First vision accounts getting detailed attention in CES devotional

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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,

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. 

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. 

It seems to me there are contradictions in the accounts. What matters is that some people find those contradictions important, and others don't. I don't see the point in pretending they aren't there.

[jkwilliams]

30 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

Apologies are overrated.

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's cited elsewhere as well, under the first subheading and 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.

I accept your surrender.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

We've yet to see some kind of apology from you for your habit of periodically repeating arguments that have already been answered or rebutted, this without any acknowledgment or cognizance-taking of the rebuttals that have been made.

But in truth, I don't care so much about an apology; I would be content with a mending of your ways.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

It seems to me there are contradictions in the accounts. What matters is that some people find those contradictions important, and others don't. I don't see the point in pretending they aren't there.

I don't think it's a matter of pretending so much as it is a matter of reading for comprehension.

Ask yourself: How could an uneducated farm boy in a rural area of upstate New York in the early 1800s possibly have concluded from his own investigation that each and every Christian denomination on the face of the earth had apostatized from the true gospel? To borrow a line from Eliza R. Snow, the thought makes reason stare.

So what is a reasonable interpretation, then, of what he did say? That all of the Christian denominations with which he was then acquainted had departed from the truth. Understood in that light, it makes sense for him to then say subsequently that it had never entered his heart that all of the Christian sects on earth were wrong until he learned it directly from the glorified Jesus Christ.

And I agree with you that the dispute is not really very important in the general scheme of things.

As I've repeatedly said, if this is the strongest thing the detractors can come up with to demonstrate contradictions in the First Vision accounts, I can comfortably and happily say that they don't have anything of any great substance to make their case.

 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think it's a matter of pretending so much as it is a matter of reading for comprehension.

Ask yourself: How could an uneducated farm boy in a rural area of upstate New York in the early 1800s possibly have concluded from his own investigation that each and every Christian denomination on the face of the earth had apostatized from the true gospel? To borrow a line from Eliza R. Snow, the thought makes reason stare.

So what is a reasonable interpretation, then, of what he did say? That all of the Christian denominations with which he was then acquainted had departed from the truth. Understood in that light, it makes sense for him to then say subsequently that it had never entered his heart that all of the Christian sects on earth were wrong until he learned it directly from the glorified Jesus Christ.

And I agree with you that the dispute is not really very important in the general scheme of things.

As I've repeatedly said, if this is the strongest thing the detractors can come up with to demonstrate contradictions in the First Vision accounts, I can comfortably and happily say that they don't have anything of any great substance to make their case.

 

That you have an explanation for the contradiction doesn't mean it wasn't there. I think we can agree that this contradiction is not significant to you but is to others, even some who aren't detractors. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That you have an explanation for the contradiction doesn't mean it wasn't there. I think we can agree that this contradiction is not significant to you but is to others, even some who aren't detractors. 

The most damning thing that can be said is that Joseph misspoke or spoke imprecisely on one occasion. Since doing such a thing is a human characteristic, and since his likely true meaning can be easily ascertained with a moment of logical consideration, is it reasonable to say this is a matter of significance?

Edited May 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

The most damning thing that can be said is that Joseph misspoke or spoke imprecisely on one occasion. Since doing such a thing is human characteristic, and since his likely true meaning can be easily ascertained with a moment of logical consideration, is it reasonable to say this is a matter of significance?

I get it. I'm just saying that this is a matter of significance to intelligent people who don't have it in for the church, whether you think it's reasonable or not. I think the contradiction is obvious, even though it is not something I care much about. 

[bdouglas]

When I was a student at BYU I read Backman’s The First Vision. This was before the internet and before most church members knew there was more than one account. I read the different accounts JS gave at different times, and it never occurred to me there might be a problem with these accounts. It just simply never entered my head.

 

But I might’ve had a problem if he’d told one story early on, then repeated this same story by rote over and over again through the years.

 

“Truth is stranger than fiction but not so orderly.”

 

What is the first sign of a made-up alibi or a made up story? It is too “orderly” — too orderly, in fact, to be true. 

 

Or, as the Sherlock Holmes character in the TV series “Elementary” says: "When a suspect tells one story, and one story only, and never changes this story one iota — well, that is a sure sign of a made up alibi.” (Approximate quote.)

Edited May 26, 2016 by bdouglas

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I get it. I'm just saying that this is a matter of significance to intelligent people who don't have it in for the church, whether you think it's reasonable or not. I think the contradiction is obvious, even though it is not something I care much about. 

One is entitled to judge whether it's reasonable to consider it significant, despite how "intelligent" some might be who hold that opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

When I was a student at BYU I read Backman’s The First Vision. This was before the internet and before most church members knew there was more than one account. I read the different accounts JS gave at different times, and it never occurred to me there might be a problem with these accounts. It just simply never entered my head.

 

But I might’ve had a problem if he’d told one story early on, then repeated this same story by rote over and over again through the years.

 

“Truth is stranger than fiction but not so orderly.”

 

What is the first sign of a made-up alibi or a made up story? It is too “orderly” — too orderly, in fact, to be true. 

 

Or, as the Sherlock Holmes character in the TV series “Elementary” says: "When a suspect tells one story, and one story only, and never changes this story one iota — well, that is a sure sign of a made up alibi.” (Approximate quote.)

I like that quote from Holmes. I wish you could provide a cite or a link.

[bdouglas]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I like that quote from Holmes. I wish you could provide a cite or a link.

I like it too. It jumped out at me when I heard it. I'll have to go back and find the episode and copy it verbatim.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

One is entitled to judge whether it's reasonable to consider it significant, despite how "intelligent" some might be who hold that opinion.

Of course. At least you're acknowledging that there is a contradiction. Progress. 

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

When I was a student at BYU I read Backman’s The First Vision. This was before the internet and before most church members knew there was more than one account. I read the different accounts JS gave at different times, and it never occurred to me there might be a problem with these accounts. It just simply never entered my head.

 

But I might’ve had a problem if he’d told one story early on, then repeated this same story by rote over and over again through the years.

 

“Truth is stranger than fiction but not so orderly.”

 

What is the first sign of a made-up alibi or a made up story? It is too “orderly” — too orderly, in fact, to be true. 

 

Or, as the Sherlock Holmes character in the TV series “Elementary” says: "When a suspect tells one story, and one story only, and never changes this story one iota — well, that is a sure sign of a made up alibi.” (Approximate quote.)

But we are talking about a vision of heavenly beings..how and why do you change  that let alone the very reason you went to the grove in the first place?  When you are basing a restoration and sustaining a prophet, this story should never change. 

Edited May 27, 2016 by Jeanne

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

But we are talking about a vision of heavenly beings..how and why do you change  that let alone the very reason you went to the grove in the first place? 

Of course you'd say that. You're a detractor! 😀

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course you'd say that. You're a detractor! 😀

Of course I am!!  But my son who is in his 30's now can remember big events that happened in his teens..he doesn't have to change his story. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Of course. At least you're acknowledging that there is a contradiction. Progress. 

Expressing oneself with precision can be an elusive goal. I make a studied effort at it, but even I fail from time to time. It can be more difficult for those who are not trained or experienced at it.

For the communication process to succeed there is some responsibility on the part of the receiver to listen or read with understanding to compensate for whatever deficiency there might be in the message. This might include, for example, not insisting on seeing a contradiction where it is fairly obvious that no contradiction was intended.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Of course I am!!  But my son who is in his 30's now can remember big events that happened in his teens..he doesn't have to change his story. 

Well, only unreasonable detractors think the contradictions are significant. 

Seriously, I understand arguing the contradictions aren't significant, but why refuse to even acknowledge they exist? There's no shame in conceding a point  

 

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Expressing oneself with precision can be an elusive goal. I make a studied effort at it, but even I fail from time to time. It can be more difficult for those who are not trained or experienced at it.

For the communication process to succeed there is some responsibility on the part of the receiver to listen or read with understanding to compensate for whatever deficiency there might be in the message. This might include, for example, not insisting on seeing a contradiction where it is fairly obvious that no contradiction was intended.

How do you know what was intended? I certainly have no insight into Joseph Smith's thought processes. 

Edited May 27, 2016 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

How do you know what was intended? I certainly have no insight into what Joseph Smith's thought processes. 

I said I thought it was fairly obvious. I explained my reasoning: That an unlearned farm boy of 14 in a rural area could not be expected to conclude from his own investigation that every Christian denomination on earth had departed from the truth. Therefore, it is reasonable to think what the intended meaning must have been instead, especially when the record shows elsewhere that it had not entered into his heart that all Christian denominations on earth had lost their way.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, only unreasonable detractors think the contradictions are significant. 

Seriously, I understand arguing the contradictions aren't significant, but why refuse to even acknowledge they exist? There's no shame in conceding a point  

 

How about allowing that an apparent contradiction may not have been (or likely wasn't) intended?

As you say, there is no shame in conceding a point.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I said I thought it was fairly obvious. I explained my reasoning: That an unlearned farm boy of 14 in a rural area could not be expected to conclude from his own investigation that every Christian denomination on earth had departed from the truth. Therefore, it is reasonable to think what the intended meaning must have been instead, especially when the record shows elsewhere that it had not entered into his heart that all Christian denominations on earth had lost their way.

Sure, that's one way of looking at it, but there are other reasonable ways to see it. I just don't know why someone wouldn't even acknowledge a contradiction, especially when they think its insignificant. 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Of course I am!!  But my son who is in his 30's now can remember big events that happened in his teens..he doesn't have to change his story. 

Might there be some aspects of certain "big events" that he would feel comfortable sharing in certain settings that he might not in others?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Sure, that's one way of looking at it, but there are other reasonable ways to see it. I just don't know why someone wouldn't even acknowledge a contradiction, especially when they think its insignificant. 

If it's obvious what the intended meaning was -- or if it's a matter of ambiguity in the phrasing that is selected -- then it's really not a contradiction.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

If it's obvious what the intended meaning was -- or if it's a matter of ambiguity in the phrasing that is selected -- then it's really not a contradiction.

Again, that reasonable people disagree as to the meaning indicates to me that it's probably not obvious.