"Published accounts" of the "First Vision" PRIOR to 1842

[Cow Poke]

I seem to be having difficulty getting a straight answer to my question about when the first published account of the "First Vision" was printed.

I think I found a printed account from 1842, but not prior to that.

Does anybody know of a "published account" (in a newspaper, Church publication, magazine, etc) of the "First Vision" prior to 1842?

Thanks

[Cow Poke]

Instead of getting an answer from Jeff about the first PUBLISHED account, I get false accusations that I was asking a totally different question, which he appears to be attempting to answer.

Then there's this (IMO) diversion....

And you played a 'stupid game' of evading actually answering my question about HOW MANY years elapsed between the events mentioned in the Gospels, and their publication. Maybe because you realized that your logic ended up attacking the Bible.

But here is where I responded to the question about when the Gospels were written...

Let's assume that the four gospels were written, 50's / 60's / 90-ADish or so, then SUBSEQUENTLY the case was made for the resurrection being foundational to Christianity. THAT would concern me greatly.

As far as I can tell, the BoM makes no mention of the "First Vision". Yet, according to JosephSmith.Net, hardly an anti-Mormon site*....

JosephSmith.Net

Joseph Smith's first vision stands today as the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After centuries of darkness, the Lord opened the heavens to reveal His word and restore His Church through His chosen prophet.

© source where applicable

Without the resurrection, Christianity is doomed.

Scripture Verse:

(1 Cor 15:13 KJV) But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

The Gospels, regardless of how long after the events they were written, record the events of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.

The BoM, however, is completely silent on "the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ", and, as far as I can tell, this event is not even published until 1842. It does not appear to even be commonly known among the early Mormon Church.

I'm just wondering why "the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ" appears to be a footnote until much later.

If the Gospels were written (even in the 50's to 90's AD) WITHOUT mention of the Resurrection of Christ, and it was "added in" later, I would be really concerned.

When the Gospel accounts WERE written, they contained the crucial factor of the Resurrection of Christ - there didn't have to be a subsequent disclosure.

In the case of the BoM, however, as far as I can tell, there was no mention of the First Vision. Am I wrong about that?

*This site is owned and operated by Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All material found at this site (including visuals, text, icons, displays, databases, and general information), is owned or licensed by us.

[OtherCheek]

I seem to be having difficulty getting a straight answer to my question about when the first published account of the "First Vision" was printed.

I think I found a printed account from 1842, but not prior to that.

Does anybody know of a "published account" (in a newspaper, Church publication, magazine, etc) of the "First Vision" prior to 1842?

Thanks

I don't. Sorry.

[Cow Poke]

I don't. Sorry.

No need to be sorry, OC --- if ya don't know, ya don't know.

Thanks for answering.

[pancreasman]

I think we're basically agreed now that 1842 looks like it.

[Cow Poke]

I think we're basically agreed now that 1842 looks like it.

Yeah, and just for grins, I thought I'd snatch a quote from OC from the other thread, because it pertains to this discussion....

Having served a mission myself, it is hard to imagine myself telling the story of the Book of Mormon without also relating the story of the first vision. But, perhaps this WAS the way things were done with the first missionaries of the Church after it was organized in 1830, and some of the earliest converts were converted on account of the BoM and the First Vision played no major role in their conversion. At any rate, I think this article pretty well explains what is known regarding WHAT was published and WHEN.

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-conte..._V01N03_31.pdf

It appears that nothing was officially published until 1842, and up until that time Joseph told his story in person, and some believed while other scoffed. But it was not published until in "The Times and Seasons" Church publication in 1842. Possibly in 1840 in England an account was published, but it was related 2nd hand, and not what came out of the Times and Seasons.

And the article linked above is what got me started on this topic in the first place.

[LDSAngel]

I think we're basically agreed now that 1842 looks like it.

Actually, it wasn't.





pub·lish   [puhb-lish] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.
2.
to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner.
3.
to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate.
4.
to make publicly or generally known.


Joseph Smith's First Vision was originally published according to the dictionary definition #3 and #4 in Joseph Smith's First Letterbook in 1832, excerpt below -





Letterbook 1, 1832

marvilous even in the likeness of him who created him <them> and when I considered upon these things my heart exclai med well hath the wise man said the <it is a> fool <that> saith in his heart there is no God my heart exclaimed all all these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotant and omnipreasant power a being who makith Laws and decreeeth and bindeth all things in their bounds who filleth Eternity who was and is and will be from all Eternity to Eternity and when <I> considered all these things and that <that> being seeketh such to worshep him as wors hip him in spirit and in truth therefore 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 wilderne ss and while in <the> attitude of calling upon the Lord <in the 16th year of my age> a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled 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 <behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to thir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophe ts and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] wr itten of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart about that time my mother and but after many days [p. 3]

[Cerebrum123]

Actually, it wasn't.





pub·lish   [puhb-lish] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to issue (printed or otherwise reproduced textual or graphic material, computer software, etc.) for sale or distribution to the public.
2.
to issue publicly the work of: Random House publishes Faulkner.
3.
to announce formally or officially; proclaim; promulgate.
4.
to make publicly or generally known.


Joseph Smith's First Vision was originally published according to the dictionary definition #3 and #4 in Joseph Smith's First Letterbook in 1832, excerpt below -





Letterbook 1, 1832

marvilous even in the likeness of him who created him <them> and when I considered upon these things my heart exclai med well hath the wise man said the <it is a> fool <that> saith in his heart there is no God my heart exclaimed all all these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotant and omnipreasant power a being who makith Laws and decreeeth and bindeth all things in their bounds who filleth Eternity who was and is and will be from all Eternity to Eternity and when <I> considered all these things and that <that> being seeketh such to worshep him as wors hip him in spirit and in truth therefore 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 wilderne ss and while in <the> attitude of calling upon the Lord <in the 16th year of my age> a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled 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 <behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to thir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophe ts and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] wr itten of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart about that time my mother and but after many days [p. 3]

Since CP did not mean definitions #3 and #4 then you are really just playing word games, and trying to place it earlier than it really was.

[Cow Poke]

Since CP did not mean definitions #3 and #4 then you are really just playing word games, and trying to place it earlier than it really was.

Not only that, it's the wrong "first vision"....

<in the 16th year of my age> a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled 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.

Smith is 16 here, not 14, and Smith only sees "the Lord". AND that "piller" of fire thing.

[OtherCheek]

Not only that, it's the wrong "first vision"....

<in the 16th year of my age> a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled 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.

Smith is 16 here, not 14, and Smith only sees "the Lord". AND that "piller" of fire thing.

I think you probably know this, but when a person is 14 years old, he is in his 15th year. And when a person is 15, that puts him in his 16th year. That puts it one year off for some reason I don't know the answer to, but really is of no consequential concern to me anyway.

At any rate, from my perspective, the account of the 1st vision was probably not officially published for the reasons noted in the article I cited. I can understand how something could be so sacred that a person considers it very personal and not something to be shared with the world. I've had sacred experiences like that myself. Even the Savior would not perform the miracle of raising the dead in front of non-believers and scoffers. From an LDS perspective, something like the BoM was given by revelation in a short amount of time and was ready for publication immediately (except for the needed punctuation), whereas the account of the 1st Vision was not revealed word for word to Joseph as it was an account he had to relate using his own words. And over time he learned from the experience of relating the story verbally, he learned the best way to present it in written form.

[Sparko]

I think you probably know this, but when a person is 14 years old, he is in his 15th year. And when a person is 15, that puts him in his 16th year. That puts it one year off for some reason I don't know the answer to, but really is of no consequential concern to me anyway.

Oh come on OC. REALLY???

When someone says they are in their 15th year, it means they are 15 years old. Unless they are Chinese who count the 9 months of pregnancy (I am told).
Such a desperate attempt to salvage the story just makes it even harder to believe.

and it should be a concern to you, because your eternal soul's destination depends on it.

[OtherCheek]

Oh come on OC. REALLY???

When someone says they are in their 15th year, it means they are 15 years old. Unless they are Chinese who count the 9 months of pregnancy (I am told).
Such a desperate attempt to salvage the story just makes it even harder to believe.

and it should be a concern to you, because your eternal soul's destination depends on it.

I hate to embarrass you like this, but tell me, when were you in your 1st year? Or if you'd rather, tell us all when you were in your ZEROth year?

[Sparko]

I hate to embarrass you like this, but tell me, when were you in your 1st year? Or if you'd rather, tell us all when you were in your ZEROth year?

I was in my first year after I turned 1 and before I turned 2. If I could talk I would have said "I am one years old"

So if someone says they are 16 years old, it is the same as saying they are "in the 16th year of my age"

That is just common vernacular OC. You can try to wiggle all you want but when Smith said he was in his 16th year, he meant 16 years-old. And to try to claim otherwise is just screwy and desperate.

[Cow Poke]

I think you probably know this, but when a person is 14 years old, he is in his 15th year. And when a person is 15, that puts him in his 16th year. That puts it one year off for some reason I don't know the answer to, but really is of no consequential concern to me anyway.

So, first, you have to ASSUME that Smith had this "counting method" in mind when he identified his age during this "greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ". And even then, you're only 50% closer to solving your riddle.

[Cow Poke]

Even the Savior would not perform the miracle of raising the dead in front of non-believers and scoffers.

You honestly think there were no unbelievers present when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead?

Read John 11, OC... what do you think is going on here, for example....

Scripture Verse:

35 Jesus wept. 36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him! 37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?

Is that not "scoffing"?