Multiple Accounts of The First Vision with Dr. Steven C. Harper

[@nohemiguzmanstott9527]

Brain wash? I’m going to have to deep dive and go read the CES letter!!!

[@askinfaithpodcast]

Fantastic - thank you! I love your approach as you help us to fully engage with the source material intellectually while also leaving room for faith. Keep up the good work!

[@nohemiguzmanstott9527]

Let’s go read the actual letters.

[@ProgressiveMom]

If your dad hid the information and told you it was sinful to look for it, do you think he would have some responsibility for you not learning it?

[@josuearevalo1694]

I love the content! Thank you so much. Just a heads up, there is an issue with the audio. It is very low in comparison to others… it feels like the microphone is too far away

[@jimandhilaryfollett1365]

I am glad you said something

[@kp6553]

Great stuff.

[@BryceCarmony]

I wish these guys would take the same approach to Christianity. "there was a great apostacy" oh really? If they studied the apostolic Father's instead of Smith they wouldn't believe there ever was an apostacy

[@Ab44778]

Frankly, Mormons aren’t the only denomination who believe in a ‘great apostasy’. Mormons aren’t the only sect believing there was one. Do you ask the Methodists and Baptists too? Or just Mormons?

[@grayman7208]

nonsense. the apostacy happened.

[@Gideonslc]

🤦‍♀️🤦🤦‍♂️That's actually a false representation of what is looked for in witness statements. If someone provides an affidavit to the court, and weeks or months later in trial, iprovides oral testimony that is verbatim to the affidavit, lawyers are going to suspect a rehearsed false testimony. There should be subtle differences in descriptions. If your affidavit then is of hearing a voice, and your courtroom testimony is of seeing two people, your going to get grilled for changing your testimony. "I suck at writing" will not be a valid excuse and you may face a perjury charge. The problem isn't thinking slow. The problem is one Kerry Muhlstein admits to with his Book of Abraham research- a confirmation bias to truthfulness and looking for supporting evidence. There's valid reasons to be suspicious of the First Vision account differences. There's wide disparity in the benefit of the doubt given Joseph Smith Jr here versus what's given Jeremy Runnell's when questioning his character and presentation of the CES letter. Be consistent.

[@Gideonslc]

Example of personal experience: In April of 1990, before I went on my mission, my nephew was getting blessed. After the Sacrament meeting, as I sat in my brother's kitchen and looked out the window at the rain, I felt drawn away to a vision of the Crucifixion. As I drew closer and looked upon his face, I was struck by a profound sense of both his love for me and his pain from the weight of my own sins. It was one of a few powerful experiences that motivated my mission service. Post mission and newly married, I was in a different Sacrament meeting. Another nephew was prepared to bless his daughter, and he had a surprise. General Authority joined the baby blessing circle- Dallin H Oaks. As testimonies were shared, I fought myself a bit and then finally followed the prompting. I relayed that experience of being drawn away in that vision of the Crucifixion and how it had been instrumental in my decision to serve a mission. My word choices in relaying the experience at different times have evolved. The core details have not, and there's no need for benefit of the doubt to detail variations. Yes I'm going to be critical of the first vision variations based upon my own experience in sharing details of my own experiences. There's good reason to be critical of the variabke vision accounts.

[@brettmajeske3525]

Something of a false equiveillance. A better analogy would be being grilled because the affidavit was not the same as casual conversations with other potential witnesses. All the official statements agree. Some of the unofficial statements lack detail, which in a court of law would often have difficulty being admitted in the first place. In courts of law the official affidavit usually follows the investigation and interview. If it has details missing from the first encounter with police, that isn't such a big deal. Later versions almost always have more details than former ones.

[@Gideonslc]

@brettmajeske3525 there's a significant difference between more details than completely altering the details.

[@brettmajeske3525]

@@Gideonslc I agree. What we have is Joseph expanding details.