Jump to content

Amateurs...


PacMan

Recommended Posts

I have often been surprised out how staunch critics can get in attacking the church, when they have no clue what they are talking about.

One of my favorites is the critical response to Abraham 2:24, where God commands Abraham to tell the Egyptians that his wife is, indeed, his sister. The idea being that the Mormon notion of God is inconsistent (thus false) if God can tell someone to lie.

Problem #1 - This is consistent with the Biblical account in Genesis 12:17-20 and Genesis 20:2.

Problem #2 - Genesis 20:12. Sarah WAS Abraham's sister. In fact, "she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."

What are your favorites?

Link to comment

The different versions of the First Vision. They continue with this argument even though it has been soundly repudiated and the different versions have been published in the Ensign, therefore belying their argument that the church has hidden this little tidbit.

Link to comment

Deborah,

You wrote:

The different versions of the First Vision. They continue with this argument even though it has been soundly repudiated and the different versions have been published in the Ensign, therefore belying their argument that the church has hidden this little tidbit.

I am not aware of a sound repudiation of the argument that Joseph Smith told substantially conflicting stories of the First Vision.

As for your second point, there is no display of integrity on the part of the LDS Church for publishing the different accounts after a long history of obstructionism and suppression of that evidence and only after the fact of the conflicting accounts was widely known. The 1832 account of the First Vision in Joseph's own hand was held in the Church Historian's office for decades and remained unknown until a BYU student somehow obtained a copy of it and published the text in an appendix of his master's thesis in 1965. That same year, the Tanners published the account. It was only in 1969 that the LDS Church publicly acknowledged that the account was genuine. A substantial excerpt of the account--not the whole or even the most important part of it dealing with the vision itself--was first quoted in an article in the Ensign magazine in 1978. The first article in the Ensign to discuss the problem of the conflicting nature of the accounts was an article by Milton Backman in 1985; this article did not, however, provide the text of the account. If the Ensign has ever included a full quotation of the 1832 account of the First Vision, please provide a reference, because I have not been able to find such an article.

Link to comment

The different versions of the First Vision. They continue with this argument even though it has been soundly repudiated and the different versions have been published in the Ensign, therefore belying their argument that the church has hidden this little tidbit.

CFR on the underlined bold part, please.

H.

Link to comment

Deborah,

You wrote:

I am not aware of a sound repudiation of the argument that Joseph Smith told substantially conflicting stories of the First Vision.

As for your second point, there is no display of integrity on the part of the LDS Church for publishing the different accounts after a long history of obstructionism and suppression of that evidence and only after the fact of the conflicting accounts was widely known. The 1832 account of the First Vision in Joseph's own hand was held in the Church Historian's office for decades and remained unknown until a BYU student somehow obtained a copy of it and published the text in an appendix of his master's thesis in 1965. That same year, the Tanners published the account. It was only in 1969 that the LDS Church publicly acknowledged that the account was genuine. A substantial excerpt of the account--not the whole or even the most important part of it dealing with the vision itself--was first quoted in an article in the Ensign magazine in 1978. The first article in the Ensign to discuss the problem of the conflicting nature of the accounts was an article by Milton Backman in 1985; this article did not, however, provide the text of the account. If the Ensign has ever included a full quotation of the 1832 account of the First Vision, please provide a reference, because I have not been able to find such an article.

joseph smith paters project.. you will find it all!:P

Link to comment

CFR on the underlined bold part, please.

H.

For a good discussion on the first vision, you might want to look here: http://en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision

And there is also an interesting Harmony here: http://www.eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm

Obviously claims can only be "soundly repudiated" in the mind of each individual. However, it does help to read the information that is available so that one can be fully informed of the facts. You can choose your own opinions, but you shouldn't choose your own facts.

Link to comment

Deborah,

You wrote:

I am not aware of a sound repudiation of the argument that Joseph Smith told substantially conflicting stories of the First Vision.

As for your second point, there is no display of integrity on the part of the LDS Church for publishing the different accounts after a long history of obstructionism and suppression of that evidence and only after the fact of the conflicting accounts was widely known. The 1832 account of the First Vision in Joseph's own hand was held in the Church Historian's office for decades and remained unknown until a BYU student somehow obtained a copy of it and published the text in an appendix of his master's thesis in 1965. That same year, the Tanners published the account. It was only in 1969 that the LDS Church publicly acknowledged that the account was genuine. A substantial excerpt of the account--not the whole or even the most important part of it dealing with the vision itself--was first quoted in an article in the Ensign magazine in 1978. The first article in the Ensign to discuss the problem of the conflicting nature of the accounts was an article by Milton Backman in 1985; this article did not, however, provide the text of the account. If the Ensign has ever included a full quotation of the 1832 account of the First Vision, please provide a reference, because I have not been able to find such an article.

Rob "Mr. Conspiracy" Bowman,

Are you serious? Obstructionism? Where was the obstructionism? I daresay that if a BYU student "somehow" obtained a copy of anything in archives, there's no obstructionism. What a joke. But whatever makes you feel like you're contributing, I suppose.

Of course, any failing on the Church's part for not addressing the differences directly to your satisfaction is meaningful only so far as yours is the standard. Frankly, I doubt they (as most people) saw it as a big deal. The diary holds more details in a number of respects. Your ability to read Joseph Smith's mind as to why he offered a shortened narrative consistent with his diary, is astonishing. Don't choke on the gnat.

PacMan

Link to comment

As for your second point, there is no display of integrity on the part of the LDS Church for publishing the different accounts after a long history of obstructionism and suppression of that evidence and only after the fact of the conflicting accounts was widely known.

How forthcoming is the Lutheran Church on the historical fact that Martin Luther condoned polygamy?

Bernard

Link to comment

PacMan,

I have never seen any explanation for how the BYU student (Paul Cheesman) obtained a copy of the 1832 account. But he did so in the 1960s. The Church had the document all that time and never acknowledged its existence. You can do the math.

I said absolutely nothing about Joseph Smith's mind or thinking regarding the differing accounts, so your accusation that I claimed to be able to read his mind is a smoke-and-mirrors distraction from the issue. I simply responded to Deborah's claim that the Ensign had published the differing accounts of the First Vision, thereby supposedly proving the LDS Church had never suppressed their existence. In response, I made three points: (1) the LDS Church knew about some of these differing accounts long before they came to light, (2) the Church never admitted their existence until after they were forced to do so by others (whether Mormons or non-Mormons) who brought them to light, and (3) the Ensign in fact has never published those differing accounts and did not even comment on the problem until twenty years after the 1832 account was made public. If you have something substantive to say in response to these three points, please feel free to say it.

Rob "Mr. Conspiracy" Bowman,

Are you serious? Obstructionism? Where was the obstructionism? I daresay that if a BYU student "somehow" obtained a copy of anything in archives, there's no obstructionism. What a joke. But whatever makes you feel like you're contributing, I suppose.

Of course, any failing on the Church's part for not addressing the differences directly to your satisfaction is meaningful only so far as yours is the standard. Frankly, I doubt they (as most people) saw it as a big deal. The diary holds more details in a number of respects. Your ability to read Joseph Smith's mind as to why he offered a shortened narrative consistent with his diary, is astonishing. Don't choke on the gnat.

PacMan

Link to comment

Bernard,

You wrote:

How forthcoming is the Lutheran Church on the historical fact that Martin Luther condoned polygamy?

First, you are changing the subject.

Second, from your perspective, the Lutheran Church was and is apostate and the LDS Church is run by godly prophets. Should you not hold your religious leaders to a higher standard?

Third, the Lutheran Church is quite forthcoming on the subject, and to my knowledge never suppressed the historical facts. But your statement does suppress some facts (though perhaps you are simply repeating what you read somewhere). Luther did not teach that polygamy was morally acceptable. He gave what he later admitted was bad counsel on one occasion to a prince that in effect condoned an act of bigamy, and Luther himself came to view his involvement with regret. Furthermore, Luther explicitly denounced polygamy as of the devil. Here's a source on this subject: Martin Brecht and James L. Schaaf, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, Vol. 3, 1532-1546 (Fortress, 1993), 205-15.

Link to comment

My favourite is pretty unique. Someone, on the previous board, drew a clumsy parallel between Joseph Smith, Sabbetai Tzvi, the Book of Abraham, and the Apocalypse of Abraham. The only thing the theory had going for it was novelty. Everything else was dramatically inaccurate.

Link to comment

A Mormon will be elected vice-president of the United States. The president will die under mysterious circumstances. The Mormon will become president and appointment "temple" Mormons to all the critical federal positions and then abdicate to the prophet in SLC. Mormons with their year's supply of guns and ammunition will form the prophet's private militia and thus the Mormons take control of the US.

Bernard

Link to comment

First, you are changing the subject.

Not really. All churches have problems with history.

Second, from your perspective, the Lutheran Church was and is apostate and the LDS Church is run by godly prophets. Should you not hold your religious leaders to a higher standard?

Yes, and so should a priest who was the founder of Protestantism.

Third, the Lutheran Church is quite forthcoming on the subject, and to my knowledge never suppressed the historical facts. But your statement does suppress some facts (though perhaps you are simply repeating what you read somewhere). Luther did not teach that polygamy was morally acceptable. He gave what he later admitted was bad counsel on one occasion to a prince that in effect condoned an act of bigamy, and Luther himself came to view his involvement with regret. Furthermore, Luther explicitly denounced polygamy as of the devil. Here's a source on this subject: Martin Brecht and James L. Schaaf, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, Vol. 3, 1532-1546 (Fortress, 1993), 205-15.

Bad counsel indeed. Is this fact taught regularly in Lutheran churches?

Bernard

Link to comment

(1) the LDS Church knew about some of these differing accounts long before they came to light, (2) the Church never admitted their existence until after they were forced to do so by others (whether Mormons or non-Mormons) who brought them to light, and (3) the Ensign in fact has never published those differing accounts and did not even comment on the problem until twenty years after the 1832 account was made public. If you have something substantive to say in response to these three points, please feel free to say it.

I'm keep looking at your three points and I'm scratching my head. I'm not intending to hijack this thread, but I think the questions need to be discussed.

1) Yes, there were certainly some historians in the church who were aware of the different versions. There were members who heard those different versions given at the time of Joseph Smith as well. And there were books and articles that mentioned more than one version of the first vision.

2) The Church didn't need to admit their existence, because they weren't trying to hide it. There was no attempt to cover it up. It is just that some people didn't care enough about it to notice it. Multiple versions of the first vision did, however, show up in many documents. Here is a list of some of them: (Note the Improvement Era references. That was the Ensign.)

1970 President Loren C. Dunn, of the First Council of the Seventy,

Link to comment

Second, from your perspective, the Lutheran Church was and is apostate and the LDS Church is run by godly prophets. Should you not hold your religious leaders to a higher standard?

Help me out a bit here. Are you arguing that the Lutheran Church is not run by godly men and therefore doesn't have to meet those high standards? If you are arguing that, I will have to kindly disagree with you on both points.

Link to comment

Oh, there are so many. Lately, it is the assertion that the Holy Spirit would never tell anyone to kill anyone else. (I.e., Nephi whacking off Laban's head). Sure, in my fallible mortal wisdom, I might wish for that to be so. But then I would have to throw away the Bible as well as the Book of Mormon. Samuel the prophet slew an unarmed, captive king -- did the devil make him do it? As ugly and unpleasant as are the slaughter campaigns of Joshua, did the devil make him do all that? Elijah called for all the priests of Baal to be executed. On whose direction was he acting? Etc., etc.

Link to comment

I like the ones where our critics like to rewrite history.

Bowman has been kind enough to provided one example already.

Another one is the claim that we only recently started claiming to be Christian.

But my all time favorite is the "you believe in a different Jesus".

Link to comment

I have never seen any explanation for how the BYU student (Paul Cheesman) obtained a copy of the 1832 account. But he did so in the 1960s. The Church had the document all that time and never acknowledged its existence. You can do the math.

You can't be serious that this is your argument. The church had a lot of documents but never acknowledged them. But in your eyes that is somehow nefarious. One reason the Joseph Smith Papers was begun several years ago was to organize and publish these documents which the church has "kept secret" all these years. In order to do so they had to corroborate and verify the sources. Furthermore Scott has shown that the different version of the vision were discussed much earlier. Besides which the differing versions of the FV has to be one of the lamest arguments ever. What would be suspicious if every time Joseph discussed it, it was word for word identical. That would show rehearsal. Furthermore Joseph was reluctant to even discuss it and at times he did it was carefully told depending on the audience and venue.

Link to comment

I always get a kick out of the "no evidence" trope for the BoM. What that really means is that they 1, haven't read the relevant literature (and most likely haven't even heard of most of it) or 2, they have read it but no piece of evidence will ever sastify them including seeing the gold plates in the Smithsonian. (I actually mentioned that on an anti site and they said the circular reasoning classic: "yep, becuase there is no evidence for the BoM")

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...