The Problem With The First Vision Accounts

[UtahTexan]

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

 

Again, there is no need for your anger.

 

And yes...it was a non-answer because I asked a question that, in your anger, you chose to dodge by being rude.

[Ahab]

CountryBoy, would you mind summarizing your case to help me understand the point you are trying to make in this thread. I'll concede that the only way to know that the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired record that was originally written by a prophet/historian named Mormon as he summarized and included comments from other prophets/historians as they wrote what they were divinely inspired to write, beginning primarily with Nephi who left Jerusalem about 600 B.C. with others who came to America, with Mormon and Moroni writing what they wrote at sometime around 400 A.D., again I say I will concede that the only way to know these things are true is by receiving a personal witness from God.

I'm just wondering what your point is in this thread.

[UtahTexan]

Ahab....

 

I did not start the thread.....I believed the thread was to discuss issues with the First Vision.  It sorta bounced around to the Book of Mormon....and that was likely wrong of it to head that direction.

 

As to my point?  I am not sure it is possible to fully explain that.

 

Let me just say that I have certain issues with the LDS Church that, for whatever reason, keep me from gaining a testimony regarding Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon.  I have tried prayer, fasting, study, and anything else I can think of.  I watch General Conference.  I read the Ensign.  I read news.  I watch uplifting films like "Best Two Years" and "One Man's Treasure."  

 

I just thought that, by discussing issues I have, resolution might follow.  Maybe not.  

 

So....I have been a fairly silent member here awhile......but am a little more vocal on topics that address my issues.

 

Does that make any sense?

[Ahab]

Ahab....

I did not start the thread.....I believed the thread was to discuss issues with the First Vision. It sorta bounced around to the Book of Mormon....and that was likely wrong of it to head that direction.

As to my point? I am not sure it is possible to fully explain that.

Let me just say that I have certain issues with the LDS Church that, for whatever reason, keep me from gaining a testimony regarding Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. I have tried prayer, fasting, study, and anything else I can think of. I watch General Conference. I read the Ensign. I read news. I watch uplifting films like "Best Two Years" and "One Man's Treasure."

I just thought that, by discussing issues I have, resolution might follow. Maybe not.

So....I have been a fairly silent member here awhile......but am a little more vocal on topics that address my issues.

Does that make any sense?

Yes that makes sense. Thank you for helping me to understand what is motivating you to want to participate in this thread.

At this point I just want to say this. We can't solve your "faith crisis" (as it is called) for you. Meaning we can't give you the kind of faith you need to know what is what. We can maybe help to give you some things to think about but we can't convince you that what is true really is true. You need God to give you that kind of faith, and until you get faith (which is an assurance) from him you will continue to have doubts and not really know what is true.

Anyway, welcome to the board. I like you already.

[mfbukowski]

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

Yep.  Surprise surprise.

[mfbukowski]

There is this.

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

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Well reasoned discourse?  Here?

 

 

Nah...    

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Again, there is no need for your anger.

 

And yes...it was a non-answer because I asked a question that, in your anger, you chose to dodge by being rude.

Anger? You can read my PM.

[UtahTexan]

Yes that makes sense. Thank you for helping me to understand what is motivating you to want to participate in this thread.

At this point I just want to say this. We can't solve your "faith crisis" (as it is called) for you. Meaning we can't give you the kind of faith you need to know what is what. We can maybe help to give you some things to think about but we can't convince you that what is true really is true. You need God to give you that kind of faith, and until you get faith (which is an assurance) from him you will continue to have doubts and not really know what is true.

Anyway, welcome to the board. I like you already.

 

Thank you.

 

I am not here thinking anyone here can solve my faith crisis.  I am here discussing the issues that prevent me from progressing.  As an attorney, we often sit in the conference room and discuss difficult cases and get ideas and work through issues.  I decided I would take the approach with my issues here.

 

There are so many fairly incredible things going on in my life over the last few months that make me scratch my head and wonder what God is up to.

 

I truly have nooooo desire to offend, or fight.  I have the desire to learn the way I am used to learning...through discussion, and, at times, playing the devil's advocate.

 

Anyway...the multiple versions has always been an issue.for me.

 

But let me give you an example.....another issue for me was the story of Joseph running and carrying the plates over rough terrain and still outrunning people despite a bad leg.  Having carried a 50-pound pack in the Army, I could not accept the idea that what Joseph claimed could be done.

 

Then, a member here, said something that clicked  "If God really took the time and trouble to give Joseph the plates, do you think God would not protect them?"

 

That made all the sense in the world to me.  And that issue went away.  Simplistic.....but works.  IF Joseph was really given plates, then why not protect them.

[mfbukowski]

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?

I would honestly like to help you understand, but it seems that you do not read the posts carefully and ignore points that have been made.

 

I have had a lot of training in philosophy, about the nature of truth, etc, and feel I could help you but you have to put in some effort yourself.  If you want to continue I am willing, but please try to understand what we have already discussed.

[Tacenda]

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?

When TBM's show anger it feels as if they're insecure in their beliefs if addressing concerns of those LDS that struggle.

[Uncle Dale]

Yep.  Surprise surprise.

 

I also looked at Backman's 1971 map of "The Great Revival

of 1819-1820 in Western New York" -- and noticed that Bushman

wisely passed over that sort of thing, in silence.

 

 

Scaling back the "Great Revival of 1819-1820 in Western New York"

to a mere handful of small camp-meetings, we may see the context

for Joseph Smith's first glimmerings of an interest in religion. Things

were beginning to happen. Folks were drinking less whiskey, and

beginning to wonder if keeping the local post-office open on Sundays

was a sin. That was the wilderness world of 1819-20.

 

But the Erie Canal was fast being dug -- straight towards Palmyra --

and the population was beginning to grow. The actual religious revival

of 1823-24-25 was the time that the Smith family began to consider

joining in on that popular enthusiasm.

 

Lucy and her kids joined the Palmyra Presbyterian congregation AFTER

Alvin died. She was accepted on her earlier New England Congregational

baptism. The three or four Smith children would have then been baptized

into the Presbyterian church. Perhaps Father Smith and young Joseph

really did stand aside, and say "There's no need for us to go waltzing up

to Palmyra, dressed in our Sunday best each week," and stayed home.

 

But the Mormon apologists try to tell us that the family's joining the

Presbyterians occurred BEFORE the much-discussed "first vision."

No -- that happened after Alvin died. Sarah Fowler says young Joe

joined the Presbyterians. She lived in Palmyra, within walking distance

of the Presbyterian meetinghouse on "four churches corner," and she 

doubtless saw young Joe there as well -- perhaps not actually sprinkled

himself by the Palmyra minister, but come to watch Hyrum's baptism.

 

Nope -- young Joe was not advising his mother to "join none of them,"

for the creed of Presbyterianism was an "abomination" unto the Lord.

His thoughts along those lines were still developing in 1823-24, as the

real "Great Revival" thereabouts was also developing. Later, when

those thoughts had fully jelled, Brother Joseph back-dated his "join

none of them" viewpoint to a time supposedly previous to the family's

foray into Presbyterianism. The purported 1820 revelation, regarding

the abomination of creeds never happened.

 

The Presbyterian Smiths were just another a part of the Great Revival of 1824.

 

The PGP version should be quietly retired from public view.

 

UD

Edited February 25, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[UtahTexan]

I would honestly like to help you understand, but it seems that you do not read the posts carefully and ignore points that have been made.

 

I have had a lot of training in philosophy, about the nature of truth, etc, and feel I could help you but you have to put in some effort yourself.  If you want to continue I am willing, but please try to understand what we have already discussed.

 

I read it all...please do not assume I do not.  I find some of the apologetics very weak.  But, I find some very helpful.  Like I said when I related the story about carrying the plates.

 

Thank you for your help.  I truly appreciate it.

[teddyaware]

When TBM's show anger it feels as if they're insecure in their beliefs if addressing concerns of those LDS that struggle.

 

Insecure? A classic case of projection... You do realize the reason why most anti-Mormons participate on this board is because in their hearts they know the Book of Mormon is a miracle and that the LDS God and religion makes more sense than does theirs? So in their insecurity they come here to "battle it out" with the Mormons in a futile effort to try to repeatedly reconvince themselves, over and over again, that the LDS Church is false and that the unmerciful God of no salvation for the dead and no eternal marriage and family life is true.  

Edited February 25, 2015 by teddyaware

[Uncle Dale]

Insecure? You do realize the reason why most anti-Mormons participate on this board is because in their hearts they know the Book of Mormon is a miracle and that the LDS God and religion makes more sense than does theirs? So in their insecurity they come here to "battle it out" with the Mormons in a futile effort to try to repeatedly reconvince themselves, over and over again, that the LDS Church is false and that the unmerciful God of no salvation for the dead and no eternal marriage and family life is true.  

 

hmmmmm...

 

May I add that to my Curriculum Vitae?

 

I have the feeling it would help this "old Mormon" gain better

acceptance, over on those "other" boards, (where I get trounced

for showing far too much latter day sympathy here)...

 

UD

[UtahTexan]

Insecure? You do realize the reason why most anti-Mormons participate on this board is because in their hearts they know the Book of Mormon is a miracle and that the LDS God and religion makes more sense than does theirs? So in their insecurity they come here to "battle it out" with the Mormons in a futile effort to try to repeatedly reconvince themselves, over and over again, that the LDS Church is false and that the unmerciful God of no salvation for the dead and no eternal marriage and family life is true.  

 

Do you really see me like that?

[carbon dioxide]

 

But let me give you an example.....another issue for me was the story of Joseph running and carrying the plates over rough terrain and still outrunning people despite a bad leg.  Having carried a 50-pound pack in the Army, I could not accept the idea that what Joseph claimed could be done.

 

Then, a member here, said something that clicked  "If God really took the time and trouble to give Joseph the plates, do you think God would not protect them?"

 

That made all the sense in the world to me.  And that issue went away.  Simplistic.....but works.  IF Joseph was really given plates, then why not protect them.

What exactly does the First Vision have to do with the plates.  The First Vision occurs in 1820 while Joseph does not even get the plates until 1827.  

[Calm]

Country boy, I believe that Ken was just pointing out that you've had professional training that should have in his view developed a certain precise habit of describing things. I think one could include doctors, engineers and manual writers and others whose work involves precision would likely develop the same sort of habit. While professional life is in many ways separate from private life, habits developed in one area of one's life tend to affect others. There may be surgeons who live in filthy apartments never concerned with their surroundings, but there are likely more who live in tidy, clean homes. Those who don't have such training would be less likely to have developed the habit or see the need in as many circumstances.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would honestly like to help you understand, but it seems that you do not read the posts carefully and ignore points that have been made.

 

I have had a lot of training in philosophy, about the nature of truth, etc, and feel I could help you but you have to put in some effort yourself.  If you want to continue I am willing, but please try to understand what we have already discussed.

For the most part this sums my feelings. A lot of what CB says feels like evangelical talking points. So I see my self going down the road of past conversations. I want to help too but that is not going to happen unless there is more effort.

[Calm]

Do you really see me like that?

I don't.

I don't agree either with his appraisal of antimormons in general. And if he is including you with antimormons, I vigorously disagree.

[UtahTexan]

What exactly does the First Vision have to do with the plates.  The First Vision occurs in 1820 while Joseph does not even get the plates until 1827.  

 

nothing.  I was simply giving an example of how a different issue I had was resolved through discussion

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I read it all...please do not assume I do not. 

Here is another problem. You have responded very defensively. To a certain extent, I don't blame you. But we can tell by your responses is that you are not understanding what we are saying. Communication is a 2 way road. I get it, but when we tell you that you didn't understand something or didn't read it, that is our way of saying that you did not get what we are saying.

 

What you could do is ask us to expand on an idea that you specifically don't understand or you can restate it to see if you got it. I am sure you read our posts. I really don't think you comprehended them, at least in the intend we meant for you to comprehend them. And this is not a slam on your intelligence. It is the nature of boards.

 

IOW it feels like you didn't read them. You responded to what you thought we wrote instead of what we actually did write. That is the nub of the issue.

[Calm]

When TBM's show anger it feels as if they're insecure in their beliefs if addressing concerns of those LDS that struggle.

I disagree.

I think a lot of assumed anger is misread on all side.

I also think in real case of anger, it is more a feeling that disrespect is present (even when it isn't, but if the same sort of argument is used that has been used in a conversation with someone who was disrespectful, individuals can unfortunately jump to the conclusion that disrespect is in that conversation as well).

Edited February 25, 2015 by calmoriah

[UtahTexan]

Country boy, I believe that Ken was just pointing out that you've had professional training that should have in his view developed a certain precise habit of describing things. I think one could include doctors, engineers and manual writers and others whose work involves precision would likely develop the same sort of habit. While professional life is in many ways separate from private life, habits developed in one area of one's life tend to affect others. There may be surgeons who live in filthy apartments never concerned with their surroundings, but there are likely more who live in tidy, clean homes. Those who don't have such training would be less likely to have developed the habit or see the need in as many circumstances.

 

Good point.

 

My shortfall here is I am not one who likes to type and tend to take shortcuts where I perhaps shouldn't.  In my profession, I have folks type for me

[UtahTexan]

Here is another problem. You have responded very defensively. To a certain extent, I don't blame you. But we can tell by your responses is that you are not understanding what we are saying. Communication is a 2 way road. I get it, but when we tell you that you didn't understand something or didn't read it, that is our way of saying that you did not get what we are saying.

 

What you could do is ask us to expand on an idea that you specifically don't understand or you can restate it to see if you got it. I am sure you read our posts. I really don't think you comprehended them, at least in the intend we meant for you to comprehend them. And this is not a slam on your intelligence. It is the nature of boards.

 

IOW it feels like you didn't read them. You responded to what you thought we wrote instead of what we actually did write. That is the nub of the issue.

 

Fair enough

[Calm]

Good point.

 

My shortfall here is I am not one who likes to type and tend to take shortcuts where I perhaps shouldn't.  In my profession, I have folks type for me

There is definitely a difference between my iPad posts and my laptop posts so I get that.