Joseph's apparent contradiction.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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

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/

If you wish to address the answer to your CFR, then please do so with some actual response relating to the data presented. Thanks.

Thanks for demonstrating once again your lack of responsible source criticism. For those reading the thread thoughtfully my case is closed. Here's to hoping you are not employed as an educator in any capacity.

[Pahoran]

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.

While you do nothing but repeatedly assert the same false claims and ignore calls for references.

Let me make myself clear here Thews: the very next time I look into this thread, the very first thing I will do is count up all the CFR's on which you have defaulted, and report you to the moderators. Consider this fair warning: you make unsupported assertions. Support them, or they stand refuted.

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,

The most transparent ploy in this thread is your transparent falsehood. The 1835 account does indeed describe Joseph seeing The Father and The Son; the only thing it does not do is name them as such.

Well, neither does the 1839 account.

CAN YOU DEAL WITH THAT FACT, THEWS?

The fact you are trying to cover up is that both accounts describe Joseph being visited by two "personages" whom he does not name. Your claim that this point is a "difference" between the two is a brazen, blatant and shameless thewsism, i.e. a falsehood.

and you continue to assert your opinion that "personages" when Joseph Smith cleraly said the personages were angels (or treasure guardians)

CALL FOR REFERENCES that there is even one First Vision account, reliably traced to Joseph, that describes either of the heavenly visitors as "treasure guardians."

In the absence of such a reference, we will be obliged to conclude that this is a brand new original anti-Mormon fabrication and that you, sir, are the author of it.

spoke of who Jesus was and it wasn't inthe first person.

CALL FOR REFERENCES that Joseph quoted the words that the personages said to him, rather than merely summarising or paraphrasing.

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.

Given your track record for veracity, your denial of the validity of my opinion counts in its favour. Actually I'd be more worried about my opinion if you agreed with it.

The 1835 account doesn't say anything about seeing Jesus Christ and God, not does the Book of Mormon.

This is amazing. Have you ever read The Book of Mormon? Since it isn't about Joseph, how can anything it says be relevant to Joseph's experience 1400 years after it was sealed up?

Or are you trying to assert that it does not teach that the Father and the Son are separate and distinct? Again: have you ever actually read it? For instance, 3 Nephi 10 and 11?

The change in doctrine from "God" to the "Son of God" follows the change in theology, and you haven't acknowledged it as relevant.

Of course it's not relevant; that is a textbook example of circular argument. How could it possibly be 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,

Which has nothing to do with the point at issue, namely, that there is no way to tell which (if either) of the two hearsay accounts of Thompson's testimony accurately reports what he actually said.

Joseph Smith was money-digger, money-diggers believed in treasure guardians (bleeding ghosts),

No honest critic of the Church, if such there be, relies upon the notorious "bleeding ghost" fabrication.

and not history is gossip as you assert as it comes from multiple sources.

There are no "multiple sources" for the "bleeding ghost" thewsism. As you perfectly well know it is attested by only one source, half a century after the events it purports to describe. Your attempt to lend it the dignity of "multiple sources" is another clear attempt to deceive.

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,

Not naming them and not mentioning them are two different things. For instance, after I log off, I may tell my wife I've been arguing with an unscrupulous falsifier. If I don't name the person to whom I'm responding, does that mean I haven't mentioned him at all?

The fact remains, contrary to your brazen deceit and manipulation, that the 1835 account does NOT describe the two personages as angels. I have already CFR'd you on that point, and you defaulted, as usual. Likewise, neither it nor any other account describes them as "treasure guardians." I'm not going to wait for you to default on my CFR for that; you have no intention of even trying to provide such a reference. You and I both know that you made it up out of whole cloth.

The further fact remains that, while you have posted some material, only a few of your "data points" have unambiguously supported your interpretation or attempted usage thereof. Certainly the 1835 account -- which you did NOT post -- does not. The few that have -- like the notorious "bleeding ghost" fabrication, shamelessly cribbed by you from an even more notorious anti-Mormon website -- are patently absurd, and no reputable historian relies upon such gossip.

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.

If ever I need the permission of a pompous, devious, self-important twit in order to post, I promise you'll be the first person I ask.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Honorentheos]

The discussion has wandered far afield of the central question of the OP. I agree with Pahoran and Co. regarding the bloody angels, treasure guardians, and other such accusations. The evidence for it is not as strong as Thew's claims. But I don't think this matters to ascertaining how reliable the first vision apologetic is compared to other explainations. Just as believers using the late 1838/42 account to place God the Father and Jesus Christ - AS YOU TODAY UNDERSTAND THEM TO BE - in the earlier accounts is unwarranted and a projection of your own beliefs on the narrative.

The issue is fairly simple - can contemporary evidence be brought forward that shows JS both believed in the Father/Son of modern LDS theology, was it taught by the church in a clear manner, and does LDS scripture support this view?

We've noted this before in other threads, but the examples are worth repeating -

Changes in the Book of Mormon, such as 1 Nephi 13:40, show a contemporary traditional Christian view of God (One Being):

1830 edition - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior ... "

Current reading - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior ..."

The unchanged BoM still isn't very clear (change above to 1 Nep. 13 occurred in 1837, after the apparent view of the Godhead split Jesus/Father into two personages, but both not of substance)

Mormon 7

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

2 Nephi 31

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Mosiah 15

How Christ is both the Father and the Son

[Pahoran]

The discussion has wandered far afield of the central question of the OP. I agree with Pahoran and Co. regarding the bloody angels, treasure guardians, and other such accusations. The evidence for it is not as strong as Thew's claims. But I don't think this matters to ascertaining how reliable the first vision apologetic is compared to other explainations. Just as believers using the late 1838/42 account to place God the Father and Jesus Christ - AS YOU TODAY UNDERSTAND THEM TO BE - in the earlier accounts is unwarranted and a projection of your own beliefs on the narrative.

Or maybe it's the case that unbelievers trying to nitpick the Father and the Son out of the earlier accounts is unwarranted and a projection of their own disbeliefs/prejudices/hatreds/agenda on the narrative.

When the sole eyewitness to an event describes said event more than once, and the various descriptions can be read harmoniously without doing violence to any of them, concluding those descriptions to be harmonious is not "unwarranted;" it's actually the only approach that is warranted.

The issue is fairly simple - can contemporary evidence be brought forward that shows JS both believed in the Father/Son of modern LDS theology, was it taught by the church in a clear manner, and does LDS scripture support this view?

Actually that's not "the issue" at all. It may be your issue; but from where I'm sitting, it looks (and smells) suspiciously like a red herring.

We've noted this before in other threads, but the examples are worth repeating -

Changes in the Book of Mormon, such as 1 Nephi 13:40, show a contemporary traditional Christian view of God (One Being):

1830 edition - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior ... "

Current reading - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior ..."

And? This is a purely verbal change only. It reflects a shift in terminology, not "theology." It is, to this day, entirely orthodox LDS doctrine to hold that Jesus is in some sense the Father. It has never been orthodox LDS doctrine to assert that Jesus is his own Father.

That is because the two things are not the same.

Normative LDS usage has shifted over the years as first General Authorities, and then regular members, settled upon terminological choices that seem less ambiguous. So that, while it is correct LDS doctrine to say that Jesus is "the very eternal father of heaven and earth," the phrase "the Father" without any other qualifiers has come to be used primarily, if not exclusively, for God the Father of Jesus. Likewise when "God" is used without any other qualifiers. But this, again, is terminological, not theological. It remains just as correct today as it was in 1830 for a Latter-day Saint to say that "Jesus is God."

The unchanged BoM still isn't very clear (change above to 1 Nep. 13 occurred in 1837, after the apparent view of the Godhead split Jesus/Father into two personages, but both not of substance)

That's because we have no doctrine derived from middle platonic notions of "substance;" and we never have. Nor do we think we need them in order to be "very clear." The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are in some sense one, and in another sense three. We don't need to explain this in terms of ousia or esse.

Mormon 7

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

2 Nephi 31

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Mosiah 15

How Christ is both the Father and the Son

[Honorentheos]

Pahoran,

I appreciate the time it took for you to post. I would be interested if you would mind posting a couple of pieces of evidence that support your claims. Those are:

- any other accounts of the first vision that were written contemporary to primary accounts (JS 1832, Cowdery 1835, Official Version 1838/42) that show an "unevolved" version. For example, are there examples written by others prior to 1835 that show JS did have a harmonious narrative that was being taught that supports your view?

- any examples that show a clear modern LDS understanding of the Godhead such that would support JS's 1844 claim to have taught a plurality of Gods from the beginning.

We can go around and around on this other material. I supplied it as evidence that supports an evolved view of the Godhead which is corroborated by the first vision accounts. You disagree, but all the evidence you seem to have supplied is presentist interpretations of those stories. It is, in effect, what you are accusing Thews of doing with his sources. If your view is correct, you ought to be able to find something first hand to support it.

Regards.

[wenglund]

Pahoran,

I appreciate the time it took for you to post. I would be interested if you would mind posting a couple of pieces of evidence that support your claims. Those are:

The protocals of effectual debate demand that you answer Pahoran's thoughtful critique before embarking on a critique of his claims. As such, your request above may rightly be viewed as evasive.

- any other accounts of the first vision that were written contemporary to primary accounts (JS 1832, Cowdery 1835, Official Version 1838/42) that show an "unevolved" version. For example, are there examples written by others prior to 1835 that show JS did have a harmonious narrative that was being taught that supports your view?

- any examples that show a clear modern LDS understanding of the Godhead such that would support JS's 1844 claim to have taught a plurality of Gods from the beginning.

JS's 1844 claim is primary and uathoritative evidence in-and-of-itself, and reason dictates that it need not be substantiated, but ought to be accepted at its word unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. To my mind, and I suspect to the minds of other believing LDS, your disputed circumstantial arguement doesn't come close to outweighing primary and authoritative evidence from one of the three witnesses to the event in question.

However, there is support for JS's claim hinted at in Pahoran's critique of your theory, and this in the fact that all the scriptural passages regarding the Godhead that were revealed to the prophet prior to 1844 are still a part of the LDS canon today, and are thus a part of the LDS so-called "theology". In other words, the scriptures revealed to JS prior to 1844 are understood even today in ways consistent with our current belief and JS's belief in 1844 in the Godhead. We have always believed in multiple Gods that are one.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Baura]

I might be closing in on the 2,000 dollars.

[snip!]

Now if this is true that the Reflector wrote such a thing, do I get my 2,000 dollars? And how should I collect it? Can MADb arrange for the transfer of the money?

If the Reflector article mentions that BOTH God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and that they told him to join none of the existing churches, then yes you get the money.

cheers,

Baura

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If the Reflector article mentions that BOTH God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and that they told him to join none of the existing churches, then yes you get the money.

cheers,

Baura

Eh?

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

I appreciate the time it took for you to post. I would be interested if you would mind posting a couple of pieces of evidence that support your claims. Those are:

- any other accounts of the first vision that were written contemporary to primary accounts (JS 1832, Cowdery 1835, Official Version 1838/42) that show an "unevolved" version. For example, are there examples written by others prior to 1835 that show JS did have a harmonious narrative that was being taught that supports your view?

The issue is not that Joseph had "a harmonious narrative," if you mean to ask whether he had composed a single story that he subsequently stuck to. The issue, rather, is simply this: On all of the occasions when Joseph spontaneously told his experience as he remembered it, was it recognisably the same experience?

Well, let's see. First off, let's look at the First Vision accounts themselves. In 1832, the Prophet Joseph told his story thus:

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...

We will discuss this in more detail later. This statement is an excerpt from a longer document. The introductory paragraph reads as follows:

A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brough<t> [it] forth and established [it] by his hand <firstly> he receiving the testamony from on high secondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel

[Honorentheos]

The issue is not that Joseph had "a harmonious narrative," if you mean to ask whether he had composed a single story that he subsequently stuck to. The issue, rather, is simply this: On all of the occasions when Joseph spontaneously told his experience as he remembered it, was it recognisably the same experience?

Pahoran,

Whether or not a person can find a plausible way to reconcile the accounts to themselves in some manner is not at issue. Obviously, you feel there is such a possibility.

The issue becomes much more murky, however, since they do not actually match one another. Because of this, we have to look to external evidence to see if the manner in which you sought to reconcile them is supported by other sources. Because the other "parties" in these accounts include the Godhead, it makes sense to consider how JS was describing the Godhead in other, non-first vision related sources to see what light this may shed on the matter. Contrary to your assertions that "honest, unbiased researchers" would only look for plausible reconciliation, an honest researcher should be looking for external corroboration. Either way, trying to pre-define what an "honest" researcher would do is using bias language. Please refrain from using bias language in the discussion if you can, and let's focus on the evidence as we have it.

We can look at the Lectures on Faith, for example, to see where LDS theology began teaching a "two personage" Godhead that still does not match modern LDS theology, for example. It does, however, correspond nicely with the 1835 first vision account you quote above. If you wish to interpret this in a manner that suites your current position, feel free.

I am sure you recognize, as I do, that what has been presented so far is not different from anything presented before. I doubt anything new will be presented. I do consider it an improvement that this thread did not include the past references to first vision accounts that were given much later and after the fact to support your position, so there has been some movement over the last couple of years. I leave this for the undecided readers to consider for their own edification -

"If we have nothing personally at stake in a dispute

between people who are strangers to us, we are

remarkably intelligent about weighing the evidence and

in reaching a rational conclusion. We can be convinced

in favor of either of the fighting parties on the basis of

good evidence. But let the fight be our own, or let our

own friends, relatives, fraternity brothers, be parties to

the fight, and we lose our ability to see any other side of

the issue than our own. .. . The more urgent the

impulse, or the closer it comes to the maintenance of

our own selves, the more difficult it becomes to be

rational and intelligent."

- (Thurstone, 1924, p. 101)

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Whether or not a person can find a plausible way to reconcile the accounts to themselves in some manner is not at issue. Obviously, you feel there is such a possibility.

The issue becomes much more murky, however, since they do not actually match one another. Because of this, we have to look to external evidence to see if the manner in which you sought to reconcile them is supported by other sources. Because the other "parties" in these accounts include the Godhead, it makes sense to consider how JS was describing the Godhead in other, non-first vision related sources to see what light this may shed on the matter. Contrary to your assertions that "honest, unbiased researchers" would only look for plausible reconciliation, an honest researcher should be looking for external corroboration.

Umm, no. "Looking for external corroboration" implies that Joseph has some responsibility to prove that the First Vision happened.

Which in fact he does not, and of course can not. All he can do is report it as an eyewitness. If you want to impeach his testimony, then go ahead and knock yourself out, but I am asking you nicely to please do not again attempt to shift the burden of proof onto us.

We're just not that gullible.

To be clear: I did not say that honest researchers would limit the scope of their research. I simply pointed out that, as far as the textual evidence of the various accounts is concerned, "are there differences" is precisely the wrong question to ask. If there were no differences, there would not be multiple accounts. The only question to ask regarding the textual evidence of the various accounts is, "If we take these accounts together, do they tell a single, consistent story?" And that means, is it possible, without doing violence to any one account, to understand them to all describe the same event?

Because if it is, then interpreting one account so as to make it contradict one's interpretation of another account -- the Tanner method -- is clearly manipulative and disingenuous.

We can look at the Lectures on Faith, for example, to see where LDS theology began teaching a "two personage" Godhead that still does not match modern LDS theology, for example. It does, however, correspond nicely with the 1835 first vision account you quote above. If you wish to interpret this in a manner that suites your current position, feel free.

Like any other single datum, there are multiple ways to interpret this. We could asininely assume that Joseph worked over the First Vision to keep pace with his changing theology; or we could consider the possibility that the First Vision itself influenced his views.

Which, when we think about it, seems at least remotely possible. Doesn't it seem at least remotely possible to you that a formative early encounter with the divine might have at least some influence upon how Joseph viewed divine things? It does to me.

But then again, maybe that's just my Mormon bias showing through.

Please note also that Joseph's final version of the First Vision story still only has two personages appearing to him. He had long moved on from the theology taught in the Lectures -- if indeed he had ever fully embraced it, a proposition that has yet to be proven or even seriously investigated -- but this time he did not get around to updating his First Vision narrative; why the break with tradition? How do we explain this anomaly?

Actually it is only an "anomaly" if we accept the unproven anti-Mormon accusation that he was making the whole thing up as he went along. Once we realise what an asinine assumption that is, the "anomaly" disappears.

Also, the assumption relies upon an even earlier assumption, namely that Joseph was as dishonest as his critics.

And that's just not possible.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Honorentheos]

...The only question to ask regarding the textual evidence of the various accounts is, "If we take these accounts together, do they tell a single, consistent story?" And that means, is it possible, without doing violence to any one account, to understand them to all describe the same event?

...and do they match the external evidence. They do not. Can you reconcile the differing accounts? If one accepts that they read like a hill-billy pedigree chart, then I suppose so. But again, they simply do not match the external evidence. If you do not wish to accept this "burden", so be it. The evidence is there. It appears that JS was not only given different, evolving accounts, but this evolution matches well with observations on the LDS teachings on the Godhead through those same years.

You claim JS's alibi can be reconciled even if they conflict. I say, "It doesn't match the outside facts, so even if one can conceive of a way to reconcile the accounts, it isn't the only thing that matters."

Like any other single datum,

It isn't a single datum. There is plenty of data to consider including the different accounts along with the data on the Godhead. Also, the lack of data that corroborates the accounts from contemporary sources is suggestive. IT IS A PROCEDURAL MISTAKE TO CALL THIS A "SINGLE DATUM".

We could asininely assume ...

There's that bias language again. Letting people know, subconsciously, that they need to be on your side to not be "asinine". It's one of those things that they teach you to look out for in critical thinking courses I suppose.

Also, the assumption relies upon an even earlier assumption, namely that Joseph was as dishonest as his critics.

And that's just not possible.

You know as I do that anyone who begins with this assumption as you present it, that it is not possible for JS to be dishonest - (and again with the bias language that his critics are. Good grief.) - is probably going to agree with your point as outlined through out the above posts. They will be able to reconcile the idea that "...the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior ... " is saying the same thing as, "... the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior" and not flinch. That's fine.

There isn't much to be gained or lost in a discussion between such immovable positions. I only continue to point out that regardless of what you assert, the issue IS that the first vision accounts are best reconciled with the evolution of the godhead theology taught by the LDS rather than to the 1842 account.

I'm sure if better evidence is found to support your position you will suddenly become more interested in the "burden of proof". Regardless of your current assertions, it is on you to add to the evidence right now rather than concocting more plausible explanations.

Some more food for thought -

Perkins and his colleagues expressed essentially

the same idea with their characterization

of people as make-sense epidemiologists (Perkins

et al., 1983, 1991). The idea here is that

people think about a situation only to the extent

necessary to make sense

[Pahoran]

...and do they match the external evidence. They do not.

External evidence? For a unique event of which Joseph was the only witness? Precisely what sort of "external evidence" would a reasonable person expect to see?

Can you reconcile the differing accounts? If one accepts that they read like a hill-billy pedigree chart, then I suppose so.

And this from the fellow who piously lectures about "bias[sic] language." Remarkable.

Actually the accounts reconcile to one another rather well. Here is a useful preliminary approach: combine them all into a single document and read them together.

But again, they simply do not match the external evidence. If you do not wish to accept this "burden", so be it. The evidence is there. It appears that JS was not only given different, evolving accounts, but this evolution matches well with observations on the LDS teachings on the Godhead through those same years.

I've already pointed out that it does not, and you blithely ignored it. Why? Because it doesn't match your expectations?

Joseph saw two personages. At some point, someone thought that that meant that the Godhead consisted of only two personages. Subsequently Joseph taught a triune Godhead, but the First Vision account still only had two personages. In the 1842 Wentworth Letter, Joseph included a longish account of the First Vision; it had -- you guessed it -- two personages. Subsequently in the same letter we find this:

We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Whoops! What happened to your theory of evolution, H? Is it a theory designed to account for the evidence in view? If so, isn't this a counter-example that calls for the theory to be adjusted?

Or is the theory really an ideological position, in which case this datum must either be explained away or ignored?

Regards,

Pahoran

P.S.: Please refrain from any more tedious and irrelevant psychoanalysis. It almost certainly applies to you as well as to me.

[Honorentheos]

Let's keep this simple, then, Pahoran.

Joseph saw two personages. At some point, someone thought that that meant that the Godhead consisted of only two personages. Subsequently Joseph taught a triune Godhead, but the First Vision account still only had two personages. In the 1842 Wentworth Letter, Joseph included a longish account of the First Vision; it had -- you guessed it -- two personages.

Whoops! What happened to your theory of evolution, H? Is it a theory designed to account for the evidence in view? If so, isn't this a counter-example that calls for the theory to be adjusted?

Please provide a document that dates prior to 1832 and demonstrates clearly that Joseph Smith viewed God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate individuals. Not Christian language like - "I saw the Son in the Bosom of the Father", or "on the right hand of God", etc. Find something less ambiguous like the later writings - like your 1842 Wentworth letter, for example. "Two personage" accounts dating from around 1835 forward are to be expected though in the 1835 period showing that the Father was more than a spiritual being would be a point in your favor.

Again, the 1832 first vision account coupled with the 1830 BoM conflict with your view. Given that they are actual examples of evidence, it would be nice to see you respond in kind with something more supportive of your view than, "It makes sense to a modern mormon."

[Pahoran]

Let's keep this simple, then, Pahoran.

Please provide a document that dates prior to 1832 and demonstrates clearly that Joseph Smith viewed God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate individuals.

Nice attempt to load the dice. Since neither of us know of a first-person First Vision account from Joseph prior to 1832, I guess you win that one!

Not Christian language like - "I saw the Son in the Bosom of the Father", or "on the right hand of God", etc.

Oh, so that was the purpose of your opening salvo: you were trying to pre-emptively exclude certain passages from the category of evidence.

Righty-oh, time to revisit, then.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:

11 We, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, being in the Spirit on the sixteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two?

12 By the power of the Spirit our eyes were opened and our understandings were enlightened, so as to see and understand the things of God?

13 Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning;

I agree that this is not relevant to the question. It is not a theophany description, but a conventional expression of doctrine.

However, we look further:

Doctrine and Covenants 76:

20 And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness;

[...]

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father--

Sorry H, but now that I know what you're up to, I'm afraid I just can't let you get away with it.

Yes, they used "Christian language" to describe what they saw: they were Christians; what other language should they use?

The fact remains, however, that, like Stephen, Joseph and Sidney reported seeing both the Father and the Son in a particular spatial placement relative to each other.

So, despite your determined effort to disingenuously disqualify this passage, I'm going to claim it anyway.

Furthermore, note the second part of verse 23: whose voice bears record that Jesus is "the Only Begotten of the Father?" It doesn't say, does it? But it is quite clearly the voice of the Father. Whose voice bore that same record in the 1832 First Vision account? Ditto and ditto.

Find something less ambiguous like the later writings - like your 1842 Wentworth letter, for example.

Section 76 is entirely unambiguous. If you knew how to discuss other people's religious beliefs in good faith, you might be willing to admit that rather uncontroversial fact.

"Two personage" accounts dating from around 1835 forward are to be expected though in the 1835 period showing that the Father was more than a spiritual being would be a point in your favor.

Again, the 1832 first vision account coupled with the 1830 BoM conflict with your view.

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your presumption. I am a regular reader of the Book of Mormon; I am thoroughly conversant with the textual variations in that volume, as well as with the 1832 FV account. I don't find anything there to "conflict with [my] view," and I don't need you to tell me that it should.

Given that they are actual examples of evidence, it would be nice to see you respond in kind with something more supportive of your view than, "It makes sense to a modern mormon."

Once again, you have failed to provide any evidentiary basis for your claim that what makes sense to a modern Mormon is not relevant to an 1830's Mormon. Reports of doctrinal "evolution" are exaggerated beyond the point of caricature.

Regards,

Pahoran

[maupayman]

Let's keep this simple, then, Pahoran.

Please provide a document that dates prior to 1832 and demonstrates clearly that Joseph Smith viewed God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate individuals. Not Christian language like - "I saw the Son in the Bosom of the Father", or "on the right hand of God", etc. Find something less ambiguous like the later writings - like your 1842 Wentworth letter, for example. "Two personage" accounts dating from around 1835 forward are to be expected though in the 1835 period showing that the Father was more than a spiritual being would be a point in your favor.

Again, the 1832 first vision account coupled with the 1830 BoM conflict with your view. Given that they are actual examples of evidence, it would be nice to see you respond in kind with something more supportive of your view than, "It makes sense to a modern mormon."

It is also interesting, when considering contemporary teachings, that Joseph often referred to Jehovah and Eloheim as the same being:

...trusting in the arm of Jehovah, the Eloheim, who sits enthroned in the heavens...

Joseph Smith,

(History of the Church, Vol. 5, Ch. 5)

"O Thou, who seest and knowest the hearts of all men-Thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah - God - Thou Elohim, that sittest, as saith the Psalmist, 'enthroned in heaven,' look down upon Thy servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of Thy Son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than Thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him."

(History of the Church, 5:127.)

"We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father."

(Times and Seasons 3;15 November 1841: 578.)

I recently started a thread, requesting similar evidence of clear teachings of seperation, but found little by way of response.

Here is the thread:

[Honorentheos]

Nice attempt to load the dice. Since neither of us know of a first-person First Vision account from Joseph prior to 1832, I guess you win that one!

No, I'm not focusing only on the first vision as you seem to want to do. It can be any example that shows a clear distinction between the two, similar to the 1842 Wentworth letter.

Oh, so that was the purpose of your opening salvo: you were trying to pre-emptively exclude certain passages from the category of evidence.

It's not preemptive, Pahoran. As I pointed out initially in this thread the language used is in common with phrases used by traditional christianity where a belief in two seperate, distinct personages is not part of their theology. I provided then, as an example, the Apostles Creed that uses the same language found in Section 20 of the D&C. JS stated in 1844 that he declared a plurality of Gods with boldness from the beginning and stated 15 years specifically as the time period he had been doing so. If so, such bold proclaimations that are as unambigious as the Wentworth letter would be helpful.

Incendentally, I also pointed out then that he tied the entire concept of a plurality of gods to the papyrus purchased in 1835, which shows a clear contradiction in that account. So feel free to disregard it if you wish as it's suspect in the information it contained.

Furthermore, note the second part of verse 23: whose voice bears record that Jesus is "the Only Begotten of the Father?" It doesn't say, does it? But it is quite clearly the voice of the Father. Whose voice bore that same record in the 1832 First Vision account? Ditto and ditto.

Let's re-examine this, as the current apologetic makes so much over the "from on high" phrase.

The 1832 account -

A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Chist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brought forth and established by his hand [firstly] he receiving the testamony from on high...

...therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy forthere was none else to whom I could go and {to} obtain mercy andthe 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 pillar of {fire} lightabove the brightness of the Sun at noon day come down fromabove and rested upon me and I was filld 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 this ungodliness and to bring to pass that which [hath] been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apostles behold and lo I come quickly as it 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 rejoice with great joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevenly vision...

You were saying?

The phrase, "from on high" is a stop-gap explaination. It could just as easily mean the visit from Christ. Yes, I've seen the supposed parallels. Again, it is all projection of a current view back on what was being said then.

I am a regular reader of the Book of Mormon; I am thoroughly conversant with the textual variations in that volume, as well as with the 1832 FV account. I don't find anything there to "conflict with [my] view," and I don't need you to tell me that it should.

...

Once again, you have failed to provide any evidentiary basis for your claim that what makes sense to a modern Mormon is not relevant to an 1830's Mormon. Reports of doctrinal "evolution" are exaggerated beyond the point of caricature.

Again, Pahoran, it isn't about you and believeing mormons. I know and you know that it "makes senses" to you. All I am doing is pointing out that the emperor is naked so those who see it that way don't wonder if they are the ones at fault.

The emperor is naked. It's ok to admit it; it's not you, it's the information available.

Sure, "God and Christ are one in purpose!" may actually makes sense to some people when they read the BoM. I suppose a few can be happy with reading Mosiah, for example, and just letting it go at that. But Mosiah makes much more sense in light of what was being taught in 1835 in the Lectures on Faith, for example -

"SECTION 5.

1 In our former lectures we treated of the being, character, perfections and attributes of God. What we mean by perfections, is, the perfections which belong to all the attributes of his nature. We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2 There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things--by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space--They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;--he is also the express image and likeness of tseparatehe personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh--and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father-possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all--the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father--possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father--a Mediator for man--being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one."

[wenglund]

It is also interesting, when considering contemporary teachings, that Joseph often referred to Jehovah and Eloheim as the same being:

More accurately stated, the appelations "Jehovah" and "Elohim" were at times both used in reference to each of two different divine beings. This was discussed earlier in the thread.

Since the mid 4th century AD, the overwhelmingly prevailing Christian belief was that while there was only one God, there were three persons. In fact, the Christian traditions that Joseph was familiar with and had contemplated joining, all believed in three persons. One may then reasonably assume that prior to the first vision, and thereafter, Joseph believed in three persons/personages.

Therefore, those critics, such as yourself and H., who are suggesting that Joseph only believed in one person that is God, are shouldered with the burden of demonstrating it. The challenge you face is that all of the references you have come up with happen to comport with the prevailing Christian belief in three persons. This means that the only convincing evidence for your assertion would be a statement from Joseph clearly and explicitly claiming to only believe in one person that is God. Good luck with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Honorentheos]

Hi Wade,

I first wanted to comment that I appreciated the tone and direction of your post.

Since the mid 4th century AD, the overwhelmingly prevailing Christian belief was that while there was only one God, there were three persons. In fact, the Christian traditions that Joseph was familiar with and had contemplated joining, all believed in three persons. One may then reasonably assume that prior to the first vision, and thereafter, Joseph believed in three persons/personages. (my emphasis added)

In general I think your point is very much in line with the critic of the apologetic, with the exception of using "personage" at the end to quantify persons. While someone who actually believes in the trinity may step in to clarify any errors, my understanding is that the Godhead is considered one god, three persons, but of one substance. Examples from the bible such as Christ's baptism show examples of how the three would be present in "three person" manifestations of the one God, but never as three "personages". What JS later described in the official version with a two personage, readily identifiable God the Father and Jesus Christ visitation is inconsistent with a traditional view. The 1832 is very consistent, while the 1835 OC account is debatable as to how well it fits either model.

Anyway, other than the personage comment, I agree.

Therefore, those critics, such as yourself and H., who are suggesting that Joseph only believed in one person that is God...

...which we are not, but rather arguing one god, one substance which could be stated as one "personage"...

...are shouldered with the burden of demonstrating it. The challenge you face is that all of the references you have come up with happen to comport with the prevailing Christian belief in three persons.

Exactly. Now we need to make the jump to realizing these views were not just being shared in passing, but are part of LDS scripture and were the view of the prophet after his first vision account. Not to mention the apparent views of the Nephite prophets,...

The step after that is to recognize that the Lectures on Faith, removed from LDS canon in the 1920's because of the conflict we are currently discussing, comport well with 1835 version of the Godhead and somewhat well with most of the edits made to the BoM in the 1837 edition though these latter still reconcile best with the traditional view of the "one God".

The first visions seem to demarcate watershed boundaries, or else depth plumbs, of LDS godhead belief. The dates of these accounts are consistent with changes in LDS theology regarding the Godhead, which did change over time as well.

At least we seem to be getting closer to agreeing that JS's view must have evolved to some extent to make sense of the evidence. That's improvement.

[Deborah]

The first visions seem to demarcate watershed boundaries, or else depth plumbs, of LDS godhead belief. The dates of these accounts are consistent with changes in LDS theology regarding the Godhead, which did change over time as well.

Have you considered that it's not the theology that changed but Joseph's understanding and ability to explain what it was he saw, considering he was an untutored farm boy when he saw the First Vision, and his primary mission was to obtain the plates and translate them.

[Honorentheos]

Have you considered that it's not the theology that changed but Joseph's understanding and ability to explain what it was he saw, considering he was an untutored farm boy when he saw the First Vision, and his primary mission was to obtain the plates and translate them.

I have. I'm not sure how one differentiates between the two, really. If one considers JS the prophet as revealing "truth" in this dispensation, are we saying something different if we say, "JS's understanding of the Godhead changed" instead of, "LDS theology regarding the Godhead changed"? I don't think you can differentiate between the two.

You could argue that the "truth" of the nature of the Godhead became more evident and since truth never changes the 1838/42 account is most accurate to the actual "truth". There are plenty of problems with this view given that the "two personage" appearance just seems incompatible with a traditional Christian view of the roles of the God-Father and God-Son. But perhaps.

The challenge to this possibility, though, is the corresponding BoM evidence. Either the BoM prophets had the same issue, JS's "influence" on the translation process brought in errors of this nature (and I would think on what that implies for any claims to accuracy before accepting it as reasonable if I were a believer), or more likely JS and or other 19th century authors had a significant role in the BoM writing. Add to this the middle period writings such as the 1835 transition with the Lectures on Faith, etc., and one has to wonder why you then trust the current version? If JS hadn't died would something even "more true" have been revealed?

[wenglund]

In general I think your point is very much in line with the critic of the apologetic, with the exception of using "personage" at the end to quantify persons. While someone who actually believes in the trinity may step in to clarify any errors, my understanding is that the Godhead is considered one god, three persons, but of one substance. Examples from the bible such as Christ's baptism show examples of how the three would be present in "three person" manifestations of the one God, but never as three "personages". What JS later described in the official version with a two personage, readily identifiable God the Father and Jesus Christ visitation is inconsistent with a traditional view. The 1832 is very consistent, while the 1835 OC account is debatable as to how well it fits either model.

Your persons/personages distiction, while somewhat important in differentiating LDS perceptions of the Godhead from those of other Christians, I am not sure it makes any real meaningful difference to your argument, but may only confuse the matter.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you essentially asserting that the number of divine entities Joseph publicly reported seeing in the various accounts of the First Vision, is a function of his evolving understanding of the number of divine entities he believed existed. In other words, aren't you arguing that early on Joseph only reported seeing one divine entity because he only believed in one divine entity, and later reported seeing two divine entities because his belief later evolved to believing in two or three divine entities? Where, instead, he likely believed in three divine entities (i.e three persons/personages that are God) all along.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Honorentheos]

Your persons/personages distiction, while somewhat important in differentiating LDS perceptions of the Godhead from those of other Christians, (my emphasis added) I am not sure it makes any real meaningful difference to your argument, but may only confuse the matter.

The differentiation between modern LDS views of the Godhead and more traditional views is the meaningful point of discussion here.

I think the best way to frame the question is if, as a 19th century Christian of some sort or other, would JS have expected to see two distinct individuals in an appearance of "God" - on earth, physically appearing to him as well as both speaking to him separately?

It would be overly simplistic to assume that a "trinitarian" view of the Godhead is the only one possible for JS. There were many diverse views circulating about at the time. But one where God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three, distinct personages, one God in purpose but not in essence? That seems unique and enough so that such an appearance as described in the 1842 account would be the defining point of interest. Consider the impact attending a conference and expecting to see the Stake President preside would have on you and what you would remember if, instead, as the opening hymn ends the entire First Presidency comes into the stake center and presides over the remainder of the meeting. It's the unexpectedness of this detail that makes its omission from the earliest accounts and inclusion in the later ones suspicious.

That the accounts correspond with other written material of the same time periods we have is supportive of this view. Any apologetic for the First Vision accounts has to incorporate the contemporary teachings on the Godhead. Trying to reconcile the accounts is not sufficient. The BoM examples, as well as others provided, can not be set aside.

[wenglund]

I think the best way to frame the question is if, as a 19th century Christian of some sort or other, would JS have expected to see two distinct individuals in an appearance of "God" - on earth, physically appearing to him as well as both speaking to him separately?

I prefer the way I framed the question because it dives down past potentially confusing appelations like "personages" or "God", and gets right to the core conceptualizations.

So, let me re-ask the clarifying question you conveniently evaded:

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you essentially asserting that the number of divine entities (or "persons" if you like) that Joseph publicly reported seeing in the various accounts of the First Vision, is a function of his evolving understanding of the number of divine entities/persons he believed existed. In other words, aren't you arguing that early on Joseph only reported seeing one divine entity/person because he only believed in one divine entity/person, and later reported seeing two divine entities because his belief later evolved to believing in two or three divine entities/persons? Where, instead, he likely believed in three divine entities/persons all along.

Asked another way, to your understanding, did Joseph Smith believe in three divine persons prior to 1835, and if so, how does your theory account for Joseph's mentioning only one of the three persons early on, though later he mentioned two of the three persons?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Honorentheos]

...aren't you essentially asserting that the number of divine entities (or "persons" if you like) that Joseph publicly reported seeing in the various accounts of the First Vision, is a function of his evolving understanding of the number of divine entities/persons he believed existed.

Yes, as are the descriptions of God in the BoM, etc.

In other words, aren't you arguing that early on Joseph only reported seeing one divine entity/person because he only believed in one divine entity/person,...

No. I am not asserting that JS was a unitarian in belief on the Godhead. He may have been. He may have held any number of views of the Godhead prevalent at the time. But what seems very unlikely are two things -

1 - He would have expected a two person appearance, on earth, of a distinct being who was God the Father and another who was Jesus the Son.

2 - Because of the unexpectedness of this type of appearance, if it did happen it seems it would be the most important point remembered and described.and

...(he) later reported seeing two divine entities because his belief later evolved to believing in two or three divine entities/persons? Where, instead, he likely believed in three divine entities/persons all along.

Again, no. Perhaps we could start another entire thread on the 19th century versions of Godhead belief and let a few modern trinitarians expound on their view. But the manifestation described in the 1838/42 accounts would have been as ground changing as modern LDS prophets claim the supposed 1820 visit was -