MyDogSkip-It is merely a summary of the longer version in our official church history. The author who wrote the summary knows the account well. It does not in any way, nor was it written to suggest it was a hallucination. Anyone who is Community of Christ who reads that has read the fuller account. In missionary work sometimes one has to explain such things in brief as it is better for them to read the fuller account in brochure form.
I looked around our website and found other details of the vision taught. But any Community of Christ person like myself familiar with our history knows of the appearance of God and Christ to Joseph Smith. But any shortening of the telling of the story is not meant to deny the details of the vision. RLDS have historically felt God and Christ were two persons based on the testimony of Joseph Smith.
Though the church has after years of debating the Anti-Trinitarian view and creedal Trinitarianism officially favors a creedal view of God. But not being a creedal church we have persons like myself who favor the view God and Christ are two persons. But not mandating beliefs about God among our members we have had persons among our members and leaders who have favored the two different ideas of the Godhead. Though i do not think the above presentation you cited has anything to do with our toleration Trinitarianism. Rather it was done to simplify things for persons new to the vision.
Another problem we have is we get Evangelical Anti-RLDS material. The First Vision a clear part of our heritage gets attacked. And some persons new to the content of the vision can get upset over the content. People don't like to hear the ministers Joseph smith was aware of were corrupt for example. I am not sure whether these considerations went into how to tell the Joseph Smith story.
To be clear whether one likes how the author told the story the First Vision is officially a recognized part of our official history. It just seems some prefer to tell, or share more or less of the story in missionary work based on personal preference. I myself would prefer to make a copy of that to give to a non-member prior to getting them a longer account.
I am not certain of Book of Mormon historicity myself. At one point early in the 20th century skepticism of the Book of Mormon historicity was rampant in the LDS Community. The book was not used very much in discourse, or gospel instruction. A book i have by FARMS entitled Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited mentioned that. (pg.2)This does not mean i am not open to it being inspired by God. I am only open to the books historicity based on what i think is solid evidences for its antiquity in books by FARMS. But among more liberal Community of Christ they think FARMS is intellectually unsound based on the thinking of liberal scholars they read.
I am more conservative on Book of Mormon historicity. And i have hung out and debated historicity with our more liberal members. To me the book just can't be true on the surface. I can find truth in any number of religious texts. But with the Book of Mormon if the book is not even possibly historical it is a product of a 19th century scam. While i do not feel belief in its historicity should be mandated i see a need for that belief. To me Joseph Smiths reliability veracity as a prophet stands or falls on its historicity.
But being a church where common consent governs the church has come to favor the non-historical view. This was done as a result of our leaders grappling with seemingly insurmountable evidences for modern not ancient origins. I myself favor LDS Scholar Blake Ostlers idea the book has many 19th century things in it. But that it still has enough things of antiquity in the text to be accepted as ancient. Someone not aware of such evidences, or worries such evidences are phony in my church based on my experience tends to favor only the non-historical view. I know this because i link to his research with members of my church who hold that view and they tell me this.
|