Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

John D the First

The First Vision

Recommended Posts

Elder Bean was using his own historical interpretation, in what is reproduced

from his book in my past #17. Such very late, individual interpretations of

events (and from a partisan writer at that) should not be taken at face value,

without our first assembling and reviewing much additional confirming evidence.

Please demonstrate conclusively that "Elder Bean" was "using his own historical interpretation" when reporting a very specific encounter between Joseph Smith Sr. and Martin Harris. Are you seriously suggesting that Elder Bean just made the story up?

Share this post


Link to post

Not so fast . . .

The non-Mormon who is doing the secondhand reporting in the newspaper article indicated that he related the details as best he could remember them ("Mr. Editor -- I have compiled the foregoing from memory"). He seems to be conflating the two different stories.

The earlier D&C 20:5-6 (April 1830) indicates that the angel appeared an appreciable period AFTER Joseph Smith's sins had been remitted (cf. 1832 First Vision account where the sequence is (1) remission of sins during the First Vision, (2) appearance of the angel).

However --- had the missionaries been preaching to public audiences, that JS had seen

the Father and the Son, in a direct, physical encounter in Ontario Co., NY in 1820, I do

think that some small mention of such tremendous news would have crept into one of

the newspaper reports.

Smith himself may have alluded to such things, back in the Palmyra area (as briefly

mentioned in that town's newspaper) -- but I do not think that the missionaries of

1831-32 were preaching such stuff -- they were announcing angelic visitations.

See also this 1831 report (published months before Pratt and Johnson's preaching):

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/miscill1.htm#091631

UD

Share this post


Link to post

Please demonstrate conclusively that "Elder Bean" was "using his own historical interpretation" when reporting a very specific encounter between Joseph Smith Sr. and Martin Harris. Are you seriously suggesting that Elder Bean just made the story up?

I'm suggesting that we should research his claims carefully,

since other parts of his reporting have defects --- He was a

resident of the Palmyra area, and thus had access to oral

history and other non-documentary sources, not available

to us today. Still, if what he said is prefectly reliable, then

I would expect that later LDS historians should furnish us

with some confirming additional evidence.

Or, have they done so, and have I simply overlooked such proof?

UD

Share this post


Link to post
However --- had the missionaries been preaching to public audiences, that JS had seen

the Father and the Son, in a direct, physical encounter in Ontario Co., NY in 1820, I do

think that some small mention of such tremendous news would have crept into one of

the newspaper reports.

[edited] That information did indeed make it into at least one known (pre-1832) newspaper account.

Share this post


Link to post
[Elder Bean] was a

resident of the Palmyra area, and thus had access to oral

history and other non-documentary sources, not available

to us today.

But your specific claim was --- "Elder Bean was using his own historical interpretation"

Share this post


Link to post
if what [Elder Bean] said is prefectly reliable, then

I would expect that later LDS historians should furnish us

with some confirming additional evidence.

How exactly do you propose that "oral history and other non-documentary sources" which are "not available to us today" be confirmed to your satisfaction? :P

Share this post


Link to post

As I recall, under President Kimball, some passages in the BoM were changed in their

wording ("white" changed to "pure," etc.) Somehow the matter was brought before

the LDS prophet for consideration and the decision was made to update the text.

That is the only way I can envision (no pun) the PGP JS account being further clarified.

UD

The change to pure reflected a much earlier change made by the prophet Joseph Smith, himself for the 1840 Nauvoo edition of the Book of Mormon.

post-4571-1196182288_thumb.jpg

post-4571-1196182246_thumb.jpg

More on how the change reverted here.

Share this post


Link to post

And you know perfectly well that the missionaries did indeed tell people that Joseph Smith had

seen God "personally" and that information did indeed make it into at least one known (pre-1832)

newspaper account.

Don't put words into my mouth, that I never said. If you read through every

single posting I have ever placed on the web, you will not find a single one

of them in which I ever said that I knew early LDS missionaries were going

about the country, preaching that JS had seen God. I know of absolutely no

such early 1830s missionary account.

But your specific claim was --- "Elder Bean was using his own historical interpretation"

We all take information we receive about the past and accept or reject it,

according to our discernment and beliefs. Elder Bean had something to say

about the Smith family, Martin Harris, visions, etc. All of that adds up to

being his "interpretation" or "reconstruction" of the past.

Were he alive today, and able to consult the documentary sources we now

have available for study, his "interpretation" of those past events might be

somewhat different than what he said in his 1930 "ABC History."

That is all I am saying ---- If you want to rely upon Joseph Smith, Sr. and

Martin Harris, then you should first of all locate the evidence for what they

conversed about. Elder Bean points you in the direction for further study. If

you cannot investigate the matter more fully, please do not blame me for that.

UD

Share this post


Link to post
Don't put words into my mouth, that I never said. If you read through every

single posting I have ever placed on the web, you will not find a single one

of them in which I ever said that I knew early LDS missionaries were going

about the country, preaching that JS had seen God. I know of absolutely no

such early 1830s missionary account.

Isn't this source listed right on your own personal website? http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/wayn1830.htm

Cowdery, Pratt, Whitmer, and Peterson (who are described in the document as being "on a mission") affirmed while in Painesville, Ohio that Joseph Smith "had seen God . . . personally." They "proclaimed that there had been no religion in the world for 1500 years -- that no one had been authorized to preach, etc., for that period -- that Joe Smith had now received a commission from God for that purpose." (The Reflector, vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831 [Palmyra, New York]).

If you really weren't aware of this document on your own personal website, then I offer my apologies.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd still like to see any contemporanious accounts of Pauls vision in Damascus. What is the count now for JS?

15-20!

:P

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't this source listed right on your own personal website? http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/wayn1830.htm

Cowdery, Pratt, Whitmer, and Peterson (who are described in the document as being "on a mission") affirmed while in Painesville, Ohio that Joseph Smith "had seen God . . . personally." They "proclaimed that there had been no religion in the world for 1500 years -- that no one had been authorized to preach, etc., for that period -- that Joe Smith had now received a commission from God for that purpose." (The Reflector, vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831 [Palmyra, New York]).

If you really weren't aware of this document on your own personal website, then I offer my apologies.

Earlier in this thread I already acknowledged this report -- not as having come from missonaries sent

out from Kirtland, to spread Mormonism, but as a third-hand "affirmation" of some unstated words

from one or more of the "four misisonaries to the Lamanites." Here are my original comments:

Note: The above, third-hand report, of Joseph Smith, Jr. having "seen God frequently and personally," is an interesting historical item. It is strange that the old report comes from Ohio and not from Smith's home region around Palmyra, New York. Nevertheless, it appears to be the first published allegation that the young seer had gazed upon the afwul countenance of God the Father -- an occurrence which biblical scriptures pronounce impossible for a living being to endure. It seems likely, that even as early as 1831, the first Mormons believed they were living in the "final dispensation of the gospel" and were no longer subject to certain divine restrictions which had limited the efforts of their predecessors, the "former day saints." While there is no documentation of Smith himself claiming to have seen God, so early as 1831, he seems to have been content to allow his followers to spread such stories, if they wished to be so believing.

So, here we have the "Reflector" editor paraphrasing an unidentified Ohio correspondent, who

evidently wrote him saying that one or more of the four Mormons "affirmed" that JS had seen

God. This is hardly evidence that the missionaries were preaching such doctrine -- but merely a

third-hand, hearsay allegation. What if the editor had reported that his Ohio correspondent had

asserted that JS was seeing pink elephants? Would that sort of "news" automatically be true, just

because an anti-Mormon editor in Palmyra added it into his editorializing?

No -- I stand by my original assessment, that the missionaries were not preaching such stuff in

public during the early 1830s. What they might have "affirmed" in private conversations, is another

matter. They might have thus affirmed that JS was working on a new translation of the Bible -- but

they were not preaching that fact openly in those days.

I will refine one thing I said in my on-line comments, however. I am half-convinced that JS was

NOT "content to allow his followers to spread such stories," as a part of their public preaching, so

early as 1831-32. Rather, I think that there were elements of Mormonism which were only discussed

among the converts themselves, and not announced to the world as the first principles of the gospel.

And I think that is the reason why such early newspaper reporting is confined to this one, single,

vauge mention, and the reason why such reporting was not a primary element of any preaching

quoted by non-member auditors in those early days.

If you cannot fathom the difference in what I have been saying, and what you have thought I

have communicated on-line, I suppose I can clarify the matter further for you. But what's the point?

UD

.

Share this post


Link to post
I will refine one thing I said in my on-line comments, however. I am half-convinced that JS was

NOT "content to allow his followers to spread such stories," as a part of their public preaching, so

early as 1831-32. Rather, I think that there were elements of Mormonism which were only discussed

among the converts themselves, and not announced to the world as the first principles of the gospel.

And I think that is the reason why such early newspaper reporting is confined to this one, single,

vauge mention, and the reason why such reporting was not a primary element of any preaching

quoted by non-member auditors in those early days.

Why am I reminded of someone else...?

Matt 17

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Share this post


Link to post

Why am I reminded of someone else...?

Matt 17

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man,

until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Well, other than your making a direct parallel of Jesus and JS, I think that you

are onto something here. Sidney Rigdon, who visited the Mormons at Fayette at

about the same time as the "Reflector" report was published, later stated that

a good deal of early Mormonism was conducted in secret.

I earlier gave the example of the JST -- which early Mormons were instructed

not to reveal to Gentiles. Word of the translating project eventually leaked out,

of course -- but such "news" did not come as a result of official preaching of the

missionaries.

Even the 1833 "Book of Commandments" was not meant for the eyes of non-members.

What parts the leadership wished to share with the world, they had published in the

official church newspaper.

So, if you wish to know what JS was sharing with the world, concerning his visions,

etc., read the 1832-33 "Evening and Morning Star," and you'll find it all there.

UD

Share this post


Link to post

Amd "Secret" is a bad thing?

For some it seems to be... :P

Share this post


Link to post

Amd "Secret" is a bad thing?

For some it seems to be... :P

It's not secret ---- it's sacred!

Uncle "like the web-site I just visited before posting here -- Lusciouskissesandhugs.com --- oops!" Dale

Share this post


Link to post

It's not secret ---- it's sacred!

Uncle "like the web-site I just visited before posting here -- Lusciouskissesandhugs.com --- oops!" Dale

I'd say sacred and secret. Nothing wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd say sacred and secret. Nothing wrong with that.

Oh goody!!!

If I ever convert, can I have you for my Bishop?

musee_rodin_kiss.jpg

Uncle "Rodin, where are you, when we really need you?" Dale

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand the reference.

Auguste Rodin (born Fran

Share this post


Link to post
So, here we have the "Reflector" editor paraphrasing an unidentified Ohio correspondent, who

evidently wrote him saying that one or more of the four Mormons "affirmed" that JS had seen

God.

The words "they affirmed" requires a plural interpretation. Thus, it was clearly two or more of the missionaries who made a statement about Joseph Smith seeing God personally.

This is hardly evidence that the missionaries were preaching such doctrine -- but merely a

third-hand, hearsay allegation

By the way the newspaper editor handled the information it appears that he believed every word his correspondent told him. In no way did the editor cast doubt upon anything that his correspondent said. The editor provided NO reason for his audience to view the information as "hearsay allegation."

The evidence for the missionaries "preaching" this information is actually quite strong. The Ohio correspondent provides a list of things that the missionaries "proclaimed" (which includes typical missionary preaching material) and Joseph Smith seeing God is among this list. The words "proclaim" and "proclaimed" are defined in Webster's 1828 English Dictionary as follows:

PROCLA'IM, v.t. [L. proclamo; pro and clamo, to cry out. See Claim.]

1. To promulgate; to announce; to publish . . . .

4. To utter openly; to make public.

PROCLA'IMED, pp. Published officially; promulgated; made publicly known.

Since this group of men were definitely 'missionaries' and they definitely taught others that Joseph Smith had seen God personally it is quite impossible to pretend that there were no LDS missionaries in late 1830 teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God personally. It happened. There is no way around this fact.

I stand by my original assessment, that the missionaries were not preaching such stuff in

public during the early 1830s. What they might have "affirmed" in private conversations, is another

matter.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO INDICATION in the document under discussion that the missionaries' statement about Joseph Smith seeing God was made in a "private" conversation. The word "affirmed" can simply mean that once the missionaries publicly proclaimed the information they confirmed it when questioned about it afterward. Again, from Webster's 1828 English Dictionary.

AFFIRM, v.t. afferm' [L. affirmo; ad and firmo, to make firm. See Firm.]

1. To assert positively; to tell with confidence; to aver; to declare the existence of something; to maintain as true; opposed to deny.

2. To make firm; to establish, confirm or ratify

I suppose I can clarify the matter further for you. But what's the point?

I am not convinced that you have a valid point. So don't bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...