First vision accounts getting detailed attention in CES devotional

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

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.  

It's not a contradiction at all, considered in context. Read the FairMormon piece.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not a contradiction at all, considered in context. Read the FairMormon piece.

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that I demand proof from believers, without which the church is false. 

[consiglieri]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

I did just now see that they quoted the 1838 version as the very last sentence of the article.  I must have missed it the first time.  Could that be the point in putting it at the very end?  It is a strange placement considering the fact this is the whole point of the article.

But nonetheless, I am trying hard to understand what you are saying.

I keep coming back to the 1832 account which says that prior to going to the grove to pray:

Quote

I become convicted of my  sins and by searching the scriptures I found  that mand <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that  they had apostatised from the true and liveing  faith and there was no society or denomination  that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as  recorded in the new testament

But the 1832 account directly contradicts this in the 1838 account:

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.

In 1838, Joseph said that it had never entered his heart that they were all wrong.  I mean, that is why he was asking about which sect was right and which to join in the 1838 version, right?

But the 1832 version shows that it had definitely entered his heart that they were all wrong.  In fact, Joseph had become "convicted" by searching the scriptures that mankind "had apostatized from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament."

Spin this how you will, Scott, there is no credible argument that this does not constitute a contradiction.

 

[Jeanne]

4 hours 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, 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.

 

It might be because the church bases so many things on..feelings.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that I demand proof from believers, without which the church is false. 

I don't think I made such a claim about you.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think I made such a claim about you.

You asked why I demanded proof of the church's claims and said the church's claims are false without that proof.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think I made such a claim about you.

Geesh, you said it in direct response to one of his posts that you quoted before responding as follows:

I think it's pretty understandable why he might think you were aiming your question directly at him.

[jkwilliams]

3 hours 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.

Refreshing your memory. 

[jkwilliams]

3 hours 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?

In case you missed this. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 5/25/2016 at 4:59 PM, consiglieri said:

I did just now see that they quoted the 1838 version as the very last sentence of the article.  I must have missed it the first time.  Could that be the point in putting it at the very end?  It is a strange placement considering the fact this is the whole point of the article.

 

It's cited elsewhere as well, under the first subheading and again in the last paragraph of the penultimate subheading.

Did you actually read it, or did you only glance at it?

You are wasting my time.

Come back when you can demonstrate you have actually read and duly considered the FairMormon article.

I won't hold my breath.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It might be because the church bases so many things on..feelings.

You mean like the disciples who were on the road to Emmaeus and met the risen Christ but did not recognize Him until after He had left them?

Quote

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

(Luke 24:32)

The Church does emphasize the need to seek, receive and learn to recognize personal divine revelation among other gifts of the Spirit.

If that bothers you, well, I don't know what to tell you. To me it is one of the most beautiful things about the gospel.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Geesh, you said it in direct response to one of his posts that you quoted before responding as follows:

I think it's pretty understandable why he might think you were aiming your question directly at him.

I was speaking generally. jkwilliams tends to personalize things whether or not it is warranted.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was speaking generally. jkwilliams tends to personalize things whether or not it is warranted.

Holy.Crap.  You can't even admit that the way that exchange took place could even make John's interpretation of what you were saying to be possible?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was speaking generally. jkwilliams tends to personalize things whether or not it is warranted.

I tend to see direct responses to be directed at me. Most people do. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Holy.Crap.  You can't even admit that the way that exchange took place could even make John's interpretation of what you were saying to be possible?

I'm the world's foremost authority on what I mean when I say something.

I think you have a chip on your shoulder ttribe. I won't continue conversation with you when you are like this.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I tend to see direct responses to be directed at me. Most people do. 

I've already clarified my meaning. I really don't know what else to say.

 

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You mean like the disciples who were on the road to Emmaeus and met the risen Christ but did not recognize Him until after He had left them?

(Luke 24:32)

The Church does emphasize the need to seek, receive and learn to recognize personal divine revelation among other gifts of the Spirit.

If that bothers you, well, I don't know what to tell you. To me it is one of the most beautiful things about the gospel.

It is beautiful.  But you don't have to be a member to have personal divine revelation.

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've already clarified my meaning. I really don't know what else to say.

You could have declined to attribute my reasonable interpretation to my propensity to personalize everything. But I'm not going to take it personally. 

Edited May 25, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is beautiful.  But you don't have to be a member to have personal divine revelation.

Oh, I agree.

You do have to have to be baptized and confirmed, however, to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit to the extent one is worthy of it.

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm the world's foremost authority on what I mean when I say something.

I think you have a chip on your shoulder ttribe. I won't continue conversation with you when you are like this.

Oh, boy.  What "chip" would that be? 

BTW, it's interesting that you imply I'm engaging in mind reading (which I'm not; you'll note I've said nothing at all about your intent), and yet you engage in your own mind reading exercise about the alleged "chip" I am carrying around.

Really, Scott, I don't see why it's so hard to acknowledge that it was possible to interpret your post the way John did, but still say that it wasn't your intent.  I don't see how you lose anything with such an admission and yet you would gain some amount of goodwill for being reasonable.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, boy.  What "chip" would that be? 

BTW, it's interesting that you imply I'm engaging in mind reading (which I'm not; you'll note I've said nothing at all about your intent), and yet you engage in your own mind reading exercise about the alleged "chip" I am carrying around.

Really, Scott, I don't see why it's so hard to acknowledge that it was possible to interpret your post the way John did, but still say that it wasn't your intent.  I don't see how you lose anything with such an admission and yet you would gain some amount of goodwill for being reasonable.

I think I've been quite reasonable.

And this conversation has reached its conclusion.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I've been quite reasonable.

And this conversation has reached its conclusion.

 

Edited May 26, 2016 by ttribe

[jkwilliams]

25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

Why do I feel both slammed and guilty at the same time? 😀

Edited May 26, 2016 by jkwilliams

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I've been quite reasonable.

And this conversation has reached its conclusion.

If Scott ever admits an error or offers an apology it may be a sign of the apocalypse. Fortunately, he's still capable of directing when the conversation should end, which ironically coincides with a need for him to admit an error or apologize.

Note to self- It's okay to apologize and it's ok to admit mistakes. We all do it

Edited May 26, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

I'm being honest, Scott.  The '32 account says he had learned before the prayer that there was "no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament".  I get that FAIRMormon responded by saying,

Quote

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."

Which is really just changing what Joseph said to make it appear there is no contradiction.  No Joseph did not say he learned the churches or denominations he knew about were in apostasy.  he claimed there were none at all.  Yes the FAIRMormon piece also suggests that the '32 account mentioned "my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations"

The problem remains though, that this phrase is followed by... when you read the fill in it does not suggest as FAIRMormon contends. 

Quote

led me to  marvel excedingly for I discovered that <they did not adorn> instead of  adorning their profession by a holy walk and God ly conversation agreeable to what I found contain ed in that sacred depository this was a grief to  my Soul thus from the age of twelve years  to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart  concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind  the contentions and divi[si]ons the wicke[d]ness and  abominations and the darkness which pervaded  the of the minds of mankind my mind become  excedingly distressed for I become convicted of my  sins and by searching the scriptures I found  that mand <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that  they had apostatised from the true and liveing  faith and there was no society or denomination

So here it shows that Joseph had already concluded his own intimate acquaintance with those different denominations did not match up to what he found in that sacred depository.  Then he continues on to outline that all of mankind had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination. 

This really is no big deal.  We should expect some amount of contradiction along these lines, in my view.  But to pretend there's no contradiction when it's staring one in the face trying to explaining it away by assuming something else was meant than what was recorded..well that's just desperate silliness, if you ask me.