Joseph's apparent contradiction.

[Spider-to-the-Fly]

Here.

Thanks, mapman. That's exactly what I was hoping for. Spider.

[yesucan2]

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.

Can anyone here please post the text of or a link to the documented full statement of Joseph Smith's that you guys are talking about so I can read it? Anyone?

[why me]

It seems that Joseph was aware of the confusion that the first vision was causing which is why he wrote the official version. He also knew that there were versions out there when he wrote the official version.

The thing is: when a con is being orchestrated the conspirators usually sit down and write the story and study it and begin to repeat it verbatim. The beginning story of the con is very important for the con to succeed. In the case of JS, we see no such preparation. Now if it was all a con and sidney, oliver and JS were in on it, all three would be discussing the founding story and repeating it. But this is not so which would be quite amazing since sidney would have spent a lot of time writing this book for a possible fraud.

It seems to me that the book of mormon is what was important and not the first vision. Also, I could understand keeping a little shy about the experience when one considers the possible persecution that would follow especially if it gives birth to a book that directly challenges the then logic of christianity.

If JS was repeating the story verbatim which would probably be the case if it were a con, it would not impress the critics since it could also be claimed that the conartist never deviates from the story, which could make it a con. And then, the critic would give proof of how the memory fades except when a story is rehearsed.

So, what we have is a human experience being influenced by human memory. I see no preparation for a con. And oliver, who would have been in on it from the very beginning and I might say if he was in on it from the very beginning he did a pretty sloppy job of not rehearsing the story, returns to the fold and repeats his own testimony of the book of mormon and his experiences to his wife and child and friends on his deathbed.

[Pahoran]

You have not described that account at all,

In which case you acknowledge that, when you accused me thus:

you deny the 1835 published account

And:

In the case of this OP, the source being Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery isn't even good enough.

you were clearly conscious that that accusation was false.

Thank you for that admission.

as you intentionally continue to ignore the 1835 published history that states nothing about Joseph Smith seeing God and Jesus Christ.

Again, you must desist from these false assertions. I "intentionally ignore" nothing of the sort, and you are flat-out lying when you make that accusation. What I am doing is rejecting your faulty and disingenuous misinterpretation.

The

[Ariarates]

The thing is: when a con is being orchestrated the conspirators usually sit down and write the story and study it and begin to repeat it verbatim. The beginning story of the con is very important for the con to succeed. In the case of JS, we see no such preparation. Now if it was all a con and sidney, oliver and JS were in on it, all three would be discussing the founding story and repeating it. But this is not so which would be quite amazing since sidney would have spent a lot of time writing this book for a possible fraud.

Is this from the handbook for con men? I think winging it is not an unimportant skill for a con man.

It seems to me that the book of mormon is what was important and not the first vision.

Agree. If you read the early chapters of the D&C, the main source of Joseph's authority is his role in the coming forth of the BoM.

[yesucan2]

They love those dead horses. To keep them around this long, they must have them stuffed. Anyone want to talk about how Jesus and Satan are brothers?

[why me]

Is this from the handbook for con men? I think winging it is not an unimportant skill for a con man.

Not exactly. No con is begun with several people who are winging it. Winging it may come later but the beginning is different. For this con to succeed, it would need a careful plan by the participants and a well rehearsed story. And this is what was lacking.

Now JS was no genius at the coming forth of the book of mormon. He had an experience and he dealt with it as best as he could and related the story giving variations. We don't know all that was said between Joseph and the two personages. But one thing is clear, he did not consider it very important in the beginning. The book of mormon was his main work.

[Honorentheos]

Not exactly. No con is begun with several people who are winging it. Winging it may come later but the beginning is different. For this con to succeed, it would need a careful plan by the participants and a well rehearsed story. And this is what was lacking.

Now JS was no genius at the coming forth of the book of mormon. He had an experience and he dealt with it as best as he could and related the story giving variations. We don't know all that was said between Joseph and the two personages. But one thing is clear, he did not consider it very important in the beginning. The book of mormon was his main work.

It would be interesting to see if there are any contemporary accounts prior to the 1832 first vision account, that shows JS having a "christian experience". While interviewing the prophet in October 1830, Peter Bauder noted that JS did not describe any "christian experience", but rather only noted the visitation of the angel and the BoM. This was reported by Peter Bauder in, "The Kingdom and Gospel of Jesus Christ: Contrasted with That of Anti-Christ. A Brief Review of Some of the Most Interesting Circumstances, Which Have Transpired Since the Institution of the Gospel of Christ, from the Days of the Apostles", Canajoharie, New York: Printed by A. H. Calhoun, 1834.

A link to the relevant portion is here.

If this is the case, one has to wonder if the fabrication of the so-call "first vision" was a response to recognizing the broader christian community would expect such an experience of some type. Certainly a "remission of sins" would be expected. For JS to then take this to an extreme and give an account where Christ himself appeared to make this declaration may be the beginning of a con-style form of "winging it".

Anyway, the main question is if there are contemporary (written prior to 1832) accounts that show that JS did have a "christian experience" contrary to Peter Bauder's report.

[why me]

If this is the case, one has to wonder if the fabrication of the so-call "first vision" was a response to recognizing the broader christian community would expect such an experience of some type. Certainly a "remission of sins" would be expected. For JS to then take this to an extreme and give an account where Christ himself appeared to make this declaration may be the beginning of a con-style form of "winging it".

Anyway, the main question is if there are contemporary (written prior to 1832) accounts that show that JS did have a "christian experience" contrary to Peter Bauder's report.

I think that the angel story would be much more acceptable than a first vision accounting at that time. I also believe that he was a little shy in relating it. But we need to remember that for the early saints it did not matter. No one to my knowledge left the early lds church when JS published his first vision account for the first time. And so, there was something at work at that time and we have no idea just how Joseph addressed the issue when asked. But he seems to have done a good job. People were not stupid back then. They would have smelled a con if a con was hatched. And we are not just dealing with Joseph. But also with the 11 witnesses who saw something.

It seems that for the early saints the first vision did not play a major role in their lives even after the official version was written.

[USU78]

So . . . nobody wants to look at the 1832 version, with its obvious homage to Saul/Paul, both thematically and in language employed?

[Honorentheos]

I think that the angel story would be much more acceptable than a first vision accounting at that time.

I disagree. The 1832 account by JS is of a personal visit by Christ for the express purpose of declaring that Joseph's sins were forgiven.

"...therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in (the) attitude of calling upon the Lord (in the 16th year of my age) a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the (Lord) opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph (my son) thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy (way) walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life (behold) the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not (my) commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which (hath) been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud (clothed) in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could reioice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart."

As you must be aware, JS gives the reason for going in prayer as seeking forgiveness. In this account, he expressly states that he had already determined for himself that no church was the correct church by studying the bible.

This type of behaviour and accounts are important to this time in American history. The question of whether a true christian had living "experiences" or just knowledge was one that defined the Reform movement from which Sidney Rigdon came versus the traditional churches of Emma Hale and Lucy Mack Smith's background.

From an ensign article on the matter - "Did others in Joseph Smith

[USU78]

The question remains, did JS claim a "christian experience" prior to the 1832 account, or is this a later development that he came to realize was needed if the LDS church were to be a true "Restoration" religion? I have been looking for a bit and haven't found any yet. It's a new consideration to me, and I think not insignificant as it may become another matter where Sidney's influence may be seen on the origin myth development of the faith.

Sidney sure had his fingers in a lot of pies, if stories and speculation about his role are to be credited.

[LeSellers]

Sidney sure had his fingers in a lot of pies, if stories and speculation about his role are to be credited.

Without saying anything about his model humility and quiet resignation to the backwaters of the Restoration movement.

He died as near to being ignored as anyone ever known. He had a small following for a man who did all of those things and never seemed to mind his status.

Even if we consider his mental state, the years before the injury, he was always two-and-a-half steps behind Joseph Smith. But magnanimous he, there was never so much as a peep from his lips about how it was he who authored the entire thing.

Nor even the most insignificant evidence of his ever having met Joseph, much less his having done what so many claim on his behalf.

Lehi

[Honorentheos]

Again, the question is if there are accounts of JS describing a "remission of sins" or other "christian experience" at an earlier point as he described in the 1832 first vision account.

I grant it is speculation if such a late addition represents a change on JS's part based on Sidney's influence only. But it is significant in the context of American religion if it proves to be true. I'm sure you all have access to various sources and can look deeper. For now, my current web searches have turned up nothing that actually dates to that time that sheds more light on it.

[Pahoran]

On the subject of the so-called "Jupiter talisman," I previously wrote:

Call for references, please: what "eyewitness testimony" places the Jupiter Talisman in Joseph Smith's possession?

To which you responded:

Well, first of all you have to ignore the original speech by Dr. Reed Durham.

I'm sorry, how does this address the issue of hearsay? Is it your position that Durham was an eyewitness?

Or are you making a fallacious appeal to authority?

You also have to ignore that every other item in the collection belonged to Joseph Smith,

Really? Yesterday I washed the vegetables from our garden. There was spinach, cabbage, silver beet and a garden snail. Following your reasoning, the garden snail must have been a vegetable, because everything else was.

Except that it wasn't.

and continue to rely on an argument from silence that because it was not listed when he was killed it didn't belong to him. In doing so, you fail to acknowledge items like a necklace were not commonly recorded.

Call for references, please.

Note also that your only source of information claims that it was in Joseph's pocket, not worn around his neck at the time.

Here's some actual data:

Do you often misrepresent partisan propaganda as "actual data?"

Snip link to a propaganda site that includes temple content. I recommend you do the same.

Wrong... I reference data that is presented while you ingore what is presented and claim it's hearsay without any justification.

I "claim" that it's hearsay because it is.

You are aware, of course, that Charles Bidamon was not even born until long after Joseph Smith was dead? What is it that makes him an eyewitness for your purposes? The fact that he says what you want him to say?

In any event, please note that you have worked yourself into a lather of faux indignation merely because I pointed out that this, um, "evidence" is hearsay. Well sorry Thews, but it is exactly hearsay. Eighty-odd years after Joseph's death, a man who never met him makes a sales pitch to the effect that Emma Smith told him that Joseph told her that it some random bit of tin was his prized possession. He also avers that it was in Joseph's pocket at Carthage, despite the fact that it does not appear in the inventory of his possessions. Not one of Joseph's contemporaries mentions this scrap of tin in any context, least of all it being eau seau veddy veddy important to him.

Thus, there is no actual evidence that Joseph ever owned any such thing. There is precisely zero evidence about what, if anything, it might possibly have meant to him, but that doesn't stop you -- and utterly unqualified mind-readers such as the Tanners -- from building an entire structure of unsupported conjecture merely upon the fact that someone who never met him claimed that it was once his in order to make a sale.

And now that the "Jupiter Talisman" is disposed of, do you have anything substantive to say?

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

Again, the question is if there are accounts of JS describing a "remission of sins" or other "christian experience" at an earlier point as he described in the 1832 first vision account.

I grant it is speculation if such a late addition represents a change on JS's part based on Sidney's influence only. But it is significant in the context of American religion if it proves to be true.

I would be grateful for any actual evidence you might uncover.

I'm sure you all have access to various sources and can look deeper. For now, my current web searches have turned up nothing that actually dates to that time that sheds more light on it.

Don't you think that, should such evidence exist, that the antiMormon fruitcake train would already have put it up in neon?

[Ceeboo]

Don't you think that, should such evidence exist, that the antiMormon fruitcake train would already have put it up in neon?

Hi USU,

CFR that an anti-Mormon fruitcake train exists on this planet!

Thanks and peace,

Ceeboo

[selek]

Hi USU,

CFR that an anti-Mormon fruitcake train exists on this planet!

Thanks and peace,

Ceeboo

In answer to the CFR, I offer the following examples:

Utah Lighthouse Ministries

Mormon Discussion Board

The Ex-Mormon Boards

The Recovery From Mormonism boards

Walter Martin's ministries

In addition to the veritable smorgasbord of inarticulate and bitter vituperation offered above, I will also refer CeeBoo to the prime examples of unbalanced holiday confection who frequent this board in order to pursue agendas hostile to the Church.

It is simply amazing how many of them have flaky surfaces and yet can be as dense as flour, eggs, cherries, pineapple, plums, raisins, and apricots compressed into a brick-like loaf with a specific gravity akin to lead.

[USU78]

Hi USU,

CFR that an anti-Mormon fruitcake train exists on this planet!

Thanks and peace,

Ceeboo

Sheesh. Everybody knows they rent the Heber Creeper [sic] every other Thursday and make the run both up and down US Hwy 189, and that they have received a special dispensation from the owners to put up neon signs on the engine. AND that they serve fruitcake with marmalade and rose hips tea on Analytics' cheap Noritake service.

USU "Knows his narrow gauge trains . . . and his Japanese bone china" 78

[jerryp48]

I think CARM can help us out here.

With respect the differing accounts as to how many angels were at the tomb.

Specifically:

If there were two angels in the tomb, then there was at least one.

If one did most of the talking I don't have a problem with Joseph omitting from his original account the fact that there were two personages that appeared to him.

[Honorentheos]

Don't you think that, should such evidence exist, that the antiMormon fruitcake train would already have put it up in neon?

You are misreading the point, USU. The issue is that JS's 1832 first vision account may represent the first declaration by the prophet of what was known in the Reformation Movement as a "christian experience", describing his assurance of having his sins forgiven. That he upped the ante past the normal experience as described in the Ensign article I quoted is an interesting point as well, given the previous discussion on the nature of con-men and "winging it".

If there were evidence that JS actual was declaring a "christian experience" from an early date, then no harm and it lends a few points to JS's credibility as a reformer. If not, then it seems more likely that JS made it up only after he came to realize the value of and need for such an experience to be taken seriously, especially among Sidney's people in the Ohio.

If there is such a statement, it wouldn't be the "anti" fruitcakes who should be looking for it. It should be the real deal, soaked in rum apologists who should be looking to dig it up. I'm pointing this out so you can start doing some work. Because right now, the balls in your court.

[USU78]

You are misreading the point, USU. The issue is that JS's 1832 first vision account may represent the first declaration by the prophet of what was known in the Reformation Movement as a "christian experience", describing his assurance of having his sins forgiven. That he upped the ante past the normal experience as described in the Ensign article I quoted is an interesting point as well, given the previous discussion on the nature of con-men and "winging it".

If there were evidence that JS actual was declaring a "christian experience" from an early date, then no harm and it lends a few points to JS's credibility as a reformer. If not, then it seems more likely that JS made it up only after he came to realize the value of and need for such an experience to be taken seriously, especially among Sidney's people in the Ohio.

If there is such a statement, it wouldn't be the "anti" fruitcakes who should be looking for it. It should be the real deal, soaked in rum apologists who should be looking to dig it up. I'm pointing this out so you can start doing some work. Because right now, the balls in your court.

You brought up Rigdon. You suggested the 1832 attempt to convey the experience was done under Rigdon's advice/influence.

So . . . take us from the world of speculation into the real one, Honore.

Demonstrate Rigdon's Svengaliistic manipulations of JSJr.

Surely it won't be too hard.

[Honorentheos]

You brought up Rigdon. You suggested the 1832 attempt to convey the experience was done under Rigdon's advice/influence.

So . . . take us from the world of speculation into the real one, Honore.

Demonstrate Rigdon's Svengaliistic manipulations of JSJr.

Surely it won't be too hard.

That isn't necessary. If the 1832 account IS the first description of JS having a reformation style "christian experience" it speaks volumes by itself about the reason that JS saw fit to begin crafting the first vision account and then evolve it over time as needed.

My evidence IS the 1832 first vision account accompanied by the 1830 interview where it was stated that JS did not describe any "christian experience", for which the first vision account would have qualified. Instead, JS seems to have focused on the angel Moroni visits and the BoM. Given that JS trusted Peter Bauder enough to show him the Inspired Bible Translation work (and Peter points out that it was not widely circulated at that time) it seems very, very odd JS should neglect to provide the first vision account as part of the history and narrative presented. This is exaclty the audience and time when even the 1832 version would have been appropriate to share.

Look, USU, I'm trying to play fair here by pointing out an issue I see and giving you and yours a chance to look for appropriate sources that would demonstrate that PB's statement was incorrect. I haven't found one today so far through looking around on the various PRO-LDS sources I tend to read. I find that interesting, but don't think that means they may not be out there. I'm really just opening this up for exploration right now.

[USU78]

[i ]t seems very, very odd JS should neglect to provide the first vision account as part of the history and narrative presented.

Why?

Why should JSJr choose to share such an experience with him?

Just what insights into JSJr's character and modus vivendi have you divined from studying his life and writings that you would think he would choose to share at that moment with that particular individual?

USU "Who knows of a couple of folks who claimed special insider status upon casual meetings with JSJr" 78

[Honorentheos]

Why?

Why should JSJr choose to share such an experience with him?

Just what insights into JSJr's character and modus vivendi have you divined from studying his life and writings that you would think he would choose to share at that moment with that particular individual?

USU "Who knows of a couple of folks who claimed special insider status upon casual meetings with JSJr" 78

Doesn't matter to the task you have before you, USU. What does matter is if it can be shown that JS did have a christian experience prior to the first vision account. I would suggest that it would be better to be able to show it proceeded the baptism of Sidney Rigdon as well.