Js And The Accounts Of The First Vision

[freakin a man]

You are badgering me though as I've clearly stated my case, here's the deal simply take all the objections that people have for the first vision accounts without me having to cut and paste it from Wikipedia, you've all heard them one million times, just go on that O.K.? I simply don't care that much, this all stems from another post that asked to list why non-mormons don't believe Joseph Smith. I said "multiple first vision accounts", I had no desire to clarify it with 50 posts and numerous Wiki cut and pastes, frankly I don't know how you people do it all day. If you look at all the threads I posted in about that, my case is perfectly clear.

This is true. Many people do reject Joseph Smith on the issue of multiple accounts. My argument is simply for consistency. If a person wants to reject the First Vision account because there are multiple accounts to don't say exactly the same thing in each account, that is fine. I just point out that many of these same people will continue to accept the Bible even though the Resurrection accounts and Paul's conversion accounts have similar problems with them. They should reject these Bible accounts as well. If one is not going to reject those issues from the Bible, they should have no problem with the FV accounts.

This problem comes in other issues like false prophecies. I have seen many people draw up lists that include examples of Joseph Smith false prophecies like D&C 110:16: "â?¦the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors." They say that this was 170 years ago. Surely it it was near, even at the doors, then it should have happened by now and calling it a false prophecy but then ignoring the same phrase "near, even at the doors" in Matthew 24:33 even though that was given 1900 years ago but saying in that case its not a false prophecy.

A more contemporary example would be someone saying that one should not watch Chuck Norris movie because it contains too much violence but then recommending a Steven Seagal movie because it has a lot of good action.

I don't care if someone rejects Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon or anything else. Just show a little consistency and energy and hammer away at the Bible as well.

[bluebell]

Essentially this is trying to twist the arms of Bible believers to accept JS without dealing yourself with the contradictions. That is know in logic as ad hominem circumstantial. You might also consider the vast difference between contradictions showing up in different books, by different persons, in different circumstances, and contradictions showing up in writings by the same person a few years apart.

Dan-

I have not asked anyone to accept JS at all. Frankly, no one that doesn't accept him already has really engaged in the discussion. How can you say that i am trying to make people believe in JS when i have not even argued any reasons why they SHOULD? All i have said is that i don't understand what their reasonings are. Can you show me what i have said in this thread that supports your judgement of my motives? Perhaps people are reading more into my words than i mean and i need to fix that.

I'm trying to understand their position by understanding WHY some contradictions don't bother them while others do. So far, the only one who has said anything is pantsman and all he has said is that the contradictions are different, though he does not want to explain HOW they are different.

Also, to address your other point-some of the first vision accounts that people find so contradictory ARE written by different persons, in different circumstances. Does that make them suddenly as valid as the different resurrection accounts? Is that the measuring stick that creates validity?

[bluebell]

apology accepted but it is very clear, I have no idea how to say what I want to say n plainer English.

Dan Vogel has a good point, maybe he'll care to debate more. Frankly I find the LDS position to be disingenuous by comparing the two, and think after an honest assessment, you can admit that.

That's completely fair to say-however, i feel the position that believers in the bible support is equally disingenuous by refusing to hold it up to the standard that they hold JS's words up to.

Having said that though-again, i understand if you have no interest in going over this subject any further. I'm sure after a period of time on this board, some subjects get old.

Perhaps others are understanding your reasons better than i am.

[Pantsman]

I don't care if someone rejects Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon or anything else. Just show a little consistency and energy and hammer away at the Bible as well.

I've been on this board for a while, I used to sit here and go back and forth, I've been through all this literally over and over again, I just don't care to beat my chest any more.

You assume I haven't looked at both sides, I wasn't always a Catholic, I went ten years with no religion at all. I've read the Koran, the Book of Mormon, prayed on it, guess what a whole lot of nothing, and at that time I had no axe to grind. If I received a witness trust me I would be a tithing, teetotaling, Temple Mormon.

I came to where I am through literal years of study and praying, I didn't simply become Catholic one day, I outwardly rejected my faith for actually nearly 15 years.

That said, my time on this board is coming short, as I don't think there's a topic brought up that I haven't seen at least 100 times. And if I dare say anything in one, if don't engage in an endless cut and past war somehow that = me being inconsistent etc... It's simply I don't have the time or really the desire to do it, I'm happy where I am, I don't need to validate it anymore, apologetics was very important to me when I was insecure in my faith, I'm not anymore.

[charity]

pantsman, I would appreciate a response to my post #45.

[freakin a man]

I came to where I am through literal years of study and praying, I didn't simply become Catholic one day, I outwardly rejected my faith for actually nearly 15 years.

That said, my time on this board is coming short, as I don't think there's a topic brought up that I haven't seen at least 100 times. And if I dare say anything in one, if don't engage in an endless cut and past war somehow that = me being inconsistent etc... It's simply I don't have the time or really the desire to do it, I'm happy where I am, I don't need to validate it anymore, apologetics was very important to me when I was insecure in my faith, I'm not anymore.

Very good. Its good to study and pray and I hope you get the answers you seek as you go through life.

[Hammer]

Hey Freakin man,

I don't care if someone rejects Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon or anything else. Just show a little consistency and energy and hammer away at the Bible as well.

Could you please bring me up to speed about what it is I have done this time?

[Dan Vogel]

Dan-

I have not asked anyone to accept JS at all. Frankly, no one that doesn't accept him already has really engaged in the discussion. How can you say that i am trying to make people believe in JS when i have not even argued any reasons why they SHOULD? All i have said is that i don't understand what their reasonings are. Can you show me what i have said in this thread that supports your judgement of my motives? Perhaps people are reading more into my words than i mean and i need to fix that.

I didn't say you were trying to make people accept JS, but that you are trying to overcome a criticism about JS by using a logical fallacy. That fallacy is an attempt to sidestep the criticism by focusing on that persons other beliefs and pressuring them to withdraw the criticism for fear of being contradictory in their beliefs. But that has nothing to do with the merits of your position, which need to be handled separately.

I'm trying to understand their position by understanding WHY some contradictions don't bother them while others do. So far, the only one who has said anything is pantsman and all he has said is that the contradictions are different, though he does not want to explain HOW they are different.

Even if he had a double standard, it would still be irrelevant since his criticism of JS would still be valid.

Also, to address your other point-some of the first vision accounts that people find so contradictory ARE written by different persons, in different circumstances. Does that make them suddenly as valid as the different resurrection accounts? Is that the measuring stick that creates validity?

Each document poses a unique situation that must be evaluated for reliability. I didn't look at the other first vision threads, so I don't know what other people you are referring to, but what I was describing was the differences between JS's 1832 and 1838 accounts. Of course, we have to give allowances for the accounts of others reporting the first vision many years after the event. But that's standard historical practice that doesn't need any arm twisting.

[bluebell]

I didn't say you were trying to make people accept JS, but that you are trying to overcome a criticism about JS by using a logical fallacy.

I'm sorry if i misunderstood you. Your words were, 'Essentially this is trying to twist the arms of Bible believers to accept JS without dealing yourself with the contradictions', which did make it sound as if you were saying that was what i was trying to do.

That fallacy is an attempt to sidestep the criticism by focusing on that persons other beliefs and pressuring them to withdraw the criticism for fear of being contradictory in their beliefs.

I am not trying to side-step the criticism, i am trying to understand it better. I recognize that people have issues with the different accounts of JS's first vision-that is not the topic of this thread. The purpose of this thread, for me, is to understand why they don't have the same issues with the different accounts of Paul's vision.

This is not about trying to pressure anyone to withdraw their criticism, it is about understanding why they choose to criticize one thing and not something else that is very similar. I assume they have their reasons, i want to understand what they are.

Even if he had a double standard, it would still be irrelevant since his criticism of JS would still be valid.

Again, this is not about who's position is most valid-it's about understanding someone's position that is different than my own, and which does not make sense to me. This is not so much about the JS translations, for me, as it is about other people's beliefs and WHY they believe what they do about JS and about Paul.

I want to understand the position better-not argue whether or not it is correct.

Each document poses a unique situation that must be evaluated for reliability. I didn't look at the other first vision threads, so I don't know what other people you are referring to

I was referring to the nine different JS first vision accounts that we have to work with-some of which were not written by him but were re-tellings of his vision by other people.

Of course, we have to give allowances for the accounts of others reporting the first vision many years after the event. But that's standard historical practice that doesn't need any arm twisting.

I agree, but i have found that some people who do have issues with the different accounts of JS's first vision do not give allowances for these things-though they do give such allowances to paul and the writers of the gospels-and i am wondering why.

[bluebell]

I've been studying the first vision accounts, thanks to the links provided (this thread was as much a chance for me to study them more as it was a chance for me to understand other's feelings on them).

I know that Dan said the most disputed accounts were the 1832 account and the 1838 account. From what i have seen though, the only contradictions have been that JS said he was in his 16 year when the first vision happened (in his 1832 account) but said he was in his 15th year in the 1838 account.

The only other difference i saw was that in the 183 account he only talks about seeing the Lord, but talks about seeing both God the Father and Christ in the 1838 account.

Is this a comprehensive list of the major condradictions in the accounts? Have i missed some?

[USU78]

I didn't say you were trying to make people accept JS, but that you are trying to overcome a criticism about JS by using a logical fallacy. That fallacy is an attempt to sidestep the criticism by focusing on that persons other beliefs and pressuring them to withdraw the criticism for fear of being contradictory in their beliefs. But that has nothing to do with the merits of your position, which need to be handled separately.

Oh come now, DV. What we are simply pointing out is a phenomenon that happens all over the place, even when we are talking about reports by the same person of the same event or series of events over a period of time. The phenomenon is that eye witness accounts change. Every lawyer and every historian who is paying attention knows this. It's a very human and not at all blameworthy phenomenon.

Nobody's twisting arms in pointing out the inconsistency in getting one's panties in a wad when it's the Mormon Prophet changing his report in some minor particulars as time went on, yet accepting uncritically the foundational whoppers in Christianity (both Jesusite and Pauline).

Neither matters, since it is the essence of the story that is the selling point on the matter of faith.

Moreover, to accuse the defender of armtwisting when he is simply defending is disingenuous of you.

[Uncle Dale]

Oh come now, DV. What we are simply pointing out is a phenomenon that happens

all over the place, even when we are talking about reports by the same person of the

same event or series of events over a period of time...

Sounds good to me -- can we now de-canonize the JS story in the PGP?

Uncle "or maybe just add his other versions as scholarly footnotes, like the LDS KJV has from the JST?" Dale

[urroner]

Sounds good to me -- can we now de-canonize the JS story in the PGP?

Uncle "or maybe just add his other versions as scholarly footnotes, like the LDS KJV has from the JST?" Dale

Should we also decanonize the three accounts that Paul gave of his vision and then there are the inconsistencies within the Bible, should we decanonize it also?

[Uncle Dale]

Should we also decanonize the three accounts that Paul gave of his vision and then there are the inconsistencies within the Bible, should we decanonize it also?

NOW you're talking, friend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uncle "sorry, my anti-Pauline devils suddenly got the better of me" Dale

[Dan Vogel]

I'm sorry if i misunderstood you. Your words were, 'Essentially this is trying to twist the arms of Bible believers to accept JS without dealing yourself with the contradictions', which did make it sound as if you were saying that was what i was trying to do.

I can see how my wording mislead you. I meant: accept JS's claim without dealing with the contradictions in that claim.

I am not trying to side-step the criticism, i am trying to understand it better. I recognize that people have issues with the different accounts of JS's first vision-that is not the topic of this thread. The purpose of this thread, for me, is to understand why they don't have the same issues with the different accounts of Paul's vision.

That's OK as long as you aren't trying to turn it into a formal argument against their complaint abou the first vision story.

This is not about trying to pressure anyone to withdraw their criticism, it is about understanding why they choose to criticize one thing and not something else that is very similar. I assume they have their reasons, i want to understand what they are.

When you make statements like this, one is naturally suspicious of your intent. But, maybe, you are only curious after all.

Again, this is not about who's position is most valid-it's about understanding someone's position that is different than my own, and which does not make sense to me. This is not so much about the JS translations, for me, as it is about other people's beliefs and WHY they believe what they do about JS and about Paul.

You are insinuating that they are hypocritical, which is an ad hominem. It's hard to avoid in these situations.

I want to understand the position better-not argue whether or not it is correct.

I was referring to the nine different JS first vision accounts that we have to work with-some of which were not written by him but were re-tellings of his vision by other people.

I agree, but i have found that some people who do have issues with the different accounts of JS's first vision do not give allowances for these things-though they do give such allowances to paul and the writers of the gospels-and i am wondering why.

Ask away, but beyond satisfying your curiosity it has no revelevance to JS's accounts.

[urroner]

NOW you're talking, friend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uncle "sorry, my anti-Pauline devils suddenly got the better of me" Dale

So you are possessed by devils. You should have met my dad before he died, he was good at casting out devils. Even time I misbehaved as a child in a really bad way, he'd beat the ****ens (little devils or those kids who pass the sacrament) out of me.

[Jaybear]

I know that Dan said the most disputed accounts were the 1832 account and the 1838 account. From what i have seen though, the only contradictions have been that JS said he was in his 16 year when the first vision happened (in his 1832 account) but said he was in his 15th year in the 1838 account.

The only other difference i saw was that in the 183 account he only talks about seeing the Lord, but talks about seeing both God the Father and Christ in the 1838 account.

The only contradiction that is relevant, IMO, is JS failure to note the existence of both God/Jesus as separate in the earlier accounts. Everying else, such as his age, the revival, why he was there, is all trivial by comparison.

Apologists, in attempt to create the illusion of consistency, ignore the importance of materiality.

In my first brush with apologetics, an apologist created an analogy, whereby when retelling what he had for breakfast, only in the latter version he first mentions having toast.

I leaves me to wonder whether apologist completely fail to grasp the enormous signficance, if true, of God appearing along Jesus Christ in human form, or whether they think that those reading the explanation are truly stupid.

Oh come now, DV. What we are simply pointing out is a phenomenon that happens all over the place, even when we are talking about reports by the same person of the same event or series of events over a period of time. The phenomenon is that eye witness accounts change. Every lawyer and every historian who is paying attention knows this. It's a very human and not at all blameworthy phenomenon.

Nobody's twisting arms in pointing out the inconsistency in getting one's panties in a wad when it's the Mormon Prophet changing his report in some minor particulars as time went on, yet accepting uncritically the foundational whoppers in Christianity (both Jesusite and Pauline).

Neither matters, since it is the essence of the story that is the selling point on the matter of faith.

Moreover, to accuse the defender of armtwisting when he is simply defending is disingenuous of you.

I would love to read your explaination as to why the presence of God and Jesus in seperate human form is a "minor particular."

BTW, I agree that one should be consistent in their reasoning. Do you accept, uncritically, the founding whoppers in Christianity.

[Uncle Dale]

So you are possessed by devils. You should have met my dad before he died, he was good at casting out devils. Even time I misbehaved as a child in a really bad way, he'd beat the ****ens (little devils or those kids who pass the sacrament) out of me.

My pa spanked me twice, that I recall -- once for buying illegal fireworks on a 4th of July,

and once for returning home from kindergarten with my pants zipper half-way down.

I protested the roman candles smuggling on constitutional grounds, but calmly

"took my medicine" on the more serious sexual indecency charges.

Uncle "Phobos will no doubt soon be showing up to get this thread back on its proper track" Dale

[Dan Vogel]

Oh come now, DV. What we are simply pointing out is a phenomenon that happens all over the place, even when we are talking about reports by the same person of the same event or series of events over a period of time. The phenomenon is that eye witness accounts change. Every lawyer and every historian who is paying attention knows this. It's a very human and not at all blameworthy phenomenon.

Some variation is expected, but the implication that all variations have little implication is silly. Otherwise, no testimony could be impeached. The variations and contradictions I'm interested in have meaning and implications. I believe some of the differences between 1832 and 1838 point to changes in JS's thinking between those two dates. So, I not just trying to refute the first vision, but trying to understand what are anachronisms to the 1820 setting and how and why the story evolved as it did. That's what historians do.

Nobody's twisting arms in pointing out the inconsistency in getting one's panties in a wad when it's the Mormon Prophet changing his report in some minor particulars as time went on, yet accepting uncritically the foundational whoppers in Christianity (both Jesusite and Pauline).

For the record, I don't wear panties, not that there is anything wrong with that if YOU do. Of course, it would be silly to reject Christianity based on contradictions in the NT, as it would to reject Mormonism because JS's story changed. While I believe JS's story changed in significant ways, I don't question his general claim that in 1820 he had some kind of mystical-spiritual experience and conversion to Jesus; I just question that it happened as he later described.

Neither matters, since it is the essence of the story that is the selling point on the matter of faith.

I somewhat agree.

Moreover, to accuse the defender of armtwisting when he is simply defending is disingenuous of you.

The armtwisting is a simple way of expressing the ad hominem (circumstantial) fallacy. You're familiar with the fallacy no doubt.

[bluebell]

You are insinuating that they are hypocritical, which is an ad hominem. It's hard to avoid in these situations.

I'm not insinuating it-i'm stating it out right. But-i also recognize that it's only my perception of their beliefs that i'm going off of, which in my understanding, appears hypocritical.

What i want is for them to explain why their beliefs about JS and Paul AREN'T hypocritical. They, as i said before, must make perfect sense to them and i want to understand how that is.

I'm going off the premise that my understanding of their beliefs could be flawed because i just haven't looked at the topic from the point of view that they are looking at it from.

This is not to say that i believe my beliefs about the first vision are flawed-but only my beliefs about why others accept Paul but not JS could be flawed.

[Dan Vogel]

I've been studying the first vision accounts, thanks to the links provided (this thread was as much a chance for me to study them more as it was a chance for me to understand other's feelings on them).

I know that Dan said the most disputed accounts were the 1832 account and the 1838 account. From what i have seen though, the only contradictions have been that JS said he was in his 16 year when the first vision happened (in his 1832 account) but said he was in his 15th year in the 1838 account.

The only other difference i saw was that in the 183 account he only talks about seeing the Lord, but talks about seeing both God the Father and Christ in the 1838 account.

Is this a comprehensive list of the major condradictions in the accounts? Have i missed some?

Key Differences Between 1832 & 1838 Accounts

1. No revival mentioned in 1832.

Lucy Smith says she and her children joined the Presbyterian church after Alvinâ??s death (1823). Thus, Joseph Smith pushes 1824-25 revival back to 1820.

2. Motivation for praying in 1832 is forgiveness of sins, but in 1838 it is to know which church is true.

In 1832, Smith--like his parents--has already concluded from reading the Bible that humanity had â??apostatised from the true and liveing faithâ? and â??there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament.â? In 1838, Smith says, â??for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong.â? Smithâ??s concern for which church is true dates to after the 1824-25 revival when his family became split over religion, the meaning of Joseph Sr.â??s dreams, and the fate of Alvin. Thus, Joseph Smith pushes both the revival and his concern for the true church back to 1820.

3. In 1838, Smith is instructed to join none of the churches, but not in 1832.

If Josephâ??s 1820 vision had contained the prohibitive information he later claimed for it, it is difficult to explain Lucyâ??s pressuring Joseph to join and his not citing his vision as the reason he did not want to attend or join. Lucy says Joseph did not object to her joining the Presbyterians.

4. In 1832, all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life (regardless of church affiliation).

5. In 1832, Smith sees Jesus, but it is unclear if Jesus is in heaven or on earth. In 1838, both Jesus and the Father descend to earth in the beam of light.

6. In 1832, Jesus is coming â??quicklyâ? to destroy the wicked. In 1838, destruction of the wicked is not mentioned.

[Zakuska]

apology accepted but it is very clear, I have no idea how to say what I want to say n plainer English.

Dan Vogel has a good point, maybe he'll care to debate more. Frankly I find the LDS position to be disingenuous by comparing the two, and think after an honest assessment, you can admit that.

Oh so lets see... Mormonism is constantly measured up against the Bible to see if it measures up yet when one takes the same measure it some how exempts the Bible/Christianity?

And who is being "disingenuous" and "strong armed"?

[USU78]

Key Differences Between 1832 & 1838 Accounts

1. No revival mentioned in 1832.

Lucy Smith says she and her children joined the Presbyterian church after Alvinâ??s death (1823). Thus, Joseph Smith pushes 1824-25 revival back to 1820.

2. Motivation for praying in 1832 is forgiveness of sins, but in 1838 it is to know which church is true.

In 1832, Smith--like his parents--has already concluded from reading the Bible that humanity had â??apostatised from the true and liveing faithâ? and â??there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament.â? In 1838, Smith says, â??for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong.â? Smithâ??s concern for which church is true dates to after the 1824-25 revival when his family became split over religion, the meaning of Joseph Sr.â??s dreams, and the fate of Alvin. Thus, Joseph Smith pushes both the revival and his concern for the true church back to 1820.

3. In 1838, Smith is instructed to join none of the churches, but not in 1832.

If Josephâ??s 1820 vision had contained the prohibitive information he later claimed for it, it is difficult to explain Lucyâ??s pressuring Joseph to join and his not citing his vision as the reason he did not want to attend or join. Lucy says Joseph did not object to her joining the Presbyterians.

4. In 1832, all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life (regardless of church affiliation).

5. In 1832, Smith sees Jesus, but it is unclear if Jesus is in heaven or on earth. In 1838, both Jesus and the Father descend to earth in the beam of light.

6. In 1832, Jesus is coming â??quicklyâ? to destroy the wicked. In 1838, destruction of the wicked is not mentioned.

How does the learned prosecutor deal with the apparent ability of 3rd parties to know of events not expressly (though perhaps impliedly) present in the 1838 version as early as 1830 and before?

[Uncle Dale]

Key Differences Between 1832 & 1838 Accounts

1. No revival mentioned in 1832.

Lucy Smith says she and her children joined the Presbyterian church after Alvinâ??s death (1823). Thus, Joseph Smith pushes 1824-25 revival back to 1820.

2. Motivation for praying in 1832 is forgiveness of sins, but in 1838 it is to know which church is true.

In 1832, Smith--like his parents--has already concluded from reading the Bible that humanity had â??apostatised from the true and liveing faithâ? and â??there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament.â? In 1838, Smith says, â??for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong.â? Smithâ??s concern for which church is true dates to after the 1824-25 revival when his family became split over religion, the meaning of Joseph Sr.â??s dreams, and the fate of Alvin. Thus, Joseph Smith pushes both the revival and his concern for the true church back to 1820.

3. In 1838, Smith is instructed to join none of the churches, but not in 1832.

If Josephâ??s 1820 vision had contained the prohibitive information he later claimed for it, it is difficult to explain Lucyâ??s pressuring Joseph to join and his not citing his vision as the reason he did not want to attend or join. Lucy says Joseph did not object to her joining the Presbyterians.

4. In 1832, all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life (regardless of church affiliation).

5. In 1832, Smith sees Jesus, but it is unclear if Jesus is in heaven or on earth. In 1838, both Jesus and the Father descend to earth in the beam of light.

6. In 1832, Jesus is coming â??quicklyâ? to destroy the wicked. In 1838, destruction of the wicked is not mentioned.

Good points all, Bro. Mr. Vogel -- you can ignore USU78's subsequent words on the topic and

concentrate your efforts on communicating such stuff to our "eyes which do not see" and our

"ears which do not hear."

UD

[bluebell]

How does the learned prosecutor deal with the apparent ability of 3rd parties to know of events not expressly (though perhaps impliedly) present in the 1838 version as early as 1830 and before?

This is actually the question that came to my mind as well.

It seems that the discrepencies in the 1832 and 1838 accounts are used to 'prove' that JS changed his accounts over time to strengthen his case-

But, in my understanding, the fact that we know that others knew of the issues in question prior to the 1832 account seems to prove that JS simply emphasised different aspects of the same vision at different times and to different people...

much as paul, it seems, did when retelling his visionary experience.