Last year I had an amazing experience that brought me back to the church after 23 years of being an atheist. I tried to write down my experience multiple times and each time I added to it or changed it to better express what I went through. It wasn't until I started to write it down that I realized why Joseph Smith had multiple accounts of his first vision. But like the video said the core of what he was trying to say remained the same as it was for me as well. Try to write down an experience you've had and read it back to yourself I guarantee you will want to add or change something. Great video guys!!
CarlosSolis229 ...My main contention with the first vision is that if you believe it, you no longer trust the BIBLE as your ultimate source of guidance... The Bible tells us that no one has seen God as He is in His Father/Soul essence... Passages that are deemed discardable are: John 1:18, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." ...John 6:46, "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father." ...1Tim 6:15&16, "...which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen." Probably the impossibility of seeing God as He is in His Father/Soul essence is made most obvious by Jeremiah23:23&24, "Am I a God near at hand," says the Lord, "And not a God afar off? Can anyone hide himself in secret places so I shall not see him?" says the Lord. "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" says the Lord." Recall that NO ONE else in biblical history claimed to see what an adolescent JS claimed to see, TWO GODS, separate and distinct... Jesus didn't even show His own disciples, who'd been w/Him for YEARS, what JS claimed to have been shown (John14:6-9)... John in his old age, and given the vision that became the Book of Revelation, never claimed to see in HIS vision what an adolescent JS claimed to see in his... John's testimony was of seeing only ONE God, the Lord Jesus Christ... Choosing to believe the BoM+, means REJECTING important doctrines that the BIBLE teaches... As the Bible instructs, you can't serve TWO masters, one that testifies of the impossibility of seeng God as He is in His Father/Soul essence, the other that claims an adolescent JS was shown just that... Comes down to believing the BIBLE, or believing the BoM+... Can't w/all honesty claim BOTH, b/c they tell us different things...
PLEASE for a moment, imagine seeing what Joseph saw. Imagine how powerful and awe inspiring it must have been to see one, two, any angels/heavenly beings. Simply incredible! Now imagine telling others about that and not knowing exactly what age you were when this happened. “About 14” or 16. If the first vision happened you know the day, month and year it took place. Once you know that you can know exactly how old he would have been yet this isn’t able to be said in ANY account with ABSOLUTE certainty? Please close your eyes for a moment after reading this and ponder in this your heart everyone. Would you ever not know exactly how old you were???
But isn't it problematic that the age and amount of figures change? Like my dad died when I was 12 my story has always been 12 and I remember it clearly because it was so traumatic. Heck even my first Baptism on the mission I remember the age and how many people were in the street contact and so much of it because it was so life changing. If I saw God the father and Christ I would at least remember how many people and how old I was if something that miraculous happened. I would put a vision like that as more memorable and life changing than my Fathers death. Further more I'm confused why he didn't ever speak about this ever to a single soul after it happened until after the church was organized. Especially if this was supposed to be the catalyst for everything ya know? Just a few questions I'm trying to answer
Not to mention that the church historian and future lds president, Joseph fielding smith, suppressed the release of the 1832 account by cutting the pages out of Joseph's journal and kept it in his safe for decades. If the accounts are so "consistent" and "complement" each other, why did he hide it?
For over 30 years I have been telling the story of my car accident when I was 15 that left me in a wheelchair for the rest of the school year. So during a thanksgiving dinner I was talking about the incident and my mother pointed out that the accident happened when I was 16, three weeks before school ended. So I got the year wrong, and while I was in a wheelchair I until the school year ended, that was only about 2 weeks, since I took a week off after the accident. I did spend most of the summer on crutches, but was back to normal by the fall.
@@brettmajeske3525 did you also get the car you were riding on wrong? Did you think you were in a sedan when it was actually an 18 wheeler? Age can be murky but claiming you saw many angels, one personage, or two are not minor contradictions.
@@dr33776 None of the version preclude their being both many angels and two personages, only one of which having an extended conversation. I have recently been working on a history of Bay City, reading multiple journals and newspapers describing the same event with far more variance than the First Vision accounts. Two newspaper articles written by the same reporter only one year apart are very different. I am assuming that he didn't reread his first one when writing the second follow up. Contrary to popular belief, telling a story the same way every time indicates falsehood, while changing details is more likely to indicate truth. We memorize lies, but we think it important to get details right, but we assume we don't need to do that with truth.
@@dr33776exactly. People on here claiming it’s the same as writing someone a letter theee times before sending or being in a wheelchair for the summer. I guarantee that if the person was in an accident that out then I’m a wheelchair for the rest of their life Vs the summer, they’d remember how old they were for sure. (Having said that, glad it’s not the case of forever wheelchair)
That's where we are still confused. Everyone can say they've told stories differently at different times, but I'm willing to bet if they SAW God, or God & Jesus or a bunch of Angel's, or one angel....they would stick with that main point in each telling. Oh Jimmy, I heard you telling Suzie about your experience you shared with me last week, but you didn't mention GOD CAME AND LITERALLY APPEARED before you! Jimmy: Oh yeah, I didn't think you'd be interested in that and I wanted to make sure you knew I was wearing the pj's you made me. 🤔🤷🏼♀️
It would be so intense, and si mind blowing, how could you, this was a different time in history, no tv or computers etc, he may of been paralyzed with astonishment! That would be the biggest Shock of you're life!😐
As a relaxed LDS member that just joined at the beginning of this year (2022), I'm SUPER OPEN to different possibilities! If something isn't true, then what can I learn from it? When I die I'll accept whatever the truth is.
What's your explanation of the book of Abraham, supposedly translated from the papyrus's, later found to have nothing to do about and not even from the timeline of Abraham?
The unique claims of the Book of Abraham can be found in other ancient documents. Kwaku did a video on it. Here it is:m.ua-cam.com/video/1Kw6MGlpafs/v-deo.html
The papyrus found had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham and neither is there any proof Joseph Smith used them to produce the Book of Abraham, funny that. They were actually translated by LDS scholar and those papyrus are called the book of burnings and outline some common burial rituals. But if you actually read the description of what Joseph claim to have translated to the Book of Abraham it was a very long scroll in perfect condition, it's current whereabouts lost, apparently burned in a fire. The papyrus or "snippets" or papyrus found, were framed and hung on wall of some old acquaintance of the Smith family and couldn't possible contains 5 chapters and 1000s of words of scripture.
There are definitely differences between omissions and contradictions. I just REALLY wish the church didn't have a history of over using both. 🤷🏼♀️😕 Being up front and truthful from day 1 would have made it easier for everyone.
You also have too look at the context of where Mormonism came from. They came from a history of having to hide and cover things just for survival. But they are doing a much better job now
@@williamhenley8593 Yes, I made that mistake. All true, again with massive omission of WHY they were hiding. It most definitely wasn't because the adversary was trying so hard to thwart the truth like I was raised being told. This sucks. The truth is ugly.
@@TheWallaceReboot I disagree that the reasons for not wanting to share all the complicated parts of Mormon history was sinister. It is a natural human reaction to want to omit bad parts of our own history. That doesn't make it right but we are all fallible humans who make mistakes. The more you research you will find that arguments of critics are pretty weak and that the Church is true. If you watch this series you will realize that Joseph must have been a Prophet. ua-cam.com/channels/BjPnxnaw6DKhNUqsPa7csg.htmlvideos
@@ryanadams5719 huh, ok, thanks? There's a whole lot to be heartbroken over in this world. Not sure why you're using some of that up on me, especially when you don't know me or my life or my beliefs.
How do you see God the father and consider it insignificant. Especially since in the Bible, of which he would have been familiar. He tells people no one can live and see him?
Who said that Joseph considered seeing the Father as insignificant. Perhaps it was because it was too significant. We have no record of Joseph explaining why he did not include the Father in the first account, but there are many possible reasonable explanations. John 1:18 must mean something different than you assume because it says in Exodus 33:11 that Moses spoke with God face to face as a man speaks with a friend.
Great video. I agree that the "contradictions" aren't anything that can't be chalked up to fallible human memory, and the human penchant for telling stories in certain ways depending on the audience. And for those who get hung up about the phrase "the Lord" not including God the Father. Please go read your Bibles.
Except his memory and writings were supposedly guided by the holy ghost, particularly when he wrote them down, and thus implies God contradicted Himself.
@@KEP1983 He didn't write any of the accounts himself. He was either dictating to scribes, or second hand witnesses were reconstructing something they heard him say. Dave talked about this in the video.
@@brettmajeske3525 so god saw that his message was corrupted and had to send a new prophet, so he gave visions to Joseph, but the holy spirit that gave these messages to Joseph couldn't protect the transcription process? Yet other Prophets of the NT and OT both dictated to scribes and we're told they were infallible... yet Joseph was the greatest prophet?? ok, yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.
@@KEP1983 I've yet to read any claims of infallibility from any Old or New Testament scribes. And yes the Spirit did have a way, which is the process by which revelations become official doctrine aka the Standard Works. Only one of the four accounts was officially scripture. Parts of the others are now included in the Bicentennial Proclamation.
Nick Ex. Hey Nick, i appreciate you reaching out; but i will continue to be a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much love to you and yours❤️
Nick, you offer a lot of interesting details and I can tell you really studied your history! I also do not like the written word, like Joseph, so please forgive my writing as I try to adequately express my thoughts. First, when you said that Nephi was the one who spoke with Joseph, that made me excited! I think that is a really cool variation I've never heard before and if it were true, I'm perfectly cool with that! Nephi was a prophet and Moroni was a prophet, either one appearing to Joseph and sharing a message with him works for my brain! :) If someone wrote the wrong name down in the history books, it's not a big deal to me, it doesn't affect my testimony. Second, the idea that in the 1st account, Joseph had supposed that all of the churches weren't true and then in later accounts he wrote that he "never had supposed that" is not a contradiction to me, but rather more of a misremembering. Let me try to explain... In my life, there have been times that I've learned something new and part of me feels like I've always known it and I might begin to eventually share it in that manner - as if I already knew it, not as a lie, but because it made so much sense to my brain when I heard it, even though I may have never thought it before... Over time as I reflect on memories before the event, I might remember conversations or even be reminded by others of conversations we shared that correct my memory that I actually hadn't believed that way before. So then, in an effort to be honest and transparent, I would change my wording in sharing my memory. Let me try to give an example. I've seen a person with interest in our church say that parts of our doctrine we are teaching are exactly what their church believes when I know for a fact it is not. But when they hear the lesson, it just makes so much sense that they will announce it is the same in both churches. Then sometimes they'll talk to their pastor or other clergy leader and come back and say that their church doesn't believe the same. Sometimes they still want to join the church and other times the rift is too much and they want to stay in their church. Inside my head and sometimes out loud I've pointed out that they said it was the same the last time we met and now they're saying it's different and they can't accept our different beliefs. They usually deny that they ever said they were the same, I think it if pride or not wanting to admit the truth... The fact that Joseph Smith was willing to admit that he never had supposed such a thing, for me, demonstrates his integrity and willingness to correct the original telling. This perception of him is in line with his humility in other situations such as forgiving W.W. Phelps whose actions caused Joseph to be brutally imprisoned for a long time as well as resulted in members being killed... So to sum up, I think this "contradiction" is just a thing with human brains and memories. So that "contradiction" doesn't bother me at all because I've seen it with people today and Joseph Smith was a person and not endowed with a perfect memory. I've spent so much time working this response that I've honestly forgotten some of your other points, but I hope that my words have helped you see a small glimpse of how someone can still believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true even while reading, facing, and listening to the information you've shared. :) By the way, I normally don't respond on UA-cam, but you seem sincere and not hateful, so I decided you were worth my time to share my perspective of loving and living the gospel of Jesus Christ which has sustained me through some of the hardest trials life can throw at us... May you find peace and love in your journey of life!
Tired Siren Dear Mormon adherent, there is only one gospel, that of Jesus Christ. You sound very young and naïve, likely American. When you are old enough to realize the Bible's statement that the heart (emotions) are wickedly deceitful, you will realize that your emotions, or what the cult calls "testimony," has no bearing on true facts! This holds true for everyone suckered in by a young man or woman whose emotions tell them he/she loves them. The facts are plain and simple: you can read your own "religion's" origins in its own website. They are being sued by a poor lady who was lied to by elders and wasted Her life in an emotional hoax, including being bullied out of "a lot" of tithes, when tithing is an Old Testament law! The love of money is the root of all evil, says the inerrant word of God! The JW founder copied his neighbour, Joe Smith, in starting his own religion to defraud people of their money. They were both begun in the exact time period in upstate NY. Both religions contradict the Bible. The LDS books all contradict each other as well. A lot of people are "walking up" in these two American cults. The leaders are being paid to whitewash truth. The early copies of Smith's writings listed Joe as the author. The Corporation has changed the BM too many times to count. Why don't you prove to yourself with FACTS what is true about your "new religious movements," AKA, cult. Jesus paid it ALL, so stop striving for perfection. There is no way to work your way to a top level of heaven (an idea borrowed from Swedenborg!). Sorry you will be shunned if you leave, because that's what cults do. Read the New Testament and pray to accept Christ's free gift of Salvation today! Such a pure and simple gospel even a child can understand and choose Jesus! Love from Sunshine Coast, Canada.
No one is exactly sure where the sacred grove actually was. The Church owns the property near the Smith home but it was clear cut for farming for years before it was purchased and there is no way of knowing where it happened.
thanks David for explaining this, first one that had the upper hand of explanations even better than the apologist.. My debate is when you said if we believe in pauls vision explandations we can believe in joseph smiths vision explanations.. The thing is appostle pauls dispensation was removed mormonism and replaced with dsipensation of joseph smith. The gospel of grace being the lesser law free of priesthood rules, rituals and ordinances to know the truth that set us free, no bondage by laws but only the law of love, then its restored is a contradiction very confusing. The other issue is high priests in lds church now join the elders in class, fade them out, while leaders like bishops, stake presidents are the real high priests and entitled to poligmany here after and all else faded out, or just become slave members that miss out on the poligmany blessings that the bible cursed anyway after the fall of King Solomans poligamny not work. Thanks for your videos anyway and your personal friendship with me brother and your calming influence apon me in my youtube channel where I did not leave the church but the church left me. love you brother Darryl Perth Western australia down under
The church website mentions five versions but there are nine. The commentator here says the gist is the same in each one. When no Jesus is present in one version that is not the same gist. When a pillar of light is replaced by fire in another version that is not the same gist. When Jesus appears but no God that is not the same gist. The version we have in HC 1:15-19 which is memorized for missions is the official one today. The other variations cannot be dismissed by apologists as basically the same.
So just exactly what do you see as the "gist" of the official version? You have identified several gists here. What is important is not that there are differences, but that there are no contradictions in what he says between the accounts. Just because he doesn't include every detail in every account is not a contradiction. Everyone retells stories honestly in different ways based on audience and purpose of the telling. Most story tellers of real experiences decide what to include or to leave out based on how much time we have to tell the story and the point we are trying to make. There is nothing in the different first vision accounts that would not allow such an explanation reasonable. If you insist that the differences are evidence of Joseph being dishonest or making it up, you must explain what his motives might have been to make it up and then tell it differently. Usually when a successful con-man makes such things up they are more careful to make the story consistent than an honest person. What is your theory?
@@rockartalan The one I follow is what missionaries follow: the one in History of the Church volume 1 and PGP. It isn't so much nine versions of the first vision as the church denied it for so many decades. There is even a church video where the narrator admits to the nine versions. But that would never have happened 20 years ago. Either way I am glad they are being more transparent.
@@scottbrandon6244 I am not aware of church ever denying that there are different versions of this experience of Joseph Smith. Please share your source on this. Just because you weren't aware of these accounts 20 years ago, doesn't mean the church wasn't teaching about them. Once you become more informed you will realize that before the 1960s there wasn't much research being done into church history, especially compared to the scholarship being done in the last 20 years. But there was a BYU doctoral dissertation done by Paul Cheeseman in the early or mid 60s that discussed the different accounts. There was an article about the different accounts in the church magazine The Improvement Era that went into detail on them as well. Check out this video that explains this. ua-cam.com/video/Y3i6T7laO3Y/v-deo.html Let me know if this changes your perspective on this issue.
@@rockartalanfrom JSP. "Also, the initial three leaves containing the history were excised from the volume. The eight inscribed leaves in the back of the volume may have been cut out at the same time.3 Manuscript evidence suggests that these excisions took place in the mid-twentieth century. A tear on the third leaf, which evidently occurred during its excision, was probably mended at the time. This tear was mended with clear cellophane tape, which was invented in 1930.4 The three leaves of the history certainly had been removed by 1965, when they were described as “cut out,” although they were archived together with the letterbook. The size and paper stock of the three excised leaves match those of the other leaves in the book. Also, the cut and tear marks, as well as the inscriptions in the gutters of the three excised leaves, match those of the remaining leaf stubs, confirming their original location in the book.5 The three leaves were later restored to the volume, apparently in the 1990s." If the accounts are consistent, why the need to tear the journal and hide the first vision account?
@David Snell......So...can We discuss the error of Tvedtnes' work on the "Analysis of Paul's accounts of His vision"??? It would be the right thing to do. Maybe You could bring it to the attention of the church....Hey,uummm,Guys....... Tvedtnes,in this particular article,is flat out wrong.
This isn't just any case that one would hear on the daily. This is a human being claiming he saw GOD and JESUS CHRIST. Yeah, if I saw Bill and his wife Betty walking down the street, I may omit Bill or Betty in one account and recall the omission in another. Leaving out the Creator of the Universe is such an inscrutable idea. "Oh, yeah! And GOD THE FATHER was there too. How could I forget Him?" A claim such as this is absolutely MUCH ADO ABOUT A WHOLE BIG SOMETHING. SMH
You're certainly entitled to that opinion. Technically we believe Jesus Christ is the Creator, so he didn't leave the Creator of the Universe out, but I get what you're saying. Again, just because the Father isn't mentioned in the 1832 account doesn't mean Joseph forgot or that he's making things up. He could have omitted the Father for any number of reasons. Even in the most detailed account of the vision (1838), the only role God the Father has is to introduce Jesus Christ. Literally all he says is, "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" So if I'm Joseph Smith and have been persecuted over the last two decades because of my religious experiences, I can understand why he might be hesitant to give as much detail as he did in the 1838 version. But again, I'm more than happy to disagree. Hopefully you at least can see where people are coming from that don't think this is a big deal, even if you disagree. Have a great day!
@@davidsnell2605 I can see where people are coming from. It's probably the single most important event to happen in history -- if it happened. I think that's why someone like myself views this with such skepticism. We seek to understand, even if it's something we don't want to hear. In this case (when I was still an active member), I thought it was very difficult to reconcile not just this, but many of the early leaders' actions. This isn't to change the subject. All I mean to say is taken with everything else that one must explain away, I find it hard to believe this actually happened. What about Muhammed? He claimed to have a very similar vision. Do you think this happened? If you think that it MAY have happened, you owe it to yourself to really search and find out, because that's an equally weighty statement. For myself, as of now, I say nobody has seen anything because there is nothing to see.
@@mrt5162 I certainly respect your beliefs and wish you the very best on your journey. I don't know enough about Muhammed's vision to make an informed comment about that but I recently (like last week) bought a copy of the Quran and look forward to learning more. I would agree, it's worth researching.
This is by far the biggest reason I became convinced that the church I decadtied 30 or so years my life to was not true. I really dont care about whether it's a contradiction or an Omission. Leaving God the Father out of the first telling of the account was a huge deal for me. I wish I could remember the talk by Pres. Hinckley where he talked about the sifincance of the first vision and in how in that one moment Joesph learned more about the nature of God than any other person. It was so significant that the Book of Mormon itself makes no distinction from the father and son...even referring to the Jesus as the everlasting father multiple times. It's quite clear to me that Smith started out with a more Traditional Protestant view of God and then as his views evolved added God the Father. I agree with you that leaving God the Father isn't technically a contradiction from a strict logical standpoint, but people don't speak strictly logically. No one who has two apples in their hand would say they have one apple even though the statement would be technically true
coalhouse1981 You make sense to me. Seeing God the Father should have made a huge impression on Joseph. He should have been shocked to witness a sight that challenged what everyone believed about God. Its hard to make a convincing case for omitting such a significant piece of info.
I totally agree that he started out with a traditional protestant view of God. That's the religious culture he grew up in. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall as he tried to figure out how exactly his vision impacted his views on the nature of God. My guess is that his first reaction to his vision wasn't, "wow, God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate beings, contradicting everything I thought I knew about the Trinity." He was a teenager worried about his sins and which church to join. So I don't know when his understanding evolved, but just like everything else he learned, I'm sure it was line upon line, here a little and there a little. And there could be any number of reasons why he omitted the Father in the short 1832 version. Maybe he simply felt He was too sacred to talk about. There's also the theory that the two times he mentions "Lord" in this version, he's talking about two different people (the Father and the Son). I don't necessarily agree with that theory, but I see where it's coming from. Anyway, just throwing some thoughts your way.
@@davidsnell2605 I really wish I could find that Hinckley talk.. im pretty sure im not misremembering it, it's not the one that most critics quote...but If I could find it maybe you could understand why this was so shattering for me. I'm glad you admit he changed his view. But to me the when is paramount. It was certainly after the first vision, and after the publication of the BOM, which contains very trintain language as does the three witnesses statement. Trust me I dont want to listen my mom cry every time she asks me to the temple work for my late brother, but the evidence is not there. I think Smith changed his view away from a Traditional view of God in 1835 (at least historically that when he stopped referring to Jesus as the father)
@@seans5289 No it wouldn't be an issue and I've already researched this particular criticism that is often used and it hinges on some pretty poor "evidence".
@@seans5289 Three of the primary sources that charge Joseph Smith with joining sectarian churches between 1820 and 1830 were produced in the latter part of the nineteenth century, over a half-century after the First Vision. None of the three are contemporary records; the earliest one was written 50 years after the First Vision took place. Fayette Lapham claimed that Joseph had joined the Baptist Church. Joseph and Hiel Lewis claimed that Joseph Smith joined the Methodist Church. S.F. Anderick claimed that Joseph Smith joined the Presbyterian Church. We must note too that none of these sources confirms the others-they all discuss different denominations and different time frames. Thus, the stories are not mutually reinforcing. Eyewitness reminiscences and contemporary records provide strong evidence that these claims are not valid and, therefore, do not reflect historical reality. The three sources are all late, and all from hostile voices.
We would say the evil spirit could be cast out by one having great faith, or Priesthood power, either through prayer or command, in the name of Jesus Christ. It may be that prayer and fasting are required as is talked about by Jesus when the apostles said they could not cast one out.
Why didn't Joseph check those versions scribed down by others? Kind of like Muhammad. His Companions wrote everything down and Muhammad had them read it back to him. So we can assume that they wrote it down correctly. Why didn't Smith do that? Could it be that he ADDED to the accounts as his doctrines changed?
I like how do you differentiate between contradictions and omissions, but you haven't explained how do you understand the contradiction in the example which you have already mentioned and accepted to be really contradiction. Could you please explain that? or at least explain how the LDS church look to this contradiction? Thanks in advance :)
Great question. I assume you're talking about the age difference? 16/15/14? The answer: Joseph probably couldn't remember, which he's allowed to do. I'll compare it to something that happened to me recently: My wife loves Disneyland. So we're planning a trip later this year. I've been there twice before. Once when I was just a baby, and once when I was like, 13 years old. But when I mentioned that to my family they were confused and informed me that I was actually like 9 years old the last time we all went to Disneyland. "No... I'm pretty sure I was like, 13 or 14 years old." "Nooo...." they responded, "your sister was 13 or 14, which means you were about 9." Anyway, point being: You can get details wrong when recalling events from long ago. That's all I think happened. Also something to consider (for what it's worth): When they say that "Joseph was in his 15th year" that could simply mean that he was 15 years old, or it may also just mean it was the year in which he _would_ turn 15. Also (for what it's worth), in the 1832 account (where Joseph is 16), Joseph himself is writing before and after his age is mentioned, but the bit where he's said to be in his 16th year is penciled in by William Phelps (or whoever the scribe was that I mentioned in the video). Maybe Joseph told him to write that or maybe he just made his best guess, idk. Either way, I'm just totally fine with Joseph not remembering correctly.
@@davidsnell2605 Thank you indeed for sharing your thoughts, and giving a nice example to clarify the situation. I totally agree with you. The only thing that made me confuse and let me write the comment, because I considered what JS said is infallible directed by the Holy Ghost, therefore there is no chance for mistakes. But at the end JS was, like all of us, a human being. So probably I should differenciate between what He has talked (which may include mistakes, slips), and what He has done under the guidance of the Holy Ghost (as translating the BOM, NT, and other standard books).
@@davidsnell2605 I have no problem with age things and I have remembered a date wrong, etc. I'm totally confident though that I wouldn't ever in my entire life forget whether it was God, Jesus, both, angels who APPEARED to me. That isn't something one has a blurry memory of over time. 🤨😏
There was only one account when I served my mission. Imagine my surprise when I found out there were multiple, contradictory accounts years after I came home. No amount of mental gymnastics and word play can change the fact the church lied to me about it.
I can totally understand why js told the story differently. I went through what he did and of the very few who I told the story to, I never told the full story. I actually omitted the non pg13 stuff so people don't freak the heck out. It's been 20 years since it first happened, and at first thought I was going crazy until it happened again and was an exact repeat each time. Im sure if I had to repeat it, each time would be slightly different and i wouldn't tell the demonic stuff to the average joe, nor would i tell the ending of my third visit due to it changing my life forever, even though the first 2 were beyond description. And this all happened when i first read the book, before I knew who js was. Then I read his story and was like, you gotta be kidding me..............
Four first hand accounts acknowledged by the Mormon church 1832 Written by Junior himself A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. Account Junior cries to the heaven for mercy. The Lord shows up, let's him know that he is Jesus, forgives sins and says that he has come in the glory of the Father. Notice that purported Jesus introduces himself. 1835 Journal entry dictation to scribes, Sketch Book for the use of Joseph Smith Jr; Journal Account Junior calls to the lord with a might prayer. One unidentified personage show up says nothing and the another personage like the first shows up. Junior sees many angels. The second personage forgives sins and testifies to him that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Notice no one actually introduced anyone, just a testimony. 1838 Dictation by Junior to James Mulholland; Joseph Smith History Account Junior began offering up desires of his heart. Two personages whose brightness and glory defy description show up. One calls Junior and pointing to the second personage says "This is my beloved Son, Hear him". Joseph asks the personages as to which sect was right, and which he should join. One of the personages let Junior know that all the creeds were an abomination and forbad Junior from joining any of them. Notice that one personage introduces another personage. 1842 Dictation by Junior to scribes; Church History Account Junior began calling upon the Lord. Two identical personages show up in a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon. The tell Junior that that all the denominations believe incorrect doctrine and god does not acknowledge any of them as his church. He was promised the fullness of the gospel at some future time. No one introduces anyone. Due to the significance of the event, one would think that Junior could recall the event perfectly, at least by the guidance of the spirit which indwelled him. But sadly this was not the case as much of the details cannot be reconciled. It is conceivable that Junior was concocting the first vision accounts to suit his particular need at the time
Visions of God the father and/or Jesus were common back in the 1800s Evidence indicates that this vision wasn't as significant to Joseph as people are making it out to be. The vision that appears to be the most significant is that of Moroni. However, Joseph is is retelling these events in different contexts at least a decade after the event. You try and remember something that happened decades ago and get every detail right (his age). It's not like Joseph walked into the woods saying to himself "I'm 14/15/16 years old today." Twelve years after the event he probably just had a general recollection of when it happened. I think it's just overly nitpicky to say that the differences in these accounts are evidence of Joseph making up the story. Not only does it ignore the imperfections of human memory, but it also ignores the fact that people tell stories in different ways to depending on the audience.
@@MichaelEllisYT You have got to be joking? Do you really wanna look like a fool by saying if you had a miraculous vision from heaven that you wouldn't remember if it were God, Jesus, a bunch of angels, or some unknown spirit? No one would forget that. Not til their dying day. Utterly REDICULOUS. 🤦
Joseph had how many scribes BEFORE 1832??? He sat with Three while writing...sorry...translating the BOM. No time to have them write down what he remembers from the FV??? (BTW.... I thought the FV was the reason for Organizing the NEW Church in 1830???)
Never heard that before, and I was raised in the Church. The only explanation I have ever heard is translating Mosiah and learning about how Alma organized a church.
how sad will be the day when the vale is lifted and the people that have chosen not to follow the prophet or to mock him or kill his servants. their hearts will find they went with bad people of the Bible mocked the prophets and stoned then.. how sad will be that day and we will cry with them for their choice.
Michael Hursh: Why would god create brains that can’t accept fantastic notions without sufficient evidence, then punish the people who use those minds as they were created?
What is really significant about the 1832 account is this: He only sees one Personage. That was during a period when JS wss preaching modalism. "The Father is the Son and the Son is the Father," as JS peculiarly translated Luke 10:23 in his inspired translation. Later, when he drifts toward tritheism, he begins to remember seeing more than one personage. Coincidence? I don't think so!
I find this no different than the different gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Each Gospel had different information yet did not contradict. Then we have the book of acts. Luke tells of three different accounts concerning when Paul met Jesus. Each account has information that is somewhat contradictory to the others. Yet we don't blink an eye at it. I feel the same about these accounts. Information from different people or from different points of time can slightly change a story, or very likely omit information.
The gospels totally contradict in some aspects, regardless they were written by DIFFERENT authors. Joseph Smith was the only source for all of these accounts. Try another apologetic.
No one has EVER seen God, 1 John 4:12. Exodus 33:20 But he said "you cannot see my face for man shall not see me and live". God is so beyond our comprehension, NO ONE can see Him, God is Spirit, that is why we have Jesus, He is our mediator between God and man. God is not created, He is our creator.
I don't know man, I became a Christian when I was 16, on Tuesday June 6, 2006. I got married when I was 24, September 10, 2014.Those were momentous days in my life, but definitely not as magnificent as Joseph's first vision. These aren't details that you just happen to not recollect, even years later. I don't mean to be a butt, but things still sound fishy ya know?
Something to keep in mind is that Joseph was a 14 year old farm boy in 1820 in Palmyra. It's estimated that his education was equivalent to that of a second or third grader by modern standards. I think you bring up a fair point, but you have to consider that Joseph just wouldn't have the vocabulary or the writing capabilities to document such an event, nor the money to pay someone tow write it for him.
@@Sunshine-eo2sp I don't think that's true. Joseph even said himself that he was instructed in reading, writing, and the foundations of arithmetic at a young age. His mom even wrote that Joseph was often given to meditation and deep study. It also wouldn't make sense since Joseph literally says in the Pearl of Great Price that he was 15 (other accounts say 14) when he *read* the bible and prayed to know which church was true which started the LDS church. He certainly was capable of documenting the event. Regardless though, memory and writing capability are two different things. I'm able to remember things from age 5 before I had the ability to write well or had the proper vocabulary to explain the events, and Joseph was 14-15 when these things happened, so yeah, it's still really suspicious.
@@Sunshine-eo2sp Joseph was a big reader, his mom was a teacher, and his brother was a teacher. The kid might only have a 3rd grade "formal" education, but he was definitely way more educated than that, and able to read and write.
Whether he was well read, able to write, or Booksmart is irrelevant here. Even a second grader knows how old they are. There should be no doubt whatsoever in any claims the age when this supposedly took place.
Wow, you skipped through the 1832 Account quick.. "The Lord" only?? FIRST TIME HE RECORDS THE FIRST VISION AND DOESN'T MENTION GOD THE FATHER??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?????
At the time "the Lord" would have been God the Father, in common Christian usage. Joseph didn't receive the revelation clarifying Jehovah was the pre-mortal Jesus until 38.
Thank you. I very much appreciate you assembling the multiple accounts of the first vision and drawing distinct comparisons between them. With extraneous details stripped away and the central components of each recounting of the first vision displayed -unencumbered, unfiltered - the veracity of Joseph Smith’s story is discernible. The first vision never happened. Joseph Smith was a liar. He was no prophet. The LDS church is a fraud. Earnestly … thank you for providing clarity.
Here we see once again in yet another video from the so called 'church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints' but really it's all about Joseph Smith, and defending him and his claimed visions, and visitations from God the father and Jesus Christ, and also characters from the Bible and angels. It's Joseph Joseph Joseph all the way, his golden plates,his book of Mormon, his teachings, his multiplicity of doctrines, rules, covenants, rituals, laws, oaths, secret signs, symbolisms, handshakes, practices, and lifetime of obedience to his complex guidlines to become a God. With great respect wouldn't it be more accurate to simply call it The church of Joseph Smith?. No offense to his followers is intended, it's just how many people veiw it I'm sure. Kind regards to Mormon folk.
But we don't worship Joseph Smith. He didn't die on a cross for us. We believe that our church is Christ's church, if the church was called the church of Joseph Smith it would have been Joseph Smith's church not Chrit's.
If I saw God AND JESUS CHRIST AT THE SAME TIME...... why in the thuck would I not include one other GOD BEING IN THere?!🤨 I don’t buy it. I’m definitely leaving this church soon as I get off work hhmmm it’s very disappointing because I dedicated 12 years of my life into something I thought it was the truth, only to find out it wasn’t. Dang I was really happy here and you gon turn around and do this to my faith?! I will miss those good times being a Mormon but I gotta go.
Let's read what apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor 14:20 20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 1 Cor 14 KJV 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; Eph 4 KJV and here is what Joseph Smith said : *"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ"*.....
This can be compared with the Nativity Story, one account talks about Jesus just being born and some wise men going to see him, then Herod sends his men to slay babies. The other account talks about an angel visiting Mary, her cousing actually being pregnant with John the Baptist at the same time. Hosts of angels and sheperds, no room in the inn, a tax collection, this seems like a totally different story! People, even scholars try to harmonize both, but Christians never deny the Nativity story. The same for Genesis 2. Different accounts mean greater insight and not obvious lies.
Those accounts were written by different authors many years (decades or even a century) after Jesus lived and first passed down orally. Joseph's account were either written by him or dictated to a scribe.
The First Vision evolved in a manner consistent with a story being developed and not a single event that actually happened and is simply conveyed poorly to the audience. The founding vision of the church originally was the vision of Moroni in 1823. The original saints had no idea Joseph saw God in 1820. As things go along, Joseph begins to enhance and exaggerate the vision. Soon two personages are involved. These two are not God and Jesus, they are Moroni and Jesus. Then finally the vision is split in two and Jesus and God appeared first with the Moroni vision coming later. Even the phrase "First Vision" is a lie. Joseph said "my first visitation of angels". The modern church has edited what he said to "First Vision".
@@germanslice So Joseph met God first, then Moroni but he was told to tell everyone he met Moroni first then God. This is because they need to learn line upon line. But Joseph didn't need to learn line upon line. Joseph didn't meet Moroni first. Then later, when I was born, I didn't need to know about Moroni first.
You are right in that the name"First Vision" is a misnomer. However, having read the accounts I don't find anything the really indicates he made it up. The exception being that I think the "official" version was highly editorialized to make it flow better. The inclusion of the revival was probably a blending of the events in his memory. But this is not an unusual practice and is common even today.
Honestly, Idk why you're still in this faith. It's like there is so many reasons for you to not believe just lying there, and you choose to keep believing. I mean, how does anyone forget to write down that they saw God the Father even if he "didn't do much"??
Depends on access to paper and pens. Since Joseph learned how to write with charcoal and sheets of slate, not writing down details until he was an adult makes sense to me.
Am I correct that there is NO RECORD of Joseph telling ANYONE about this Vision until 2 years AFTER THE CHURCH IS ORGANIZED??? How could this Vision NOT BE THE REASON FOR ORGANIZING THE CHURCH....but yet, no mention????
@@kristianmurphy4308 it talks about it in Lucy Mack Smiths autobiography of him telling the her about the vision, tho no word for word account is given. Chronologically it wouldve been before '32.
The Book of Mormon, not the first vision is the only reason given for organizing the Church in lesson manuals and missionary discussions. Lack of records is not evidence of anything when dealing with a partially literate frontier culture. Joseph only had a 3rd grade education until the School of the Prophets. Brigham Young only had 3 days. Joseph sought to better himself and improve his education, and then when he felt able started recording his experiences. At 14? No evidence he could even sign his name.
IF the canonized version is THE VERSION, then why didn't he get it "right" the First or Second time??? AND...how could any person on this planet have such an experience and NOT write it down immediately? Waiting 12 years to MENTION IT AT ALL. THIS destroyed what was left of my "testimony."
With what paper? The Smith family was poor, having experienced two bankruptcies. Martin Harris was not only a scribe to Joseph, he was wealthy enough to afford ink and paper. No pencils back then. How can one write anything down with nothing to write with?
1:31....JS was "not a fan of writing"....???? Too much trouble to jot down what he saw and heard God the Father and Jesus the Son say to him???? ARE YOU KIDDING?????
Do you know how expensive paper and pens were back then? Smith was practical illiterate prior to the remedial education he received from the school of the prophets in Kirkland. As his confidence with writing improved, he wrote more. There is no evidence that 14 year-old Jospeh could even sign his name.
An example straight from BYU Pathway: Imagine that you recently had a car accident... If you had to write and tell your parents about the accident, what might you say? Imagine how you might tell the story differently if you were telling your friends about what happened. How might this version be different from the one you tell the insurance company? What details would you emphasize? Are there some details you might tell your friends that you might not emphasize [as much] in your letter to your parents or the insurance company? Odds are, the version of the story you would tell each of these different audiences would be slightly (or perhaps even vastly) different. Perhaps with your friends, you would draw out certain dramatic moments a little more- dramatic moments you might leave out of the version you tell the insurance company because that audience is usually more concerned with the “facts” of the event than the “feelings” surrounding them. It is important to note that these differences don't make any version of that same event less important or less real- those differences are simply an acknowledgement of how those two audiences are different and the ways those differences can and should impact what information is shared.
Hey timneji: If the accident you were in involved the President of the United States motorcade, and you were injured by his car, would you leave that detail out? This is a more accurate analogy though still not the equivalent to leaving out God than your simple-minded tripe.
Imagine this analogy being comparable in any way, shape, or form. Imagine not knowing for certain if you were 14 or 16? Even in the church’s official claim it says he was “about 14.”
Are you really saying just because he didn't mention God the Father in the original first account, it doesn't mean God the Father wasn't there? Are you serious!? Mentioning GOD THE FATHER is no SMALL detail. Come ON! That excuse is BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Heck, maybe Tom Brady and Britney Spears were there too. He didn't mention them after all.
In the 1832 diary account, Joseph claims he is forgiven of his sins by God, because, in the Joseph Smith translation of Exodus 33:20, Smith added that a sinful person cannot see God and live! Did God by grace, because of Joseph's faith, give him complete forgiveness through the atonement of Jesus Christ, without the "after all you can do" part? Look at who is giving the account, and when? To make the first vision work, Joseph had to later change it because in 1833 he did a bible translation and it would of clashed with Exodus 33:20 (JST), the first vision was recorded in 1832, 12 years after he claimed it happened. The others accounts, were given with Joseph's hindsight, they aren't comming from different witnesses perspectives, only one person gave the information of the accounts, Joseph, only one man saw this vision, Joseph! The account is different than Joseph Smith history too, which to my understanding is official Church doctrine. Why would Joseph omit the fire and holy spirit in both accounts or wait so long to speak of the account either way? A pillar of fire, I would think, would be easily to remember, since he remembered the darkness part reasonably well. These aren't slight varations such as Paul's accounts on the road to Damascus, these variations change the context of the vision as mentioned above leading to confusion and questions! Darkness, pillars of fire, God touching his eyes, these are contextual changes, period! Remember, it's only one man who allegedly saw this vision, and omitted critical details, then had to change it later because, humans make mistakes! He could of gone back and changed his journal to match the dates! He wrote it after all!!
Suppose a person has "omissions" when they go in for a temple recommend interview when asked certain questions. The church labels that behavior as dishonesty . ...yet it's OK to have "omissions" in one of the most supposed important events of the restoration? A person wouldn't just omit God right out of a vision if he really did appeare. That makes no sense at all. Next time you have a bishops interview, ask him first, if it's OK to have "omissions" in your answers to him and see how well that goes over.
The First Vision was very personal to Joseph, especially in his first 1832 account. I don't know that he considered it anyone else's business but his. And obviously this wasn't a temple recommend interview. We're told relatively often in the Church that some spiritual experiences are too sacred to talk about publicly. The omission of the Father in the 1832 account could have simply been an example of that. Or maybe the decades of persecution he endured because of talking about his religious experiences caused him to temper this re-telling. Who knows! But there are plenty of reasonable explanation in my book.
@@davidsnell2605 And with your own philosophy, maybe some people's personal experiences are too personal to tell. ..even if it's too a bishop. At any rate, small details can and do vary in stories told and that's acceptable, but really. ...leaving out God in the 1832 version and then telling of him in the 1838 works exactly opposite of your opinion and it's a substantial part of the story. He's had even more persecution by 1838 as opposed to 1832....and now he increases the complexity of his story? Really? That's not a small detail and if it were too sacred to tell in 1832 (as you assert)...why is it less sacred in 1838 and can now be told? What changed? Failing to recall that God and a multitude of angels were present is a big deal, at least to the seekers of truth like myself and in "my book", it leaves plenty of room for asking questions.
@Maricela Ibarra Thanks for your comment :) It looks like from David's statement, he doesn't claim that Joseph Smith was persecuted for his 1832 account of the first vision. Daivd says that, "maybe the decades of persecution he endured because of talking about his religious experiences caused him to temper this re-telling." In other words, he was persecuted for many other things than just his account of the first vision. Perhaps such persecutions caused him to be more tentative with how the story was told. I can imagine that seeing God would be sacred enough that I wouldn't want the world to know about it, especially a world ready to deny any experience I have. And then perhaps he included God in his later account due to friends and family urging him to be more public about it. I'm not sure.
@C D Hey! Great thoughts. I'm not sure if the following is a great example but maybe it will help illustrate a point: My fiance was going through severe depression about a year ago. I didn't want to talk about it with anyone because the emotions were so intense for both of us and we didn't feel the need to share it, we just knew what we needed to do to move forward. I knew that if I told people, they would caution me out of the marriage. Because we were planning a wedding, it became more and more imperative that people learned the reasons why we were prolonging the wedding and beating around the bush with our plans. Once my fiance was finally in the clear, we decided that it was okay to be more open about our experiences, especially because we were better able to sort through the feelings and emotions after looking at them from afar. I know depression is negative and I know that Joseph Smith's experience was positive so I'm not equating the two stories in that regard. I'm also not equating the stories in terms of importance/power. I can't IMAGINE how incredible/emotional it must be to see God. However, what I want to illustrate is that when something out of the ordinary happens (something where emotions and feelings are extremely heightened), it's hard to talk about, especially to people you know will throw down on you for any claim you make. So I don't blame Joseph for not being very public about it until he received more knowledge about the gospel, about God, and could look at his experience from afar. It's not that the experience was any less sacred, it just became more imperative for him to open up about it and he clearly had more knowledge about his mission and purpose at that point when he opened up. Does that make sense? I totally see where you are coming from, I really do. I just hope that you can also see why we, as believers, have reason to believe Joseph.
@@parkerplace2910 Nothing wrong with asking questions. I'm a big supporter of sincere questions. The simple truth is that I don't know why Joseph left the Father out of the 1832 account. All I can do is speculate. It could have been that by 1838 he had a stronger foundation of support and people that would defend him from the persecution. Maybe his 1838 account was more directed in his mind to members of the church and he therefore felt less reluctant to tell his story. I don't know. Maybe it's all a technical linguistic question and the two times he refers to "the Lord" he's referring to two different people. For all we know the 1832 account could have been a Saturday afternoon attempt at giving a nutshell version of a much longer story. Maybe Emma was yelling at him to get downstairs for dinner and he rushed through his experience. But considering who Joseph Smith was and what he did, I don't dare discount his prophetic claims because he didn't mention the Father in his short 1832 account. That's not to discount your concerns, I totally understand why people could have concerns about this. I'm just not as concerned as some, I guess.
I suppose that's fair game, too. This isn't meant to be a direct comparison, but on a side note I find the 4 biblical accounts of Mary finding the empty tomb to be quite incredibly different from one another. Sometimes there's an angel, sometimes there's not, sometimes there are two, sometimes there's one. Reading Isaiah and John the Revelator attempt to tell about their visions is very interesting as well. Seems like they struggle quite a bit sometimes. I imagine it can be hard to explain supernatural events in an easily digestible way.
@@davidsnell2605 ......There is always more to talk about...... Give Me some ideas on where to find Isaiah or John seemingly struggling to communicate Their visions.....There is a difference between You and I struggling to understand what They wrote,and Them struggling to communicate what They experienced. Also, I know You said You aren't making a direct comparison between The gospel accounts of Mary and the empty tomb,and the topic of the first vision accounts.....which is well on Your part.....because none of the gospel accounts were told in the first person and recorded by Mary....They are records of an event written from the view of separate individual writers.....the details probably didn't change while Mary told the story amongst Her peers from day to day.....but these are just My thoughts.
@@ryanadams5719 Your note about the gospels not being first-hand accounts is well-noted and the reason I mentioned it wasn't a true comparison. Paul's first-person accounts of his vision is a much better comparison. There's a link in the description to more info about that. I think our conversation, if it continues, we be more productive and on-topic if we stick with Paul for now.
@@davidsnell2605 .......The link contained 3 references from Acts....as far as I know Paul didn't write Acts....So these 3 aren't 1st person accounts. The other 2 references Galatians and 2 Corinthians (both authored by Paul) really show zero inconsistencies when compared to one another. Don't take My word for it. Look for Yourself. Looking forward to hearing back from You. Thanks
@@ryanadams5719 for example in the Corinthians account, Paul escapes Damascus by being lowered from a window in a basket. The Galatians account doesn't mention this. Of course, most people recognize that just because he didn't mention that detail in one account doesn't mean it didn't happen. My hope is that we simply give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt in the same fashion. But of course, if you approach the Paul situation believing he's a true prophet, and if you approach Joseph as necessarily being a false one, I understand how we'd come to different conclusions.
Last year I had an amazing experience that brought me back to the church after 23 years of being an atheist. I tried to write down my experience multiple times and each time I added to it or changed it to better express what I went through. It wasn't until I started to write it down that I realized why Joseph Smith had multiple accounts of his first vision. But like the video said the core of what he was trying to say remained the same as it was for me as well. Try to write down an experience you've had and read it back to yourself I guarantee you will want to add or change something. Great video guys!!
I had a experience to recently. Would you be willing to share to me? :)
Wonderful comment, Carlos. Thanks. And welcome back.
@@davidsnell2605 thank you. Best part is I was able to baptize my wife and my two eldest children. We were sealed in the temple last month. 😁
What was your experience.
CarlosSolis229 ...My main contention with the first vision is that if you believe it, you no longer trust the BIBLE as your ultimate source of guidance... The Bible tells us that no one has seen God as He is in His Father/Soul essence... Passages that are deemed discardable are: John 1:18, "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." ...John 6:46, "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father." ...1Tim 6:15&16, "...which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen."
Probably the impossibility of seeing God as He is in His Father/Soul essence is made most obvious by Jeremiah23:23&24, "Am I a God near at hand," says the Lord, "And not a God afar off? Can anyone hide himself in secret places so I shall not see him?" says the Lord. "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" says the Lord."
Recall that NO ONE else in biblical history claimed to see what an adolescent JS claimed to see, TWO GODS, separate and distinct... Jesus didn't even show His own disciples, who'd been w/Him for YEARS, what JS claimed to have been shown (John14:6-9)... John in his old age, and given the vision that became the Book of Revelation, never claimed to see in HIS vision what an adolescent JS claimed to see in his... John's testimony was of seeing only ONE God, the Lord Jesus Christ...
Choosing to believe the BoM+, means REJECTING important doctrines that the BIBLE teaches... As the Bible instructs, you can't serve TWO masters, one that testifies of the impossibility of seeng God as He is in His Father/Soul essence, the other that claims an adolescent JS was shown just that... Comes down to believing the BIBLE, or believing the BoM+... Can't w/all honesty claim BOTH, b/c they tell us different things...
PLEASE for a moment, imagine seeing what Joseph saw. Imagine how powerful and awe inspiring it must have been to see one, two, any angels/heavenly beings. Simply incredible! Now imagine telling others about that and not knowing exactly what age you were when this happened. “About 14” or 16. If the first vision happened you know the day, month and year it took place. Once you know that you can know exactly how old he would have been yet this isn’t able to be said in ANY account with ABSOLUTE certainty? Please close your eyes for a moment after reading this and ponder in this your heart everyone. Would you ever not know exactly how old you were???
But isn't it problematic that the age and amount of figures change? Like my dad died when I was 12 my story has always been 12 and I remember it clearly because it was so traumatic. Heck even my first Baptism on the mission I remember the age and how many people were in the street contact and so much of it because it was so life changing. If I saw God the father and Christ I would at least remember how many people and how old I was if something that miraculous happened. I would put a vision like that as more memorable and life changing than my Fathers death. Further more I'm confused why he didn't ever speak about this ever to a single soul after it happened until after the church was organized. Especially if this was supposed to be the catalyst for everything ya know? Just a few questions I'm trying to answer
Not to mention that the church historian and future lds president, Joseph fielding smith, suppressed the release of the 1832 account by cutting the pages out of Joseph's journal and kept it in his safe for decades. If the accounts are so "consistent" and "complement" each other, why did he hide it?
For over 30 years I have been telling the story of my car accident when I was 15 that left me in a wheelchair for the rest of the school year.
So during a thanksgiving dinner I was talking about the incident and my mother pointed out that the accident happened when I was 16, three weeks before school ended. So I got the year wrong, and while I was in a wheelchair I until the school year ended, that was only about 2 weeks, since I took a week off after the accident.
I did spend most of the summer on crutches, but was back to normal by the fall.
@@brettmajeske3525 did you also get the car you were riding on wrong? Did you think you were in a sedan when it was actually an 18 wheeler? Age can be murky but claiming you saw many angels, one personage, or two are not minor contradictions.
@@dr33776 None of the version preclude their being both many angels and two personages, only one of which having an extended conversation.
I have recently been working on a history of Bay City, reading multiple journals and newspapers describing the same event with far more variance than the First Vision accounts. Two newspaper articles written by the same reporter only one year apart are very different. I am assuming that he didn't reread his first one when writing the second follow up.
Contrary to popular belief, telling a story the same way every time indicates falsehood, while changing details is more likely to indicate truth. We memorize lies, but we think it important to get details right, but we assume we don't need to do that with truth.
@@dr33776exactly. People on here claiming it’s the same as writing someone a letter theee times before sending or being in a wheelchair for the summer. I guarantee that if the person was in an accident that out then I’m a wheelchair for the rest of their life Vs the summer, they’d remember how old they were for sure. (Having said that, glad it’s not the case of forever wheelchair)
He saw GOD the Father and just didn't bother to note that in his document? Wow!
That's where we are still confused. Everyone can say they've told stories differently at different times, but I'm willing to bet if they SAW God, or God & Jesus or a bunch of Angel's, or one angel....they would stick with that main point in each telling. Oh Jimmy, I heard you telling Suzie about your experience you shared with me last week, but you didn't mention GOD CAME AND LITERALLY APPEARED before you! Jimmy: Oh yeah, I didn't think you'd be interested in that and I wanted to make sure you knew I was wearing the pj's you made me. 🤔🤷🏼♀️
The title "The Lord" is descriptive of God the Father.
It would be so intense, and si mind blowing, how could you, this was a different time in history, no tv or computers etc, he may of been paralyzed with astonishment! That would be the biggest Shock of you're life!😐
@@stardustgirl2904 People were having visions of God left and right back then.
Must have just slipped his mind... You know how mundane things like, meeting the creator of the universe, kinda get lost in the shuffle.
As a relaxed LDS member that just joined at the beginning of this year (2022), I'm SUPER OPEN to different possibilities! If something isn't true, then what can I learn from it? When I die I'll accept whatever the truth is.
"Never Let the truth get in the way of a good yarn"
What's your explanation of the book of Abraham, supposedly translated from the papyrus's, later found to have nothing to do about and not even from the timeline of Abraham?
Damon Neal the guy who supposedly “proved” it had nothing to do with Abraham was caught with a fake PhD and went to jail, so try again
@@luke3768 except it wasn't "a guy". Dozens of egyptologists have translated it and found the same thing. Try again
The unique claims of the Book of Abraham can be found in other ancient documents. Kwaku did a video on it. Here it is:m.ua-cam.com/video/1Kw6MGlpafs/v-deo.html
The papyrus found had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham and neither is there any proof Joseph Smith used them to produce the Book of Abraham, funny that.
They were actually translated by LDS scholar and those papyrus are called the book of burnings and outline some common burial rituals. But if you actually read the description of what Joseph claim to have translated to the Book of Abraham it was a very long scroll in perfect condition, it's current whereabouts lost, apparently burned in a fire. The papyrus or "snippets" or papyrus found, were framed and hung on wall of some old acquaintance of the Smith family and couldn't possible contains 5 chapters and 1000s of words of scripture.
As an atheist I enjoy your content. I find it educational on the subject
At least you're finally admitting that there are contradictions.
There are definitely differences between omissions and contradictions. I just REALLY wish the church didn't have a history of over using both. 🤷🏼♀️😕 Being up front and truthful from day 1 would have made it easier for everyone.
You also have too look at the context of where Mormonism came from. They came from a history of having to hide and cover things just for survival. But they are doing a much better job now
@@williamhenley8593 Yes, I made that mistake. All true, again with massive omission of WHY they were hiding. It most definitely wasn't because the adversary was trying so hard to thwart the truth like I was raised being told. This sucks. The truth is ugly.
@@TheWallaceReboot I disagree that the reasons for not wanting to share all the complicated parts of Mormon history was sinister. It is a natural human reaction to want to omit bad parts of our own history. That doesn't make it right but we are all fallible humans who make mistakes.
The more you research you will find that arguments of critics are pretty weak and that the Church is true.
If you watch this series you will realize that Joseph must have been a Prophet.
ua-cam.com/channels/BjPnxnaw6DKhNUqsPa7csg.htmlvideos
@@ryanadams5719 huh, ok, thanks? There's a whole lot to be heartbroken over in this world. Not sure why you're using some of that up on me, especially when you don't know me or my life or my beliefs.
@@TheWallaceReboot ....
My mistake.I wasn't trying to judge You wrongly.
My apologies.
How do you see God the father and consider it insignificant. Especially since in the Bible, of which he would have been familiar. He tells people no one can live and see him?
Who said that Joseph considered seeing the Father as insignificant. Perhaps it was because it was too significant. We have no record of Joseph explaining why he did not include the Father in the first account, but there are many possible reasonable explanations.
John 1:18 must mean something different than you assume because it says in Exodus 33:11 that Moses spoke with God face to face as a man speaks with a friend.
@rockartalan why didn't Joseph's family ever mentioned it? His mother seemed to be unaware of it even on her autobiography she didn't mention it.
No doubt
There could be a version that included a juggling circus clown and mormons would still try to rationalize it
I'm dizzy from all the spin put on that story.
And why would he bother to mention he saw God. After all God was such a minor detail in his vision.
Great video. I agree that the "contradictions" aren't anything that can't be chalked up to fallible human memory, and the human penchant for telling stories in certain ways depending on the audience. And for those who get hung up about the phrase "the Lord" not including God the Father. Please go read your Bibles.
Except his memory and writings were supposedly guided by the holy ghost, particularly when he wrote them down, and thus implies God contradicted Himself.
@@KEP1983 Where did you get that? I've never heard that Joseph Smith was granted spiritually amplified memory.
@@KEP1983 He didn't write any of the accounts himself. He was either dictating to scribes, or second hand witnesses were reconstructing something they heard him say. Dave talked about this in the video.
@@brettmajeske3525 so god saw that his message was corrupted and had to send a new prophet, so he gave visions to Joseph, but the holy spirit that gave these messages to Joseph couldn't protect the transcription process? Yet other Prophets of the NT and OT both dictated to scribes and we're told they were infallible... yet Joseph was the greatest prophet?? ok, yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.
@@KEP1983 I've yet to read any claims of infallibility from any Old or New Testament scribes. And yes the Spirit did have a way, which is the process by which revelations become official doctrine aka the Standard Works. Only one of the four accounts was officially scripture. Parts of the others are now included in the Bicentennial Proclamation.
Thank you for going over this!!!
Nick Ex. Hey Nick, i appreciate you reaching out; but i will continue to be a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much love to you and yours❤️
@@nickex.3187 I've been studying alot of the church and all it's done is strengthen my testimony.
Nick, you offer a lot of interesting details and I can tell you really studied your history! I also do not like the written word, like Joseph, so please forgive my writing as I try to adequately express my thoughts. First, when you said that Nephi was the one who spoke with Joseph, that made me excited! I think that is a really cool variation I've never heard before and if it were true, I'm perfectly cool with that! Nephi was a prophet and Moroni was a prophet, either one appearing to Joseph and sharing a message with him works for my brain! :) If someone wrote the wrong name down in the history books, it's not a big deal to me, it doesn't affect my testimony. Second, the idea that in the 1st account, Joseph had supposed that all of the churches weren't true and then in later accounts he wrote that he "never had supposed that" is not a contradiction to me, but rather more of a misremembering. Let me try to explain... In my life, there have been times that I've learned something new and part of me feels like I've always known it and I might begin to eventually share it in that manner - as if I already knew it, not as a lie, but because it made so much sense to my brain when I heard it, even though I may have never thought it before... Over time as I reflect on memories before the event, I might remember conversations or even be reminded by others of conversations we shared that correct my memory that I actually hadn't believed that way before. So then, in an effort to be honest and transparent, I would change my wording in sharing my memory. Let me try to give an example. I've seen a person with interest in our church say that parts of our doctrine we are teaching are exactly what their church believes when I know for a fact it is not. But when they hear the lesson, it just makes so much sense that they will announce it is the same in both churches. Then sometimes they'll talk to their pastor or other clergy leader and come back and say that their church doesn't believe the same. Sometimes they still want to join the church and other times the rift is too much and they want to stay in their church. Inside my head and sometimes out loud I've pointed out that they said it was the same the last time we met and now they're saying it's different and they can't accept our different beliefs. They usually deny that they ever said they were the same, I think it if pride or not wanting to admit the truth... The fact that Joseph Smith was willing to admit that he never had supposed such a thing, for me, demonstrates his integrity and willingness to correct the original telling. This perception of him is in line with his humility in other situations such as forgiving W.W. Phelps whose actions caused Joseph to be brutally imprisoned for a long time as well as resulted in members being killed... So to sum up, I think this "contradiction" is just a thing with human brains and memories. So that "contradiction" doesn't bother me at all because I've seen it with people today and Joseph Smith was a person and not endowed with a perfect memory. I've spent so much time working this response that I've honestly forgotten some of your other points, but I hope that my words have helped you see a small glimpse of how someone can still believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true even while reading, facing, and listening to the information you've shared. :) By the way, I normally don't respond on UA-cam, but you seem sincere and not hateful, so I decided you were worth my time to share my perspective of loving and living the gospel of Jesus Christ which has sustained me through some of the hardest trials life can throw at us... May you find peace and love in your journey of life!
@@nickex.3187 .Christ takes directions from the Father. NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.
Tired Siren Dear Mormon adherent, there is only one gospel, that of Jesus Christ. You sound very young and naïve, likely American. When you are old enough to realize the Bible's statement that the heart (emotions) are wickedly deceitful, you will realize that your emotions, or what the cult calls "testimony," has no bearing on true facts! This holds true for everyone suckered in by a young man or woman whose emotions tell them he/she loves them. The facts are plain and simple: you can read your own "religion's" origins in its own website. They are being sued by a poor lady who was lied to by elders and wasted Her life in an emotional hoax, including being bullied out of "a lot" of tithes, when tithing is an Old Testament law! The love of money is the root of all evil, says the inerrant word of God! The JW founder copied his neighbour, Joe Smith, in starting his own religion to defraud people of their money. They were both begun in the exact time period in upstate NY. Both religions contradict the Bible. The LDS books all contradict each other as well. A lot of people are "walking up" in these two American cults. The leaders are being paid to whitewash truth. The early copies of Smith's writings listed Joe as the author. The Corporation has changed the BM too many times to count. Why don't you prove to yourself with FACTS what is true about your "new religious movements," AKA, cult. Jesus paid it ALL, so stop striving for perfection. There is no way to work your way to a top level of heaven (an idea borrowed from Swedenborg!). Sorry you will be shunned if you leave, because that's what cults do. Read the New Testament and pray to accept Christ's free gift of Salvation today! Such a pure and simple gospel even a child can understand and choose Jesus! Love from Sunshine Coast, Canada.
Do they know the exact spot in the Sacred Grove where he saw the First Vision? Is Mr. Prothero's book that was mentioned good?
No one is exactly sure where the sacred grove actually was. The Church owns the property near the Smith home but it was clear cut for farming for years before it was purchased and there is no way of knowing where it happened.
So Joseph Smith seen God in human flesh, but he was so underwhelmed that he never mentioned it for 12 years
thanks David for explaining this, first one that had the upper hand of explanations even better than the apologist.. My debate is when you said if we believe in pauls vision explandations we can believe in joseph smiths vision explanations.. The thing is appostle pauls dispensation was removed mormonism and replaced with dsipensation of joseph smith. The gospel of grace being the lesser law free of priesthood rules, rituals and ordinances to know the truth that set us free, no bondage by laws but only the law of love, then its restored is a contradiction very confusing. The other issue is high priests in lds church now join the elders in class, fade them out, while leaders like bishops, stake presidents are the real high priests and entitled to poligmany here after and all else faded out, or just become slave members that miss out on the poligmany blessings that the bible cursed anyway after the fall of King Solomans poligamny not work. Thanks for your videos anyway and your personal friendship with me brother and your calming influence apon me in my youtube channel where I did not leave the church but the church left me. love you brother Darryl Perth Western australia down under
The church website mentions five versions but there are nine. The commentator here says the gist is the same in each one. When no Jesus is present in one version that is not the same gist. When a pillar of light is replaced by fire in another version that is not the same gist. When Jesus appears but no God that is not the same gist. The version we have in HC 1:15-19 which is memorized for missions is the official one today. The other variations cannot be dismissed by apologists as basically the same.
So just exactly what do you see as the "gist" of the official version? You have identified several gists here. What is important is not that there are differences, but that there are no contradictions in what he says between the accounts. Just because he doesn't include every detail in every account is not a contradiction. Everyone retells stories honestly in different ways based on audience and purpose of the telling. Most story tellers of real experiences decide what to include or to leave out based on how much time we have to tell the story and the point we are trying to make. There is nothing in the different first vision accounts that would not allow such an explanation reasonable.
If you insist that the differences are evidence of Joseph being dishonest or making it up, you must explain what his motives might have been to make it up and then tell it differently. Usually when a successful con-man makes such things up they are more careful to make the story consistent than an honest person. What is your theory?
@@rockartalan The one I follow is what missionaries follow: the one in History of the Church volume 1 and PGP. It isn't so much nine versions of the first vision as the church denied it for so many decades. There is even a church video where the narrator admits to the nine versions. But that would never have happened 20 years ago. Either way I am glad they are being more transparent.
@@scottbrandon6244 I am not aware of church ever denying that there are different versions of this experience of Joseph Smith. Please share your source on this. Just because you weren't aware of these accounts 20 years ago, doesn't mean the church wasn't teaching about them. Once you become more informed you will realize that before the 1960s there wasn't much research being done into church history, especially compared to the scholarship being done in the last 20 years. But there was a BYU doctoral dissertation done by Paul Cheeseman in the early or mid 60s that discussed the different accounts. There was an article about the different accounts in the church magazine The Improvement Era that went into detail on them as well. Check out this video that explains this. ua-cam.com/video/Y3i6T7laO3Y/v-deo.html
Let me know if this changes your perspective on this issue.
@@rockartalanfrom JSP. "Also, the initial three leaves containing the history were excised from the volume. The eight inscribed leaves in the back of the volume may have been cut out at the same time.3 Manuscript evidence suggests that these excisions took place in the mid-twentieth century. A tear on the third leaf, which evidently occurred during its excision, was probably mended at the time. This tear was mended with clear cellophane tape, which was invented in 1930.4 The three leaves of the history certainly had been removed by 1965, when they were described as “cut out,” although they were archived together with the letterbook. The size and paper stock of the three excised leaves match those of the other leaves in the book. Also, the cut and tear marks, as well as the inscriptions in the gutters of the three excised leaves, match those of the remaining leaf stubs, confirming their original location in the book.5 The three leaves were later restored to the volume, apparently in the 1990s."
If the accounts are consistent, why the need to tear the journal and hide the first vision account?
@David Snell......So...can We discuss the error of Tvedtnes' work on the "Analysis of Paul's accounts of His vision"???
It would be the right thing to do. Maybe You could bring it to the attention of the church....Hey,uummm,Guys....... Tvedtnes,in this particular article,is flat out wrong.
This isn't just any case that one would hear on the daily. This is a human being claiming he saw GOD and JESUS CHRIST. Yeah, if I saw Bill and his wife Betty walking down the street, I may omit Bill or Betty in one account and recall the omission in another. Leaving out the Creator of the Universe is such an inscrutable idea.
"Oh, yeah! And GOD THE FATHER was there too. How could I forget Him?"
A claim such as this is absolutely MUCH ADO ABOUT A WHOLE BIG SOMETHING.
SMH
You're certainly entitled to that opinion. Technically we believe Jesus Christ is the Creator, so he didn't leave the Creator of the Universe out, but I get what you're saying. Again, just because the Father isn't mentioned in the 1832 account doesn't mean Joseph forgot or that he's making things up. He could have omitted the Father for any number of reasons. Even in the most detailed account of the vision (1838), the only role God the Father has is to introduce Jesus Christ. Literally all he says is, "This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" So if I'm Joseph Smith and have been persecuted over the last two decades because of my religious experiences, I can understand why he might be hesitant to give as much detail as he did in the 1838 version. But again, I'm more than happy to disagree. Hopefully you at least can see where people are coming from that don't think this is a big deal, even if you disagree. Have a great day!
@@davidsnell2605 Its very simple, the Father descended down first and then the Son followed soon afterwards....
@@davidsnell2605 I can see where people are coming from. It's probably the single most important event to happen in history -- if it happened. I think that's why someone like myself views this with such skepticism. We seek to understand, even if it's something we don't want to hear. In this case (when I was still an active member), I thought it was very difficult to reconcile not just this, but many of the early leaders' actions. This isn't to change the subject. All I mean to say is taken with everything else that one must explain away, I find it hard to believe this actually happened.
What about Muhammed? He claimed to have a very similar vision. Do you think this happened? If you think that it MAY have happened, you owe it to yourself to really search and find out, because that's an equally weighty statement.
For myself, as of now, I say nobody has seen anything because there is nothing to see.
@@mrt5162 I certainly respect your beliefs and wish you the very best on your journey. I don't know enough about Muhammed's vision to make an informed comment about that but I recently (like last week) bought a copy of the Quran and look forward to learning more. I would agree, it's worth researching.
Joseph DIDN'T leave out God the Father. He specifically said he saw "the Lord."
No person has ever seen Jesus Christ, including a Joseph Smith.
Umm..... Ever read The New Testament?
Only one way to find out. Prayer is so very real, may the Lord hold you accountable.
This is by far the biggest reason I became convinced that the church I decadtied 30 or so years my life to was not true. I really dont care about whether it's a contradiction or an Omission. Leaving God the Father out of the first telling of the account was a huge deal for me. I wish I could remember the talk by Pres. Hinckley where he talked about the sifincance of the first vision and in how in that one moment Joesph learned more about the nature of God than any other person. It was so significant that the Book of Mormon itself makes no distinction from the father and son...even referring to the Jesus as the everlasting father multiple times. It's quite clear to me that Smith started out with a more Traditional Protestant view of God and then as his views evolved added God the Father. I agree with you that leaving God the Father isn't technically a contradiction from a strict logical standpoint, but people don't speak strictly logically. No one who has two apples in their hand would say they have one apple even though the statement would be technically true
I mean even the bible has jesus and the father distinct peraonages. Jesus prayed to his father.
Then why are you here?
coalhouse1981 You make sense to me. Seeing God the Father should have made a huge impression on Joseph. He should have been shocked to witness a sight that challenged what everyone believed about God. Its hard to make a convincing case for omitting such a significant piece of info.
I totally agree that he started out with a traditional protestant view of God. That's the religious culture he grew up in. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall as he tried to figure out how exactly his vision impacted his views on the nature of God. My guess is that his first reaction to his vision wasn't, "wow, God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate beings, contradicting everything I thought I knew about the Trinity." He was a teenager worried about his sins and which church to join. So I don't know when his understanding evolved, but just like everything else he learned, I'm sure it was line upon line, here a little and there a little.
And there could be any number of reasons why he omitted the Father in the short 1832 version. Maybe he simply felt He was too sacred to talk about. There's also the theory that the two times he mentions "Lord" in this version, he's talking about two different people (the Father and the Son). I don't necessarily agree with that theory, but I see where it's coming from. Anyway, just throwing some thoughts your way.
@@davidsnell2605 I really wish I could find that Hinckley talk.. im pretty sure im not misremembering it, it's not the one that most critics quote...but If I could find it maybe you could understand why this was so shattering for me. I'm glad you admit he changed his view. But to me the when is paramount. It was certainly after the first vision, and after the publication of the BOM, which contains very trintain language as does the three witnesses statement. Trust me I dont want to listen my mom cry every time she asks me to the temple work for my late brother, but the evidence is not there. I think Smith changed his view away from a Traditional view of God in 1835 (at least historically that when he stopped referring to Jesus as the father)
Didn’t Joseph join the Methodist church after being told specifically not to join other churches by god?
No he didn’t
William Henley: If he had, would it be an issue for you?
@@seans5289 No it wouldn't be an issue and I've already researched this particular criticism that is often used and it hinges on some pretty poor "evidence".
William Henley: What is the poor “evidence” as you understand it?
@@seans5289 Three of the primary sources that charge Joseph Smith with joining sectarian churches between 1820 and 1830 were produced in the latter part of the nineteenth century, over a half-century after the First Vision. None of the three are contemporary records; the earliest one was written 50 years after the First Vision took place.
Fayette Lapham claimed that Joseph had joined the Baptist Church.
Joseph and Hiel Lewis claimed that Joseph Smith joined the Methodist Church.
S.F. Anderick claimed that Joseph Smith joined the Presbyterian Church.
We must note too that none of these sources confirms the others-they all discuss different denominations and different time frames. Thus, the stories are not mutually reinforcing.
Eyewitness reminiscences and contemporary records provide strong evidence that these claims are not valid and, therefore, do not reflect historical reality. The three sources are all late, and all from hostile voices.
The link to Paul's account seems to be broken.
Maybe a topic that you can jump into: Does the Church believe in possession of spirits and, if so, is there away to exercise them?
We would say the evil spirit could be cast out by one having great faith, or Priesthood power, either through prayer or command, in the name of Jesus Christ. It may be that prayer and fasting are required as is talked about by Jesus when the apostles said they could not cast one out.
Why didn't Joseph check those versions scribed down by others? Kind of like Muhammad. His Companions wrote everything down and Muhammad had them read it back to him. So we can assume that they wrote it down correctly. Why didn't Smith do that? Could it be that he ADDED to the accounts as his doctrines changed?
I like how do you differentiate between contradictions and omissions, but you haven't explained how do you understand the contradiction in the example which you have already mentioned and accepted to be really contradiction.
Could you please explain that? or at least explain how the LDS church look to this contradiction?
Thanks in advance :)
Great question. I assume you're talking about the age difference? 16/15/14? The answer: Joseph probably couldn't remember, which he's allowed to do. I'll compare it to something that happened to me recently: My wife loves Disneyland. So we're planning a trip later this year. I've been there twice before. Once when I was just a baby, and once when I was like, 13 years old. But when I mentioned that to my family they were confused and informed me that I was actually like 9 years old the last time we all went to Disneyland. "No... I'm pretty sure I was like, 13 or 14 years old." "Nooo...." they responded, "your sister was 13 or 14, which means you were about 9." Anyway, point being: You can get details wrong when recalling events from long ago. That's all I think happened.
Also something to consider (for what it's worth): When they say that "Joseph was in his 15th year" that could simply mean that he was 15 years old, or it may also just mean it was the year in which he _would_ turn 15. Also (for what it's worth), in the 1832 account (where Joseph is 16), Joseph himself is writing before and after his age is mentioned, but the bit where he's said to be in his 16th year is penciled in by William Phelps (or whoever the scribe was that I mentioned in the video). Maybe Joseph told him to write that or maybe he just made his best guess, idk. Either way, I'm just totally fine with Joseph not remembering correctly.
@@davidsnell2605 Thank you indeed for sharing your thoughts, and giving a nice example to clarify the situation. I totally agree with you. The only thing that made me confuse and let me write the comment, because I considered what JS said is infallible directed by the Holy Ghost, therefore there is no chance for mistakes.
But at the end JS was, like all of us, a human being. So probably I should differenciate between what He has talked (which may include mistakes, slips), and what He has done under the guidance of the Holy Ghost (as translating the BOM, NT, and other standard books).
@@fcyakop Correct, Joseph was definitely fallible, just as well all are and just as the prophets of old were.
@steven stud several examples are discussed in the video :). The only contradiction I can think of off the top of my head is Joseph's age.
@@davidsnell2605 I have no problem with age things and I have remembered a date wrong, etc. I'm totally confident though that I wouldn't ever in my entire life forget whether it was God, Jesus, both, angels who APPEARED to me. That isn't something one has a blurry memory of over time. 🤨😏
There was only one account when I served my mission. Imagine my surprise when I found out there were multiple, contradictory accounts years after I came home. No amount of mental gymnastics and word play can change the fact the church lied to me about it.
Completely agree with you, we were all deceived.
Everything is confirmed and verified by my personal DNA 🧬
He contradicts himself
Hey man I ain't Mormon but you're gonna have to elaborate more than that
I can totally understand why js told the story differently. I went through what he did and of the very few who I told the story to, I never told the full story. I actually omitted the non pg13 stuff so people don't freak the heck out. It's been 20 years since it first happened, and at first thought I was going crazy until it happened again and was an exact repeat each time. Im sure if I had to repeat it, each time would be slightly different and i wouldn't tell the demonic stuff to the average joe, nor would i tell the ending of my third visit due to it changing my life forever, even though the first 2 were beyond description. And this all happened when i first read the book, before I knew who js was. Then I read his story and was like, you gotta be kidding me..............
I have sat down to write LETTERS to a family member, and end up, rewriting it atleast 3 TIME'S!🌷👱♀️
Yeah, same thing for sure. Cmon
Four first hand accounts acknowledged by the Mormon church
1832 Written by Junior himself A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. Account
Junior cries to the heaven for mercy. The Lord shows up, let's him know that he is Jesus, forgives sins and says that he has come in the glory of the Father. Notice that purported Jesus introduces himself.
1835 Journal entry dictation to scribes, Sketch Book for the use of Joseph Smith Jr; Journal Account
Junior calls to the lord with a might prayer. One unidentified personage show up says nothing and the another personage like the first shows up. Junior sees many angels. The second personage forgives sins and testifies to him that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Notice no one actually introduced anyone, just a testimony.
1838 Dictation by Junior to James Mulholland; Joseph Smith History Account
Junior began offering up desires of his heart. Two personages whose brightness and glory defy description show up. One calls Junior and pointing to the second personage says "This is my beloved Son, Hear him". Joseph asks the personages as to which sect was right, and which he should join. One of the personages let Junior know that all the creeds were an abomination and forbad Junior from joining any of them. Notice that one personage introduces another personage.
1842 Dictation by Junior to scribes; Church History Account
Junior began calling upon the Lord. Two identical personages show up in a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon. The tell Junior that that all the denominations believe incorrect doctrine and god does not acknowledge any of them as his church. He was promised the fullness of the gospel at some future time. No one introduces anyone.
Due to the significance of the event, one would think that Junior could recall the event perfectly, at least by the guidance of the spirit which indwelled him. But sadly this was not the case as much of the details cannot be reconciled. It is conceivable that Junior was concocting the first vision accounts to suit his particular need at the time
Welp, might as well burn the whole thing then 🛫💥⛪️
Visions of God the father and/or Jesus were common back in the 1800s Evidence indicates that this vision wasn't as significant to Joseph as people are making it out to be. The vision that appears to be the most significant is that of Moroni.
However, Joseph is is retelling these events in different contexts at least a decade after the event. You try and remember something that happened decades ago and get every detail right (his age). It's not like Joseph walked into the woods saying to himself "I'm 14/15/16 years old today." Twelve years after the event he probably just had a general recollection of when it happened.
I think it's just overly nitpicky to say that the differences in these accounts are evidence of Joseph making up the story. Not only does it ignore the imperfections of human memory, but it also ignores the fact that people tell stories in different ways to depending on the audience.
@@MichaelEllisYT
You have got to be joking?
Do you really wanna look like a fool by saying if you had a miraculous vision from heaven that you wouldn't remember if it were God, Jesus, a bunch of angels, or some unknown spirit? No one would forget that. Not til their dying day. Utterly REDICULOUS. 🤦
@@smdh99 I didn't say Joseph couldn't remember if it were God, Jesus, or a bunch of angels.
@@MichaelEllisYT
You did say that. You said, "you try to remember every detail of something that happened a decade ago"
Your volume is very low. My device is turned up to the max and I can barely hear you.
Joseph had how many scribes BEFORE 1832??? He sat with Three while writing...sorry...translating the BOM. No time to have them write down what he remembers from the FV??? (BTW.... I thought the FV was the reason for Organizing the NEW Church in 1830???)
Never heard that before, and I was raised in the Church. The only explanation I have ever heard is translating Mosiah and learning about how Alma organized a church.
“There’s the pillar of light”. Um.. no.. that says pillar of fire
Awesome explanation! Thank you!
how sad will be the day when the vale is lifted and the people that have chosen not to follow the prophet or to mock him or kill his servants. their hearts will find they went with bad people of the Bible mocked the prophets and stoned then.. how sad will be that day and we will cry with them for their choice.
Michael Hursh: Why would god create brains that can’t accept fantastic notions without sufficient evidence, then punish the people who use those minds as they were created?
Isaac Andrade: How would we find out whether a god created brains at all?
What is really significant about the 1832 account is this: He only sees one Personage. That was during a period when JS wss preaching modalism. "The Father is the Son and the Son is the Father," as JS peculiarly translated Luke 10:23 in his inspired translation. Later, when he drifts toward tritheism, he begins to remember seeing more than one personage. Coincidence? I don't think so!
This is great, thanks!
I find this no different than the different gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Each Gospel had different information yet did not contradict.
Then we have the book of acts. Luke tells of three different accounts concerning when Paul met Jesus. Each account has information that is somewhat contradictory to the others. Yet we don't blink an eye at it.
I feel the same about these accounts. Information from different people or from different points of time can slightly change a story, or very likely omit information.
The gospels totally contradict in some aspects, regardless they were written by DIFFERENT authors. Joseph Smith was the only source for all of these accounts. Try another apologetic.
No one has EVER seen God, 1 John 4:12. Exodus 33:20 But he said "you cannot see my face for man shall not see me and live". God is so beyond our comprehension, NO ONE can see Him, God is Spirit, that is why we have Jesus, He is our mediator between God and man. God is not created, He is our creator.
I don't know man, I became a Christian when I was 16, on Tuesday June 6, 2006. I got married when I was 24, September 10, 2014.Those were momentous days in my life, but definitely not as magnificent as Joseph's first vision. These aren't details that you just happen to not recollect, even years later. I don't mean to be a butt, but things still sound fishy ya know?
Something to keep in mind is that Joseph was a 14 year old farm boy in 1820 in Palmyra. It's estimated that his education was equivalent to that of a second or third grader by modern standards.
I think you bring up a fair point, but you have to consider that Joseph just wouldn't have the vocabulary or the writing capabilities to document such an event, nor the money to pay someone tow write it for him.
@@Sunshine-eo2sp I don't think that's true. Joseph even said himself that he was instructed in reading, writing, and the foundations of arithmetic at a young age. His mom even wrote that Joseph was often given to meditation and deep study.
It also wouldn't make sense since Joseph literally says in the Pearl of Great Price that he was 15 (other accounts say 14) when he *read* the bible and prayed to know which church was true which started the LDS church. He certainly was capable of documenting the event.
Regardless though, memory and writing capability are two different things. I'm able to remember things from age 5 before I had the ability to write well or had the proper vocabulary to explain the events, and Joseph was 14-15 when these things happened, so yeah, it's still really suspicious.
@@Sunshine-eo2sp Joseph was a big reader, his mom was a teacher, and his brother was a teacher. The kid might only have a 3rd grade "formal" education, but he was definitely way more educated than that, and able to read and write.
@@blondiecutie22 Emma, Joseph's wife, said he could not write a coherent letter. I don't think he was all that well educated
Whether he was well read, able to write, or Booksmart is irrelevant here. Even a second grader knows how old they are. There should be no doubt whatsoever in any claims the age when this supposedly took place.
Wow, you skipped through the 1832 Account quick.. "The Lord" only?? FIRST TIME HE RECORDS THE FIRST VISION AND DOESN'T MENTION GOD THE FATHER??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?????
At the time "the Lord" would have been God the Father, in common Christian usage. Joseph didn't receive the revelation clarifying Jehovah was the pre-mortal Jesus until 38.
Thank you. I very much appreciate you assembling the multiple accounts of the first vision and drawing distinct comparisons between them. With extraneous details stripped away and the central components of each recounting of the first vision displayed -unencumbered, unfiltered - the veracity of Joseph Smith’s story is discernible. The first vision never happened. Joseph Smith was a liar. He was no prophet. The LDS church is a fraud. Earnestly … thank you for providing clarity.
Here we see once again in yet another video from the so called 'church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints' but really it's all about Joseph Smith, and defending him and his claimed visions, and visitations from God the father and Jesus Christ, and also characters from the Bible and angels.
It's Joseph Joseph Joseph all the way, his golden plates,his book of Mormon, his teachings, his multiplicity of doctrines, rules, covenants, rituals, laws, oaths, secret signs, symbolisms, handshakes, practices, and lifetime of obedience to his complex guidlines to become a God.
With great respect wouldn't it be more accurate to simply call it The church of Joseph Smith?.
No offense to his followers is intended, it's just how many people veiw it I'm sure.
Kind regards to Mormon folk.
Geoff Noyes
😂😂😂 That was great!
This is not a video from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but from people who believe. It is answering a specific question.
But we don't worship Joseph Smith. He didn't die on a cross for us. We believe that our church is Christ's church, if the church was called the church of Joseph Smith it would have been Joseph Smith's church not Chrit's.
If I saw God AND JESUS CHRIST AT THE SAME TIME...... why in the thuck would I not include one other GOD BEING IN THere?!🤨 I don’t buy it. I’m definitely leaving this church soon as I get off work hhmmm it’s very disappointing because I dedicated 12 years of my life into something I thought it was the truth, only to find out it wasn’t. Dang I was really happy here and you gon turn around and do this to my faith?! I will miss those good times being a Mormon but I gotta go.
Yes, def very contradictory. The mental gymnastics these guys go through to make it make sense is a LOT!
Hi everbody
Hello from California!🌷🏖🌲⛰
Get em !
Let's read what apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor 14:20
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. 1 Cor 14 KJV
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Eph 4 KJV
and here is what Joseph Smith said :
*"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ"*.....
This can be compared with the Nativity Story, one account talks about Jesus just being born and some wise men going to see him, then Herod sends his men to slay babies. The other account talks about an angel visiting Mary, her cousing actually being pregnant with John the Baptist at the same time. Hosts of angels and sheperds, no room in the inn, a tax collection, this seems like a totally different story! People, even scholars try to harmonize both, but Christians never deny the Nativity story. The same for Genesis 2. Different accounts mean greater insight and not obvious lies.
Those accounts were written by different authors many years (decades or even a century) after Jesus lived and first passed down orally. Joseph's account were either written by him or dictated to a scribe.
Yes.
The First Vision evolved in a manner consistent with a story being developed and not a single event that actually happened and is simply conveyed poorly to the audience. The founding vision of the church originally was the vision of Moroni in 1823. The original saints had no idea Joseph saw God in 1820. As things go along, Joseph begins to enhance and exaggerate the vision. Soon two personages are involved. These two are not God and Jesus, they are Moroni and Jesus. Then finally the vision is split in two and Jesus and God appeared first with the Moroni vision coming later. Even the phrase "First Vision" is a lie. Joseph said "my first visitation of angels". The modern church has edited what he said to "First Vision".
You don't seem to understand how Celestial Ressurected beings operate. God teaches line by line, he dosen't give everything all at once.
@@germanslice So Joseph met God first, then Moroni but he was told to tell everyone he met Moroni first then God. This is because they need to learn line upon line. But Joseph didn't need to learn line upon line. Joseph didn't meet Moroni first. Then later, when I was born, I didn't need to know about Moroni first.
You are right in that the name"First Vision" is a misnomer. However, having read the accounts I don't find anything the really indicates he made it up. The exception being that I think the "official" version was highly editorialized to make it flow better. The inclusion of the revival was probably a blending of the events in his memory. But this is not an unusual practice and is common even today.
@@MichaelEllisYT So you're saying the First vision was not first? Moroni was first?
Honestly, Idk why you're still in this faith. It's like there is so many reasons for you to not believe just lying there, and you choose to keep believing.
I mean, how does anyone forget to write down that they saw God the Father even if he "didn't do much"??
Depends on access to paper and pens. Since Joseph learned how to write with charcoal and sheets of slate, not writing down details until he was an adult makes sense to me.
Am I correct that there is NO RECORD of Joseph telling ANYONE about this Vision until 2 years AFTER THE CHURCH IS ORGANIZED??? How could this Vision NOT BE THE REASON FOR ORGANIZING THE CHURCH....but yet, no mention????
No he told people around the time he had the vision.
@@all6497 LINK please
@@all6497 Thought so...no link....no mention by Joseph, TO ANYONE, prior to 1832
@@kristianmurphy4308 it talks about it in Lucy Mack Smiths autobiography of him telling the her about the vision, tho no word for word account is given. Chronologically it wouldve been before '32.
The Book of Mormon, not the first vision is the only reason given for organizing the Church in lesson manuals and missionary discussions. Lack of records is not evidence of anything when dealing with a partially literate frontier culture. Joseph only had a 3rd grade education until the School of the Prophets. Brigham Young only had 3 days. Joseph sought to better himself and improve his education, and then when he felt able started recording his experiences. At 14? No evidence he could even sign his name.
IF the canonized version is THE VERSION, then why didn't he get it "right" the First or Second time??? AND...how could any person on this planet have such an experience and NOT write it down immediately? Waiting 12 years to MENTION IT AT ALL. THIS destroyed what was left of my "testimony."
With what paper? The Smith family was poor, having experienced two bankruptcies. Martin Harris was not only a scribe to Joseph, he was wealthy enough to afford ink and paper. No pencils back then. How can one write anything down with nothing to write with?
I've told stories differently, but the people and events didn't change
Exactly. Maybe the best way to say it in one sentence.
He seen one or 2 entity's big difference.
1:31....JS was "not a fan of writing"....???? Too much trouble to jot down what he saw and heard God the Father and Jesus the Son say to him???? ARE YOU KIDDING?????
Do you know how expensive paper and pens were back then? Smith was practical illiterate prior to the remedial education he received from the school of the prophets in Kirkland. As his confidence with writing improved, he wrote more. There is no evidence that 14 year-old Jospeh could even sign his name.
Hmmm God's minimal involvement? Suspect
Meaning that in every account the Father appears in, all He does is introduce Jesus Christ. The rest of the conversation is with Christ.
An example straight from BYU Pathway:
Imagine that you recently had a car accident... If you had to write and tell your parents about the accident, what might you say? Imagine how you might tell the story differently if you were telling your friends about what happened. How might this version be different from the one you tell the insurance company? What details would you emphasize? Are there some details you might tell your friends that you might not emphasize [as much] in your letter to your parents or the insurance company?
Odds are, the version of the story you would tell each of these different audiences would be slightly (or perhaps even vastly) different. Perhaps with your friends, you would draw out certain dramatic moments a little more- dramatic moments you might leave out of the version you tell the insurance company because that audience is usually more concerned with the “facts” of the event than the “feelings” surrounding them.
It is important to note that these differences don't make any version of that same event less important or less real- those differences are simply an acknowledgement of how those two audiences are different and the ways those differences can and should impact what information is shared.
THIS IS ABOUT GOD THE FATHER AND JESUS THE CHRIST MAKING A JOINT APPEARANCE. That is not a car wreck story told to parents.
Hey timneji: If the accident you were in involved the President of the United States motorcade, and you were injured by his car, would you leave that detail out? This is a more accurate analogy though still not the equivalent to leaving out God than your simple-minded tripe.
@@zachgarver7922 But God was not left out.
Imagine this analogy being comparable in any way, shape, or form. Imagine not knowing for certain if you were 14 or 16? Even in the church’s official claim it says he was “about 14.”
2 Corinthians 11:13
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
And No marvel for SATAN TRANSFORMS INTO AN ANGEL OF LIGHT
Are you really saying just because he didn't mention God the Father in the original first account, it doesn't mean God the Father wasn't there? Are you serious!? Mentioning GOD THE FATHER is no SMALL detail. Come ON! That excuse is BEYOND a reasonable doubt. Heck, maybe Tom Brady and Britney Spears were there too. He didn't mention them after all.
In the 1832 diary account, Joseph claims he is forgiven of his sins by God, because, in the Joseph Smith translation of Exodus 33:20, Smith added that a sinful person cannot see God and live!
Did God by grace, because of Joseph's faith, give him complete forgiveness through the atonement of Jesus Christ, without the "after all you can do" part?
Look at who is giving the account, and when?
To make the first vision work, Joseph had to later change it because in 1833 he did a bible translation and it would of clashed with Exodus 33:20 (JST), the first vision was recorded in 1832, 12 years after he claimed it happened. The others accounts, were given with Joseph's hindsight, they aren't comming from different witnesses perspectives, only one person gave the information of the accounts, Joseph, only one man saw this vision, Joseph!
The account is different than Joseph Smith history too, which to my understanding is official Church doctrine. Why would Joseph omit the fire and holy spirit in both accounts or wait so long to speak of the account either way? A pillar of fire, I would think, would be easily to remember, since he remembered the darkness part reasonably well. These aren't slight varations such as Paul's accounts on the road to Damascus, these variations change the context of the vision as mentioned above leading to confusion and questions! Darkness, pillars of fire, God touching his eyes, these are contextual changes, period! Remember, it's only one man who allegedly saw this vision, and omitted critical details, then had to change it later because, humans make mistakes!
He could of gone back and changed his journal to match the dates! He wrote it after all!!
Suppose a person has "omissions" when they go in for a temple recommend interview when asked certain questions. The church labels that behavior as dishonesty . ...yet it's OK to have "omissions" in one of the most supposed important events of the restoration? A person wouldn't just omit God right out of a vision if he really did appeare. That makes no sense at all. Next time you have a bishops interview, ask him first, if it's OK to have "omissions" in your answers to him and see how well that goes over.
The First Vision was very personal to Joseph, especially in his first 1832 account. I don't know that he considered it anyone else's business but his. And obviously this wasn't a temple recommend interview. We're told relatively often in the Church that some spiritual experiences are too sacred to talk about publicly. The omission of the Father in the 1832 account could have simply been an example of that. Or maybe the decades of persecution he endured because of talking about his religious experiences caused him to temper this re-telling. Who knows! But there are plenty of reasonable explanation in my book.
@@davidsnell2605 And with your own philosophy, maybe some people's personal experiences are too personal to tell. ..even if it's too a bishop.
At any rate, small details can and do vary in stories told and that's acceptable, but really. ...leaving out God in the 1832 version and then telling of him in the 1838 works exactly opposite of your opinion and it's a substantial part of the story. He's had even more persecution by 1838 as opposed to 1832....and now he increases the complexity of his story? Really? That's not a small detail and if it were too sacred to tell in 1832 (as you assert)...why is it less sacred in 1838 and can now be told? What changed?
Failing to recall that God and a multitude of angels were present is a big deal, at least to the seekers of truth like myself and in "my book", it leaves plenty of room for asking questions.
@Maricela Ibarra Thanks for your comment :) It looks like from David's statement, he doesn't claim that Joseph Smith was persecuted for his 1832 account of the first vision. Daivd says that, "maybe the decades of persecution he endured because of talking about his religious experiences caused him to temper this re-telling." In other words, he was persecuted for many other things than just his account of the first vision. Perhaps such persecutions caused him to be more tentative with how the story was told. I can imagine that seeing God would be sacred enough that I wouldn't want the world to know about it, especially a world ready to deny any experience I have. And then perhaps he included God in his later account due to friends and family urging him to be more public about it. I'm not sure.
@C D Hey! Great thoughts. I'm not sure if the following is a great example but maybe it will help illustrate a point:
My fiance was going through severe depression about a year ago. I didn't want to talk about it with anyone because the emotions were so intense for both of us and we didn't feel the need to share it, we just knew what we needed to do to move forward. I knew that if I told people, they would caution me out of the marriage. Because we were planning a wedding, it became more and more imperative that people learned the reasons why we were prolonging the wedding and beating around the bush with our plans. Once my fiance was finally in the clear, we decided that it was okay to be more open about our experiences, especially because we were better able to sort through the feelings and emotions after looking at them from afar.
I know depression is negative and I know that Joseph Smith's experience was positive so I'm not equating the two stories in that regard. I'm also not equating the stories in terms of importance/power. I can't IMAGINE how incredible/emotional it must be to see God. However, what I want to illustrate is that when something out of the ordinary happens (something where emotions and feelings are extremely heightened), it's hard to talk about, especially to people you know will throw down on you for any claim you make. So I don't blame Joseph for not being very public about it until he received more knowledge about the gospel, about God, and could look at his experience from afar. It's not that the experience was any less sacred, it just became more imperative for him to open up about it and he clearly had more knowledge about his mission and purpose at that point when he opened up. Does that make sense?
I totally see where you are coming from, I really do. I just hope that you can also see why we, as believers, have reason to believe Joseph.
@@parkerplace2910 Nothing wrong with asking questions. I'm a big supporter of sincere questions. The simple truth is that I don't know why Joseph left the Father out of the 1832 account. All I can do is speculate. It could have been that by 1838 he had a stronger foundation of support and people that would defend him from the persecution. Maybe his 1838 account was more directed in his mind to members of the church and he therefore felt less reluctant to tell his story. I don't know. Maybe it's all a technical linguistic question and the two times he refers to "the Lord" he's referring to two different people. For all we know the 1832 account could have been a Saturday afternoon attempt at giving a nutshell version of a much longer story. Maybe Emma was yelling at him to get downstairs for dinner and he rushed through his experience. But considering who Joseph Smith was and what he did, I don't dare discount his prophetic claims because he didn't mention the Father in his short 1832 account. That's not to discount your concerns, I totally understand why people could have concerns about this. I'm just not as concerned as some, I guess.
This guy is incredibly naive.
Just because Joseph mentions angels in one account and not in another....... doesn't mean they were there.
I suppose that's fair game, too. This isn't meant to be a direct comparison, but on a side note I find the 4 biblical accounts of Mary finding the empty tomb to be quite incredibly different from one another. Sometimes there's an angel, sometimes there's not, sometimes there are two, sometimes there's one. Reading Isaiah and John the Revelator attempt to tell about their visions is very interesting as well. Seems like they struggle quite a bit sometimes. I imagine it can be hard to explain supernatural events in an easily digestible way.
@@davidsnell2605 ......There is always more to talk about......
Give Me some ideas on where to find Isaiah or John seemingly struggling to communicate Their visions.....There is a difference between You and I struggling to understand what They wrote,and Them struggling to communicate what They experienced.
Also, I know You said You aren't making a direct comparison between The gospel accounts of Mary and the empty tomb,and the topic of the first vision accounts.....which is well on Your part.....because none of the gospel accounts were told in the first person and recorded by Mary....They are records of an event written from the view of separate individual writers.....the details probably didn't change while Mary told the story amongst Her peers from day to day.....but these are just My thoughts.
@@ryanadams5719 Your note about the gospels not being first-hand accounts is well-noted and the reason I mentioned it wasn't a true comparison. Paul's first-person accounts of his vision is a much better comparison. There's a link in the description to more info about that. I think our conversation, if it continues, we be more productive and on-topic if we stick with Paul for now.
@@davidsnell2605 .......The link contained 3 references from Acts....as far as I know Paul didn't write Acts....So these 3 aren't 1st person accounts.
The other 2 references Galatians and 2 Corinthians (both authored by Paul) really show zero inconsistencies when compared to one another.
Don't take My word for it.
Look for Yourself.
Looking forward to hearing back from You.
Thanks
@@ryanadams5719 for example in the Corinthians account, Paul escapes Damascus by being lowered from a window in a basket. The Galatians account doesn't mention this. Of course, most people recognize that just because he didn't mention that detail in one account doesn't mean it didn't happen. My hope is that we simply give Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt in the same fashion. But of course, if you approach the Paul situation believing he's a true prophet, and if you approach Joseph as necessarily being a false one, I understand how we'd come to different conclusions.
The son of - the son of bla-bla the original B of M tells us christ is God.