Joseph's apparent contradiction.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sorry. "If" means much more than "if", as you erroneous claim. At least educated people (not 6-year-olds, especially those "educated" in a government-run, tax-funded

[thews]

This has never once been established that Thompson even claimed it. That is the whole point behind us saying that hearsay does not count as valid testimony. Please produce the documents were Thompson claimed it, not were other people claimed that Thompson said it.

This is an offical CFR. If you don't produce it I will report you to the mods and you will be done in this thread.

An "official" CFR huh? I have already given you all the data you choose to ignore and you just keep asking for the same. OK, since this is an "official" CFR and you'll run to the Mods without reading what has already been posted... one mnore time:

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm

Jonathan Thompson says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know where it was; and prisoner, Thompson, and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, and told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck upon something sounding like a board or plank. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried, [which], came all fresh to his mind. That the last time he looked he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk, that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hole beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoner's professed skill; that the board which he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging; that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge, and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the man that witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money:

And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty. Costs: Warrant, l9c. Complaint upon oath, 251/2 c. Seven witnesses, 871/2 c. Recongnisances, 25 c. Mittimus, 19 c. Recongnisances of witnesses, 75 c. Suboena, 18 c.

[Zakuska]

An "official" CFR huh? I have already given you all the data you choose to ignore and you just keep asking for the same. OK, since this is an "official" CFR and you'll run to the Mods without reading what has already been posted... one mnore time:

Yada- Yada-

Did you notice this?

Jonathan Thompson says...

This is a second hand HERESAY account. Mola asked for a first hand account from Jonathan Thompson himself.. Not a heresay diatribe.

He [Joseph] said that by a dream he was informed that at such a place in a certain hill, in an iron box, were some gold plates with curious engravings, which he must get and translate, and write a book; that the plates were to be kept concealed from every human being for a certain time, some two or three years; that he went to the place and dug till he came to the stone that covered the box, when he was knocked down; that he again attempted to remove the stone, and was again knocked down; this attempt was made the third time, and the third time he was knocked down.

Then he exclaimed, "Why can't I get it?" or words to that effect; and then he saw a man standing over the spot, which to him appeared like a Spaniard, having a long beard coming down over his breast to about here, (Smith putting his hand to the pit of his stomach) with his (the ghost's) throat cut from ear to ear, and the blood streaming down, who told him that he could not get it alone; that another person whom he, Smith, would know at first sight, must come with him, and then he could get it. And when Smith saw Miss Emma Hale, he knew that she was the person, and that after they were married, she went with him to near the place, and stood with her back toward him, while he dug up the box, which he rolled up in his frock.8

And the factual misstaments in this one are pretty laughable. When EVER did Joseph claim the plates were in an "IRON" box?

Joseph And Oliver Cowdery were consistant in the box being made of stone.

Most accounts, including those written by Smith, say the plates were found in a stone box (Cowdery 1835b, p. 196; Smith 1838a, pp. 15

[Pahoran]

Part 1:

Note true. You ingnore the data posted and claim it's hearsay without backing it up. Example:

A) Joseph Smith was a money digger.

B) Money-diggers believed in treasure guardians.

C) Thompson said Joseph Smith claimed to see a dead Indian treasure guardian through his seer stone.

And this is hearsay. Your claim that point this out "without backing it up" is a conscious falsehood made with intent to deceive.

It is hearsay because not one of the sources you cite is original to Thompson. Both of the accounts of Thompson's testimony are repeated from memory by third parties.

Stop living in denial, Thews.

In the data I've already posted, which you ignore and blather on endlessly with rhetoric, you fail to formulate a hypothesis for why this testimony (by Thompson) wouldn

[thews]

Part 1:

And this is hearsay. Your claim that point this out "without backing it up" is a conscious falsehood made with intent to deceive.

It is hearsay because not one of the sources you cite is original to Thompson. Both of the accounts of Thompson's testimony are repeated from memory by third parties.

Stop living in denial, Thews.

And again we have zero data to back anything up. Along with that, we have the unanswered questions.

1) Was Joseph Smith a money digger?

2) Did money-diggers believe in treasure guardians?

I suggest you consult Joseph Antley for advice.

Nice attempt at a red herring; pity it failed.

The issue is not the extent to which either reported version of Thompson's testimony "makes sense;" the issue is your failure to plausibly explain why you prefer one hearsay version of his alleged testimony over another.

Yes it is the issue. You claim witness testimony is false, but give no reason to make the claim, nor acknowledge the data presented..again. It's exactly what one would expect from a money-digger who believed in treasure guardians.

That's easy: no.

He attempted to locate treasure; he was not successful.

How did he "attempt" to locate treasure? Through his seer stones? The same seer stones used to translate Mormon doctrine? There are many accounts of bleeding ghosts and treasure guardians... do you deny that's what money-diggers believed in? If so, please reference some data, because without data, it's just another opinion.

What's "lame" is the weak excuse you gave for failing to even attempt to support your false accusation. Not one LDS poster in this thread has said that the 1835 account is "invalid" or anything like unto it. Thus, your repeated refrain that some have done so is yet another intentional falsehood.

And again the tap dance. Do you deny that Jesus and God are not mentioned in the 1835 account? yes/no.

And you can't support your Thewsism, not because there are any forum rules prohibiting you from linking to posts in this thread -- and you knew that there was no such rule when you tried to hide behind that excuse -- but because no-one said what you accuse them of saying.

More blather... look at the data you post... none. Look at the data you supposedly reject... nothing but opinion to back up your claims.

That's your own valueless opinion. The fact is that the 1835 account -- which was NOT posted by you -- explicitly says that there was more than one personage who appeared and spoke to him. It also says that "many angels" appeared to him in addition to the two personages first mentioned. This is a perfect example of what I said before: you simply wave your hand at the account and assert that it supports you, hoping that some, like Lloyd for instance, will be gullible enough to fall for the shell game. When challenged to back up your claim with any actual analysis, you default and resort to "Plan B," which is to loudly and hysterically accuse those better-informed than you -- i.e. everyone -- of "ignoring the data," an accusation which you perfectly well know to be false.

Can you use more words to say nothing? Jesus is not being used in the first person. "Personages" and reference to more angels is not data to claim the written account rivals the "official" first vision since there are so many. Your point is moot and hinges on your opinion with isn't what was written... period.

So that you may have no further excuse to maintain this false accusation: we are NOT ignoring the data. We are contesting your devious, agenda-driven misinterpretation of the data.

Got that?

Regards,

Pahoran

No, you are ignoring the data and again failing to answer questions. "Personages" are not "Jesus Christ" and "God". "Angels" are not "Jesus Christ" and "God". You are ignoring the data, to include the James G. Marsh data along with the reason Joseph Smtith tried to join the Methodist church in 1828. What do yuo have to say about that specifically?

Cut and paste from a rabid anti-Mormon website doesn't pass muster for documentation. Use a reputable source for CFRs or leave the thread.

[Zakuska]

If "witnesses" can't even get the facts straight about what the platges were in when he dug it up... why should we beleive that there not making things up or not remembering things correctly?

[Pahoran]

Part II:

Direct question to Pahoran: Do you deny that Joseph Smith's and Oliver Cowdrey's account written in 1835 mentions nothing about seeing God and Jesus Christ at the same time? (yes/no)

Your "direct question" has too many negatives in it. So I will answer it as I like, and not as you arrogantly demand.

Neither the 1835 account nor the 1839 account explicitly names the personages who appeared to Joseph.

Direct question for Thews: do you dispute this fact? Yes/no.

The 1835 account, the 1839 account, and every other account account of the First Vision that I have seen, original to Joseph Smith, describes a visit by the Father and the Son to him, in the woods on a Spring day.

Without any attempt at analysis of the text, you blithely assert that the 1835 account describes a visit by "an angel" and not by God. You are wrong. You attempt to prove it by nothing more than repeated assertion.

Snip meaningless waffle.

No, what we're talking about is data from multiple sources that you need to spin as a lie, but fail to cite motive. What reason would Thompson lie? He wasn't lying, and what he said is what one would expect him to say. I've already quoted a ton of data and you just pick what you can to ignore without acknowledging all of it.

CALL FOR REFERENCES that I have accused Thompson of lying.

I am giving you precisely three options here Thews:

1. Provide an actual reference to back up your assertion;
   
2. Retract it and admit that it was a Thewsism;
   
3. Silently slink away from this thread with your tail between your legs.
   

The option you do not have is the option of continuing to post in this thread without addressing your outstanding CFR's, including this one.

I flatly deny that I have accused Thompson of lying. My whole argument re. "Thompson's testimony" is that, faced with two contradictory hearsay accounts, we have no way of telling, with any confidence, what he actually said. Your repeated failure to address this serious shortcoming, and your shameless counter-attack ploy, proves that you have no way of telling that either.

Do not mention Thompson's name again until you can supply a solution to this problem with your use of him.

Edit to add question for Pahoran:

Pahoran, Joseph Smith tried to join the Methodist church in 1828 and was denied. This is yet another data point that doesn't make sense, because if Joseph Smith had seen both Jesus Christ and God who told him all other churches were wrong, then why would he attempt to joi the methodist church? Do you acknowledge this factual history?

It is not "factual history," it is propaganda.

Half a century after the events, Joseph and Hiel Lewis tell a story that no-one had ever heard before. The story of Moroni and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon had been in circulation for fifty years, but the first anyone heard of Moroni as a "bleeding ghost" was in the Amboy Journal of 1879 -- the same source where the world first learned that Joseph tried to join the Methodist Church in 1828. The reality is that Joseph merely enrolled in a weekday Bible study class. There are much older accounts of this than what was told by the Lewis boys, and none of them mention anything about the "bleeding ghost" story.

BTW, I notice and pay tribute to the considerable cunning you have in the way that you quote Lewis's story in two separate chunks with slightly different attributions, as if you were quoting two separate sources that corroborate each other, whereas you are actually quoting just one single source -- nothing less than the sole source for the notorious "bleeding ghost" fabrication.

This story is indeed a "data point"; it is a point that shows how people in the 19th century were willing to make stuff up to discredit Joseph Smith.

And your use thereof is a "data point" that shows how anti-Mormons in the 21st century have no more ethics or scruples than those upon whom they rely.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Yes it is the issue. You claim witness testimony is false,

CALL FOR REFERENCES, please: where and when did I "claim witness testimony is false?"

Support your accusation, or see that you do not repeat this lie again.

Can you use more words to say nothing? Jesus is not being used in the first person.

Irrelevant, since the statement is a summary of what he was told, not a quotation of the actual words in which he was told it.

"Personages" and reference to more angels is not data to claim the written account rivals the "official" first vision since there are so many. Your point is moot and hinges on your opinion with isn't what was written... period.

My point is not "moot" since I have offered actual analysis of what the account actually says, while you haven't even tried.

No, you are ignoring the data and again failing to answer questions. "Personages" are not "Jesus Christ" and "God".

But Jesus Christ and God are personages; and the personages mentioned in the account are distinct from the "many angels" mentioned later. Why the distinction, Thews?

Can you answer a direct question, just this once?

"Angels" are not "Jesus Christ" and "God".

Which is irrelevant to the content of the 1835 account.

You are ignoring the data,

Again I must ask you to desist from repeating this falsehood.

What's that you say? You'd be lost without it?

My gums bleed for you. Cease anyway.

to include the James G. Marsh data along with the reason Joseph Smtith tried to join the Methodist church in 1828. What do yuo have to say about that specifically?

The James G. Marsh account is irrelevant. So someone else had a vision? Woop-de-do. As for the rest: see above.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tango]

Sorry. "If" means much more than "if", as you erroneous claim. At least educated people (not 6-year-olds, especially those "educated" in a government-run, tax-funded

[thews]

CALL FOR REFERENCES, please: where and when did I "claim witness testimony is false?"

Support your accusation, or see that you do not repeat this lie again.

Irrelevant, since the statement is a summary of what he was told, not a quotation of the actual words in which he was told it.

My point is not "moot" since I have offered actual analysis of what the account actually says, while you haven't even tried.

But Jesus Christ and God are personages; and the personages mentioned in the account are distinct from the "many angels" mentioned later. Why the distinction, Thews?

Can you answer a direct question, just this once?

Which is irrelevant to the content of the 1835 account.

Again I must ask you to desist from repeating this falsehood.

What's that you say? You'd be lost without it?

My gums bleed for you. Cease anyway.

The James G. Marsh account is irrelevant. So someone else had a vision? Woop-de-do. As for the rest: see above.

Regards,

Pahora

You're wasting my time Pahoran, as you continue to ignore data posted with links and provide nothing in return but the same tired "is not" opinion. This is your ploy and it's transparent as glass. Case in point, the 1835 account by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey says nothing about seeing Jesus Christ and God, and you continue to assert your opinion that "personages" when Joseph Smith cleraly said the personages were angels (or treasure guardians) spoke of who Jesus was and it wasn't inthe first person. Using your same ploy to repeat yourself over and over using nothing but the same opinion is aimed at making it too difficult to have a conversation with you as you use distortion to claim factual data is somehow wrong. If you wish to continue, then give me some data (as I have done) to back up your opinion, as your opinion is wrong. The 1835 account doesn't say anything about seeing Jesus Christ and God, not does the Book of Mormon. The change in doctrine from "God" to the "Son of God" follows the change in theology, and you haven't acknowledged it as relevant. Finally, all the data I've posted, none of which you counter with anything worth beans negates the fact that Thompson was Joseph Smith's friend, Joseph Smith was money-digger, money-diggers believed in treasure guardians (bleeding ghosts), and not history is gossip as you assert as it comes from multiple sources. Your argument hinges on your opinion, and without data it's just another opinion. I have goven you my data, and if you wish to dispute it give me some counter source data with links so I can verfy it. You can't, all you have is your opinion, and blather saying the same thing a 100 times doesn't make it true. Th efirst vision as recorded in 1835 doesn't mention Jesus Christ and God as the two personages, and this fact alone, and your continued wordy blather to attemt and negate it doesn't... it is fact, just as Thompson's account of Joseph Smith claiming to see a dead Indian treasure guardian is also a fact and I have provided the CFR more than twice now. I don't need to hear the same tired opinion again. Give us some data or stop responding.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You are ignoring the data, to include the James G. Marsh data along with the reason Joseph Smtith tried to join the Methodist church in 1828. What do yuo have to say about that specifically?

I have to say, specifically, that you demonstrate rather poor source criticism.

[Kenngo1969]

I smell a loaded question.

I smell, as it were, somebody hoping to make hay out of the fact that certain classes of person living at a certain time and place didn't keep journals and whose letters, if any, didn't happen to discuss a certain occurrence or series of occurrences as evidence that that occurrence or those series of occurrences never happened.

Another dirty trick. Nothing more.

Oh, come on, Robert: absence of evidence, after all, really is evidence of absence, don'tcha know?! (Didn't they teach you that in law school? )

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

An "official" CFR huh? I have already given you all the data you choose to ignore and you just keep asking for the same. OK, since this is an "official" CFR and you'll run to the Mods without reading what has already been posted... one mnore time:

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech4.htm

I am beginning to think that you simply don't read what I wrote. I asked for a 1st hand account not a 2nd hand hearsay account of some one claiming what Thompson said. Do you no the difference between a hearsay 2nd hand account and a 1st hand account?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here's a link for thews:

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/

[USU78]

Robert?

[thews]

I have to say, specifically, that you demonstrate rather poor source criticism.

As evidenced in the above which doesn't use a shred of data to say anything, I have to say that your insertion of your opinion is based on nothing, or a poor source criticism, as you fail to reference actual data posted.

[thews]

Here's a link for thews:

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/

Is your lame attempt at humor funny to anyone else other that the target audience who will applaud your lack of addressing the OP? If you feel some source data is incorrect, then by all means please quote it and back up your counter argument. Note to the target audience that will chime in with equally lame responses that do nothing address the OP, the topic is the contradiction in the first vision accounts.

[thews]

I am beginning to think that you simply don't read what I wrote. I asked for a 1st hand account not a 2nd hand hearsay account of some one claiming what Thompson said. Do you no the difference between a hearsay 2nd hand account and a 1st hand account?

The CFR is in your court now Mola. I gave you multiple sources reagrding treasure guardians and the links. If you have some data to make a claim, then by all means let's see it. Asking for the same thing 10 times in your "official" CFR is just the same tired tap dance to make me give up talking to you while you never actually say anything. Let's see your argument actually addressing what you asked for (insert data + counter argument here).

[LifeOnaPlate]

As evidenced in the above which doesn't use a shred of data to say anything, I have to say that your insertion of your opinion is based on nothing, or a poor source criticism, as you fail to reference actual data posted.

A shred of data? The data is my personal observation of your use of sources in this thread. You appeal to late unverifiable hearsay evidence. The sort of thing a historian would be very careful using. You plow right through with a sort of tabloid source use, however. Weak.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is your lame attempt at humor funny to anyone else other that the target audience who will applaud your lack of addressing the OP? If you feel some source data is incorrect, then by all means please quote it and back up your counter argument. Note to the target audience that will chime in with equally lame responses that do nothing address the OP, the topic is the contradiction in the first vision accounts.

Actually, you seem pretty set in your opinion. I'm not inclined to repeat all the responses that people already made, the ones you have disregarded.

[thews]

A shred of data? The data is my personal observation of your use of sources in this thread. You appeal to late unverifiable hearsay evidence. The sort of thing a historian would be very careful using. You plow right through with a sort of tabloid source use, however. Weak.

Note to the critical thoguht process... there is nothing referenced in the above, or the posts before it. No data, no data linked that's cliamed to be wrong, just the same tired opinion and lame :highfive: requests from the same people. If you have a point ot make LOP on the OP, what is it? (insert data here)

PS - Without data, it's just another opinion. Without quoting the data you've referenced (linking an entire book), you're hiding something by being vague as possible and failing to actually make a relevant point/counter.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The CFR is in your court now Mola. I gave you multiple sources reagrding treasure guardians and the links. If you have some data to make a claim, then by all means let's see it. Asking for the same thing 10 times in your "official" CFR is just the same tired tap dance to make me give up talking to you while you never actually say anything. Let's see your argument actually addressing what you asked for (insert data + counter argument here).

It is offical, you don't know the differnce between hearsay 2nd hand account and a 1st hand account.

[LifeOnaPlate]

PS - Without data, it's just another opinion. Without quoting the data you've referenced (linking an entire book), you're hiding something by being vague as possible and failing to actually make a relevant point/counter.

Example: You brought up Joseph Smith trying to "join the Methodists." Please explain why your source should be considered accurate, what you believe happened, and what implications you think these things have for Mormons.

[thews]

Example: You brought up Joseph Smith trying to "join the Methodists." Please explain why your source should be considered accurate, what you believe happened, and what implications you think these things have for Mormons.

So now we tap dance around your lack of data to the point where you just continue to ask more questions, or like Mola (who I'm going to ignore as he is just avoiding the topic by posting the same CFR's without addressing the responses), you quote nothing and place the onus on me to "prove" the sources I line are the truth. I have linked actual data that you can reference, but since you have failed to acknowledge it, I'll do it again in one last attempt to make a point with validation. If you wish to counter, then please do so by either linking some actual data to make the claim that what I have linked is false, or linking data to imply the source is not to be trusted by using your source data and not just the same tired opinion. As I have said many times, without data, it's just another opinion. For the record, the common ploy to just be obstinate and contually ask for the same thing over and over without addressing the response is a common Mormon apologist tactic and I'm getting sick of it.

As you asked for.. again:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/josephsmithmethodist.htm

When Joseph Lewis, who was twenty-one at the time (about a year and a half younger than Smith), learned of this act, he felt that Joseph's manner of life rendered him unfit to be a member and told him either to "publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation." Mr. Lewis gave further details about the incident a month after the first article appeared in the Amboy paper, and he wrote:

I, with Joshua McKune, a local preacher at that time, I think in June, 1828, heard on Saturday, that Joe Smith had joined the church on Wednesday afternoon, (as it was customary in those days to have circuit preaching at my father's house on week-day). We thought it was a disgrace to the church to have a practicing necromancer, a dealer in enchantments and bleeding ghosts, in it. So on Sunday we went to father's, the place of meeting that day, and got there in season to see Smith and talked with him some time in father's shop before the meeting. Told him that his occupation, habits, and moral character were at variance with the discipline, that his name would be a disgrace to the church, that there should have been recantation, confession and at least promised reformation-. That he could that day publicly ask that his name be stricken from the class book, or stand an investigation. He chose the former, and did that very day make the request that his name be taken off the class book. (The Amboy Journal, June 11, 1879, p.1).

Note here where Joseph Smith was 15 when this happened. Didn't the "official" first vision supposedly happen at 14?

http://www.askgramps.org/why-did-joseph-smith-jr-attempt-in-june-1828-to-join-the/

Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So now we tap dance around your lack of data to the point where you just continue to ask more questions, or like Mola (who I'm going to ignore as he is just avoiding the topic by posting the same CFR's without addressing the responses)

I have not ignored a single thing you have written. You are the one that refuses to answer my CFR. All you ahve given is us a report of what some one claims Thompson said.

And it is clear that you have no idea what a the differnce between a 2nd hand account and a 1st hand account is.

And notice Thews does not even attempt to tell us why it should be consider valid. He just asserts that it is valid because he says so. And the he cites something that does not even back up is assertions. THat is that JS joined the methodist church.

BTW Thews what you cited never claimed that JS joined the methodist church. Notice how Thews just keeps rehashing the same tired articles that have been soundly refuted.

And saying that you are in your 15th year is not teh same as saying you are 15 years old.

To illistrate this point my baby is in the 1st year of her life, but she is only 6 months old. Does that mean she is 1 year old because she is in the 1st year of her life?