Multiple attestation lacking for the core LDS events

[Tsjoeva]

Perhaps you should consider this post.

http://www.mormonapo...__p__1208790963

I don't see a distinction between Angels and Human messengers. Nor do I find anything in scripture to indicate that Angels are a separate species from humans.

I do angels

[Tsjoeva]

I think he has a PHD or something like that. He was invited here by Dan McClellan.

I don't agree with Rob's shake down of things, but I would say that we treat Rob with a little bit more respect. As he is our guest.

I don't nanny all that often but I thought this deserved a little clarification and attention.

[Tsjoeva]

So, you are ASSUMING that "describ(ing) His majasty" must be the primary objective in any theophany report?

And that, rather than the actual message delivered?

Also, it is interesting to know that you can read the thoughts and intentions of the dead. Does the exercise of this talent provide you with an ample income?

When the Lord appear in His Majesty, yes. No I can't read the thoughts Vance. Either you can. Either you can't say that it isn't true what I am writing. So you have it to compare with the OT and NT.

The talent that you got, is not to be a witness of the one who you like to be.

[Vance]

I do;) angels

But NOTHING in those verses express or imply that angels and humans are a different species.

The Hebrew word that is translated into angel is (transliterated) "mal'ak" meaning, according to Strong's

1) messenger, representative

a) messenger

b) angel

c) the theophanic angel

It is used in the Old Testament 214 times and is only translated "angel" 111 times for a whopping 52%.

It is translated "messenger" 98 times and "ambassadors" 4 times.

Among those 98 times is;

Mal. 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger (Angel), and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger (Angel) of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.

Which goes along with what I posted before.

Matt. 11:10 For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger (or Angel) before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger (or Angel) before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Luke 7:27 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger (or Angel) before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

So, the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament call John the Baptist an Angel.

I have good reason to believe that Angels and humans are the same species.

[Vance]

When the Lord appear in His Majesty, yes. No I can't read the thoughts Vance. Either you can. Either you can't say that it isn't true what I am writing. So you have it to compare with the OT and NT.

The talent that you got, is not to be a witness of the one who you like to be.

So you are basing your arguments upon ASSUMPTIONS and then you expect us to be persuaded by them?

[USU78]

Isn't "pundit" usually reserved for people with at least a mustard seed's measure of credibility?

It's sure not in my case.

My status is largely ceremonial.

[Calm]

If this has already been addressed, please ignore as I am not through catching up:

After the First Vision, no one knew about it for well over ten years. In fact, other than a couple of scribes, no one knew about it until the early 1840s, twenty years afterwards--despite hundreds of pages of revelations and teachings and sermons that Smith produced by that time.

For about the first seventy or more years of the history of the LDS Church, no one seems to have regarded the First Vision as the pivotal, foundational event that Mormons today regard it as being.

Since the Church was not only founded during this time period but well on its way in growth, how does the claim that the First Vision is the key event---as opposed to the Book of Mormon which could be said was the leading contributor to the founding and growth of the Church--of this Dispensation survive this?

Very little of Smith's teachings actually seem to derive from the First Vision. The official account informs us that Joseph learned at the time that all the churches were wrong. That is about the extent of the actual teaching that the account tells us Joseph derived from that encounter.

This would seem to support the idea that the First Vision was NOT the key event of this Dispensation and is "foundational" in the view of LDS in a different way than you are using it.

[cksalmon]

In other words, if this was possible for Joseph, it must be a possibility for any number of Biblical characters. How does Rob know that the synoptic authors were not, at one point, inspired authors, but later made up all that stuff about rising from the dead, ascending into Heaven, and taking the Apostles to the Mt. of Transfiguration (not to mention all the physics and chemistry defying miracles he is said to have performed)? How does he know that x number of Biblical prophets did not fall from grace?

I still don't see how this has much to do with the discussion. Bowman's point is not that Joseph Smith did become a fallen prophet, but rather that some LDS came to believe him to be such. And, so your question about the possibility that the synoptic authors may have similarly fallen from a prophetic position strikes me as irrelevant to the larger discussion.

It's a rabbit trail, in other words.

His point (as you quote him) was that the genuineness of BoM does not validate FV (I would have said "prove FV to be true," and that strikes me as obvious--yet the proven genuineness of BoM would, to my mind, provide at least some evidence for the trustworthiness of FV.)

(As an aside, I really don't know what group Bowman has in mind when he states that some reject FV but affirm BoM. Temple Lot was my first guess, but that's apparently not the case.)

cks

[Calm]

Again apologize if this has been addressed already, Firefox was not giving me access to several of the thread's pages so I've ended up reading everything out of order. Also I've used other people's posts rather than the original due to the reading out of order, I will try and edit in the original when I come across it...

The Bible never treats his encounter with the Lord in the burning bush as an object of faith.

Yet Mark, Luke and Acts seem to use this event as faith promoting and as evidence for the resurrection....

http://scriptures.ld...n/mark/12/26#26

http://scriptures.ld...n/luke/20/37#37

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/7/30,35#30

[Calm]

Technically not true. The new Dispenations would have had to begin in 1830 when the Church was officialy organized. This would be the beginning event of a new dispensation. Many witnessed that.

If the sign of a new Dispensation is the covenant that is established by it as Mr. Bowman defined it earlier, then this is a better opening event than the First Vision where the only covenant establish was a private one.

[Calm]

This question seems to have been missed by Mr. Bowman (understandable in all the posting). Since the issue of covenant seems to be crucial to his defining of the key events of dispensations, I think it important enough to ask again so I am repeating my post:

Rob Bowman, on 26 January 2010 - 11:50 AM, said:

Obviously, Jesus needed to be born and to live before he could die and rise from the dead. However, I refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus as the inaugural events of the Christian "dispensation" (this isn't a term I commonly use myself) in the sense that they inaugurate the "new covenant." Jesus referred to his death, commemorated in the Lord's Supper, as effecting the "new covenant" in his blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). By his death and resurrection, Jesus became the mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 7:15-22; 8:6; 9:15; 12:24).

You have explained why you think Christ's death is "inaugural", but not why this also applies to the First Vision since chronological order isn't relevant according to your standard. If you see them as comparable in this way, then I think there is at least one problem with using the First Vision as a similar event in that there was no "new covenant" effected in the First Vision with anyone except perhaps Joseph Smith. Even if the covenant was made with him, how does that make it on the same level of covenant with mankind that occurs with the Atonement?

I think comparison of events is a waste of time until one establishes not only the definition of what makes an event the "key event" of a dispensation, but also then demonstrates how a particular event actually fits that definition. This seems to me to have been treated superficially in the opening post but as indicated by my question above, not in depth where it seems to me the definition fails to apply to the First Vision and such discrepancy needs to be dealt with in some way.

Otherwise what happens is what is happening in this thread, one person suggests one event and starts the comparison process, another throws in another event and does his comparison but the first rejects it, then the second rejects that and back and forth. Settle what events can be used first by defining specifics and that problem will hopefully go away and two events can be used for comparison that both agree upon.

[cksalmon]

Hi calmoriah:

You wrote:

You have explained why you think Christ's death is "inaugural", but not why this also applies to the First Vision since chronological order isn't relevant according to your standard.

You raise a good question. I agree that there may be some unintentional equivocation surrounding the term "inaugural." There are a few issues in play.

It seems to me that one of the most pressing distinctions we can make is one between an absolute inaugural event (AIE) and a humanly-perceived inaugural event (PIE).

I don't have anything really deep in mind here. Think of it like this: an AIE, on my thinking, would a foundational event prior to which it is the case that no inaugural event has taken place. PIE, on the other hand, would be an event that is either coterminous with AIE or one that chronologically follows it. That is, AIE and PIE may be identical (and if they are, PIE is dependent upon AIE), but they may not be; and if they are not identical, PIE is always dependent upon AIE (assuming, for the sake of discussion, a veridical bearing of AIE on PIE).

(Now, it could be the case that PIE is not an inaugural event at all, but that possibility unnecessarily complicates my otherwise very simple taxonomy, and is not really at issue in this discussion since both "Mormons" and "Christians" agree that both "Christianity" and "Mormonism" own both an AIE and a PIE. So, we needn't detain ourselves with such possibilities at this point.)

So, keeping it simple, on this taxonomy, AIE is always more foundational as it is always either (1) coterminous with and foundational to PIE, or (2) non-coterminous with, prior to, and foundational to PIE. These propositions seem obvious to me, but I can argue them if they don't strike you as such.

So, to get the discussion moving, I'll refrain from overarguing my analysis:

It seems to me that Christianity's AIE, the event prior to which it is the case that no inaugural event at all has taken place, would be the incarnation. Its PIE would probably be the resurrection.

Mormonism's AIE, the event prior to which it is the case that no inaugural event at all has taken place, would be FV. Its PIE would probably be the restoration of the priesthood.

So, depending upon what is intended by "inaugural event," I find myself at odds with both Bowman and certain Latter-day Saints.

I'm not sure if that's a good sign or not.

(I'm obviously excluding from consideration JS's potential identification of either Mormonism's AIE or PIE, for simplicity's sake.)

Best.

cks

[Zakuska]

If the sign of a new Dispensation is the covenant that is established by it as Mr. Bowman defined it earlier, then this is a better opening event than the First Vision where the only covenant establish was a private one.

Very true AND the Multiple Singular events that lead up to it 1) First Vision 2) Moroni and the Plates 3) Others being lead by the spirit to help Joseph Smith Bring forth the BOM. Would closely parralell the many singlar events in the Book of Acts.

[Calm]

I hope Mr. Bowman has not decided that he's bored with this thread. He's posted at least 5 times in the 'who is a Christian' thread, yet no response here during the same time period.

I don't have a problem with posters posting in multiple threads---I certainly do, but if you've started a conversation it's polite (and kind to all of us who are enjoying the thread and don't want to see it end at this inconclusive place) to stay with it and I for one am very interested in hearing Mr. Bowman's point of view on the issues that have been raised, especially if he has a more detailed analysis of what makes a key event for a dispensation outside of someone labeling it a "key event" or "foundational" (because different people have different reasons for using those labels, I think it essential to address the reasons rather than the labels).

[Tsjoeva]

So you are basing your arguments upon ASSUMPTIONS and then you expect us to be persuaded by them?

No I am basing my arguments what I read. But again.. you can't say it isn't true.

[Ron Beron]

Three Levels of Religiously Significant Events

I think it helpful to classify religious events into three levels of importance:

Level-one: Events that are so important that if they happened, the religion associated with them must be true, and if they did not happen, the religion must be false.

Level-two: Events significant in that if they happened, they provide some supplemental evidence in support of the religion with which they are associated, but the religion might be true or false with or without these events.

Level-three: Events of religious significance for those personally involved but that have no evidential value (at least for anyone else) with respect to the truth or falsity of the religion with which they are associated.

While I enjoyed the scope and content of your rhetoric (I need to read it again) I do find myself in some disagreement with your assumptions made above. For example,

For level one to be true it requires that religions rise and fall on the miracles associated with it or the lack thereof. This is not necessarily true. If so, then many of the events described within the Old Testament, most of which are miraculous literary allegories, would speak against the validity of Judaism and the prophets associated with it. Additionally, while it has already been mentioned Paul's miraculous conversion while significant was entirely a personal theophony and not one of mass conversion. It, nonetheless, prompted a world wide church that overshadowed the less significant Judaizers.

Therefore, JS and his testimony stands as one of prophecy because it fulfills an obligation made of the same, i.e., a prophet leads souls back along the path to God and salvation, independent of any miracle or event.

[Zakuska]

While I enjoyed the scope and content of your rhetoric (I need to read it again) I do find myself in some disagreement with your assumptions made above. For example,

For level one to be true it requires that religions rise and fall on the miracles associated with it or the lack thereof. This is not necessarily true. If so, then many of the events described within the Old Testament, most of which are miraculous literary allegories, would speak against the validity of Judaism and the prophets associated with it. Additionally, while it has already been mentioned Paul's miraculous conversion while significant was entirely a personal theophony and not one of mass conversion. It, nonetheless, prompted a world wide church that overshadowed the less significant Judaizers.

Therefore, JS and his testimony stands as one of prophecy because it fulfills an obligation made of the same, i.e., a prophet leads souls back along the path to God and salvation, independent of any miracle or event.

He wil say that there were others with him witnessing him fall to the ground. Unlike Joseph Smith who was in the grove alone.

[USU78]

He wil say that there were others with him witnessing him fall to the ground.

Which is evidence of nothing other than Saul/Paul was a schlemiel.

[Rob Bowman]

Calmoriah,

As I have pointed out, there are many Mormons participating here and only a few non-Mormons. This thread has had 242 replies in 6 days -- that's 40 replies a day. I am not going to be able to respond to all or even most of these posts. Nor am I going to agree to stay away from other threads until I've answered everyone here and exhausted all of you!

My position is quite simple, yet the LDS responses here (that I have had time to read!) have for the most part danced all around it. I let the LDS Church define what it considers the importance of the First Vision. It is your own LDS Church presidents and other apostles who have stated, numerous times, that the First Vision is the most important event in the history of the world second only to the Resurrection. I think this is sufficient justification to make a point of the fact that we have multiple attestation for the Resurrection but not for the First Vision.

All of the talk about dispensations, what's "inaugural," what's "foundational" in the Bible, etc., etc., is a diversion if it misses the above point. This is the main reason I have not tried to answer everyone here -- most of the posts have failed to engage my argument.

I hope Mr. Bowman has not decided that he's bored with this thread. He's posted at least 5 times in the 'who is a Christian' thread, yet no response here during the same time period.

I don't have a problem with posters posting in multiple threads---I certainly do, but if you've started a conversation it's polite (and kind to all of us who are enjoying the thread and don't want to see it end at this inconclusive place) to stay with it and I for one am very interested in hearing Mr. Bowman's point of view on the issues that have been raised, especially if he has a more detailed analysis of what makes a key event for a dispensation outside of someone labeling it a "key event" or "foundational" (because different people have different reasons for using those labels, I think it essential to address the reasons rather than the labels).

[volgadon]

Why is that theophany important? Because we believe after roughly 2000 years, God called a prophet again. The theophany itself was unwitnessed, as were the similar ones recorded in the Bible, such as Moses at Horeb, or Isaiah, etc.

So to reiterate, the 1st V is important because it set the stage for what followed, which events were witnessed. The theophany itself followed the same patterns as biblical ones of that type, with no witnesses.

That the early church did not consider it the foundational event in their history is another part you seem to have mostly avoided. That is our current perspective, pure and simple.

Did the Israelites consider Horeb foundational, or was that Sinai?

[Calm]

Calmoriah,

As I have pointed out, there are many Mormons participating here and only a few non-Mormons. This thread has had 242 replies in 6 days -- that's 40 replies a day. I am not going to be able to respond to all or even most of these posts. Nor am I going to agree to stay away from other threads until I've answered everyone here and exhausted all of you!

I apologize for what came across as rather demanding. Apparently in my head but not in writing was the other option that if you were no longer interested enough in the subject to continue posting, the other option for politeness was to inform readers you were done with this thread. This is a pretty typical act of opening posters who have started substantive discussions but find they themselves are no longer interested enough to invest the energy and don't want others to read the opening post, respond in lengthy amounts only to be disappointed to find that the person they were responding to is no longer reading which knowledge would have prevented them from taking the time to respond in the first place.

I would not have made either request except for two conditions--the first and foremost is that you were the opening poster and therefore in most people's mind are the conversation driver. This does not mean you have to respond to each post (sometimes the posts that aren't responded to say as much about an argument as what is), but merely there is an expectation for you to kind of babysit a thread so that you will be reading people's comments...at least until you state otherwise.

The second reason is I found it astonishing that you would desert this thread with its novel (in my experience at least) approach for a rehash of the very, very common topic of "who is a Christian"...but that is obviously a matter of personal preference and I only mention this to explain my comments.

I let the LDS Church define what it considers the importance of the First Vision. It is your own LDS Church presidents and other apostles who have stated, numerous times, that the First Vision is the most important event in the history of the world second only to the Resurrection. I think this is sufficient justification to make a point of the fact that we have multiple attestation for the Resurrection but not for the First Vision.

All of the talk about dispensations, what's "inaugural," what's "foundational" in the Bible, etc., etc., is a diversion if it misses the above point. This is the main reason I have not tried to answer everyone here -- most of the posts have failed to engage my argument.

And I believe that others have made the point that when one says something is comparable in importance, that this is an indication that the comparison is to be made about its importance and not about something else entirely such as whether it was a private or public event.

An analogy---one person can claim that the most important event in their marriage was their wedding, the second could make a claim that the most important event in their marriage was the birth of their child in the back seat of the family car. That one is a public ceremony and one was a private event is really irrelevant to how the importance of the event was judged.

It would seem that you've taken what is basically an arbitrary descriptor (value/importance) and used it to create a category for events and then judged that category by other unrelated and possibly irrelevant variables. You have not in anyway that I've seen justified this comparison on any other basis than a superficial personal choice.

If people see your argument as based on a fallacy, it is not surprising that they do not engage your argument directly (why argue with an illogical argument) but the fallacy itself.

I realize that I may simply be speaking to the general reader and no longer Mr. Bowman himself, but that has never stopped me before.

[cdowis]

Calmoriah,

As I have pointed out, there are many Mormons participating here and only a few non-Mormons. This thread has had 242 replies in 6 days -- that's 40 replies a day. I am not going to be able to respond to all or even most of these posts. Nor am I going to agree to stay away from other threads until I've answered everyone here and exhausted all of you!

My position is quite simple, yet the LDS responses here (that I have had time to read!) have for the most part danced all around it. I let the LDS Church define what it considers the importance of the First Vision. It is your own LDS Church presidents and other apostles who have stated, numerous times, that the First Vision is the most important event in the history of the world second only to the Resurrection. I think this is sufficient justification to make a point of the fact that we have multiple attestation for the Resurrection but not for the First Vision.

We have over a dozen witnesses to various divine events regarding the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith, including such mundane event as the physical hefting of plates with the appearance of gold, and the visitation of resurrected beings such as John the Baptist placing his hands on those witnesses, and the visitation of the Saviour Himself in the Kirkland temple.

It is the duty for each of us to decide whether we accept their testimony of the prophetic mission of Joseph Smith, or to simply dismiss them. Finally, we have the promise of the Saviour on how we can ourselves receive that divine witness from the Holy Ghost on the Book of Mormon and whether these things are true.

Regardless of whether you are satisfied with our answers to your questions, each of us, you and I, will be held responsible for that decision.

Rob, I have a factual knowledge that these things are true, and I will be held responsible for that knowledge.