I learned in church today

[LA Ute]

http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/HTML...c1history.html

If you scroll to the bottom, the page has a side by side comparison of all the known 1st vision accounts.

Thanks, I had seen that but thought the actual account was longer.

[T]herefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and {to} obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in [the] attitude of calling upon the Lord [in the 16th* year of my age] a pillar of {fire} light above the brightness of the Sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filld with the Spirit of God and the [Lord] opened the heavens upon me and I Saw the Lord and he Spake unto me Saying Joseph [my son] thy Sins are forgiven thee. go thy [way] walk in my Statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life....

No angel mentioned. He also mentions only one personage; I think all the other accounts he had a hand in mention both the Father and the Son.

[UtahDan]

Thanks, I had seen that but thought the actual account was longer.



No angel mentioned. He also mentions only one personage; I think all the other accounts he had a hand in mention both the Father and the Son.

I hadn't double checked myself, are you saying that it is incomplete?

[UtahDan]

Thanks, I had seen that but thought the actual account was longer.

No angel mentioned. He also mentions only one personage; I think all the other accounts he had a hand in mention both the Father and the Son.

The 1835 account does not mention father and son either. It simply states that one personage appears and introduces the other as Jesus. I think that most people who raise an objection to the first vision multiple versions do it primarily on that basis that only one person is mentioned in the earliest account and that the father is not mentioned until the third. There is an argument out there to the effect that when he says the Lord opened the heavens to him and he saw the Lord that he is talking about two people but I don't think that makes any sense.

Some disagree, but I think it is pretty clear the very first account has only one personage and that it at least raises the question as to why this is so. My operating hypothesis at the moment is that his theology was still trinitarian at that point as the BOM and early D&C appear to be.

[LA Ute]

The 1835 account does not mention father and son either. It simply states that one personage appears and introduces the other as Jesus. I think that most people who raise an objection to the first vision multiple versions do it primarily on that basis that only one person is mentioned in the earliest account and that the father is not mentioned until the third. There is an argument out there to the effect that when he says the Lord opened the heavens to him and he saw the Lord that he is talking about two people but I don't think that makes any sense.

Some disagree, but I think it is pretty clear the very first account has only one personage and that it at least raises the question as to why this is so. My operating hypothesis at the moment is that his theology was still trinitarian at that point as the BOM and early D&C appear to be.

Interesting stuff, thanks. I haven't gotten into this subject for ages, but now will dig back in. I mainly attribute the 1832 account's lack of detail to Joseph's age at the time (26) and lack of sophistication. BTW, why do you think the BofM was trinitarian? When Jesus descends to the multitude in 3 Nephi 11 he is announced by the voice of the Father.

[pellegrino]

All week my wife and I talked about Easter, taught our kids about Easter, the resurrection, Jesus, etc. We commented numerous times that we hope to have talks and lessons about The Savior.
We were shocked to have talks about the wonderful First Vision, how service brings us closer to God, and what the Primary kids learned about church history, in that order.

Wait a minute, you didn't have an Easter program?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Wait a minute, you didn't have an Easter program?

Exactly.

[UtahDan]

Interesting stuff, thanks. I haven't gotten into this subject for ages, but now will dig back in. I mainly attribute the 1832 account's lack of detail to Joseph's age at the time (26) and lack of sophistication. BTW, why do you think the BofM was trinitarian? When Jesus descends to the multitude in 3 Nephi 11 he is announced by the voice of the Father.

Same scene that unfolds in Matthew 3:17 but was not an obstacle to thousands of years of trinitarian theology nor is it an obstacle to most of Christianity today. I'm not telling you I think it makes sense, I don't.

But in answer to your question:

Alma 11:26-40, Mosiah 15:1-5, 2 Nephi 31:21, Testimony of the 8 witnesses, D&C 20:17. There are some arguments out there that the BOM is actually alternates between modalism and trinitarianism. I think that there are clearly later teachings that make clear what is now the current teaching, particularly in the later D&C and the PoGP. If you read those back into the early works you can certainly defend a non-trinitarian view, I'm not suggesting otherwise. But I think if those early things are read in isolation that is a harder case to make.

Paul Toscano makes this case pretty well but at the moment I can't seem to find where. I'm not really invested in this view, but it seems likely to me. We'll never know.

[Moliere]

After all of the discussion here of the multiple accounts, I wanted to make sure that everyone understood that it was the "correlated", accepted version found in the POG and not the 1832 version that only mentioned an angel and nothing of Christ...

Yeah, I had heard the 1832 version only mentioned an angel when in fact it specifically mentions the Lord. I think I learned this in RSR. For some reason there is a rumor that it only mentions an angel but I have no idea where that came from. The 1835 mentions a multitude of angels but also has God and the Son.

[LA Ute]

Same scene that unfolds in Matthew 3:17 but was not an obstacle to thousands of years of trinitarian theology nor is it an obstacle to most of Christianity today. I'm not telling you I think it makes sense, I don't.

But in answer to your question:

Alma 11:26-40, Mosiah 15:1-5, 2 Nephi 31:21, Testimony of the 8 witnesses, D&C 20:17. There are some arguments out there that the BOM is actually alternates between modalism and trinitarianism. I think that there are clearly later teachings that make clear what is now the current teaching, particularly in the later D&C and the PoGP. If you read those back into the early works you can certainly defend a non-trinitarian view, I'm not suggesting otherwise. But I think if those early things are read in isolation that is a harder case to make.

Paul Toscano makes this case pretty well but at the moment I can't seem to find where. I'm not really invested in this view, but it seems likely to me. We'll never know.

Those sound like the kinds of ideas you'd pick up at a sleepover.

(Seriously, thanks.)

[Parrot Head]

I learned that "firesides" by BYU athletes don't stop once the athlete leaves school. Daniel Summerhays is in town getting ready for next week's W*lls F*rgo Quail Hollow golf tournament and he spoke to a combined YM/YW group in our ward during the 3rd hour of the block today. I think it's a nice thing to do, and, honestly, probably would have enjoyed being in there, too.

[RC Vikings]

In HP group today someone brought up dedicating non-member familie's graves and they talked about the do's and don't for over twenty minutes. Our SP would pull out his handbook and read how everything needed to go down. I sat there and just thought to myself that I bet the Pharisees couldn't have been this caught up in the do's and don'ts on anything.

[creekster]

In HP group today someone brought up dedicating non-member familie's graves and they talked about the do's and don't for over twenty minutes. Our SP would pull out his handbook and read how everything needed to go down. I sat there and just thought to myself that I bet the Pharisees couldn't have been this caught up in the do's and don'ts on anything.

What, you want them getting the same advantage in the resurrection you have without paying any tithing at all?

[RC Vikings]

What, you want them getting the same advantage in the resurrection you have without paying any tithing at all?

I want some non-members around to liven up the place. The SP was pretty adamant that the bishop in the area over these non-member had to give the okay for a member to dedicate a grave and someone piped up that he had already done it and didn't have permission and he was worried about it. I honestly got nothing out of the lesson.

[Lost Student]

I want some non-members around to liven up the place. The SP was pretty adamant that the bishop in the area over these non-member had to give the okay for a member to dedicate a grave and someone piped up that he had already done it and didn't have permission and he was worried about it. I honestly got nothing out of the lesson.

I'm pretty sure that when that happens the non-members will soon be resurrected as zombies to do Lucifer's bidding.

[Paperback Writer]

I want some non-members around to liven up the place. The SP was pretty adamant that the bishop in the area over these non-member had to give the okay for a member to dedicate a grave and someone piped up that he had already done it and didn't have permission and he was worried about it. I honestly got nothing out of the lesson.

Which begs the question, which Bishop has jurisdiction over the non-member deceased in order to grant approval for the grave dedication? Does the church go by the location of the house where the non-member/deceased lived? The location of the house of the non-member's family or extended family if they are LDS (what if the LDS survivors of the deceased live in different wards?) The location of the cemetery or grave site of the deceased?

If this Bishop jurisdiction question was not addressed, I think another priesthood lesson is in order, complete with the SP with handbook in hand.