Joseph's apparent contradiction.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Data that led the scholar who authored this article to quite a different conclusion than you. I wonder why that is.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Eventually, that's precisely what happened. That it didn't happen right at first is understandable.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

What evidence indicates the reason he omitted it was that he forgot it?

[Lloyd Dobler]

It wasn't me who said that.

A number of reasonable ones have been suggested on this and a related thread.

That's a pretty fair statement, yes.

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.

I would change your statement (when applied to me and more than a few people I know where I live): Suffice it to say Joseph's accounts of the First Vision do not present the problem for Mormon apologists that Mormon critics would like them to. At my level. It did wind up presenting a problem. I know several people (personally, from childhood, in my stake, mormon friends) where this has presented a problem as well. There are logical datapoints (many of which thews has pointed out) that would lead someone to think it is more likely than not that JS actually did not at least see God and Jesus the way we read it and are taught it and memorize on our missions. This can create the old cog dis or an opening where doubt can creep in. The other issue we all have in common (the people i am referring to either don't believe and still go or just stopped going) is that this issue became one of a hundred other little issues that when we add em up, it means something and the small opening gets ripped wide open. It means to us that the church is not what it says it is or at least it is not what we were taught. Sure you could destroy this paragraph, all I am saying is that this is the way it goes down for many many saints.

I mean if this issue was one of only a few and we were aware of it and were taught this by at least the seminary level then maybe this particular issue does not play much of a role as a testimony destroyer. However, the 1835 discrepency just gets added to the ever growing pile of historical issues and eventually the pile gets too big and your like "thats it, i just can't believe it anymore". I am speaking for 7 people so, it is a samll sample, but we all pretty much went through the same thing in the same way.

I think somehow compartmentalizing this issue would have its advantages. Take each "issue" with church history and simple don't connect them together to form a pile of circumstantial evidence. Just individually reconcile something and then like Vance does (meaning this with respect) simply don't think about it much.

[thews]

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)

Note to the critical though process that may read the above... take it for what it's worth... a diversion that doesn't address the point made. The 1835 history by Joseph Smith didn't mention Jesus Christ and God. What do you think about that Vance?

[thews]

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?

Your point is moot and you're attempt to draw parallel lines away from the actual point is obvious. When someone writes down a historical record (Joseph Smith in this case), and fails to record something as profound as seeing Jesus Christ and God at the same time, but instead an angel, there doesn't need to be some "contradiction" to define why. The logical conclusion is that it didn't happen... a point you fail to acknowledge. Why not... Well, I guess that is strage isn't it? But instead, your Tom Foolery is painting a ruse that a contradiction is to blame on what isn't, rather than what is, and what is, is that the first written account is from an angel... period.

I didn't say Joseph forgot it. Nobody said that.

Then what is your point? What was written in 1835 by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey doesn't say anything about seeing God and Jesus Christ. Why? (insert answer here)

Resort to mockery when you don't have a cogent response. Typical of the anti-Mormon method.

Don't be so petty... you aren't making sense and now revert to pathetic wounded puppy retorts based on your non-answer to the data presented. If you had an answer you'd give it... you don't, and this is your only out which is to paint diversion. Again, what is your logical conclusion why Joseph Smith failed to record seeing Jesus Christ and God in the written history in 1835?

[Scott Lloyd]

Note to the critical though process that may read the above... take it for what it's worth... a diversion that doesn't address the point made. The 1835 history by Joseph Smith didn't mention Jesus Christ and God. What do you think about that Vance?

I'm not Vance, but I think I'll pose my straightforward question to you a third time:

Does not mentioning something equate to contradicting it?

[Scott Lloyd]

Your point is moot and you're attempt to draw parallel lines away from the actual point is obvious. When someone writes down a historical record (Joseph Smith in this case), and fails to record something as profound as seeing Jesus Christ and God at the same time, but instead an angel, there doesn't need to be some "contradiction" to define why. The logical conclusion is that it didn't happen... a point you fail to acknowledge. Why not... Well, I guess that is strage isn't it? But instead, your Tom Foolery is painting a ruse that a contradiction is to blame on what isn't, rather than what is, and what is, is that the first written account is from an angel... period.

Steadfastly refusing to answer a straightforward question. A refusal that, in itself, says a great deal.

Here's the question again; it won't go away:

Does not mentioning something equate to contradicting it?

Then what is your point? What was written in 1835 by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey doesn't say anything about seeing God and Jesus Christ. Why? (insert answer here)

A number of plausible explanations have already been suggested on this and a related thread, explanations that you haven't heard because you are placing your fingers in your ears and humming -- or continuing to repeat your mantra.

Don't be so petty... you aren't making sense and now revert to pathetic wounded puppy retorts based on your non-answer to the data presented. If you had an answer you'd give it... you don't, and this is your only out which is to paint diversion. Again, what is your logical conclusion why Joseph Smith failed to record seeing Jesus Christ and God in the written history in 1835?

Nobody here said anything remotely like Joseph Smith having seen the Father and the Son and then forgetting it. You pulled that out of thin air because you needed a strawman to joust at. It reflects a refusal to discuss the topic in good faith.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?

So tell me were in the evidence does it say or claim that JS forgot about seeing God the Father and Jesus? Were does this evidence demand that JS forgot it? That is what I want you to bring to the table. If you give me your opinion one more time then I guess we are done here.

[Lloyd Dobler]

I'm not Vance, but I think I'll pose my straightforward question to you a third time:

Does not mentioning something equate to contradicting it?

I have a really really really important meeting with Tom. Tom comes into my office, I talk to him for a specific 5 minute period, then he leaves. I am asked afterward to write down who was in my office for that exact same 5 minute period. I say Tom. A week later i am asked to write down who was in my office for that exact same 5 minute period. I say Larry, Darryl and his other brother Darryl. This is in and of itself a contradiction. Maybe contradiction is the wrong word here. Maybe it is lying or deceiving or maybe I just have some self serving reasons to say Tom instead of the other three guys. But I am contradicting, misleading, lying, or making stuff up or whatever you want to call it. I just am.

Now we can all speculate and come up with reasons as to why I at first said Tom and then a week later said Larry, Darryl and Darryl but the fact is I described the exact same experience with different people and a different number of people. You would have grounds to not only say I was contradicting myself but infact lying or at trying to deceive. Why? Because I failed to mention Larry, Darryl and Darryl. I did NOT say I met with Larry Darryl and Darryl because I DID say I met with Tom. Remember, I am describing the exact same 5 minute period.

Not a great example but I am attempting to answer your question.

[Hestia]

Are you delusional or unstable?

Let's leave out this kind of comment. Just stick to the valid points you've made.

[thews]

Steadfastly refusing to answer a straightforward question. A refusal that, in itself, says a great deal.

Here's the question again; it won't go away:

Does not mentioning something equate to contradicting it?

Yes, when the written history later changes into something else. The point of this OP is the contradiction between both versions. To your loaded question, not mentioning something and later changing the story is a contradiction, so the point isn't not mentioning something = contradiction, but rather something changing to something else = contradiction.

A number of plausible explanations have already been suggested on this and a related thread, explanations that you haven't heard because you are placing your fingers in your ears and humming -- or continuing to repeat your mantra.

Ok, enlighten me Scott. Why do you believe the stories conflict?

Nobody here said anything remotely like Joseph Smith having seen the Father and the Son and then forgetting it. You pulled that out of thin air because you needed a strawman to joust at. It reflects a refusal to discuss the topic in good faith.

Ok, I made an observation based on the Book of Mormon, which is monotheistic. When Joseph Smith later claimed seeing Jesus Christ and God as two distinct and separate personages (by name), then you could believe that later revelation (Book of Abraham?) was the reason, but it doesn't change the contradiction of the 1835 history. I don't wish to debate the implications in the bible regarding the father and son vs. Jesus being God (one and the same which is what I believe), but specifically the OP. What I don't get is why the point just can't be acknowledged as a contradiction, because it is, as the 1835 account specifically states Joseph Smith saw angels. Why this is true may have explanations, but it is a contradiction... do you agree?

[mapman]

Is this the 1835 account your talking about thews?

November 9, 1835

a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me head, and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; <and I saw many angels in this vision> I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed.

If so, I am very confused because it mentions both God and Jesus in addition to angels.

[yesucan2]

...When someone writes down a historical record (Joseph Smith in this case), and fails to record something as profound as seeing Jesus Christ and God at the same time, but instead an angel,

Can I get you to post the statement you are referring to?

[thews]

Is this the 1835 account your talking about thews?

If so, I am very confused because it mentions both God and Jesus in addition to angels.

Mentioning a "personage" appeared and testified that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is not claiming to see Jesus Christ and God the Father. This is further identified when he says, "When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season." Using "another vision of angels" identifies the first as a visitation of angels. If you're implying the words meant one thing but seem like another, then you'd have to also assume that what was taught since the beginning was Jesus Christ and God were two separate entities, and both Jesus Christ and God appeared to Joseph Smith from the start. This backwards logic is pounding the square peg into the round hole, as Maroni was initially a treasure guardian that guarded the golden plates (one theory). To believe your argument, the "personage" would have said, "I am Jesus Christ" and the other personage would have identified himself as God. To back up your argument, what evidence do you have that henotheism was taught from the beginning? Is the Book of Mormon monotheistic or henotheistic in your opinion?

a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and I saw many angels in this vision I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed (Joseph Smith Journal, 9 November 1835)

[thews]

Can I get you to post the statement you are referring to?

see #29.

[yesucan2]

see #29.

I'm referring to the statement by Joseph Smith that it was an angel and not Jesus Christ.

I'm not seeing it. Can you help me out.

[mapman]

Mentioning a "personage" appeared and testified that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is not claiming to see Jesus Christ and God the Father. This is further identified when he says, "When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season." Using "another vision of angels" identifies the first as a visitation of angels. If you're implying the words meant one thing but seem like another, then you'd have to also assume that what was taught since the beginning was Jesus Christ and God were two separate entities, and both Jesus Christ and God appeared to Joseph Smith from the start. This backwards logic is pounding the square peg into the round hole, as Maroni was initially a treasure guardian that guarded the golden plates (one theory). To believe your argument, the "personage" would have said, "I am Jesus Christ" and the other personage would have identified himself as God. To back up your argument, what evidence do you have that henotheism was taught from the beginning? Is the Book of Mormon monotheistic or henotheistic in your opinion?

Joseph Smith in his diary wrote about seeing two personages and then added in that in addition he saw many angels in this vision. The two personages are not the many angels.

[LeSellers]

what is, is that the first written account is from an angel... period.

Which doesn't mean it was not God, nor even that it was not two angels. You see a contradiction because you prefer a contradiction, not because one exists inherently.

Then what is your point? What was written in 1835 by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey doesn't say anything about seeing God and Jesus Christ. Why? (insert answer here)

Because the 1835 account would not have served its purpose had it explicitly named the Father and the Son as Joseph's Interlocutors.

Others here have noted that the recounting of a singular event does not always take exactly the same path in each such telling. It depends on the audience, the need the person telling the event feels he wants to convey, and just how comfortable he is with that audience. The audience in this case was a widely diverse amalgam of people. There were those who could not accept the detail of such knowledge, but who could have been, through the power of the Holy Ghost, convinced of its truth without it. Their biases and prejudices would have stood in their way. Later accounts, given when there were many who had already accepted the details of the event, had this weight of numbers to overcome the reluctance of the timid.

Anyone with an audience who does not adapt his narrative to the people he's addressing is a fool, and whatever you think of Joseph Smith, you should not count him a fool.

Lehi

[thews]

I'm referring to the statement by Joseph Smith that it was an angel and not Jesus Christ.

I'm not seeing it. Can you help me out.

Yes. By stating "a personage" instead of stating specifically who was speaking, "Jesus Christ then said to me..." The same would hold true for "another personage." Why the reference to "personage" in the first place? To take it one step further, to then say the "personage" told him that Jesus Christ was the son of God," assumes that both aren't present and the "personage" isn't speaking in the first person. This isn't semantics, and while one could argue there was a reason that "personage" was used instead of "Jesus" or "God" in the history, it still doesn't make sense as written.

As I have asked before, can anyone present evidence to show that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith earlier than 1826 and taught this theology? Why is this missing from the Book of Mormon? What are the 8 "first vision" accounts and how do they differ?

[AKS]

The line:

he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God;

Seems to imply that God is not the one addressing JS. It also implies that Jesus is not present.

[Spider-to-the-Fly]

What are the 8 "first vision" accounts and how do they differ?

Does anyone know if there has been prepared a table comparing each of the 8 versions in different columns?

[mapman]

Does anyone know if there has been prepared a table comparing each of the 8 versions in different columns?

Here.

[yesucan2]

Yes. By stating "a personage" instead of stating specifically who was speaking, "Jesus Christ then said to me..." The same would hold true for "another personage." Why the reference to "personage" in the first place? To take it one step further, to then say the "personage" told him that Jesus Christ was the son of God," assumes that both aren't present and the "personage" isn't speaking in the first person. This isn't semantics, and while one could argue there was a reason that "personage" was used instead of "Jesus" or "God" in the history, it still doesn't make sense as written.

As I have asked before, can anyone present evidence to show that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith earlier than 1826 and taught this theology? Why is this missing from the Book of Mormon? What are the 8 "first vision" accounts and how do they differ?

???

I just want to find the statement that you guys are talking about so I can read it.

[thews]

???

I just want to find the statement that you guys are talking about so I can read it.

I've written it twice now. What parts are you failing to understand as the issue? As I've stated, what do you believe the Book of Mormon teaches... one God, or multiple Gods? Why? It seems to me you're just asking the same question over and over again without addressing the data.