Is The Church Ashamed Of The Prophet Joseph Smith?

[Damien the Leper]

When I bring up the idea that Joseph Smith will judge this dispensation, authorize our resurrection, or that his calling is different from the men that have succeeded him I usually get a negative response.

 

I have seen it posted here by members that singing "Praise to the Man" makes them uncomfortable, that any meeting that isn't about Christ is wrong, and that doesn't even include all those members who think Joseph was corrupt in restoring plural marriage.

 

Yeah, our membership attitude to the head of this dispensation has definitely changed, and not for the better.  But I don't think the Church itself has caused it.

There is but one judge and one parakletos. Joseph is neither and plays no role in such proceedings. The scriptures, the NT, is absolutely clear on this.

[rongo]

Absolutely clear? What about Jesus telling the apostles that they will be on twelve thrones judging people?

 

If Joseph Smith is an apostle (if the restoration is true), he occupies this same station. 

 

In any case, "the scriptures, the NT, is" not "absolutely clear" that apostles won't play a role in judgment. Jesus Himself states that the apostles are judges.

 

The question is whether or not He has called and authorized latter-day apostles.

[rongo]

 

Here is a short video that is interesting.  Google " Joseph Smith-The First Vision" youtube

 

 

Which one? Can you post a link?

[ALarson]

 

I guess it depends on the definition of vision.  From dictionary.com

 

2.an experience in which a personage, thing, or event appears vividly or credibly to the mind, although not actually present, often under the influence of a divine or other agency: "

 

or on can choose

 

4. something seen or otherwise perceived during such an experience:

 

6. something seen; an object of sight.

 

Perhaps some might want to change it from the First Vision to the First Hologram

 

Well. now even I'm confused and I thought I understood this at least.  

 

Within the last few posts we read:

 

"Unless Joseph himself ever stated that they were physically present, that he touched or saw them touch anything physically, then anyone who calls it a visitation is the one in error, even if it was a Church leader."

 

 

vs.

 

"No man without the Priesthood, can behold the face of the Father and live."

Now, this has troubled the minds of some of the Latter-day Saints. "How is it, (say they) that Joseph lived, after having seen the face of the Father, after having heard the words of His mouth, after the Father had said unto him, 'He is my beloved Son, hear ye him.'"

If you had thought upon this other subject, namely, that Joseph had been already ordained before this world was made . . . and that he was ordained to come forth in this dispensation of the fulness of times to hold the keys of authority and power of that high and holy Priesthood,—that he was ordained to come forth and perform the work that God intended to accomplish in the latter times, then the mystery would have been cleared up to your minds. (Orson Pratt, October 10, 1880. Journal of Discourses 22:28-30)

 

 

 

vs.

 

 

I guess it depends on the definition of vision.  From dictionary.com

 

2.an experience in which a personage, thing, or event appears vividly or credibly to the mind, although not actually present, often under the influence of a divine or other agency: "

 

or on can choose

 

4. something seen or otherwise perceived during such an experience:

 

6. something seen; an object of sight.

 

Perhaps some might want to change it from the First Vision to the First Hologram

 

 

 

So, what's the official version?  Did God and Jesus physically appear to Joseph Smith or was it just an experience in which a personage appeared "vividly or credibly" to Joseph's mind, "although not actually present"?

[teddyaware]

There is but one judge and one parakletos. Joseph is neither and plays no role in such proceedings. The scriptures, the NT, is absolutely clear on this.

 

Is it really so absolutely clear? 

 

27 ¶Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19)

Edited April 15, 2015 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

Ouch..seriously..I was taught that it was real..not a dream or vision but they ascended from the heavens and spoke. As a little girl in primary they had huge pictures of the kneeling Joseph ..you mean really they know that it is a vision now..not real? I must be just an idiot..

I just heard today, while listening to a podcast on AnotherMormonPodcast, called Joseph Smith's History, that when Joseph Smith told the minister about the vision, it was nothing new to the minister, apparently several were having visions at that time. They said this information was in "Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman.

Like you, I grew up to believe it was an actual visitation.

[jackson20]

Ouch..seriously..I was taught that it was real..not a dream or vision but they ascended from the heavens and spoke.  As  a little girl in primary they had huge pictures of the kneeling Joseph ..you mean really they know that it is a vision now..not real?  I must be just an idiot..

 

Yes Jeanne , many Mormons were taught the same. The ever changing teachings of mormonism changed this to a vision or dream.  

Funny think the Bible is Crystal clear that no one has see the FATHER.  ....Jeanne you are not an idiot.

 

Tell me WHY is would such an important event of this supposed first vision go UNNOTICED for 20 years. Nothing in the local papers etc. YET when the appearance of moroni occurred this was an  IMMEDIATE topic of discussion...all over the papers etc.  

The fact is the first vision NEVER Happened...it was created years and years later----AFTER the establishmenT of the Church. 

A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF HISTORICAL DOCUMEN

[carbon dioxide]

Well. now even I'm confused and I thought I understood this at least.  

 

Within the last few posts we read:

 

 

vs.

 

 

 

vs.

 

 

 

 

So, what's the official version?  Did God and Jesus physically appear to Joseph Smith or was it just an experience in which a personage appeared "vividly or credibly" to Joseph's mind, "although not actually present"?

Joseph says he saw God the Father and Jesus.  I am more inclined to believe it was a personal visitation.  Why should I assume that his experience with the Father and Son was any different in nature than with Moroni. 

[carbon dioxide]

Yes Jeanne , many Mormons were taught the same. The ever changing teachings of mormonism changed this to a vision or dream.  

Funny think the Bible is Crystal clear that no one has see the FATHER.  ....Jeanne you are not an idiot.

 

Tell me WHY is would such an important event of this supposed first vision go UNNOTICED for 20 years. Nothing in the local papers etc. YET when the appearance of moroni occurred this was an  IMMEDIATE topic of discussion...all over the papers etc.  

The fact is the first vision NEVER Happened...it was created years and years later----AFTER the establishmenT of the Church. 

A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF HISTORICAL DOCUMEN

First, nothing has changed.  We are getting people throwing out their opinions and different possible alternatives.  Mormonism still teaches Joseph saw the Father and Son.

 

Second, it did not go unnoticed.  If you look into the history, the idea that Joseph Smith saw God is documented as early as 1829.  Also you don't find any evidence within the history of the church membership suddenly becoming surprised by the First Vision accounts.  Where is the evidence of when the First Vision accounts were published that there was a big stir in the Church of people saying things like "Joseph Smith just told us he saw God at age 14.  We never knew that."  Of course the people knew it.  It was not a shock to them.  There is a lot of things I have said and seen in my life but I have never written them down on paper or published them.  Don't assume.

[jackson20]

Yes Jeanne , many Mormons were taught the same. The ever changing teachings of mormonism changed this to a vision or dream.  

Funny think the Bible is Crystal clear that no one has see the FATHER.  ....Jeanne you are not an idiot.

 

Tell me WHY  would such an important event of this supposed first vision go UNNOTICED for 20 years. Nothing in the local papers whatsoever,  etc. YET when the appearance of moroni occurred this was an  IMMEDIATE topic of discussion...all over the papers etc by believers and unbelievers. So why the Silence of the first vision for 20 years????.  

The fact is the first vision NEVER Happened...it was created years and years later----AFTER the establishment of the Church. 

A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF HISTORICAL  DOCUMENTATION PROVES IT.    Do your homework and check these facts out. Don't rely on what you are told or the spin that will be given to you  ...YOU must research this.   AGAin how odd that it would take 20 plus years before this first vision was brought up, yet the vision of Moroni was all over the papers immediately. VERY STRANGE

.

 

 

[bluebell]

Funny think the Bible is Crystal clear that no one has see the FATHER.

 

The bible is not really that crystal clear on the topic.

Exodus 24:9-11

"9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

Exodus 33:11

"the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

Acts 7: 55-56

"55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

Genesis 32:30

"I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved,"

 

[jackson20]

First, nothing has changed.  We are getting people throwing out their opinions and different possible alternatives.  Mormonism still teaches Joseph saw the Father and Son.

 

Second, it did not go unnoticed.  If you look into the history, the idea that Joseph Smith saw God is documented as early as 1829.  Also you don't find any evidence within the history of the church membership suddenly becoming surprised by the First Vision accounts.  Where is the evidence of when the First Vision accounts were published that there was a big stir in the Church of people saying things like "Joseph Smith just told us he saw God at age 14.  We never knew that."  Of course the people knew it.  It was not a shock to them.  There is a lot of things I have said and seen in my life but I have never written them down on paper or published them.  Don't assume.

 

As I said----- A CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF HISTORICAL  DOCUMENTATION PROVES IT.  It's easy to utter nothing has changed or it did not go unnoticed..blah blah blah...

 

In 1820, JS had this first vision. He was 14 years old, recorded history tells us, LDS recorded history tells us. In 1820 local newspapers reported everything from a dog bite to you name it....certainly the papers would be all over a miracle visitation.. Where there any reports of this vision in the papers at the time NO!!!!!  Nothing, zip---- nothing reported. Any thinking person would have to ask yourself WHY?...nothing in journals, nothing in newspapers, nothing in notes of pastors teaching against it. ----NOTHING.

HOWEVER, there are recordings of JS being visited by angel Moroni in 1823----.----the paper was filled with reportings of this moroni vision, recordings by pastors, in journals, by anti mormons etc.

WHY then 3 years before this NOT a single word about JS being visited by God the Father in the grove? Not until 20 years (yes TWENTY YEARS later) in 1940 when Orsen Pratt gave a public account of this supposed vision was anything EVER printed publically about JS and his first vision.  That is really important.

 

There was not one bit of anti mormon literature on this before 1943.----23 years after the fact. Why would such an important event go unnoticed, even unattacked, when the appearance of Moroni was IMMEDIATELY the topic of discussion. ---pro and con of JS.    AGAIN the reason for this is the first vision NEVER happened.....

 

  

[jackson20]

 

The bible is not really that crystal clear on the topic.

Exodus 24:9-11

"9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

Exodus 33:11

"the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."

Acts 7: 55-56

"55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

Genesis 32:30

"I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved,"

 

 

Bluebell, you can't pluck scripture from the Bible to make a point as it will most likely be taken out of context. Please do not do this

No one has ever seen the Father except Jesus Christ.

Here is an explanation discussing this.  The Bible fits together like a perfect puzzle....you can not as I said pluck individual verses and have a hope of knowing the truth....or context. I hope this help.....again NO ONE has see the FATHER. 

 

CAN God be seen face to face (Genesis 32:30; Exodus 33:11) or NOT (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12)?

Relevant passages:

Genesis 32:30

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”

Exodus 33:11

So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. And he would return to the camp, but his servant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, did not depart from the tabernacle.

[bluebell]

 

 

Hence, there is no contradiction, as God can speak face to face with men, but not while in all His glory; otherwise, sinful man would die.

 

 

This is actually kind of funny, as you've essentially said exactly what i was pointing out and answered your own accusation against the LDS church.

 

The above statement is exactly what the LDS church teaches on the subject.  You actually agree with the Mormons!  

[teddyaware]

This is actually kind of funny, as you've essentially said exactly what i was pointing out and answered your own accusation against the LDS church.

 

The above statement is exactly what the LDS church teaches on the subject.  You actually agree with the Mormons!  

 

Another overly confident anti-Mormon who's sure he's gonna to "teach those Mormons a thing or two" arrives on the board. 

[jackson20]

Another overly confident anti-Mormon who's sure he's gonna to "teach those Mormons a thing or two" arrives on the board. 

nope not overly confident...just stating facts...you can research your own History Recordings re Js first vision

 

Changing First Vision Accounts: Conclusion

The evidence available from early sources, including Joseph Smith and his family establish a number of important facts.

First, Joseph did not relate his story consistently, but changed key elements over the years. He changed:

• The date / his age — from 1823 (age 16), to 1821 (age 15), to 1820 (age 14) 

   

• The reason or motive for seeking divine help — from no motive (a spirit appears with the news of gold plates), Bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists. 

   

• Who appears to him — a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son.

Second, common elements from early accounts raise questions about what appears to be a gradual evolution of Joseph Smith’s first vision story. Did Joseph begin to include a “Christian experience” in the telling of his story because Bauder noticed it was lacking? The earliest accounts given to Chase and Harris do not include this. There is a noticeable shift in the context of finding the gold plates, from 17 year-old money-digger to 14 year-old spiritual seeker. Is this an attempt to put his story into a more socially acceptable context? It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that as time went on, Joseph omitted uncomfortable but true parts of his history and replaced them with fictitious elements in order to make his story more socially acceptable and spiritually compelling.

One thing is clear, the LDS Church does a great disservice to investigators of its claims by presenting Joseph Smith’s 1838 account of his first vision as the only version of these events. It appears deliberately misleading to offer this account (now canonized as part of LDS Scripture) as an unquestioningly accurate and honest portrayal of its historical origins.

[bluebell]

nope not overly confident...just stating facts...you can research your own History Recordings re Js first vision

 

Changing First Vision Accounts: Conclusion

The evidence available from early sources, including Joseph Smith and his family establish a number of important facts.

First, Joseph did not relate his story consistently, but changed key elements over the years. He changed:

• The date / his age — from 1823 (age 16), to 1821 (age 15), to 1820 (age 14) 

   

• The reason or motive for seeking divine help — from no motive (a spirit appears with the news of gold plates), Bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists. 

   

• Who appears to him — a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son.

Second, common elements from early accounts raise questions about what appears to be a gradual evolution of Joseph Smith’s first vision story. Did Joseph begin to include a “Christian experience” in the telling of his story because Bauder noticed it was lacking? The earliest accounts given to Chase and Harris do not include this. There is a noticeable shift in the context of finding the gold plates, from 17 year-old money-digger to 14 year-old spiritual seeker. Is this an attempt to put his story into a more socially acceptable context? It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that as time went on, Joseph omitted uncomfortable but true parts of his history and replaced them with fictitious elements in order to make his story more socially acceptable and spiritually compelling.

 

 

If the inconsistencies and changes in Paul's accounting of his vision on the road to Damascus don't bother you, why do these changes bother you?

 

One thing is clear, the LDS Church does a great disservice to investigators of its claims by presenting Joseph Smith’s 1838 account of his first vision as the only version of these events. It appears deliberately misleading to offer this account (now canonized as part of LDS Scripture) as an unquestioningly accurate and honest portrayal of its historical origins.

 

 

The LDS church actually agrees with you a little bit here.  They feel it's important for all the information on the 1st vision to be available for people and so they have an essay about all the different versions on lds.org (the church's official website).

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

 

I learned about all the different versions at church when i was in high school, but obviously not everyone did, so it's great that the church is trying to rectify that.  

[jackson20]

This is actually kind of funny, as you've essentially said exactly what i was pointing out and answered your own accusation against the LDS church.

 

The above statement is exactly what the LDS church teaches on the subject.  You actually agree with the Mormons!  

Just goes to show you that Mormonism is completely opposed to Christianity.

 

QUESTION:  Has anyone ever SEEN God face to face? The Old Testament states Jacob, Moses, Job and others did. On the other hand, Jesus said no one has seen him. Is this a contradiction?

ANSWER:   The quick answer is NO, there is no contradiction of the scriptures. That said, SEVERAL have seen God, the Son. The apparent contradiction is one brought about by a misunderstanding of what is called the Godhead. The easiest route to understanding this sometimes difficult to comprehend subject is to review the scriptures below.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1 - 3)

As the context shows, John is speaking of Jesus who was with the Father at the beginning and who, Himself, WAS God.

Moses asked God to tell him His name so that he could tell the enslaved Israelites in Egypt who it was that sent him to them. The answer to his request was the following.

14 God said, 'I am who I am. You must tell them: 'The one who is called I AM has sent me to you.' (Exodus 3:14)

Later, when Jesus was on this earth living as a man, He told those He was speaking directly to that He was, indeed, the "I AM." Jesus, speaking to the religious leaders of Israel who thought highly of themselves because they had Abraham as their father, told them that "before Abraham was born, I AM!" (John 8:58).

[bluebell]

 

Just goes to show you that Mormonism is completely opposed to Christianity.

 

QUESTION:  Has anyone ever SEEN God face to face? The Old Testament states Jacob, Moses, Job and others did. On the other hand, Jesus said no one has seen him. Is this a contradiction?

ANSWER:   The quick answer is NO, there is no contradiction of the scriptures. That said, SEVERAL have seen God, the Son. The apparent contradiction is one brought about by a misunderstanding of what is called the Godhead. The easiest route to understanding this sometimes difficult to comprehend subject is to review the scriptures below.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1 - 3)

As the context shows, John is speaking of Jesus who was with the Father at the beginning and who, Himself, WAS God.

Moses asked God to tell him His name so that he could tell the enslaved Israelites in Egypt who it was that sent him to them. The answer to his request was the following.

14 God said, 'I am who I am. You must tell them: 'The one who is called I AM has sent me to you.' (Exodus 3:14)

Later, when Jesus was on this earth living as a man, He told those He was speaking directly to that He was, indeed, the "I AM." Jesus, speaking to the religious leaders of Israel who thought highly of themselves because they had Abraham as their father, told them that "before Abraham was born, I AM!" (John 8:58).

 

 

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.  I see nothing that illustrates that mormonism is the opposite of Christianity.  

[jackson20]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here.  I see nothing that illustrates that mormonism is the opposite of Christianity.  

Well for starters Christians believe that Jesus Christ has always been God and is NOT a created being. Mormons worship a created Jesus

Christians believe the Father has NEVER been a man and has always been a Spirit as the bible clearly presents

Those two facts alone illustrate that Momonism is the opposite of Christianity ...

[teddyaware]

 

nope not overly confident...just stating facts...you can research your own History Recordings re Js first vision

 

Changing First Vision Accounts: Conclusion

The evidence available from early sources, including Joseph Smith and his family establish a number of important facts.

First, Joseph did not relate his story consistently, but changed key elements over the years. He changed:

• The date / his age — from 1823 (age 16), to 1821 (age 15), to 1820 (age 14) 

   

• The reason or motive for seeking divine help — from no motive (a spirit appears with the news of gold plates), Bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists. 

   

• Who appears to him — a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son.

Second, common elements from early accounts raise questions about what appears to be a gradual evolution of Joseph Smith’s first vision story. Did Joseph begin to include a “Christian experience” in the telling of his story because Bauder noticed it was lacking? The earliest accounts given to Chase and Harris do not include this. There is a noticeable shift in the context of finding the gold plates, from 17 year-old money-digger to 14 year-old spiritual seeker. Is this an attempt to put his story into a more socially acceptable context? It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that as time went on, Joseph omitted uncomfortable but true parts of his history and replaced them with fictitious elements in order to make his story more socially acceptable and spiritually compelling.

One thing is clear, the LDS Church does a great disservice to investigators of its claims by presenting Joseph Smith’s 1838 account of his first vision as the only version of these events. It appears deliberately misleading to offer this account (now canonized as part of LDS Scripture) as an unquestioningly accurate and honest portrayal of its historical origins.

 

 

Oh, I didn't realize you are a prophet. Do you believe you are a prophet of God in the same way the Apostles Peter, James, John and Paul were prophets?

[bluebell]

Well for starters Christians believe that Jesus Christ has always been God and is NOT a created being. Mormons worship a created Jesus

Christians believe the Father has NEVER been a man and has always been a Spirit as the bible clearly presents

Those two facts alone illustrate that Momonism is the opposite of Christianity ...

 

Those facts don't illustrate that mormonism is the opposite of Christianty, only that mormonism disagrees with the theology of some Christian denominations.

 

The bible doesn't teach that God has always been a spirit.  The bible also teaches that Christ was the 'firstborn among brethren' which is what LDS believe as well, that He is the firstborn of all of God's spirit children.

 

I'll just quote Jeff Lindsay on that subject because he explains the LDS doctrine well and i don't want to try to say it better-

 

"In our premortal existence as spirit sons and daughter of God the Father (there is a reason for that favorite title of His!), Jesus was there, the Firstborn of the Father, one who was like the Father and was one with the Father, though He was yet a spirit and had not yet received His immortal and glorious physical body (a combination of spirit and matter) that He has had since His resurrection (Luke 24: 36-43; Phil. 3:21). Jesus was the greatest of all the spirits and was the Chosen and the Firstborn of God, having special honor and glory from God "before the world was" (John 17:5). The idea that Jesus was the Firstborn is offensive to some, for it seems to imply that He was created by the Father. However, the scriptures clearly indicate that Christ was the Firstborn (see Psalms 89:27; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:5,6; Rev. 3:14 and Heb. 12:23)."

 

Edited to bold the scriptural references because i assume you'll want to look those up for yourself. 

Edited April 16, 2015 by bluebell

[Russell C McGregor]

Yes, and I appreciate you doing that. I've already read most of the apologist's comments about polygamy and find them to be completely unconvincing. I just personally do not believe God would command one of HIS Prophets to do things that caused so many so much pain and that involved so many lies and deceptions.

So God is wrong for not having consulted you first?

Even today the results of these are still affecting members too.

Has it occurred to you that those who find that a historical footnote is "affecting" them are choosing to let it?

Just a thought.