First Vision accounts (of Joseph Smith)

Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) ^ | 19 July 2008 | FAIR

[fproy2222]

Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often seek to point out differences between the various accounts which Joseph Smith gave of his First Vision. In defense of their position that the Prophet changed his story over a six year period (1832 to 1838) they claim that the earliest followers of Joseph Smith either didn’t know about the First Vision, or seem to have been confused about it.

Comparison to Paul's vision

Paul the apostle gave several accounts of his vision of the resurrected Lord while on the road to Damascus. Like Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision, Paul's accounts differ in some details but agree in the overall message. Richard Lloyd Anderson made the following comparisons.

[fproy2222]

Many Christians who comfortably accept Paul’s vision reject Joseph Smith’s. However, they aren’t consistent in their criticisms, for most arguments against Joseph Smith’s first vision would detract from Paul’s Damascus experience with equal force. For instance, Joseph Smith’s credibility is attacked because the earliest known description of his vision wasn’t given until a dozen years after it happened. But Paul’s earliest known description of the Damascus appearance, found in 1_Cor. 9:1, was recorded about two dozen years after his experience. Critics love to dwell on supposed inconsistencies in Joseph Smith’s spontaneous accounts of his first vision. But people normally give shorter and longer accounts of their own vivid experiences when retelling them more than once. Joseph Smith was cautious about public explanations of his sacred experiences until the Church grew strong and could properly publicize what God had given him. Thus, his most detailed first vision account came after several others—when he began his formal history. This, too, parallels Paul’s experience. His most detailed account of the vision on the road to Damascus is the last of several recorded. (See Acts 26:9–20.) And this is the only known instance in which he related the detail about the glorified Savior prophesying Paul’s work among the Gentiles. (See Acts 26:16–18.) Why would Paul include this previously unmentioned detail only on that occasion? Probably because he was speaking to a Gentile audience, rather than to a group of Jewish Christians. Both Paul and Joseph Smith had reasons for delaying full details of their visions until the proper time and place.[1] The linked articles below are designed to help readers to see some of the weaknesses that are found in arguments that are made against Joseph Smith's First Vision accounts. Some of these arguments are currently being advocated in anti-Mormon literature that is handed out near the Sacred Grove in Palmyra, New York.

[fproy2222]

Given the large number of criticisms that miss-lead others as to what really happened with Joseph Smith's First Vision, I am giving a link to a site that answers many of the questions.

There is a lot of material here, and a lot of links. It can only be hoped that people will question the assumptions made by the anties and be willing to check out what counters their ideas.

[AppyPappy]

So if Smith is wrong, Paul must be a fraud.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

I will take Paul’s word over Smith’s.

[Augustinian monk]

Jospeh Smith preaches a different gospel. No futher examination of his “vision” is necessary.

[Gamecock]

Well let's take a look at the verses cited in the article:

1 Cor. 9:19:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?

And this describes the Damascus road experience how? Other than claiming that he saw Christ I fail to see what the point is. The article claims that there is a problem here because it was recorded about two dozen years after his experience. ? SO? I think I would clearly remember meeting Christ a 50 years after the fact. Do you remember where you were on the morning of September 11th?

Now let's look at the next passages, the ones the are alleged to deleted passages for audiences:

Acts 26:9-20 “In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13 At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. 14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

compared to

Acts 26:16–18 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

There is not one inconsistency here. Nada, zero. In the former we see in the expedience in great detail and in the later we see a passing reference as you would expect to read in any book where the reader is assumed to have already read the earlier portion.

Jos. Smith is no Paul

[fproy2222]

There is not one inconsistency here. Nada, zero. In the former we see in the expedience in great detail and in the later we see a passing reference as you would expect to read in any book where the reader is assumed to have already read the earlier portion.

+++++++++++++++

I agree, now use the same standard you used to study Paul's First Vision on Joseph Smith’s First Vision.

Ps, how many of the references listed in the article did you study?

[fproy2222]

And this describes the Damascus road experience how? Other than claiming that he saw Christ I fail to see what the point is. The article claims that there is a problem here because it was recorded about two dozen years after his experience. ? SO? I think I would clearly remember meeting Christ a 50 years after the fact. Do you remember where you were on the morning of September 11th?

++++++++++++++

No problem stated, the article only states that Paul did not give ALL THE INFORMATION in each telling of the event.

This is often stated as a reason why Joseph Smith's accounts are false.

[Gamecock]

how many of the references listed in the article did you study?

None.

If the thesis is true the material would stand on it's own

and

I will not study the writings of a heretic comparing the apostle Paul to another heretic.

[fproy2222]

how many of the references listed in the article did you study?

=+=+=
None
++++++++++++++

Thank you for your honesty.

[Gamecock]

I have an idea.

I posted the Damascus road passages for all to see.

Why don’t you do the same for all of the First Vision Passages?

Go ahead. I’ll wait.

[count-your-change]

Joseph Smith claimed to “translate” The Book of Abraham (so called) from a scrap of an ancient pagan Egyptian funeral text. He was a fraud or deluded or both as this funeral text, despite the theological and interpretive contortions made, had absolutely nothing to do with Abraham.
Yet despite the obvious error/fraud said “translation” is, Smith is defended with pieces like the source cited. Studying counterfeits makes one familiar with counterfeits, it doesn’t enlarge one’s knowledge of the genuine.
“Many Christians who comfortably accept Paul’s vision reject Joseph Smith’s”. Correctly so.

[Enosh]

Mormons grasped at the legitimacy of the Catholic Church for Romney by comparing him to JFK, now they dare compare Smith to St. Paul. Pitiful.

Compare Smith instead to L. Ron Hubbard and you’ll hit closer to the truth.

[fproy2222]

Why don’t you do the same for all of the First Vision Passages?

+++++++++++++++++

For those who care, they are posted in the links you find of no use to study.

Along with Paul's different accounts of his First Vision.

Go there and study it.

[Godzilla]

No problem stated, the article only states that Paul did not give ALL THE INFORMATION in each telling of the event
This is often stated as a reason why Joseph Smith's accounts are false.

No, you are misrepresenting the opposition here F. The reason that they are considered false is based upon the clear contradictions internal to them first of all and secondly, the contradictions to external facts of the time. And yes, I'll put my hip waders on (again) and trudge thru your vaunted site - which doesn't represent the mormon church BTW - and pick it apart as needed.

[fproy2222]

Mormons grasped at the legitimacy of the Catholic Church for Romney by comparing him to JFK, now they dare compare Smith to St. Paul. Pitiful.

Compare Smith instead to L. Ron Hubbard and you’ll hit closer to the truth.

---

Joseph Smith claimed to “translate” The Book of Abraham (so called) from a scrap of an ancient pagan Egyptian funeral text. He was a fraud or deluded or both as this funeral text, despite the theological and interpretive contortions made, had absolutely nothing to do with Abraham.

++++++++++++++++++

I find that a lot of people choose to confuse the issue by changing the subject with non related subjects.

They might be important and need to be studied, in there own thread, but not used in this thread so the main subject becomes clouded.

[fproy2222]

And yes, I'll put my hip waders on (again) and trudge thru your vaunted site - which doesn't represent the mormon church BTW - and pick it apart as needed.

++++++++++++++++++

Thank you, and please report back on your study of the accounts that Joseph Smith gave about his First vision.

[allmendream]

Mark Twain:

All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the “elect” have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so “slow,” so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle—keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.

The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel—half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern—which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as “exceeding sore,” “and it came to pass,” etc., and made things satisfactory again. “And it came to pass” was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.

[Gamecock]

OK, here's something else for the reader to study:

Joseph Smith's First Vision: Fact or Fiction?
Hint: it's fiction!

[Enosh]

Looks like Operation Pig Hose isn’t going so well, eh?