Do Discrepancies Discredit A Story?

[sethpayne]

But can't you see Xander you are doing exactly the same thing you are accusing the Apologists of.

I don't think that is what Xander is doing as he is not trying to discredit the reality of the first vision here.

[OUmd]

Yet, interestingly, if any of our modern Prophets were to to be found engaged (self confessed or not) in any of the activities you listed, he would be immediately removed from his position and excommunicated from the church, along with the esteem, rememberance and following of the faithful.

That's why it's hard to swallow.

Great point.

[Jeff K.]

Come on.

Thats your rebuttal?

[Eldwynn]

It's rather sad that nobody really even talked about the OP's main point to begin with. His point was never about whether the first vision was consistent or not. It was about whether a double standard exists among apologists.

[Jeff K.]

That is a good question. One wonders if you have filtered your own approach to ensure yours isn't a double standard either? How do you ensure that I wonder?

[Xander]

Why is this a separate thread?

Seems a rehash of what's being discussed in the thread Pahoran started.

Pahoran made it clear that his thread was his thread and he is the God of his thread and if I wanted to talk about how this applies to the First Vision then I should start my own thread.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Thats your rebuttal?

No that was my initial response. If you pay attention you'll see my rebuttal and refutation in the next post.

[Xander]

It's rather sad that nobody really even talked about the OP's main point to begin with. His point was never about whether the first vision was consistent or not. It was about whether a double standard exists among apologists.

[ldsfaqs]

Yet several people in their addressing of Xanders statements DID in fact also address his comments about "double standards".

"And the loser is"....?

The answer is no, there isn't a double standard. If Xanders "premises" were correct, then there would be a double standard. But since his premises aren't correct, then there is no double standard.

[Jeff K.]

Why does Xander remind me of Charlie Sheen?

[Pahoran]

In 1842 Henry Caswall says Joseph Smith left abruptly after being asked to interpret the inscriptions on the papyri. He then goes on to say he saw the Prophet fleeing the scene on a wagon.

A year later he tells offers a shorter version of this incident, saying Joseph Smith left abruptly, with no mention of the wagon.

According to Pahoran, this causes serious problems for Caswall's credibility as it pertains to anything he had to say about what happened that day. Particularly his claim that Joseph Smith misidentified a Greek Psalter.

Kevin,

if you wanted to discuss the significance of the various versions of the First Vision on their merits, you really could have done so without dragging my name into it. If the subject is a valid discussion point, then the discussion ought to be able to proceed without your spiteful personal back-handers.

So let's employ this logic elsewhere.

In 1838 we get the official version of the First Vision which wasn't published until 1842 (twenty-two years after it happened). In this official version Joseph says "it had never entered into my heart that all (churches) were wrong."

However, this is a direction contradiction to what he said in 1832. He said he discovered from the Bible that, "(mankind) had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ."

So, which version is true? And why?

Following this logic, if Caswall's discrepancies discredit his story about what happened that day, then it seems to me that Joseph Smith's various accounts of the First Vision should mean the entire thing never happened.

Am I wrong? If so, then please explain why.

Keep in mind that I am not arguing that discrepancies in various accounts discredit a story. This is Pahoran's argument. I am simply pointing out a double-standard that is frequently employed by those who turn a blind eye to things like the various First Vision accounts.

But here are some more interesting observations:

In 1832 we have the first attempt at an official account in the handwriting of Joseph Smith. Therein we find that he was visited by Jesus Christ who offered him forgiveness of his sins. He was age 15 according to this account.

In the Joseph Smith Diary, Nov. 9, 1835 as found in Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled by Dean C. Jessee, pp. 75-77, we find an account saying: "a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; <and I saw many angels in this vision> I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication." Although this was in Smith's diary, it was omitted from the History of the Church.

Nov 14, 1835 Joseph Smith again refers to "the first visitation of angels" when addressing Erastus Holmes. However, the Church altered this citation to say "first vision" when incorporating it in the History of the Church.

In 1838 we get the official version which wasn't published until 1842. In the official version Joseph says he was visited by Jesus and the Father.

In 1844 Joseph Smith wrote a chapter on Mormonism published in the book "An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States,." In it, he claimed to have been visited by two unidentified personages, six years after the official version explicitly identifies them as Jesus and the Father.

It seems that Joseph Smith couldn't get his story straight over the course of a decade. He was either visited by an angel, many angels, Jesus Christ, two unidentified personages, or Jesus and God the Father. The official version is contradicted by several earlier versions. But what I find most interesting is that acceptance of the First Vision is required by Mormons today, despite the fact that few Mormons even knew about this in the 1830's, and those who did know of "a" first vision story, didn't think it was important.

CFR, please, that the "official version explicitly identifies them as Jesus and the Father."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Pahoran made it clear that his thread was his thread and he is the God of his thread and if I wanted to talk about how this applies to the First Vision then I should start my own thread.

As you perfectly well know and fully intended, Kevin, your boilerplate anti-Mormon abuse of the First Vision was a complete red herring in the Caswall thread. If you can't defend Caswall without sandbagging the First Vision, then you can't defend Caswall at all.

We, OTOH, can defend the First Vision without sandbagging anything or anybody.

So it turns out that it's not the apologists but the polemicists who have a double standard.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Loran Blood]

Come on.

Kevin, please. Your entire argument here is based on your own subjective psychologizing of Joseph Smith and his thought processes some 150 years ago. Let's give that up for some serious argumentation, if you have any, that the various versions of the First Vision are, in fact, logically contradictory, not just fragmentary reports of the same experience and impressions given at different times with different emphasis.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Loran Blood

[wenglund]

Do Discrepancies Discredit A Story?

To the non-black/white thinkers among us, the answer would be: it depends on the extent, significance, and nature of the discrepancies. A single, minor, non-contradictory discrepancy may not discredit a story; whereas frequent, major contradictions that defy empirical evidence might.

On this basis, is Caswell's story comparable to the First Vision? I don't think so. However, I can respect that Caswell's story may of near scriptural importance for some people. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

In 1838 we get the official version which wasn't published until 1842. In the official version Joseph says he was visited by Jesus and the Father.

In 1844 Joseph Smith wrote a chapter on Mormonism published in the book "An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States,." In it, he claimed to have been visited by two unidentified personages, six years after the official version explicitly identifies them as Jesus and the Father.

I previously asked Kevin for references for his claim that "the official version explicitly identifies them as Jesus and the Father." However, since Kevin finds CFR's to be personally insulting and deeply disturbing, I will forego my call, and supply the references myself.

Joseph Smith -- History 1:

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

[...]

25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.

This is the "official version." This is all of the verses that directly mention or describe Joseph's heavenly visitors. Where does "the official version explicitly identify them as Jesus and the Father?"

Answer: nowhere.

Kevin was simply wrong in that assertion.

Let me hasten to add that Kevin's mistake here is not particularly reprehensible; in fact, it is a fairly common one. We are so used to the common (and correct) understanding that Joseph is describing a visit by God the Father and Jesus Christ, that it is easy to assume that his account explicitly says so. But it does not. Kevin's rather particular error is not in making that assumption, but in adducing therefrom, in an almost pavlovian reflex, a false accusation against Joseph Smith.

The fact is that none of Joseph's First Vision accounts actually name the Personages who visited him. This is a non-discrepancy. With this realisation, when we go back and review how he describes his heavenly visitors, we discover that most of the so-called "discrepancies" are manufactured out of whole cloth.

Which comes as no surprise.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Do Discrepancies Discredit A Story?

To the non-black/white thinkers among us, the answer would be: it depends on the extent, significance, and nature of the discrepancies. A single, minor, non-contradictory discrepancy may not discredit a story; whereas frequent, major contradictions that defy empirical evidence might.

On this basis, is Caswell's story comparable to the First Vision? I don't think so. However, I can respect that Caswell's story may of near scriptural importance for some people. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No Wade. That just doesn't work.

As soon as you acknowledge that not all "discrepancies" are created equal, you are forced to look at each story, with its various incarnations, on its merits. And then as soon as you do that, the "discredit by association" tactic is revealed to be no more legitimate than any other devious dodge, and the claim that "Them mopologists hez dibble standerds" is shown to be yet another red herring.

Regards,

Pahoran

[ldsfaqs]

The fact is that none of Joseph's First Vision accounts actually name the Personages who visited him. This is a non-discrepancy. With this realisation, when we go back and review how he describes his heavenly visitors, we discover that most of the so-called "discrepancies" are manufactured out of whole cloth.

Which comes as no surprise.

Regards,

Pahoran

That is actually interesting..... hmmm.... Learn something new once in awhile. I never even noticed that myself all this time.

This fact even further indicates that the "Versions" are not actually contradictory.

It's from other information that we learn it's the Father and Christ. Wow, thanks for that.

[wenglund]

No Wade. That just doesn't work.

As soon as you acknowledge that not all "discrepancies" are created equal, you are forced to look at each story, with its various incarnations, on its merits. And then as soon as you do that, the "discredit by association" tactic is revealed to be no more legitimate than any other devious dodge, and the claim that "Them mopologists hez dibble standerds" is shown to be yet another red herring.

Regards, Pahoran

LOL.

Careful, though. Someone might just take your words above as a wilting concession brought on by the searing heat of superior intellect. Various versions of stories may be told through the coming years about how you also fled in fear at the first hint of a formidable query.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 22, 2011 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

LOL.

Careful, though. Someone might just take your words above as a wilting concession brought on by the searing heat of superior intellect. Various versions of stories may be told through the coming years about how you also fled in fear at the first hint of a formidable query.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, the "searing heat of superior intellect" has been conspicuously absent from this thread for some time now; and in that time, the thread originator has not ceased from blessing other threads with his brilliance. It appears then that, for some reason or other, he has lost interest in arguing that Latter-day Saints have "double standards" on the dubious grounds that they are unequally convinced by unlike sets of discrepancies.

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

Well, the "searing heat of superior intellect" has been conspicuously absent from this thread for some time now; and in that time, the thread originator has not ceased from blessing other threads with his brilliance. It appears then that, for some reason or other, he has lost interest in arguing that Latter-day Saints have "double standards" on the dubious grounds that they are unequally convinced by unlike sets of discrepancies.

Regards, Pahoran

But, you are simply conveying your evident ignorance. To someone of that mind, there is little reason to returned to ideational scorched earth. His light has shown forth, and there is nothing that could withstand his glory. His work here on this thread is finished. All that is left is the proverbial victory dance. Look for it in abundance in future threads and on other boards.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-