413 replies to this topic

[charity]

The most recent FAIR Journal has an excellent article by Matthew B. Brown about the First Vision.  Any of you wanting to have questions answered should read it.  And a "charitable" word to the wise. Any of you making assertions of revisionism about the First Vision have to read it so you won't sound ignorant in the future when you talk abou it.

[Uncle Dale]

charity, on Jan 2 2007, 06:56 PM, said:

The most recent FAIR Journal has an excellent article by Matthew B. Brown about the First Vision.  Any of you wanting to have questions answered should read it.  And a "charitable" word to the wise. Any of you making assertions of revisionism about the First Vision have to read it so you won't sound ignorant in the future when you talk abou it.

I would be most happy to see you here summarize the main points of that learned article
in a paragraph or two.  Unlike many people I know, I take seriously the recommendations
that I read one thing or another -- and have thus accumulated a reading list over 100
titles long. I have finally managed to get to chapter two in the Bushman biography and
actually have now read all the Deseret News articles clipped and sent to me by a well-meaning
lady in Ogden, one year ago this month.

Some of us are trying -- and we only "get by with a little help from our friends."

UD

[charity]

I could not do justice to the presentation by Matthew Brown in a summary.  But here are two small items that may whet your appetite.

1. Several elements of the account of the First Vision which did not appear in the earliest written version were known in non-LDS circles prior to 1832, and those elements were included in the 1838 account. This completely shoots down the argument that certain elements were only added much later.  

2. The earliest written account does refer to Heavenly Father.  Certain phrases taken in context definitately include Him, although not by name in the earliest account.

There are also other interesting responses to critics.  One of the criticisms, that Joseph Smith had joined other churches after being specifically instructed not to do so, is countered with a number of non-LDS witnesses that Joseph claimed no other religious affiliation.

Another is that Joseph Smith did not speak about the First Vision until many years after it occurred.

These are all dcoumented with original sources.

[Olavarria]

Doctor Steuss, on Jan 2 2007, 04:41 PM, said:

Donâ??t know if this helps but...
http://eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm

wow, that shoulde be the end of this thread. For example:

12/30/06
I had fun on the 30th with my family. UFc, pizza, coke what more can one ask for?

1/1/06
On the 30th I watched TV with my folks, we ate, drank soda and talked.

1/2/06

On 12/30th, my family and I  watched UFC66. It was pretty fun; we ate pizza, drank Coke and afterwards just hung around talking.



My accounts of what happened on the 30th "contradict" each other just like JS's accounts of the first vision. That settles it, my family and I didnt watch UFC66 on the 30th.

[Uncle Dale]

charity, on Jan 2 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

These are all dcoumented with original sources.

Sounds interesting. Brown is one of the more careful scholars around today.
I do not always end up with the same results as he, but must admit he's good
at documenting his sources.

UD

[Hammer]

Uncle Dale, on Jan 2 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

Sounds interesting. Brown is one of the more careful scholars around today.
I do not always end up with the same results as he, but must admit he's good
at documenting his sources.

UD

Here is the link. Scroll down to the first vision.

Brown on First Vision

[Zakuska]

Pantsman, on Jan 2 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

Short answer?

Simply I believe that Paul's first vision account is a lot more congruent than contradictory than Joseph Smith's first vision which appears to me to have been completely re-written.

The major contradiction in Paul's account is in one version those traveling hear it, in another they don't hear it.  But I believe in the original Greek it can be interpreted that they didn't understand not necessarily didn't hear a sound, but bothe accounts attest to seeing the bright light, what wa said to Paul, and Paul's conversion.  What the versions agree on:

1.  Paul was a persecutor of the Jews
2.  the words spoken to Paul
3.  Paul being struck with a bright light
4.  Paul converting shortly after and becoming a champion of the Christians

Like I said I can accept a little deviation in the story that's an honest translation error, or another author not getting the story right.  But to have the first vision go from an Angel, and later transform to God almighty Himself bodily incarnate and Jesus Christ also bodily is more than just a "little deviation", that's completely seperate accounts.

Joseph Smith's contradictions are far more apparent IMO, essentially they contradict themselves in every area of the vision.  In the Bible you have congruence on when the event happened, where it happened, and who appeared to Paul.  Those are three areas in complete contradiction with Joseph Smith's first vision, not to mention Paul had zero motivation as he hated and persecuted Christians.

That's the long short, this is off the cuff and I'm sure this turns into a 400 post thread full of endless cut and pastes at which point I'll have to bow out since I don't have time to do it.

No this isn't the complaint at all Pantsman.  The Complaint is that in Pauls first retelling only he falls to the Ground but when it's retold to the king (You know the guy the whole world falls down before) the story changes... Paul, everyone with him and even the little yellow dog falls down and tremble at the pure awesomeness.  In other words the story was tailored to the audience. And almost was purswasive enough to do the Job.

[bluebell]

charity, on Jan 2 2007, 07:28 PM, said:

I could not do justice to the presentation by Matthew Brown in a summary.  But here are two small items that may whet your appetite.

1. Several elements of the account of the First Vision which did not appear in the earliest written version were known in non-LDS circles prior to 1832, and those elements were included in the 1838 account. This completely shoots down the argument that certain elements were only added much later.  

2. The earliest written account does refer to Heavenly Father.  Certain phrases taken in context definitately include Him, although not by name in the earliest account.

There are also other interesting responses to critics.  One of the criticisms, that Joseph Smith had joined other churches after being specifically instructed not to do so, is countered with a number of non-LDS witnesses that Joseph claimed no other religious affiliation.

Another is that Joseph Smith did not speak about the First Vision until many years after it occurred.

These are all dcoumented with original sources.

Thanks so much charity-that's great info too.

[Zakuska]

Pantsman, on Jan 2 2007, 04:02 PM, said:

I think to try and validate the contradictions of the first vision or at least drastically different tellings of the story ~170 years to the much less troublesome contradictions of Pauls account ~2,000 years isn't helping the cause.

To me the where, when, who, what, and why are all consistent in Paul's telling, they aren't even close in Joseph Smith's, that's the difference maker to me.

Anyway I'm sure most of us have read our apologetics on it, I have my interpretation you have yours, I don't need to beat my chest and shove apologetics down peoples throats that most have read 1,000 times anyway.

It sure speaks to the consistancy of the complainer.

[freakin a man]

Pantsman, on Jan 2 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

Short answer?

Simply I believe that Paul's first vision account is a lot more congruent than contradictory than Joseph Smith's first vision which appears to me to have been completely re-written.

The major contradiction in Paul's account is in one version those traveling hear it, in another they don't hear it.  But I believe in the original Greek it can be interpreted that they didn't understand not necessarily didn't hear a sound, but bothe accounts attest to seeing the bright light, what wa said to Paul, and Paul's conversion.  What the versions agree on:

1.  Paul was a persecutor of the Jews
2.  the words spoken to Paul
3.  Paul being struck with a bright light
4.  Paul converting shortly after and becoming a champion of the Christians

Like I said I can accept a little deviation in the story that's an honest translation error, or another author not getting the story right.  But to have the first vision go from an Angel, and later transform to God almighty Himself bodily incarnate and Jesus Christ also bodily is more than just a "little deviation", that's completely seperate accounts.

Joseph Smith's contradictions are far more apparent IMO, essentially they contradict themselves in every area of the vision.  In the Bible you have congruence on when the event happened, where it happened, and who appeared to Paul.  Those are three areas in complete contradiction with Joseph Smith's first vision, not to mention Paul had zero motivation as he hated and persecuted Christians.

That's the long short, this is off the cuff and I'm sure this turns into a 400 post thread full of endless cut and pastes at which point I'll have to bow out since I don't have time to do it.

Something tells me you have not gone through the accounts of the First Vision and really compared them.  I did and I found them to be at least as consistent as Paul's accounts or the different accounts of the Resurrection in the 4 gospels.  Yes I know Paul's accounts and those resurrections are in the "WORD OF GOD" so they get a pass or get ignored but they really are not any different.

[bluebell]

I saw the 'different versions of the first vision' listed on quite a few bible-believing posters' posts on the other thread and i'm a little disappointed that they have not come on over to explain how they separate paul's different versions and JS's different versions and why paul's don't matter while JS's do...

I'm honestly trying to understand where that seeming contradiction comes into play, but so far, the only conclusion i've been able to come to is that those who are bible-believing (Paul believing maybe is a better way to put it) but critical of the JS first vision accounts only hold that position out of ignorance.

If i'm wrong in my assumption then please tell me why?

[charity]

bluebell, I think you are right in your assumptions.  Many of the people who make claims and charges are only parrotting things they have read on anti sites.  They have no background, have not studied the information, and don't have any original thought to contribute.  And they refuse to educate themselves when pointed to information other than their anti source.

[Helorum]

Quote

Here is the link. Scroll down to the first vision.

[Matthew] Brown on First Vision

CHARITY: You may be interested in what is said below.


HAMMER: Make sure to check out the brand new draft FAIR wiki articles on First Vision apologetic issues that are designed to supplement the article you have provided a link for. I believe the eight articles listed so far are only the beginning.

Go to the www.josephsmithstudies.com website and the 8 articles are linked right on the front page.

CLICK HERE

Edited by Helorum, 03 January 2007 - 03:04 PM.

[Zakuska]

Thanks for that link...

Quote

This is very important information, since a consultation of Brother Cannonâ??s writings reveals that precisely twenty-two years earlier he had been teaching in the Juvenile Instructor that Joseph Smith â??had the glorious privilege of beholding the Father and the Son. There is no doubt at all in this text about the precise identity of the two Personages seen by the Prophet Joseph Smith.[3] And, of course, the accounts of the First Vision printed in the Millennial Star (the 1838 official Church history and the 1842 Wentworth Letter) identify the Prophet's visitants as the Father and the Son.

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah.

Edited by Zakuska, 03 January 2007 - 12:18 PM.

[charity]

edited to say, I'm sending you a pm, helorum.

Edited by charity, 03 January 2007 - 02:57 PM.

[freakin a man]

Another issue that seems to come up a lot is that the 1838 account was given 18 years after the First Vision happened to Joseph.  Why did he wait so long to offer this account.  Yet they completely ignore that it took more years for Paul to write his accounts down and it took many years after the fact for the gospel writers to ink their gospels.  Just more selective criticism.  Find anything to attack Joseph Smith but pretend it does not exist with the same argument could be used to attack Bible writers.

Edited by freakin a man, 03 January 2007 - 03:19 PM.

[Zakuska]

freakin a man, on Jan 3 2007, 03:18 PM, said:

Another issue that seems to come up a lot is that the 1838 account was given 18 years after the First Vision happened to Joseph.  Why did he wait so long to offer this account.  Yet they completely ignore that it took more years for Paul to write his accounts down and it took many years after the fact for the gospel writers to ink their gospels.  Just more selective criticism.  Find anything to attack Joseph Smith but pretend it does not exist with the same argument could be used to attack Bible writers.

Thats easily answered. JS had a printing press at his disposal. All Paul had was sheep skins and stones.  

[bluebell]

freakin a man, on Jan 3 2007, 03:18 PM, said:

Another issue that seems to come up a lot is that the 1838 account was given 18 years after the First Vision happened to Joseph.  Why did he wait so long to offer this account.  Yet they completely ignore that it took more years for Paul to write his accounts down and it took many years after the fact for the gospel writers to ink their gospels.  Just more selective criticism.  Find anything to attack Joseph Smith but pretend it does not exist with the same argument could be used to attack Bible writers.

I agree that many anti-JS groups do turn a blind eye to these issues when it comes to them and their beliefs.  

I don't know where i read it, but the person said that one of the best arguements for understanding how JS could give prophecies that did not turn out as he said they should and STILL be a prophet of God was in a book written by a popular Christian author challenging the atheists same arguements against biblical prophets.

I think it's human nature though to fail to see the forest for the trees when it comes to things we are passionate about (either for or against).

[Pantsman]

I think it's also important to note that Paul didn't write even one of the Gospels, Christianity doesn't hang or fall on the accuracy of Paul's first vision, but like I said prior I have no problem accpeting the different accounts in Paul's storybecause nothing is major.  Every major facet of Christianity had already been set in the Gospels of Christ and Christ's teachings.  With Joseph Smith Mormonism lives or dies on the first vision.

[Doctor Steuss]

Pantsman, on Jan 3 2007, 04:40 PM, said:

With Joseph Smith Mormonism lives or dies on the first vision.

Tell that to the Community of Christ (aka: RLDS).