The manager would have one believe that "the first vision special" is the only thing on the menu. One version was canonized, and props for having it actually accepted by common consent. But let's take a look at other offerings on the menu:
1832- the earliest version
One of the fascinating bits of this version is that Joseph says "I found that mankind came not unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and that there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ".
God doesn't tell him that no church is true, he figures it out for himself beginning his scripture study at 12 years old.
Joseph himself says that he is 15 years of old when he cried in the wilderness. He mentions only seeing the Lord, and that the Lord says "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 crucified for the world that all those who believe in me may have eternal life. Behold, the world lieth in sin, and no one doeth good, no not one" all the way to the coming with clouds.
(no two personages in this picture)
The date of Moroni's appearance is given as 22 Sept 1822. Moroni appears 3 times that night, and once the next day, but no scritpure citation is given.
Olver Cowdery Version, published
In this he mentions that Joseph was 15 at the time, and his mother and brothers joined the presbyterian church. Later, a correction was printed, stating that it was not 1820, but rather 1824 when Joseph's family joined the church; we're only discussing the Moroni/Nephi visit (see previous post about that). This timeline is supported by the presbyterian and methodist records of the day.
1823. (Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 5, February 1835, page 78)
He relates how on the evening of the 21st of September 1823 a personage sent by the commandment of the Lord visited Joseph Smith in his bedroom. Namely, we're
This version is corroborated with Lucy Mack Smith's history, in which a "First vision" is not mentioned, but the angel Nephi/Moroni's visit is very key
(the boyhood home in which Moroni appeared, and they didn't live in when he had the first vision but is near the hill cumorah that he went to from this home. Right.)
Ok, but so what; Maybe they just didn't mention the first vision
That's a fair item on the menu, and if you'd like to order it, the manager would appreciate it. However; as your waiter, I should advise you that the cook for this dish didn't really prepare it properly.
You see, Joseph didn't live on a farm in Manchester until 1822 (Salt Lake City, Smith Research Associates, distributed by Signature Books, 1994, pages 1-13). Two years after the vision happened there.
Also, Lucy Smith wasn't born yet in 1820. (She was born in 1821; but is listed in the family as being alive at the time in the Manager's special)
So there are some ingredients left out of this dish, and a few added that make it less appealing; never the less, it still has some credit.
Let's move on to the next menu option:
Joseph Smith Diary, Nov. 9, 1835 (Age 14)
Here we have a synopsis of the previous versions. The "lite" version if you will. James 1:5 is mentioned for the first time, as well as the confusion by various religions.
For the first time the "Darkness" is mentioned as "The sound of someone walking" and he "Jumps up"... very different from the special in that he is bound down so that he couldn't even move in that version. Perhaps just a timing issue.
(This is a picture of Joseph jumping)
Here we have two people appearing, but not at the same time. They come down in succession. One says that his sins are forgiven, and testifies that Jesus is the Son of God.
wait... he doesn't say "I am Jesus Christ"? Well, maybe he was tailoring the message for the Jewish minister. He also adds that he saw many angels in the vision. Something left out of the Manager's special. I wonder why we don't believe there were other angels anymore.
Ah well, we proceed. He then recounts the moroni/nephi visit during which the angel says: "... The indians were the literal dependents of Abraham".
WOAH, we'll get to DNA evidence later; but suffice it to say; to remove the word "principle" to "Among" in the intro of the book of Mormon which was done seems to require doubting Josephs own journal. Nope, not for consumption, so says the manager; and I can see why; that is one spicy dish right there.
Erastus Snow's version (second hand, age 14)
http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/dn-1852.html
I try to avoid second hand accounts, but this one was published in the Deseret News, and thus may be consumed by some patrons. It is also told from the first person perspective.
“This afternoon, Erastus Holmes, of Newbury, Ohio, called on me to inquire about the establishment of the church, and to be instructed in doctrine more perfectly. I gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from six years old up to the time I received the first visitation of angels, which was when I was about fourteen years old; also the revelations that I received afterwards concerning the Book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church up to this date.”
Hugh Nibley and others dismiss this as stating that "Angels includes any heavenly messenger such including God" but still the church thought it unclear enough to try to hide it in the History of the church. Ah well, Managers have to cover up their mistakes.
The Manager's Special (14-15 years old)
Included in the Pearl of Great Price.
1844 a version published after the Manger's special (14 years old):
Joseph Smith, Latter Day Saints, p.404-405
Very much a summary. Most the details left out. Very "lite" compared to the special. Again he mentions: "I was informed also concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me.”"
To say that DNA evidence does not contradict the Book of Mormon is to discount Joseph's own words on the first vision twice; ah well, let us ignore that and focus on that this version seems the least inflammatory except for the spice at the end. One could picture the manager favoring this one as its lack of details makes it far more defensible.
Well, there are your menu options, and every one penned by Joseph Smith himself. No anecdotal evidence; no second hand accounts; 100% Joseph; but remember, picking and choosing isn't allowed. That would be "less faithful"
