It'S Too Sacred
Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:05 PM
— Walter Karp
Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:20 PM
"You will rise or fall to the kingdom within which you feel the greatest comfort."
"There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define the family out of existence."
President Spencer W. Kimball 1980
Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:27 PM
That's why Mark Beesley and I asked four days ago. It was my premise and at least two others have made the same point.
I do not question that he holds something sacrrd, although it seems less and less likely in my mind. But in order for this conversation to continue in ant meaningful way, then we need to know, at least, that there are things he does regard as sacred (even if he does not want to reveal their nature to us). Or, if not, then we can proceed with that knowledge.
— Walter Karp
Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:27 PM
Edited by Vance, 31 May 2011 - 02:38 PM.
"Because some people need to be dealt with reality, they have been coddled their whole lives, and when they're morons I have the guts and the compassion to let them know that they're morons." Mark Levin.
"Vance is truly the devil's right hand man and his multiplicity of sins testifies to that." & "Your heart is truly filled with evil, a true thistle through and through." Echo of the "truth in love ministry".
Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:31 PM
I know plenty of New Testament scholars who are more than willing to call into question whether Paul actually had a vision, the overwhelming majority of whom suggest that Paul acted as the first of a long line of reformers that changed the gospel of Christ to suit their own interests. I do not share their beliefs to the extent to which they are offered, but I think Crossan, Borg, Ehrman, and Spong may well be on to something.
You note that Paul told the same story from day one, yet his accounts differ on a number of significant details. Richard Lloyd Anderson notes:
For instance, Joseph Smith’s credibility is attacked because the earliest known description of his vision wasn’t given until a dozen years after it happened. But Paul’s earliest known description of the Damascus appearance, found in 1 Corinthians 9:1, was recorded about two dozen years after his experience.
Critics love to dwell on supposed inconsistencies in Joseph Smith’s spontaneous accounts of his first vision. But people normally give shorter and longer accounts of their own vivid experiences when retelling them more than once. Joseph Smith was cautious about public explanations of his sacred experiences until the Church grew strong and could properly publicize what God had given him. Thus, his most detailed first vision account came after several others—when he began his formal history.
This, too, parallels Paul’s experience. His most detailed account of the vision on the road to Damascus is the last of several recorded. (See Acts 26:9–20.) And this is the only known instance in which he related the detail about the glorified Savior prophesying Paul’s work among the Gentiles. (See Acts 26:16–18.) Why would Paul include this previously unmentioned detail only on that occasion? Probably because he was speaking to a Gentile audience, rather than to a group of Jewish Christians. Both Paul and Joseph Smith had reasons for delaying full details of their visions until the proper time and place.
You assume the lack of a "long paper trail" with Paul confirms with conclusive assertion that Paul was called of God, and that Joseph's long paper trail debunks his alleged claims to the First Vision because #1 it never happened (your obvious explanation) or #2 he chose not to share (or most likely publish) the experience until 12 years later. Does Paul's choice to not publish his vision until at least 15 years after it happened not also undermine his own account as well? I'm not ruling out that Paul may have shared his vision long before publication, but I'm not ruling that out for Joseph as you have. You seem to only want to accept what is on paper, rather than the implication existing as early as 1831 that Joseph was sharing his experience of the First Vision with others.
"Morman [scholars] is just a bunch of white men trying to figure out how to better hide all there wives. and make it legal for you ppl to be able to vote legally without being jailed." - Ernie Tschikof
Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:34 PM
A lot of people in the world are that way, yet they somehow manage to have enough integrity to RESPECT what is considered sacred for others.
"If the Church were not true, our enemies would be bored rather than threatened, and acquiescent rather than anxious. Hell is moved only when things move Heavenward." Elder Neal A. Maxwell
Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:51 PM
This topic has been closed by a moderator.
Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users