Proofs of the Book of Abraham?

[wenglund]

Here is Vogel

[wenglund]

Finally, in summary, let

[Zeta-Flux]

Wade,

I'm sure there are others like me who have read through your entire write-up. There are a few posters whom, when I see their names on a topic, I go to read it. Why? Because they almost always have something intelligent to say.

Best,

Zeta-Flux

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

Here are few comments that will help you in analyzing the First Vision as I interpret the data.

When Vogel speaks of JS

[Dale]

Hi,

Personally Joseph Smith Jr. could have seen himself guilty of an oversight when he left out mentioning seeing the Father in 1832. The concern over the 1838 account amounts to calling Joseph Smith Jr a liar in 1838. He corrected himself in later accounts. Perhaps he was aware of John 1:18's statement "No man hath seen God at any time." Perhaps leaving out the Father appearance was his way of avoiding conflicts with followers who might have broke with him over a contravercial view of the Godhead. As Joseph Smith Jr's position as leader & after the 1835 Lecures on Faith was published he felt he could be bolder. Perhaps he lied but I can't prove that based on the 1832 account.

In 1832 people had heard of people who had seen the Son in vision but appearances of the Father I don't think was heard of.

Oliver Cowdery & William Smith wern't writing about the first vision, but about the revival at the time of the angels visit. Also is it not possible Joseph Smith Jr. saw a little religious excitement as part of unrelated excitements. An adults memory can merge earlier & later dates.

At the angelmessage board there's an article answering the critics on the First Vision proble. The article was written in direct response to Richard Howard former RLDS Church historian. I plan to get Richard Howards article when I get the chance. http://www.angelmessage.org/care I might interest others who read this debate.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Scott Gordon]

Camp meeting is meaningless since only the Presbyterians had a building at the time. A camp meeting is not necessarily a revival. Revivals produce converts and in 1820 there were no significant conversions, most importantly, not Lucy

[Paul Osborne]

As for Joseph Smith not mentioning the Father, why should he? I can't see how that would be to his advantage at all. I don't believe he really wanted to talk much about the first vision until he had the Book of Mormon as a witness.

Put yourself in his shoes. Given the current beliefs about the nature of God and Jesus, would you go around saying you saw the Father? You would be run out of town on a rail or locked up in a nearest institution. At least Jesus is a personage that is talked about in the New Testiment.

Scott

I totally agree, and Joseph Smith may have been told to keep it hushed up until later when the time was right. There is a precedent to withholding details about visitations:

Mar 9:9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.

I feel the revelation that the Father is his own Personage is what seperates Mormonism from the Trinity taught by traditional Christianity - and Joseph Smith fired that shot when the time was right.

Paul O

[Dan Vogel]

Dale, Scott, and Paul,

If you haven

[Scott Gordon]

This, I think, is a more likely explanation than any of you have offered.

I completely disagree. I think your explanation is a big stretch and isn't consistent with what people were saying or have said about the experience. If there had been this kind of "evolution" I believe it would have been noticed and mentioned by the early members or by Joseph's family members.

But, therein lies the problem.

I look at this data and find a plausible explanation that I believe fits the data best.

You also look at the data and find a plausible explanation that you believe fits the data best.

[Moksha]

Enish-go-on-dosh, and a Top O' the Mornin' to Ye!

Back in my drinking days at college, I would have to get pretty blotto before I would utter something like "obliblish".

Nowadays, I like to think Joseph simply used these Breathing Permits for the mummies as a channeling device to receive information about the combined energy transfer, communication and travel system for a group of advance Planets. Not knowing what to make of it, he included some of it in his facsimiles information. The rest of it he just conjured up in his usual style.

[Dale]

Hi,

Dan I think you raise an important issue about whether the Book of Mormon was modalistic in it's view of God. That might indeed back up your view the 1832 account might illustrate that Joseph Smith Jr's views of God started out different. The New Testament clearly teaches the Father & Son are distinct persons. Yet both are treated as God which is impossibly contradictory without creedal orthodoxy. Jesus has to be Father & Son in the New Testament. Otherwise the New Testament writers could not treat them as the same God. I see the idea in the New Testament although one can miss it.

Technically we can't treat them as the same God without saying the Son is both Father & Son. If Jesus is God he is Father & Son. The New Testament uses words like Father & Son are used only to differentiate between the persons of the Godhead. John 4:23,24 refers to God as the Father. But Jesus if he is the same God has to be that same Father by shared title even if there's a distinct person also known as the Father. The Book of Mormon in many places don't care whether God & Jesus share the same confounding the person's of the Godheads titles. So my question is the Book of Mormon truly modalistic, or is it just using terminology as Old Testament mostly does?

Jesus as a man in John 4:24 would want to seperate himself by title from God. He's a man & it was blasphemous for a man to be God. But when he acted as God in the Old Testament there's no reason to suppose he minded people considering him Father. I could only find Isaiah 9:6's reference to Jesus as Father. Isa.43:10 doesn't teach of a seperate Father & Son. The New Testament writers just fit the idea of the Godhead so as to make a seperate Father & Son where no differentiation occured between Father & God before. The difference between the Book of Mormon & the Old Testament is that it clearly understands God, the Father would become Son.

3rd Nephi isn't exactly modalistic even if other parts I wondered about. Jewish apologists don't see the Trinity in the Old Testament. Some of the articles I read from Outreach Judaism tell where they feel Christian missionaries misinterpret the OT. But if other faiths can see the Trinity not being excluded in the Old Testament I can't see the idea neccessarily being excluded in the Book of Mormon. But I agree the Book of Mormon sounds modalistic in places. But technically the Jewish idea of God is closer to modalism in that it views the idea of the really distinct persons as idolatrous. Modalism was one way early Christians harmonized the Old & New Testaments. Creedal Trinitarianism was another. LDS give up on Jewish mono-theism & admit the three are Gods.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Dan Vogel]

Dale,

You probably already know that Ben and I went around about modalism in the BofM; If you haven

[Dan Vogel]

Scott,

I completely disagree. I think your explanation is a big stretch and isn't consistent with what people were saying or have said about the experience. If there had been this kind of "evolution" I believe it would have been noticed and mentioned by the early members or by Joseph's family members.

But, therein lies the problem. I look at this data and find a plausible explanation that I believe fits the data best.

You also look at the data and find a plausible explanation that you believe fits the data best.

You might want to consider some additional data before making a final conclusion. You question modalism being in the BofM because, as you say,

[wenglund]

Hi Zeta-Flux,

I am very grateful for your kind words, and your interest.

Hi Dan Vogel,

To use your own words,

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

To use your own words,

[wenglund]

Wade,

To use your own words,

[Scott Gordon]

You might want to consider some additional data before making a final conclusion. You question modalism being in the BofM because, as you say,

[wenglund]

Perhaps there are some that may be wondering why I have been so adamant and exacting in my analysis on this seemingly insignificant point. After all, it is not uncommon for people to remember things incorrectly, and even conflate past experiences. If Joseph mistakenly remembered an 1824-25 event as having occurred in 1820, that would be no big deal, and would be meaningless in terms of the verity of the restored gospel of Christ. Right?

Typically, I wouldn

[wenglund]

Let

[wenglund]

Let

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

I have been following your analysis with interest, but am quite puzzled how you seem unaware how irrelevant it all is.

All this is in response to my having accused you of positivism because you seemed to limit evidence to direct deductive reasoning and discount inductive, inferential, and other types of evidence. You said you were going to prove that my reconstruction of the first vision was nothing but baseless conjecture. I do not believe you have achieved you goal. Let me tell you why.

At the beginning you formulated five arguments that you felt represented my position. (I

[Dan Vogel]

Scott,

What I do have an argument with is an evolving version of the first vision. People who heard the early versions were still there when later versions were given. Several family members and early church members saw the same things he saw. I'm sure they would have objected if they felt the story was evolving.

I

[wenglund]

I am disinclined to continue to dance in endless circles with Vogel. But, his last post presents some

[Dan Vogel]

Wade,

First, regarding my alleged

[wenglund]

To what few may still be following this saga,

With the continued intent to keep my promise of not endlessly and unproductively dancing in circles with Vogel, let me briefly clarify a few things.

First, regarding Vogel