The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[Ahab]

Here's one: Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson Country, Missouri, 18 August 1833

Well what (else) do you know. Thank you.

He wrote longer parahraphs than I do sometimes much longer than I suspected so I think I may need to revise my own writing style I mean if it worked for him it may work as well for me and some of my teachers did try to tell me that this kind of writing could open my mind to new territory I mean why stop to put in punctuation when I could instead just keep writing words now I just need to stop worrying about spelling and not do so much editing because if you have never noticed just about all of my posts show that I edit and that's mainly because I am just trying to make my thoughts more clear to other people as if that is necessary but people don't usually just absorb what I tell them anyway so why bother and instead I could just keep writing more words.

[Ahab]

Did find this though:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/site/documents-in-joseph-smiths-handwriting

Would have been easier than I thought, but still more work than I want to do.

Apparently I've been thinking I've been seeing Joseph's writing style when it looks like I've actually been seeing the writing style of his scribes at least mostly and most of that has been while reading the History of the Church which is attributed to him so now I'm thinking I'd like to look into the Joseph Smith's Papers project some more to learn even more about Joseph and his part in the restoration.

[Pahoran]

I did not choose not to respond...I missed the question.  I apologize.

 

Could you explain the conclusion that proof of the historicity is proof of miraculous origin?  I mean, we have the Bible....there are evidences of the historicity of the Bible....but that does not automatically prove it's miraculous origin.  Why is the Book of Mormon different/  It is called ANOTHER testament...not "the only miraculous one".

The Bible is historical. There really was a place called Jerusalem. There really were Israelites living in and around it. They really were ruled by kings, and really did fight with their neighbours.

Everyone, including card carrying atheists, can agree on that, because none of these things actually supports the Bible's miraculous claims.

However, the Book of Mormon is in a different boat. If there really was a Zarahemla, really inhabited by Nephites who fought against Lamanites, then there really was a Moroni, who really did give Joseph the plates, and Joseph really did translate them by the gift and power of God.

And Jesus really did visit them after his resurrection. Because he certainly didn't get there by camel.

A historical Book of Mormon is a volume that has uniquely miraculous provenance.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited to fix typo (Thanks, Cal.)

Edited February 26, 2015 by Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

Can anybody here tell me what they were taught in Sunday

meetings, or in seminary, or in institute classes, about this:

 

 

 

???

 

UD

I can tell you have never been in an LDS sunday school class

[mfbukowski]

I read it all...please do not assume I do not.  I find some of the apologetics very weak.  But, I find some very helpful.  Like I said when I related the story about carrying the plates.

 

Thank you for your help.  I truly appreciate it.

Did you read this- ?

 

It will.

Read Alma 32 again and again until it gels in your heart. That is the only remedy. This is about theology, not fables if they ARE fables. Donkeys don't talk, people do not get swallowed by whales and live to bear their testimonies. Plug in your lawyer instincts on the veracity of those stories and learn that religious truth is different.

The read Alma 32 some more. AND DEFINITELY READ THIS. This is the basis of my view of everything.

http://educ.jmu.edu//~omearawm/ph101willtobelieve.html

Obviously you do not have to, it's just that if you haven't, I will presume you do not want to continue wasting my time with this discussion.

Edited February 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

"because one of these things"

I think you meant "because none of these things"

[Uncle Dale]

I can tell you have never been in an LDS sunday school class

 

 

Attended the Delaware, Ohio LDS branch (now Delaware first ward)

for most of 1980 and part of 1981 -- High Priests

 

Took sacrament, bore my testimony [Reorganized] and generally

took part in all activities -- watched kids in the nursery -- talked down

a despondent member with a loaded gun from the roof -- and 

helped wash dishes now and then.

 

Also briefly attended the Rock Springs, Wyoming Singles Ward

for a while in 1978, and again in 1979.

 

About all I recall is that when lessons were presented, that they

were pretty much "canned" instruction, without much emphasis

given to question-and-answer or assigned studies.

 

Maybe things were different back then?

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

Attended the Delaware, Ohio LDS branch (now Delaware first ward)

for most of 1980 and part of 1981 -- High Priests

 

Took sacrament, bore my testimony [Reorganized] and generally

took part in all activities -- watched kids in the nursery -- talked down

a despondent member with a loaded gun from the roof -- and 

helped wash dishes now and then.

 

Also briefly attended the Rock Springs, Wyoming Singles Ward

for a while in 1978, and again in 1979.

 

About all I recall is that when lessons were presented, that they

were pretty much "canned" instruction, without much emphasis

given to question-and-answer or assigned studies.

 

Maybe things were different back then?

 

UD

Nope

[Scott Lloyd]

The Bible is historical. There really was a place called Jerusalem. There really were Israelites living in and around it. They really were ruled by kings, and really did fight with their neighbours.

Everyone, including card carrying atheists, can agree on that, because none of these things actually supports the Bible's miraculous claims.

However, the Book of Mormon is in a different boat. If there really was a Zarahemla, really inhabited by Nephites who fought against Lamanites, then there really was a Moroni, who really did give Joseph the plates, and Joseph really did translate them by the gift and power of God.

And Jesus really did visit them after his resurrection. Because he certainly didn't get there by camel.

A historical Book of Mormon is a volume that has uniquely miraculous provenance.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited to fix typo (Thanks, Cal.)

This is a rare thing. You and Dan Peterson are the only two people I'm aware of off hand who most always type immaculate text on first draft when making message board posts.

 

I'm something of a perfectionist in writing, but I don't get it all perfect on the first try. That is why nearly all my posts carry an "edted by" time stamp at the end. If I spot an error, I always go in and fix it, but I'm generally so eager to post something I typically don't read it over as I should before clicking the button.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't disagree with you.  Just because a scholarly theory is popular doesn't mean it's correct.  A perfect example is the misguided premise that the earth rotates and that it orbits the sun.  Just because that is the popular opinion doesn't mean it's the correct one as proven by this Muslim cleric in a recent video.  Let's reject the experts and lets most certainly reject the consensus of experts that has stood for centuries.  Our own speculation is all that matters.  

 

 

Phaedrus

And here we have an example of the fallacy of the faulty analogy. It is axiomatic that the earth revolves around the sun; that cannot be reasonably or competently disputed. On the other hand, the notion that Joseph invented the First Vision or embellished later accounts beyond what he actually experienced is far from axiomatic.

Anything else, phaedrus it? You are furnishing some really clear examples of unsound argumentation, thus improving our education. Thanks.

[Tacenda]

This is a rare thing. You and Dan Peterson are the only two people I'm aware of off hand who most always type immaculate text on first draft when making message board posts.

I'm something of a perfectionist in writing, but I don't get it all perfect on the first try. That is why nearly all my posts carry an "edted by" time stamp at the end. If I spot an error, I always go in and fix it, but I'm generally so eager to post something I typically don't read it over as I should before clicking the button.

That's me to a tee. Kinda wish I wasn't like that. Or I have fat finger syndrome on my cell phone. Edited February 26, 2015 by Tacenda

[Kevin Christensen]

Another essay worth discussing. Quinn on Joseph Smith's Experience of a Methodist Camp Meeting in 1820.

As an alternative to myopic polarization, this article provides new ways of understanding

Joseph's narrative, analyzes previously neglected issues/data, and establishes a basis for

perceiving in detail what the teenage boy experienced in the religious revivalism that led

to his first theophany.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/QuinnPaperless.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[UtahTexan]

Did you read this- ?

 

Obviously you do not have to, it's just that if you haven't, I will presume you do not want to continue wasting my time with this discussion.

 

Yes...I did.

 

Thank you for sharing.

 

Reading it, I had the questions arise....

 

One reason we believe that, at the very least, Jesus existed, is because he is mentioned by other authors outside of the Bible (like Josephus).  One reason we believe in the Bible is because we have found a lot of outside writings that support it...like the Dead Sea Scrolls (as only one example.)

 

So...here is my question.....and not one I already have an answer to.....this is not a trick question.

 

Are there any other writings that support the veracity of anything in the Book of Mormon?  Are there any other documents that can serve the Book of Mormon in the way the Dead Sea Scrolls serve the Bible?  Are there any other authors that lend veracity to the existence of Book of Mormon people like Josephus does for characters in the Bible?

[Anakin7]

      For CB http://en.fairmormon.org/Topical_Guide/Book_of_Mormon

 

       In His Debt/Grace

               Anakin7

Edited February 26, 2015 by Anakin7

[Kevin Christensen]

Yes...I did.

 

Thank you for sharing.

 

Reading it, I had the questions arise....

 

One reason we believe that, at the very least, Jesus existed, is because he is mentioned by other authors outside of the Bible (like Josephus).  One reason we believe in the Bible is because we have found a lot of outside writings that support it...like the Dead Sea Scrolls (as only one example.)

 

So...here is my question.....and not one I already have an answer to.....this is not a trick question.

 

Are there any other writings that support the veracity of anything in the Book of Mormon?  Are there any other documents that can serve the Book of Mormon in the way the Dead Sea Scrolls serve the Bible?  Are there any other authors that lend veracity to the existence of Book of Mormon people like Josephus does for characters in the Bible?

There is this, regarding Mulek:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=40

Followed up by this, which adds more about Mulek:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1411&index=8

And this about another specific location, amid a complex and interrelated set of specific descriptions:

One thing, however, that we can be sure of—I feel very confident about it—is that the name Nahom in 1 Nephi 16:34 is now securely represented in the historical geography and archaeology of south Arabia by the Arabic toponym nehem, which not only appears on antique maps of Yemen but is also preserved in inscriptions on stone altars from the Barʾan temple site near Marib. These archaeological finds date to the seventh century BC, the very century in which Lehi and Nephi were born and grew to manhood. Aston's groundbreaking research into the region and the altars, coupled with Brown's preparatory research and careful follow-up, have solidified the legitimacy of a major Book of Mormon—related discovery.23 That the toponym nehem is Arabic rather than Hebrew is, in this instance, not a problem. In fact, it is an indicator of authenticity because Nephi does not say his party gave the name Nahom to the place where Ishmael was buried; instead he says that the place "was called Nahom," presumably by the local Arab population. When I first began teaching in the Jerusalem Center program in the early 1980s, we used to jokingly say, "There is only one Book of Mormon place whose location we know for sure, and we're standing in it!"—meaning, of course, Jerusalem. But that joke doesn't work anymore, because we can say with absolute surety that we know where the area of ancient Nahom was. The importance of this, in terms of demonstrating the authenticity of Nephi's record, cannot be overstated.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1414&index=8

Plus all sorts of other things that I can measure as providing what Alma 32 calls "cause to believe."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[UtahTexan]

There is this, regarding Mulek:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1110&index=40

Followed up by this, which adds more about Mulek:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1411&index=8

And this about another specific location, amid a complex and interrelated set of specific descriptions:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1414&index=8

Plus all sorts of other things that I can measure as providing what Alma 32 calls "cause to believe."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Thank you.

 

I have a question.  Please do not assign mal-intent to my question.  

 

Have any archaeologists, non-LDS, agreed with the Nahom theory?  I only ask because I could not find any....and sometimes, when looking for things, we make the square peg fit into the round hole.

 

When I was a missionary, I visited Copan.  I was certain this was Book of Mormon related.  I remember the artwork from the Book of Mormon with Mayan-looking men and women.  I found I was wrong.

 

I appreciate greatly all the help and wonderful guidance I have gotten here.

 

Thank you

[mfbukowski]

Yes...I did.

 

Thank you for sharing.

 

Reading it, I had the questions arise....

 

One reason we believe that, at the very least, Jesus existed, is because he is mentioned by other authors outside of the Bible (like Josephus).  One reason we believe in the Bible is because we have found a lot of outside writings that support it...like the Dead Sea Scrolls (as only one example.)

 

So...here is my question.....and not one I already have an answer to.....this is not a trick question.

 

Are there any other writings that support the veracity of anything in the Book of Mormon?  Are there any other documents that can serve the Book of Mormon in the way the Dead Sea Scrolls serve the Bible?  Are there any other authors that lend veracity to the existence of Book of Mormon people like Josephus does for characters in the Bible?

I am glad Kevin answered this- he is certainly far more expert on this subject than I am by far!

 

But I am surprised at your answer.  I was anticipating a question on the William James piece, which clearly challenges the need to even ask the question you did.  If historical data is not relevant to religious belief as I think the article shows, it is odd to follow it up with a question requesting more historical data.  Presumably you would question the article or have no further need for historical data.

 

Edited February 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

I am glad Kevin answered this- he is certainly far more expert on this subject than I am by far!

 

But I am surprised at your answer.  I was anticipating a question on the William James piece, which clearly challenges the need to even ask the question you did.  If historical data is not relevant to religious belief as I think the article shows, it is odd to follow it up with a question requesting more historical data.  Presumably you would question the article or have no further need for historical data.

 

We all read things differently.  Like I said...the William James piece led me to the question I had.

 

Faith is a funny thing.  One's life experiences form the basis of how they use faith, how faith uses them, and what areas in their life require more faith than others.

 

Having been LDS, and having felt, for whatever reason, deceived, more is required this time.  

 

An odd thing.....back in 1983 when I became LDS, the desire was not as strong to be LDS, but my willingness to believe and accept was greater.

 

Now, my desire is strong....but I am more skeptical, more cautious......afraid to make the mistake again (assuming it was a mistake in 1983).

 

I am not sure I am making any sense.  I wish...truly wish, we could all sit around a table....talk...discuss.....pray.

 

I could even, I think, use a Priesthood Blessing.

 

Sigh

[mfbukowski]

Would a Christian ask if non-Christian archaeologists have found evidence of the Resurrection?  How likely would it be for anyone to have done this?  Why would a non-Christian be looking for evidence of the resurrection in the first place?

 

I would find it an odd question.

[UtahTexan]

Would a Christian ask if non-Christian archaeologists have found evidence of the Resurrection?  How likely would it be for anyone to have done this?  Why would a non-Christian be looking for evidence of the resurrection in the first place?

 

I would find it an odd question.

 

Maybe not....but a Christian might ask a non-Christian Archaeologist if he has found evidence of the Tomb of David.  Or the Walls of Jericho.....etc

 

The resurrection is a faith-based issue.  The location of Jericho is not......see the difference?

[mfbukowski]

We all read things differently.  Like I said...the William James piece led me to the question I had.

 

Faith is a funny thing.  One's life experiences form the basis of how they use faith, how faith uses them, and what areas in their life require more faith than others.

 

Having been LDS, and having felt, for whatever reason, deceived, more is required this time.  

 

An odd thing.....back in 1983 when I became LDS, the desire was not as strong to be LDS, but my willingness to believe and accept was greater.

 

Now, my desire is strong....but I am more skeptical, more cautious......afraid to make the mistake again (assuming it was a mistake in 1983).

 

I am not sure I am making any sense.  I wish...truly wish, we could all sit around a table....talk...discuss.....pray.

 

I could even, I think, use a Priesthood Blessing.

 

Sigh

Well if you are in So Cal, a meeting could definitely be arranged.

 

But it is interesting to me because William James for me was a turning point away from atheism and led me eventually to the church.  I was as skeptical as anyone could possibly be, and by nature I must have answers for everything I believe, and leave no belief unquestioned.

 

I drive my kids nuts by continually asking them why they think so and so is the case, and encourage them to question everything, and they have all ended up believing what I believe (so far.... all are adults so who knows....)  BECAUSE I come from pretty rigorous skepticism.

 

I was Catholic, became atheist and then found- after reading secular philosophy- Mormonism.   So I naturally think that if everyone just studies philosophy they will come to the same conclusions I have.  I have found numerous "atheist" philosophers who are just "inches" away from a Mormon position.

 

Even Dawkins says he would believe in a God who was part of a race of beings who had evolved for eons to be gods.  Link that with King Follette, and indeed we can be seen to be quite close.  Richard Rorty is seen as an atheist, who is also very close to Mormonism- without really knowing it.  So is Thomas Nagel, and the list goes on.   Margaret Barker, a non-Mormon temple scholar continually comes up with gems which a Mormon scholar could have written.  John Dewey is another philosopher, as is John Searle- all are non-Mormons who take a position quite close to ours on major issues.

 

Sometimes I just want to shake people and say "LOOK!!".  Maybe someday it will gel for someone.

[mfbukowski]

Maybe not....but a Christian might ask a non-Christian Archaeologist if he has found evidence of the Tomb of David.  Or the Walls of Jericho.....etc

 

The resurrection is a faith-based issue.  The location of Jericho is not......see the difference?

Not really. The problem is a logical one.

 

One could find the tomb Jesus was laid in with an inscription on it saying "The Tomb of Jesus, From Which He Arose" and date the inscription to the year 33 and that STILL would not prove that Jesus even existed.

 

The problem is that you are not skeptical ENOUGH.  I have no clue why finding Jericho has anything to do with believing ANYTHING the bible says spiritually.

 

Why you see the distinction in one place and ignore it in another is total mystery to me.

[UtahTexan]

Well if you are in So Cal, a meeting could definitely be arranged.

 

But it is interesting to me because William James for me was a turning point away from atheism and led me eventually to the church.  I was as skeptical as anyone could possibly be, and by nature I must have answers for everything I believe, and leave no belief unquestioned.

 

I drive my kids nuts by continually asking them why they think so and so is the case, and encourage them to question everything, and they have all ended up believing what I believe (so far.... all are adults so who knows....)  BECAUSE I come from pretty rigorous skepticism.

 

I was Catholic, became atheist and then found- after reading secular philosophy- Mormonism.   So I naturally think that if everyone just studies philosophy they will come to the same conclusions I have.  I have found numerous "atheist" philosophers who are just "inches" away from a Mormon position.

 

Even Dawkins says he would believe in a God who was part of a race of beings who had evolved for eons to be gods.  Link that with King Follette, and indeed we can be seen to be quite close.  Richard Rorty is seen as an atheist, who is also very close to Mormonism- without really knowing it.  So is Thomas Nagel, and the list goes on.   Margaret Barker, a non-Mormon temple scholar continually comes up with gems which a Mormon scholar could have written.  John Dewey is another philosopher, as is John Searle- all are non-Mormons who take a position quite close to ours on major issues.

 

Sometimes I just want to shake people and say "LOOK!!".  Maybe someday it will gel for someone.

 

lol....in your own way, you are "shaking" me.  Some things take time.  Going back takes more that starting the first time.  It is more tiring me than you....

 

But....I am, at least, trying.

[mfbukowski]

lol....in your own way, you are "shaking" me.  Some things take time.  Going back takes more that starting the first time.  It is more tiring me than you....

 

But....I am, at least, trying.

Indeed you are!!  Thanks for discussing it!

[UtahTexan]

Not really. The problem is a logical one.

 

One could find the tomb Jesus was laid in with an inscription on it saying "The Tomb of Jesus, From Which He Arose" and date the inscription to the year 33 and that STILL would not prove that Jesus even existed.

 

The problem is that you are not skeptical ENOUGH.  I have no clue why finding Jericho has anything to do with believing ANYTHING the bible says spiritually.

 

Why you see the distinction in one place and ignore it in another is total mystery to me.

 

lol...the fact you do not see what I am saying is just as mysterious to me

 

Again, I have said on several occasions.....the miracles of the Bible must be taken on faith.  Finding Jericho would simply mean that something the Bible said existed actually existed.  It does, in its own way, add credibility.  Now, finding Jericho does NOT mean that we have proven that walls came down as the Bible describes......but.....