Why Are There Different Accounts of the First Vision? - Church History Matters Podcast

Подписаться 42 тыс.

Просмотров 9 тыс.

50% 1

Joseph Smith’s First Vision is foundational to our narrative of the Restoration today, but it was not always so from the Church’s beginning. So how did the First Vision go from what began as a very personal experience of Joseph’s, to growing in institutional significance for the whole Church as it has today? Also, given that there are unique differences in Joseph Smith’s 4 separate accounts of his First Vision, what role does our personal “hermeneutic” play in how we make sense of these? And what might a letter Joseph wrote from Indiana to his wife Emma tell us about the context of his 1832 account of his vision?
This is episode 1 of our 5-part podcast series on Joseph Smith's First Vision. For a full transcript of this episode, as well as show notes and additional resources, visit our website at doctrineandcovenantscentral.o...
You can also subscribe to our podcast via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and other platforms, and follow us on popular social media platforms. Visit linktr.ee/churchhistorymatters to connect with us.
Originally published March 7, 2023
DISCLAIMER: While we try very hard to be historically and doctrinally accurate in what we say on this podcast, please remember that all views expressed in this and every episode are our views alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Scripture Central or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Опубликовано:

21 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 29

@CarolinaCoxes 7 месяцев назад

This is my favorite podcast. Scott Woodward and Casey Griffiths are very likable teachers with a tremendous knowledge of church history and doctrine. I look forward to every Tuesday when their new episode comes out. At the time of this writing, they are on Episode 39 so if you are starting now, you have a very enlightening journey ahead of you. Keep it up Scott, Casey, Gabe Davis, Nick Galieti and the rest of the crew, your efforts and your talents are greatly appreciated.

@b.j.3729 6 месяцев назад

I love this podcast! Their logic makes perfect sense. I love listening to people who are well-credentialed and explain things so well. It goes to show there are always answers to questions. More importantly, the Spirit testifies that Joseph Smith was/is a true prophet and that his visions really did happen, ushering in the restoration of all things. I've personally experienced the fruit of his work.

@bestill-now 6 месяцев назад

I love these podcasts and appreciate the valuable information.

@MsEva9470 6 месяцев назад

Thank you like church history thank you again

@maxinefely5875 6 месяцев назад

I am loving your podcast....and expect to learn alot. I am off put by your interlude music. It jars my concentration with its loud discordance. Please consider adjusting that part of your podcast. Thanks

@b.j.3729 6 месяцев назад

I agree! GREAT podcast, but the music doesn't fit.

@galenswenson9785 Месяц назад

I admire the attempt to reconcile difficult parts of church history. To suggest that accounts of the 1st vision can make sense if go into the process with a trusting mindset is interesting. Unfortunately, I think you then must go into other potential religious queries with a similar mindset. For example Catholic truth claims deserve a similar mindset.

@davidtorbenson4686 4 месяца назад

I think the controversial part of the 1832 vision is that the church was taught through decades that as soon as the visitation occurred, Joseph's priority (and purpose for going into the grove) was to find out which church was true - that is, according to scripture - what was on the top of Joseph's mind, and his priority question was which church he should join. Suddenly, the church is asking people to accept that - well, maybe that was not really what was the top of Joseph's mind. My experience in discussing this topic with members who struggle is just this point. Had it not been tucked away by Joseph Fielding Smith - and been released when found, I think it would not be such an issue today. Because the timing of the release coincided with a lot of other information coming out that was different than the "primary version" - for many, the perspective of trust was damaged. Hence the need for podcasts like this - because, as Elder Ballard taught. "well meaning leaders" were selective in what they shared. In many cases, as I have discussed with individuals, the "hiding and reluctance to be fully transparent" ends up being as much of an issue, or more, than the lack of a clearly identified Father and Son

@mindsamazing9179 Месяц назад

This is so true. And it’s frustrating to come and listen to a podcast like this who still decides to lie and break member’s trust by saying things like “well the first account was randomly found because the historical documents were all just a big mess and we just happened upon it” instead of actually talking about Joseph Fielding Smith hiding the document from the church. STOP GASLIGHTING THE MEMBERS!!! WE ARE REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL LIVES!!!

@RyanMercer 7 месяцев назад

👍

@davidtorbenson4686 4 месяца назад

You comments on the perspective people bring into the content is great (trust vs suspicion) - the "suspicious" story of the 1832 vision is that Joseph Fielding Smith ripped it out and put it in his personal safe (I think the storing in his safe when he was church historian is fairly established fact -per the FAIR site).... and it was only when word leaked out, and critics of the church forced the church's hand. Your summary either omits these details on purpose or has a different conclusion of the facts. Do you have a different perspective? If your explanation is that " back then, there was "unorganized records" that resulted in this loss" -that seems to be purposefully vague to be able to avoid discussing why Joseph Fielding Smith cut it out....

@JonLeavitt 5 месяцев назад

TL;DR; there are different versions because because Joseph Smith changed the story depending on time and the audience. While it doesn't prove that they are all false, it does prove that none are 100% true.

@nathanmarchant2175 4 месяца назад

Excellent commentaries by Woodward & Griffiths! You guys remind me of 21st century Truman G Madson

@unclebart100 3 месяца назад

Not sure why a single verse of the Book of Mormon is proof enough that Joseph had an understanding of the nature of the Godhead. When there are many many more Book of Mormon verses, including the testimonies of the 3 and 8 witnesses, that are trinitarian. Many of those verses were edited later in futute revisions to remove trinitatian interpretations.

@lindamartinez7006 6 месяцев назад

Verify it then .

@mcsq5899 6 месяцев назад

For the real story see Dan Vogel or Sandra Tanner.

@b.j.3729 6 месяцев назад

Hahahahaha!

@james8996 6 месяцев назад

@@b.j.3729 The Bible Says that Jesus the Father and the Angels and the 12 tribes of Israel are all black,

@craigolsen8057 7 месяцев назад

Why do you call Joseph Smith a pathetic young farm boy? In what way was he pathetic? To me this is offensive

@andrewdurfee3896 7 месяцев назад

By the standards of the world an unlearned farm boy is pathetic and by there standards shouldn’t be who you turn to inquire knowledge. In the context used the presenter is saying that God appeared to someone who would be pathetic or low. Jesus likewise didn’t come to the world in a royal setting even though he was royal. I wouldn’t call Joseph Smith pathetic myself, but I get the usage he is using here. Basically God can use the weak things of the world to do his work. I would say however that it was good for God to use the unlearned Joseph Smith since he had a lot less to unlearn of false teachings of the world. Anyways that’s my perspective on the matter.

@ginnymart5124 6 месяцев назад

Hello Andrew. I'm also a Durfee and LOVE the gospel. Love your insight. @@andrewdurfee3896

@james8996 6 месяцев назад

He was Pathetic and a liar and the dumbest false prophet who ever lived

@dr33776 7 месяцев назад

How convenient you don't mention how is it that the 1832 account was "lost". It wasn't lost, it was cut off the journal, hidden in a safe for 30 years, and then pasted back with tape once word got out of a "odd" first vision account. If the accounts complement each other and are harmonious, why the need to hide it in a safe for decades? Be honest, especially since this is easily verifiable history.