First vision accounts getting detailed attention in CES devotional

[bdouglas]

41 minutes 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?  When you are basing a restoration and sustaining a prophet, this story should never change. 

And the story would never change — if you were a con artist bent on deceiving people.

But if you read each account in its context, keeping in mind or trying to imagine what such an experience would be like, seeing God and Christ, being transfigured so as to endure the presence of such glorious beings, and then afterwards being knocked flat on your back and unable to move for some time (or as Joseph said about what he felt like afterwards, "Uncommon weak"); in short taking all things into account, and also reading history and the accounts of other people who have witnessed marvelous things and having the experience of trying to line up these various accounts . . . .

Doing all of this helps. It also helps taking into account Joseph's entire life and what he did, the BOM, PofGP, the D & C, everything he said and everything he did.

It would all make lousy fiction: way too disorderly. But real truth, or real historical truth, is never orderly.

 

 

Edited May 27, 2016 by bdouglas

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

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

"That reasonable people disagree as to the meaning" indicates that it's not a slam dunk that it is indeed a contradiction.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bdouglas said:

And the story would never change — if you were a con artist bent on deceiving people.

But if you read each account in its context, keeping in mind or trying to imagine what such an experience would be like, seeing God and Christ, being transfigured so as to endure the presence of such glorious beings, and then afterwards being knocked flat on your back and unable to move for some time (or as Joseph said about what he felt like afterwards, "Uncommon weak"); in short taking all things into account, and also reading history and the accounts of other people who have witnessed marvelous things and having the experience of trying to line up these various accounts . . . .

Doing all of this helps. It also helps taking into account Joseph's entire life and what he did, the BOM, PofGP, the D & C, everything he said and everything he did.

It would all make lousy fiction: way too disorderly. But real truth is never orderly.

 

 

I wonder what ttribe thinks about the changes in the story. He deals with con artists for a living. The rest of us are just amateurs. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"That reasonable people disagree as to the meaning" indicates that it's not a slam dunk that it is indeed a contradiction.

Who said it was a slam dunk? You suggested that it was obvious there is no contradiction and that only unreasonable detractors think otherwise. Sounds like you accept that it's not obvious either way. 

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Unless he is going to tell the truth..he wouldn't share.

[bdouglas]

51 minutes 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?  When you are basing a restoration and sustaining a prophet, this story should never change. 

If Joseph Smith had had this glorious vision, and then told about it, but then not done anything afterwards — in other words if we did not have the corpus of scripture he produced, the cities he built (i.e. Zion), the King Follet sermon, etc. — if none of this had happened then I don't think we would be talking about this vision today. But as it is, it helps explain what came after.

What kind of a man do you have to be to have God and Christ appear to you and speak to you? I think you have to be an extraordinary person. Not a genius. Genuises are a dime a dozen. Joseph Smith was much more than a genius. He was the kind of man who comes along once every couple of thousand years — if even that often.

For me, this helps explain the First Vision, and what it was for. Almost 200 years of hindsight helps. But Joseph Smith did not have this hindsight. As the British convert Henry King said, it took Joseph till 1838 to know himself what his 1820 vision meant.

Edited May 27, 2016 by bdouglas

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Unless he is going to tell the truth..he wouldn't share.

So are you saying, then, that it's lying not to share each and every fact?

Aren't there very sensitive things about your personal or family affairs that you don't want everyone knowing -- or at least not knowing right away? I daresay there are with most people. Does being guarded about what to share and what not to share make one dishonest?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Who said it was a slam dunk? You suggested that it was obvious there is no contradiction and that only unreasonable detractors think otherwise. Sounds like you accept that it's not obvious either way. 

Now you're misquoting me wholesale. I quickly lose interest in the conversation when that happens.

You've been pretty good up to now. But you're starting to get desperate. Probably a good time to end.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Now you're misquoting me wholesale. I quickly lose interest in the conversation when that happens.

You've been pretty good up to now. But you're starting to get desperate. Probably a good time to end.

If you don't want to stand by your statements, maybe you're right that we've reached an end. 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So are you saying, then, that it's lying not to share each and every fact?

Aren't there very sensitive things about your personal or family affairs that you don't want everyone knowing -- or at least not knowing right away? I daresay there are with most people. Does being guarded about what to share and what not to share make one dishonest?

Of course there are sensitive things in my family that we  do not share with everyone.  But if we do, it is the full story with trust in those to whom we are sharing with.  Being guarded is not being dishonest but if you are not going to share the full story, leave it alone.  It is not a matter of just omitting something or leaving something out.  Joseph changed key things.  It didn't just leave something out, he changed the story.  I know what you are saying here and I have heard it before.  We will just have to agree to disagree on this I guess.

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

If Joseph Smith had had this glorious vision, and then told about it, but then not done anything afterwards — in other words if we did not have the corpus of scripture he produced, the cities he built (i.e. Zion), the King Follet sermon, etc. — if none of this had happened then I don't think we would be talking about this vision today. But as it is, it helps explain what came after.

What kind of a man do you have to be to have God and Christ appear to you and speak to you? I think you have to be an extraordinary person. Not a genius. Genuises are a dime a dozen. Joseph h was much more than a genius. He was the kind of man who comes along once every couple of thousand years — if even that often.

For me, this helps explain the First Vision, and what it was for. Almost 200 years of hindsight helps. But Joseph Smith did not have this hindsight. As the British convert Henry King said, it took Joseph till 1838 to know himself what his 1820 vision meant.

I appreciate your thoughts and the time and effort you put into your response.  I respect your opinion.

[bdouglas]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

I appreciate your thoughts and the time and effort you put into your response.  I respect your opinion.

Same here. Thanks for your response.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Of course there are sensitive things in my family that we  do not share with everyone.  But if we do, it is the full story with trust in those to whom we are sharing with.  Being guarded is not being dishonest but if you are not going to share the full story, leave it alone.  It is not a matter of just omitting something or leaving something out.  Joseph changed key things.  It didn't just leave something out, he changed the story.  I know what you are saying here and I have heard it before.  We will just have to agree to disagree on this I guess.

I disagree that leaving out certain details necessarily amounts to changing the story.

And I don't agree that's what Joseph did.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Of course there are sensitive things in my family that we  do not share with everyone.  But if we do, it is the full story with trust in those to whom we are sharing with.  Being guarded is not being dishonest but if you are not going to share the full story, leave it alone.  It is not a matter of just omitting something or leaving something out.  Joseph changed key things.  It didn't just leave something out, he changed the story.  I know what you are saying here and I have heard it before.  We will just have to agree to disagree on this I guess.

I don't understand dying on this hill. The story changed in significant ways, both in the reasons for the prayer but also the nature, contents, and participants in the vision. I have no problem with saying the contradictions are insignificant or can be explained, but I will never understand those who can't concede even the smallest point. Nothing in life is that cut and dried. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If you don't want to stand by your statements, maybe you're right that we've reached an end. 

I've stood by and do now stand by my statements.

I don't stand by distortions of them.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I stood by and do now stand by my statements.

I'm just misinterpreting. Got it. 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't understand dying on this hill. The story changed in significant ways, both in the reasons for the prayer but also the nature, contents, and participants in the vision. I have no problem with saying the contradictions are insignificant or can be explained, but I will never understand those who can't concede even the smallest point. Nothing in life is that cut and dried.

I agree and I give up on this.  When it comes to truth..there is no in between.  It is what it is.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

I agree and I give up on this.  When it comes to truth..there is no in between.  It is what it is.

I'm out too. This issue isn't a big deal to me. I just don't understand why some people can't acknowledge that reasonable, intelligent people who aren't detractors can conclude that there are contradictions in the versions of the story. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't understand dying on this hill. The story changed in significant ways, both in the reasons for the prayer but also the nature, contents, and participants in the vision. I have no problem with saying the contradictions are insignificant or can be explained, but I will never understand those who can't concede even the smallest point. Nothing in life is that cut and dried. 

How did it change in the reasons for the prayer?

The 1832 account quoted in the FairMormon article indicated Joseph was concerned both about receiving forgiveness for his own sins and about not being able to find a society or church that adhered to the New Testament gospel.

How did it change in the "nature, contents and participants" other than some details being present in some accounts but not in others?

You speak of "contradictions" in the plural. What contradictions are there other than what has been under discussion here, about whether or not Joseph could have concluded on his own at age 14 that all the churches on the earth were wrong?

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How did it change in the reasons for the prayer?

The 1832 account quoted in the FairMormon article indicated Joseph was concerned both about receiving forgiveness for his own sins and about not being able to find a society or church that adhered to the New Testament gospel.

How did it change in the "nature, contents and participants" other than some details being present in some accounts but not in others?

You speak of "contradictions" in the plural. What contradictions are there other than what has been under discussion here, about whether or not Joseph could have concluded on his own at age 14 that all the churches on the earth were wrong?

I think some would argue, for example, that who visited (God, or the Father and the Son, or lots of angels) differs materially among the accounts. 

I understand why you don't think these are significant contradictions, but it doesn't hurt your position to concede that others do, and not because they are detractors.