Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard "Face to Face" Event: Dealing with doubts

[Amulek]

21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's a good point - perhaps by citing something that was so old it would seem like they haven't been hiding it because the article was publish so long ago. 

If the church published an article about a subject in it's official magazine before you were born, then that seems like pretty good evidence that the church hasn't been "hiding" it in your lifetime. 

 

Quote

From my perspective, at 47 years old, I would never have had a chance to read a 1970 Improvement Era article. 

How about an article from 1985 or 1986 then? 

 

Quote

I grew up as an active member of the church, graduated from four years of seminary, attended BYU, took missionary prep, etc and yet I went out on my mission having absolutely no idea that there was any other version of the first vision than the one that I was teaching.  I taught and baptized dozens of people on that premise.  So, from my point of view and even ignoring what happened with the 1832 document, the multiple first visions accounts were hidden from me.

And my experience matches yours...well, except for the parts about missionary prep (never bothered) and not knowing about multiple accounts of the First Vision. 

Out of curiosity, where did you grow up?

I grew up in Texas where every so-called Christian bookstore I ever walked into had at least one full aisle dedicated to Mormons (spoiler alert: not stocked with anything from Deseret Book). By the time I was 14-15, I'm fairly certain that I had run across pretty much all of the standard anti-Mormon arguments about the church and about Joseph Smith - including the claim that he was a false prophet / liar because his story changed. 

I think that's probably a big part of the difference in our experiences. By encountering the information at a younger age, I was able to seek out more knowledge on my own and was able to successfully reconcile it with my beliefs. But because I know the knowledge was out there, I have a hard time accepting the claim that the church was hiding it from anyone...you know, because I found it. 

 

Quote

And I reject the premise that if it was something that mattered, I should have researched and studied it.  I could not possibly have thought to research something that I never even thought existed.  

Really? You never wondered if the First Vision was recorded anywhere else? Curious. I would think that if one were interested in learning about the Prophet Joseph, the First Vision, or even just early Church History in general, that the existence of multiple accounts would show up in your studying at some point or another - even if you weren't actively looking for it.  

 

Quote

I trusted the Brethren and they failed me.

You trusted the Brethren to do what, exactly? Make you read every article that was published in the Ensign during your high school years? 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If the church published an article about a subject in it's official magazine before you were born, then that seems like pretty good evidence that the church hasn't been "hiding" it in your lifetime. 

 

How about an article from 1985 or 1986 then? 

 

And my experience matches yours...well, except for the parts about missionary prep (never bothered) and not knowing about multiple accounts of the First Vision. 

Out of curiosity, where did you grow up?

I grew up in Texas where every so-called Christian bookstore I ever walked into had at least one full aisle dedicated to Mormons (spoiler alert: not stocked with anything from Deseret Book). By the time I was 14-15, I'm fairly certain that I had run across pretty much all of the standard anti-Mormon arguments about the church and about Joseph Smith - including the claim that he was a false prophet / liar because his story changed. 

I think that's probably a big part of the difference in our experiences. By encountering the information at a younger age, I was able to seek out more knowledge on my own and was able to successfully reconcile it with my beliefs. But because I know the knowledge was out there, I have a hard time accepting the claim that the church was hiding it from anyone...you know, because I found it. 

 

Really? You never wondered if the First Vision was recorded anywhere else? Curious. I would think that if one were interested in learning about the Prophet Joseph, the First Vision, or even just early Church History in general, that the existence of multiple accounts would show up in your studying at some point or another - even if you weren't actively looking for it.  

 

You trusted the Brethren to do what, exactly? Make you read every article that was published in the Ensign during your high school years? 

I trusted the Brethren to provide me with a true and accurate narrative of the founding of the Church.  I gave them about 4 hours a week of my time in seminary and BYU religion classes along with 3 hours each Sunday, and dozens of hours watching/reading general conference.  I attended missionary prep, temple prep, and spent 8 weeks in the MTC.  Two years on a mission studying all of the materials given to me by the Church.  Held callings, taught classes/quorums, and spent years as an early morning seminary teacher (including the D&C/Church History year but multiple first vision accounts were not covered in the curriculum at that time).

I grew up in AZ and never saw any anti-Mormon literature -- which is apparently where I would have needed to go to learn about the 1832 First Vision account (odd, isn't it) since I wouldn't have known how to find a 1970, 1985, or 1986 Ensign.  But then again, why would I have gone looking for those articles?  Why would I ever have suspected that Joseph would have told a version of his first vision that only included one personage appearing to him? 

Like you, I have reconciled the information with my beliefs.  But do I fully trust the Brethren?  No.  They chose to hide much of the true narrative of the church.  That was their decision whether through ignorance or deliberate intent.  Why did I need to learn about multiple first vision accounts from a source outside the Church?  Why wasn't the information included in the curriculum of any of the multiple classes I participated in?  Why wasn't it ever mentioned in general conference?  Why was the first written account of the first vision of our founding prophet NOT published by the church and heralded the moment it was found?

And this is just one of many examples of church leaders hiding things from members.

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

So critics want the Church to open up about the past and when they do...

You just made my point.

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

If the church published an article about a subject in it's official magazine before you were born, then that seems like pretty good evidence that the church hasn't been "hiding" it in your lifetime.

Publishing an article is quite different from inclusion in the curriculum.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Publishing an article is quite different from inclusion in the curriculum.

Or inclusion in general conference. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I trusted the Brethren to provide me with a true and accurate narrative of the founding of the Church.  I gave them about 4 hours a week of my time in seminary and BYU religion classes along with 3 hours each Sunday, and dozens of hours watching/reading general conference.  I attended missionary prep, temple prep, and spent 8 weeks in the MTC.  Two years on a mission studying all of the materials given to me by the Church.  Held callings, taught classes/quorums, and spent years as an early morning seminary teacher (including the D&C/Church History year but multiple first vision accounts were not covered in the curriculum at that time).

I grew up in AZ and never saw any anti-Mormon literature -- which is apparently where I would have needed to go to learn about the 1832 First Vision account (odd, isn't it) since I wouldn't have known how to find a 1970, 1985, or 1986 Ensign.  But then again, why would I have gone looking for those articles?  Why would I ever have suspected that Joseph would have told a version of his first vision that only included one personage appearing to him? 

Like you, I have reconciled the information with my beliefs.  But do I fully trust the Brethren?  No.  They chose to hide much of the true narrative of the church.  That was their decision whether through ignorance or deliberate intent.  Why did I need to learn about multiple first vision accounts from a source outside the Church?  Why wasn't the information included in the curriculum of any of the multiple classes I participated in?  Why wasn't it ever mentioned in general conference?  Why was the first written account of the first vision of our founding prophet NOT published by the church and heralded the moment it was found?

And this is just one of many examples of church leaders hiding things from members.

I just learned today that the First Vision wasn't heard of until 20 or so years after the fact. And I agree, the first written account should be the one we read. It certainly appears that they didn't use that because of the evolution of beliefs.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just learned today that the First Vision wasn't heard of until 20 or so years after the fact. And I agree, the first written account should be the one we read. It certainly appears that they didn't use that because of the evolution of beliefs.

Yes.  And not only do they use another account to support the evolution of doctrine/beliefs but they hid the 1832 account.  I’m curious if anyone knows when the 1832 account was first published by the church?  Is the entire text in the 1970 Improvement Era article?

I don’t see the full text of Joseph’s 1832 account in either the 1985 or 1986 articles. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by rockpond

[kiwi57]

On 11/21/2017 at 11:25 AM, Duncan said:

I wonder how Elder Ballard would interpret Elder Snow's words?

"I think in the past there was a tendency to keep a lot of the records closed or at least not give access to information. But the world has changed in the last generation—with the access to information on the Internet, we can’t continue that pattern; I think we need to continue to be more open."

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-14-number-3-2013/start-faith-conversation-elder-steven-e-snow

 

I was more surprised they had a convert of 2 months being one of the interviewers! that's a dropkick into the deep end! I wonder how she got picked?

Keeping records closed, or not giving access to information, is actually the default behaviour of most organisations, most of the time. Records are valuable, it takes time and resources to maintain them and look after them, and giving access to them involves risks and costs, which mere idle curiosity does not justify. (And which malicious fishing expeditions justify even less.)

Electronic record-keeping makes such access easier and cheaper.

[kiwi57]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  And not only do they use another account to support the evolution of doctrine/beliefs but they hid the 1832 account.

Yes, that's the default anti-Mormon accusation.

Normal transmission has resumed, I see.

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I trusted the Brethren to provide me with a true and accurate narrative of the founding of the Church.  I gave them about 4 hours a week of my time in seminary and BYU religion classes along with 3 hours each Sunday, and dozens of hours watching/reading general conference.  I attended missionary prep, temple prep, and spent 8 weeks in the MTC.  Two years on a mission studying all of the materials given to me by the Church.  Held callings, taught classes/quorums, and spent years as an early morning seminary teacher (including the D&C/Church History year but multiple first vision accounts were not covered in the curriculum at that time).

I grew up in AZ and never saw any anti-Mormon literature -- which is apparently where I would have needed to go to learn about the 1832 First Vision account (odd, isn't it) since I wouldn't have known how to find a 1970, 1985, or 1986 Ensign.  But then again, why would I have gone looking for those articles?  Why would I ever have suspected that Joseph would have told a version of his first vision that only included one personage appearing to him? 

Like you, I have reconciled the information with my beliefs.  But do I fully trust the Brethren?  No.  They chose to hide much of the true narrative of the church.  That was their decision whether through ignorance or deliberate intent.  Why did I need to learn about multiple first vision accounts from a source outside the Church?  Why wasn't the information included in the curriculum of any of the multiple classes I participated in?  Why wasn't it ever mentioned in general conference?  Why was the first written account of the first vision of our founding prophet NOT published by the church and heralded the moment it was found?

And this is just one of many examples of church leaders hiding things from members.

If that's the best you've got, then it's just one of many examples of attackers working up accusations virtually ex nihilo.

[Duncan]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just learned today that the First Vision wasn't heard of until 20 or so years after the fact. And I agree, the first written account should be the one we read. It certainly appears that they didn't use that because of the evolution of beliefs.

Joseph related the vision in 1835 to that Robert Mathias, the Jewish minister, which I think........was printed in  a church publication

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Joseph related the vision in 1835 to that Robert Mathias, the Jewish minister, which I think........was printed in  a church publication

So, is 15 years that much better in your mind?

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, is 15 years that much better in your mind?

no, it's what I could remember at the moment. Let's say for example that he didn't tell anyone for 20 years you can easily see why given the reaction by the minister he told afterwards and the community persecution-whether it's right or wrong he didn't tell anyone is irrelevant really.

[sunstoned]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  And not only do they use another account to support the evolution of doctrine/beliefs but they hid the 1832 account.  I’m curious if anyone knows when the 1832 account was first published by the church?  Is the entire text in the 1970 Improvement Era article?

I don’t see the full text of Joseph’s 1832 account in either the 1985 or 1986 articles. 

The 1970 article does not contain the full text, nor does it really make a detailed comparison.  It does not go into any details about the differences between accounts.  This article was written using an apologetic lens.  The the best example to use when talking about not hiding information.

[Exiled]

12 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

If that's the best you've got, then it's just one of many examples of attackers working up accusations virtually ex nihilo.

He did say it is one of many problems and he is right. So, I don't think he is just making something out of nothing.

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

no, it's what I could remember at the moment. Let's say for example that he didn't tell anyone for 20 years you can easily see why given the reaction by the minister he told afterwards and the community persecution-whether it's right or wrong he didn't tell anyone is irrelevant really.

If the reaction by the minister is to be believed ....

The first vision experience, especially from the 1832 account was commonplace.  So, one wonders if a minister back then would have had the reaction Joseph claims or if the minister would try to somehow co-opt a visionary experience or promote it as a way to gain more converts? Surely an experienced minister would have seen virtuallybno competition from a mere boy?

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Duncan said:

no, it's what I could remember at the moment. Let's say for example that he didn't tell anyone for 20 years you can easily see why given the reaction by the minister he told afterwards and the community persecution-whether it's right or wrong he didn't tell anyone is irrelevant really.

I think you make a good point, forgot about that. I'm sure he had to have told his family. 

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, that's the default anti-Mormon accusation.

Normal transmission has resumed, I see.

Wait... really?  It wasn’t cut out of Joseph’s journal and hid in a safe?  When did the church first publish the prophet’s very first account of the vision to members?

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Wait... really?  It wasn’t cut out of Joseph’s journal and hid in a safe?  When did the church first publish the prophet’s very first account of the vision to members?

There is a non LDS newspaper from Nov. 1830 that has Oliver Cowdery saying that Joseph had seen God personally-The Reflector,1831, vol. 2:13. There are other accounts from individuals in the 1830's being told of the 1st vision.

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, Duncan said:

There is a non LDS newspaper from Nov. 1830 that has Oliver Cowdery saying that Joseph had seen God personally-The Reflector,1831, vol. 2:13. There are other accounts from individuals in the 1830's being told of the 1st vision.

Not entirely sure what your point is but the 1832 is the first known version from JS. 

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Not entirely sure what your point is but the 1832 is the first known version from JS. 

did or did you not ask when the first known version of Joseph Smith First Vision was published to the members and I said that a non LDS publication in 1831 had Oliver Cowdery saying that Joseph told him that he had seen God personally. I am assuming that Mormons read non mormon papers. How did Oliver Cowdery and all these other members know in the 1830's that Joseph Smith had the first vision? I am no Barney Miller or anything but I am going to float the idea out there that Joseph probably told them or at least Joseph was ultimately the source of the story.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

did or did you not ask when the first known version of Joseph Smith First Vision was published to the members and I said that a non LDS publication in 1831 had Oliver Cowdery saying that Joseph told him that he had seen God personally. I am assuming that Mormons read non mormon papers. How did Oliver Cowdery and all these other members know in the 1830's that Joseph Smith had the first vision? I am no Barney Miller or anything but I am going to float the idea out there that Joseph probably told them or at least Joseph was ultimately the source of the story.

I’m not questioning the occurrence of the first vision. I asked when the church published the 1832 account to members.  I’m still curious about that. 

[Duncan]

59 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m not questioning the occurrence of the first vision. I asked when the church published the 1832 account to members.  I’m still curious about that. 

You said, "very first account" and I assumed you meant when did Joseph start telling folks but I didn't know you meant the first journal account that is still around today

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  And not only do they use another account to support the evolution of doctrine/beliefs but they hid the 1832 account.  I’m curious if anyone knows when the 1832 account was first published by the church?  Is the entire text in the 1970 Improvement Era article?

I don’t see the full text of Joseph’s 1832 account in either the 1985 or 1986 articles. 

It's a good question and one that should be answered by someone here.

Cheesman's Master's thesis was included as a footnote in the 1970 Allen article, at least. What it says about the 1831-32 account in the 1970 article:

Quote

 The 1831-32 account. This important document was written when Joseph Smith was 25 or 26 years old. The Church was hardly more than a year old, and Joseph had only recently been impressed with the
importance of keeping such historical records.^ Pre
served in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams,
it was probably written as it was being dictated by
the Prophet. It is doubtful that the manuscript was
being prepared for publication, at least in the unpol
ished form in which it survives. It seems, rather, to
have been an early, crudely written, but fervent effort to express for Church members the Prophet's religious
feelings, and to record the powerful spiritual impact that the vision had upon him.

The Tanners first published the account as per from Cheesman's paper, which apparently had some copy errors.  

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by stemelbow

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

I trusted the Brethren to provide me with a true and accurate narrative of the founding of the Church. 

 

The Brethren teach that Joseph Smith experienced a theophany wherein he saw both God the Father and his son Jesus Christ. 

I believe that is both true and accurate. Do you not? 

 

Quote

I gave them about 4 hours a week of my time in seminary and BYU religion classes along with 3 hours each Sunday, and dozens of hours watching/reading general conference.  I attended missionary prep, temple prep, and spent 8 weeks in the MTC.  Two years on a mission studying all of the materials given to me by the Church.  Held callings, taught classes/quorums, and spent years as an early morning seminary teacher (including the D&C/Church History year but multiple first vision accounts were not covered in the curriculum at that time).

First time I encountered information about the multiple First Vision accounts in a church environment was while I was at BYU. I took church history classes from Larry Porter and Don Cannon, and I remember Professor Cannon even having photocopies of some of the older accounts that he passed out. It was pretty cool. 

 

Quote

I grew up in AZ and never saw any anti-Mormon literature -- which is apparently where I would have needed to go to learn about the 1832 First Vision account (odd, isn't it) since I wouldn't have known how to find a 1970, 1985, or 1986 Ensign. 

Maybe I misunderstood what you said earlier, but if you're 47 now then that means you would have been 15-16 when the 1985-1986 Ensigns were published. Are you honestly saying you wouldn't have known how to find a copy of the Ensign when you where in High School? Come on. Back then everybody had a subscription to the Ensign (and the Friend if they had kids), and if your parents didn't get the Ensign the Library - what we call the materials center now - always had at least one copy. 

 

Quote

But then again, why would I have gone looking for those articles? 

If you had been reading the Ensign, you would have run across them - whether you were looking for them or not. 

I know a lot of teenagers who don't read the Ensign though, so that doesn't make you atypical I don't think. But just because you weren't interested in reading what the church was putting out, doesn't mean that the church was hiding it from you.

 

Quote

Why would I ever have suspected that Joseph would have told a version of his first vision that only included one personage appearing to him? 

I think it is more accurate to say that there is one account of the First Vision that only discusses one personage - not that only one personage appeared to him. 

 

Quote

Like you, I have reconciled the information with my beliefs.

How so?

 

Quote

But do I fully trust the Brethren?  No.  They chose to hide much of the true narrative of the church.  That was their decision whether through ignorance or deliberate intent.  Why did I need to learn about multiple first vision accounts from a source outside the Church? 

Well, you didn't need to learn about it that way. You could have learned about it by simply reading what the church had been publishing during your lifetime. 

 

Quote

Why wasn't the information included in the curriculum of any of the multiple classes I participated in?  Why wasn't it ever mentioned in general conference?  Why was the first written account of the first vision of our founding prophet NOT published by the church and heralded the moment it was found?

And this is just one of many examples of church leaders hiding things from members.

Why not include it in the curriculum? Probably because there isn't sufficient time to give the subject adequate treatment in the 40-50 minutes allotted for the average Sunday School class. In fact, I think the only place that would really fit for something like that would be a church history / institute class. 

And again, I'm not really convinced that this is an example of 'hiding things from members' to begin with. When you publish something for public consumption then you, by definition, are not hiding something. Or, if you think you are, you are doing a really really bad job of it.

Currently, the church has all of the accounts available on its website - both with original document scans and transcriptions. It's really pretty cool. But I suspect that the majority of church members have never bothered to visit the site. I suppose they could argue that the information superhighway is just so vast now that by publishing the information online the church is really just trying to hide the information like a needle in a haystack. I wouldn't find such a statement convincing though.