First Vision: Did Joseph hallucinate?

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

I don't concur....if it is not his account do not bother even to attempt 'white wash' the fact.

If you witnessed the same, there are elements that Joseph left out for a reason. And no, that is not how it ends. That was being blunt Holly.

(spreads hands helplessly)

Hemi, I am at a loss. What don't you concur with? Who's whitewashing? And how?

What had I witnessed? If elements were left out, we wouldn't know about it, would we?

What is not how it ends? What 'it' are you referring to, the First Vision? How do you think it ended?

I don't think your being blunt, I think I'm having trouble understanding your words at all. Peace, brother. I love the Church and Joseph Smith. ???

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by MyDogSkip

Clearly...you're straining at gnats here...The term "Hallucination" or "Auditory Hallucination" is of my use. When I read "their" version of the First Visit...They've clearly reduced it to an "auditory hallucination"...not a factual event.

Ah, so the quotes are just for emphasis or effect, you're not saying the Community of Christ ever said such a thing. So, is solely your opinion? Glad you let us know. It kinda sounded for a long time there that you were quoting the CoC, somehow.

Thanks.


HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

Originally Posted by HiJolly

(spreads hands helplessly)

Hemi, I am at a loss. What don't you concur with? Who's whitewashing? And how?

What had I witnessed? If elements were left out, we wouldn't know about it, would we?

What is not how it ends? What 'it' are you referring to, the First Vision? How do you think it ended?

I don't think your being blunt, I think I'm having trouble understanding your words at all. Peace, brother. I love the Church and Joseph Smith. ???

HiJolly

Same here - it is a canonized print...use that and nothing else. We have a living prophet that tells what is canon and what is not canon for the church. There is no substitution to the story. This is my stand. Coming from Joseph own witness of this vision, there is alot in the First Vision that is not being said. We need to be accurate in portraying what was written. In this case, they are not.

Sorry, I can be insensitive with certain topics and this happens to be one of them for a reason. As Nibley once said, when he was asked about how he received his knowledge and the things he shared with others. Though, he was called something else, which I would not bother to labor to write, he placed his arm on his shoulder and stated, "I walk a razor edge on what I can write and what I can't." We are in the same boat as Joseph. We need to ensure we stick to the original writers words and not minced the vision to help others find partial truth.

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

Same here - it is a canonized print...use that and nothing else. We have a living prophet that tells what is canon and what is not canon for the church. There is no substitution to the story. This is my stand. Coming from Joseph own witness of this vision, there is alot in the First Vision that is not being said. We need to be accurate in portraying what was written. In this case, they are not.

Sorry, I can be insensitive with certain topics and this happens to be one of them for a reason. As Nibley once said, when he was asked about how he received his knowledge and the things he shared with others. Though, he was called something else, which I would not bother to labor to write, he placed his arm on his shoulder and stated, "I walk a razor edge on what I can write and what I can't." We are in the same boat as Joseph. We need to ensure we stick to the original writers words and not minced the vision to help others find partial truth.

Thanks for that clarification. I agree that when presenting the First Vision to the world, the 'official' or scriptural version, is the one to be shared. Even if we leave out the powers of darkness, these days.

However, for our own edification and benefit, I think all verifiable versions are of great use and should be studied. FWIW.

HiJolly

[nannysherri]

Let me just sujest something here, that there will always be a debate. The only real way to have a testomony in Joseph Smilth, his vision and what he was told is to ask in prayer, really wanting to know and are humble, only then will the Holy Ghost testify as to the truth. With a testomony of truth you then can love the truths that other churches can have, and many do have some truth. However I do believe what Joseph Smith was told as to that none of the faiths had the true gospel and I have to believe he ment the gospel in its fulliness. When you try to use your own wisdom to debate truth you will always fall short and the debate only turns into ugly gossip. The gospel is learned and its truth is not up for debate. Life is to short to spend it in trying to understand the wisdom of God his church by using human logic, when the truth is only a Prayer away.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by HiJolly

I think both accounts are factually correct. Can anyone show a sentence in the CoC version that is incorrect?

I'd also like to point out that of the various recorded versions of the First Vision that we have, ONLY the CoC version agrees with all of them. I think we LDS tend to get a little hide-bound in our view, and refuse to learn of other 'true' accounts of the same event that do not agree entirely with 'our' familiar account.

HiJolly

You are speaking sense AGAIN. This of course can be controversial.

[Casslan]

Originally Posted by MyDogSkip

At last count there are at least 100 different sects that utilize the Book of Mormon in their worship services and doctrine. Most agree on the call of the Prophet Joseph to restore the Gospel. As such, many agree with Josephs writings on the First Vision.

I was rather astounded when I was surfing the web one night several years ago, to discover that the Community of Christ web site had refined the First Vison, basically down to a hallucination on the part of the young Joseph.

Let me start with the LDS version of the First Vision:

As Joseph sought truth among the different faiths, he turned to the Bible for guidance. He read, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” ( James 1:5). Because of this passage, Joseph decided to ask God what he should do. In the spring of 1820 he went to a nearby grove of trees and knelt in prayer. He described his experience: “I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. . . . When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” ( Joseph Smith—History 1:16–17). In this vision God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to Joseph Smith. The Savior told Joseph not to join any of the churches, for they “were all wrong.” The Savior stated, “They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof” ( Joseph Smith—History 1:19).

Mormon.org - The Restoration of the Gospel

Now the following is the Community of Christ's view of the First Vision:


In the early 1800s, a young boy named Joseph Smith knelt in the woods near his family home in Manchester Township, New York. He felt separated from God; he also wanted to know how he could make his life count for good in a world full of confusion and sin. He wanted to join with God’s people, but he had no idea how to do that. So, in response to the scripture from James, he prayed to God.

How long this first attempt at verbal prayer lasted is not known, but he came to a point of deep despair. At this point, a vision surrounded him with love and mercy. From that light came a voice as clear as his own. As the vision ebbed and the voice faded, Joseph felt that he knew the truth. He felt the healing presence of God within and the forgiving mercy of Christ. He knew that God would be with him.

He struggled through his teen years, trying to balance his experience with God with his desire to be accepted by others in his community. He continued to have significant spiritual experiences, one of which led to the Book of Mormon. He also felt called to establish a church, officially organizing it on April 6, 1830.

Our History - Introduction


As one can read...The Community of Christ has turned its back on the writings of our Prophet Joseph, in favor of a distilled "hallucination" of a young boy.

Additionally...and we can discuss this, the Community of Christ has turned it's back on the divine origins of the Book of Mormon.

Originally Posted by rameumptom

The Community of Christ is struggling. They are trying to have a foot in the Restorationist world, and one in the Protestant world.

Originally Posted by rameumptom

In order to become a member of the World Organization of Churches, they had to downplay the Book of Mormon. The BoM now is optional for its members to believe in. Joseph Smith's testimony has been watered down, so as to make him a charismatic leader rather than a prophet (they don't ascribe hallucinations to him, however).
Many of their precepts have changed in the last decade or so. Their view that the prophet must be a direct descendant of Joseph Smith is no longer followed nor believed.
They have had many break away from the CoC, in order to keep closer to their Restorationist roots. Others have joined the LDS Church over the past few years.
Still, there are many good people in the CoC with a strong testimony of Christ and Joseph Smith.

[An aside note rameumptom: Also do not forget that they have given women the priesthood, as well, like some of the more liberal Christians churches of the world who have women priests].

Responding to 2 posts here. When they joined the Protestant world, the Community of Christ HAD TO MAKE CHANGES in regards [in this instance] to the First Vision. They now teach the doctrine of the Trinity, which allows no possibility of a physical appearance of the Father and the Son together.

The one eternal, living God is triune: one God in three persons. The God who meets us in the testimony of Israel is the same God who meets us in Jesus Christ, and who indwells creation as the Holy Spirit. God is the Eternal Creator, the source of love, life, and truth. God actively loves and cares for each person. All things that exist owe their being to God who alone is worthy of our worship. (cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faith-beliefs.asp)

And in regards to the Book of Mormon, though still accepted as scripture, it has been downgraded:

In 2001, Community of Christ President W. Grant McMurray reflected on increasing questions about the Book of Mormon: "The proper use of the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture has been under wide discussion in the 1970s and beyond, in part because of long-standing questions about its historicity and in part because of perceived theological inadequacies, including matters of race and ethnicity." (McMurray, W. Grant, "They "Shall Blossom as the Rose": Native Americans and the Dream of Zion," an address delivered February 17, 2001)

At the 2007 Community of Christ World Conference, President Stephen M. Veazey ruled out of order a resolution to "reaffirm the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired record". He stated that "while the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use. This position is in keeping with our longstanding tradition that belief in the Book of Mormon is not to be used as a test of fellowship or membership in the church." (Andrew M. Shields, "Official Minutes of Business Session, Wednesday March 28, 2007," in 2007 World Conference Thursday Bulletin, March 29, 2007. Community of Christ, 2007).

[rameumptom]

Yes, I was aware of these changes in the CoC. My biggest concern is with their downgrading of the Book of Mormon, for in effect, they downgrade Joseph's mission as Prophet and Translator. The Book of Mormon has less value to the CoC than the LDS, partially because they do not have the temple endowment, which is found flowing throughout the BoM. Therefore, the BoM seems like a very simple book, rather than the rich and deep doctrinal book that it really is.

Compare their view of the Book of Mormon to that of what Pres Benson taught 20 years ago: that if we do not begin to study and follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, a curse would fall upon the membership of the Church. I can see that curse falling upon the CoC already, as they move away from their Restorationist roots and become simply another Protestant church.

And if we were to reject or downplay the Book of Mormon, we would end up doing the same thing.

[lds9999]

Originally Posted by MyDogSkip

Clearly...you're straining at gnats here...The term "Hallucination" or "Auditory Hallucination" is of my use. When I read "their" version of the First Visit...They've clearly reduced it to an "auditory hallucination"...not a factual event.

I strongly agree with Jolly here on the use of the word "hallucination." They call it a "vision" and I believe using the word "hallucination" is derogatory. Our opponents do the same thing to us by carefully selecting words that have a very negative connotation even if they are close to accurate. Let's not follow their example.

[Dale]

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.