Amateurs...

[semlogo]

I still occasionally hear the claim that there are no more prophets after Christ.

That's probably the weakest criticism of them all. Usually made by other Christians

I find the most difficult criticisms usually come from atheists/agnostics.

[bluebell]

I think one of the lamest arguments i've heard is that Jesus drinking wine in the new testament proves that the word of wisdom could not come from God and therefore JS was a false prophet.

[bluebell]

I take that back, the actual lamest argument i've ever heard was this morning from the latest troll who attempted to argue that since Jesus had 'two dads' and turned out fine, same sex marriage has to be alright.

You just can't make this stuff up.

[Rob Bowman]

Scott,

You wrote:

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.

I'm glad you are making the effort, and don't see how your response in any way threatens to hijack the thread.

You wrote:

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.

The "differing accounts" that I said the LDS Church knew about but suppressed did not include the Wentworth Letter, which you referenced repeatedly as being mentioned by various LDS writers. It was impossible to suppress the Wentworth Letter because it had been published by the LDS Church during Joseph Smith's lifetime and was part of the History of the Church. The Wentworth Letter, which Joseph wrote in 1842, offered a summary of the same version of the First Vision story as Joseph published in Times & Seasons in that same year of 1842 (written in 1838/1839). Obviously, I was referring to accounts that the LDS Church knew existed but had kept secret from the world for decades. The main example of such a suppressed account is the 1832 document, which is the only one I actually brought up in this connection. No members of the LDS Church heard this version at the time of Joseph Smith, and no one quoted from it until Cheesman's 1965 master's thesis.

You wrote:

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.).... 3) The Ensign was called the Improvement era back then. So you can see from the listed references, there were several articles the mentioned the subject. I'm afraid you were misinformed on this matter.

The LDS Church did not officially acknowledge the 1832 account until years after it was published by the Tanners. The only Improvement Era article that mentions the account is the 1970 article by Allen that you cited, but it did not include the text of the account. Remember, Deborah's claim, to which I was responding, was that the Ensign had published the different accounts. It did not do so, not even when it was the Improvement Era. BYU Studies did publish an article that included the full text of the account in 1969. Your citation of Allen does, however, correct my statement that the LDS Church did not publish anything addressing the issue until twenty years after the 1832 account came to light. But my conclusion remains untouched: Allen's article came out five years after the 1832 account came to light, and thus only after it was no longer possible to suppress the account.

Since I have your attention, I'd like to ask you about the following alleged references to the First Vision, cited on the FAIR site:

• D&C 20:5
• The Reflector, Feb. 1831
• The Fredonia Censor, 1832

I discuss these alleged First Vision references in a group of short articles, summarized here. I have written to FAIR and to others requesting feedback on them, and I have referred to the articles more than once on this forum. To date, I have not had any substantive response to the articles. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at them.

[Vance]

The LDS Church did not officially acknowledge the 1832 account until years after it was published by the Tanners.

WOW!!!! The Tanners were able to publish something that was "suppressed"?

If it was "suppressed" (safely locked in the secret part of the vault), HOW did they get a copy?

By NEFARIOUS means?

I wonder, how long AFTER Paul's theopany was it FIRST documented?

[Mike Reed]

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.

The BoM mentions rocks. Does the discovery of rocks in the new world constitute evidence?

[Vance]

The BoM mentions rocks. Does the discovery of rocks in the new world constitute evidence?

Of course!

Where as if it said there were NO rocks, that would be evidence against it.

[mfbukowski]

I personaly think all you mormons are full of **** and basicaly thought hhhmmmm, Lets rip off catholics and make our own religion derp..... I need to know if this is correct

You are a credit to your faith, Mr. Derp.

[mfbukowski]

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

Dang.

You beat me to it! At least they are acknowledging their own polytheism. I wonder how many Saviors they think exist, if we can worship "another one"

Of course that might allow me to again take on Mr Bowman on the Trinity as being pagan doctrine- he failed to answer my last salvo on that one.

But it just shows what a ridiculous line of thought that "another Jesus" brings up- the phrase has no meaning. It's like saying we have "another Bible" because our interpretation is different than theirs.

[Mike Reed]

Mike Reed: The BoM mentions rocks. Does the discovery of rocks in the new world constitute evidence?

Vance: Of course!

[mfbukowski]

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.

I can't even tell my own conversion story the same twice, though I have probably told it a hundred times.

[Vance]

I see you didn't notice the at the end.

[Vance]

I can't even tell my own conversion story the same twice, though I have probably told it a hundred times.

Proof positive that you are a nefarious meretricious character.

[Mike Reed]

I see you didn't notice the at the end.

I noticed it, but was unsure what it meant. Did it mean that you were merely joking--that you really don't believe that the "discovery" of rocks in the new world constitutes evidence?

[Vance]

I noticed it, but was unsure what it meant. Did it mean that you were merely joking--that you really don't believe that the "discovery" of rocks in the new world constitutes evidence?

Yes.

[TAO]

I noticed it, but was unsure what it meant. Did it mean that you were merely joking--that you really don't believe that the "discovery" of rocks in the new world constitutes evidence?

Hey, at least we know that it didn't' occur in outer space, with the exception of on asteroids, comets, and rocky planets.

[Deborah]

I can't even tell my own conversion story the same twice, though I have probably told it a hundred times.

Likewise, and the details and emphasis varies depending on who I'm talking to and what I'm thinking about at the time.

[Vance]

Likewise, and the details and emphasis varies depending on who I'm talking to and what I'm thinking about at the time.

AARGHHH!!!

Your nefarious too!

[Mike Reed]

Yes.

Ok. Good. Anyway... my point to Morgan is this: The discovery of ancient Metal records should not be counted as evidence confirming the historicity of the BoM, unless it is first established that the notion of ancient Metal records was almost certainly unknown to Joseph and his associates (prior to receiving of the Gold Plates). The same goes for other BoM "evidences" cited by Mormon scholars/apologists.

[Nathair/|\]

AARGHHH!!!

Your nefarious too!

C'mon! We all know they are in the ruling council of the Gaddiantons.

[mfbukowski]

C'mon! We all know they are in the ruling council of the Gaddiantons.

And the only way you could know that is if........

ARREST NATHAIR IMMEDIATELY!

[Vance]

Ok. Good. Anyway... my point to Morgan is this: The discovery of ancient Metal records should not be counted as evidence confirming the historicity of the BoM, unless it is first established that the notion of ancient Metal records was almost certainly unknown to Joseph and his associates (prior to receiving of the Gold Plates). The same goes for other "evidences" cited by Mormon scholars/apologists.

I think I understand your issue. Basically you are saying that IF Joseph knew about ancient metal plates THEN he could have fabricated that part in an attempt to add false legitimacy to his story. BUT IF he knew nothing about ancient metal plates THEN it is indeed evidence that his story is legitimate.

Is that correct?

[Mike Reed]

I think I understand your issue. Basically you are saying that IF Joseph knew about ancient metal plates THEN he could have fabricated that part in an attempt to add false legitimacy to his story. BUT IF he knew nothing about ancient metal plates THEN it is indeed evidence that his story is legitimate.

Is that correct?

Yes.

[Rob Bowman]

Scott,

You wrote:

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.

No. I had written, "From your point of view." And I wasn't concerned about the present leadership of the Lutheran Church (and we'd have to discuss different denominations to boot). My point was simply this: Mormons claim their religion is run by godly prophets who have divine inspiration and authority of a kind that no Lutheran ever had. Thus, the LDS Church leadership is rightly held to a higher standard with regard to its honesty and integrity in such matters as the writings of its own founding prophet (for goodness' sake!). And certainly Mormons ought to expect more from their leaders than Mormons expect from Lutheran leaders. Yet some Mormons in this thread thought it was a valid response to the LDS Church's suppression of the 1832 First Vision account to bring up one of the poorer actions of Martin Luther. Any way you look at it, that was a fallacious attempt to divert attention away from the issue at hand.

[Sargon]

Obviously, I was referring to accounts that the LDS Church knew existed but had kept secret from the world for decades. The main example of such a suppressed account is the 1832 document, which is the only one I actually brought up in this connection. No members of the LDS Church heard this version at the time of Joseph Smith, and no one quoted from it until Cheesman's 1965 master's thesis.

Rob, do we know how Cheesman got a hold of the 1832 account? I don't know, so if you know feel free to tell us. Supposing Cheesman was given the account by LDS Church historians, how does that stack up against your theory of a nefarious plot by the LDS Church to hide the account? Would it make sense?

Supposing Cheesman independently discovered the 1832 account, is it possible that he was the first person in 100 years to find it?

The LDS Church did not officially acknowledge the 1832 account until years after it was published by the Tanners.

I'm unaware of any historical document that is "officially acknowledged" (whatever that means) by the LDS Church.

James