards the Angel Moroni came to him [Joseph] and revealed to him the Book of Mormon, with the history of which you are generally familiar, and also with the statements that I am now making pertaining to these things. And then came Nephi, one of the ancient prophets, that had lived upon this continent, who had an interest in the welfare of the people that he had lived amongst in those days.

According to John Taylor's account at least, it was both.  The above quote is in the Journal of Discourses 21:19 pg. 161.

As to why both aren't mentioned in several accounts, but usually only one or the other, I don't know.   John Taylor at least, says that it was both (and for different, but specific reasons).   Maybe there is a lot more that happened that we don't have a full account of.  

FAIR says that Lucy’s reference to “Nephi” harks back to her editor’s decision to cite to the Times & Seasons.  They seem suggest that there are no sources that mention “Nephi” independently of that single MSS to which @JohnsonJones cites.  I’d be interested to double-check that, but don’t have time to troll through anti-Mormon sites at present.  I’ll sign off with the FAIR link:  https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Which_sources_mention_Nephi_as_the_angelic_visitor_who_told_Joseph_Smith_about_the_gold_plates%3F

Edited February 10, 2020 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

FAIR says that Lucy’s reference to “Nephi” harks back to her editor’s decision to cite to the Times & Seasons.  

Interesting.    

Anyway, I wish I had known that earlier.   I wonder when the FAIR article came out?   The only reason I know about the Nephi vs. Moroni "controversy" (or whatever it would be called) is when I used to defend the Church on the CARM forum.  That was several years ago though and I no longer post on the forum.

As far as the TImes and Seasons go though, in one of the articles Joseph is the one who is credited with saying it was Nephi.   If it really was an error, I wonder why it was perpetuated for so long?   Several of those sources were published during Joseph's lifetime and before his death.   Wouldn't he correct them?

[Guest Scott]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I didn't use  source, I said it off the top of my head from memory.

If you do find it or remember, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Quote

I didn't say it was specifically from Mulholland's account, I said it was from a singular account written by his secretary which we can trace the lineage.  I believe people have speculated it was from Joseph's Scribe, but I don't think we know the author exactly (I could be wrong, as I said, this is not me doing specific research on it right now).  It generally is attributed to his secretary or scribe whom I think people think was Mulholland, but I'm not certain it was Mulholland or not.

Mulholland was Joseph's clerk druing much of that time period.   See here from the Joseph Smith papers (since that is what is being quoted):

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/james-mulholland

Quote

In History, for those who don't understand it, everything has to come from a primary source, normally one that is pretty well documented (and the reason, as we were discussing valid sources, why for D&C 27 I made the unusual remark that I had not actually done the research to see it's own lineage to know whether it was the original wording or had been changed).

This still begs the question in that if it really were an error, Joseph Smith would have certainly known of it.   Several of those sources were published before his death.   Joseph was the editor of the Times and Seasons and certainly would have been aware of and had read the errors.   I wonder why he wouldn't correct them?   

Quote

It is somewhat interesting that one would bring up John Taylor's statement in that regard as it isn't necessarily in reference to the documents that list Nephi as the Angel of that particular vision that relayed the knowledge of the Book of Mormon.

I see what you are saying. 

I do think that it interesting that the Church website says that there were at least 22 visits from Moroni.  

https://www.josephsmith.net/article/moroni-messenger-of-the-restoration?lang=eng

I do think there is a lot we don't know about the visions.

Joseph Smith History says the following about the first night of visitations (from Moroni):

He commenced, and again related the very same things which he had done at his first visit,.....

But what was my surprise when again I beheld the same messenger at my bedside, and heard him rehearse or repeat over again to me the same things as before;

So even on the first night of visitations from Moroni, Moroni visited at least three times that night and repeated the same things three times.

Isn't it possible that someone else (maybe Nephi) also visited that night and said the same things that Moroni did?

I (obviously) don't know, but I am presenting it as a possibility.   I do not have a good answer to the question, but have wondered if it could be a possibile.  

Anyway to clarify, I'm not saying that it may have been Nephi and not Moroni who visited Joseph and made the revelation of where the plates were or about the plates (it was definitely Moroni).  I still think it is possible that both might have, but for different reasons (Moroni because he was charged with keeping and protecting the records and Nephi because he had an interest in the welfare of the people whom were of his family).  

Of course, there is nothing at all (that I'm aware of) that could back up the above speculation (and even then I only say that it might be possible, rather than an actual belief I have), so I have nothing to back up that it may have been both.  As said, I'm only presenting it as an (unprovable) possibility.  
 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Scott

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Scott said:

  Quote

In History, for those who don't understand it, everything has to come from a primary source, normally one that is pretty well documented (and the reason, as we were discussing valid sources, why for D&C 27 I made the unusual remark that I had not actually done the research to see it's own lineage to know whether it was the original wording or had been changed).

Historians may have to reference primary sources, but at least they don't have to worry about using correct grammar or spelling. (One or the other, or maybe both.)

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Historians may have to reference primary sources, but at least they don't have to worry about using correct grammar or spelling. (One or the other, or maybe both.)

Yep...

Its...It's...

I try to go over stuff and edit the grammar and spelling, but as they say, editing your own stuff is the hardest to do.

Once it's quoted I try to refrain from going back and editing.

I admit I am far more casual in my writing (and grammar and spelling) on the forums and normally just try to ensure that people can understand what I wrote rather than go through in great length and detail for grammar and spelling.  I edit for grammar and spelling, but it is normally to help with understanding or clarity.  I make a great deal of mistakes typing so I catch many mistakes after I go through it after posting (such as this post here which is now edited), but it is obvious I am not the perfect editor of my writing.

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by JohnsonJones
LoL!