Quote:
Originally Posted by VisionOfLehi
Let's cool it a bit.
What I want to know is why it's wrong to call it a vision?
We call it the First Vision. We label it a vision, what's wrong with treating it as such?
I think all agree, either way, that it was absolutely Divine.
|
It isn't wrong to call it a vision. I think the big problem comes in the CoC statement from it being extremely brief, to the point of not giving out any information. One does not get from it that Joseph Smith saw anyone in particular, vision or not. We see that he experienced something, but the sublime portions of the vision are left out.
Then again, the 1838 version Joseph gave us also leaves some things out. There is evidence from other versions that other angels were witnessed, for example. And the attack from Satan is more descriptive in some of the earlier versions.
The LDS Church doesn't dwell so much on Satan's attack, because the focus is on the fact that God appeared to Joseph. However, we do not hide that information, as we hand out Joseph Smith Testimony pamphlets and have it in our Pearl of Great Price for anyone to read.
Interestingly, the early Church did not emphasize the First Vision until after 1838, perhaps a decade or so later. Their focus was the testimony of the Book of Mormon and the angel (Moroni) coming to present the plates and the new revelations. Sad that any Restorationist Church would lose its focus on these two great and amazing experiences.