Why Are There Different Accounts of the First Vision? - Church History Matters Podcast

[@CarolinaCoxes]

This is my favorite podcast. Scott Woodward and Casey Griffiths are very likable teachers with a tremendous knowledge of church history and doctrine. I look forward to every Tuesday when their new episode comes out. At the time of this writing, they are on Episode 39 so if you are starting now, you have a very enlightening journey ahead of you. Keep it up Scott, Casey, Gabe Davis, Nick Galieti and the rest of the crew, your efforts and your talents are greatly appreciated.

[@bestill-now]

I love these podcasts and appreciate the valuable information.

[@MsEva9470]

Thank you like church history thank you again

[@galenswenson9785]

I admire the attempt to reconcile difficult parts of church history. To suggest that accounts of the 1st vision can make sense if go into the process with a trusting mindset is interesting. Unfortunately, I think you then must go into other potential religious queries with a similar mindset. For example Catholic truth claims deserve a similar mindset.

[@maxinefely5875]

I am loving your podcast....and expect to learn alot. I am off put by your interlude music. It jars my concentration with its loud discordance. Please consider adjusting that part of your podcast. Thanks

[@b.j.3729]

I agree! GREAT podcast, but the music doesn't fit.

[@b.j.3729]

I love this podcast! Their logic makes perfect sense. I love listening to people who are well-credentialed and explain things so well. It goes to show there are always answers to questions. More importantly, the Spirit testifies that Joseph Smith was/is a true prophet and that his visions really did happen, ushering in the restoration of all things. I've personally experienced the fruit of his work.

[@colbiecoonc78]

Amazing ...appreciate this!!

[@davidtorbenson4686]

I think the controversial part of the 1832 vision is that the church was taught through decades that as soon as the visitation occurred, Joseph's priority (and purpose for going into the grove) was to find out which church was true - that is, according to scripture - what was on the top of Joseph's mind, and his priority question was which church he should join. Suddenly, the church is asking people to accept that - well, maybe that was not really what was the top of Joseph's mind. My experience in discussing this topic with members who struggle is just this point. Had it not been tucked away by Joseph Fielding Smith - and been released when found, I think it would not be such an issue today. Because the timing of the release coincided with a lot of other information coming out that was different than the "primary version" - for many, the perspective of trust was damaged. Hence the need for podcasts like this - because, as Elder Ballard taught. "well meaning leaders" were selective in what they shared. In many cases, as I have discussed with individuals, the "hiding and reluctance to be fully transparent" ends up being as much of an issue, or more, than the lack of a clearly identified Father and Son

[@mindsamazing9179]

This is so true. And it’s frustrating to come and listen to a podcast like this who still decides to lie and break member’s trust by saying things like “well the first account was randomly found because the historical documents were all just a big mess and we just happened upon it” instead of actually talking about Joseph Fielding Smith hiding the document from the church. STOP GASLIGHTING THE MEMBERS!!! WE ARE REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL LIVES!!!

[@DarrylDriggs-co8bx]

The Joseph Smith Testimony 1838 is a LITMUS TEST for the sincere seeker of truth and honest in heart. The 1832 account is in outline form, and is sequential or chronological. The 16 is not clearly written in the account and might be “15th year of my age”. “First Vision”, Milton V. Blackman, Jr. Appendix A.

[@RyanMercer]

👍

[@davidtorbenson4686]

You comments on the perspective people bring into the content is great (trust vs suspicion) - the "suspicious" story of the 1832 vision is that Joseph Fielding Smith ripped it out and put it in his personal safe (I think the storing in his safe when he was church historian is fairly established fact -per the FAIR site).... and it was only when word leaked out, and critics of the church forced the church's hand. Your summary either omits these details on purpose or has a different conclusion of the facts. Do you have a different perspective? If your explanation is that " back then, there was "unorganized records" that resulted in this loss" -that seems to be purposefully vague to be able to avoid discussing why Joseph Fielding Smith cut it out....

[@JonLeavitt]

TL;DR; there are different versions because because Joseph Smith changed the story depending on time and the audience. While it doesn't prove that they are all false, it does prove that none are 100% true.

[@nathanmarchant2175]

Excellent commentaries by Woodward & Griffiths! You guys remind me of 21st century Truman G Madson

[@unclebart100]

Not sure why a single verse of the Book of Mormon is proof enough that Joseph had an understanding of the nature of the Godhead. When there are many many more Book of Mormon verses, including the testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses, that are trinitarian. Many of those verses were edited later in futute revisions to remove trinitatian interpretations.

[@jeremims9044]

The testimonies of the 3 and 8 shouldn't matter. There is no indication they knew what JS saw in his 1st vision, and they never claimed to see such a vision themselves. Therefore it would be perfectly reasonable for them to have such a viewpoint in their statement

[@unclebart100]

​@@jeremims9044 and who wrote the witness statements? Oh, Joseph Smith. All the witnesses contributed was their signature.

[@lindamartinez7006]

Verify it then .

[@IgneousRock-14h]

I don’t like the music on this podcast at all.

[@mcsq5899]

For the real story see Dan Vogel or Sandra Tanner.

[@b.j.3729]

Hahahahaha!

[@james8996]

​@@b.j.3729 The Bible Says that Jesus the Father and the Angels and the 12 tribes of Israel are all black,

[@craigolsen8057]

Why do you call Joseph Smith a pathetic young farm boy? In what way was he pathetic? To me this is offensive

[@andrewdurfee3896]

By the standards of the world an unlearned farm boy is pathetic and by there standards shouldn’t be who you turn to inquire knowledge. In the context used the presenter is saying that God appeared to someone who would be pathetic or low. Jesus likewise didn’t come to the world in a royal setting even though he was royal. I wouldn’t call Joseph Smith pathetic myself, but I get the usage he is using here. Basically God can use the weak things of the world to do his work. I would say however that it was good for God to use the unlearned Joseph Smith since he had a lot less to unlearn of false teachings of the world. Anyways that’s my perspective on the matter.

[@ginnymart5124]

Hello Andrew. I'm also a Durfee and LOVE the gospel. Love your insight. ​@@andrewdurfee3896

[@james8996]

He was Pathetic and a liar and the dumbest false prophet who ever lived

[@dr33776]

How convenient you don't mention how is it that the 1832 account was "lost". It wasn't lost, it was cut off the journal, hidden in a safe for 30 years, and then pasted back with tape once word got out of a "odd" first vision account. If the accounts complement each other and are harmonious, why the need to hide it in a safe for decades? Be honest, especially since this is easily verifiable history.