Joseph's apparent contradiction.

[Tango]

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.

Joseph Smith was so called visited by God and Jesus Christ and acording to YOU, it was considered NOT VERY IMPORTANT? Good one, just that Joseph Smith himself deemed this so called non-essential event as LIFE CHANGING.

Why Me, I find your comments amazingly remedial.

[why me]

Joseph Smith was so called visited by God and Jesus Christ and acording to YOU, it was considered NOT VERY IMPORTANT? Good one, just that Joseph Smith himself deemed this so called non-essential event as LIFE CHANGING.

Why Me, I find your comments amazingly remedial.

In the whole scheme of things it wasn't. He didn't spend too much time dwelling on it in front of people nor was he spending too much time speaking about it or writing about it. But the the coming forth of the book of mormon was of primary importance and it was the reason for the first vision.

TV preachers today, would be mentioning it in every sentence if they had the experience or claimed to have the experience. They would be milking it for all it was worth. But not JS. That was my point. I don't see my comment remedial at all.

[why me]

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.

What is a christian experience? I don't get it. Catholics have been visited by the virgin mary, would this be considered a christian experience by your definition? Please explain a christian experience.

[why me]

Joseph Smith was so called visited by God and Jesus Christ and acording to YOU, it was considered NOT VERY IMPORTANT? Good one, just that Joseph Smith himself deemed this so called non-essential event as LIFE CHANGING.

Why Me, I find your comments amazingly remedial.

And I think that we need to remember that much happened after that experience of the first vision. He was visited by an angel and led to the book of mormon. Plus, there were visitations by heavenly personages for the priesthood restoration. But I don't see JS milking these visitations for all they are worth to further a con. I would think a conartist would be milking it for all that it is worth. So, all these things that happened to him were certainly life changing but...downplayed by him.

[Stargazer]

Nice long thread and at the end of it all I can say is that those who start from the principle that they disbelieve in JS's claims cannot allow that the reasonable proposition that the existence of variant versions of a story do not necessarily mean that the story is false.

This seems pretty typical of inflexible thinking, in my personal opinion.

There was a particular spiritual experience I had when I was on my mission, which actually occurred over two or three nights and then on a particular day. I have told the full story with all details to only one person, my wife. I have told certain parts of the story to two of my children, and perhaps two or three other persons have gotten somewhat differently edited versions of it. You can throw my entire experience out with the bathwater if you want, simply because the story has varied in the telling, but this will not change the fact that it happened, and that it left me with a deep and profound certainty that God knows who I am, is deeply interested in my life and my works, and intends to deal as honestly and as fully with me as I am honest with Him, and to the extent that I am ready to deal with Him.

Joseph's story of his experience in the First Vision has actually been greatly enhanced in my mind as a result of this "slugging" match -- I had never really dealt with as much "stuff" in relation to the FV as I have here in this thread, and it thus acquires an even greater sense of reality in my mind. This happened. The very human way of reporting it differently actually increases its credibility.

Thanks to all, even Thews and his friends.

[why me]

The very human way of reporting it differently actually increases its credibility.

Thanks to all, even Thews and his friends.

And this is the point. By different ways of reporting it, we can see that this was not at all rehearsed as it would be if it were a con. He also knew that he reported it differently and that some may be getting a little confused...thus, the official version. I see JS as being a little shy of reporting it and this would be the case if one is surprised by a vision one gets from such two personages and is in awe.

Critics need to find a different way of finding a fraud than in the differing first vision accounts.

[Pahoran]

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.

Will this do?

Doctrine and Covenants 20:

5 After it was truly manifested unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world;

6 But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness;

Note that verse 6 clearly denotes Moroni's visit, as the subsequent verses show. And it happens after an earlier experience, obliquely and discreetly referred to in verse 5.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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.

Then let me help you out with a better example.

Bill leads Tom into your office. Bill introduces Tom and then says nothing else in the course of the meeting; you ask one question and Tom does all of the talking after that. Later on when you write down a diary entry about the meeting, you say, "Met with Tom and he told me X, Y and Z." Still later, you write down a more detailed account of the meeting. Some smart-aleck who was not there and who has discussed the events with neither yourself, Tom nor Bill, accuses you of lying because your later account "contradicts" your first one.

Now, what answer do you give to your accuser?

BTW, is it just me, or don't you think Thews should follow up on having "destroyed" me so effectively? Why do you suppose he has left you twisting in the wind?

Regards,

Pahoran

[USU78]

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.

How did it become my job to do the work of proving your speculation for you?

Did I offer to do so?

You're confusing me . . . oh yeah, and what Pahoran said.

[USU78]

Will this do?

Doctrine and Covenants 20:

5 After it was truly manifested unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world;

6 But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness;

Note that verse 6 clearly denotes Moroni's visit, as the subsequent verses show. And it happens after an earlier experience, obliquely and discreetly referred to in verse 5.

Regards,

Pahoran

D&C Section 20 was read into the record at the first general conference in June 1830, and, thus, must have been received and recorded prior to that date. Here's a summary discussion of the section.

[Honorentheos]

Will this do?

Doctrine and Covenants 20:

5 After it was truly manifested unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world;

6 But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness;

Note that verse 6 clearly denotes Moroni's visit, as the subsequent verses show. And it happens after an earlier experience, obliquely and discreetly referred to in verse 5.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thanks Pahoran. This seems to fit the description. Of course I wish it were a more clear piece than section 20, which is convoluted in it's origins (Oliver Cowdery wrote the first draft in 1829 and it went through some editing here and there as you know) but the dates match and meet the criteria.

Much obliged.

[Honorentheos]

How did it become my job to do the work of proving your speculation for you?

You know, I actually do appreciate Pahoran providing that link. Why? Because my speculation wasn't being proved by this research but rather it refuted, to some extent, that particular line of questioning. I wish it were a more clear-cut source, but even if Oliver wrote that particular piece it shows a level of recognition within the faith in general.

It would still be helpful if someone were to identify a piece that was certainly penned or dictated by JS, but it's a minor detail for now.

[thews]

BTW, is it just me, or don't you think Thews should follow up on having "destroyed" me so effectively? Why do you suppose he has left you twisting in the wind?

Regards,

Pahoran

I tire of your same ploy Pahoran. I present data, you ingnore it, claim you're somehow insulted and blather on for pages creating the same tired drama without addressing the points by discounting facts that you choose to ignore. If I have time this afternoon I'll once again answer the same questions.

[thews]

And this is the point. By different ways of reporting it, we can see that this was not at all rehearsed as it would be if it were a con.

You know why me, you continue to present how things would be if it was a "con". How do you know? Your backward logic ignores what was not stated, and if I saw Jesus Christ and God, and then went on to write the history of the church, I think I'd remember that part.

He also knew that he reported it differently and that some may be getting a little confused...thus, the official version.

That simple huh? "Got a little confused..." And this is supposed to make sense? Wouldn't you think that the need to chang simply "God" to the "Son of God" in later revisions to the most correct book ever written backs up the angel "first vision" account?

I see JS as being a little shy of reporting it and this would be the case if one is surprised by a vision one gets from such two personages and is in awe.

So now shyness is a factor. Let me ask you this... if you saw God and Jesus Christ and they told you to spead the new word, would you be "shy" about it?

Critics need to find a different way of finding a fraud than in the differing first vision accounts.

And apologists eed to acknowledge the 1835 written account which matches the first revision of the Book of Mormon. The "official" first vision matches the current revision to the Book of Mormon. How can you ignore a written account by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey and claim it's invalid?

[Deborah]

So now shyness is a factor. Let me ask you this... if you saw God and Jesus Christ and they told you to spead the new word, would you be "shy" about it?

You do understand that God has told various prophets and his apostles at times to keep things to themselves for awhile? A perfect example is at the Mount of Transfiguration where we read in Matthew 17:9 "And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead." Of course thews would go shout it to everyone, regardless of the Lord's admonition, that he, thews, had wee a vision. The vision Joseph received was in answer to his prayers. He was not yet ready to go out to the world and teach. he still had a lot of growing to do as well as getting the BOM.

I find the arguments about the First Vision accounts to be childish and truly grasping at straws. Valid arguments have been presented as to why one doesn't always tell the same details to all people at all times. To do so presents a rehearsed response, not a sincere telling.

Even in investigating a crime detectives are careful to keep the witnesses separated as they don't want them comparing stories. They question a rehearsed response where all the details at every telling are exactly the same. I don't understand why this principle is so hard for some to understand.

[why me]

So now shyness is a factor. Let me ask you this... if you saw God and Jesus Christ and they told you to spead the new word, would you be "shy" about it?

Yes, I would be. Plus, I would be afraid that men in white coats would take me away for awhile and put me under observation. Have you ever seen the movie Oh,God! with George Burns and John Denver? It is a 1977 classic and can be seen on youtube. Poor john got a lot of flak when he publically made it known that he saw and heard god, until george burns (god) came to the rescue.

So...I may be a little shy until I disgested what happened to me.

[thews]

You do understand that God has told various prophets and his apostles at times to keep things to themselves for awhile? A perfect example is at the Mount of Transfiguration where we read in Matthew 17:9 "And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead." Of course thews would go shout it to everyone, regardless of the Lord's admonition, that he, thews, had wee a vision. The vision Joseph received was in answer to his prayers. He was not yet ready to go out to the world and teach. he still had a lot of growing to do as well as getting the BOM.

I don't think you understand. As you use what you believe are "valid" parallel arguments to neagte the contradiction, what you fail to acknowledge is the doctrine changed to align with the story change.

I find the arguments about the First Vision accounts to be childish and truly grasping at straws. Valid arguments have been presented as to why one doesn't always tell the same details to all people at all times. To do so presents a rehearsed response, not a sincere telling.

Grasping at straws? Joseph Smith changed the year of the first vision story from 16, to 15 and then to 14. What you consider "childish" is a documented paper trail that evolved. The Book of Mormon was already published and so there was no need to withhold the information of the story. As Joseph Smith's theology evolved from monotheism to henotheism, the fist vision changed with it. In my opinion, it really doesn't matter to you that it changed, or evolved, as cognitive dissonance is a learned process. If you can shelve things to where parallel arguments negate obvious facts, it's no wonder you consider them all "childish" and things always seem to be what they aren't. You

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I tire of your same ploy Pahoran. I present data, you ingnore it, claim you're somehow insulted and blather on for pages creating the same tired drama without addressing the points by discounting facts that you choose to ignore. If I have time this afternoon I'll once again answer the same questions.

Hearsay is not data, let alone factual. I am sick of your ploy thews.

BTW you are the one that has utterlly failed to address the issues that you are presenting hearsay reports for the treasure gardian.

[thews]

Hearsay is not data, let alone factual. I am sick of your ploy thews.

BTW you are the one that has utterlly failed to address the issues that you are presenting hearsay reports for the treasure gardian.

Ok Mola. If I have multiple accounts from the early 1800's before Joseph Smith wrote the book of Mormon, just exactly what do you consider "hearsay" if witness testimony from the trial of Joseph Smith for glass-looking is considered "hearsay"? Things we know (facts):

1) Joseph Smith was a money-digger (glass-looker) and was paid $14 for his services to "see" treasure and treasure guardians through his seer stone.

2) Thompson was a friend of Joseph Smith and his testimony was exactly what one would expect from a money-digger who believed in treasure guardians.

3) There are multiple accounts that collaborate the testimony of the dead Indian treasure guardian, which again is exactly what you'd expect.

What actual data do you have to negate what's already been presented?

More actual data for your consideration on deciding what is or isn't hearsay regarding what a money-digger would say about a treasure guardian:

"His appearance at this time, was that of a careless young man - not very well educated, and very saucy and insolent to his father

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ok Mola. If I have multiple accounts from the early 1800's before Joseph Smith wrote the book of Mormon, just exactly what do you consider "hearsay" if witness testimony from the trial of Joseph Smith for glass-looking is considered "hearsay"? Things we know (facts):

1) Joseph Smith was a money-digger (glass-looker) and was paid $14 for his services to "see" treasure and treasure guardians through his seer stone.

2) Thompson was a friend of Joseph Smith and his testimony was exactly what one would expect from a money-digger who believed in treasure guardians.

3) There are multiple accounts that collaborate the testimony of the dead Indian treasure guardian, which again is exactly what you'd expect.

What actual data do you have to negate what's already been presented?

More actual data for your consideration on deciding what is or isn't hearsay regarding what a money-digger would say about a treasure guardian:

Yawn/ I would like at the very least a first hand account. Not a 2nd hand hearsay account. I tire of your games.

If you can't produce it we are done.

The fact that these are hersay reports from a rumor mill. How is that for actual datat I have that negates your claim.

If I claim that I heard that your friends claimed that you beat your wife, is that sufficent evidence that you actually beat your wife? Why or why not is it not sufficent evidence?

Assuming you have a wife. If you don't have a wife then replace wife with best friend.

Is what Pahoran claimed in post 21 and 23 factual?

Here are the relveant portions.

In support of my opinion, I point to the fact that this detail appears in only one of the two second-hand (i.e. hearsay) accounts of what someone at the trial heard Thompson report that he heard Joseph say.

And

Not quite.

One person reported, years later, that Thompson said something to that effect. Another person who also heard Thompson's testimony, reported it differently. Thus, the question of what Thompson actually said is not settled, and it is not honest to pretend that it is.

Were is your first hand or primary source that JS claimed he saw a treasure gardian? All you ahve presented is an account of some one claiming years after that Thompson claimed that JS said it.

Not very good evidence.

[LeSellers]

Wouldn't you think that the need to chang simply "God" to the "Son of God" in later revisions to the most correct book ever written backs up the angel "first vision" account?

No, I would not, at least in the way you (mis)apply this "quotation" from Joseph Smith.

There are three things wherein you make serious mistakes in this single sentence.

First, the book to which Joseph refers in this citation is not the 1830 edition, but the one from 1840, which already included this change. So, in this case, as in most (if not all) of the others, is included in the "most correct book".

Second, Joseph did not say it was "the most correct book ever written". He said, it "is the most correct book on the earth". Given his use of the referent tense (told was) we must assume that he meant it was the most correct book on the earth at that time. We should not forget, either, that "most correct" is a comparative (superlative, actually, but in comparison to other things), and that is does not mean "perfect", as you imply in you distortion of the Prophet's words and meaning.

Third, context, context, context: Joseph did not mean that the Book of Mormon was the most correct book in any but one sense. The full quotation is:

Sunday, 28 [November 1841].

[LeSellers]

Let me ask you this... if you saw God and Jesus Christ and they told you to spead the new word, would you be "shy" about it?

Why should this be an issue?

It isn't to millions of Christians and other millions of Jews all of whom respect Moses as a prophet. The same Moses who, after seeing God (in a very similar event), was not only shy, but tried to back out of the calling by appealing to his "slowness of speech" (which needs no work at all to understand as "shy").

In fact, there have been many prophets who wanted to avoid the calling. Jonah was afraid, Isaiah had unclean lips, and so on. Shyness or other weakness doesn't seem to be a deterrent when the Lord decides to call someone.

Moreover, Joseph was only 14 when he saw the Father and the Son. While he was a man in the eyes of his neighborhood, he still would have lacked the credibility of having reached his majority. As other here have said, Joseph was not a strong writer (he didn't do it on his own, every day), so we have no reason to expect that he'd have recorded this in his (non-existent) journal. Even in 1830, he was still only 24. The fact that there were any "versions" of his experience in the grove at that time is something approaching the miraculous. He was not, even at th at point, comfortable in his prophetic shoes, and he was somewhat close with those sacred things with which he had been entrusted. He learned a powerful lesson with the 116 lost manuscript pages, and I have no doubt he was not ready to disclose all he knew to anyone who happened by. He'd already had at least one such encounter with a minister who railed against him for sharing what we must assume was the least part of the encounter. The Book of Mormon was an artifact. People could pick it up and read it, they could (and did) judge it (many, then as now, without reading it). But his account of the events of 26 March 1820 were fragile.

The sacred is not to be strewn about like poultry feed, especially if the one strawing it has a fear of chickens.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

If you want to use Moses as an analogy, let's do it right.

• Moses did not go back to Egypt and spend a few years living as an Egyptian after God called him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.
• Moses did not wait until years after the Exodus to make public the fact that God had personally called him to lead the Israelites.
• Moses did not claim that everyone persecuted him because of his story of the burning bush, even though no one seems to have known about it.
• Moses did not claim at first that he asked God to free the Israelites and later change his story to claim that it never occurred to him that God might free the Israelites.
• Moses did not start out saying only that the angel Michael appeared to him, then years later get up the courage to say that he also saw God.
• Moses did not have apologists making excuses for him generations later on the basis of a weakness he clearly did not have. (Joseph Smith was many things, but shyness or timidity was not one of them.)

Why should this be an issue?

It isn't to millions of Christians and other millions of Jews all of whom respect Moses as a prophet. The same Moses who, after seeing God (in a very similar event), was not only shy, but tried to back out of the calling by appealing to his "slowness of speech" (which needs no work at all to understand as "shy").

In fact, there have been many prophets who wanted to avoid the calling. Jonah was afraid, Isaiah had unclean lips, and so on. Shyness or other weakness doesn't seem to be a deterrent when the Lord decides to call someone.

Moreover, Joseph was only 14 when he saw the Father and the Son. While he was a man in the eyes of his neighborhood, he still would have lacked the credibility of having reached his majority. As other here have said, Joseph was not a strong writer (he didn't do it on his own, every day), so we have no reason to expect that he'd have recorded this in his (non-existent) journal. Even in 1830, he was still only 24. The fact that there were any "versions" of his experience in the grove at that time is something approaching the miraculous. He was not, even at th at point, comfortable in his prophetic shoes, and he was somewhat close with those sacred things with which he had been entrusted. He learned a powerful lesson with the 116 lost manuscript pages, and I have no doubt he was not ready to disclose all he knew to anyone who happened by. He'd already had at least one such encounter with a minister who railed against him for sharing what we must assume was the least part of the encounter. The Book of Mormon was an artifact. People could pick it up and read it, they could (and did) judge it (many, then as now, without reading it). But his account of the events of 26 March 1820 were fragile.

The sacred is not to be strewn about like poultry feed, especially if the one strawing it has a fear of chickens.

Lehi

[thews]

Yawn/ I would like at the very least a first hand account. Not a 2nd hand hearsay account. I tire of your games.

If you can't produce it we are done.

I asked for data... you produce the same tired "is not" retort based on nothing. If I can produce multiple accounts that all say the say thing, it's not hearsay just because you need it to be. You produce zero data and don't address the data presented... typical.

The fact that these are hersay reports from a rumor mill. How is that for actual datat I have that negates your claim.

Note to anyone with a crictal thought process... look at what supports this claim (nothing... zero data).

If I claim that I heard that your friends claimed that you beat your wife, is that sufficent evidence that you actually beat your wife? Why or why not is it not sufficent evidence?

Note to those with a critical thought process... look at the foundation for this parallel argument based on nothing.

Assuming you have a wife. If you don't have a wife then replace wife with best friend.

Note to those with a critical thought process... the more wordy the argument from silence is based on nothing, the intent becomes more obvious.

Is what Pahoran claimed in post 21 and 23 factual?

Here are the relveant portions.

Note to those with a critical thought process... this is what's called a :highfive: without anything but opinion to back up what hard data has already been presented.

And

Were is your first hand or primary source that JS claimed he saw a treasure gardian? All you ahve presented is an account of some one claiming years after that Thompson claimed that JS said it.

Not very good evidence.

Do you deny Joseph Smith was a money-digger? yes/no

Do you deny money-diggers believed in treasure guardians? yes/no

Do you deny I have already presented multiple data points to validate the testimony of Thompson at Joseph Smith's trial? yes/no

Note to those with a critical thought process, if these questions are actually answered, it won't be with data. We'll see????

[Zakuska]

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?

Stranger things have happened...

Mark 9

9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the arising from the dead should mean.