Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But that Lucy's account is "clearly wrong" is just your opinion. .

If her account doesn't match up with the one and only source of the event then it is wrong.
That's not opinion.  If nobody saw you put your underwear on this morning, and I said you were wearing yellow boxers but you say you are wearing blue briefs, you are the ONLY reliable source for that information and I am "clearly wrong".

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Or those members trust admonitions like this one.

Quote

It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text. Members are encouraged to turn to the scriptures that have been suggested for further study of the doctrine.

 


You are probably right.  I think it all comes down to those who hunger and thirst versus those who wait to be spoon fed.
Very thankful my parents were the former.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If my parents in England in the early 1980s could get their hands on any LDS books they wanted (approved or not approved) then I don't see why anyone else in the Western USA has an excuse.
I grew up with our living room bookshelf containing a full set of the Journal of Discourses, a full set of History of the Church, books by/about all the early Church prophets and apostles, and more.  Most of these my parents scrimped and saved to afford and had to have shipped over from the US.

You should count your lucky stars.  The LDS church is a worldwide church which has members far outside of Utah.  My church experience was very different than yours.  

However, I grant that many others did grow up in Utah and were allowed to to read Sunstone.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

You should count your lucky stars.  The LDS church is a worldwide church which has members far outside of Utah.  My church experience was very different than yours.

However, I grant that many others did grow up in Utah and were allowed to to read Sunstone.

Oh believe me I do.
No surprises for me in the essays and plenty of previous study on Church history prior to their publication.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If her account doesn't match up with the one and only source of the event then it is wrong.
That's not opinion. 

"The "one and only source" meaning Joseph?  Well, even his accounts aren't the same, so I'm not sure what you're referring to here.  We don't have just "one and only" version.

And, are you saying that Lucy's account of the angel appearing to Joseph in his room is "wrong"?  The first vision account is absent in her history, so how can it be "wrong" if it doesn't even exist?

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If her account doesn't match up with the one and only source of the event then it is wrong.
That's not opinion.  If nobody saw you put your underwear on this morning, and I said you were wearing yellow boxers but you say you are wearing blue briefs, you are the ONLY reliable source for that information and I am "clearly wrong".

Whatever else it means, I think it shows that the first vision was not very important to Latter-day Saints in the 19th century. People didn't seem to know much about it. It grew to be more important, theologically, after the abandonment of Adam/God doctrine. As I understand it, the first vision was used as an argument against the notion that Adam was God. But, I'm going off of fuzzy recollections here.

Link to comment
Just now, ALarson said:

"The "one and only source" meaning Joseph?  Well, even his accounts aren't the same, so I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

And, are you saying that Lucy's account of the angel appearing to Joseph in his room is "wrong"?  The first vision account is absent in her history, so how can it be "wrong" if it doesn't even exist?

Well, let's start with the most basic piece of information - the location where Joseph was told all Churches were wrong/not true.

From your own post she said:

  • Joseph who never said many words upon any subject  but always seemed to reflect more deeply than common persons of his age upon everything of a religious  nature This After we ceased conversation he went to  bed <and was pondering in his mind which of the churches were the true one.> an but he had not laid there long till <he saw> a bright  <light> entered the room where he lay he looked up and  saw an angel of the Lord stood <standing> by him The angel spoke  I perceive that you are enquiring in your mind which is  the true church there is not a true church on Earth No  not one Nor <and> has not been since Peter took the Keys <of the Melchesidec priesthood after the order of God> into the  Kingdom of Heaven the churches that are now upon the Earth are all man made churches.


Stating that the message that we call the First Vision came to Joseph's bedroom when in EVERY account attributed to Joseph where he gives a location he makes no mention of his bedroom but of a grove is clearly "wrong".

But the visitation of Moroni WAS to his bedroom.
So who are we to believe on the location of this vision?  Joseph who experienced it and in 5/6 records specifies a grove/woods/wilderness where this message was received, or a 68 year old woman who thought the message about no true Church was given in his bedroom by an angel?


first-vision-chart.png

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

 

I do think that trying to state that Lucy's memory was faulty is not accurate though.

I have not studied Lucy's account, so it may have been verified by other sources for accuracy, but I would caution to not assume it is right on details unless there are others who confirm it as many details, including what appear to be precise ones, and otherwise being "sharp as a tack" does not guarantee that the menories are accurate.  I have seen this in many elderly people, their stories change and yet become more detailed in some areas and lacking in others as they grow older and get confused (in our view, not theirs) about the past, even when quite with it in the present.  Not all are affected significantly; also, it may not be noticeable unless you are around them alot and knew some of the details before. (I am oversensitive when it comes to seniors right now, dealing with my mom).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, let's start with the most basic piece of information - the location where Joseph was told all Churches were wrong/not true.

From your own post she said:

  • Joseph who never said many words upon any subject  but always seemed to reflect more deeply than common persons of his age upon everything of a religious  nature This After we ceased conversation he went to  bed <and was pondering in his mind which of the churches were the true one.> an but he had not laid there long till <he saw> a bright  <light> entered the room where he lay he looked up and  saw an angel of the Lord stood <standing> by him The angel spoke  I perceive that you are enquiring in your mind which is  the true church there is not a true church on Earth No  not one Nor <and> has not been since Peter took the Keys <of the Melchesidec priesthood after the order of God> into the  Kingdom of Heaven the churches that are now upon the Earth are all man made churches.


Stating that the message that we call the First Vision came to Joseph's bedroom when in EVERY account attributed to Joseph where he gives a location he makes no mention of his bedroom but of a grove is clearly "wrong".
 

First of all, what you quoted above, were Lucy's words ("Joseph who never said many words...."), not anything that I stated.

And next, I never did call what she related above, "the First Vision".  I stated that there was no mention of the first vision in Lucy's 1st edition of Joseph's history (where he entered the sacred grove, prayed and where God and Jesus appeared to him).   And, that is true.

So you're again making assumptions that you shouldn't be making here and accusing me of stating things I have not stated.  

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have not studied Lucy's account, so it may have been verified by other sources for accuracy, but I would caution to not assume it is right on details unless there are others who confirm it as many details, including what appear to be precise ones, and otherwise being "sharp as a tack" does not guarantee that the menories are accurate.  I have seen this in many elderly people, their stories change and yet become more detailed in some areas and lacking in others as they grow older and get confused (in our view, not theirs) about the past, even when quite with it in the present.  Not all are affected significantly; also, it may not be noticeable unless you are around them alot and knew some of the details before. (I am oversensitive when it comes to seniors right now, dealing with my mom).

She stated that she had related this vision or experience many times during Joseph's lifetime. (She also stated that she had repeated the details many times to people in order "to gratify their curiosity indeed have almost destroyed my lungs giving these recitals to those who felt anxious to hear them I have now concluded to write down every particular as far as possible". ) I'd imagine Joseph would have corrected her if it was a faulty memory or not accurate (and she dictated this history right after Joseph's death).  I fail to see where her version of the Angel Moroni appearing to Joseph in his bedroom is "wrong" as JLHPROF continues to state.  Read what she wrote and I think she was remembering the visit in Joseph's bedroom.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

First of all, what you quoted above, were Lucy's words ("Joseph who never said many words...."), not anything that I stated.

And next, I never did call what she related above, "the First Vision".  I stated that there was no mention of the first vision in Lucy's 1st edition of Joseph's history (where he entered the sacred grove, prayed and where God and Jesus appeared to him).

So you're again making assumptions that you shouldn't be making here.

I disagree.  I wasn't assuming anything on your part.
I am showing that Lucy's record is as Brigham stated full of errors.
She says Joseph learned all other Churches were false from a vision in his bedroom.
Joseph specified in almost every account connected to him that he learned this in the grove.

Joseph was the only one there.  Lucy's account is wrong.  No bearing on you but a clear evaluation of the reliability of her record and Brigham's correct assessment.

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:


You are probably right.  I think it all comes down to those who hunger and thirst versus those who wait to be spoon fed.
Very thankful my parents were the former.

I think that spoon fed is a condescending description for those whose trusted their leaders and the curriculum.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I disagree.  I wasn't assuming anything on your part.
I am showing that Lucy's record is as Brigham stated full of errors.

We do not even know if this is what Brigham was referring to when he stated there were errors in her book (unless he made more specific statements that I'm not aware of).  Again, you're making assumptions.  

Link to comment
Just now, Thinking said:

I think that spoon fed is a condescending description for those whose trusted their leaders and the curriculum.

Yeah, I just roll my eyes when I read that apologetic slur on members.  It's pretty meaningless and insulting.

Link to comment
Just now, Thinking said:

I think that spoon fed is a condescending description for those whose trusted their leaders and the curriculum.

Perhaps.  It may well be condescending.  I have many family members who refuse to study anything outside the manuals, or even discuss as we do on this board.

In the end we are responsible for our own progression.  Nobody is getting into the Celestial Kingdom on the prophet's coattails.
And Joseph Smith was clear on the necessity of gaining knowledge of the gospel.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We do not even know if this is what Brigham was referring to when he stated there were errors in her book (unless he made more specific statements that I'm not aware of).  Again, you're making assumptions.

If her record disagrees with the first hand accounts that is no assumption.  Simple as that.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

If her record disagrees with the first hand accounts that is no assumption.  Simple as that.

No, it's certainly not simple (considering all the different versions and details given at different times).

Again, my point was that Lucy did not include the first vision account in Joseph's history that she originally wrote.  There was no mention of Joseph going into the sacred grove or that God and Jesus appeared to him.   Again, I do not know why she did not include this, but she did not.  Each person really just needs to study this and decide for themselves or form their own opinions, if it interests them.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have many family members who refuse to study anything outside the manuals, or even discuss as we do on this board.
 

I also have family members like that.  Now consider that those same people become parents, teachers, bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, seminary teachers, General authorities, BYU teachers, and youth leaders. Can you see what kind of culture that can create in the LDS church?

You see it as a personal failing when members do not study beyond church approved materials.  However, most LDS people I know considered only reading correlated materials to be virtuous and a mark of their faithfulness.  

Edited by Oliver_Cowdery
Link to comment
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

What that means I guess is up for interpretation by each individual person.

 

In other words, if it is useful to that person for their particular purposes?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In other words, if it is useful to that person for their particular purposes?

Purposes?   History is of interest to me, but I don't have "purposes" other than for my own personal knowledge.  So yes, I guess you can say these details are "useful" as a piece of church history.  But others may feel they're not.  

Link to comment

 

Not to mention...my folks were not wealthy..buying  a bunch of books meant another job on top of the 4 they had.

Room for a bookcase in a small house with 5 kids meant that it would be in the barn!!:D

Edited by Jeanne
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Oliver_Cowdery said:

I also have family members like that.  Now consider that those same people become parents, teachers, bishops, stake presidents, mission presidents, seminary teachers, General authorities, BYU teachers, and youth leaders. Can you see what kind of culture that can create in the LDS church?

You see it as a personal failing when members do not study beyond church approved materials.  However, most LDS people I know considered only reading correlated materials to be virtuous and a mark of their faithfulness.  

Compare the attitude you describe here with the Nine Position Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22100469/Perry Scheme.pdf

Which position does the correlated-only approach resemble?

And what are the implications of the case I made in my review of Deconstructing Mormonism, that our scriptures prod us towards Position 9?

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

Just some food for thought.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Thinking said:

If I hadn't heard of a book, why would I think to order it?

If you haven't heard of a book, any book, then obviously it must be that the  church doesn't want you to know about it.  Perhaps you haven't paid enough tithing.  Perhaps your service in the Dannite organization has been lacking.

They will let you know about it when they think you are good and ready. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

In my years of growing up in the church, I had never even thought to search out books about the church. Now I wish I had. So you are right about the not searching on your own, deal. 

But you've got to admit the curriculum people portrayed the church in a different light, often. I guess people have to search for the meat. Really never heard this concept in my growing up years. Just did as I was taught...got married in the temple, had children, held callings etc. 

I did read a few books at the Deseret Bookstore, funny how a few books that were at this church owned bookstore discontinued some books, such as "In Sacred Loneliness" and "Mormon Enigma".

I think that you will find many books that were available when you are young are no longer available

Did you graduate from seminary?

Did you graduate from institute?

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...