Jump to content

It'S Too Sacred


Rob Bowman

Recommended Posts

Therein lies the dilemma. Believe in the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith or believe in the words of the false prophet, Rob Bowman and his ever so reliable "IRR" source. pardon.gif

It is easy for me to solve this dilemma: believe in the words of the Prophet :good:

Link to post

This doesn't answer the question.

It does answer the question.

Where did Joseph Smith or anyone else prior to the 1880s cite the First Vision as "establishing" the doctrine that the Father and the Son were two distinct "individuals"?

What part of "two personages" is so difficult to understand?

I realize you think that JS-H 1:17 teaches or implies this idea, . . .

It is obvious.

. . . but Joseph doesn't make anything of it.

He doesn't need to. It is obvious.

He doesn't claim that the vision revealed a new truth about the nature of God.

It isn't a "new" truth. It is found all through the New Testament. Those blinded by the Hellenized philosophies of men just can't see the obvious.

That the Father are the Son were distinct persons was already a familiar idea in Christianity.

Nah, what you guys REALLY believe is that there is a single being with a multiple personality disorder. But you won't admit THAT so you call each personality a person but you don't really mean person but personality. So you have to create a special definition just for this one situation.

"Personage" is more definite than your special pleading definition of "person". You just don't want to admit the obvious.

The very statement that Joseph claimed he heard the Father make is recorded on more than one occasion in the Gospels.

So?

Why should we expect God the Father to provide more than an introduction? Jesus is the Mediator, after all.

Link to post

It does answer the question.

What part of "two personages" is so difficult to understand?

It is obvious.

He doesn't need to. It is obvious.

It isn't a "new" truth. It is found all through the New Testament. Those blinded by the Hellenized philosophies of men just can't see the obvious.

Nah, what you guys REALLY believe is that there is a single being with a multiple personality disorder. But you won't admit THAT so you call each personality a person but you don't really mean person but personality. So you have to create a special definition just for this one situation.

"Personage" is more definite than your special pleading definition of "person". You just don't want to admit the obvious.

So?

Why should we expect God the Father to provide more than an introduction? Jesus is the Mediator, after all.

Vance, I enjoyed reading your answers. Those are very good answers. I don't think Rob will say that he has no answers.

Link to post

Vance, I enjoyed reading your answers. Those are very good answers. I don't think Rob will say that he has no answers.

Thank you for your kind words. But you shouldn't have, it doeth make my head swell.

The problem is that those blinded by the Hellenized philosophies of men just can't read the New Testament for what it actually says. It is rather obvious that Christ and the Apostles taught the seperateness of the Father and the Son. But they also put forth effort to explain how they are united (or "one").

Plus, Bowman seems to forget (I don't see how he could NOT know, being an "expert" and all) that Joseph also said/taught/canonized this,

D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Link to post

calmoriah,

The articles to which I provided a link in my previous post directly respond to the arguments of the FAIR wiki article you cited. I have invited LDS apologists to respond to my articles and so far have heard nothing. If we accept the claims of the FAIR article without question, the earliest they can push back any possible references to the First Vision would be 1831. My point stands--there is no evidence that anyone in the 1820s even knew about the First Vision, let alone persecuted Joseph Smith over it. There is no evidence for anything like the First Vision story until after Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church.

Link to post

BOMT,

You wrote:

Therein lies the dilemma. Believe in the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith or believe in the words of the false prophet, Rob Bowman and his ever so reliable "IRR" source. pardon.gif

Since I don't claim to be a prophet, I cannot be a false prophet. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, does qualify.

No one needs to take my word for anything. You can look at the evidence for yourself, if you dare.

Would you agree with the following statement: There is no evidence, apart from Joseph Smith's 1838 account, that anyone had ever heard of the First Vision prior to 1831?

Link to post

Alla,

You wrote:

It is easy for me to solve this dilemma: believe in the words of the Prophet :good:

Which ones?

Link to post

All,

I had written:

"Your comments appear to reflect the idea that Joseph Smith's First Vision established the nature of God in the sense of revealing that the Father and the Son were both separately embodied beings of flesh and bones. However, this does not seem to be the case. Nowhere in any of Joseph's numerous writings and recorded sermons did he ever claim that the First Vision revealed the truth about the nature of God. He doesn't make this connection in any of his accounts of the First Vision or in any other known statement. Nor did Brigham Young ever make such a connection, so far as I have been able to determine. The earliest known statements citing the First Vision as proving the embodied nature of God the Father were made in the 1880s."

So far, no one has even tried to counter the above comments. So, do you all agree that this interpretation of the First Vision originated after both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had died?

Link to post

Given that Joseph Smith clearly identified the two I would say you haven't made a convincing argument beyond that of "but he didn't say it 'officially'". Which isn't really a good argument.

Link to post

Alla,

You wrote:

Vance, I enjoyed reading your answers. Those are very good answers. I don't think Rob will say that he has no answers.

You're new here, so I wouldn't expect you to know this: after getting harassed by Vance numerous times, and after some Mormons suggested I do so, I decided months ago to ignore most or all of Vance's posts. I usually don't even read them. He is the only forum member whose posts I block from view. Naturally, Vance crows that I can't answer him--as if his posts were so much more difficult for me to answer than those of the truly well educated and sophisticated LDS apologists that also participate here. But I ignore Vance because he is boorish, not because he is unanswerable.

Link to post

Jeff,

Yes or No: Does the First Vision reveal that God the Father is an exalted Man with a body of flesh and bones? If Yes, please provide a reference supporting this answer.

Given that Joseph Smith clearly identified the two I would say you haven't made a convincing argument beyond that of "but he didn't say it 'officially'". Which isn't really a good argument.

Link to post

Jeff,

You're being evasive. I understand the words "two personages" just fine. Now please answer my question.

To quote vance

What part of two personages don't you understand?

Link to post

Since I don't claim to be a prophet, I cannot be a false prophet. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, does qualify.

You may not "claim" to be a prophet, but you are acting the role of one; and since you are not, that makes you a false one. In the days of Jeremiah there was a false prophet called Hananiah, who contradicted everything that Jeremiah said. He came to a sad end. That should be warning to you. False prophets do not have a happy ending.

Link to post

BOMT,

No one needs to take my word for anything.

On this one point we agree. I would take it one step further and say it would be very wise not to take your word for anything.

Link to post

BOMT,

You wrote:

Since I don't claim to be a prophet, I cannot be a false prophet. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, does qualify.

No one needs to take my word for anything. You can look at the evidence for yourself, if you dare.

Would you agree with the following statement: There is no evidence, apart from Joseph Smith's 1838 account, that anyone had ever heard of the First Vision prior to 1831?

Okay correction: "false non-professed prophet". We know you aren't a Prophet (in its truest sense), but we know your words are false especially in regards to a real Prophet, Joseph Smith. And scarily you are getting paid for it. Not a good condition to be in.

It also looks like you are asking 2 or 3 questions on this thread to derail the OP which was clearly answered, but not acknowledged, of course. To answer you question, no I don't agree. Common sense would tell you his family would know. The same family that supported him through the persecutions you blatantly dismiss.

1826. Joseph Knight Jr states that Joseph Smith told him of the First Vision. (Autobiography of Joseph Knight Jr., p. 1 (church archives), cited in Backman, Eyewitness Accounts, 72

1824 - Fall. Joseph Smith's father tells Martin Harris about the First Vision (Willard Bean, A.B.C. History of Palmyra and the Beginning of Mormonism [Palmyra, New York: Palmyra Courier Co., 1938], 35)

1830, February. Joseph Smith's own hometown newspaper announced that he had seen God "personally." (The Reflector, 14 February 1830) My link

Looks like the "information" on your website continues to fail. Do you need someone to update it to state the honest facts? wink.gif

Link to post

Alla,

You wrote:

You're new here, so I wouldn't expect you to know this: after getting harassed by Vance numerous times, and after some Mormons suggested I do so, I decided months ago to ignore most or all of Vance's posts. I usually don't even read them. He is the only forum member whose posts I block from view. Naturally, Vance crows that I can't answer him--as if his posts were so much more difficult for me to answer than those of the truly well educated and sophisticated LDS apologists that also participate here. But I ignore Vance because he is boorish, not because he is unanswerable.

I am sure Alla can see your contradiction.

You know "ignore" Lance, yet still took the time to reply to his "harassment" a few posts ago? I am starting to see, Rob's word is good as gold. rolleyes.gif

Link to post

I had asked for a reference showing that the First Vision "established" that the Father and the Son are "two distinct individuals." You

This doesn't answer the question. Where did Joseph Smith or anyone else prior to the 1880s cite the First Vision as "establishing" the doctrine that the Father and the Son were two distinct "individuals"? I realize you think that JS-H 1:17 teaches or implies this idea, but Joseph doesn't make anything of it. He doesn't claim that the vision revealed a new truth about the nature of God. That the Father are the Son were distinct persons was already a familiar idea in Christianity. The very statement that Joseph claimed he heard the Father make is recorded on more than one occasion in the Gospels.

Before you continue this line of reasoning, you really should

look up "personage" in the dictionary.

Bernard

Link to post

Since I don't claim to be a prophet, I cannot be a false prophet. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, does qualify.

No one needs to take my word for anything. You can look at the evidence for yourself, if you dare.

Would you agree with the following statement: There is no evidence, apart from Joseph Smith's 1838 account, that anyone had ever heard of the First Vision prior to 1831?

It would have never crossed my mind to accuse you of being a false prophet, but what you have said here should give you pause.

From a word search of “false prophet” in LDS Scripture website: False prophets deceive, and deceive the very elect, and show great signs and wonders to seduce. They are covetous. God did not send them or speak to them. They prophesy false visions, divinations, things of nought, and the deceit of their heart. They see vain and foolish things for their followers, and false reasons for their suffering the consequences of sin so that they do not repent and continue in wickedness. They bring forth corrupt, apostate and evil fruit. They are full of subtilty and mischief, seek to turn people away from the true faith, and pervert the right ways of the Lord. They privily bring in damnable heresies, denying the Lord. They are many. They are very active in the last days. They testify that sinners’ deeds are indeed good. They build competing churches and persecute the true people of Christ.

I would say that any anyone displaying any one of these characteristics is a false prophet. "I don't claim to be a prophet, I cannot be a false prophet..." is not a good defense against these criteria as it can be shown to be part and parcel of a corrupt fruit.

Lack of evidence that anyone heard of the First Vision prior to 1831 is simply a lack of evidence on that particular point; it doesn't mean it didn't happen, and it doesn't change the subsequent or other revelations. This kind of evidence, like any matter of faith in Christ, is not based on what men can (or have failed to) document apart from God's own word or the voice of His Spirit to them.

Link to post

Jeff,

Yes or No: Does the First Vision reveal that God the Father is an exalted Man with a body of flesh and bones? If Yes, please provide a reference supporting this answer.

I feel that the term personage at least implies a man. The very fact that he can see them first implies some sort of physicality. The use of personage seems to imply from the root person, to be people. Not the perfect solution or the best proof text for the exalted man, but it seems at least to apply two non spirit person looking entities.

If they had been two spirits I would have expected something like "I sensed two beings"

Link to post

The first vision does not establish them as personages of flesh and bone.

In fact, the Lectures on Faith, written by Sidney Rigdon, but approved and used by Joseph and printed with the Revelations as the "Doctrine" of the "Doctrine and Covenants" in 1835 presents the Father as a personage of Spirit, and the Son as a personage of Tabernacle (flesh and bones), with the Holy Ghost being their shared mind.

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 fullness. 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 the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him

The recognition of the physical corporeality of the Father appears to be a much later (and perhaps one of the latest) development in Joseph's understanding/teachings.

Link to post

The First Vision may not have established the physicality of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, but it is evidence of it.

Kind of like watching the movie The Sixth Sense...looking back to the beginning, there is evidence of the end knowledge, and it all falls into place.

Link to post

The First Vision may not have established the physicality of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, but it is evidence of it.

Kind of like watching the movie The Sixth Sense...looking back to the beginning, there is evidence of the end knowledge, and it all falls into place.

I would agree with that. But I think it is an important distinction to recognize.

Link to post

Jeff,

You're being evasive. I understand the words "two personages" just fine. Now please answer my question.

I am not, but you are trying mightily to make something that "isn't there". Might I also add we have confirmation of later prophets as to exactly what was meant?

Link to post

Since I don't claim to be a prophet, I cannot be a false prophet. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, does qualify.

Rob, you don't have to claim that you are a prophet in order to be false prophet. It is enough to be a false teacher, to teach a false doctrine about God.

I believe in true prophets of God.

Link to post

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...