The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[ruthiechan]

Yo. New here. I felt like I should share this blog post of mine about this very subject. Here's the link to the post: http://ruthiechan.net/wordpress/2013/12/15/multiple-tellings-of-a-story-oh-nos-not-really/

 

Below is the blog post in its entirety. 

 

There are four accounts of Joseph Smith Jr’s first vision story, the story where he saw God that started him on the path of restoring the Gospel of Jesus Christ which is how you got us Mormons in the world.  You can read more about first visions with links to each of the accounts over here: https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

I’ve read them before and I did so again and the differences have never bothered me. I have decided that it was time to articulate why it never bothered me and it all comes down to personal experience. The kind of experience where I am sure if you were to stop and think about it in your own life you would be able to relate to it.

I am going to use a spiritually moving dream I had (without actually telling you the dream because that’s not the point of this post) as an example because it covers all the bases. When telling this dream to different people I tell it differently. To some I emphasize different points in the dream, some more in the beginning, or the middle or the end. I’ll emphasize the points differently, or be more or less animated. I’ll use different metaphors to describe the same things. With some people I’ll end up crying, and some not, and with one person in particular I was very mechanical in the telling and actually felt that it was a mistake to tell that person at that time. With some people I’ve left entire sections out because I felt those sections would be meaningless to them. I usually leave out details altogether no matter who I’m telling. I wrote the dream down, but needless to say the way I wrote it down is not exactly the same way I tell it. It’s thinner because details are missing. Since I’ve had the dream I also reflect upon it differently because I am at a different place in my life than I was before and sometimes I share such reflections which changes how I tell the dream. Not once in any telling did I ever lie.

I could use many more examples but I will refrain to avoid writing a novel.

How many times do we do this with other regular mundane life things as well?
Do we tell everyone all the details that lead up to the really funny thing that our child did out on the playground?
Do we all not edit the little stories of our lives depending on who our audience is?
Do we not all sometimes tell only the gist of an event and then wait to reveal another part until we feel safe doing so or until when we feel it’s appropriate or relevant to add the part we held back?
Even in a personal journal we know that there’s a possibility that someone may pick it up and read it and thus we may not even feel safe writing every personal thought or feeling down. I know I’ve felt that before and that it’s affected my journal entries.

So, when I read the first vision accounts and that’s what I see in them. They seem humanly consistent to me. I wonder what my spiritual experiences would look like if all my retellings over the years got written down and shown to the world. Perhaps I would look like a liar too.

[omni]

We remember different events in different ways due to importance.  A regular, run of the mill event verses a profound life changing events.  If a kid sees their parents murdered, those images and what happened will stick with them to when they are old and gray.   If God and Jesus was to both appear to me and I had an experience like Joseph, that would be beyond a life changing event.  I would rehearse that event in my mind on an almost daily basis.  How could I ever think of forgetting any of it? Why should I think Joseph Smith would react any different than me. 

 

 

 

I agree, which makes me wonder all the more why there are so many inconsistencies in the accounts.  

 

I don't believe Joseph ever said that any version was 100% accurate in every little detail or ever claimed that one version was completely comprehensive.  

 

 

How often to you preface the recounting of personal experiences by mentioning they're completely comprehensive and "100% accurate in every little detail"?

 

I believe those that nitpick his accounts would be the first to complain if their words were put under a microscope and picked apart for even the slightest difference in how they retell events that have happened them. 

 

 

Is recognizing the fact that one account mentions one divine being, another angels, and a third two divine beings being nit-picky?  I certainly wouldn't consider those slight differences.

[Uncle Dale]

...

 I certainly wouldn't consider those slight differences.

Oh, the Protestants tell me that there is so little difference

between Jesus the son of Mary and the Creator of the Universe,

that we can simply call those differences "personages" and

go right on ahead being trinitarians...

If they can make such major leaps in logic ten times before

breakfast, I suppose that the Latter Day Saints can call

mountains molehills.

The REAL problem that would have arisen, might have come,

had Bro. Joseph's two gods in the Manchester grove story

been superseded by a single, unitary God a few years later.

At least he kept his literary innovations resonant with his

theological developments.

UD

Edited February 21, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[carbon dioxide]

Is recognizing the fact that one account mentions one divine being, another angels, and a third two divine beings being nit-picky?  I certainly wouldn't consider those slight differences.

I think so when one reads the thing as a whole.  For example the 1832 vision does not mention two beings present.  So what.  If one reads that account the issue is Joseph receiving forgiveness of his sins.  Outside of the Father addressing Joseph and introducing Jesus, the rest of the communication was between Jesus and Joseph.  I see no reason for Joseph needing to specifically mention the presence of the Father in that account.  His presence or absence is not relevant to the point.  Joseph does not deny the presence of the Father.  He does not say he just saw one person. Joseph says "and I Saw the Lord" which is true. Whether one or two personages, he did see the Lord. Joseph says further

 

And he Spake unto me Saying Joseph [my son] thy Sins are forgiven thee.  Go thy [way] walk in my Statutes and keep my commandments. Behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life. [behold] the world lieth in sin {and} at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the Gospel and keep not [my] commandments.  They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me. And mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to this ungodliness and to bring to pass that which [hath] been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apostles.  Behold and lo I come quickly as it written of me in the cloud [clothed] in the glory of my Father.

 

No denial of the Father being present but His presence does not matter in what Joseph was explaining.    If Joe and Steve came to me and Steve told me when the party was to begin and then I go to Jack and tell Jack that Steve told me the party starts at 8 P.M. am I denying that Joe was present?  No I am not.  The presence of Joe is not denied but I did not mention him since he did not tell me when the party was but Joe was present with Steve whether I mention him directly to Jack or not.  If Jack assumes that Joe was not present he is 100% wrong.

Edited February 21, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

[Uncle Dale]

I think so when one reads the thing as a whole.  For example the 1832 vision does not mention two beings present.  So what. 

...

 

 

No big deal -- unless you consider 3000 years of Judeo-Christian

teachings, telling us that man cannot look upon the face of God

and live.

 

The converts to Mormonism in 1830 did not have to worry about

that little problem. When the Palmyra Reflector mentioned that

Joe Smith was claiming to have encountered God, there was no

distinct narrative in Smith's words, set in type to demonstrate the

holy phenomenon,

 

A few years later, when the Mormon Church already had an

abundance of members, resources, and a path forward in

American history, the missionaries need not have worried

about offending a Jew here, a Muslim there -- the doctrine of

Eloheim and Jehovah simply being progressed human beings

was beginning to take hold within the Church, and could be

offered as "meat" to those Welsh miners who had cashed in

on the "milk" of the perpetual immigration fund's free ticket to Zion.

 

All's well that ends well... all is well.

 

UD

Edited February 21, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

No big deal -- unless you consider 3000 years of Judeo-Christian

teachings, telling us that man cannot look upon the face of God

and live.

 

Except of course they all contradict each other.

[mfbukowski]

Except of course they all contradict each other.

And apparently were wrong.

 

Remember "old" is not a synonym for "true" at least not in my dictionary

 

I guess we could go back to a flat earth though and maybe phrenology would be a good thing to revive

Edited February 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Just to prove I can look things up on LDS.org

• I have seen God face to face: Gen. 32:30 .
• Moses … was afraid to look upon God: Ex. 3:6 .
• Lord will come down in the sight of all the people: Ex. 19:11 .
• charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze: Ex. 19:21 .
• nobles of the children of Israel … saw God: Ex. 24:11 .
• Lord spake unto Moses face to face: Ex. 33:11 .
• there shall no man see me, and live: Ex. 33:20 .
• With him will I speak mouth to mouth: Num. 12:8 .
• Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face: Deut. 34:10 .
• We shall surely die, because we have seen God: Judg. 13:22 .
• Lord … had appeared unto him twice: 1 Kgs. 11:9 .
• in my flesh shall I see God: Job 19:26 . ( Moses 5:10 . )
• mine eyes have seen … the Lord: Isa. 6:5 .

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God: Matt. 5:8

 

And those don't even include Stephen

Edited February 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

Except of course they all contradict each other.

 

Well, one saw the wake of the Shekinah

And another saw the back side of YHWH

Yet another perceived the Holy Kavod 

And one spoke to the Most High as one man to another.

 

And, at last, a farmboy in Ontario lived to tell the

tale -- and now we know that The Almighty (both almighties)

is/are mighty white, and mightily bearded.

 

Since the farmboy didn't die instantly, nor get blinded,

nor translated to the realm of Elijah and Enoch, he

must have been telling the truth...

 

(Satan, of course, was no stranger to God's parlor --

and what he saw, no man dares tell)

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

Well I don't actually care, for me its all philosophy anyway.

 

I'm just grumpy I guess. 

[Uncle Dale]

Just to prove I can look things up on LDS.org

• I have seen God face to face: Gen. 32:30 .
• Moses … was afraid to look upon God: Ex. 3:6 .
• Lord will come down in the sight of all the people: Ex. 19:11 .
• charge the people, lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze: Ex. 19:21 .
• nobles of the children of Israel … saw God: Ex. 24:11 .
• Lord spake unto Moses face to face: Ex. 33:11 .
• there shall no man see me, and live: Ex. 33:20 .
• With him will I speak mouth to mouth: Num. 12:8 .
• Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face: Deut. 34:10 .
• We shall surely die, because we have seen God: Judg. 13:22 .
• Lord … had appeared unto him twice: 1 Kgs. 11:9 .
• in my flesh shall I see God: Job 19:26 . ( Moses 5:10 . )
• mine eyes have seen … the Lord: Isa. 6:5 .

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God: Matt. 5:8

 

And those don't even include Stephen

 

And what, precisely is "seen?" -- I mean, according to the Pope

and assorted experts on such stuff?

 

The Angel of the Presence?

Sophia?

The Glory?

 

Whatever the Israelites (more likely the post-exilic Jews)

may have written, Judeo-Christian tradition and theology

holds that no man looks upon the face of YHWH in the

mundane world, and lives.

 

Visions, dreams, hallucinations, and hopes for the

World to Come do not count. Photography is what

we are speaking here, and darn few teachers, from

Justin Martyr down to Ann Lee, described "God" as

is written out in the latter versions of Smith's history.

 

Maybe we can find an account from Simon Magus or

from Montanus -- but I doubt even that.

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

And what, precisely is "seen?" -- I mean, according to the Pope

and assorted experts on such stuff?

 

The Angel of the Presence?

Sophia?

The Glory?

 

Whatever the Israelites (more likely the post-exilic Jews)

may have written, Judeo-Christian tradition and theology

holds that no man looks upon the face of YHWH in the

mundane world, and lives.

 

Visions, dreams, hallucinations, and hopes for the

World to Come do not count. Photography is what

we are speaking here, and darn few teachers, from

Justin Martyr down to Ann Lee, described "God" as

is written out in the latter versions of Smith's history.

 

Maybe we can find an account from Simon Magus or

from Montanus -- but I doubt even that.

 

UD

 

You answered your own questions about ambiguity, thank you very much.

 

 

 

Ah, but you are dealing with a conversationalist (controversialist?)

who would dare question Aristotle, Bosworth and Webster, when

it comes to figuring out just what "fact" means.

 

My favorite Shelly Berman quote, of all time:

If you've never met a student from the University of Chicago,

I'll describe him to you.

 

If you give him a glass of water, he says,

"This is a glass of water.

But is it a glass of water?

And if it is a glass of water,

why is it a glass of water?"

...And eventually he dies of thirst.

UD

What is the definition of IS anyway?

Edited February 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[omni]

I think so when one reads the thing as a whole. For example the 1832 vision does not mention two beings present. So what. If one reads that account the issue is Joseph receiving forgiveness of his sins. Outside of the Father addressing Joseph and introducing Jesus, the rest of the communication was between Jesus and Joseph. I see no reason for Joseph needing to specifically mention the presence of the Father in that account. His presence or absence is not relevant to the point. Joseph does not deny the presence of the Father. He does not say he just saw one person. Joseph says "and I Saw the Lord" which is true. Whether one or two personages, he did see the Lord. Joseph says further

And he Spake unto me Saying Joseph [my son] thy Sins are forgiven thee. Go thy [way] walk in my Statutes and keep my commandments. Behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life. [behold] the world lieth in sin {and} at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the Gospel and keep not [my] commandments. They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me. And mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to this ungodliness and to bring to pass that which [hath] been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apostles. Behold and lo I come quickly as it written of me in the cloud [clothed] in the glory of my Father.

No denial of the Father being present but His presence does not matter in what Joseph was explaining. If Joe and Steve came to me and Steve told me when the party was to begin and then I go to Jack and tell Jack that Steve told me the party starts at 8 P.M. am I denying that Joe was present? No I am not. The presence of Joe is not denied but I did not mention him since he did not tell me when the party was but Joe was present with Steve whether I mention him directly to Jack or not. If Jack assumes that Joe was not present he is 100% wrong.

Have you ever recounted the First Vision without mentioning both God the Father and Christ? I've heard, told, or read the account hundreds of times and to a variety of audiences. I can't think of one instance (except for when reading the earlier versions) in which both divine beings weren't mentioned.

The claim that both the Father and the Son visited JS is one of the, if not the most important aspect of the story. I can't imagine a situation in which this wouldn't be relevant.

[Uncle Dale]

 

You answered your own questions about ambiguity, thank you very much.

 ...

 

I'm sure that the LDS polemicists have tackled this question in

the past, and ferreted out at least a dozen examples in which

Christian and Jewish Saints have claimed to have seen the face

of the Most High, right here in the mundane world, as I see the

pencil case on my desktop.

 

The "Prophet" Jacob Cochran made such claims -- though all

that outsiders, not members of his cult, ever could witness were

his disciples falling into swoons and saying they had visited

heaven and conversed with Divine beings "in the spirit."

 

Richard Brothers may have said something -- certainly Mr.

Swedenborg would have blurred the line between actual,

physical encounter and purely visionary ecstasies. The

so-called "Leatherwood God" of Ohio claimed to be Jehovah;

so anybody who ever shook his hand could make an

extravagant profession of having "touched God in the flesh."

 

But, if you begin with the Talmud and the Mishna, and work

your way down through the Fathers of the Church, to the

century of America's discovery, you will find precious little

orthodox theological expositions on seeing God eye to eye.

 

So -- along comes Joseph Smith, Jr. -- "Blessed to open the

last dispensation" -- Gazelem -- the Prince of Light. If he is

to "restore all things," then certainly his reign must surpass

that of Enoch (who merely walked with God). No -- Joseph

must go right back into the Garden of Eden itself, and

become the First Adam, all over again. He must restore

that original relationship, of eye to eye and mind to mind,

apart from any dreams of the night or green turnip

phantasmagorias. No "undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard,

crumb of cheese, or fragment of underdone potato " could be

blamed for a real, true, in-the-flesh, "shake his hand to make

sure he's not an evil angel" theophany.

 

OK -- our unnamed LDS apologist has dug deeper than Nibley,

and uncovered some Latin treatise, hidden from the Inquisition 

and escaping the the control of the Index Librorum. I'll grant

that possibility.

 

But, as I said, mainstream Judeo-Christian theology for more

centuries than just the "6th and 7th dispensations" has given

explanations concerning "seeing God" -- and Smith's version

doesn't cut it.

 

Sorry about that.

 

UD

[strappinglad]

Two items

1. With Joseph's vast knowledge of all things scriptural at the age of 14( or 15) , I wonder what he expected that he had seen. What were his expectations if God was to appear? Maybe he just thought a voice might be heard in his head, at best an angel, but God? How did what he saw mesh with his Methodist or Presbyterian instructing?

2. What would the critics be saying if each vision narration matched almost exactly?

Oh, and by the way it is called the first VISION , but UD says visions don't count.

And Stephen saw the Father and the Son in vision and lived. ( but not for very long )

Edited February 21, 2015 by strappinglad

[mfbukowski]

I'm sure that the LDS polemicists have tackled this question in

the past, and ferreted out at least a dozen examples in which

Christian and Jewish Saints have claimed to have seen the face

of the Most High, right here in the mundane world, as I see the

pencil case on my desktop.

 

The "Prophet" Jacob Cochran made such claims -- though all

that outsiders, not members of his cult, ever could witness were

his disciples falling into swoons and saying they had visited

heaven and conversed with Divine beings "in the spirit."

 

Richard Brothers may have said something -- certainly Mr.

Swedenborg would have blurred the line between actual,

physical encounter and purely visionary ecstasies. The

so-called "Leatherwood God" of Ohio claimed to be Jehovah;

so anybody who ever shook his hand could make an

extravagant profession of having "touched God in the flesh."

 

But, if you begin with the Talmud and the Mishna, and work

your way down through the Fathers of the Church, to the

century of America's discovery, you will find precious little

orthodox theological expositions on seeing God eye to eye.

 

So -- along comes Joseph Smith, Jr. -- "Blessed to open the

last dispensation" -- Gazelem -- the Prince of Light. If he is

to "restore all things," then certainly his reign must surpass

that of Enoch (who merely walked with God). No -- Joseph

must go right back into the Garden of Eden itself, and

become the First Adam, all over again. He must restore

that original relationship, of eye to eye and mind to mind,

apart from any dreams of the night or green turnip

phantasmagorias. No "undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard,

crumb of cheese, or fragment of underdone potato " could be

blamed for a real, true, in-the-flesh, "shake his hand to make

sure he's not an evil angel" theophany.

 

OK -- our unnamed LDS apologist has dug deeper than Nibley,

and uncovered some Latin treatise, hidden from the Inquisition 

and escaping the the control of the Index Librorum. I'll grant

that possibility.

 

But, as I said, mainstream Judeo-Christian theology for more

centuries than just the "6th and 7th dispensations" has given

explanations concerning "seeing God" -- and Smith's version

doesn't cut it.

 

Sorry about that.

 

UD

That was a simple scripture search on LDS.org, with a simple cut and paste. About as simple as you can be. Here it is right here:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-privilege-of-seeing

That's a nice history lesson but it doesn't have much to do with what I believe.

I'd trade it all for one page out of William James any day. He cares about what makes sense, not about castles in the air no less imagined than his view of what actually makes sense.

God is a man who lives in my heart. I talk to him every day and he talks to me. Haven't seen him yet, but maybe someday. If I have a choice between listening to him or reading about him in a book that makes no sense, it's no contest.

You see our religion really is for revolutionaries even though mostly it contains fossils. God loves fossils too.

Edited February 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

...

How did what he saw mesh with his Methodist or Presbyterian instructing?

...

 

At about the same time, Phinehas, the brother of Brigham Young had

a visionary experience in a Reformed Methodist meeting in New York:

 

>I saw a body of light above the brightness of the sun descending towards me;

>in a moment it filled me with joy unutterable: every part of my system was

>perfectly light and perfectly happy. I soon arose and spake of the things of the

>kingdom of God, as I had never spake before. I then felt satisfied that the Lord

>had heard my prayer and my sins were forgiven.

 

Such an epiphany would have been unusual, but not questioned 

by the sect the Youngs belonged to. The Methodist Episcopal

Church traditionalists might have been less accepting.

 

Describing an upstate revival, located near Joseph Smith's home.

and dating from the same period, Alexander Campbell reported:

 

>...a revival in the State of New-York in which the Spirit of God was represented as being

>abundantly poured out, on Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists. I think the converts

>in the order of the names were about three hundred Presbyterians, three hundred Methodists,

>and two hundred and eighty Baptists. On the principles of Bellamy, Hopkins, and Fuller,

>these being all regenerated without any knowledge of the Gospel, there is no difficulty in

>accounting for their joining different sects....

>

>Enthusiasm flourishes, blooms under the popular systems. This man was regenerated when

>asleep, by a vision of the night. That man heard a voice in the woods, saying, "thy sins be

>forgiven thee." A third saw his Saviour descending to the tops of the trees, at noon day.

 

In a "tent-meeting" revival atmosphere, the usual restrictions

of normative Protestant belief and conduct were sometimes

lifted -- and even the staid, college-educated ministers might

be overcome with enthusiasm.

 

But once the revival meetings had ended, and the enthusiast

who had been saved during "a vision of the night," or who had

sworn he'd seen Jesus "descending to the tops of the trees,"

came back under the firm hand of church discipline, such

epiphanies would be downplayed. They would typically have

been credited to that individual's "conversion experience"

and would not have become the basis for overthrowing the

established hierarchy, and installing the visionary as leader.

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

At about the same time, Phinehas, the brother of Brigham Young had

a visionary experience in a Reformed Methodist meeting in New York:

 

>I saw a body of light above the brightness of the sun descending towards me;

>in a moment it filled me with joy unutterable: every part of my system was

>perfectly light and perfectly happy. I soon arose and spake of the things of the

>kingdom of God, as I had never spake before. I then felt satisfied that the Lord

>had heard my prayer and my sins were forgiven.

 

Such an epiphany would have been unusual, but not questioned 

by the sect the Youngs belonged to. The Methodist Episcopal

Church traditionalists might have been less accepting.

 

Describing an upstate revival, located near Joseph Smith's home.

and dating from the same period, Alexander Campbell reported:

 

>...a revival in the State of New-York in which the Spirit of God was represented as being

>abundantly poured out, on Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists. I think the converts

>in the order of the names were about three hundred Presbyterians, three hundred Methodists,

>and two hundred and eighty Baptists. On the principles of Bellamy, Hopkins, and Fuller,

>these being all regenerated without any knowledge of the Gospel, there is no difficulty in

>accounting for their joining different sects....

>

>Enthusiasm flourishes, blooms under the popular systems. This man was regenerated when

>asleep, by a vision of the night. That man heard a voice in the woods, saying, "thy sins be

>forgiven thee." A third saw his Saviour descending to the tops of the trees, at noon day.

 

In a "tent-meeting" revival atmosphere, the usual restrictions

of normative Protestant belief and conduct were sometimes

lifted -- and even the staid, college-educated ministers might

be overcome with enthusiasm.

 

But once the revival meetings had ended, and the enthusiast

who had been saved during "a vision of the night," or who had

sworn he'd seen Jesus "descending to the tops of the trees,"

came back under the firm hand of church discipline, such

epiphanies would be downplayed. They would typically have

been credited to that individual's "conversion experience"

and would not have become the basis for overthrowing the

established hierarchy, and installing the visionary as leader.

 

UD

Yes, others report similar phenomena

So? What does that mean to you? Why is that allegedly important? If God only spoke to one religion, we would have no converts.

Think about that one if you must

[mfbukowski]

Extensive descriptions are not required.

I far prefer short and terse statements that get to the point.

[Uncle Dale]

...

That's a nice history lesson but it doesn't have much to do with what I believe.

...

 

 

No problem there -- just add all the mainstream theology to the

debit side of the "One True Church's" eternal account book,

and charge the blame to "apostasy."

 

That what my RLDS brethren did, each and every time they

came across an eons-old doctrine, set in canon law back

before the Eastern Orthodox bishops ever looked askance

upon countenance of the Bishop of Rome.

 

If each of the seventh dispensations leads the true saints one

step closer to the "truth" of the first, Adamic dispensation, then

so much the better. Those old Church Fathers and rabbis were

lost in the blindness of iniquity, barely preserving even the

first principles of the everlasting gospel.

 

If Joseph Smith returned the true doctrines to even BEFORE

the beginning of the first dispensation, then he has brought

us back to Adam, ere Eve was taken from his side -- to

pristine perfection.

 

If you would have caught hold of me back in 1970, you might

have smiled and said "we are in agreement on essentials."

But that bird has flown.

 

It's 2015 and I bear the shame of a graduate degree in Christianity,

despite all efforts of the blessed angels to save me from that fate.

 

Sorry...

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

No problem there -- just add all the mainstream theology to the

debit side of the "One True Church's" eternal account book,

and charge the blame to "apostasy."

 

That what my RLDS brethren did, each and every time they

came across an eons-old doctrine, set in canon law back

before the Eastern Orthodox bishops ever looked askance

upon countenance of the Bishop of Rome.

 

If each of the seventh dispensations leads the true saints one

step closer to the "truth" of the first, Adamic dispensation, then

so much the better. Those old Church Fathers and rabbis were

lost in the blindness of iniquity, barely preserving even the

first principles of the everlasting gospel.

 

If Joseph Smith returned the true doctrines to even BEFORE

the beginning of the first dispensation, then he has brought

us back to Adam, ere Eve was taken from his side -- to

pristine perfection.

 

If you would have caught hold of me back in 1970, you might

have smiled and said "we are in agreement on essentials."

But that bird has flown.

 

It's 2015 and I bear the shame of a graduate degree in Christianity,

despite all efforts of the blessed angels to save me from that fate.

 

Sorry...

 

UD

I am glad you have found the truth apparently. Maybe you could share it, but I have not seen a whole lot of that- all I see is cryptic and mysterious double talk. I suppose we are not worthy.

[Uncle Dale]

I am glad you have found the truth apparently. Maybe you could share it, but I have not seen a whole lot of that- all I see is cryptic and mysterious double talk. I suppose we are not worthy.

 

No, 'tis I who am not worthy.

When I've relinquished my delusions

beneath a tree in Deer Park, I'll say

something. Until then...

 

.

Wasatch Morning (1983)A fog shrouded stillness in morning nearly spent  Petrified sentinels standing aloof from motionkindGuardians of ages, blind immensity overseeing all  Untouchable distant summit mist land.Remoteness of everlasting rock, empty hardness  Reigning beyond the ceaseless flow of daysWitnessing in silence this kleidoscopic epic, life  A stone's throw, upward, upward, until--The space between filling, melting, flowing  Rolling away in rainy ragged grey billowsPouring softly down chasms, dark declivities  Stone strewn slopes caressed by thin warm rain.If the spirit of the Goddess were not so strong  If She did not pour through our being, into our livesI wouldn't try so hard-- I could ignore it all  And yet, the risk is worth the effort. I believe.Almost graspable here in this envelopedness  Drawn to the almost-warmth of almost-springElude me as you may here in this life  In grey misty mornings I come close to Thee.And from these still snow bespeckled crags  I wrest a fragment of Thy mountain beingHere, speaking at long-last Thy secret name  I'm lost in wonder and dissolved in Thee.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[UtahTexan]

this has always been an issue for me.  As an attorney, I have always had problems with people who have different stories about how something happened.  I have been able to discredit many witness on the stand who had more than one version of a incident.

 

One would think that something as incredible as a visit from God would be so memorable as to not forget who was there, when it happened, and what was said.

[Uncle Dale]

this has always been an issue for me. As an attorney, I have always had problems with people who have different stories about how something happened. I have been able to discredit many witness on the stand who had more than one version of a incident.

One would think that something as incredible as a visit from God would be so memorable as to not forget who was there, when it happened, and what was said.

Or... maybe just the reverse.

A lot depends upon whether we are talking actual event,

or "vision" here.

For example, what if Joseph had later mentioned that any

other person standing beside him in the grove that day,

would NOT have seen and heard what he had? (Think of

Saul's traveling companions on the road to Damascus,

when another remarkable Christophany was reported)

What if it were understood that no camera or sound recorder

(had they then existed) could have preserved the theophany?

Then what?

Put a witness on the stand and have him or her describe the

most vivid dream ever recalled -- how consistent would such

a memory be (of a vision)?

I suppose that even St. John on Patmos, might have set down

a second draft of Revelation in different terms.

UD

Edited February 22, 2015 by Uncle Dale