A Different God?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Rico said:

Mfbukowski,

In your first response to my first post in this thread, you were tempting me to discuss the Catholic Mass, Augustine, Aquinas, Transubstantiatin, Stigmata, Limbo, Pope Francis.  That's nearly 2,000 years worth of Catholic philosophy.

But when I asked you to provide evidence to an assertion you made that is not self-evident, you backed out while making the silly excuse that you're not prepared to lecture on a philosophy spanning only 800 years.

Come on, mfbukowski, you have fans here reading your every post.  Don't let them down.  Is this how a Wittgensian pragmatist runs away from an opportunity to educate a poh boy like me about the wonders of phelonomagical philosophy?

Starting with Aquinas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th-century_philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_philosophy

And this is where it really starts to get relevant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th-century_philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_philosophy

And This is where it really gets relevant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_philosophy

See?

That wasn't so bad, was it?

[Rico]

Mfbukowski,

Yesterday, Cdowis objected to my first post on this thread about the inconsistencies of the First Vision accounts. So he said he'd open a new thread on the subject to educate me.  Yet, no sooner had I entered the thread to get a schooling from him when he decided to blow-up and demolish the entire school itself.  It was a trap!

Luckily, my rusty ninja skills helped me escape.  Good job!  So now, here I am to present you what's left of the precious arguments I managed to save from the rubble...

The LDS church and its critics has for a long time known that there are several versions of Joseph Smith's First Vision.  The critics see inconsistencies while LDS apologists see consistencies.  People can choose to see what they want to see.  No doubt about it.

So, with that said... Let's all take a close look at the 1832 First Vision account by Joseph Smith.  Here's the document:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832?p=1

Now this is the question: How many personages appeared to him?  My answer: only one person.  If you agree, I can move on to the next point.

So... any other answers? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's put some historical context into the document.  This was written in the summer of 1832.  This would be 12 years since the alleged First Vision in 1820, three years since the Book of Mormons was published in 1829, and two years after Joseph founded his church in 1830.  Hundreds would have joined the church by this time, and Joseph himself would be 26 years old.  

He is now a charismatic leader, and a rising star of a fast growing movement.  At this point, he is no longer the ignorant farm boy often portrayed in the First Vision.  He is now more educated, more sophisticated, and obviously, more respectable in the area.  This is the Joseph who wrote that document.

So, back to the question:  How many persons did he see?

I've asked this question from Kevin and Cdowis, now I am asking it from you.  Any one of you including Calm or RevTestament, etc is invited to read the account and answer the question.  The reason I ask this is that critics are often criticized by Mormons for not interacting with those who see nothing inconsistent with the accounts.  Therefore, let's hear the answers from the Mormons themselves.

Time to rise and shine, folks!  Give your best shot...  Steve is listening, I hope.

 

[Rico]

Mfbukowski,

That wasn't bad.  I will look into your references.  But remember, this thread is about Mormonism's "Different God".  After seeing this thread hijacked several times, I'd like to stay within the OP.  Hope you do too.  

And btw, thanks for the links.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Rico said:

Mfbukowski,

That wasn't bad.  I will look into your references.  But remember, this thread is about Mormonism's "Different God".  After seeing this thread hijacked several times, I'd like to stay within the OP.  Hope you do too.  

And btw, thanks for the links.

This thread is about what we can know about the "truth" of who God is.

Whether or not he is different is a silly.semantic exercise in definitions

Steve is a great guy but this is not a performance for him. 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Rico said:

Mfbukowski,

Yesterday, Cdowis objected to my first post on this thread about the inconsistencies of the First Vision accounts. So he said he'd open a new thread on the subject to educate me.  Yet, no sooner had I entered the thread to get a schooling from him when he decided to blow-up and demolish the entire school itself.  It was a trap!

Luckily, my rusty ninja skills helped me escape.  Good job!  So now, here I am to present you what's left of the precious arguments I managed to save from the rubble...

The LDS church and its critics has for a long time known that there are several versions of Joseph Smith's First Vision.  The critics see inconsistencies while LDS apologists see consistencies.  People can choose to see what they want to see.  No doubt about it.

So, with that said... Let's all take a close look at the 1832 First Vision account by Joseph Smith.  Here's the document:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832?p=1

Now this is the question: How many personages appeared to him?  My answer: only one person.  If you agree, I can move on to the next point.

So... any other answers? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's put some historical context into the document.  This was written in the summer of 1832.  This would be 12 years since the alleged First Vision in 1820, three years since the Book of Mormons was published in 1829, and two years after Joseph founded his church in 1830.  Hundreds would have joined the church by this time, and Joseph himself would be 26 years old.  

He is now a charismatic leader, and a rising star of a fast growing movement.  At this point, he is no longer the ignorant farm boy often portrayed in the First Vision.  He is now more educated, more sophisticated, and obviously, more respectable in the area.  This is the Joseph who wrote that document.

So, back to the question:  How many persons did he see?

I've asked this question from Kevin and Cdowis, now I am asking it from you.  Any one of you including Calm or RevTestament, etc is invited to read the account and answer the question.  The reason I ask this is that critics are often criticized by Mormons for not interacting with those who see nothing inconsistent with the accounts.  Therefore, let's hear the answers from the Mormons themselves.

Time to rise and shine, folks!  Give your best shot...  Steve is listening, I hope.

 

Oh, and to make it clear, I have no problem with the different accounts of what he saw. Ever tried to remember a 30 year old dream? His interpretation changed over the years. I would be more suspicious if all the stories were exactly the same. In fact I wouldn't care if he made it all up.

What is most important part in his teachings about the nature of God. He' totally revolutionized Christian Theory I came up with something that actually made sense.

Dreams and Visions are not objective observations.

[mfbukowski]

He made up vast sections of the Bible and you are worried about inconsistencies in a vision account?

[Calm]

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

"

There is a very significant phrase located in the introductory paragraph of the Prophet's historical narrative. There he indicates that the 1832 document is . . .

"A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brough<t> [it] forth and established [it] by his hand <firstly> he receiving the testamony from on highsecondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel—<—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—>and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God."

This paragraph not only introduces the document with a heavy emphasis on the Son of God but it also chronologically outlines four inaugural events of the Restoration.

FIRST: Reception of "the testimony from on high" - First Vision

SECOND: The "ministering of angels" - Moroni visitations

THIRD: Reception of the Holy Priesthood to administer the letter of the gospel - Aaronic

FOURTH: Reception of the High Priesthood after the order of the Son - Melchizedek

This 1832 phraseology corresponds with the words spoken by God the Father when He introduced His Son in the Sacred Grove

The significant phrase in the introductory paragraph is the one associated with the First Vision -- "receiving the testimony from on high" (spelling standardized). When this phrase is placed in conjunction with the Prophet's 1835 and 1838 accounts of the First Vision it becomes obvious that the 1832 phraseology closely corresponds with the words spoken by God the Father when He introduced His Son in the Sacred Grove.

(1832 ACCOUNT)

“firstly . . . receiving the testimony from on high”

(1835 ACCOUNT)

“He [God the Father] testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”

(1838 ACCOUNT)

"[He] said...This is my beloved Son”

The Father's identification of Jesus Christ as His Son was His "testimony" of Him.

Critics have objected that -- in their minds -- the phrase "from on high" cannot be so easily equated with God the Father. But there is a sizable amount of corroborating evidence for this idea. Consider the following points of connection.

• 3 Ne. 11:3, 5-7 - between April and June 1828

The Father's "voice . . . came out of heaven" [i.e., 'from on high'] and testified of His "Beloved Son."

• D&C 20:16 - April 1830

Joseph Smith stated, "the Lord God has spoken it; and we . . . have heard . . . the words of the glorious Majesty on high."

• Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1 Peter - between 8 March 1831 and 24 March 1832

There are five New Testament scriptures (which Joseph Smith would have been familiar with from his work on the JST) that have distinct parallels to the First Vision story. Jesus Christ's Old World disciples heard the Father's voice come "from heaven" (Mt. 3:17; Mk. 1:11; Lk. 3:22; 2 Pt. 1:17-18) [i.e, 'from on high'] or "out of the cloud" (Mt. 17:5) [i.e., 'from on high'] and in each of these instances the Father testifiedof His Son and employed the same phraseology that Joseph Smith said He utilized during the First Vision.

• JST John 1:18/19 - between 20 November 1831 and 16 February 1832

"And no man hath seen God at any time, except he [i.e., God the Father] hath borne record of the Son."

• 1832 First Vision account - between 22 September 1832 and 27 November 1832

"receiving the testimony from on high"

• D&C 93:15 - 6 May 1833

Mention is made of the Father's voice being heard "out of heaven."

• Patriarchal Blessing - 9 December 1834

When the Prophet received his Patriarchal Blessing on 9 December 1834 he was reminded by the Patriarch (his father) that during his "youth" he had "heard [God's] voice from on high."

Joseph Smith appears to have equated the voice "from on high" with God the Father both before and after he penned his 1832 First Vision account

This chronological evidence points to the conclusion that Joseph Smith appears to have equated the voice "from on high" with God the Father both before and after he penned his 1832 First Vision account."

[Teancum]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh, and to make it clear, I have no problem with the different accounts of what he saw. Ever tried to remember a 30 year old dream? His interpretation changed over the years. I would be more suspicious if all the stories were exactly the same. In fact I wouldn't care if he made it all up.

What is most important part in his teachings about the nature of God. He' totally revolutionized Christian Theory I came up with something that actually made sense.

Dreams and Visions are not objective observations.

Hmmmmm I think the appearance of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ would be emblazoned on anyone's mind and memory.  I have a number of striking events in my life that are are imprinted on my memory and I am sure you and others do as well.

 

[Calm]

My apologies if this is not a thread where Steve was okay for it to go off topic.  I will post my post in a new thread if being here is a problem.

[Kevin Christensen]

22 hours ago, Rico said:

Kevin,

Since you seem to have done a great deal of research on the subject, I have a question:  

In the 1832 First Vision account, how many personages did Joseph Smith see?  My answer is only one person.  

If you have another answer other than that, then please explain in about a 100 words.  If I find the explanation worth digging into, I will ask for references.

Thanks.

 

I've already given evidence for two (at least, since some accounts refer to others besides the two "many angels").  James Allen's  Two distinct actions: "The ^Lord opened the heavens to me, and I saw the Lord" which turn out to be consistent with later accounts if you assume that one title can be used by two different beings who exactly resemble each other.  Or, as I also assume, the above line insert could be a mistake.  And Matthew Brown's observation that I quoted concerning "testimony from on high" which turns out to be consistent with Book of Mormon accounts in 3 Nephi 11, and Jesus's baptism.  And of course there is the issue of the Vision with Rigdon in D&C 76 also from 1832, another thing that I have never seen mentioned in discussions of the issue.

And there is Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God: In the Bible, "There are those called sons of El Elyon, sons of El or Elohim, all clearly heavenly beings, and those called sons of Yahweh or the Holy One who are human. This distinction is important for at last two reasons Yahweh was one of the sons of E Elyon; and Jesus in the Gospels is described as a Son of El Elyon, God Most High...Jesus is not called the Son of Yaweh, nor the son of the Lord, buthe is called Lord." (p 4-5).  The Book of Mormon use is consistent with First Temple theology.

And there is the silence from people close to Joseph Smith, such as Oliver Cowdery and Frederick G. Williams and others who knew about the 1832 account and saw the later ones and didn't so much as raise their eyebrows when they disaffected and had the chance to raise a stink.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen 

[Teancum]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

He made up vast sections of the Bible and you are worried about inconsistencies in a vision account?

He meaning Joseph Smith?  Yes another problematic issue.

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I've already given evidence for two (at least, since some accounts refer to others besides the two "many angels").  James Allen's  Two distinct actions: "The ^Lord opened the heavens to me, and I saw the Lord" which turn out to be consistent with later accounts if you assume that one title can be used by two different beings who exactly resemble each other. 

In addition, it just plain stands on its own.  The Lord DID open the heavens AND Joseph DID see the Lord.

Perhaps he saw many other things as well- he mentioned only the salient portions of the vision.

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

He meaning Joseph Smith?  Yes another problematic issue.

So Joseph Smith, a prophet, makes up vast sections of the Bible and it is a problem.

Isaiah, Joshua, Moses etc etc etc- every prophet of the bible "make up vast sections of the bible" and you have no problem with it.

Paul makes up vast sections- no problem.  Matthew Mark Luke and John.  The list goes on

It is even doubtful who wrote many of these books.   It is a question if there ever even WAS an Exodus, 6 day creation, worldwide flood and a person named Jesus who allegedly returned from the dead, and you have a problem with someone remembering something like a dream- even though the consistency of the accounts have been shown?

I think that is no problem at all.  The "problem" is believing any of it at all.

But testimony takes care of that.  Either you know or you do not.  Since you are in the latter category, I wouldn't worry about it. To you it is I suppose all a fantasy anyway?

We all need to be atheists for a bit of time in life, I think, to understand why religion, once you understand it, is the most rational course in terms of creating meaning and happiness in your life. 

 

[Teancum]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So Joseph Smith, a prophet, makes up vast sections of the Bible and it is a problem.

Isaiah, Joshua, Moses etc etc etc- every prophet of the bible "make up vast sections of the bible" and you have no problem with it.Isau

Paul makes up vast sections- no problem.  Matthew Mark Luke and John.  The list goes on

It is even doubtful who wrote many of these books.   It is a question if there ever even WAS an Exodus, 6 day creation, worldwide flood and a person named Jesus who allegedly returned from the dead, and you have a problem with someone remembering something like a dream- even though the consistency of the accounts have been shown?

I think that is no problem at all.  The "problem" is believing any of it at all.

But testimony takes care of that.  Either you know or you do not.  Since you are in the latter category, I wouldn't worry about it. To you it is I suppose all a fantasy anyway?

We all need to be atheists for a bit of time in life, I think, to understand why religion, once you understand it, is the most rational course in terms of creating meaning and happiness in your life. 

 

1:  Isaiah, Joshua and Moses were allegedly the authors of what became the Bible (though that may be debatable as well).  They did not take someone esles writing and change it and insert things that were not there.  Big difference.  But I am as skeptical of the Bible as I am Joseph Smith.

2:  Same with Paul.

3:  Your further comment about who wrote much of the Bible does not help your case but it helps mine. Thank you.

4:  The problem is believing something that has weak to no evidence of authenticity.  Why not believe in Middle Earth if is all just a dream, a vague memory, Maybe God inspired Tolkien?

5:  Testimonies are totally subjective.

6:  You seem to think religion is simply there to create meaning whether or not it is true, rational or provable.  Believing in fairies may bring as much meaning to some as your belief in Joseph Smith's claimed revelations.  That does not mean fairies exist.

 

[mfbukowski]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

1:  Isaiah, Joshua and Moses were allegedly the authors of what became the Bible (though that may be debatable as well).  They did not take someone esles writing and change it and insert things that were not there.  Big difference.  But I am as skeptical of the Bible as I am Joseph Smith.

2:  Same with Paul.

3:  Your further comment about who wrote much of the Bible does not help your case but it helps mine. Thank you.

4:  The problem is believing something that has weak to no evidence of authenticity.  Why not believe in Middle Earth if is all just a dream, a vague memory, Maybe God inspired Tolkien?

5:  Testimonies are totally subjective.

6:  You seem to think religion is simply there to create meaning whether or not it is true, rational or provable.  Believing in fairies may bring as much meaning to some as your belief in Joseph Smith's claimed revelations.  That does not mean fairies exist.

 

All those conversations we had- you were making so much progress.  Sad.

1- How do you know?  Moses wrote original writings which were not legends before someone later calleed Moses jotted them down?

2- "Paul" allegedly had a vision just like Joseph.  He never saw the physical Christ.  He invented much about Christian theory.  Whether or not it was "inspired" is also subjective.  But guess what?  It cannot be "objective".  

3- I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

4- Yep maybe he did.  But Tolkien does not allege that God did inspire him.  That's one difference.  Second difference- I do not have a testimony of Tolkien.

5- Of course testimonies are all subjective!!  That is what they are supposed to be!!!  You think this is science?  Why are you even on this board if you think this is science???

Only a fool would think this is science.  Ask any scientist!  An amazing insight!!!  Testimonies are subjective!!!  Who knew??

6. Creating meaning is precisely what you are doing by being here.  Your "religion" tells you that every truth must be scientifically proven. 

I thought you understood James and Rorty's points so I was making abbreviated answers to your questions.

If you actually want to learn something, go back to my posts to Rico, above.

This discussion is a waste of time.  I thought you understood this all.

 

Edited April 17, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

All those conversations we had- you were making so much progress.  Sad.

1- How do you know?  Moses wrote original writings which were not legends before someone later calleed Moses jotted them down?

2- "Paul" allegedly had a vision just like Joseph.  He never saw the physical Christ.  He invented much about Christian theory.  Whether or not it was "inspired" is also subjective.  But guess what?  It cannot be "objective".  

3- I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

4- Yep maybe he did.  But Tolkien does not allege that God did inspire him.  That's one difference.  Second difference- I do not have a testimony of Tolkien.

5- Of course testimonies are all subjective!!  That is what they are supposed to be!!!  You think this is science?  Why are you even on this board if you think this is science???

Only a fool would think this is science.  Ask any scientist!  An amazing insight!!!  Testimonies are subjective!!!  Who knew??

6. Creating meaning is precisely what you are doing by being here.  Your "religion" tells you that every truth must be scientifically proven. 

I thought you understood James and Rorty's points so I was making abbreviated answers to your questions.

If you actually want to learn something, go back to my posts to Rico, above.

This discussion is a waste of time.  I thought you understood this all.

 

You know Mark you cannot stand someone who challenges you. I ask a few questions and you demeaningly say  "I thought you were making sop much progress.. how sad.

What this assumes is just because I challenge something YOU say does not mean I am still not seeking and searching.  That you conclude this from one little post says much.  I am still open and searching. Can't you deal with honest questions that challenge your views?

If you think this is a waste of time pass on it.   I understand your views and sometimes I can get my head and heart around it and other times not so much.

 

[mfbukowski]

I would love to be challenged with substantive comments.  This stuff was life changing for me and I cannot comprehend how it cannot be for others, I suppose. 

[Rico]

Guys, remember the question was "How many personages did Joseph see?".  The answer is supposed to come only from a reading of the 1832 document.  And I don't see any of the Mormon side listening to or interacting with the question.  Everybody just brought in so much noise and clutter.  Remember, when he wrote this account, the other accounts did not yet exist.  We should read it and try to understand what he was conveying at the moment he wrote it.

There's nothing special with Calm's explanation.  That will also fit the beliefs of a modalist, one who thinks that God manifests himself through different modes.  For a modalist, the Father and the Son are just different modes of the same Person.  

Have you guys heard of the Patripassians?  They believe it was actually the Father who suffered the Passion and death at the Cross.  The Patripassians can read the 1832 document and have no problem with Calm's reasoning.  They can read the NT texts that talk of Jesus praying and then afterwards hearing the Father answering from heaven as witnessed by those nearby, and they can explain why Jesus is actually praying to himself.  There is nothing new under the sun.  The Patripassians have reasoned this out nearly 2,000 years ago.

Finding out whether God is one or there are many Gods will tell us the nature of God, whether we got it right or wrong.  At this point, I'm not reading the answer "two personages" from the Mormon side.  To me, that's obviously a lack of unity from the same set of believers.

[Russell C McGregor]

2 minutes ago, Rico said:

Guys, remember the question was "How many personages did Joseph see?".  The answer is supposed to come only from a reading of the 1832 document.  And I don't see any of the Mormon side listening to or interacting with the question.  Everybody just brought in so much noise and clutter.  Remember, when he wrote this account, the other accounts did not yet exist.  We should read it and try to understand what he was conveying at the moment he wrote it.

To whom?

Given that the 1832 account was never published in Joseph's lifetime, it's not obvious that it was ever meant to "convey" anything.

Your demand that we pretend the other accounts don't exist may serve your polemical purposes, but it doesn't really advance the cause of truth, does it?

I can see two personages in the 1832 account.

2 minutes ago, Rico said:

There's nothing special with Calm's explanation.  That will also fit the beliefs of a modalist, one who thinks that God manifests himself through different modes.  For a modalist, the Father and the Son are just different modes of the same Person.  

And for a Hindu, all gods are pretty much incarnations of each other. That may or may not be interesting, but it's certainly not relevant.

2 minutes ago, Rico said:

Have you guys heard of the Patripassians?  They believe it was actually the Father who suffered the Passion and death at the Cross.  The Patripassians can read the 1832 document and have no problem with Calm's reasoning.  They can read the NT texts that talk of Jesus praying and then afterwards hearing the Father answering from heaven as witnessed by those nearby, and they can explain why Jesus is actually praying to himself.  There is nothing new under the sun.  The Patripassians have reasoned this out nearly 2,000 years ago.

Finding out whether God is one or there are many Gods will tell us the nature of God, whether we got it right or wrong.  At this point, I'm not reading the answer "two personages" from the Mormon side.  To me, that's obviously a lack of unity from the same set of believers.

Given that it's only "obvious" to you after you rigged the test with that intention, I'm afraid I don't find your conclusion especially compelling.

Besides, we are only supposed to reach a unity of faith, not a unity of the interpretation of an unpublished document.

 

[Teancum]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I would love to be challenged with substantive comments.  This stuff was life changing for me and I cannot comprehend how it cannot be for others, I suppose. 

What you deem substantive is not the end all of end all.

Perhaps you are so far above the rest of is low lifes that you cannot relate.

Waste of time indeed.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Rico said:

 

There's nothing special with Calm's explanation.  That will also fit the beliefs of a modalist, one who thinks that God manifests himself through different modes.  

Except that JS was not a modalist:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith%27s_early_conception_of_God

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Except that JS was not a modalist:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith%27s_early_conception_of_God

Hmmm well there are certainly parts of the Book of Mormon that have modalist tendencies.

[Rico]

Calm,

Your explanation will satisfy a modalist.  Now whether Joseph was a modalist, that is not the argument.  I was referring to your explanation not Joseph.  Again, even a Patripassian will not oppose you.  Think about that, and let that sink in.

The only way your explanation sounds reasonable is because you cannot stick to the document in question.  You have to bring in other documents not relevant to the question.  In other words, you are bringing in your preconceived notions to the document.  That's called eisegesis.

 

[Rico]

Russel,

If you write a personal diary, do you write it for an audience?  When Anne Frank wrote her famous diary, I don't think she was planning to publish it.  The 1832 FV document falls into this category.  Does that mean Joseph need not be honest in his statements there since he did not intend to let the world know about it?

Now if you see more than one personage, please let our audience know.  Show me the relevant words in the 1832 FV text.  Now if you want me to show you why I think there is only one personage, I will show it to you.

The truth is hard sometimes.  The truth is the other versions of the FV did not yet exist 1832.  If you bring in other documents that antedate it, you will only add clutter to the meaning of the text.   That may sound like rigged but that is the truth.

 

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I've already given evidence for two (at least, since some accounts refer to others besides the two "many angels").  James Allen's  Two distinct actions: "The ^Lord opened the heavens to me, and I saw the Lord" which turn out to be consistent with later accounts if you assume that one title can be used by two different beings who exactly resemble each other.  Or, as I also assume, the above line insert could be a mistake.  And Matthew Brown's observation that I quoted concerning "testimony from on high" which turns out to be consistent with Book of Mormon accounts in 3 Nephi 11, and Jesus's baptism.  And of course there is the issue of the Vision with Rigdon in D&C 76 also from 1832, another thing that I have never seen mentioned in discussions of the issue.

And there is Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God: In the Bible, "There are those called sons of El Elyon, sons of El or Elohim, all clearly heavenly beings, and those called sons of Yahweh or the Holy One who are human. This distinction is important for at last two reasons Yahweh was one of the sons of E Elyon; and Jesus in the Gospels is described as a Son of El Elyon, God Most High...Jesus is not called the Son of Yaweh, nor the son of the Lord, buthe is called Lord." (p 4-5).  The Book of Mormon use is consistent with First Temple theology.

And there is the silence from people close to Joseph Smith, such as Oliver Cowdery and Frederick G. Williams and others who knew about the 1832 account and saw the later ones and didn't so much as raise their eyebrows when they disaffected and had the chance to raise a stink.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen 

Kevin, I always appreciate your comments.  Thank you for being a consistent source of inspiration.  

This standard of question is interesting and is seldom, if ever, applied by the questioner for topics germane to their own beliefs, doctrines, and teachings.  Cherry picking is hardly a method of discussion, but I see it often enough to to find it tiresome and uninteresting.  I always value context.  Cheers,

Edited April 18, 2016 by Storm Rider