Jump to content

Js And The Accounts Of The First Vision


bluebell

Recommended Posts

All that aside.. don't you see the significance of Pauls story changing to Impress the King?

Who changed the story? Was the story changed to impress a real king, or just in literature? And do we expect ancient works to conform to modern standards? Is it possible that Luke had two sources or traditions he was trying to conflate?

But go ahead and explain your theory if you want.

Link to post

It doesn't automatically call Paul's vision into question-because we don't know WHY there are discrepencies in the different versions we have (paul could have told it quite differently-perhaps luke made the best parts up?-maybe paul was trying to impress the king?).

It simply calls into question why we may be so willing to overlook the discrepencies of one person's accounts but not overlook them for another.

We don't know WHY there are discrepencies in paul's accounts-could be an error on luke's part-could be paul embelishing the story for his audience with the king (and luke's accounts could be more correct)-could be paul and luke emphasising different aspects of the same vision.

We dont' know WHY there are discrepencies in JS's accounts-could be he was making stuff up-could be he was afraid to tell the truth about seeing God for some reaon-could be he was focusing more on certain aspects of the same experience, etc....

For me-i don't see how paul or JS's accounts can stand or fall based on the contradictions in them-because we just don't know enough about why they are there.

I think other things have to come into play (faith and the Spirit for two)-many people take Paul's accounts as truth through faith-they accept that they don't know why some parts contradict (same as with the resurrection story) but it doesn't matter to them.

But some of these same people will automatically assume the worst answer to 'why' for JS's accounts and allow that assumption to make or break his validity.

I don't see it as apples and oranges at all. It seems to me to be based on religious bias-'mercy for our beliefs, justice for everyone elses'....

Well, I must not be explaining the fallacy well enough. I suggest that you google it and read about it yourself. Then come back and tell us what you learned. Check under ad hominem circumstantial, tu quoque, and appear to personal circumstances. Good luck.

Link to post

Well, I must not be explaining the fallacy well enough. I suggest that you google it and read about it yourself. Then come back and tell us what you learned. Check under ad hominem circumstantial, tu quoque, and appear to personal circumstances. Good luck.

I must not be explaining myself very well either-i realize that the reasons that a person believes something or doesn't- does NOT have any bearing on whether or not the belief is actually true-again, that's NOT THE POINT.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest

I am not attacking anyone's claim that JS's first vision accounts are false. I want to see if such claims actually ARE made out of self interest, as many of them appear to me, or if i'm just not understanding the claims on the same levels as those making them.

For example-i used to believe that the catholic belief in praying to saints was very unbiblical and i coud not understand how they, having read the bible, could believe in it.

How can someone pray to a statue of a saint while believing that man should pray to no graven images?

So-i asked the question-and got a wonderful answer about how Catholics simply view praying to saints in the same way that i view asking someone here on earth to pray for me. I completely understood WHY they did it, and though i don't believe in doing it, it made perfect sense to me that they would see it as something appropriate to do.

That's what i'm hoping will happen here. I'm wanting to see if the reason that this seems so hypocritical to me is because i am not looking at the issue from their point of view....and that i'll be able to understand it and view it differently, with a little explaining.

If i was trying to prove that JS vision was true, because people assume paul's is and it has similar problems-then i could see your belabored point here-but i'm not.

Link to post

Short answer?

Simply I believe that Paul's first vision account is a lot more congruent than contradictory than Joseph

Joseph Smith's contradictions are far more apparent IMO, essentially they contradict themselves in every area of the vision.

Wow. I've read the 4 accounts that he dictated, and I just read them again just now after reading what you wrote. In every instance, he states the following:

He didn't know the truth

He prayed to know

The father and Son appeared to Him.

The discrepencies are as follows:

The account of his age (when he says 14 years old and 15th year, that's the same thing) but in one he syas he was about 15, or in his 16th year (same thing)

The differences are as follows:

In each account, he explains different things that were told to him by the Son.

Now, the age thing is hardly enough to discredit his claim. I've made the mistake of getting my anniversary wrong, but I am actually married.

Here's an attempt to explain this with Logic:

Let's say the following happened: Spot went to the store. Spot bought a candy bar. Spot saw his friend Jane. Jane told spot that she was going to see a movie later that night.

This story could be told in a number of different ways such as

Spot went to the store and saw Jane. She went to Lord of the Rings that night.

or

Spot bought an Oh Henry and saw Jane at the store.

or

Spot spoke with Jane at the store. He bought a chocolate bar. Jane went to a movie that night.

In each instance, the story is a little different, but the differences do not make the facts wrong. In some cases, some of what happened is left out. In othe cases, more detail is given.

Unless I'm totally missing something here, it appears to me that the Joseph Smith accounts of the First Vision differ, but do not contradict, with the exception of his age.

At any rate, you said that "[the different accounts] contradict themselves in every area of the vision." I've not found this to be the case and find your conclusion to be way off. It is not difficult to believe that the Son told Jospeh ALL of the things listed in each of his 4 dictated accounts. The fact that he leaves some of the dialogue out and gives more detail in some accounts is hardly evidence that the entire account is false.

Link to post

Who changed the story? Was the story changed to impress a real king, or just in literature? And do we expect ancient works to conform to modern standards? Is it possible that Luke had two sources or traditions he was trying to conflate?

But go ahead and explain your theory if you want.

Way to minimize someone elses opinions while inflating your ego.

Link to post

Wow. I've read the 4 accounts that he dictated, and I just read them again just now after reading what you wrote. In every instance, he states the following:

He didn't know the truth

He prayed to know

The father and Son appeared to Him.

The discrepencies are as follows:

The account of his age (when he says 14 years old and 15th year, that's the same thing) but in one he syas he was about 15, or in his 16th year (same thing)

The differences are as follows:

In each account, he explains different things that were told to him by the Son.

Now, the age thing is hardly enough to discredit his claim. I've made the mistake of getting my anniversary wrong, but I am actually married.

Here's an attempt to explain this with Logic:

Let's say the following happened: Spot went to the store. Spot bought a candy bar. Spot saw his friend Jane. Jane told spot that she was going to see a movie later that night.

This story could be told in a number of different ways such as

Spot went to the store and saw Jane. She went to Lord of the Rings that night.

or

Spot bought an Oh Henry and saw Jane at the store.

or

Spot spoke with Jane at the store. He bought a chocolate bar. Jane went to a movie that night.

In each instance, the story is a little different, but the differences do not make the facts wrong. In some cases, some of what happened is left out. In othe cases, more detail is given.

Unless I'm totally missing something here, it appears to me that the Joseph Smith accounts of the First Vision differ, but do not contradict, with the exception of his age.

At any rate, you said that "[the different accounts] contradict themselves in every area of the vision." I've not found this to be the case and find your conclusion to be way off. It is not difficult to believe that the Son told Jospeh ALL of the things listed in each of his 4 dictated accounts. The fact that he leaves some of the dialogue out and gives more detail in some accounts is hardly evidence that the entire account is false.

I think the example is great. It reminds me of the reading I was doing on Zelph last night (curtesy of UD). Every account told by these men, even the same man had changes in them. Some added comments later to their journals on the same pages.

I really think this is a mute point that only the desperate anti will bring up to try and discredit Joseph's vision and character.

Its too bad really. They could have so much if they would just stop stoning the prophets and casting them out of their lives.

Link to post

So now Dan you are telling me that King Agrippa that Paul was halled in and tried before is "fictional literature"?

Once again I'll show you the changes that I see as significant.

1) In the first telling in Acts 9 only Paul falls to the ground... the other men "Stood Speachless"

2) In the second retelling still only Paul is on the ground and the men didn't understand the voice.

3) Pau is brought before King Agrippa, and the story gets so GRANDIOUS you nearly can't tell its the same story. He falls down the mountains melt, the people with him hit the floor so quick they eat dirt and thus cant speak.

Link to post

So now Dan you are telling me that King Agrippa that Paul was halled in and tried before is "fictional literature"?

Once again I'll show you the changes that I see as significant.

1) In the first telling in Acts 9 only Paul falls to the ground... the other men "Stood Speachless"

2) In the second retelling still only Paul is on the ground and the men didn't understand the voice.

3) Pau is brought before King Agrippa, and the story gets so GRANDIOUS you nearly can't tell its the same story. He falls down the mountains melt, the people with him hit the floor so quick they eat dirt and thus cant speak.

It has to be fiction if Dan is to save face. :P

Link to post
Assuming the Ohio resident got the story right, how does this prove JS's 1838 account is accurate?

"Accuracy" as you know is quite a different beastie than "Truth."

Reporter: You were involved' date=' is that true?

Witness: No, but it's accurate[/i']

What it is is evidence that the 1838 account is on critical issues consistent with tales being told in the '20s.

Why the 1832 unpublished account isn't expressly consistent to some degree is a curiousity, and may account for JSJr's evident dissatisfaction with it and why he laid the project aside for 6 years (oh, that the the fact that Missouri was becoming so very interesting . . . along with the financial embarrassments of Kirtland, etc.).

Link to post

I must not be explaining myself very well either-i realize that the reasons that a person believes something or doesn't- does NOT have any bearing on whether or not the belief is actually true-again, that's NOT THE POINT.

You are trying to make a pantsman's inconsistency the point, which is an attempt to deflect attention away from his criticism of JS and onto his personal beliefs. A person's beliefs (consistent or otherwise) have no bearing on the validity of their argument. If pantsman can't explain this NT inconsistency, then he has no right to criticize or reject JS based on an argument of inconsistency. It's subtle, but a very common fallacy among Mormon apologists.

I am not attacking anyone's claim that JS's first vision accounts are false. I want to see if such claims actually ARE made out of self interest, as many of them appear to me, or if i'm just not understanding the claims on the same levels as those making them.

For example-i used to believe that the catholic belief in praying to saints was very unbiblical and i coud not understand how they, having read the bible, could believe in it.

How can someone pray to a statue of a saint while believing that man should pray to no graven images?

So-i asked the question-and got a wonderful answer about how Catholics simply view praying to saints in the same way that i view asking someone here on earth to pray for me. I completely understood WHY they did it, and though i don't believe in doing it, it made perfect sense to me that they would see it as something appropriate to do.

That's what i'm hoping will happen here. I'm wanting to see if the reason that this seems so hypocritical to me is because i am not looking at the issue from their point of view....and that i'll be able to understand it and view it differently, with a little explaining.

If i was trying to prove that JS vision was true, because people assume paul's is and it has similar problems-then i could see your belabored point here-but i'm not.

I understand you think these two situations are the same, but they are not. As you explain above, you thought a believe was inconsistent with the Bible and wanted to know how they justified that belief on Biblical grounds. That's a legitimate question. But the question about Paul has a different context, which involves a logical fallacy. There's nothing fallacious about requesting someone to defend their interpretations and beliefs. But when the purpose is to deflect criticism of your's, that's a problem.

Link to post

He didn't know the truth

Not true for the 1832 account.

He prayed to know

Not true for the 1832 account.

The father and Son appeared to Him.

Not true for the 1832 account.

The discrepencies are as follows:

The account of his age (when he says 14 years old and 15th year, that's the same thing) but in one he syas he was about 15, or in his 16th year (same thing)

The 1832 dates the first vision to 1821.

The differences are as follows:

In each account, he explains different things that were told to him by the Son.

In 1832, there is not confusion about which church to join, no question about which church to join, and no commandment to join none of the churches. There is no prophetic call.

Now, the age thing is hardly enough to discredit his claim. I've made the mistake of getting my anniversary wrong, but I am actually married.

I wouldn't make a big thing out of the age discrepency either.

Here's an attempt to explain this with Logic:

Let's say the following happened: Spot went to the store. Spot bought a candy bar. Spot saw his friend Jane. Jane told spot that she was going to see a movie later that night.

This story could be told in a number of different ways such as

Spot went to the store and saw Jane. She went to Lord of the Rings that night.

or

Spot bought an Oh Henry and saw Jane at the store.

or

Spot spoke with Jane at the store. He bought a chocolate bar. Jane went to a movie that night.

In each instance, the story is a little different, but the differences do not make the facts wrong. In some cases, some of what happened is left out. In othe cases, more detail is given.

Unless I'm totally missing something here, it appears to me that the Joseph Smith accounts of the First Vision differ, but do not contradict, with the exception of his age.

You are missing some things.

At any rate, you said that "[the different accounts] contradict themselves in every area of the vision." I've not found this to be the case and find your conclusion to be way off. It is not difficult to believe that the Son told Jospeh ALL of the things listed in each of his 4 dictated accounts. The fact that he leaves some of the dialogue out and gives more detail in some accounts is hardly evidence that the entire account is false.

The claim that JS "leaves some of the dialogue out" is an assumption that the version of the vision written in 1838 always existed and is the most correct one, whereas it is standard historical practice to prefer the earliest version. In fact, I would argue that the 1832 account is the most accurate and that the 1838 account contains anachronisms.

Link to post

>Unless I'm totally missing something here, it appears to me that the Joseph Smith accounts of the First Vision differ, but do not contradict, with the exception of his age.

And whether he thought all churches were wrong when he went into the grove. In both cases, no big deal.

Link to post

How is that a problem?

I'm the one who is consistant I beleive Both stories... You're consitant too Dan... You beleive neither.

:P I hope that was a joke.

USU,

"Accuracy" as you know is quite a different beastie than "Truth."

And that's why I used it.

Reporter: You were involved, is that true?

Witness: No, but it's accurate

Exactly.

What it is is evidence that the 1838 account is on critical issues consistent with tales being told in the '20s.

No, it's not. Unless you have a different quote. How does seeing God "frequently" establish the accuracy of the 1838 account? If there were more than one appearance of God, than you have to allow other appearances than in 1820. If you believe there were other appearances, then there is nothing to say 1820 is even included in that description. Additionally, the claim to seeing God doesn't necessarily mean the Father of Jesus. In the BOM, Jesus is God as well as the Father. So, what the Ohio resident reported can't clarify that issue either. Now, the report (in this matter at least) is after all very singular and without support from any other document; hence, it is probably a mistake to place too much confidence in the accuracy of the statement. It is certainly less significant than the 1832 account.

Why the 1832 unpublished account isn't expressly consistent to some degree is a curiousity, and may account for JSJr's evident dissatisfaction with it and why he laid the project aside for 6 years (oh, that the the fact that Missouri was becoming so very interesting . . . along with the financial embarrassments of Kirtland, etc.).

You don't know why it wasn't completed and published. I have a good idea why it was begun. The project wasn't set aside for 6 years, because JS helped Cowdery with his 1834-35 history that was written to the Missouri church in letters to W W Phelps and published in the Messenger and Advocate, which skipped the first vision but gave an account of the appearances of Moroni and an angel bestowing baptismal authority (later identified as John the Baptist).

>Unless I'm totally missing something here, it appears to me that the Joseph Smith accounts of the First Vision differ, but do not contradict, with the exception of his age.

And whether he thought all churches were wrong when he went into the grove. In both cases, no big deal.

It may be "no big deal" to an apologist, but it is to a historian.

Link to post

Way to minimize someone elses opinions while inflating your ego.

That wasn't my intent. I was only telling Zahuska that what happens in Luke's book isn't necessarily what happened in real life. We do not know what sources Luke used, and we don't know how they relate to real events. So, one has to be careful accusing Paul with certain motives based on Luke's book. That's all.

Link to post

No Joke here.

You slipped a few posts back. :P

Then, I'm not following you. Are you implying that because you are a believer, you have a right to look past the inconsistencies in the first vision accounts and ignore chronological development?

Link to post

You are trying to make a pantsman's inconsistency the point, which is an attempt to deflect attention away from his criticism of JS and onto his personal beliefs. A person's beliefs (consistent or otherwise) have no bearing on the validity of their argument.

Pantsman isn't even in the coversation anymore, and hasn't been for a while. I'm not trying to make pantsman's inconsistency the point-i'm trying to see IF his beliefs are even inconsistent. They appear to me to be, but he hasn't spoken of them enough for me to know if they actually are.

I'm trying to find out if people who believe in paul but not JS's visions ARE being inconsistent or if it only appears that way to me.

I've already said that i know his beliefs have no bearing on the arguement of whether JS's vision is true-

If pantsman can't explain this NT inconsistency, then he has no right to criticize or reject JS based on an argument of inconsistency. It's subtle, but a very common fallacy among Mormon apologists.

I don't KNOW if pantsman (or others) can explain my perceived inconsistency in their beliefs because he has dropped out of the discussion (which is his right of course). That's the question that i would like to understand better though.

I understand you think these two situations are the same, but they are not. As you explain above, you thought a believe was inconsistent with the Bible and wanted to know how they justified that belief on Biblical grounds. That's a legitimate question. But the question about Paul has a different context, which involves a logical fallacy. There's nothing fallacious about requesting someone to defend their interpretations and beliefs. But when the purpose is to deflect criticism of your's, that's a problem.

This is not about deflecting criticism-it's about UNDERSTANDING why it is given in one situation but not in another.

It doesn't really matter though-because no one who has a testimony of Paul but not JS has joined in the discussion to help me understand how they separate the two.

Link to post

Then, I'm not following you. Are you implying that because you are a believer, you have a right to look past the inconsistencies in the first vision accounts and ignore chronological development?

No. Im implying that you implied earlier that you beleive in neither the BOM or the Bible story. To you they are both Fiction.

Second... I don't hold to a "Chronological development" theory.

What I want to know is why people have problems with a changing JS story but they don't have a problem with a changing Paul story. Thats is the intent of the thread after all.

Link to post

Not true for the 1832 account.

Not true for the 1832 account.

Not true for the 1832 account.

The 1832 dates the first vision to 1821.

In 1832, there is not confusion about which church to join, no question about which church to join, and no commandment to join none of the churches. There is no prophetic call.

I wouldn't make a big thing out of the age discrepency either.

You are missing some things.

The claim that JS "leaves some of the dialogue out" is an assumption that the version of the vision written in 1838 always existed and is the most correct one, whereas it is standard historical practice to prefer the earliest version. In fact, I would argue that the 1832 account is the most accurate and that the 1838 account contains anachronisms.

Sorry, new here and still getting used to how to quote etc.

Unless I'm reading a different 1832 Account, He didn't know the truth, he DID pray (for some reason, you say this isn't true although it's quite clear to me that he did). You are right in saying that this account does not say the Father and the Son. I was wrong on that. But he did say "The Lord" appeared to him. If God and Jesus did in fact appear to him, and he says in one account that the Lord appeared to him, this is not a problem for me. I can see how it is for others, but this does not bother me.

Link to post

Sorry, new here and still getting used to how to quote etc.

Unless I'm reading a different 1832 Account, He didn't know the truth, he DID pray (for some reason, you say this isn't true although it's quite clear to me that he did). You are right in saying that this account does not say the Father and the Son. I was wrong on that. But he did say "The Lord" appeared to him. If God and Jesus did in fact appear to him, and he says in one account that the Lord appeared to him, this is not a problem for me. I can see how it is for others, but this does not bother me.

Yeah. If Joe says to Sue: "I saw Jack and Steve at Burger King and we talked about Jill's party" and then Joe says to Diane: "I saw Jack at Burger King and we discussed Jill's party" are we to assume that Joe is contradicting himself by not mentioning Steve to Diane? Was Joe making a claim to Diane that Steve was not present. An omission of mentioning a fact is not a denial of the fact.

Link to post

Yeah. If Joe says to Sue: "I saw Jack and Steve at Burger King and we talked about Jill's party" and then Joe says to Diane: "I saw Jack at Burger King and we discussed Jill's party" are we to assume that Joe is contradicting himself by not mentioning Steve to Diane? Was Joe making a claim to Diane that Steve was not present. An omission of mentioning a fact is not a denial of the fact.

The point that this line of argument seems to avoid, rightly or wrongly, is the sheer magnitude of the lacuna that the appearance of the God of this Universe (or this Galaxy, depending upon your belief) failed to be mentioned in JS's initial account.

The incongruity of narrating an event of such incredible proportions inadequately (and, yes, I would hold that any account that failed to mention that the God of the Universe/Galaxy appeared is inadequate) seems a bit too much to be merely accidental.

Or, perhaps, this is evidence that Jesus Christ is considered to be the God of this Universe, without distinction, among LDS, or at least, to JS?

That's the center of the controversy to my mind. A manifestly different being than the Lord, Jesus Christ, appeared--viz., the God of this Universe/Galaxy appeared to JS, in addition to Jesus Christ--but JS neglected to mention such.

Best.

CKS

Link to post

Sorry, new here and still getting used to how to quote etc.

Unless I'm reading a different 1832 Account, He didn't know the truth, he DID pray (for some reason, you say this isn't true although it's quite clear to me that he did). You are right in saying that this account does not say the Father and the Son. I was wrong on that. But he did say "The Lord" appeared to him. If God and Jesus did in fact appear to him, and he says in one account that the Lord appeared to him, this is not a problem for me. I can see how it is for others, but this does not bother me.

Go back a ffew posts and check my list of differences between the 1832 and 1838 account. It sounds like you missed it. In 1832, JS had already decided from reading the Bible that all Chrstianity was apostate. So, he didn't pray for that reason. He prayed to mercy and forgiveness of sins.

Link to post

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...