The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[UtahTexan]

I'm not aware of any such book, let alone any "other."

But I asked you this question once before, and you chose not to respond: Are you aware of any other purported historical book where proof of historicity is ipso facto proof of miraculous origin?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

I did not choose not to respond...I missed the question.  I apologize.

 

Could you explain the conclusion that proof of the historicity is proof of miraculous origin?  I mean, we have the Bible....there are evidences of the historicity of the Bible....but that does not automatically prove it's miraculous origin.  Why is the Book of Mormon different/  It is called ANOTHER testament...not "the only miraculous one".

[UtahTexan]

I'm not being obtuse, CountryBoy.  It's an elementary rule of logic (with which you should be very familiar as an attorney) that if one person says, "No [x-es] are [y]," and another person finds at least one instance of [x] that is, in fact, [y], then the proposition is disproven because it was stated as an absolute.  If you want to move the goalposts and say that this particular instance of [x] that is, in fact, [y], doesn't count, that's your business.  I wasn't aware of the rules that apparently govern this particular discussion at its outset, so that's why I'm confused.  Please pardon me.

 

And by the way, aren't you essentially doing what you've accused Joseph Smith of doing (and what all of those witnesses have done in your 24.7 years of law practice, in which you've won every case in which a witness has changed his story)?

 

"We can't find anyplace mentioned in the Book of Mormon on a map, so it must not be true/must not be authentic history/etc."

 

"Well, actually, Jerusalem is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, so at least one place mentioned in the Book of Mormon can be found on a map."

 

"Oh, didn't I tell you?  Jerusalem doesn't count.  Joseph simply cribbed that from Isaiah."

 

An opposing attorney (not to mention a judge) would scream bloody murder if you tried this tactic while arguing a motion or a case, CountryBoy, and rightly so.  With due respect, why do you think we should put up with it?  And while we're on the subject of Isaiah, I'm willing to concede that at least one universe in an infinite number of possible universes in which the writings attributed to Isaiah being found in the Book of Mormon is problematic if you're willing to concede that the differences between Book of Mormon Isaiah and Bible Isaiah are intriguing.

 

I know, I know: "Joseph was simply cribbing from Isaiah when he wrote that, so he had to toss in something different every verse or two just to make it look good."

 

Sigh.  

 

In my opinion, it is being obtuse.  Here is why.  let's say I write a book....I say that people met in Dallas in 1960 and were transported miraculously to Bendig.....a land of many cities.  and then I said the book was absolutely history.  I said that bendig actually existed.  Then, upon questions of Bendig, I said, of course it is true and meets the test because Dallas exists."  Does that really make bendig more real?  Does it then pass the test of being real and historical?

[mfbukowski]

ps - Question for apologists -- if the 1820 PGP account is the immutable

word of God, and can never be changed, then why was the date of Alvin's

death, published in those same pages allowed a change, by human

hands, and without a sustaining vote from the Church's quorums?

I don't know where you get this stuff.

 

We aren't fundamentalist Baptists you know.

 

Joseph wrote some stuff.  Parts he might have remembered wrong.  So what?  Total strawman.

[mfbukowski]

I think this question has already been responded to on this thread. Kengo1969 pointed out that the Book of Mormon is not such a book.

 

Is it too much to ask that you set aside your talking points long enough to take cognizance of answers that are given?

It's as if they are just making this stuff up as they go along, yet supposedly telling us us what we believe.

 

It's pretty ridiculous.

 

Waste of time!   Why am I here anyway?? 

[UtahTexan]

It's as if they are just making this stuff up as they go along, yet supposedly telling us us what we believe.

 

It's pretty ridiculous.

 

Waste of time!   Why am I here anyway?? 

 

Please forgive me.  I am not trying to tell anyone what they believe.  I am just discussing.....

[mfbukowski]

Please forgive me.  I am not trying to tell anyone what they believe.  I am just discussing.....

No problem, I am just irritated.  Perhaps we should all read better and think about what has been said before we reply.

[Ahab]

I don't believe Joseph had a super memory. Obviously, he got a least one fact wrong in the different accounts - his age. In the first account he said he was 15; in all the others he said he was 14. So he was wrong at least once, though I can't see anyone caring much about this error.

There is no contradiction here.

Q: When does a person's 15th year start?

A: Immediately after their 14th birthday, such as when they are 14 years and 1 day.

Their 14th birthday marked the full completion of 14 years and on that day they begin their 15th year.

[Kenngo1969]

In my opinion, it is being obtuse.  Here is why.  let's say I write a book....I say that people met in Dallas in 1960 and were transported miraculously to Bendig.....a land of many cities.  and then I said the book was absolutely history.  I said that bendig actually existed.  Then, upon questions of Bendig, I said, of course it is true and meets the test because Dallas exists."  Does that really make bendig more real?  Does it then pass the test of being real and historical?

Still moving the goalposts, claiming that anyone here made the argument that the Book of Mormon is historical because Jerusalem exists.  That's the exact opposite of what's been happening on this thread.  Insofar as I am aware, the only reason why anyone here brought up the existence of Jerusalem is to counter your fallacious argument that because (according to you) no places mentioned in the Book of Mormon can be found on a map, the events recorded in it didn't happen.  

[UtahTexan]

Still moving the goalposts, claiming that anyone here made the argument that the Book of Mormon is historical because Jerusalem exists.  That's the exact opposite of what's been happening on this thread.  Insofar as I am aware, the only reason why anyone here brought up the existence of Jerusalem is to counter your fallacious argument that because (according to you) no places mentioned in the Book of Mormon can be found on a map, the events recorded in it didn't happen.  

Sorry...it was not fallacious.  I considered your argument odd because you know very well what I meant about places....yet you chose to mention Jerusalem.  Or maybe you were the only person who did not know what I meant....if so, I apologize.

[Uncle Dale]

I don't know where you get this stuff.

 

We aren't fundamentalist Baptists you know.

 

Joseph wrote some stuff.  Parts he might have remembered wrong.  So what?  Total strawman.

 

So!! The 1820 date can be changed to 1824!

I apologize for being wrong about that. After reading Joseph F. Smith

and other Authorities, I thought there was no chance in heck for a change.

 

You have inspired me to go back and honor my cut and paste promise.

I welcome anybody who still wishes to argue in support of Pres. Hinkley's

1820 "Religious Advocate" evidence for the Great Palmyra Revival, etc.

 

 

 

ns Vol. III.                          Rochester, N.Y., Saturday, January 15, 1825.                           No. 2.

 

 

MORAL  AND  RELIGIOUS.

 

 

 More than two hundred souls have become the hopeful subjects of Divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Phelps, Lyons and Ontario, since the late revival commenced. This is a powerful work; it is among old and young, but mostly among young people. -- Many are ready to exclaim, ["What God hath wrought!" It is the Lord's doing, and is marvellous in our eyes.] The cry is yet from various parts, "Come over and help us." There are large and attentive congregations in every part, who hear as for their lives. Such intelligence must be pleasing to every child of God, who rightly estimate the value of immortal souls, and wishes well to the cause of Zion.

Note 1: The date assigned the above short article is probable. The fourth volume (new series vol. III) of the semi-monthly Religious Advocate and Missionary Intelligencer began with January 1st, and it was thereafter issued bi-monthly in Rochester (on the 1st and 15th of each month). The previous three volumes of the paper had been published in Saratoga Springs, so it was with the January, 1825 issues that local (western upstate New York) religious news began to appear in this Presbyterian-oriented newspaper. Since the Boston Zion's Herald reprinted the above item in its issue for Feb. 9, 1825, it seems very unlikely that it originated in the Religious Advocate as late as February 1st. As Dale Morgan pointed out long ago, the date for its Rochester publication is either Jan. 1st or Jan. 15th (with the latter date being the most probable one). Although the editor had relocated his office to Rochester before the end of 1824, the final issues of ns Vol. II were distributed from the old establishment in Saratoga Springs.

Note 2: The above text is a composite taken from various reprints. Should actual 1825 issues of this ultra rare periodical be located, there relevant contents will be added here in an update. The original wording of the two sentences placed in brackets is uncertain, as it varies somewhat in the reprints thus far examined -- for example, the Palmyra Wayne Sentinel of Mar. 2, 1825 printed the reading: "What hath God wrought?"

Note 3: The Religious Advocate may have published follow-up reports on the Palmyra area's 1824-25 "revival of religion;" but, if so, only paraphrases of their contents have survived. The Wayne Sentinel of Mar. 2, 1825 published a short note "communicated" by an enthusiastic reader, which included some information lacking in the "Moral and Religious" article. On page 22 of his 1938 book, History of Palmyra and the Beginning of Mormonism, local LDS historian Willard Bean quoted from these two related Wayne Sentinel articles, separating his two partial transcripts with the words: "A week later." This editorial insert shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bean did not obtain his transcripts directly from whole sheets of the bi-monthly Religious Advocate. If the Palmyra historian (after almost certainly having consulted these articles via the Wayne Sentinel) believed that there was a week's lapse between the to religious revival items, he probably took his transcriptions from misdated (or undated) article clippings, and thus became confused. Had Mr. Bean examined whole sheets of either newspaper, there would have been no excuse for associating these 1825 items with supposed 1820 events. Since it is marginally possible that Bean himself was the recipient of mis-dated transcripts, supplied by an associate, (which he did not bother to verify) it cannot be argued that he had any malicious intent in his misidentification of the articles in question.

 

 

 

 

WAYNE  SENTINEL.

Vol. II.                           Palmyra, New York, Friday, March 2, 1825.                           No. 23.

 

 

 Religious. -- An article in the Religious Advocate gives the pleasing fact that a revival of religion had taken place in the towns of Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Phelps, Lyons and Ontario, and that more than 200 souls had become hopeful subjects of Divine Grace, &c. It may be added, that in Palmyra and Macedon, including Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist Churches, more than 400 have already testified that the Lord is good. The work is still progressing. In the neighboring towns, the number is great and fast increasing. Glory be to God on high, and on earth, peace and good will to all men. Communicated.

MORAL  AND  RELIGIOUS.

The Revival. -- The Religious Advocate published at Rochester contains the following account as just received from Ontario. --

      "More than two hundred souls have become the hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Phelps, Lyons and Ontario, since the late revival commenced. -- This is a powerful work; it is among old and young, but mostly among young people. Many are ready to exclaim, "what hath God wrought!" "It is the Lord's doing, and is marvellous in our eyes." The cry is yet from various parts, "come over and help us." There are large and attentive congregations in every part, who hear as for their lives. Such intelligence must be pleasing to every child of God, who rightly estimate the value of immortal souls, and wishes well to the cause of Zion.

Note 1: This is apparently a further development the 1823-4 religious revival spoken of by William Smith in his recollections of 1883. Smith says: "In 1822 and 1823, the people in our neighborhood were very much stirred up with regard to religious matters by the preaching of a Mr. Lane, an Elder of the Methodist Church, and celebrated throughout the country as a "great revival preacher. My mother, who was a very pious woman and much interested in the welfare of her children, both here and hereafter, made use of every means which her parental love could suggest, to get us engaged in seeking for our souls' salvation, or (as the term then was) 'in getting religion.' She prevailed on us to attend the meetings, and almost the whole family became interested in the matter, and seekers after truth." All evidence indicates that Lucy Smith and her children (Hyrum, Sophronia, and Samuel) did not join the Presbyterian church in Palmyra until after the death of her son Alvin -- who passed away in Nov. of 1823.

Note 2: The revival spoken of in the Jan. 1825 Rochester Religious Advocate seems have made its greatest gains during the summer and fall of 1824, when the Baptists and Presbyterians of Palmyra each added nearly 100 new members to their congregations, while the Methodist gained 200. The Religious Advocate began publication in Rochester at the very beginning of 1825, but its editor had been a resident of that place since at least the final half-dozen weeks of 1824. Thus, the ongoing revival was still "news" when the Rochester paper reported that "more than 400 have already testified" of their newly found faith. The article helps demonstrate that the flame of revival was not extinquished by the snows of winter -- that it was still making new converts as late as February and March of 1825.

Note 3: Mormon historical writer Willard Bean disagreed with the 1825 date for the Palmyra area revival, however. In his 1938 book, A.B.C. History of Palmyra and the Beginning of "Mormonism," Elder Bean states: "In the year 1819 a sort of religious awakening... spread... After reaching New York it spread to the rural districts upstate, reaching Palmyra and vicinity in the Spring of 1820.... The revival started the latter part of April [1820]... which gave the farmers a chance to attend the meetings... By the first of May, the revival was well under way with scores of people confessing religion... The revival had been even more successful than the ministers had anticipated. I quote from the 'Religious Advocate' of Rochester: 'More than 200 souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra, Macedon, Manchester, Lyons and Ontario since the late revival commenced. This is a powerful work. It is among young as well as old people.... A week later [also from the'Religious Advocate' of Rochester]... 'It may be added that in Palmyra and Macedon, including Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist churches, more than 400 have already confessed that the Lord is good. The work is still progressing. In neighboring towns, the number is great and still increasing. Glory be to God on high; and on earth peace and good will to all men.'"

Note 4: The fact that the Rochester paper published its revival report in 1825, and not in 1820, is further substantiated by a reprint appearing in the March, 1825 issue of the Providence Hopkinsian Magazine. For additional confirmation of the Feb. 1825 date on the Rochester Religious Advocate item, see also the report of Rev. George Lane, in the April, 1825 issue of the New York Methodist Magazine, and the March 9, 1825 letter of the Rev. Solomon Goodale, as published in the April, 1825 issue of the Boston American Baptist Magazine.

 

 

UD

Edited February 25, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Kenngo1969]

Sorry...it was not fallacious.  I considered your argument odd because you know very well what I meant about places....yet you chose to mention Jerusalem.  Or maybe you were the only person who did not know what I meant....if so, I apologize.

With due respect (and I don't mean this to dilute the sincerity of the PM I just sent you: frank discussions here notwithstanding, I do mean what I said therein), if you meant "no Book of Mormon locations have yet been found on the American Continent" you should simply have written that.  I can't imagine being in law practice for 25 years (24.7?  Sorry! ) and having a problem being held to account for what one says professionally and what one writes professionally.  This is a different setting, but I don't see why different rules should apply here.  I don't know about where you come from, but where I come from, "none" means none, as in, "not one."  Judging by the several rep points my post that pointed out that Jerusalem is in the Book of Mormon received, I doubt I'm alone in my thinking.  And Scott Lloyd (I believe it was; if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected) pointed out that Book of Mormon lands likely are known by different names today.  And it's not as though nobody has discovered any matching topography in the Americas.  I do wish you well.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[UtahTexan]

With due respect (and I don't mean this to dilute the sincerity of the PM I just sent you: frank discussions here notwithstanding, I do mean what I said therein), if you meant "no Book of Mormon locations have yet been found on the American Continent" you should simply have written that.  I can't imagine being in law practice for 25 years (24.7?  Sorry! ) and having a problem being held to account for what one says professionally and what one writes professionally.  This is a different setting, but I don't see why different rules should apply here.  I don't know about where you come from, but where I come from, "none" means none, as in, "not one."  I do wish you well.

 

Then I expect you to hold Joseph to the same scrutiny.  Yes, I said Book of Mormon, but we all know I was referring to this hemisphere.  I should have been more clear.

 

But.....then I expect you to use that same standard on Joseph Smith.  The first account of the First Vision that appears to have been written by Joseph personally (as opposed to versions given in an interview) was the 1832 version.

 

"marvilous even in the likeness of him who created him (them) and when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed well hath thewise man said the (it is a) fool (that) saith in his heart there is no God my heart exclaimed all all these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotant and omnipreasant power a being who makith Laws and decreeeth and bindeth all things in their bounds who filleth Eternity who was and is and will be from all Eternity to Eternity and when I considered all these things and that (that) being seeketh such to worship him as worship him in spirit and in truth therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in (the) attitude of calling upon the Lord (in the 16th year of my age) a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the (Lord) opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph (my son) thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy (way) walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life (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 th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which (hath) been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud (clothed) in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could reioice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart about that time my mother and but after many days"

 

So...hold Joseph to the same standard and tell me why the LDS Church should not use THIS version as the official version.....

[Kenngo1969]

CountryBoy,

 

Joseph graduated law school?  Who knew?

 

I hold you to a different standard because I believe your professional standing (unless you don't care about your professional standing, which I would find hard to believe) demands it.  

[UtahTexan]

CountryBoy,

 

Joseph graduated law school?  Who knew?

 

I hold you to a different standard because I believe your professional standing (unless you don't care about your professional standing, which I would find hard to believe) demands it.  

 

Ah....so you hold attorneys to higher standards than prophets.

 

I need to change my title  

 

Sorry....don;t backtrack.  Hold a prophet who saw God personally to at LEAST the same standard you hold an attorney.

 

We gotta go with the version I posted.  Does that change the LDS at all...going with that version?

[oremites]

So...hold Joseph to the same standard and tell me why the LDS Church should not use THIS version as the official version.....

 

Because the official version was Joseph's best and most concious effort to create an official account of what happened. 

 

There are several questions that have to be answered about the 1832 version.  What was Joseph's purpose in writing it? Was it a real effort to record completely and accurately everything that happened? How do you think the 1832 version would be different if someone had told Joseph that it would be used for the official version read by millions of people?

 

Haven't you ever created a rough draft?  Should the rough draft be preferred over the final version?  Or have you ever read something you wrote years earlier and felt you could do a much better job now?

[UtahTexan]

Because the official version was Joseph's best and most concious effort to create an official account of what happened. 

 

There are several questions that have to be answered about the 1832 version.  What was Joseph's purpose in writing it? Was it a real effort to record completely and accurately everything that happened? How do you think the 1832 version would be different if someone had told Joseph that it would be used for the official version read by millions of people?

 

Haven't you ever created a rough draft?  Should the rough draft be preferred over the final version?  Or have you ever read something you wrote years earlier and felt you could do a much better job now?

 

Create?  There was no need to "create" if it really happened.  "Recount" would be better.

 

And truth does not change depending on the audience.  Truth is truth.  If I am trying to give you the story of what happened to justify my actions, then I will tell you the whole truth.  And look carefully at the details of the 1832 version.  It is in conflict with the official version.  

 

Now, I am only using the 1832 version because it is first version written in Joseph's hand.  And, because Ken was holding me to a standard I want him to hold a prophet to.

 

If my posts are offensive, please believe it is not my intent.  My discussions are my way of working through certain issues I have.  I know it may seem counterproductive to some...but it helps me.

Edited February 25, 2015 by CountryBoy

[teddyaware]

Create?  There was no need to "create" if it really happened.  "Recount" would be better.

 

And truth does not change depending on the audience.  Truth is truth.  If I am trying to give you the story of what happened to justify my actions, then I will tell you the whole truth.  And look carefully at the details of the 1832 version.  It is in conflict with the official version.  

 

Now, I am only using the 1832 version because it is first version written in Joseph's hand.  And, because Ken was holding me to a standard I want him to hold a prophet to.

 

If my posts are offensive, please believe it is not my intent.  My discussions are my way of working through certain issues I have.  I know it may seem counterproductive to some...but it helps me.

 

After the raging persecution and snide ridicule that was heaped Joseph Smith when as a naive 14 year old he told some of his neighbors about his first sacred encounter with God, it seems only natural that in his 1832 account he would have been more cautious and circumspect as to how he presented that account during the time of the infancy of the Restored Church. As the Church grew in numbers and spiritual strength, the prophet no-doubt decided he could be more forthright in the retelling of the first vision account. Through his own bitter experience, the prophet Joseph Smith learned the Lord was correct in His warning that His servants should take special care to be sure to not cast sacred pearls before swine, lest the swine turn and rend upon the ones who received such sacred things. But the critics will likely never be satisfied with any reasonable, scripturally-based explanation until the Lord Himself speaks in their ears that He and His Son did indeed visit young Joseph in the sacred grove. 

Edited February 25, 2015 by teddyaware

[UtahTexan]

Cautious?  So his age is different?  

 

Circumspect?  So, he still talks of being visited....how does not make things better?

 

He stood up to much worse....yet was afraid be be truthful in 1832?  Where was his faith?

 

The excuses for the differences are not very believable.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sorry...to me, Jerusalem does not count...especially since much was lifted from Isaiah.  We both know I mean the Book of Mormon lands where they landed.  Let us not be obtuse in our desire to help...please?

 No, I did not know that is what you meant you should have just said that, but you could not because then you are not comparing apples to apples. What you are doing is moving the goal post. I have never been obtuse. So please stop.

 

So, is there anything that proves Moses or Abraham lived, other than a religious text? Is there any evidence that supports they are real? As far as history is concerned they are myths.

 

And your "lifted from Isaiah" is seriously about the dumbest thing I have heard in a while. You know why? Because there is attribution to him in the BoM. We know that Isaiah was used. What else is new?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I did not choose not to respond...I missed the question.  I apologize.

 

Could you explain the conclusion that proof of the historicity is proof of miraculous origin?  I mean, we have the Bible....there are evidences of the historicity of the Bible....but that does not automatically prove it's miraculous origin.  Why is the Book of Mormon different/  It is called ANOTHER testament...not "the only miraculous one".

That is about the biggest non answer I have seen. You should run for office you would make a great politician.

[omni]

After the raging persecution and snide ridicule that was heaped Joseph Smith when as a naive 14 year old he told some of his neighbors about his first sacred encounter with God, it seems only natural that in his 1832 account he would have been more cautious and circumspect as to how he presented that account during the time of the infancy of the Restored Church. As the Church grew in numbers and spiritual strength, the prophet no-doubt decided he could be more forthright in the retelling of the first vision account. Through his own bitter experience, the prophet Joseph Smith learned the Lord was correct in His warning that His servants should take special care to be sure to not cast sacred pearls before swine, lest the swine turn and rend upon the ones who received such sacred things. But the critics will likely never be satisfied with any reasonable, scripturally-based explanation until the Lord Himself speaks in their ears that He and His Son did indeed visit young Joseph in the sacred grove.

Do you believe that if Joseph had mentioned both God the Father and Christ in his 1832 personal journal entry that he would have received more persecution? Would he have been casting pearls before swine?

[Kevin Christensen]

There is this.

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

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[UtahTexan]

 No, I did not know that is what you meant you should have just said that, but you could not because then you are not comparing apples to apples. What you are doing is moving the goal post. I have never been obtuse. So please stop.

 

So, is there anything that proves Moses or Abraham lived, other than a religious text? Is there any evidence that supports they are real? As far as history is concerned they are myths.

 

And your "lifted from Isaiah" is seriously about the dumbest thing I have heard in a while. You know why? Because there is attribution to him in the BoM. We know that Isaiah was used. What else is new?

 

Is there a reason for your anger?  I have been very clear to state my intent here.  Would you rather I left and gave up on trying to come home/

 

 

No, I have not moved the goalposts.  I have been very clear abut being unable to find evidence in THIS hemisphere.  No one has ever disputed the mention of Jerusalem in the Book of Mormon, so that was never an issue.

 

And..once again.....I have no problem using faith regarding Abraham.  I have stated numerous times I am talking about locations and history.  And again, your anger seems to dodge those issues.

 

Is this how you treat every questioning "investigator"?  Would you have rather have an investigator who questions and resolves issues only to become a strong member later...or one who blindly accepts and then leaves later?

 

If my posts anger you so much...why not just ignore me?

[UtahTexan]

Do you believe that if Joseph had mentioned both God the Father and Christ in his 1832 personal journal entry that he would have received more persecution? Would he have been casting pearls before swine?

 

I believe that he was getting persecution already.  I would hate to think he was so afraid of it that he lied

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

 

 

So...hold Joseph to the same standard and tell me why the LDS Church should not use THIS version as the official version.....

 

I just re-read the relevant pages from Bushman's "Rolling Stone" biography.

The account you cited could be seamlessly inserted into his scholarly

review of Mormon origins, and not another paragraph in his acclaimed book

would need any changing.

 

In other words, Joseph Smith's own, personal account is totally sufficient for

a reasoned description and explanation of Mormonism -- and it dovetails

with what dozens of witnesses, observers and reporters have related about

the setting and events related to Mormon origins. It thus serves to exclude

the matters of historical controversy that I (and others) keep harping upon.

 

If THAT account had been canonized (instead of the written-by-committee one,

the scriptural "History of Joseph Smith," now included in the PGP), a large part

of the non-Mormon historians' arguments against the claims of LDS polemicists

would practically vanish -- instantly.

 

Put Joseph's own account into the PGP.

 

If the written-by-committee-at-Nauvoo version is required for some arcane

reason, then move it over to the endowment ceremonies, and out of the

path and view of the Church's critics (and its own questioning members).

 

That development would also render moot disagreements with the other

Latter Day Saints, who have not canonized the current PGP first vision text,

and do not view it as part of the Standard Works, nor as being an integral

and key part of "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"

 

UD

Edited February 25, 2015 by Uncle Dale