The First Vision

Рет қаралды 41,049

Күн бұрын

Discussions on the Pearl of Great Price
The First Vision
Originally aired: 2/9/2004
Brigham Young University professors discuss ancient scripture.
Presenters: Robert Millet, Joseph McCkonkie, Camille Fronk Olsen, Richard Draper, Michael Rhodes

Пікірлер: 20

@pamhall3081 3 жыл бұрын

One of the best discussions ever on the First Vision and its various accounts. Thank you for making this available!

@lizsullivan5858 4 жыл бұрын

Revelation of the first Vision

@binmyrtmind 4 жыл бұрын

I will tell you one thing I know is true from personal experience and that is...you tell different parts of an experience depending who you are talking to. Can you imagine coming out right at first and telling people a different theology of the nature of God? Just the fact he had a vision that he should join no church at the time was enough to get him into a ton of trouble. The more open people are the more the Lord provides. Joseph said there were things he still could not talk about. I have always been worried that I might offend God if I went around telling everyone of a spiritual experience and have only shared it with someone who truly needed it.

@mjwells100 3 жыл бұрын

I wish this wonderful group of professors would know that their videos made years ago is still impacting us with the Spirit that is present in their discussions. I have learned so many truths that I didn’t know from these discussions. These videos are priceless to me.

@AlejandroMartinez-fr6hj Жыл бұрын

Which of the 4 accounts are we talking about here?

@debbain5864 4 жыл бұрын

Joseph Smith was a true Prophet of Almighty God.

@Hamann9631 7 жыл бұрын

One point that I loved is that the differences in the accounts of the First Vision doesn't prove they are made up. We should be more skeptical of stories that are the same exact words every time.The differences in the First Vision accounts proves their authenticity to me.

@richardholmes7199 6 жыл бұрын

If I am not mistaken there are no different accounts. Joseph Smith may have changed things slightly to entertain that particular audience, nonetheless there are not different accounts. If Joseph Smith was telling a protestant crowd about the first vision, he talked about only just one entity showing up to entertain those that held to a trinitarian belief for example.

@besttrick2 5 жыл бұрын

@@richardholmes7199 prefect, you are exactly correct.

@stelladavis7832 4 жыл бұрын

So if someone in court kept changing their story or adding things to their testimony like where they were on the night of their wife being murdered and kept adding on significant details then to you that would not raise a red flag? You would actually be more suspicious of the person who does not change their story?

@stelladavis7832 4 жыл бұрын

@@richardholmes7199 Ummm, no. First account made no mention of what church was right, just one holy visitor visiting him and forgiving him his sins. Next was two personages( and for the next 10 years Smith claims not that it was ever Jesus and God, just two personages) and tons of angles (later the angels would be omitted). And still only preaching forgiveness and a wicked world was at hand, then third account is back to just two personages and now, after his church has been established, adds to the message that all churches except his are corrupt and wrong. Then another version has two personages visiting him and forgiving him and telling him all churches are wrong, except his, of course. So why leave out the most significant aspect and the whole reason he prayed? which was to know what church is correct. Why wait a few years latter, six years, to reveal this? He went to the woods to ask which church was true and Smith just tells people at first, and for the first few years even, that he was forgiven and Jesus is lord? that was his vision? The whole Mormon bedrock of Jesus and God being separate beings and not the same person is not even revealed for like 11 years after Smith's church has been established and he had his first vision? Spin it any way you want but there are serious holes in the story.

@ironeagle9850 4 жыл бұрын

Stella Davis You raise good questions. My assumption is when he wrote the 1832 account, he was careful not to share the controversial revelation that the father and son are separate beings. It appears that Joseph was very deliberate in choosing how he addressed different audiences and this seems to make sense. While the book of Mormon is not as explicit on the separate nature of the father and son, I see a consistent theme of both unity and separate individuality throughout the book of Mormon and Joseph’s revelations. The BOM in several places mentions the voice of the father being separate from the son, as well as other inferences. But the primary theme is that Christ is God, having both a father and son aspect to his divinity.