Great article. Unfortunately, it makes a common mistake by those who do not understand Trinitarian doctrine.
While creedal Christianity believes that the Father and Son are the same God ("being"), they are equally as adamant that they are separate persons, so the Father and the Son appearing as different and distinct persons in the First Vision would not contradict their beliefs.
Trinitarians consider it a heresy (called Modalism) to claim the Father and the Son are the same person (while at the same time not denying that they share a common essence and being -- they consider it a mystery as to how that works). So it's important not to claim too much for the First Vision--revealing the true nature of God in contradiction to Trinitarian belief would not be one of them. That knowledge would have to come later.
PattyOctober 17, 2016
Thank you for this fine article. In support of this subject, my husband and I viewed the programs about the Joseph Smith Papers produced starting in 2008 and beyond when that project was just beginning. This subject was addressed in a couple of the programs by Glenn Rawson in such a lovely way with even a little more detail. I personally appreciate the various versions.
From personal experience, I have started my own history probably half a dozen times then running out of time or getting interrupted I stopped and my work was put a-sided and forgotten in the busyness of life. Then several years later I've come upon my work and of course I compare what I'd written at different times. Because various things have come to mind depending on the moment yet all the various details are part of my history though somewhat different in approach. Seems it would be the same for anyone if they put it to the test. It would be highly unusual if someone could tell something about them self exactly the same way time and again of their own life.
Mark StodddardOctober 17, 2016
Well done. I'm glad you included the Saul to Paul retelling which has some distinct differences, and certainly the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John differ dramatically -- as in Matthew and John don't even mention the Ascension. Isn't Christ ascending rather important? As you so eloquently point out, that portion of the true story wasn't relevant to the purpose of the writer at that time. Joseph did see what he said and that truth of The Father and Son and Holy Spirit has changed the lives of countless millions for the better. Even quite inactive members, when asked to describe The Father and Son, practically restate what Joseph saw. GREAT ARTICLE.
MeOctober 17, 2016
I think what needs to be addressed isn't that there ARE multiple versions of the first vision, it's that they all have extreme differences. In multiple versions Joseph Smith said he only saw one person. Like this article pointed out, seeing two beings was a BIG deal for the time period, so I find it interesting that he never chose to include that until later.
There are numerous differences that are bothersome. The fact that there are multiple versions isn't a problem, it's that they are so incredibly different on some major points.
Lee HillOctober 17, 2016
Thank you for this article. I have heard many arguments regarding the differences in the several versions of the first vision spouted by those who would try to shake my faith. None succeeded for the very reasons you cited in the article. I just wish I could have articulated my feelings as well as you did in this article.
SheilaOctober 17, 2016
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH! I know that many people have left the church on this point alone, and I'm sharing your article with 2 that I know personally. Others are in doubt and confusion because of the various versions, and this just might help them stay in the church that has more truth than any other church on earth. May you be richly blessed for sharing this! And also to the Proctors, thank you for sharing this!
Trish MercerOctober 17, 2016
As a writer, I LOVE seeing the different accounts, because--as you wisely pointed out--there are many ways to describe the same incident. We reveal certain layers at certain times. Put all together, the entire image is far more fulfilling.
Something else that may "shake" members is the image of the grove: every representation has it leafy and green. But some historians suggest the First Vision occurred in late March ("early in the spring"). I've been to the grove in late March--there are no leaves. The tulips don't even come up at the visitors centers yet. It's a gray, bleak forest of only trunks and branches which, to me, makes the glory of the First Vision even more significant.
I kind of wish someone would demonstrate the First Vision in pictorial form showing the barrenness of the trees. As my family walked through the grove that early spring day (and we were the only ones, since no one goes on a weekday in March!) we were impressed that this was how it really looked. No bees humming or birds singing--just profound peace, waiting . . .
Comments | Return to Story
JohnMOctober 20, 2016
Great article. Unfortunately, it makes a common mistake by those who do not understand Trinitarian doctrine. While creedal Christianity believes that the Father and Son are the same God ("being"), they are equally as adamant that they are separate persons, so the Father and the Son appearing as different and distinct persons in the First Vision would not contradict their beliefs. Trinitarians consider it a heresy (called Modalism) to claim the Father and the Son are the same person (while at the same time not denying that they share a common essence and being -- they consider it a mystery as to how that works). So it's important not to claim too much for the First Vision--revealing the true nature of God in contradiction to Trinitarian belief would not be one of them. That knowledge would have to come later.
PattyOctober 17, 2016
Thank you for this fine article. In support of this subject, my husband and I viewed the programs about the Joseph Smith Papers produced starting in 2008 and beyond when that project was just beginning. This subject was addressed in a couple of the programs by Glenn Rawson in such a lovely way with even a little more detail. I personally appreciate the various versions. From personal experience, I have started my own history probably half a dozen times then running out of time or getting interrupted I stopped and my work was put a-sided and forgotten in the busyness of life. Then several years later I've come upon my work and of course I compare what I'd written at different times. Because various things have come to mind depending on the moment yet all the various details are part of my history though somewhat different in approach. Seems it would be the same for anyone if they put it to the test. It would be highly unusual if someone could tell something about them self exactly the same way time and again of their own life.
Mark StodddardOctober 17, 2016
Well done. I'm glad you included the Saul to Paul retelling which has some distinct differences, and certainly the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John differ dramatically -- as in Matthew and John don't even mention the Ascension. Isn't Christ ascending rather important? As you so eloquently point out, that portion of the true story wasn't relevant to the purpose of the writer at that time. Joseph did see what he said and that truth of The Father and Son and Holy Spirit has changed the lives of countless millions for the better. Even quite inactive members, when asked to describe The Father and Son, practically restate what Joseph saw. GREAT ARTICLE.
MeOctober 17, 2016
I think what needs to be addressed isn't that there ARE multiple versions of the first vision, it's that they all have extreme differences. In multiple versions Joseph Smith said he only saw one person. Like this article pointed out, seeing two beings was a BIG deal for the time period, so I find it interesting that he never chose to include that until later. There are numerous differences that are bothersome. The fact that there are multiple versions isn't a problem, it's that they are so incredibly different on some major points.
Lee HillOctober 17, 2016
Thank you for this article. I have heard many arguments regarding the differences in the several versions of the first vision spouted by those who would try to shake my faith. None succeeded for the very reasons you cited in the article. I just wish I could have articulated my feelings as well as you did in this article.
SheilaOctober 17, 2016
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH! I know that many people have left the church on this point alone, and I'm sharing your article with 2 that I know personally. Others are in doubt and confusion because of the various versions, and this just might help them stay in the church that has more truth than any other church on earth. May you be richly blessed for sharing this! And also to the Proctors, thank you for sharing this!
Trish MercerOctober 17, 2016
As a writer, I LOVE seeing the different accounts, because--as you wisely pointed out--there are many ways to describe the same incident. We reveal certain layers at certain times. Put all together, the entire image is far more fulfilling. Something else that may "shake" members is the image of the grove: every representation has it leafy and green. But some historians suggest the First Vision occurred in late March ("early in the spring"). I've been to the grove in late March--there are no leaves. The tulips don't even come up at the visitors centers yet. It's a gray, bleak forest of only trunks and branches which, to me, makes the glory of the First Vision even more significant. I kind of wish someone would demonstrate the First Vision in pictorial form showing the barrenness of the trees. As my family walked through the grove that early spring day (and we were the only ones, since no one goes on a weekday in March!) we were impressed that this was how it really looked. No bees humming or birds singing--just profound peace, waiting . . .
ADD A COMMENT