The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[TMESSENGER]

You could look here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision

Lots of good information.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Sorry, I wanted you to tell me, if you know the info, let me have this information yourself

 

Just in case you have not seen my original question?

 

• I am asking the following

  Can you find me a close associate/family/newspaper/dairy/book/friend/foe/historian/newspaper/document, of J Smith , that would corroborate this “vision experience”, I call it a T T? Surely if he TOLD, there would be TONS of evidence that J Smith TOLD…it was a revival,…folks would flock to the site to see this site of this glorious event in the “sacred” grove…maybe even erect a monument there…

  As you can see from J Smith account he TOLD this T T to everybody in town…(population about 600+in 1820) "...was bitterly persecuted…not a single time you will find the statement that he saw the “Father and Son” (nothing from 1820 to 1838, the reason I use 1838, is because Orson Pratt wrote a little pamphlet in 1838 entitled "Remarkable visions", the official Fist vision was the account of J Smith in 1842!, neither of these two accounts called or identify these two personages as the Father and the Son, deities

   

  • Had Joseph seen a tangible God the Father and was severely persecuted for telling people that he had, why would he not teach it to the church from the very beginning? Surely the town bullies would have let word get out about Joseph’s claims. Why only share it with people who would persecute him? I’m not asking for proof that God exists here, I’m asking for evidence that Joseph Smith told his the story to the early saints in the school of the prophets or such? Surely some conference proceeding, some talks, some journal recording what conference was about, some letter, some news letter, some news paper article, some painted pot, something would record that Joseph was teaching that God had a physical body prior to the crafting of the official version of the first vision.

    I take my questions from J Smith own account (he published it in 1842, and claimed it took place in 1820

    This is what J Smith said about 

    a vision not found anywhere from 1820 to 1838 

    Smith said 

    “..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)

    Let me add more facts

    [) Lectures on Faith, where they say that God the Father is a Spirit.(lecture # 5) Why would Joseph teach such a thing if the father had a tangible body? (These lectures were published in 1835! book of commandments 

    2) Book of Commandments lacked any first vision account.

    3) JST changes did not “correct” Biblical claims otherwise.

    4) Book of Mormon shows a monotheistic God who is a Spirit.

    5) neither Book of Moses nor Book of Abraham state that God has a physical body, though they disagree on God vs Gods

     

    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…

    OK Kevin find me the information yourself, don't give links...

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

[TMESSENGER]

You still have to answer the CFR I posed yesterday.  Please comply with board rules or retract your statement.

I asked the question first...you need to reply to me...but what was exactly  the question you posed to me??

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

Had Joseph seen a tangible God the Father and was severely persecuted for telling people...

...

 

 

 

I'll mention here what I was taught in a series of special priesthood

classes held at Graceland College (now University) when I was sent

there, all the way from Hawaii, to be educated in RLDS Church history.

I was taught that very shortly after that "clear spring day" in 1820,

that Brother Joseph told his experience to a local Protestant clergyman

(most likely the pastor of the Baptist congregation a couple of miles

south of the Smith farm) -- and that Brother Joseph was countered

with a demonic tirade of terrible verbal abuse and physical threats,

for "having told the TRUTH."

I was taught that up until that wonderful day in 1820, that Satan had

reigned supreme on earth -- having filled the Bible full of lies and

the mouths of his wicked, hireling sectarian priests, all around the

world, with even worse lies -- as they knowingly spread the Devil's

work, in order to get gain. But Brother Joseph broke that evil spell,

when he announced the TRUTH to that terrible Manchester "reverend."

From that moment onward, the foundation of the 7th and final dispensation

of the everlasting gospel had its beginnings, and TRUTH began to fill

the world, from its center place in Ontario County, New York.

But -- and this is important -- since the Reorganized LDS never accepted

the PGP "first vision" account as scripture; and because they did not teach

that Israel's God and Mary's resurrected son were confined to fleshy bodies,

that wonderful TRUTH was not the fact (?) that Eloheim and Jehovah had

appeared to the little boy, but the fact (?) that he had been granted a vision

that would begin to diminish Satan's power on earth.

Notice the difference?

Mormons typically profess (and offer testimony that they "know) that Joseph

was persecuted for having said he witnessed that there were TWO GODS

who had bodies of flesh and bone -- and that the Protestant ministers were

outraged, to point of wanting to murder the little boy. One of them, or one

of their underlings, purportedly fired a musket ball at the young fellow, which

came very near to killing him, etc. etc. etc.

Luckily I was spared that labored (and undocumented) testimony in the church

I attended. I was free to conclude that the "Great Palmyra Revival" happened

mostly in the year 1824, and not in 1820.

If Joseph Smith was wrong about his age, and about the revival, and about the

year itself -- then I feel OK about disbelieving the "Father" and the "Son" part

of his later testimony as well. -- Myself and many thousands of RLDS, back

in the last century. In this century I would estimate that less than half of the

Community of Christ Saints would bear testimony to 1820; or to the fact (?) of

the "Father" and the "Son" appearing; or to the fact (?) that they are confined

to celestialized human bodies of flesh and bone.

But -- that's a different bunch of people than the folks who make this message

board available and fill up about 95% of its contents.

I owe them a "thank you" for offering us the use of such a forum.

UD

[JLHPROF]

I asked the question first...you need to reply to me...but what was exactly  the question you posed to me??

 

You asked for no reference from me.  You made claims about the teachings of the prophets on the First Vision and provided no evidence.  You are required to provide evidence or retract your claim.  Since you are pleading ignorance:

 

You claimed Joseph couldn't have seen the Father and the Son without being consumed.

I stated that it was a vision, not a visitation AND that God could withhold his glory - both doctrinally sound.

You then claimed that the prophets had taught otherwise.

Please provide ANY teaching by the prophets that the first vision wasn't a vision and that Joseph should have been consumed, or retract that dubious claim against the First Vision.

[Antoni]

I am not disagreeing.  But do your "different details"include being different ages?  Different people appearing?

 

And, no disrespect to your conversion, but are you claiming it was more incredible and memorable than God and Jesus appearing to you in a grove?

Sorry, just noticed your reply CountryBoy.

 

the "different details" to people comparing my recollections would feature different people. My age would be consistent as it happened few years ago - BUT in 10/20 years I'll probably get my age wrong when telling someone or say "in my early 30's"

 

Thanks for not direspecting my conversion but to me it was pretty memorable and incredible. And so I still believe we can still be more gracious to Joseph Smith's accounts.

 

Light, Love and Peace

[TMESSENGER]

You asked for no reference from me.  You made claims about the teachings of the prophets on the First Vision and provided no evidence.  You are required to provide evidence or retract your claim.  Since you are pleading ignorance:

 

You claimed Joseph couldn't have seen the Father and the Son without being consumed.

I stated that it was a vision, not a visitation AND that God could withhold his glory - both doctrinally sound.

You then claimed that the prophets had taught otherwise.

Please provide ANY teaching by the prophets that the first vision wasn't a vision and that Joseph should have been consumed, or retract that dubious claim against the First Vision.

I asked a question. The question was merely a statement for any LDS person to answer, it did not contained any teachings per se.

I cited mormon "scriptures" that teach that you need the priesthood to see  the mormon god

It is your opinion about  the mormon god withholding his glory??

J Smith violated Deut 13, by introducing another god, that was punishable by dead, stoning 

The burden of proof is on you, and the mormon hierarchy, that teach that these two personages are deities....you and the LDS are making that claim...you are the one that needs to prove that, by answering my questions, you have not... 

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin, what about you...do you have any answers for what you just asked?...I have raised these questions, and no one here has given me any concrete answers to my questions...have you read my original question?  The late Gordon Hinckley said ..."....if the "vision"(emph mine) did not occur, then we are involved in a great sham. It is that simple (teachings of Gordon B Hinckley, p-227)

What I just asked? What do mean? Please be specific. It helps in communication.

I've posted links to a number of important resources during the course of this thread. To FAIR discussions of the background, context, and sources of the Joseph's accounts,

to Quinn on accounts and context, and some important Biblical scholarship. I've also read a lot more that I haven't mentioned.

I don't see any evidence that you have read or considered the implications of the content I posted. I've noticed Calmoriah and Pahorah posting

other important information.

One of the best ways to discredit someone is to set them atop as tall, narrow, and wobbly pedestal as possible. I approach Joseph Smith

and other LDS leaders from the perspective that they are well intended humans, doing the best they can according to their lights, and given their historical context.

I consider a wide range of information, rather than fixating on arbitrary hot button points.

Frankly, I don't agree with your basic assumptions about human and divine behavior. What Joseph would have done or said, what he would or would not

have told his mother or siblings, how the neighborhood would behave, what the preacher would have said, what God would or would not do, etc. Because I don't agree with your basic assumptions, and therefore have a differnt

paradigm from which to approach and view the evidence, I don't have the trouble you have. And that leaves me free to explore

lots of relevant information.

I checked your first post:

Surely if he TOLD, there would be TONS of evidence that J Smith TOLD…it was a revival,…folks would

flock to the site to see this site of this glorious event in the “sacred” grove…maybe even erect a monument there…

To me, quite honestly, this is a tall tale. Joseph didn't tell his mother right away. He told a minister, who dismissed it.

As Richard Bushman explained long ago, in Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, this was not due to it being unique.

Other people in the regions and time frame did, after all, report similar visions, and how many of them generated the response

that you insist, without considering the evidence, generated the response you assume here? You have based your argument on

the assumption that people would behave a certain way given certain conditions. Where is any evidence from Joseph Smith's environment

that anyone actually would behave that way? Look, for instance, at Bushman's essay on The Visionary World of Joseph Smith.

Can you find one of those accounts generating the kind of response that you seem to expect? Where were monuments erected? Newspapers reporting?

Flocking to the glorious events? And if there is no evidence of the kind of behavior you expect, don't you think that might be due to the fact that your expectations do not correspond with the realities of the situation?

Rather, the minister rejected the vision because it went against the assumptions of his time and training.

As you can see from J Smith account he TOLD this T T to everybody in town…(population about 600+in 1820)

I've read the accounts, and I honestly do not see that Joseph Smith told everybody in town. Indeed, though word got

round enough to show up in a range of sources (see the FAIR Mormon links on the topic), I'm not surprised that the details don't appear.

At home I've got the Journal of Mormon History essay on how the pedagogical use of the First Vision story started in the 1870s.

It's very much worth reading. It puts a number of things into context.

When I lived in California, and was getting interested in NDE accounts, I mentioned some of my readings in church, and a new member

approached me, and told me his own NDE account. This was the first time he had told anyone in over twenty years. The first time he'd

mentioned it, the few people there told him he was crazy. So he kept it to himself. Once he was baptized, he first told the priesthood quorum, and then reported

it Testimony meeting.

Just saying. Tall narrow pedestals are easy to tip over. I find that is not the best place to store sacred, personal information.

Rather, I like to keep it grounded, on a stable foundation.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited March 6, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Tacenda]

What I just asked? What do mean? Please be specific. It helps in communication.

I've posted links to a number of important resources during the course of this thread. To FAIR discussions of the background, context, and sources of the Joseph's accounts,

to Quinn on accounts and context, and some important Biblical scholarship. I've also read a lot more that I haven't mentioned.

I don't see any evidence that you have read or considered the implications of the content I posted. I've noticed Calmoriah and Pahorah posting

other important information.

One of the best ways to discredit someone is to set them atop as tall, narrow, and wobbly pedestal as possible. I approach Joseph Smith

and other LDS leaders from the perspective that they are well intended humans, doing the best they can according to their lights, and given their historical context.

I consider a wide range of information, rather than fixating on arbitrary hot button points.

Frankly, I don't agree with your basic assumptions about human and divine behavior. What Joseph would have done or said, what he would or would not

have told his mother or siblings, how the neighborhood would behave, what the preacher would have said, what God would or would not do, etc. Because I don't agree with your basic assumptions, and therefore have a differnt

paradigm from which to approach and view the evidence, I don't have the trouble you have. And that leaves me free to explore

lots of relevant information.

I checked your first post:

To me, quite honestly, this is a tall tale. Joseph didn't tell his mother right away. He told a minister, who dismissed it.

As Richard Bushman explained long ago, in Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, this was not due to it being unique.

Other people in the regions and time frame did, after all, report similar visions, and how many of them generated the response

that you insist, without considering the evidence, generated the response you assume here? You have based your argument on

the assumption that people would behave a certain way given certain conditions. Where is any evidence from Joseph Smith's environment

that anyone actually would behave that way? Look, for instance, at Bushman's essay on The Visionary World of Joseph Smith.

Can you find one of those accounts generating the kind of response that you seem to expect? Where were monuments erected? Newspapers reporting?

Flocking to the glorious events? And if there is no evidence of the kind of behavior you expect, don't you think that might be due to the fact that your expectations do not correspond with the realities of the situation?

Rather, the minister rejected the vision because it went against the assumptions of his time and training.

I've read the accounts, and I honestly do not see that Joseph Smith told everybody in town. Indeed, though word got

round enough to show up in a range of sources (see the FAIR Mormon links on the topic), I'm not surprised that the details don't appear.

At home I've got the Journal of Mormon History essay on how the pedagogical use of the First Vision story started in the 1870s.

It's very much worth reading. It puts a number of things into context.

When I lived in California, and was getting interested in NDE accounts, I mentioned some of my readings in church, and a new member

approached me, and told me his own NDE account. This was the first time he had told anyone in over twenty years. The first time he'd

mentioned it, the few people there told him he was crazy. So he kept it to himself. Once he was baptized, he first told the priesthood quorum, and then reported

it Testimony meeting.

Just saying. Tall narrow pedestals are easy to tip over. I find that is not the best place to store sacred, personal information.

Rather, I like to keep it grounded, on a stable foundation.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I can see how Joseph would keep it to himself for a very long time.  Especially if he told one person, say the preacher, and they react violently to it.  Just wish when the church publishes or puts video out that it will be as accurate as possble, even leaning towards not presenting it as fact until the church is sure about it.  The movie "Legacy" put out by the church, seemed to leave a lot out or showed things that may not have happened or happened in real life, for instance details surrounding JS's vision.

[TMESSENGER]

I can see how Joseph would keep it to himself for a very long time.  Especially if he told one person, say the preacher, and they react violently to it.  Just wish when the church publishes or puts video out that it will be as accurate as possble, even leaning towards not presenting it as fact until the church is sure about it.  The movie "Legacy" put out by the church, seemed to leave a lot out or showed things that may not have happened or happened in real life, for instance details surrounding JS's vision.

For starters, 

I am  quoting again what J Smith said

Smith said  

“..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)

 

​It is very clear you did not read or ignored this statement published in the back of every triple combo...a canonized "scripture" by the LDS church...

I am simply asking someone who heard/saw/witnessed  J Smith tell this story(in 1820)

... especially when he SAID  he  told everyone in town for three years! someone surely would corroborate his telling?  There were several newspapers in town, and adjacents cities...

I have mentioned Uncle Dale who is a contributor member here who maintains an extensive archive of newspapers in Palmyra and the towns adjacent to Palmyra, and these newspapers tell the truth, These papers (I have some of them , specially the Palmyra reflector) All of these newspapers attacked and published reports of this " prophet" and his golden bible...many articles about J Smith...but NONE or any of them ever mentioned that J Smith claimed he had this appearance of two personages  in a grove , and he said he saw the Father and Son , and I assumed J Smith would be talking about the God of the Bible, but J Smith never identified these two personages as the Father and the Son exactly those two words...

All I am asking, for anyone in that era, that J Smith told the truth...and if the "vision" was true, then you would not have to have J Smith to tell us this vision was true, because history and hundred of corroborating facts would be available to us already. 

No different of the astronauts that visited the moon 6 times...they don't have to tell us they went to the moon. history and tons of evidence  around  this country and the world testify, that America sent these Astronauts to the moon.

You sent these links from FAIR  surely you can find those lines, text, that gives this information that J Smith told this experience...why don't you find those words in this link, and give them to me?  and furthermore, I will take any corroboration from 1820- 1838..

TM

[Kevin Christensen]

Um... don't you see a difference between Joseph Smith saying "I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had." and later

"I continued to affirm that I had seen a vision" and your undocumented claim that "when he SAID he told everyone in town for three years!" Particularly when what you want

is details. Telling one person, and then later responding to hostile queries with "Yes, I had a vision" is not quite the same picture as the one

you seem to be building your argument upon. Pahoran pointed to Nibley's "Censoring the Joseph Smith Story" which demonstrates that Joseph's critics cannot be trusted to get the story right, if they do bother to tell it.

Word did get around. FAIRMormon has provided some good early sources on that.

Matthew Brown's 2006 FAIR Presentation is also very good on the First Vision and the sources, pro and con. His book, A Pillar of Light

provides more. But notice this:

This brings us to the most frequent anti-Mormon criticism about JS 1832. God the Father is obviously not mentioned as making an appearance to Joseph Smith in this First Vision account. I would like to suggest, however, that all this time we as Latter-day Saints have not recognized that God the Father’s appearance is, in fact, referred to right in this document. This has occurred, I believe, because we have been looking in the wrong place.

In the introductory remarks of JS 1832 Joseph Smith outlined precisely how he was about to proceed in the narration of his history. He mentioned that the very first incident associated with his “marvelous experience” in the Restoration was that he received “the testimony from on high.” Because of the formatting of the introductory paragraph and the structure of the text which follows it, it can be concluded with a marked degree of certainty that this testimony was connected with the First Vision. The question to ask, then, is, What was the “testimony from on high” that Joseph Smith received during the First Vision? This question is easily answered by referring to another First Vision recital given by the Prophet in November 1835. There he states that one of the two personages who appeared unto him testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. In JS 1838 (which is the First Vision narrative now published in the Pearl of Great Price) we learn that one of the personages testified to Joseph using the following words, “This is my beloved Son.” We may comfortably conclude from this documentary evidence that the “testimony from on high” of JS 1832 is equivalent to the phrase spoken by God the Father in JS 1838. Therefore, we may safely say that when Joseph Smith wrote the 1832 account of the First Vision the appearance of God the Father was definitely in his mind—because he obliquely refers to it. It seems that he did not make an explicit mention of this part of the story simply because he had chosen to use the apostle Paul’s experience as the main framework for that portion of his narrative—and Paul only saw Jesus Christ.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-revised-or-unaltered-joseph-smiths-foundational-stories

Also see FAIRMormon on the same point here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Accounts/1832/Only_one_Personage_appears

And newspaper accounts:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/1830_statement_about_seeing_%22God%22

Reminiscent pointing before 1838 and contemporary accounts before 1838:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Lack_of_contemporary_Father_and_Son_vision_until_1838

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Uncle Dale]

 

...Especially if he told one person, say the preacher, and they react violently to it.

...

 

But WHO was that bad preacher?

 

After all these years, the very best of the LDS researchers and history

writers still cannot tell us who he was, or when he did such bad things?

 

 

That seems very odd to me. Wouldn't such a preacher have warned his

parishioners not to listen to young Joseph? Would not some of those

people have been proud to have later announced that they were among

the very first ones to oppose Mormonism?

 

According to LDS accounts it was a terrible persecution. It must have gone

on all through 1820-1821-1822-1823-1824-1825-1826... etc. etc. It seems

to have become so overwhelming that the young boy had to flee to Harmony

or to Josiah Stowell's farm, a little north of Harmony, to escape danger.

 

I've started another thread here. Asking who that bad minister was. Since

the Church itself publishes what seems to be his portrait, I'd have to guess

that somebody working at Temple Square can begin to answer these questions.

 

UD

Edited March 8, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[name]

Edited March 6, 2015 by name

[TMESSENGER]

Um... don't you see a difference between Joseph Smith saying "I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had." and later

"I continued to affirm that I had seen a vision" and your undocumented claim that "when he SAID he told everyone in town for three years!" Particularly when what you want

is details. Telling one person, and then later responding to hostile queries with "Yes, I had a vision" is not quite the same picture as the one

you seem to be building your argument upon. Pahoran pointed to Nibley's "Censoring the Joseph Smith Story" which demonstrates that Joseph's critics cannot be trusted to get the story right, if they do bother to tell it.

Word did get around. FAIRMormon has provided some good early sources on that.

Matthew Brown's 2006 FAIR Presentation is also very good on the First Vision and the sources, pro and con. His book, A Pillar of Light

provides more. But notice this:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-revised-or-unaltered-joseph-smiths-foundational-stories

Also see FAIRMormon on the same point here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Accounts/1832/Only_one_Personage_appears

And newspaper accounts:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/1830_statement_about_seeing_%22God%22

Reminiscent pointing before 1838 and contemporary accounts before 1838:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Lack_of_contemporary_Father_and_Son_vision_until_1838

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Kevin, you go at great length, in telling us what Joseph claims he saw, but you are NOT given me a" third party" if he told the town , and when I said the town? is because the early mormon apologists mentioned that there were only about 600+ souls in that 1820 era.

I mentioned before that you don't need J Smith story if true...just go to Uncle Dale (a contributor here) and google this site and look for the newspapers in the Palmyra era, and you will find records/accounts/articles  all attacking J Smith on his golden bible, (and claim as a "prophet" )and the way it obtained etc...but NONE mention the Father Son bit account, for the simple reason, J Smith had to published as fact but until 1842, (Orson Pratt published this account in a little pamphlet entitled "remarkable visions" I have three copies.

So give me a third party, forget what J Smith said, I want corroboration from someone else period

It is indescribable,/inconceivable  you can not find any documentation in these 18 years, that corroborates  J Smith told this story to anyone

 

And by the way, I have dialogued with many FAIR, and FARMS apologists and they all mentioned in many polemics, in these these links that you sent me and then I asked them to please give me the exact lines in text from any of these links that corroborate a third person "taking"...that the Father Son took place...and none have given me any documentation...

 

Daniel Peterson who was head of FARMS at one time and Robert Millet(BYU), when I asked them the same thing I have posted here, they both told me that this "vision" is a spiritual matter and that the Holy Ghost has testified to them that it is true...they gave me this response independently from each other...you go figure..my response to them can not be given here...(rules) 

TM

[mfbukowski]

TMESS

The point you are so laboriously trying to make seems to be of no importance to anyone here.

 

You have received multiple answers and no one is joining your cause or even can understand your point of why this is important.

 

I don't mean to be harsh- I just want to cut to the chase.

[Pahoran]

.

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

But the most important thing to remember is that those Jr. high kids were authorities on canonised LDS doctrine...

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncle Dale]

But the most important thing to remember is that those Jr. high kids were authorities on canonised LDS doctrine...

Regards,

Pahoran

 

What they were, I can only recall from my memories. Perhaps

they grew up to be model citizens, for all I know.

 

But an "apostate" family living in their midst offered low-hanging

fruit for saintly taunting. The parents wouldn't let their sons and

daughters date those "Broadhurst trouble-makers," -- until a

jack-Mormon family moved in on the street where I had my paper

route, and (for the first time) I kissed latter day lips.

 

...

 

Back on another topic, from months and months ago -- You were

right. There was very little mention among the troops in Johnston's

Army of the Mountain Meadows affair, in any preserved accounts.

Once the dragoons neared Fort Bridger (and began to hear more

recent "news" from The Valley), we can find a few mentions. An

officer writing to a Philadelphia paper indicated that vengeance

against the purported LDS participants in the massacre was one

of many topics of conversation during that wintery encampment.

 

But, search as I could, I could find no mention of the kidnapped

children survivors at that early date. The approaching soldiers

would not have even suspected there were such survivors kept

among Mormon families, until after entering and establishing a

presence in Utah Territory.

 

Every now and then, even Homer nods.

 

UD

(Which reminds me of my days in building that wooden stratagem, on the plains of The City of Horses...)

Edited March 8, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

TM

TMESS

The point you are so laboriously trying to make seems to be of no importance to anyone here.

 

You have received multiple answers and no one is joining your cause or even can understand your point of why this is important.

 

I don't mean to be harsh- I just want to cut to the chase.

Here is the entire point

 

Joseph said he had a vision, or God appeared to him or whatever terminology floats your boat.

 

That was either a lie or it wasn't.

 

It doesn't matter if he told the lie 3 minutes, 3 days, 3 years or 30 years later.

 

It doesn't matter if he told no one or everyone.   It doesn't matter if he stood on his rooftop and got a megaphone or rode through town saying "I had a VISION" or alternatively IF HE NEVER TOLD ANYONE AT ALL.

 

Either he has a vision or he didn't.   The truth is, this is exactly the "historicity" argument all over again.

 

THERE IS NO NATURAL OBJECTIVE MEANS FOR ANY OF US TO VERIFY IF JOSEPH HAD A VISION OR NOT.   I did not see God- he SAYS he did.

 

There is only one issue and that is whether or not the spirit bears witness to us individually that his story is "true"

 

You do not seem to understand that at all. 

THAT is the reason, according to you that :

Daniel Peterson who was head of FARMS at one time and Robert Millet(BYU), when I asked them the same thing I have posted here, they both told me that this "vision" is a spiritual matter and that the Holy Ghost has testified to them that it is true...they gave me this response independently from each other...you go figure..my response to them can not be given here...(rules)

If indeed Peterson and Millet told you that, they were exactly right.

 

Nothing else matters.  You have no case.  We accept it on faith and revelation and that is the only way it CAN be accepted.

 

OK now go live your life and find some other thing to rant about.

Edited March 8, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

 

THERE IS NO NATURAL OBJECTIVE MEANS FOR ANY OF US TO VERIFY IF JOSEPH HAD A VISION OR NOT. 

...

 

.

Ah! But was there any way for the Nephites to verify whether or

not Samuel the Lamanite was communicating divine oracles?

 

Now there's a question upon which to preface a best-seller at

Deseret Books.

 

 

 

UD

 

(And did the Zarahemlaites typically harness black and white steeds to their chariots?)

Edited March 8, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[TMESSENGER]

TMESS

The point you are so laboriously trying to make seems to be of no importance to anyone here.

 

You have received multiple answers and no one is joining your cause or even can understand your point of why this is important.

 

I don't mean to be harsh- I just want to cut to the chase.

Well, that just proves to any latter day saint, that their foundation, does not exist...And frankly, I am not here to win an argument. I am just defending

 the faith once deliver to the saints ( Jud 1:3 Jude 3-4

"....I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. )

NIV

 

 and the mormon people are entitled to believe anything, but frankly, they have another "jesus" another "spirit" and certainly another "gospel" (2 Cor 11:4 "...

4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

NIV

 

mfbukowski   .If this site was of evangelicals, and we were discussing the crucifiction, and resurrection of my precious Lord Jesus, and if someone wanted to inquire about documentation from the Bible,or secular sources,  you would have many of us trying to give you that information without the name calling or the many spins on the subject...And there are hundreds of books on this subject, because the Apostle Paul. wrote about this particular foundation of Christianity

 

1 Cor 15:12-24

 

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.   20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 

NIV

 

TM

[mfbukowski]

Well, that just proves to any latter day saint, that their foundation, does not exist...And frankly, I am not here to win an argument. I am just defending

 the faith once deliver to the saints ( Jud 1:3 Jude 3-4

"....I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. )

NIV

 

 and the mormon people are entitled to believe anything, but frankly, they have another "jesus" another "spirit" and certainly another "gospel" (2 Cor 11:4 "...

4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

NIV

 

mfbukowski   

.If this site was of evangelicals, and we were discussing the crucifiction, and resurrection of my precious Lord Jesus, and if someone wanted to inquire about documentation from the Bible,or secular sources,  you would have many of us trying to give you that information without the name calling or the many spins on the subject...And there are hundreds of books on this subject, because the Apostle Paul. wrote about this particular foundation of Christianity

 

1 Cor 15:12-24

 

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.   20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 

NIV

 

TM

Edited March 8, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Well, that just proves to any latter day saint, that their foundation, does not exist...And frankly, I am not here to win an argument. I am just defending

 the faith once deliver to the saints ( Jud 1:3 Jude 3-4

"....I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. )

NIV

 

 and the mormon people are entitled to believe anything, but frankly, they have another "jesus" another "spirit" and certainly another "gospel" (2 Cor 11:4 "...

4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

NIV

 

mfbukowski   

.If this site was of evangelicals, and we were discussing the crucifiction, and resurrection of my precious Lord Jesus, and if someone wanted to inquire about documentation from the Bible,or secular sources,  you would have many of us trying to give you that information without the name calling or the many spins on the subject...And there are hundreds of books on this subject, because the Apostle Paul. wrote about this particular foundation of Christianity

 

1 Cor 15:12-24

 

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.   20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 

NIV

 

TM

But you miss the point that you take the bible on faith and have no more reason to believe the bible than we have to believe the Book of Mormon or Joseph's story.

You are totally missing it.

You have no "foundation" either. Throw the quotes- they are irrelevant if they are all lies. That works on both sides of this argument

Edited March 8, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The quote function appears to be screwed up

I have no clue what's happening

[mfbukowski]

But you miss the point that you take the bible on faith and have no more reason to believe the bible than we have to believe the Book of Mormon or Joseph's story.

You are totally missing it.

You have no "foundation" either. Throw the quotes- they are irrelevant if they are all lies. That works on both sides of this argument

[TMESSENGER]

TM

Here is the entire point

 

Joseph said he had a vision, or God appeared to him or whatever terminology floats your boat.

 

That was either a lie or it wasn't.

 

It doesn't matter if he told the lie 3 minutes, 3 days, 3 years or 30 years later.

 

It doesn't matter if he told no one or everyone.   It doesn't matter if he stood on his rooftop and got a megaphone or rode through town saying "I had a VISION" or alternatively IF HE NEVER TOLD ANYONE AT ALL.

 

Either he has a vision or he didn't.   The truth is, this is exactly the "historicity" argument all over again.

 

THERE IS NO NATURAL OBJECTIVE MEANS FOR ANY OF US TO VERIFY IF JOSEPH HAD A VISION OR NOT.   I did not see God- he SAYS he did.

 

There is only one issue and that is whether or not the spirit bears witness to us individually that his story is "true"

 

You do not seem to understand that at all. 

THAT is the reason, according to you that :

If indeed Peterson and Millet told you that, they were exactly right.

 

Nothing else matters.  You have no case.  We accept it on faith and revelation and that is the only way it CAN be accepted.

 

OK now go live your life and find some other thing to rant about.

ah, but you missed the whole point...I am not trying to prove the "vision' was true or not! I am merely ask/ want a third party that corroborates J Smith telling this alledge vision...matter of fact I added .."forget that the vision was true or not, Where is the documentation, that J Smith told??? You said no one is siding with me? but you are again wrong...Uncle Dale is on my side, Mr Dale have asked many questions about the claims of mormonism, and he has not receive any answers either...as I see it J Smith did not have to tell us anything , history, is in our side, like the Astronauts that went to the moon? they did not have to tell us anything either about them going to the moon...tons of evidence is what determines whether they visited the moon or not

 

Just imagine, the God of the Universe with his Son appeared to a boy of 14, 15, 16, years old, but there is nothing in History that corroborates this god and his son came here...J Smith claims it happened...but no one knows ...someone is not telling the truth...again you can believe anything, that is your choise, but if you believe the dog has five legs, because you count, the tail as another leg?// well, just saying it and believing it, and even faith on it, does not make it true OK? The dog has four legs period, and the earth is not flat, and Santa lives and is real, millions believe in Santa (Children that is )

TM

[Uncle Dale]

 

...Uncle Dale is on my side...

 

Though I must confess more than a little ontological 

affection for the Wittgensteinian Pot-Stirrer.

 

Here's a book from him to read, review, and share comments

with us, via Amazon Books:

 

 

Being As Communion: A Metaphysics of Information

by William A. Dembski (2014)

For a thing to be real, it must be able to communicate with other things. If this is so,

then the problem of being receives a straightforward resolution: to be -- is to be in

communion. So the fundamental science, indeed the science that needs to underwrite

all other sciences, is a theory of communication.

Within such a theory of communication the proper object of study becomes not isolated

particles but the information that passes between entities. In Being as Communion

philosopher and mathematician William Dembski provides a non-technical overview of

his work on information.

Dembski attempts to make good on the promise of John Wheeler, Paul Davies, and

others that information is poised to replace matter as the primary stuff of reality. With

profound implications for theology and metaphysics, Being as Communion develops a

relational ontology that is at once congenial to science and open to teleology in nature.

All those interested in the intersections of theology, philosophy and science should

read this book.

 

UD