First vision accounts getting detailed attention in CES devotional

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I thought they did contradict each other. One have God and Jesus together, another have only Jesus, another has just angels. All should have had God and Jesus. 

The fact that none of the accounts includes every last detail does not mean they contradict one another.

And if you want the account to include both the Father and the Son, then the official, canonized version is the one for you to hold to. It is the one that was prepared with careful deliberation -- and eventually included as part of the scriptural canon -- as a guide to the Latter-day Saints.

The fact that there were other, non-official versions, given on occasion that varied in accordance with circumstances and audiences does not detract from the official version and should not be a cause for worry on your part.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There are contradictions.

 

You are quite wrong. There are no contradictions.

Quote

The new apologist strategy is to say, "see all these differences. Isn't it marvelous that they all harmonize."

If they contradict one another in any respect, then, by definition, they cannot harmonize.

Your statement is not coherent.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are quite wrong. There are no contradictions.

If they contradict one another in any respect, then, by definition, they cannot harmonize.

Your statement is not coherent.

Here you are incorrect, Scott.

There is a contradiction.  And it is so stark and insurmountable that Elder Maynes chose not to address it in his talk, and when he got within one-hundred feet of the subject, he started to stammer.

The contradiction is this:

1838 Version--Joseph Smith went to the grove to ask which church was true because it had never entered his mind that all were wrong.

1832 Version--Joseph Smith had already concluded before he went to the grove that all churches were wrong.

 

This is a contradiction.  Plain and simple.

[canard78]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you are not in that category, then, of course, the task would not apply to you.

But my point still stands. The Church is not trying to talk people into joining by an appeal to science, history or whatever. It is only engaged in inviting and encouraging people to seek a spiritual communication from God. I repeat: To do that, we need only keep the question open.

To frustrate that effort, on the other hand, detractors must do the very thing they insist the Church must do: to prove their argument through physical evidence. I maintain that they have thus far failed to do that, and are destined to continue to fail.

There's a risk we could go round in circles with a british pantomime "oh yes you do, oh no you don't."

You keep repeating that the detractors of the church must prove their argument through physical evidence? Why?

Suppose I was a detractor of the church... I could very easily take the exact same approach as the church does. I would need to at least demonstrate that it was plausible that Joseph wasn't a prophet and that the Book of Mormon was a modern fabrication. I don't have to prove it, I just need to show it's plausible. Then I could also do the exact same thing, suggest the individual pray about it. 

FWIW... that's the process I went through in concluding the church is not true. I do not claim to have absolute proof it is not true. Instead I have concluded that the arguments against the church's key truth claims are more plausible and convincing than the arguments in favour of those claims (in other words, I studied it out in my mind)... and then I prayed about those conclusions and had a confirmatory experience that I had reached the right conclusions.

If I were to be a detractor then I would suggest the exact same process to a believing Mormon. Study it and then pray about it.

I've asked you several times why a detractor is held to a different standard to an advocate of the church. You've repeated your position, but you've not really explained why the requirements are different. In light of what I've described above, why would a detractor not be able to use the exact same method for making the argument the church is not true as those wanting people to reach the conclusion that it is?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Here you are incorrect, Scott.

There is a contradiction.  And it is so stark and insurmountable that Elder Maynes chose not to address it in his talk, and when he got within one-hundred feet of the subject, he started to stammer.

The contradiction is this:

1838 Version--Joseph Smith went to the grove to ask which church was true because it had never entered his mind that all were wrong.

1832 Version--Joseph Smith had already concluded before he went to the grove that all churches were wrong.

 

This is a contradiction.  Plain and simple.

This has already been addressed in this thread.

In fact, HappyJackWagon brought up the same line of attack after it had already been addressed. That's what led to our lengthy back and forth about him re-launching attacks that have already been addressed as though there had been no rebuttal made.

And now you are doing the same thing.

Scroll back through the thread and look for a post or posts by Wiki Wonka. I'm not going to rehash it here.

Edited to add:

Here's a FairMormon treatment of that attack from detractors.

You'll probably ignore it though and be raising the same attack next week or six months from now or whatever, as though there had bee no answer made. That seems to be the typical modus operandi.

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

43 minutes ago, canard78 said:

There's a risk we could go round in circles with a british pantomime "oh yes you do, oh no you don't."

You keep repeating that the detractors of the church must prove their argument through physical evidence? Why?

 

Because that's the only way they can nullify the message of the Church, which is this: an invitation to sincere seekers to ask God in prayer for a confirmation.

As long as the question is open, seekers can feel free to so ask.

In order to shut the door on such seeking, detractors must prove definitively that there is no plausible way that the divine truths taught by the Church could be true. Until they can do this, they have not succeeded in their nefarious intent.

Honestly, I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are quite wrong. There are no contradictions.

If they contradict one another in any respect, then, by definition, they cannot harmonize.

Your statement is not coherent.

Good. You caught that. Yes. It is incoherent but that's what the apologists claim.

The church claims knowledge of the Godhead, that Jesus and the Father are separate personages of flesh, based largely on this vision.

So we have another version where angels appeared with no mention of God or Jesus. Of course you probably don't see an inconsistency there. Joseph probably just forgot to mention the most important part of the vision that led to a foundational theological building block.

What I find funny about the efforts to harmonize all the different accounts, is I've never seen anyone yet suggest that the official account be updated to reference the full story that might look something like this.

 

~Jesus appeared to Joseph after he prayed for a remission of sins. Jesus confirmed to Joseph all the churches were wrong . (1832 account) Jesus exits stage left.

Then a host of angels appeared to joseph, presumably singing the praises of God. (1835 account to Erastus Holmes)

Then an angelic being appeared in a pillar of fire. The angel told Joseph his sins were forgiven (didn't know angels could forgive sins), after which a host of angels also appeared. (1835 account to Jewish Minster)

After the angels left Satan appeared in a mist of darkness and bound Joseph's tongue. He felt that he would be destroyed, then a pillar of light descended until both God the Father and Jesus appeared to forgive joseph's sins (again) and told him not to join any church because they were all wrong, which thing he had never supposed. (1838 account) ~

 

The official "harmonized" account could be very interesting.

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because that's the only way they can nullify the message of the Church, which is this: an invitation to sincere seekers to ask God in prayer for a confirmation.

As long as the question is open, they can feel free to do this.

In order to shut down the question, detractors must prove definitively that there is no plausible way that the divine truths taught by the Church could be true. Until they can do this, they have not succeeded in their nefarious intent.

Honestly, I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

Hmmm. I didn't realize anyone was trying to shut down the question. I've never heard anyone say they could "prove definitively that there is no plausible way that the divine truths taught by the Church could be true." Most people recognize there's no "proof" one way or the other. As I said, I know the answer I received, and that's good enough for me. I don't begrudge someone else getting a different answer.

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good. You caught that. Yes. It is incoherent but that's what the apologists claim.

It's not the apologists who are incoherent, it is you in mischaracterizing them. When they say the accounts harmonize, the implication of that is that the accounts do not contradict one another. Which they do not, despite how many times you say they do.

Quote

 

The church claims knowledge of the Godhead, that Jesus and the Father are separate personages of flesh, based largely on this vision.

So we have another version where angels appeared with no mention of God or Jesus. Of course you probably don't see an inconsistency there. Joseph probably just forgot to mention the most important part of the vision that led to a foundational theological building block.

 

There may have been good reasons for not including that detail in certain circumstances other than "he just forgot." We are not compelled to accept your jaundiced interpretation.

 

Quote

What I find funny about the efforts to harmonize all the different accounts, is I've never seen anyone yet suggest that the official account be updated to reference the full story that might look something like this.

The essentials are in place for the canonized, scriptural account.

Meanwhile, the other accounts are easily accessible and are even highlighted these days in the newly renovated Church History Museum and cited elsewhere, such as in the "Gospel Topics" essay.

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Obviously, contradictions are in the eye of the beholder.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Hmmm. I didn't realize anyone was trying to shut down the question. I've never heard anyone say they could "prove definitively that there is no plausible way that the divine truths taught by the Church could be true." Most people recognize there's no "proof" one way or the other. As I said, I know the answer I received, and that's good enough for me. I don't begrudge someone else getting a different answer.

If you're not about trying to publicly discredit the Church of Jesus Christ, then good for you.

But thou "doth protest too much, methinks."

I remind you of the central point that the Church of Jesus Christ does not have to prove through physical evidence what it professes, because that's not its objective.

Detractors, on the other hand, must do that very thing if they are to be taken seriously.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you're not about trying to publicly discredit the Church of Jesus Christ, then good for you.

But thou "doth protest too much, methinks."

I'm not protesting anything other than the mistaken notion that I or anyone else thinks the church can be "proven" to be false, That's absurd.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not protesting anything other than the mistaken notion that I or anyone else thinks the church can be "proven" to be false, That's absurd.

No more absurd than to assert or imply that the Church is false unless it can physically prove the divine teachings that it professes.

Again, the position of the Church is to "come and see." Go to God in prayer and seek a confirmation. There is no claim that what the Church teaches can be physically proven.

But to substantiate their claim that the Church is false, the detractors must do so with physical evidence. That is all they have available to them. And since they can't prove the Church false in that way, they are doomed to failure.

 

 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No more absurd than to assert or imply that the Church is false unless it can physically prove the divine teachings that it professes.

Again, the position of the Church is to "come and see." Go to God in prayer and seek a confirmation. There is no claim that what the Church teaches can be physically proven.

But to substantiate their claim that the Church is false, the detractors must do so with physical evidence. That is all they have available to them. And since they can't prove the Church false in that way, they are doomed to failure.

Again, I don't know anyone who has asserted or implied "that the Church is false unless it can physically prove the divine teachings that it professes." Given that you say that I in particular am protesting too much, I can only assume you think that's what I believe, but evil anti-Mormon though I am, I have never once said anything like that. I've consistently said it's impossible to prove or disprove the claims of the church. In fact, I don't think I've ever said, even in passing, that "the church is false." I don't find the church's claims plausible, and as I said, I had clear answers to prayer, but I readily acknowledge that my conclusions may be wrong. If they are, I imagine I'll figure it out.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I don't know anyone who has asserted or implied "that the Church is false unless it can physically prove the divine teachings that it professes."

Then why demand physical proof of the Church's truth claims, especially when the Church itself professes that the truthfulness can only be ascertained through spiritual means?

 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then why demand physical proof of the Church's truth claims, especially when the Church itself professes that the truthfulness can only be ascertained through spiritual means?

Have I ever demanded physical proof of the church's truth claims? I don't recall ever doing any such thing, but that you think I have is pretty illuminating. Methinks thou perceivest my position to be much more rigid and unreasonable than it is.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This has already been addressed in this thread.

There is a difference between addressing the contradiction and answering it.

It remains a contradiction.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

But thou "doth protest too much, methinks."

 

Hey, Scott, I used that line on you two weeks ago.

Get your own material, man! 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

There is a difference between addressing the contradiction and answering it.

It remains a contradiction.

Well, let's do a copy and paste of the link from FairMormon and let readers come to their own conclusion:

 

Quote

 

Question: Did Joseph Smith decide that all churches were wrong before he received the First Vision?

Criticisms of Joseph's 1832 account compared to his 1835 account of the First Vision

In his 1832 history, Joseph Smith said:

I found [by searching the scriptures] that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.

But in 1835 he said, “I knew not who [of the denominations] was right or who was wrong.”

• It this a contradiction and is this evidence that the First Vision story evolved over time?
• One critic of the Church states, "In the 1832 account, Joseph said that before praying he knew that there was no true or living faith or denomination upon the earth as built by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. His primary purpose in going to prayer was to seek forgiveness of his sins. . . .In the official 1838 account, Joseph said his “object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join”…”(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)”"

If you had come to the conclusion that mankind has apostatized from the true faith, and you suddenly found Jesus standing in front of you, wouldn't you ask Him if any of those churches was the correct one?

If you had come to the conclusion that mankind has apostatized from the true faith, and you suddenly found Jesus standing in front of you, wouldn't you ask Him if any of those churches was the correct one? Or would you simply tell Him, "never mind, I already figured it out for myself?"

Besides, where is the inconsistency? How many churches did Joseph have immediate knowledge of? Three or four? Joseph determined that the churches with which he had direct experience did not adhere to the scriptures and that therefore mankind "had apostatized from the true and living faith." During his vision, he then asked the Lord which church was right, because it had not occurred to him that the Lord's church didn't exist anywhere on the face of the earth. It had never entered into his heart that all churches were wrong.

 

And further:

 

Quote

 

Question: How could Joseph Smith come to the conclusion that all churches were wrong on his own?

Joseph was in doubt as to what his duty was regarding joining a church

The answer to this apparent contradiction lies in a detailed examination of relevant texts. It is important to first compare Joseph Smith’s November 1832 text (which is in his own handwriting) with a newspaper article printed earlier that same year which refers to the Prophet’s inaugural religious experiences.

1832 (February): “not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing to the numerous divisions among them, and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse [to] prayer” (Fredonia Censor).

1832 (November): “my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations . . . . by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament” (handwritten account by Joseph Smith).^[2]

Joseph Smith concluded that none of the denominations with which he had acquaintance was built upon the New Testament gospel

When both of these texts are taken into consideration the following storyline suggests itself: Joseph Smith had come to the conclusion, through personal scripture study, that none of the denominations WITH WHICH HE HAD AN INTIMATE ACQUAINTANCE was built upon the New Testament gospel. He prayed for guidance because he was “in doubt what his duty was.” This doubt is obliquely referred to again in Oliver Cowdery’s February 1835 Messenger and Advocate partial First Vision recital where he said that because of the religious excitement the Prophet had “determination to know for himself of the certainty and reality of pure and holy religion.”^[3]

Doubt is present again in the Prophet’s November 1835 diary entry: “I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right, in matters that involve eternal consequences.”^[4] So the conclusion this fourteen-year-old boy had reached through personal scripture study did not altogether solve his dilemma. In fact, in the May 1838 account he clarifies that because of his youth and inexperience in life he could not make an absolute decision with regard to this matter: “it was impossible for a person young as I was and so unacquainted with men and things to come to any certain conclusion who was right, and who was wrong”; “I often said to myself, what is to be done? Who of all these parties are right? Or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right which is it, and how shall I know it?”; “if any person needed wisdom from God I did, for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had would never know.”

Joseph wanted to know which of the many hundreds of denominations on earth was the correct one

Orson Pratt’s 1840 First Vision account helps to explain why the ‘Joseph-decided-every-existing-church-was-wrong’ theory cannot possibly be valid. Elder Pratt reports, “He then reflected upon the immense number of doctrines now in the world which had given rise to many hundreds of different denominations. The great question to be decided in his mind was—if any one of these denominations be the Church of Christ, which one is it?” This expansive view is reflected in the Prophet’s 1838 account. There he states, “My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right that I might know which to join. No sooner therefore did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join.”

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

consiglieri said:
 

Quote

 

Hey, Scott, I used that line on you two weeks ago.

Get your own material, man! 

 

 

That line from Shakespeare is quoted far too commonly for one person to claim it as his own.

By the way,  I took pains to quote it correctly in my post; most people don't. (And yes, I realize yours was a paraphrase without quotation marks.)

Edited May 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, let's do a copy and paste of the link from FairMormon and let readers come to their own conclusion:

 

And further:

 

 

of course there's contradiction, he's a person telling the story to different people at different times.  Such will nearly always result in some sort of contradiction.  How the explanation by FAIR works as saying it is not a contradiction is beside me, honestly. 

Quote

Joseph said that before praying he knew that there was no true or living faith or denomination upon the earth as built by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. His primary purpose in going to prayer was to seek forgiveness of his sins. . . .In the official 1838 account, Joseph said his “object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join”…”(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)”"

So he knew there was no other true or living on the earth...Yet FAIR is suggesting he only knew of a few Churches so he couldn't have meant any Church on earth. 

Quote

Besides, where is the inconsistency? How many churches did Joseph have immediate knowledge of? Three or four? Joseph determined that the churches with which he had direct experience did not adhere to the scriptures and that therefore mankind "had apostatized from the true and living faith."

eh...some might find some hope in this explanation but it's much easier to accept that of course there's going to be some contradiction.  he was human. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

of course there's contradiction, he's a person telling the story to different people at different times.  Such will nearly always result in some sort of contradiction.  How the explanation by FAIR works as saying it is not a contradiction is beside me, honestly. 

So he knew there was no other true or living on the earth...Yet FAIR is suggesting he only knew of a few Churches so he couldn't have meant any Church on earth. 

eh...some might find some hope in this explanation but it's much easier to accept that of course there's going to be some contradiction.  he was human. 

The FairMormon analysis is quite compelling -- enough so that people like consiglieri -- and you -- can not go around asserting a priori that it is a contradiction -- not asserting it honestly, that is.

You know, if this is the best you or anyone else can come up with to show that the the First Vision accounts are contradictory, it's a pretty safe conclusion that they are not contradictory.

 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, let's do a copy and paste of the link from FairMormon and let readers come to their own conclusion:

Your FAIRMormon article is disingenuous.

It compares the 1832 language with the 1835 language, which is equivocal.

But for some reason, it completely ignores the 1838 version which contains the undeniable contradiction with the 1832 version.

Here is the language from the 1838 version.  It is in the Pearl of Great Price.  It is surprising it escaped the attention of FAIRMormon.

Quote

 18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

This type of deception does no credit to FAIRMormon.

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Your FAIRMormon article is disingenuous.

It compares the 1832 language with the 1835 language, which is equivocal.

But for some reason, it completely ignores the 1838 version which contains the undeniable contradiction with the 1832 version.Here is the language from the 1838 version.  It is in the Pearl of Great Price. 

It is surprising it escaped the attention of FAIRMormon.

This type of deception does no credit to FAIRMormon.

Context, man, context.

It had never entered his heart that every single Christian sect on earth was wrong. There could be no way for him to conclude that, as he had not experienced each and every one of them.

And the FairMormon article did indeed cite and quote the 1838 account. You need to read it more carefully.

Again, if this is the strongest thing you can come up with to claim the accounts are contradictory, that doesn't present a very compelling argument.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Here you are incorrect, Scott.

There is a contradiction.  And it is so stark and insurmountable that Elder Maynes chose not to address it in his talk, and when he got within one-hundred feet of the subject, he started to stammer.

The contradiction is this:

1838 Version--Joseph Smith went to the grove to ask which church was true because it had never entered his mind that all were wrong.

1832 Version--Joseph Smith had already concluded before he went to the grove that all churches were wrong.

 

This is a contradiction.  Plain and simple.

It is a contradiction at its base level.  Too bad Joseph is not around so we can ask for clarification.  For me I try to personalize this in how I do things.  I take positions on things that I believe to be correct or not correct but I always leave the door open, even if the opening in very small that I might be wrong.  I don't know everything or even 1/10th of everything.   So if I was in his position, I probably would have concluded from my study and visiting different churches that all the churches were wrong at least as far I as knew but I leave my heart open to the possibility that I might have missed something or the possibility that I have made a wrong conclusion.  Especially for a 14 year old, how dedicated are they really to the conclusions they make?  Joseph may have gone into the grove with some predisposition that the Churches were wrong based on what he knew  but went to pray for more clarification on the subject.  He left his heart open to the possibility that he was missing something.  It sort of pattern that God expects from us. God rarely tells people things they have not spent some time or thought on before hand.  He expects us to do some homework.  Arrive at some conclusions and then ask if such conclusions are right and instruction if we are wrong.