New First Vision Video

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

 

It seems it wasn't until the 1960's that church leadership fully admitted to the 1832 account.   

 

Going back to 1950? We are looking for qualified historians who sill substantiate the claim that all accounts should be identical or that the differing accounts are problematic. 

[Ouagadougou]

6 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Going back to 1950? We are looking for qualified historians who sill substantiate the claim that all accounts should be identical or that the differing accounts are problematic. 

Because church doctrine changes...

[Freedom]

10 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Because church doctrine changes...

You seem incapable of facing the big white elephant in the room. Moving the goal post will not help the cause. The claim requires validation from a qualified historian. 

[Stargazer]

On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 5:09 PM, Ouagadougou said:

Maybe for you...but for me and many others I know, this creates a very large contradiction.  This isn't like seeing (or not seeing) somebody at the store or at a funeral -- this is speaking with God and Jesus and receiving instruction from them. 

If I did keep a journal (I have in the past), I am 100 % confidence that I wouldn't wait 12 years to mention that I just spoke face-to-face with God and Jesus Christ; I would write it down as fast as I could.  

  

You're not a 14-year-old boy living on the American frontier.  The Smith home didn't, so far as I know, stock paper and pen/pencils so that family members could write extensive journals.  It was a farm family for crying out loud, with perhaps the only books on the "bookshelf" being a Bible.  Much like Abe Lincoln's family, the only nighttime illumination was the fire in the fireplace, or perhaps a candle.  I don't find it at all surprising that someone in these circumstances would "wait" to record an event, even an important one.  Because recording events was not at all a common practice in such families.

You know what "presentism" is, right?  Well, first cousin to presentism is assuming that everyone is like yourself and would do the same things you would do.

Back in 2015 I lost my wife to cancer.  Being a very spotty journal keeper over the past thirty years, I journaled daily, sometimes hourly, during the last three months of her life.  Am I supposed to use my practice during this time as a baseline in comparing how others react and record events in their lives?  I have told others of my experiences during this time, including some things that happened in a spiritual realm, but because of variances in circumstances I have not told the story the same in every case.  I have sometimes included some things that I did not include at other times.  This does not mean that my accounts can be disregarded. 

I think you are making a serious mistake in holding Joseph to such a high standard. 

I seem to recall that after Jesus was resurrected, there was a period during which he instructed his apostles, about which virtually nothing is recorded in scripture.  Does this mean that nothing happened during this time?  Or that the apostles were bored and didn't see any good reason to record anything about the experience?  Or that nothing happened?

[Ouagadougou]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I think you are making a serious mistake in holding Joseph to such a high standard. 

I stopped holding JS to a high standard once I realized he married 14-year-old teenage girls and married other men's wives...

[Stargazer]

On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 7:14 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

That is the problem with presentism -- it assumes (with 100% confidence) that historical events must proceed the way we in modern times want them to, which is contrary to fact.

The example of the Gospels was given to you here:  What do you do with the major contradictions among the 4 Gospels?  Not only are they quite late, even though they were likely preceded by some sort of original documents or notes, which we do not have today, but they were written down from about 40 - 60 years after the life of Jesus.  This is the same problem we frequently have with prominent people who are viewed somewhat differently by their various students -- Socrates, for example.  In real life, people just do not tell the same story twice.  It always differs. depending upon the purpose and occasion in which it is told.  Time constraints can also prevent all details to be provided.  Excellent personal examples of this have been given on this board in past discussions of the First Vision.

Personally, I think it is just a form of laziness.  "Oh, look!  He didn't tell the tale the same way every time, so that means (thank goodness!) that we can disregard what he claims!" 

[sjdawg]

On 3/5/2017 at 4:09 AM, Ouagadougou said:

Maybe for you...but for me and many others I know, this creates a very large contradiction.  This isn't like seeing (or not seeing) somebody at the store or at a funeral -- this is speaking with God and Jesus and receiving instruction from them. 

If I did keep a journal (I have in the past), I am 100 % confidence that I wouldn't wait 12 years to mention that I just spoke face-to-face with God and Jesus Christ; I would write it down as fast as I could.  

  

I don't believe in the LDS church.  I don't believe in Joseph Smith.  Having said that I don't have any particular issue with discrepancies in the first version accounts. It is a non issue for me. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

IMO, the first vision is still a problem for many in and out of the church today, not because of presentism, but because there are discrepancies and major differences in some of the accounts.  Some might might be able to reconcile the differences, while others may not come to the same conclusion.  

Incorrect.  Very few people find the First Vision issue troubling at all.  Most people simply are unaware of the various versions of that Vision.  And common sense will tell most of those who do become aware of the differences among the versions that this is typical of the actual retelling of remembered events.  That is, events are typically recalled and retold with variants.  Others are hobbled by presentism.  Professional historians are well aware of that fact, something which anti-Mormons are motivated to ignore.

[Ouagadougou]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Incorrect.  Very few people find the First Vision issue troubling at all.  

Maybe true for your own interaction with members; however, based on my conversations with numerous active and non-active members, many find this issue troubling.  

[Stargazer]

42 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I stopped holding JS to a high standard once I realized he married 14-year-old teenage girls and married other men's wives...

Apparently you still hold him to a high standard.  Otherwise why would you even bring this up?  As a faith-promoting exercise?  Perhaps you don't realize that this issue has been debated to death on this board.  And your OP doesn't bring in any new "light" on the subject.  Thus the same responses from the same people, both pro and con.

Sigh.  I suppose I'm just helping the rehash, too. 

By the way, my stepmother was 15 at her first marriage. Her first child, my stepsister, was born when she was 16.  Not to derail the thread, but your presentism and parochialism are both showing here.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Maybe true for your own interaction with members; however, based on my conversations with numerous active and non-active members, many find this issue troubling.  

How do you square that with the fact that hardly any members actually even know of such variations?  Perhaps you need to conduct a scientific sampling of the Mormon population.  Then you would realize just how absurd your claims are.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

A member of the 70 thought the 1832 version was a problem in the 1950's.  Back in the 1950's some church leadership did agree with the 1832 account; Elder Young of the 70 said the following in 1957:

"I cannot remember the time when I have not heard the story,.concerning the coming of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith.
I am concerned however with one item which has recently been called to my attention on this matter. There appears to be going about our communities some writing to the effect that the Prophet Joseph Smith evolved his doctrine from what might have been a vision, in which he is supposed to have said that he saw an angel, instead of the Father and the Son. According to this theory, by the time he was inspired to write the occurrence in 1838, he had come to the conclusion that there were two beings.
This rather shocked me. I can see no reason why the Prophet, with his brilliant mind, would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of that eventful day. I can remember quite vividly that in 1915 I had a mere dream, and while the dream was prophetic in nature, it was not startling. It has been long since fulfilled, but I can remember every detail of it as sharply and clearly as though it had happened yesterday. How them could any man conceive that the Prophet, receiving such a vision as he received, would not remember it and would fail to write it clearly, distinctly, and accurately?"

https://ia800801.us.archive.org/20/items/improvementera6006unse/improvementera6006unse.pdf

Improvement Era, June 1957, p 436

And FAIR Mormon states the following about the 1832 account

"Question: Did Joseph Fielding Smith remove the 1832 account of Joseph Smith's First Vision from its original letterbook and hide it in his safe?

It is not known who removed the pages from the book or why, nor is it known when or why they were restored to the book"

It goes on to say at the bottom...

"His curiosity was excited when reading in Roberts' Doc. History reference to 'documents from which these writings were compiled.' Asked to see them. Told to get higher permission. Obtained that permission. Examined the documents. Written, he thought, about 1837 or 1838. Was told not to copy or tell what they contained. Said it was a 'strange' account of the First Vision. Was put back in vault. Remains unused, unknown." [2]
http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_Joseph_Fielding_Smith_remove_the_1832_account_of_Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision_from_its_original_letterbook_and_hide_it_in_his_safe%3F

It seems it wasn't until the 1960's that church leadership fully admitted to the 1832 account. 

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

It seems that back in the 1950's, some in the church leadership would have agreed with me that there is no reason why JS, "with his brilliant mind, would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of that eventful day."
https://ia800801.us.archive.org/20/items/improvementera6006unse/improvementera6006unse.pdf (June 1957, pp. 436,438)

So you reply to someone who points out that no historian sees a problem with the variant versions by citing a non-historian?  How is that relevant?  And why are you finding fault with the LDS publications for accepting the reality of the 1832 account?  So now the Church is damned for being honest?

And you pointedly ignore the very different versions in Acts of Paul's vision on the road to Damascus?  Is this how you carry on a discussion?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

I stopped holding JS to a high standard once I realized he married 14-year-old teenage girls and married other men's wives...

Once again, instead of engaging substantive arguments, you change the goal posts and engage in slander.  Hate instead of clarity.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Personally, I think it is just a form of laziness.  "Oh, look!  He didn't tell the tale the same way every time, so that means (thank goodness!) that we can disregard what he claims!" 

Yes, and non-Mormon Wayne Jackson takes on the similar problem of variant accounts of the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus:

Quote

The Bible is replete with examples of where an event is recorded multiple times. Sometimes the repetition will be by different writers, as in the case of certain narratives in the books of Kings and Chronicles, or in the Gospel records. At other times a single writer may repeat the record of an event for the sake of a slightly different point of emphasis. Chapters 1 and 2 in Genesis are an example of such. In Acts, chapters 10 and 11, there are two accounts of the conversion of the Roman centurion, Cornelius. The first is Luke’s depiction of the event; the second is Peter’s rehearsal of the circumstances when he subsequently defends his actions before the Jews in Jerusalem.

Another New Testament illustration of this literary phenomenon is the record of Paul’s conversion, as set forth three times in the book of Acts (chapters 9, 22, and 26). This repetition has puzzled some Bible students. Others, searching for flaws in the sacred Scriptures, contend that the repetition is superfluous and contradictory, and thus constitutes evidence against the inspiration of the sacred narrative. One critic recently asked:

“If the New Testament is without contradictions, why does Paul give three totally different memories of Jesus appearing to him?”

In the first place, the author reveals his own lack of knowledge of the facts. The initial record of Saul’s conversion (Acts 9) is not Paul’s account; it is that of the historian Luke.

Secondly, the criticism fails to take into account the epochal nature of the conversion of Saul, and its importance in the divine scheme of things. Add to this the fact that there were different circumstances underlying the case histories the apostle later introduced, in defending his transformation from Judaism to Christianity (Acts 22,26).

Thirdly, the critic, doubtless sincere but lacking mature analytical skills, charges that the accounts contradict one another. They do not. Yes, there are differences; one record may supplement another narrative. But supplementation is not the same as contradiction.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1046-what-about-the-multiple-accounts-of-pauls-conversion .

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Freedom]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

I stopped holding JS to a high standard once I realized he married 14-year-old teenage girls and married other men's wives...

More goal post moving. Each time you post, your credibility deteriorates further. Evidence please. 

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

But the trauma has more than likely created its own set of emotional connections.  I am just suggesting being cautious in making assumptions about your assumptions.

I agree that caution is in order, as is patience.

One way I kind of check myself is how I am emotionally handling the bad situation that set off the trauma. The ward member who hurt us has started coming to church again. I attended yesterday with two daughters and I bore my testimony of how the counsel of Jesus Christ has transformed my life for good. It was after that ward member went up and testified how he found comfort from the Spirit telling him that forgiveness by him did not negate God's judgment against those who offended him.

I'd been planning my testimony for several days and committed to myself that I would not use the stand to react to the conflict with this ward member, and although several people feared I might--because they were tempted to do the same--after hearing him speak,  I did not react.

I believe I also passed another milestone...I am ready to move on from the conflict with him. I am grateful that God allowed me to have this experience and then learn something vital from it. I have been able to feel compassion for him and the bishop who also hurt us.

But even then, caution is still in order. Thank you for your advice!

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Freedom said:

I would suggest you take some history lessons and find out for yourself why such a seminal event would not be mentioned. You say something should have been expected of them, yet you are unable to provide any evidence that they would have behaved as expected. 

Take some logic lessons...when I say we can reasonably expect journal entries if a First Vision did occur, I am well aware that the absence of something reasonably expected does not constitute an absolute contradiction. It may be, however, a fact that adds to the collective weight of other issues.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It would seem so at first glance, but bear in mind that Joseph was not a journal keeper.  Indeed, what items he did write were nearly illiterate -- as his wife confirmed.  He did improve over the years, it is true, but that only tells us that his development was in process, not complete.  Many of us go through the same progressive sequence into adulthood, becoming more polished with time and experience.  We must not assume what has to be proved.  QED.

Moreover, the argument that an experience will be told in manifold ways is always relevant, as we have found in discussion on this board:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58038-joseph-smith’s-first-vision-accounts-more-mormon-church-suppression-and-cover-up/page__st__120 .

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58691-your-vision-of-the-first-vision/ .

What is even more important, according to cinepro last year (May 3, 2016), was the stark lack of knowledge of the First Vision within and without the LDS faith:

Presentism often leads us to imagine a past reality which simply did not exist.  We are the victims of a world in which the First Vision is of prime importance.  This was simply not true in Joseph's own time.

His family being journal writers presents us with the issue that his family did not record a first hand hearing of his First Vision account. And even when his mother writes his history after his death, Lucy Mack Smith also omits the First Vision and speaks of, at most, only angelic appearances.

I do understand that the narrative then was not the narrative we have now. Historical revision almost inevitably refashions old product and evidence into a new shape in order to fit the current needs.

It is possible that the vacuum created by the current absence of spiritualism of the Smiths' time--something that we relate with much less today--is now filled by The-First-Vision-as-Seminal-Event today.  Back then, spiritual experiences and second sight were much more commonplace. I can imagine that the First-Vision-for-us was even redundant to most early followers then. They were already immersed in what they believed was spiritual revival.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Personally, I think it is just a form of laziness.  "Oh, look!  He didn't tell the tale the same way every time, so that means (thank goodness!) that we can disregard what he claims!" 

Isn't that assumption the "cousin of presentism" you referred to before, expecting people to do what you would do?

Please consider that there is genuine, legitimate concern over church history.  There are many who started researching in order to bolster their defenses against critics of the Church, only to have their hearts broken and testimonies of the Church shattered.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I stopped holding JS to a high standard once I realized he married 14-year-old teenage girls and married other men's wives...

And therein lies your bias. If that is what started your foray into this silliness, explore those issues with an open mind and good faith.

Edited March 6, 2017 by CV75

[Ouagadougou]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you reply to someone who points out that no historian sees a problem with the variant versions by citing a non-historian?  How is that relevant?  And why are you finding fault with the LDS publications for accepting the reality of the 1832 account?  So now the Church is damned for being honest?

And you pointedly ignore the very different versions in Acts of Paul's vision on the road to Damascus?  Is this how you carry on a discussion?

It's citing a member of the 70.  It shows that even in the 1950's, some in church leadership didn't want to accept the 1832 account.  It took the church until the 1970's to publicly acknowledge the 1832 account.  

[Ouagadougou]

7 hours ago, Freedom said:

More goal post moving. Each time you post, your credibility deteriorates further. Evidence please. 

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

[Ouagadougou]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, instead of engaging substantive arguments, you change the goal posts and engage in slander.  Hate instead of clarity.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

Nearly 1/3 of his wives were under 18 and another 1/3 were already married to other men.  Not slander -- historical fact.  

[Ouagadougou]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

How do you square that with the fact that hardly any members actually even know of such variations?  Perhaps you need to conduct a scientific sampling of the Mormon population.  Then you would realize just how absurd your claims are.

Perhaps it is because some of my interaction is with less active members.  The fact that you point out that "hardly any members actually know of such variations" is troubling because it can cause them a great amount of difficulty once they realize the narrative they were taught their entire life is, in fact, not what it is or seems to be.  

Edited March 6, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

And therein lies your bias. If that is what started your foray into this silliness, explore those issues with an open mind and good faith.

Not a bias -- I just don't hold him to a high standard as somebody with "high moral character" in some areas.  He was a very polarizing individual, IMO. I think he was a brilliant person and a master at remixing, especially at remixing masonry and religion.   

Edited March 6, 2017 by Ouagadougou