The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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..

Hmmm, what makes sense is that you would not always convey the same information depending on who you were talking to. Not all the details matter in every instance of a retelling. And leaving out details is not an admission that it is false. That is the case you are trying to make. And you are not doing a very compelling job of it.

 

And please, rest some more, I think you are tired.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[TMESSENGER]

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.

 

I take it , you are not a prophet? just a guy off the street? so I take/listen to your prophets that speak of this alledge vision as a real entities else why do you believe that the mormon god, has a body of flesh an bones...I can quote many more statements from the late Hinckley about this"vision" being a real encounter..The second cornerstone—the first vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The year was 1820, the season spring. The boy with questions walked into the grove of his father’s farm. There, finding himself alone, he pleaded in prayer for that wisdom which James promised would be given liberally to those who ask of God in faith. (SeeJames 1:5.) There, in circumstances which he has described in much detail, he beheld(to observe, look at, see) the Father and the Son, the great God of the universe and the risen Lord, both of whom spoke to him. No where Hinckley says this was just a vision...

General Conference

• • OCTOBER 1984
  • THE CORNERSTONES OF OUR FAITH

  The Cornerstones of Our Faith

  Gordon B. Hinckley

  Second Counselor in the First Presidency

[JLHPROF]

 

I take it , you are not a prophet? just a guy off the street? so I take/listen to your prophets that speak of this alledge vision as a real entities else why do you believe that the mormon god, has a body of flesh an bones...I can quote many more statements from the late Hinckley about this"vision" being a real encounter..The second cornerstone—the first vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The year was 1820, the season spring. The boy with questions walked into the grove of his father’s farm. There, finding himself alone, he pleaded in prayer for that wisdom which James promised would be given liberally to those who ask of God in faith. (SeeJames 1:5.) There, in circumstances which he has described in much detail, he beheld(to observe, look at, see) the Father and the Son, the great God of the universe and the risen Lord, both of whom spoke to him. No where Hinckley says this was just a vision...

General Conference

• • OCTOBER 1984
  • THE CORNERSTONES OF OUR FAITH

  The Cornerstones of Our Faith

  Gordon B. Hinckley

  Second Counselor in the First Presidency

 

 

Behold, Observe, Looked At, See - Sound like vision to me...Middle English (denoting a supernatural apparition): via Old French from Latin visio(n-), from videre ‘to see.’

 

 

 

I challenge, or let's say, CFR that the first "Vision" wasn't a vision but a visitation.  Let's see some of these "many more statements" that the First Vision wasn't a vision.

Edited March 4, 2015 by JLHPROF

[TMESSENGER]

Hmmm, what makes sense is that you would not always convey the same information depending on who you were talking to. Not all the details matter in every instance of a retelling. And leaving out details is not an admission that it is false. That is the case you are trying to make. And you are not doing a very compelling job of it.

 

And please, rest some more, I think you are tired.

stones may hurt my bones but...blah blah....

[UtahTexan]

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...

 

Do you even read what others post?  Your answer shows that you did not read what I wrote, or that you simply could not comprehend it.

 

I am guessing you could not comprehend it, which would explain your points that are not points and your inability to provide the requested documentation that allegedly support your non-points

[Uncle Dale]

 

 

...the Father and the Son, the great God of the universe and the risen Lord,

both of whom spoke to him. ..

 

 

 

Gee, did the LDS Prophet really say that Joseph Smith encountered the

"Great God" of our universe?

 

I thought Eloheim was just one member of the celestial council of the gods,

and that his domain was merely part of our galaxy -- that Kolob is located

in our "neck of the woods," and that Eloheim merely organized this part of

the Milky Way star system.

 

But, coupled with Elder Romney calling Eloheim "our Creator," it appears

that LDS theology is moving towards something more compatible with

the mainstream Christian idea of a Supreme Being creating the entire

cosmos (and not being merely one among many, many gods out there,

who organize worlds and father spirit children out of eternal matter).

 

UD

(then again, perhaps I'm reading too much into some 1st Pres rhetoric)

[JLHPROF]

 

it appears that LDS theology is moving towards something more compatible with

the mainstream Christian idea of a Supreme Being creating the entire

cosmos (and not being merely one among many, many gods out there,

who organize worlds and father spirit children out of eternal matter).

 

I've noticed this trend even on this board.  If you suggest that God used to be a man like us you get a few objections.  If you suggest that we can become Gods exactly like our God you get even more objections.  If you suggest that not only can we become Gods but we will get to oversee our own creation (including planets) you get EVEN MORE objections.

 

If you suggest that Christ wasn't God from the time his spirit came into existence you get some objections.  If you suggest that Christ had any connection to sex (sexual creation of his spirit/sexual creation of his body/married and reproduced) you get more objections.If you suggest that Christ wasn't a full God until after he received a physical body and was resurrected you get EVEN MORE objections.

 

As members as a whole we no longer like lessening the distance between us mortal men and our God.  Instead we like to widen the distance in a very evangelical manner.  We'll soon be calling God as Jeffery Holland feared "the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time."

 

I prefer Joseph's teachings.

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

 

 

I prefer Joseph's teachings.

 

.

When I was a kid, growing up in Idaho, the kids in the families

of our Mormon neighbors (all the neighborhood was LDS),

used to taunt me and my siblings with "beyond a shadow of

a doubt" claims that they would become gods and rule over

planets (not the ambiguous term "worlds") -- while we apostates

would end up in the "Lake of Fire" eternally.

 

Yes -- I know it was just ignorant twelve-year-olds mouthing

taunts that their bishop (and probably parents) would never

have approved of. But that comprehension of eternal progression

extended at least to a few of my grade-school teachers and to

Mormons older than our pre-teen tormentors.

 

The idea then prevalent (at least among the Mormons I knew)

was that those same snot-nosed kids living across the street

would be gradually transformed into post-resurrection beings

of flesh and bone (but no blood) who, with their wives, would

establish entire solar systems and populate them with offspring.

 

The very, very best of the "wicked Gentiles" might eventually

rise to the office of ministering angels -- but that calling was

to be primarily filled by the jack-Mormons who sipped a beer

now and then, and did not fill out accurate tithing statements.

 

As for those latter day sons of Ephraim (us) who had been made

fully aware of the restored gospel (us and our RLDS ancestral

relatives) -- and who had rejected Brigham Young and his

successors (us again) .....

 

...well, we would get a "do not pass go -- do not stop at the

terrestrial kingdom -- bypass outer darkness -- avoid perdition --

and go directly to the eternal jail of the lake of fire & brimstone"

monopoly ticket.

 

Pretty harsh judgments for one Idaho Falls Jr. High student to

cast as a curse upon another, equally decent family of kids.

 

Oh well...

 

UD

Edited March 4, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[pogi]

But, coupled with Elder Romney calling Eloheim "our Creator," it appears

that LDS theology is moving towards something more compatible with

the mainstream Christian idea of a Supreme Being creating the entire

cosmos (and not being merely one among many, many gods out there,

who organize worlds and father spirit children out of eternal matter).

 

Elohim is "our creator" as the Father of our spirits, not so much as the creator of the cosmos - which he had a part in as overseer.  JLH will obviously disagree. 

 

Who is to say that there is but one universe?  Whoever said that this universe is divided between multiple Gods and that Elohim only oversees "this part of the milky way"?  He is the God of this universe. 

 

That is not even close to compatible with mainstream Christian ideas. 

[pogi]

Pretty harsh judgments for one Idaho Falls Jr. High student to

cast as a curse upon another, equally decent family of kids.

 

Pretty harsh indeed...and ignorant I might add.  What is that commandment about judging?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

stones may hurt my bones but...blah blah....

Oh come on, I had substance to my post the rest is just a joke.  Which of course is the only part you responded to.

[Uncle Dale]

Pretty harsh indeed...and ignorant I might add.  What is that commandment about judging?

 

.

I'd guess that being ordained a deacon gave the youngster

the spiritual discernment and priesthood authority necessary

to cast the dust of his shoes off, as a curse upon those who

blatantly refused to "obey the gospel." -- That, or to say

that when he got to be a priest he would follow through with

the curse formally, with full bestowed authority.

 

At least the journals of some of the very early missionaries

(both elders and priests) made mention of such saintly 

responses to villages and families who mocked "the work"

and refused to believe...

 

Oh well... that was then, and this is now...

 

UD

Edited March 4, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

stones may hurt my bones but...blah blah....

Very convincing!

[mfbukowski]

.

When I was a kid, growing up in Idaho, the kids in the families

of our Mormon neighbors (all the neighborhood was LDS),

used to taunt me and my siblings with "beyond a shadow of

a doubt" claims that they would become gods and rule over

planets (not the ambiguous term "worlds") -- while we apostates

would end up in the "Lake of Fire" eternally.

 

Yes -- I know it was just ignorant twelve-year-olds mouthing

taunts that their bishop (and probably parents) would never

have approved of. But that comprehension of eternal progression

extended at least to a few of my grade-school teachers and to

Mormons older than our pre-teen tormentors.

 

The idea then prevalent (at least among the Mormons I knew)

was that those same snot-nosed kids living across the street

would be gradually transformed into post-resurrection beings

of flesh and bone (but no blood) who, with their wives, would

establish entire solar systems and populate them with offspring.

 

The very, very best of the "wicked Gentiles" might eventually

rise to the office of ministering angels -- but that calling was

to be primarily filled by the jack-Mormons who sipped a beer

now and then, and did not fill out accurate tithing statements.

 

As for those latter day sons of Ephraim (us) who had been made

fully aware of the restored gospel (us and our RLDS ancestral

relatives) -- and who had rejected Brigham Young and his

successors (us again) .....

 

...well, we would get a "do not pass go -- do not stop at the

terrestrial kingdom -- bypass outer darkness -- avoid perdition --

and go directly to the eternal jail of the lake of fire & brimstone"

monopoly ticket.

 

Pretty harsh judgments for one Idaho Falls Jr. High student to

cast as a curse upon another, equally decent family of kids.

 

Oh well...

 

UD

On one hand you say they were just kids, and yet affirm that they must have been right.

 

They were not.  Trust me.  No I will not bother with references or debate the subject.  I am simply encouraging you to do some research.   Pretend I am another kid telling you the other kids were wrong and just take my word as earnestly as you take theirs,

[mfbukowski]

Elohim is "our creator" as the Father of our spirits, not so much as the creator of the cosmos - which he had a part in as overseer.  JLH will obviously disagree. 

 

Who is to say that there is but one universe?  Whoever said that this universe is divided between multiple Gods and that Elohim only oversees "this part of the milky way"?  He is the God of this universe. 

 

That is not even close to compatible with mainstream Christian ideas. 

And could be the God of multiple universes as far as we know

 

That is the operative term- as far as we know- which makes the other speculation totally irrelevant.  We can debate the boundaries of his kingdom all we want, but none of us will ever survey it anyway, at least not while here to talk about it. 

 

The whole question is irrelevant to anything

[JLHPROF]

And could be the God of multiple universes as far as we know

 

That is the operative term- as far as we know- which makes the other speculation totally irrelevant.  We can debate the boundaries of his kingdom all we want, but none of us will ever survey it anyway, at least not while here to talk about it. 

 

The whole question is irrelevant to anything

 

True.  Which is why I stick to the only available teachings of the prophets until further light and truth is revealed.

[Uncle Dale]

 

...I am simply encouraging you to do some research

...

 

Seems that the latest explanations from Salt lake City is that

progressed LDS only get to organize "worlds" and not planets.

That makes me feel better.

 

Also, the old idea of a progressed saint and his "wives" seems

to have been replaced by just "wife." That makes me feel even

better than the planets part.

 

Finally, it seems that nowadays that we folks who have had the

restored gospel presented to us, comprehended it fully, and yet

still rejected it, need not be blood atoned nor sent to spend eternity

with Satan (even if we are descended from Joseph's son Ephraim).

 

All of that has me feeling considerably better.

 

UD

(but, I have the sneaking suspicion, that back in 1857, the doctrine was more like what the Idaho kids were saying)

Edited March 5, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

(but, I have the sneaking suspicion, that back in 1857, the doctrine was more like what the Idaho kids were saying)

I didn't realize you were that old.

[Uncle Dale]

I didn't realize you were that old.

.

The fun part about reading all those very old Deseret News

articles and quotes from the senior apostles, is that the

reader comes away with the clear impression (like the

impression left by a sledge hammer to the brain) that

multiple wives means greater eternal glory and greater

dominion in the "worlds many and Adams many" CK.

Then, round about 1890 the pressure eases up on the

poor fellow with only two wives. And by 1910 we get

the impression that an LDS with only one wife might

well exceed Heber C. himself, in glory and dominion.

Seems like it was a change for the better, but it did

not come line upon line and precept upon precept.

It seems to have suddenly coincided with having two

Deseret Senators packing their wagons for the trip to

Washington D.C.

Oh well...

UD

(Don't get me started on the blood atonement part;

I'm a total apostate when it comes to deciphering

Joseph F. Smith's inspired (?) teachings on it.)

Edited March 5, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

.

The fun part about reading all those very old Deseret News

articles and quotes from the senior apostles, is that the

reader comes away with the clear impression (like the

impression left by a sledge hammer to the brain) that

multiple wives means greater eternal glory and greater

dominion in the "worlds many and Adams many" CK.

Then, round about 1890 the pressure eases up on the

poor fellow with only two wives. And by 1910 we get

the impression that an LDS with only one wife might

well exceed Heber C. himself, in glory and dominion.

Seems like it was a change for the better, but it did

not come line upon line and precept upon precept.

It seems to have suddenly coincided with having two

Deseret Senators packing their wagons for the trip to

Washington D.C.

Oh well...

UD

(Don't get me started on the blood atonement part;

I'm a total apostate when it comes to deciphering

Joseph F. Smith's inspired (?) teachings on it.)

That's a well known part of doctrinal history.  Polygamy was about building your kingdom- indeed men were often sealed to men so that their kingdom and your kingdom would be aligned in the hereafter.  That was when it was all about "adoption" and indeed some will use that I am sure to justify gay marriage- indeed it is already being done.

 

But after polygamy was outlawed, the view changed and was more about family genetic kingdoms, with more emphasis on work for the dead as family lines were more emphasized.   The good news was that women also become more important with those changes, it was one man with one wife forming a nuclear family, and that brought the church closer to more traditional values and made the church more mainstream.   So pros and cons.

 

I personally don't think we should be hung up on pleasing creedals who have co-opted the term "Christian" by incorporating Neoplatonism, pagan Greek philosophy, into the now "apostate Christian" viewpoint.

 

We are a lot closer to Pelagius and Origen than we are to Presbyterians, and there is good reason for that, not that they were polygamists. The Jews were of course still practicing polygamy at the time of the birth of the church, and there is evidence it lasted for a while, into the beginnings of early Christianity since many of the later ECF's condemned the practice

[mfbukowski]

I just found some interesting quotes- the person quoting them is arguing that polygamy was not practiced by early Christians, but uses quotes that actually show that it WAS, though it was condemned.

 

 

6. The Council of Neocaesarea a.d. 315 (circa) refers to a 'purification period' for polygamists. By that time, sinners had to 'sit out' of Church activities until they had demonstrated reformation. If a sin showed up on this list of canons, it was considered a 'bad sin'--and polygamy shows up here:
 

"Ancient Epitome of Canon III. The time (for doing penance and purification) of polygamists is well known. A zeal for penance may shorten it." [ANF]
 
 

7. Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea, mentioned it a number of times in his letters, generally concerning the period for exclusion from church for polygamists, calling it 'limited fornication'(!):
 

"IV. In the case of trigamy and polygamy they laid down the same rule, in proportion, as in the case of digamy; namely one year for digamy (some authorities say two years); for trigamy men are separated for three and often for four years; but this is no longer described as marriage at all, but as polygamy; nay rather as limited fornication. It is for this reason that the Lord said to the woman of Samaria, who had five husbands, "he whom thou now hast is not thy husband." He does not reckon those who had exceeded the limits of a second marriage as worthy of the title of husband or wife. In cases of trigamy we have accepted a seclusion of five years, not by the canons, but following the precept of our predecessors. Such offenders ought not to be altogether prohibited from the privileges of the Church; they should be considered deserving of hearing after two or three years, and afterwards of being permitted to stand in their place; but they must be kept from the communion of the good gift, and only restored to the place of communion after showing some fruit of repentance. [ANF: (Canonica Prima.)To Amphilochius, concerning the Canons. Letter CLXXXVIII written c.347.]
 

http://christianthinktank.com/polygame.html

 

The point is that Christians obviously WERE practicing polygamy if an entire routine had to be established to "restore" them to fellowship after they repented. That is strong evidence of a change in the practice, from it being allowed earlier, as a carry-over from still earlier days (as Josephus shows the Jews were practicing it) to a later period of condemnation.

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

 

The point is that Christians obviously WERE practicing polygamy

...

 

.

Oh, I'm sure it is possible to find a Christian bigamist now and

then. We might search through the catacombs in Rome and

discover the tomb of Justus, and Leah, and Priscilla -- all in

one niche, with no bill of divorce carved into the rock and

no indication that both wives did not survive amorous Justus.

 

None of which would mean that the majority (or even a substantial

minority) of 2nd or 3rd century Christian men were both bigamists

and pious religious leaders.

 

In fact, such miniscule evidence might even help explain why a

bishop was to be the husband of but one wife -- that way the

bigamists (if there were any) at least were effectively shut out

of the congregational leadership. And it might help explain

Martin Luther's lackadaisical attitude about multiple wives.

 

Oh well...

 

But, getting back to visions -- I continue to argue for a revival

that began in 1823, intensified in 1824, and began to peter out

in 1825. If Joseph Smith, Jr. was then looking into Methodist

camp meetings, being accused of having joined the Baptists,

and thought to have been the Presbyterian son (rather than his

brother Hyrum) he would have then been a couple of years older

than the PGP "first vision" account.

 

Is there anything like a mention of this possibility in the official

Church publications (and, more particularly in a publication that

Smith himself read, contributed to, and occasionally referred to

as though he had control over its editorializing, correcting, etc.)?

 

As it turns out -- there was.

 

And, if the Mormon leaders can justifiably change the date of

Alvin Smith's death in that sacred, infallible Pearl of Great Price,

perhaps the following item might also be brought to their attention:

 

>You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement,

>in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother

>J. Smith Jr’s. age -- that was an error in the type -- it should have

>been in the 17th. -- You will please remember this correction, as it

>will be necessary for the full understanding of what will follow in time.

>This would bring the date down to the year 1823.

 

Ten brownie points will be awarded by yours truly to the first contributor

here who can identify the writer of "remember this correction."

 

UD

(hint -- it was not Ezra Booth, D. P. Hurlbut or George M. Hinkle)

Edited March 5, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

.

Oh, I'm sure it is possible to find a Christian bigamist now and

then. We might search through the catacombs in Rome and

discover the tomb of Justus, and Leah, and Priscilla -- all in

one niche, with no bill of divorce carved into the rock and

no indication that both wives did not survive amorous Justus.

 

None of which would mean that the majority (or even a substantial

minority) of 2nd or 3rd century Christian men were both bigamists

and pious religious leaders.

 

In fact, such miniscule evidence might even help explain why a

bishop was to be the husband of but one wife -- that way the

bigamists (if there were any) at least were effectively shut out

of the congregational leadership. And it might help explain

Martin Luther's lackadaisical attitude about multiple wives.

 

Oh well...

 

But, getting back to visions -- I continue to argue for a revival

that began in 1823, intensified in 1824, and began to peter out

in 1825. If Joseph Smith, Jr. was then looking into Methodist

camp meetings, being accused of having joined the Baptists,

and thought to have been the Presbyterian son (rather than his

brother Hyrum) he would have then been a couple of years older

than the PGP "first vision" account.

 

Is there anything like a mention of this possibility in the official

Church publications (and, more particularly in a publication that

Smith himself read, contributed to, and occasionally referred to

as though he had control over its editorializing, correcting, etc.)?

 

As it turns out -- there was.

 

And, if the Mormon leaders can justifiably change the date of

Alvin Smith's death in that sacred, infallible Pearl of Great Price,

perhaps the following item might also be brought to their attention:

 

>You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement,

>in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother

>J. Smith Jr’s. age -- that was an error in the type -- it should have

>been in the 17th. -- You will please remember this correction, as it

>will be necessary for the full understanding of what will follow in time.

>This would bring the date down to the year 1823.

 

Ten brownie points will be awarded by yours truly to the first contributor

here who can identify the writer of "remember this correction."

 

UD

(hint -- it was not Ezra Booth, D. P. Hurlbut or George M. Hinkle)

 

And who's talking about the SECOND century anyway?  We're talking Josephus here.

Edited March 5, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

 

 

And who's talking about the SECOND century anyway?  We're talking Josephus here.

 

But, but,... I mean...er, uh, Josephus, hunh?

 

You mean before the Great Apostasy... and...

 

Oh! My stars and garters! That means that

the Mormon Church is TRUE! and it was those

nasty Abominable Church priests who got rid

of sacred 1st century temple polygamy!

 

Get that font filled up -- I'm going to glory!

 

UD

(then again the Romans did something to that temple - can't recall what...)

Edited March 5, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[rodheadlee]

TMESSENGER I have a question. Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?