The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[Pahoran]

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

Mr Bowman used to be a regular participant here. He was the "Director of Research" for an anti-Mormon propaganda mill. I think he assumed that his arguments would be amazingly powerful. I think he was a little humbler when he left here.

As Mr Bowman knows, EV anti-Mormon material is pretty ineffective as a "ministry to the LDS people." It really has no real function beyond Protestant boundary maintenance.

You may figure that out yourself, eventually.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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?

Call for references, please, that "Joseph , claimed , he told, this vision to a town of 600+"

The one and only source you have cited only says that he told it to one minister.

Please note that, in this forum, when someone issues a Call for References (often abbreviated as CFR) the person who receives it is obligated to support their assertion.

So either support it, or admit you got it wrong.

 

and I gave you the documentation?

Either you don't understand plain English, or you're too lazy to read your own sources.

The documentation you've provided doesn't support your assertions.

Learn to read.

 

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...

That's not "logic," it's bigotry.

You assume that anyone who says anything that contradicts your comfortable assumptions must be lying. You demand "corroboration" because you think the lack thereof leaves you free to make your nasty, unsupported accusations.

Well I've got news for you: it doesn't.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited March 3, 2015 by Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Pahoran

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

 

[snip]

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.

Yes, I mean that passage.

Let's go through it, shall we?

 

For I had seen a vision;

Does that say he broadcast the story?

No. It does not.

 

I knew it, and I knew that God knew it,

Does that say he broadcast the story?

No. It does not.

 

and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it;

Does that say he broadcast the story?

No. It does not.

 

at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.

Does that say he broadcast the story?

No. It does not.

And thus it is. Your favourite prooftext does not support your argument.

 

or the whole quote from the PoGP?... or did you go to the PoGP and check the whole article?

FYI: when I served a mission, we used to memorise the entire passage and recite it, verbatim.

Recite. Verbatim.

Next time you try to teach someone how to suck eggs, I suggest you go and dry behind your ears.

That way, you won't come across as a presumptuous, patronising puppy.

 

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,

Sorry to interrupt your monologue, but were you Joseph's personal friend?

No?

Then you don't get to call him "Joe." He earned our respect, and proved the depth of his convictions by paying the last full measure of devotion.

You have done neither. Mere ridicule, from a safe distance, fails to demonstrate any sort of courage.

 

Or any particularly admirable character traits, really.

 

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???...]

Because HE didn't say he had told his story to the whole town.

For your convenience, I have highlighted a few phrases there.

I would expect a person of normal intelligence to get the point, but for you I will spell it out.

Joseph never said he told the whole town. He said he told a minister; after that, the story got around. He continued to "affirm," not announce, that he had "seen a vision."

IOW, bigoted rednecks used to gang up on him and say, "Hey Joe, tell us agin about how ye seed a vision?"

(I'm sure you can relate to that kind of behaviour. It's consistent with how you carry on here.)

And Joseph said, "That's right, boys."

Affirming, you see, that he had seen a vision. People asked him, and he answered in the affirmative. That's what "affirm" means.

 

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!

Note, again:

He's not "Joe."

Actually, your hero Rob Bowman can tell you that there are numerous claims from Joseph's contemporaries that he told "tall tales." They added quite a few themselves.

Like the notorious "bleeding ghost" story. (I fully expect you to trot that out before too long. I thought you might like to know that we already know all about it. And it's been thoroughly discredited.)

 

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…

And that passes for "logic" in your strange mind, does it?

That there are no newspaper reports of one particular vision story from the "Burned-over District" in the middle of the Second Great Awakening?

Oh dear.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

Mr Bowman used to be a regular participant here. He was the "Director of Research" for an anti-Mormon propaganda mill. I think he assumed that his arguments would be amazingly powerful. I think he was a little humbler when he left here.

As Mr Bowman knows, EV anti-Mormon material is pretty ineffective as a "ministry to the LDS people." It really has no real function beyond Protestant boundary maintenance.

You may figure that out yourself, eventually.

Regards,

Pahoran

He never made a single rational argument.

 

He could not show that there was any more reason to believe the bible than the Book of Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

I wish he would come back.

 

Those days were a lot of fun.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

I 2nd this. I have met Rob and went to lunch with him. He is a Christan and a nice guy and always presented his positions in a very erudite manner.  Like Robert said, you might try and emulate him.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

..."  I was crucifyed for the world " [crucified] it is talking about Jesus, not the Father...where is the son???

Uh.... is this really your argument? It seems hyper critical. Were is the son??? Really. I mean, seriously. I am currently shaking my head.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[omni]

 

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

<<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

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???

 

 

As someone who's been around these here parts a few years, let me help you out a little.  It probably doesn't help your credibility much if you continue to quote and then debate your own posts.  

 

To quote another post, click the Quote button in the bottom right hand corner of the post and then add your comments below the newly created grayed quote box.  If you'd like to add additional quotes to the same post: 

 

1. Click the More Reply Options button;
2. Click the icon that looks like a conversation bubble; then
3. Simply input the text into the new quote box.

[TMESSENGER]

I 2nd this. I have met Rob and went to lunch with him. He is a Christan and a nice guy and always presented his positions in a very erudite manner.  Like Robert said, you might try and emulate him.

 

Thank you about Robert Bowman, I do know him personally. His sister attends my church. Do you know if Bowman finish his Phd...? Have you read my initial question? do you have answers for me? are you LDS?

[TMESSENGER]

Uh.... is this really your argument? It seems hyper critical. Were is the son??? Really. I mean, seriously. I am currently shaking my head.

 

What is the problem....you said this was the first vision in 1832?  and I told you, it is not the same,(there are actually nine versions of this "vision") because the Son is not mention...are you going to comment on my answers to you?...do you have anyone that corroborates J Smith account of this alledge vision, the one he claims he had in 1820?  and wrote it but until 1842? I gave you plenty of documentation...so where is the evidence, that J Smith told???

[TMESSENGER]

 

As someone who's been around these here parts a few years, let me help you out a little.  It probably doesn't help your credibility much if you continue to quote and then debate your own posts.  

 

To quote another post, click the Quote button in the bottom right hand corner of the post and then add your comments below the newly created grayed quote box.  If you'd like to add additional quotes to the same post: 

 

1. Click the More Reply Options button;
2. Click the icon that looks like a conversation bubble; then
3. Simply input the text into the new quote box.

 

Thank you, but that is what I have been doing...

[Pahoran]

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???

That doesn't even make sense.

I presume you meant to say "Where is the Father?"

Even then, it still doesn't make sense.

Of course it's the same vision.

If I say "I saw Bill last night, and he told me to call you," and then later on I say, "I saw Bill and Tony last night, and Bill told me to call TMessenger," what kind of numbskull is going to assume that I'm talking about two different conversations with Bill?

Regards,

Pahoran

[TMESSENGER]

That doesn't even make sense.

I presume you meant to say "Where is the Father?"

Even then, it still doesn't make sense.

Of course it's the same vision.

If I say "I saw Bill last night, and he told me to call you," and then later on I say, "I saw Bill and Tony last night, and Bill told me to call TMessenger," what kind of numbskull is going to assume that I'm talking about two different conversations with Bill?

Regards,

Pahoran

You  are the one that does not make sense...and I did mean to say where is the Father(sorry)...but the nonsense logic of yours here ...if the President and his wife came to see you? (The Father and Son allegedly came/appeared to J Smith) and if you tell someone, this couple came to your house, and you use the word couple...and you only mentioned the wife?..you are not firing in all cylinders...because people will talk about you, behind your back...later on they will say...I don"t think the President and his wife came to see him .....because he said "this couple" and why did he not mentioned the President.?..you don't forget this encounter specially when the US President and his wife came to see you....Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt used the words "two personages so did J Smith...matter of fact, if J Smith did encounter these deities , why do you not find J Smith the words  "Father and Son" anywhere in history??? no where will you find any mention to anyone that he saw/or the Father and Son appeared to him....I rest my case..

[Uncle Dale]

 

...why do you not find J Smith the words  "Father and Son" anywhere in history?

...

 

Perhaps there is something like that, somewhere. But, if so, I do

not know where to find it.

 

Most Mormons living in the year 1842 were soon made aware of

the Joseph Smith "first vision" account, published on pages 748-749

of the April 1, 1842 issue of the Nauvoo "Times and Seasons."

This was the first publication of Smith's purported 1820 Manchester,

New York "vision" -- narrated in the first person, as though it were

being told by Smith himself. On page 748 Smith is quoted as saying:

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."

The short paragraph does not identify the "personages." There

is no definite statement saying who the first supernatural speaker

was supposed to be; and there is no clear indication of the identity

of the "son." However, the language used in that passage has

been applied to the Christian "God the Father" and to "God the Son"

by practically everybody who ever has commented publicly on the

Times and Seasons article.

 

Four weeks before that article appeared, Joseph published a letter

on pages 706-709 of the Times and Seasons, in which he gave a

somewhat similar account (on page 707), saying: "I was enwrapped

in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious  personages who exactly

resembled each other in features, and likeness, surround ed with

a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon-day."

This earlier short paragraph also fails to specifically identify the

two "personages." Latter Day Saints have typically said that Smith

was talking about the Christian "God the Father" and "God the Son,"

but the text does not print those words.

It appears that the April 1, 1842 Times and Seasons account was

first written down in 1838. It was paraphrased in 1840 in an obscure

publication called "Remarkable Visions," published in Edinburgh.

Very few people in America would have ever read that pamphlet,

however -- on page 5 the text said that Joseph Smith

"was enwrapped in a heavenly vision, and saw two glorious personages,

who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness. He was

informed, that his sins were forgiven."

This short sentence also fails to identify the two "personages;" nor is

either one of them called the "son." However, in Christianity it is God

the Father who forgives sins. When an angel tells a person that his

or her sins are forgiven, it is a message from God, and not the decision

of the angel. However, "God the Son" also forgives sins -- so, it is unclear

how Smith meant to say his sins were forgiven, or whether the two

supernatural personages were angels, or supremely divine beings.

Therefore, up until mid-1842, I know of no published article or book in

which Joseph Smith specifically said that he met with God the Father

and with God the Son.

What he may have printed, written, or said privately after that time, I'm

not prepared to say (nor does it interest me very much).

UD

Edited March 4, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[UtahTexan]

You  are the one that does not make sense...and I did mean to say where is the Father(sorry)...but the nonsense logic of yours here ...if the President and his wife came to see you? (The Father and Son allegedly came/appeared to J Smith) and if you tell someone, this couple came to your house, and you use the word couple...and you only mentioned the wife?..you are not firing in all cylinders...because people will talk about you, behind your back...later on they will say...I don"t think the President and his wife came to see him .....because he said "this couple" and why did he not mentioned the President.?..you don't forget this encounter specially when the US President and his wife came to see you....Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt used the words "two personages so did J Smith...matter of fact, if J Smith did encounter these deities , why do you not find J Smith the words  "Father and Son" anywhere in history??? no where will you find any mention to anyone that he saw/or the Father and Son appeared to him....I rest my case..

 

You should rest more.....because your points are always flawed....and you refuse to provide the documentation I have requested.

 

But let us use your scenario.

 

Lets say the Prez and his wife came to visit.  We had a nice evening.

 

Two days later, I am discussing US policy with some friends.  I am more likely to say this:  "Well, I had dinner with president two days ago and we discussed this very issue....."

 

Instead of, "Well, the Prez and his wife came over and the prez said this....."

 

Do you see?  Is this sinking in?  In my first comment, I only mention the Prez because he was the only person relevant to my discussion on policy.  Does that mean his wife was not there?  Absolutely not.

 

Again, you keep making determinations that have no basis in fact....and then mold your points to fit your conclusion.

[pogi]

Therefore, up until mid-1842, I know of no published article or book in

which Joseph Smith specifically said that he met with God the Father

and with God the Son.

 

The two personages never introduced themselves as God the Father and God the Son (They didn't need to).  Joseph was simply recounting their introduction.

I am wondering what this has to do with anything.  Are you implying that he really was visited by some father and son figures who descended from the heavens in a pillar of light, forgave his sins but were not God the father and God the Son?  Or, do you believe that he made up the whole vision?  In which case, arguing that he never called them God the Father and God the Son is a moot point.  If he made up the vision, their Godhood is obviously implied or what would be the point of making up the two unknown father/son figures?

Edited March 4, 2015 by pogi

[pogi]

....I rest my case..

 

May it rest in peace

[mfbukowski]

Thank you about Robert Bowman, I do know him personally. His sister attends my church. Do you know if Bowman finish his Phd...? Have you read my initial question? do you have answers for me? are you LDS?

In that case give him my regards. I am sure he will remember me.

Tell him I hope his business is doing well

[mfbukowski]

May it rest in peace

Since it is already in pieces.

[TMESSENGER]

You should rest more.....because your points are always flawed....and you refuse to provide the documentation I have requested.

 

But let us use your scenario.

 

Lets say the Prez and his wife came to visit.  We had a nice evening.

 

Two days later, I am discussing US policy with some friends.  I am more likely to say this:  "Well, I had dinner with president two days ago and we discussed this very issue....."

 

Instead of, "Well, the Prez and his wife came over and the prez said this....."

 

Do you see?  Is this sinking in?  In my first comment, I only mention the Prez because he was the only person relevant to my discussion on policy.  Does that mean his wife was not there?  Absolutely not.

 

Again, you keep making determinations that have no basis in fact....and then mold your points to fit your conclusion.

 

Sorry, these  fictitious characters do not even approach what God of the Universe can be compared with, that is why I used the USA President...you can not just forget to mentioned him...that is my point. Another major point about this alledge visit to J Smith has to do that God the Father , cannot  be view and remain alive, but that is beyond the scope of my discussion...needless to say, J.Smith himself own revelation , said you can not see God the Father ..."...And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh. For without  this no man can see the face of God , even the Father and live D &C Sec 84:21-22  J Smith was only 14?15?16? and certainly he had no priesthood...these are facts...

[TMESSENGER]

In that case give him my regards. I am sure he will remember me.

Tell him I hope his business is doing well

I will tell her sister, I see her every Sunday, Robert is based in Michigan? irr.org  I am in CA I go to Palmyra NY every year in July, sometimes he comes to visit us I will tell him about you...I don't think that what he is doing, he considers it as  a business venture..

[JLHPROF]

"...And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh. For without  this no man can see the face of God , even the Father and live D &C Sec 84:21-22  J Smith was only 14?15?16? and certainly he had no priesthood...these are facts...

 

This situation refers to God appearing in glory and specifies "in the flesh".  There is nothing preventing God from withholding his glory in a vision.  And remember, this was labelled a vision, not necessarily a visitation.  No physical contact with the Father and the Son is described.  Just that they appeared in vision before him.

[Uncle Dale]

The two personages never introduced themselves as God the Father and God the Son (They didn't need to).  Joseph was simply recounting their introduction.

I am wondering what this has to do with anything.  Are you implying that he really was visited by some father and son figures who descended from the heavens in a pillar of light, forgave his sins but were not God the father and God the Son?  Or, do you believe that he made up the whole vision?  In which case, arguing that he never called them God the Father and God the Son is a moot point.  If he made up the vision, their Godhood is obviously implied or what would be the point of making up the two unknown father/son figures?

 

We have the three closely related Pratt and T&S accounts,

all of which read very much the same.

 

Whether it was intended that they be released to the public in

the way that they were, or whether it was sheer coincidence,

it is only in the last of the three -- the April 1, 1842 T&S account,

that it is made fully clear that one of the personages is the son

of the other. And only the words "Beloved Son" convey the

author's intention to tell the reader that it is God the Father and

God the Son that he is speaking of.

 

Had the two personages not been described using that special

terminology, an uninformed reader might think that it was two

angels Mormon and his son Moroni, who were delivering a divine

message. On the other hand, Mormon would have had no reason

to echo Christian scripture's Mark ch. 1 and Matthew ch. 3 with

their " beloved son in whom I'm well pleased" Christological phrase.

 

Thus there appears to be an evolutionary transition, from what

could have been angels to what could be no other pair than

Eloheim and Jehovah. But, since Joseph Smith himself neglects

to say distinctly "I met with God the Father and God the Son,"

the matter appears somewhat ambiguous.

 

However, when I say "ambiguous" I mean in the perception of the

uninformed non-Mormon reader, living back in 1842, who had the

two Times & Seasons accounts (and the Pratt pamphlet) in front

of him. That ignorant Gentile (not knowing that Smith called one

of these personages "Lord" in his 1832 account) might be forgiven

for thinking there was a theological evolution discernible in the

wording of the three texts.

 

It seems to bother TMessenger's mind, that Smith did not articulate

an "I met with God the Father and God the Son" message to his

followers. And, considering the fact that Bother William, Mother Lucy,

John Taylor and Brigham Young continued, for years, to speak of

angelic visitations (and not theophanies) for Mormonism's origin,

it is understandable why TMessenger should be so perturbed.

 

But the Latter Day Saints have a known context in which to read

the three accounts I've mentioned -- and that greater context

clearly identifies the "personages" as Eloheim and Jehovah.

 

UD

(besides which, if Mormon had an eternal family he would not have been a ministering angel)

[name]

Hello Pahoran,

If I say "I saw Bill last night, and he told me to call you," and then later on I say, "I saw Bill and Tony last night, and Bill told me to call TMessenger," what kind of numbskull is going to assume that I'm talking about two different conversations with Bill?

Regards,

Pahoran

Wait - I'm confused!

Was this call made with a cell phone? Was it Bill's or Tony's? And did TMessenger answer this call or not?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Thank you about Robert Bowman, I do know him personally. His sister attends my church. Do you know if Bowman finish his Phd...? Have you read my initial question? do you have answers for me? are you LDS?

Last I had heard he was almost done with it. That was 2 or 3 years ago. So I am betting he is done. I did read your initial response. It was dealt with already. and I am LDS.