Scott Lloyd Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Respectfully, why does this not bother you? There was a time when I wished it did not bother me but it did. The first hand account in the 1835 version where HF and Jesus are not mentioned troubles me because:JS and OC are working on it together and there is no good reason not to make the doctrine of God and Jesus being two separate physical beings clear.So as a prophet restoring lost truths, I would expect it to be very clear. For me there are three choices:1. JS saw HF and JC but HF told JS to not reveal this doctrine just yet2. JS saw HF and JC but JS and OC used angels anyway knowing that everybody would understand what they meant. (yes, i did read this book on the use of the term angels throught religious history a while ago)3. JS did not see HF and JC but instead had a spiritual experience that evolved over time. (from my reading this made the most sense)It is entirely reasonable to come to conclusion #3.No more so than to come to conclusion #1. If you don't have to believe the church is true and work backward, then I would think this is where the evidence would lead someone.If you're not already predisposed to disbelieve Mormonism, then it is quite as easy to entertain the first, or even the second conclusion. Predisposition makes every bit as much difference for unbelievers as you claim it does for believers.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 1. JS saw HF and JC but HF told JS to not reveal this doctrine just yet2. JS saw HF and JC but JS and OC used angels anyway knowing that everybody would understand what they meant. (yes, i did read this book on the use of the term angels throught religious history a while ago)3. JS did not see HF and JC but instead had a spiritual experience that evolved over time. (from my reading this made the most sense)It is entirely reasonable to come to conclusion #3. If you don't have to believe the church is true and work backward, then I would think this is where the evidence would lead someone.There is only 3 choices? Only of these 3? Yeah I would leave too if that was all there really was.
Lloyd Dobler Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 No more so than to come to conclusion #1. If you're not already predisposed to disbelieve Mormonism, then it is quite as easy to entertain the first, or even the second conclusion. Predisposition makes every bit as much difference for unbelievers as you claim it does for believers.So you believe that God and Jesus appeared to JS but for reasons we can't understand now JS was told to not make the restored doctrine of God and Jesus being separate beings, physical etc. clear at this time in the history of the restoration? Am I close?
Lloyd Dobler Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 There is only 3 choices? Only of these 3? Yeah I would leave too if that was all there really was.Fair enough. How do you reconcile the fact that JS and OC do not mention HF and JC in the 1835 account? What was your choice?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 So you believe that God and Jesus appeared to JS but for reasons we can't understand now JS was told to not make the restored doctrine of God and Jesus being separate beings, physical etc. clear at this time in the history of the restoration? Am I close?I'm saying it's a fair possibility. I don't necessarily embrace it as fact, because I haven't been made privy to all of the interactions between Joseph and the Lord.
Vance Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 So you believe that God and Jesus appeared to JS but for reasons we can't understand now, JS was told to did not make the restored doctrine of God and Jesus being separate beings, physical etc. clear at this time in the history of the restoration? Am I close?There, I think that covers it.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Fair enough. How do you reconcile the fact that JS and OC do not mention HF and JC in the 1835 account? What was your choice?How about the likelihood of exposing a very sacred experience to contempt and ridicule?
Lloyd Dobler Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 I'm saying it's a fair possibility. I don't necessarily embrace it as fact, because I haven't been made privy to all of the interactions between Joseph and the Lord.So then to sum up this the 1835 omission you would say what? I am genuinly interested in your answer because you have no issue with it.
Lloyd Dobler Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 How about the likelihood of exposing a very sacred experience to contempt and ridicule?Which specifically means what?
Lloyd Dobler Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 There, I think that covers it.Is that what you personally believe regarding the 1835 omission?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 So then to sum up this the 1835 omission you would say what? I am genuinly interested in your answer because you have no issue with it.I have no issue with it because there are multiple plausible explanations, any or all of which could be true. I don't have to settle on any one of them not to be bothered by the omission.Given the plausible explanations, why do you still feel it's problematic?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Which specifically means what?Meaning what has already been expressed: that Joseph at the time, having already been exposed to contempt and ridicule for reporting that he had seen a vision, was motivated thereby to be circumspect and guarded about the specific details he chose to unfold.
Vance Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Is that what you personally believe regarding the 1835 omission?I don't really worry about it much.But it is obvious that your statement presumes that "the restored doctrine of God and Jesus being separate beings . . . " wasn't being taught yet.Just because it hadn't been recorded yet, doesn't mean it hadn't been taught yet.The average Christian believes God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct beings. It tends to be the "educated" (theologically speaking) that conflate the two. It may not have needed official declaration until after encountering the (theologically) educated for all I know.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Fair enough. How do you reconcile the fact that JS and OC do not mention HF and JC in the 1835 account? What was your choice?I think from personal experiance it is a combination of 2 things. The sacred nature of what is there and the full understand of the experiance.I think that I would have a hard time telling everyone about it and that I would more than likely have to think about the epxeriance to figure it all out. Everytime I would tell it it would more than likely be different as it depends on the audiance. We all look at the story and think that it is so simple. I really can't think that it is.
Lloyd Dobler Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 I have no issue with it because there are multiple plausible explanations, any or all of which could be true. I don't have to settle on any one of them not to be bothered by the omission.Given the plausible explanations, why do you still feel it's problematic?Well, I am not aware of any other explanations and you or someone pointed out that my list was a little lame. So what other plausible explanations are there?I think I see what you are saying. Certainly you don' feel boxed in a corner on this issue because of several viable explanations that you would say are credible. I think I understand that. If you have more explanations for this, let me know and then I will do a better job answering your question to me.
thews Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Acknowledging it as fact is one thing; being bothered by it is quite another. Nobody has yet given a persuasive reason why I should be. Only you decide what is "persuasive" by the data you're given. In this case, the fact that you don't care that Joseph Smith didn't claim to see Jesus Christ and God in 1835, but did in 1842, also given the story of the James G. Marsh obituary in the Elders Journal in 1838 which mirrors the "official" first vision is up to you. If the data isn't of interst to you, ok, but it doesn't make it invalid. A personal visitation from the Father and the Son is a sacred thing, about as sacred as it gets. Being guarded and circumspect about where, when, how and to whom one relates such a sublime experience is not surprising or troublesome to me in the least.Well alrighty then. I guess if I actually saw Jesus Christ and God the father... I'd prolly remember it, but that's just me.
Lloyd Dobler Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 I don't really worry about it much.But it is obvious that your statement presumes that "the restored doctrine of God and Jesus being separate beings . . . " wasn't being taught yet.Just because it hadn't been recorded yet, doesn't mean it hadn't been taught yet.The average Christian believes God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct beings. It tends to be the "educated" (theologically speaking) that conflate the two. It may not have needed official declaration until after encountering the (theologically) educated for all I know.I am not sure when the earliest date is that this doctrine was publicly taught by the prophet or the church. I was under the impression growing up in the church that infact JS revealing that God the Father and Jesus Christ were two separate beings was one of the important truths that was restored that was lost. It seems like you might be saying that people in the 1820s and 1830s for the most part already believed that God and Jesus were separate and distinct?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Well alrighty then. I guess if I actually saw Jesus Christ and God the father... I'd prolly remember it, but that's just me.You are assuming that he forgot about it. The evidence doesn't demand that.
thews Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Not just his opinion. The reasoned conclusion from the author of an article you yourself presented.According to board rules I can't post "anti" opinion, so the relevance here is acknowledging the dead Indian story. The conclusion of the article from BYU is hardly relevant to my argument, but rather the factual data I base my argument upon.
thews Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 You are assuming that he forgot about it. The evidence doesn't demand that.What does the actual evidence state Mola? What does the 1835 account written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey actually state about seeing God and Jesus Christ?
Lloyd Dobler Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 I think from personal experiance it is a combination of 2 things. The sacred nature of what is there and the full understand of the experiance.I think that I would have a hard time telling everyone about it and that I would more than likely have to think about the epxeriance to figure it all out. Everytime I would tell it it would more than likely be different as it depends on the audiance. We all look at the story and think that it is so simple. I really can't think that it is.I know. It does seem so simple to me. Like to me it is as simple as, see God the Father and Jesus Christ and write it down or tell your mom and dad about it and also teach it after you form the church. I mean both Gods talked to JS separately and distincly. And then he sits down with his right hand man and they are writing the actual history down. Why not make it a part of the missionary message. I would think they would shout it from the rooftops as one of the restored truths along with the BOM.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Well, I am not aware of any other explanations and you or someone pointed out that my list was a little lame. It wasn't me who said that. So what other plausible explanations are there?A number of reasonable ones have been suggested on this and a related thread.I think I see what you are saying. Certainly you don' feel boxed in a corner on this issue because of several viable explanations that you would say are credible.That's a pretty fair statement, yes. I think I understand that. If you have more explanations for this, let me know and then I will do a better job answering your question to me.You needn't answer it if you don't care to. Suffice it to say Joseph's accounts of the First Vision do not present the problem for Mormonism that critics would like them to.
Vance Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 What does the actual evidence state Mola? What does the 1835 account written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey actually state about seeing God and Jesus Christ?And what does it state about rice in China?Oh yeah, there was no rice in China because it wasn't mentioned. (a "thews logic" valid conclusion)
thews Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 I don't really worry about it much. :shocked:But it is obvious that your statement presumes that "the restored doctrine of God and Jesus being separate beings . . . " wasn't being taught yet. And this would be due to the fact it wasn't written by Joseph Smith in 1835... something you, you know, don't think about much. Just because it hadn't been recorded yet, doesn't mean it hadn't been taught yet. What kind of circular reasoning does it take to draw this logical conclusion? Let me break it down for you again... the history was recorded by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey claimed an angel appeared to Joseph Smith.. .not Jesus Christ and God. This is monotheism vs. henotheism and is not trivial to a critical thought process. The average Christian believes God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct beings. It tends to be the "educated" (theologically speaking) that conflate the two. It may not have needed official declaration until after encountering the (theologically) educated for all I know.Who are you to state what the "average Christian" believes? I believe Jesus IS God and they are one. The book of Mormon also echos this, but later changed when Joseph Smith changed his theology. Your complete ignorance of the lack of stating that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in 1835 is nothing but ignorance... how can you ignore this?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 Only you decide what is "persuasive" by the data you're given. In this case, the fact that you don't care that Joseph Smith didn't claim to see Jesus Christ and God in 1835, but did in 1842, also given the story of the James G. Marsh obituary in the Elders Journal in 1838 which mirrors the "official" first vision is up to you. If the data isn't of interst to you, ok, but it doesn't make it invalid. You have thus far failed to show anything contradictory. I remind you of my question, which neither you nor anyone else has deigned to answer so far:Does not mentioning something equate to contradicting it?Well alrighty then. I guess if I actually saw Jesus Christ and God the father... I'd prolly remember it, but that's just me.I didn't say Joseph forgot it. Nobody said that. Resort to mockery when you don't have a cogent response. Typical of the anti-Mormon method.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.