Different Versions of Joseph Smith's First Vision

[Snigmorder]

43 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

I totally missed this. You're right. This actually answers my question on this. As you mentioned earlier, the way Joseph Smith structured his written account in 1832 and references to "the Lord" matches the Lords appearing at different times in his 1835 account. This makes more sense. It also suggests Joseph intended to refer to two Lords in his written account. Thanks @Snigmorder

 

[Suzie]

Hi everyone, FWIW. First, I would like to say that there are more than 4 accounts about the First Vision (4 first-hand accounts and around 5 second-hand). I don't have issues with the changes in the narrative at all. My favorite is the first one (1832) account because it was written by Smith himself (and is the first one).  To be honest, I would be very concerned if the account was recorded (and shared) exactly in the same way (with the exact same details) from 1820 (when the First Vision occurred) until Smith's passing. I would seriously wonder if Smith fabricated the whole account or used a memorization technique.

We (modern-day Mormons) made the First Vision one of the most fundamental pillars and events of the entire Restoration (even though we know that the vision led to the Restoration, the vision in itself didn't restore anything). As a matter of fact, I believe that (initially) Smith considered this sacred experience just a personal revelation rather than institutional revelation. He didn't leave the grove thinking he will receive more visitations or he would form a new Church. He was just a teen that experienced something truly wonderful.

Hence, the reason why he didn't share the experience that often among the early members, why the accounts seem to have some differences and why it took so long to be published. It was after many years that Smith took a different approach with regards to the First Vision. In other words, the First Vision didn't play the same role as it plays today. Hence, we seem to have some issues understanding/accepting the different narratives.

For me, it is clear that Smith's first account is a personal revelation that within years (and knowledge and experience) transformed itself to a more detailed, institutional revelation for the benefit of the Saints and  for the purpose of missionary work.

Some people argue the fact that in one of his early visions he mentioned being visited by "angels" rather than the Father and Son or the fact that he described one personage instead of 2, etc. However, I believe (and proved by later accounts) that as Smith matured, gained more understanding and knowledge about doctrinal matters he reshaped and reinterpreted the vision. I don't see any issues with that.

Now, let's talk about another important factor that could also explain why the accounts seem to differ. Memory takes time to form, that's neurologically proven. Particularly, if you have experienced a traumatic or shocking event. Smith had a theophany at the tender age of 14-15. I don't think anyone could handle that easily. It is not surprising to me why he would recall certain details (even important ones) later on in life.

Just my two cents.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Suzie

[clbent04]

19 minutes ago, Suzie said:

For me, it is clear that Smith's first account is a personal revelation that within years (and knowledge and experience) transformed itself to a more detailed, institutional revelation for the benefit of the Saints and  for the purpose of missionary work.

I don't agree with everything you said, but I do agree with you on this. Nicely said