The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[Uncle Dale]

 

 

...J Smith claimed he told a minister that he had a vision?

and was treated with contempt?

...

 

Nobody really knows for certain. Reports from his associates

and family members are consistent with some sort of hostile

response, coming from some religious person(s).

 

But when, where, and from whom, I cannot verify.

 

We can get some ideas as to what a Protestant minister's

reaction to the golden plates story would have looked like,

in the late 1820s or at the very beginning of 1830.

 

Rev. John A. Clark responded to Martin Harris' testimony

with disbelief and a recommendation to Harris, that he also

should disbelieve the claims for a discovery of golden plates,

long-lost scriptures, latter day miracles, etc.

 

But Harris was not a member of Rev. Clark's Episcopalian

congregation in Palmyra. Had Harris been a member, and

had he voiced his testimony inside the Anglican chapel, the

minister's reaction probably would have been stronger and

more hostile.

 

If Joseph Smith, Jr. really was an innocent victim of some kind

of official Protestant persecution in 1820, or 1823, or 1827,

then it most likely would have come from a local reverend who

feared that Smith's profession would cause a disruption in 

that minister's congregation.

 

I do not suppose that a young fellow, claiming to have seen God

in a dream, a day-dream, or even a burning bush, would have

aroused much hatred and vicious attacks (such as the gun-shot

reportedly almost hitting the young lad).

 

Claiming to have seen a physical god, face-to-face, may well have

evolved into some sort of hostile argument, between Smith and a

local minister...

 

...But, again, I cannot believe that such a report would have led

to ministers trying to kill young Joseph, by shooting at him from

a hidden ambush.

 

Who might have been so vicious and even criminal, in their reaction?

Fellow money-diggers who believed they were being cheated out of

their fair share of plates made out of gold.

 

That sort of thing is a long, long way removed from a minister in 1820

beginning a terrible persecution against young Joseph, simply for

telling the truth.

 

But (as I was once taught) perhaps the Devil was bent upon persecuting

Joseph, almost from the moment of his birth (see PGP) -- and thus making

a never-ending attempt at destroying the Plan of Salvation. When I was

younger I almost believed it. The idea seemed to me, to be a very good

proof that Latter Day Saintism is the one true religion -- if Satan himself

would pick out a little child, to persecute and eventually murder in a jail

alongside the Missouri river.

 

???

 

UD

[Calm]

TM, did you happen to read the links that I posted?

[UtahTexan]

 

Countryboy,

 

 

<<Stop running!  Why are you so afraid?  I have asked you SEVERAL times to show me where it is required to announce heavenly visions.  I have asked you for evidence that shows that NOT announcing it proves it did not happen...now WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?  Without that evidence, the point you are trying to make is silly and pointless.  Now...stop dodging...stop running...stop being afraid.>>You are inserting fallacies that have nothing to do of what J Smith said , Ii is obvious to me and the looky-looks  that you are not answering the question...one more time ..Give me a corroborating account from a person/friend/foe/newspaper/dairy/family/etc/ that J Smith told this story anywhere between 1820-to 1838...the burden of proof is on you...and J Smith that claims he told this story, if you keep referring to you mantra that I prove my point to you, I don't want to waste my time with you, and let us go on record that you did not answer the question, you are just plain filibustering the theme/issue...

 

 

I do not answer your question because you have not prove it is relevant.  You come storming in here with a position you cannot sustain trying to prove a point you cannot prove and have dodged every attempt to get you to make your point relevant.  I can only presume at this point that you know your point is faulty and that you have no proof for it.

 

Checkmate

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have loved this thread and its LDS participants....I am feeling closer and closer to coming home

Well, I am glad.

 

On to other news:

 

I think we see what a troll looks like in this thread.

[Kevin Christensen]

I think the biggest problem with the first vision accounts is that they weren't handled the way I would have done it if I were God.

And of course, the validity of that approach rests entirely on the assumption that "if I were God" might as well be understood as "since I am, after all, God."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Uncle Dale]

I think the biggest problem with the first vision accounts is that they weren't handled the way I would have done it if I were God.

And of course, the validity of that approach rests entirely on the assumption that "if I were God" might as well be understood as "since I am, after all, God."

...

 

.

One of the strongest arguments the Mormons have on their side,

in professing how God would (or wouldn't) bring forth and establish

a marvelous work and a wonder, lies in utilizing the small things of

the earth, in order to accomplish great purposes.

 

Francis M. Gibbons, in his 1977 book "Joseph Smith, Martyr," says:

>Joseph promised that though weak and insignificant

>at the moment, those chosen ultimately would be

>"powerful and mighty," and that great things would

>be accomplished by them...

 

This has been the standard Mormon argument ever since Isaiah

got quoted, as having prophesied the coming forth of the Book of 

Mormon, and the inability of great and learned men to comprehend

what to them was a "sealed book," delivered up by the unlearned.

 

The same principle can be noticed, here and there, throughout the

biblical narrative -- Seth is not the firstborn of Adam; nevertheless

the "chosen people" arise through his lineage. Joseph is not the

firstborn of Abraham, and yet he is given the greatest blessing, etc.

 

The murderer Moses, leads God's people to a promised land.

 

The little boy Samuel becomes a great prophet.

 

David arises from out of nowhere -- a lowly animal herder who

becomes both king and prophet.

 

Saul of Tarsus persecutes the early Jesus followers, nearly unto

death -- and yet is selected to "jump-start" the Christian church.

 

Latter Day Saints have naturally read and cherished these sorts

of examples, as providing a divine template for the selection and

divine promotion of a lowly New York farmboy, to rise to the status

of holder of the keys to the final gospel dispensation.

 

And -- entirely outside of religious examples -- there is a certain

logic to be seen in the idea of small, seemingly insignificant things

developing into ideas and movements which overthrow established

paradigms and outdated world views.

 

So -- it is understandable that the Mormons tend to overlook and

dismiss any arguments against Joseph Smith, jr.'s purported divine

calling and mission.

 

That mental whitewashing works well inside the community of the

faithful -- but it only goes "so far" in holding the allegiance of an

iconoclast like Fawn M. Brodie. The admiration of Brother Joseph

may survive, as a begrudging acknowledgement of his superior

abilities and mental genius, in a Brodie-like dissenter, but trust

in Smith's honesty wanes. Belief in his divine calling fades,

 

I have elsewhere provided an essay entitled "Mormon Prophet

Joseph Smith: Nineteenth Century Con Man?"

 

.

.

 

In that web-offering I introduce the idea that confidence-building

can be of critical importance at some junctures in human history.

Nobody doubts that the First Vision accounts provided by

President Smith have long been "confidence builders" --

 

-- but, others will naturally examine those same accounts and

logically conclude that God (or Virtue personified) would never

employ such a Con Man to serve as the conduit for Great Truths.

[canard78]

I would take just learning how to use the quote function.

My eyes actually hurt.

[mfbukowski]

oops wrong duplicate

Edited March 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I think the biggest problem with the first vision accounts is that they weren't handled the way I would have done it if I were God.

And of course, the validity of that approach rests entirely on the assumption that "if I were God" might as well be understood as "since I am, after all, God."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Yeah, that's a definite problem.

 

Just a slight epistemological catch 22

(But that probably requires an explanation for the kids around here)

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

[Pahoran]

TMessenger,

You desperately need to learn how to use the Quote function.

Underneath the post to which you wish to reply, you will find a button that says "Quote." I suggest you use it.

In fact, given that this is a discussion board, and not your personal pulpit, I suggest you take the trouble to master the Quote function before you try replying again.

I will try to answer to all comments to my questio...especially those who go on name calling

 

<<TMessenger,

Welcome to the board.

A few points:

<You want "corroboration" for an event to which Joseph was, by his own account, the only witness?>  How? ( Well, if you can not find no one that corroborate this "event" than the "vision" is not credible, Joseph made it up, that is why I called it a tall tale..) 

I asked you to explain the logic of your demand. Instead, you merely repeated it.

Do you really think that mere repetition somehow makes your position more compelling?

Oh, you want "corroboration" that he broadcast the story far and wide?  Except that he doesn't say that he did.  All he told his mother was that he had found out that Presbyterianism wasn't true.  He told a minister that he trusted something about the vision some time after that; but he doesn't say that he related the event in full.> Please read the documentation I provided by J Smith himself canonized by the mormon church ..( 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.

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:22 - 25)

Doing tedious things with colours, fonts, sizes, etc. doesn't make up for your inability to quote.

I have read that passage many times. Reading it again, I am still unable to find him announcing the details of his vision to the world.

You have failed entirely to provide any support for your assumption that he did so.

Failed. Entirely.

Joseph always said he was the only witness to the event. Strictly speaking, the fact that nobody else claims to have seen it does corroborate his story, since if they had seen it, that would contradict at least that aspect of it.

Likewise, when he describes his conversation with his mother after he returned to the house, he leaves out any mention of the vision he has just received. If he doesn't tell his own mother, why would you expect him to announce it to all the local yokels?

He says that a few days later, he told a minister he trusted that he had had a vision. He doesn't say what level of detail he went to. He then reports that the minister told him to stop telling such tales. The minister seems to have told some of his parishioners that Joseph was a liar (and as we have seen, bigoted rednecks continue to assume that) but we have no reason to suppose that he described Joseph's vision with any degree of sympathy or fairness.

And indeed, why should we expect him to? If you, with all the resources of the internet at your disposal, can't be bothered to get the story straight, why should an 1820's Methodist preacher?

You mentioned that "neither of these two accounts called or identify these two personages as the Father and the Son, deities."  Right, and neither does the official published version.  But if you read it, it's pretty obvious who they were.>> So you proved my point again, no where in history of the mormon church is an account J Smith saw the Father and Son...it could have been mormon and his son moroni

Only to those who can't read English.

Your "point," if point it is, is exceedingly weak.

Joseph wrote an account, in his own hand, of his First Vision, in 1832. The date of this is not in doubt, so your argument that Joseph only came up with the First Vision in 1838 collapses. In it, he says:

I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life....

Given that both accounts are speaking of the same event, it is apparent that "the Lord" is neither Mormon nor Moroni (please note proper capitalisation.) So that "point" fails too.

You call Joseph's account a "T T," which you subsequently explain stands for "Tall Tale." I have learned, by long experience, that we all view the world through the lens of our own character. This means that, while honest people tend to assume that others are likewise honest, dishonest people tend to leap to the conclusion that anyone who tells them things that are unexpected according to their own experience, must ipso facto be lying. What's really happening there is that both groups are putting themselves in the position of the one telling the story. >> If it is an alleged vision, and if no one can corroborate this "vision" was told, even though J Smith said he told..., than it is a tall tale.

And again, you imagine that by merely repeating your unsupported assertions, you've somehow provided support for them.

You are wrong.

And by so doing, you show yourself to be rather obtuse. You do not understand what evidence is, or how arguments work.

Thus, when you assume that Joseph was lying, you tell us a whole lot more about your own character than you do about his.>> You can prove me wrong, by just giving me one item that corroborates this alledge vision, forget whether this vision was true or not, just one corroboration statement that he told this alledge experience...just one!

See Joseph's 1832 account, above.

Regards,

Pahoran

[TMESSENGER]

TM, did you happen to read the links that I posted?>>...I answered every one, but I don't remember what if I responded to you, if you have an additional comment or questions, I will be glad to answer/respond to you..

[mfbukowski]

TM, did you happen to read the links that I posted?>>...I answered every one, but I don't remember what if I responded to you, if you have an additional comment or questions, I will be glad to answer/respond to you..

Oh

 

my

 

gosh.

 

So, whoever, be sure you have an additional comment to whatever it is you wrote.

 

I guess that means that we all get to repeat the entire thread.  But will people continue to respond??   Of course!!

Edited March 3, 2015 by mfbukowski

[UtahTexan]

He has not responded to anything

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

I guess that means that we all get to repeat the entire thread.

 

 

 

Oh! Goody!

 

UD

(But, if we do, can we do it all in reverse order? That would be totally cool)

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................   

 

Mr Dale consider it done. I will have an exact copy and believe me , this is a great honor to have talked to you...Robert Bowman is definitely a true Christian from a well known ministry to the LDS people and JW'S as well 

Hey, good buddy TM, 

Just want to say that Rob Bowman is a great guy.  He has spent a good deal of time on this board in the past, and was always a gentleman.  Never played fast and loose with the quote function, and was always well-spoken and well-organized.  You might try to emulate him.

I got a chance to meet him a couple of years ago, and he was even nicer in person.

Bob

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................................................  

Query for the resident biblical Hebrew experts -- is the LDS

pronunciation the correct one? I think the RLDS quit using

"Jehovah" about the turn of the century (19th to 20th)

Hi Dale,

You don't need to be a Hebraist to know how to pronounce JEHOVAH, which comes from Old English IEHOUAH (Tyndale and Geneva Bible), which appeared as IEHOVAH in the 1611 KJV (Ex 6:3). Anyone speaking modern English knows that it is pronounced ji hö’və with emphasis on the second syllable.  Mormons, Reorganites, JWs, Protestants, and Catholics all pronounce is pretty much the same in English speaking countries.  These began as attempts to render the four-letter name of the Lord, YHWH (the Tetragrammaton) in English and German, but they are all incorrect, simply because the wrong vowels were deliberately placed with those Hebrew letters by the Jews who transmitted the biblical text.  The Jewish scribes did this to prevent saying of the Holy name of the Lord. 

 

Even today, observant Jews substitute "Lord" or "Adonay" whenever they see YHWH in Hebrew, and the vowels accompanying those letters are those necessary to pronounce Adonay, except that rules of vocalization require some changes in the vowel letters.  Today, scholars attempt to pronounce the Tetragrammaton as Yahweh, thinking that this was the original intent and usage by Classical Hebrews, even though only the High Priest was supposed to say the name, and only on special occasions.  I explain the structure and meaning of Hebrew YHWH on page 10 of https://www.scribd.com/doc/39997996/It-Came-to-Pass-in-the-Bible-and-Book-of-Mormon .

[Uncle Dale]

Hi Dale,

You don't need to be a Hebraist...

 

I remember the first time I heard "Yah-way" pronounced in

an RLDS chapel. It was here in Hilo, in a "modern" hymn

that was inserted into the old hymnal on a xeroxed sheet.

 

I did not have the heart to tell them that my seminary profs

had cautioned us, that even that attempted restoration

of Davidic era lingo probably wasn't precisely correct.

 

But among those folks the word was not considered to

be the pre-existence name of Jesus son of Mary (whose

very name is a sort of shorthand praise of YHWH). For

those good Saints it was just another sacred biblical

term they did not pretend to try and understand.

 

For them, Jesus was not the God of the Hebrew Bible,

but rather the "son" of that God (and few even bothered

to ponder what relationship "son" entailed). But that was

OK. Such details were not part of their faith-lives.

 

As for "Jehovah" -- my first encounter with that pronunciation

was in LDS Primary, accompanying my Fremont County

cousins on a Sunday morning. It was just one more strange

word, among dozens of others. It was my 7th grade home

room teacher who first insisted upon that pronunciation. He

was my first non-LDS school teacher in seven years of going

to classes in Idaho. And, if you recall what sect published a

bible clad in garish green covers, you'll know what I mean.

 

Doesn't matter much to me. But you're the first Mormon who

has tried to explain it in my presence (tho Dan Peterson

and a couple of his fellows could have rendered it all in

a two-hour lecture, last time I was in the Cougar-Eatery).

 

Oh well... my question got answered. And that's enough

for one day's browsing here.

 

UD

Edited March 3, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[TMESSENGER]

TM, did you happen to read the links that I posted?>>...I answered every one, but I don't remember what if I responded to you, if you have an additional comment or questions, I will be glad to answer/respond to you..

 

I have read the first part, where you asked me about the quotation function, but I usually, copy the response, paste into my respond and so what is the difference?  the quotation function sometimes is easier to use, because I don't need to copy and paste...but other times I have to copy...either way, I don't see any problems...

<<I asked you to explain the logic of your demand. Instead, you merely repeated it.>> Well. I am asking a specific question, that would validate J Smith told the truth...Joseph , claimed ,  he told, this vision to a town of 600+, for three years and was bitterly persecuted? and I gave you the documentation? and you claim, that is not logical? , when I continue to say, that if you don't find anyone that heard/saw/witness this claim, then J Smith made up this tall tale, that is my logic...so go ahead, and find me any corroboration to this claim,,....merly J Smith saw the Father and the son...and I extended the parameters for any one that substantiates this claim, , not three years, but 18 years span...

Do you really think that mere repetition somehow makes your position more compelling?

[UtahTexan]

I have read the first part, where you asked me about the quotation function, but I usually, copy the response, paste into my respond and so what is the difference?  the quotation function sometimes is easier to use, because I don't need to copy and paste...but other times I have to copy...either way, I don't see any problems...

<<I asked you to explain the logic of your demand. Instead, you merely repeated it.>> Well. I am asking a specific question, that would validate J Smith told the truth...Joseph , claimed ,  he told, this vision to a town of 600+, for three years and was bitterly persecuted? and I gave you the documentation? and you claim, that is not logical? , when I continue to say, that if you don't find anyone that heard/saw/witness this claim, then J Smith made up this tall tale, that is my logic...so go ahead, and find me any corroboration to this claim,,....merly J Smith saw the Father and the son...and I extended the parameters for any one that substantiates this claim, , not three years, but 18 years span...

Do you really think that mere repetition somehow makes your position more compelling?

 

 

And.....Still waiting for TM to show ANY study that says that not telling about an event makes the event false......

 

I have been waiting for several days.

 

I have asked several times

 

TM just dodges and regurgitates.....

[TMESSENGER]

Pahoran

I will again respond to what you called a failure...

 

<<Doing tedious things with colours, fonts, sizes, etc. doesn't make up for your inability to quote.>>  There was no quote function here, so I pasted...

<<I have read that passage many times. Reading it again, I am still unable to find him announcing the details of his vision to the world. 

You have failed entirely to provide any support for your assumption that he did so. 

Failed. Entirely.>> You are the culprit here ...you said you read the passage many times??? you mean this passage ? ( ..(  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.

(Pearl of Great Price | JS-History 1:22 - 25) or the whole quote from the PoGP?... or did you go to the PoGP and check the whole article? 

here is the whole quote from the PoGP...(I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.

23 It caused me serious reflection then, and often has since, how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age, and one, too, who was doomed to the necessity of obtaining a scanty maintenance by his daily labor, should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was, and it was often the cause of great sorrow to myself.
24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a vision. I have thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him; some said he was dishonest, others said he was mad; and he was ridiculed and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the persecution under heaven could not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him think or believe otherwise.
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……
27 I continued to pursue my common vocations in life until the twenty-first of September , one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three, all the time suffering severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men , both religious and irreligious, because I continued to affirm that I had seen a vision
..(PofGP J Smith History 1:22-27)
noticed the end of statement
“….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…… (according to Joe, he kept telling…he did not want to come under condemnation…if he stop telling, he dare not…)[This is the part I quoted for you, and if you said you read this quotation many times(PoGP)?? how can you said he did not tell this story to the whole town???...]

there is just NO evidence of a third party, that heard/saw/witness Joe tell this TALL TALE to any one (from 1820 to 1838) no corroboration for 18 years!
nothing in history/newspapers dairies no one attacking him ,or praising for this phantom experience, for the simple reason, he never TOLD. period that means simply, that Joe made up the whole thing,therefore no father son appearance and mormonism is based on a myth…

<<(...Joseph always said he was the only witness to the event. Strictly speaking, the fact that nobody else claims to have seen it does corroborate his story, since if they had seen it, that would contradict at least that aspect of it.>> if this statement is true? ...that others have seen it?...well just give one person/witness that proves your point, and I say, there are none....no third party corroborating this fact, that he told anyone..see?  

<<Likewise, when he describes his conversation with his mother after he returned to the house, he leaves out any mention of the vision he has just received. If he doesn't tell his own mother, why would you expect him to announce it to all the local yokels? >> Just think about what your logic here implies...J Smith was young teen...he just visioned the God of the universe and his son...and did not mentioned it to his mother??...this fact is not credible especially from, someone who just visited by deity...in my humble opinion , J Smith did not tell his mother , for the simple reason, he made up this vision, and what you read this account here...this account was written in 1842!(Orson Pratt wrote about this vision in a little pamphlet entitled "remarkable visions in 1838, Pratt never used the "father son words" ...he just mentioned "two personages" did not identified them as deities...

He says that a few days later, he told a minister he trusted that he had had a vision. He doesn't say what level of detail he went to. He then reports that the minister told him to stop telling such tales. The minister seems to have told some of his parishioners that Joseph was a liar (and as we have seen, bigoted rednecks continue to assume that) but we have no reason to suppose that he described Joseph's vision with any degree of sympathy or fairness. >> Again, give me this documentation, about this minister talking about this vision...is there any statement by this minister that he knows it was the "father and son"?? ...because I again state here that J Smith never ever used these two words "father and the son" ...if he was bitterly persecuted?...for a vision?...if no one knows what kind of vision...Pahora, I would say, you are in a very shaky ground indeed..

<<And indeed, why should we expect him to? If you, with all the resources of the internet at your disposal, can't be bothered to get the story straight, why should an 1820's Methodist preacher?>> Pahora, I have my story straight. it is the mormon people and others like yourself that do not have the facts, and it is very sad, because if there is no foundation for your belief? then I echoed you late prophet.. (...And this is what the late Hinckley prophet said about this “vision” The foundation of mormonism??

“…. Every claim that we make concerning divine authority, every truth that we offer concerning the validity of this work, all finds its roots in the First Vision of the boy prophet. Without it we would not have anything much to say…This becomes the hinge pin on which the whole cause turns. If the First Vision was true, if itactually happened, then the Book of Mormon is true. Then we have the priesthood. Then we have the Church organization and all of the other keys and blessings of authority which we say we have. If the First Vision did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is that simple. (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p.227) 
Hinckley, said that if the vision did not occur? …LDS is involved in a great sham..(emph mine) 
Hinckley said if the vision was true…then mormonism is true…And Pahoran, I am not trying to ask anyone to prove the vision was true or not, I just want a third party that corroborates J Smith TOLD!...that he narrated this experience...that is all...

 

 

 

 

[Uncle Dale]

 

...about the quotation function, but I usually, copy the response, paste into my respond

and so what is the difference?  the quotation function sometimes is easier to use,

because I don't need to copy and paste...but other times I have to copy...

 

 

I use both methods.

 

However if you place this little item of code in your posting

at the beginning of something you wish to quote [ quote ]

and this at the end [ / quote ] -- you'll have an automatic

"quote function" of your own.

 

UD

(remove the spaces I've inserted in those two tiny pieces

of code, to see how they work in your own postings)

[TMESSENGER]

TMESSENGER, on 28 Feb 2015 - 5:12 PM, said:

You mentioned that "neither of these two accounts called or identify these two personages as the Father and the Son, deities."  Right, and neither does the official published version.  But if you read it, it's pretty obvious who they were.>> So you proved my point again, no where in history of the mormon church is an account J Smith saw the Father and Son...it could have been mormon and his son moroni

<<Only to those who can't read English.

Your "point," if point it is, is exceedingly weak.

Joseph wrote an account, in his own hand, of his First Vision, in 1832. The date of this is not in doubt, so your argument that Joseph only came up with the First Vision in 1838 collapses. In it, he says:
 

Quote

I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life....

Given that both accounts are speaking of the same event, it is apparent that "the Lord" is neither Mormon nor Moroni (please note proper capitalisation.) So that "point" fails too.>> This vision does not mention  two personages , so it is not the same vision...and this happened to be written by J Smith himself?? and since it says..."  I was crucifyed for the world " [crucified] it is talking about Jesus, not the Father...where is the son???

[TMESSENGER]

I have read the first part, where you asked me about the quotation function, but I usually, copy the response, paste into my respond and so what is the difference?  the quotation function sometimes is easier to use, because I don't need to copy and paste...but other times I have to copy...either way, I don't see any problems...

<<I asked you to explain the logic of your demand. Instead, you merely repeated it.>> Well. I am asking a specific question, that would validate J Smith told the truth...Joseph , claimed ,  he told, this vision to a town of 600+, for three years and was bitterly persecuted? and I gave you the documentation? and you claim, that is not logical? , when I continue to say, that if you don't find anyone that heard/saw/witness this claim, then J Smith made up this tall tale, that is my logic...so go ahead, and find me any corroboration to this claim,,....merly J Smith saw the Father and the son...and I extended the parameters for any one that substantiates this claim, , not three years, but 18 years span...

Do you really think that mere repetition somehow makes your position more compelling?

 

I use both methods.

 

However if you place this little item of code in your posting

at the beginning of something you wish to quote [ quote ]

and this at the end [ / quote ] -- you'll have an automatic

"quote function" of your own.

 

UD

(remove the spaces I've inserted in those two tiny pieces

of code, to see how they work in your own postings)

Thank you

[TMESSENGER]

Hey, good buddy TM, 

Just want to say that Rob Bowman is a great guy.  He has spent a good deal of time on this board in the past, and was always a gentleman.  Never played fast and loose with the quote function, and was always well-spoken and well-organized.  You might try to emulate him.

I got a chance to meet him a couple of years ago, and he was even nicer in person.

Bob

Yes, Robert Bowman, I have followed him ever since he was part of the Bible answer team in LA. I can not ever catch him..I believe he was working on his Phd...I use his site irr.org when ever I need to do more research. And I take it, that you are not really complementing me here, I do try to emulate him,  thank you

Do you have an answer to my question,  for me?

 

Let me tell you an incident about Robert Bowman...He was debating a oneness pastor from the UPC(United pentecostal Church, ..deny the trinity) Well , this Pastor (Robert Sabin?) Lean into the microphone and said..mocking Robert..." I don't want to ridiculed you  here , but when you pray to this " trio" and he emphasise the word "trio" with his voice...he continue..who are you really praying to,?  when you pray to this "trio"...the Father the Son...?  Bowman leaned likewise into the microphone and said   ..GOD, and he also emphasised GOD with a firmed voice...the audience when wild with a roaring applause  many raising on their feet...Bowman was/is brilliant