The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[ALarson]

I have to laugh a bit about kiwi (Russell) returning and seeing Scott like nearly every one of his posts and kiwi doing the same in return for Scott....oh....just like old times. 

For me, I'm moving on from this thread as it's obvious kiwi is not interested in an honest discussion.

 

Edited December 4, 2017 by ALarson

[kiwi57]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I have to laugh a bit about kiwi (Russell) returning and seeing Scott like nearly every one of his posts and kiwi doing the same in return for Scott....oh....just like old times. 

For me, I'm moving on from this thread as it's obvious kiwi is not interested in an honest discussion.

 

So the only way to be "interested in an honest discussion" is to agree with you?

I'm glad we sorted that out.

[kiwi57]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Who was it shared with when the information was discovered...do you know?  (Honest question....)

I don't know.

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

These writings should have been remarkable to find and to share.  But instead they were cut out of the original document and put in a place away from other's eyes to see and read.  

Even though you are working oh so very hard to have an honest discussion and I'm not, it's remarkable how you keep talking past me. I have pointed out more than once that it's not a simple binary choice between "concealment" and broadcast publication, and yet you haven't even tried to address that point.

[Oliblish]

30 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

No, it's not.

You are arguing for an impossible standard of evidence. 

35 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

A data point that can have multiple explanations is not evidence for one of them any more than any other.

This is a ridiculous statement.  If a data point has only one explanation I would call that proof.  If there are multiple explanations that doesn't mean that they are equally likely.  

35 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

As I pointed out multiple times elsewhere: if anyone really wanted to stop others from ever reading the history, then they had one infallible and completely safe method to ensure that, and they didn't use it.

What is this one method that you are referring to?  Is it the only one that would indicate the pages were hidden?

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If I had a personal experience similar to the First Vision, I would keep it close to the vest, at least for a time, just as Joseph did. Why? because I don't trust the average person to treat it with the respect and reverence it should have. If, sometime later, I decided to recount it in writing, I would think it unjust if someone thought me a liar just because I didn't create a written record of it right away.

If God appeared to me, I really don't know who or how many people I would tell.  I think I would be prompted by the spirit to answer that question.  And while I might not tell everyone, I would think it safe enough to tell anyone who knew me well unless I was told by God to not tell anyone.  

And I never called anyone a liar for not writing down what happened.  I only expressed that is what I would do because I would not want to forget even one smidgent of what took place.  

 

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not a journal keeper by nature. There are, alas, a good many things in my life that I have not recorded in detail, namely the precise circumstances and minute-by-minute occurrences pertaining to the births of each of my children.

I am not a journal keeper by nature either.  Though I did keep a daily journal while on my mission so that I would never forget that experience.  I haven't written down a minute-by-minute account of each of the 5 births.  But I certainly could.  I remember each of those 5 events in vivid detail.  My oldest daughter is in her 40's but to this day I could tell you where I was living, who the first people I told that we were headed to the hospital, what hospital we went to, how long we were in the hospital before my wife gave birth, how difficult the birth was, what time of day it was, what year, what day, and on and on.  While a birth is important, it would be nothing compared to the appearance of God.

Like I said to Russell, I don't fault either one of you for your faith nor your ability to be able to reconcile the differences in the various accounts of the First Vision.  But I can't.  It would be just to important of an event to not tell in detail what and who appeared and how old I was.  Overwhelming important parts of such a vision would never be left out.  Just like the important parts of the birth of each of my children would not be left out when they or anyone else asks me about their births.

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm glad to hear it.

Is there something missing from that sentence? I'm having trouble making sense of what you are saying.

There's no "contradiction" that needs to be "explained away."

Perhaps for you.  But there are serious contradictions that can not be explained away for me.  Like I said, this is not like asking who attended a party.

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

You are arguing for an impossible standard of evidence. 

I agree, to the extent that I'm arguing for the same standard of evidence that would be needed to support an accusation of "hiding" if the target was not a Mormon leader.

Since no such evidence exists, I guess that makes it impossible.

4 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

This is a ridiculous statement.  If a data point has only one explanation I would call that proof.  If there are multiple explanations that doesn't mean that they are equally likely.

Actually in the absence of additional data points, there is no way to tell which explanation is more likely than any other.

There are those who are bitterly and hatefully prejudiced against the Church of Jesus Christ, and who therefore reflexively leap to the most uncharitable explanation possible. But their prejudice doesn't make that explanation more likely.

4 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

What is this one method that you are referring to?  Is it the only one that would indicate the pages were hidden?

Let's see now. If you had three pages that you never wanted anyone to see, can you not think if any way to make sure that never happened?

If the real intent was to remove the history from circulation, the best way would be to destroy it outright. That method would not only be trivially easy, it would also be 100% reliable. For something that they supposedly wanted to "conceal," the Church went to a lot of effort to ensure the survival of the history, didn't they?

[kiwi57]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Perhaps for you.  But there are serious contradictions that can not be explained away for me.  Like I said, this is not like asking who attended a party.

Then by all means, tell us: What are the contradictions?

If we accept that the 1832 account is true, then what is there in the 1838/9 account that must be false?

If we accept that the 1838/9 account is true, then what is there in the 1832 account that must be false?

Because that what a contradiction is, you see.

 

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Then by all means, tell us: What are the contradictions?

If we accept that the 1832 account is true, then what is there in the 1838/9 account that must be false?

If we accept that the 1838/9 account is true, then what is there in the 1832 account that must be false?

Because that what a contradiction is, you see.

 

I think the contradictions are quite evident.  You yourself have addressed some of them.  What you can not state is that all of the accounts are consistent.  And while you feel that you have explained away those contradictions, they still remain to those that don't accept your rationalization.  

[california boy]

32 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I agree, to the extent that I'm arguing for the same standard of evidence that would be needed to support an accusation of "hiding" if the target was not a Mormon leader.

Since no such evidence exists, I guess that makes it impossible.

Actually in the absence of additional data points, there is no way to tell which explanation is more likely than any other.

There are those who are bitterly and hatefully prejudiced against the Church of Jesus Christ, and who therefore reflexively leap to the most uncharitable explanation possible. But their prejudice doesn't make that explanation more likely.

Let's see now. If you had three pages that you never wanted anyone to see, can you not think if any way to make sure that never happened?

If the real intent was to remove the history from circulation, the best way would be to destroy it outright. That method would not only be trivially easy, it would also be 100% reliable. For something that they supposedly wanted to "conceal," the Church went to a lot of effort to ensure the survival of the history, didn't they?

Why is it that those who disagree with your view must be labeled asbitterly and hatefully prejudiced against the Church of Jesus Christ, and who therefore reflexively leap to the most uncharitable explanation possible.  Do feel that such labels help you support your beliefs and dismiss others?  Is that why you do it?

[kiwi57]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think the contradictions are quite evident.  You yourself have addressed some of them.  What you can not state is that all of the accounts are consistent.  And while you feel that you have explained away those contradictions, they still remain to those that don't accept your rationalization.  

CB, you're avoiding the question.

Do you agree with my description of what a contradiction is?

If not, wherein do you disagree?

If you do agree, then please show us an actual contradiction. Saying that you think it's evident is a bit like saying that there's a 6-foot tall invisible rabbit sitting next to you, and I must be in complete denial if I say I can't see him.

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why is it that those who disagree with your view must be labeled asbitterly and hatefully prejudiced against the Church of Jesus Christ, and who therefore reflexively leap to the most uncharitable explanation possible.  Do feel that such labels help you support your beliefs and dismiss others?  Is that why you do it?

You are leaping to a conclusion that does not follow from the evidence. Nowhere have I said, implied (or even thought) that those who disagree with my view must be labeled as bitterly and hatefully prejudiced against the Church of Jesus Christ, and who therefore reflexively leap to the most uncharitable explanation possible.

However, there are such people. And, like everyone else, they assume that their opinion is more likely to be true than false.

[Oliblish]

11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I agree, to the extent that I'm arguing for the same standard of evidence that would be needed to support an accusation of "hiding" if the target was not a Mormon leader.

Since no such evidence exists, I guess that makes it impossible.

I think it would be evidence of hiding whether it was a Mormon leader or not.  Again, not proof but evidence.

11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Actually in the absence of additional data points, there is no way to tell which explanation is more likely than any other.

One explanation is that aliens came down and cut out the pages and put them in JFS's safe.  Is that just as likely as JFS doing it?  In the real world there are always other data points.

11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

There are those who are bitterly and hatefully prejudiced against the Church of Jesus Christ, and who therefore reflexively leap to the most uncharitable explanation possible. But their prejudice doesn't make that explanation more likely.

There are those that defend the church at all costs and reflexively leap to the most charitable explanation possible.  I think we need to step back and avoid looking at this from either of these extreme points of view.  I recognize that we all have our biases but we can do our best to try to set them aside.

I do not think that just because someone disagrees with you means that they are bitter and hateful.  

18 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Let's see now. If you had three pages that you never wanted anyone to see, can you not think if any way to make sure that never happened?

If the real intent was to remove the history from circulation, the best way would be to destroy it outright. That method would not only be trivially easy, it would also be 100% reliable. For something that they supposedly wanted to "conceal," the Church went to a lot of effort to ensure the survival of the history, didn't they?

I think there are lots of ways to hide things short of total destruction.

[california boy]

1 minute ago, kiwi57 said:

CB, you're avoiding the question.

Do you agree with my description of what a contradiction is?

If not, wherein do you disagree?

If you do agree, then please show us an actual contradiction. Saying that you think it's evident is a bit like saying that there's a 6-foot tall invisible rabbit sitting next to you, and I must be in complete denial if I say I can't see him.

I am not avoiding  the question at all.  The various accounts are not consistent. I think we can all agree on that.  And while I agreee that if one was reporting something as trivial as to who was attending a party, the inconsistencies would not necessarily be contradictory.  For me, those inconsistencies make them contradictory mostly because of the importance of those events would be in retelling of such a significant event.  For me, saying in one version that God and Christ appeared and in another  version saying that God alone appeared is a contradiction.  I can not for the life of me think of a rational reason to not mention that Christ was not present in such a vision.

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

You are leaping to a conclusion that does not follow from the evidence. Nowhere have I said, implied (or even thought) that those who disagree with my view must be labeled as bitterly and hatefully prejudiced against the Church of Jesus Christ, and who therefore reflexively leap to the most uncharitable explanation possible.

However, there are such people. And, like everyone else, they assume that their opinion is more likely to be true than false.

So why did you put it in your answer to Oliblish post?  What relevance did it have to what he was saying?  And in fact, who on this board would such a statement apply?

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

I think it would be evidence of hiding whether it was a Mormon leader or not.  Again, not proof but evidence.

Again (and I see we are going around and around on this) it's not evidence of "hiding" unless there's no other valid reason to want to take a document out of a common archive, or to move it from one place to another.

And, of course, there are. 

4 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

One explanation is that aliens came down and cut out the pages and put them in JFS's safe.  Is that just as likely as JFS doing it?  In the real world there are always other data points.

No, that's not an explanation. An explanation is that the history was uniquely important in ways that the correspondence was not.

4 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

There are those that defend the church at all costs and reflexively leap to the most charitable explanation possible.  I think we need to step back and avoid looking at this from either of these extreme points of view.  I recognize that we all have our biases but we can do our best to try to set them aside.

And one of the ways I suggest "we" do that is not start from an assumption of bad faith on the part of Church leaders (see the other thread.)

4 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

I do not think that just because someone disagrees with you means that they are bitter and hateful. 

Neither do I.

4 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

I think there are lots of ways to hide things short of total destruction.

So there are. But there are no ways quite as easy and reliable, and if concealment was the only consideration, the history would of course have been destroyed.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Oh brother....

It was just a "for instance" or similar example that I threw out for thought.  Now I remember why I usually ignored you in the past since it's near impossible to have an honest discussion with you.

Honesty is far from consideration with Russell's ridiculous ramblings. What he might be forgetting is that this forum is visited many who are honestly seeking answers and support. And that these people are thinking adults. What they get when they read threads like this is the sense of apologetic desperation.

 

 

 

[Calm]

"Again (and I see we are going around and around on this) it's not evidence of "hiding" unless there's no other valid reason to want to take a document out of a common archive, or to move it from one place to another"

I am not getting your use of "evidence" here.  You seem to be using it closer to "proof".

For the easiest analogy, a defense attorney and a prosecutor can use the same fingerprint evidence to argue different interpretations,  just because they come to different conclusions about the same data doesn't mean the data gets labeled as something besides "evidence".

 

[kiwi57]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not avoiding  the question at all.  The various accounts are not consistent. I think we can all agree on that.

Actually I think they are quite consistent. What they don't do is simply repeat each other. Joseph didn't just memorise a story and recite it verbatim.

That might be significant.

That said, there are some inconsistencies among them. I argue that such inconsistencies are themselves consistent with authentic recollections, as opposed to fabricated stories.

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

 And while I agreee that if one was reporting something as trivial as to who was attending a party, the inconsistencies would not necessarily be contradictory.

But again (and I know I'm sounding like a broken record here) the significance or otherwise of the event being reported is completely irrelevant to the question of what a contradiction is. That's a change of subject that addresses a completely different question.

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

 For me, those inconsistencies make them contradictory mostly because of the importance of those events would be in retelling of such a significant event.

So you are relying upon a private definition of "contradictory." I see.

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

 For me, saying in one version that God and Christ appeared and in another  version saying that God alone appeared is a contradiction.  I can not for the life of me think of a rational reason to not mention that Christ was not present in such a vision.

Okay, you've got it backwards. It is Christ who is prominently mentioned in the 1832 account. (He's actually rather more prominent than the Father in the 1838/9 account too, just BTW.)

But if you actually read through my discussion of the 1832 account, you'll see that the Father is there.

But apart from all that, the really key point is this: What you can or cannot think of is not dispositive of what constitutes a contradiction.

[kiwi57]

12 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Honesty is far from consideration with Russell's ridiculous ramblings. What he might be forgetting is that this forum is visited many who are honestly seeking answers and support. And that these people are thinking adults. What they get when they read threads like this is the sense of apologetic desperation.

Thank you for that pointless personal attack.

[Jeanne]

O

28 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not avoiding  the question at all.  The various accounts are not consistent. I think we can all agree on that.  And while I agreee that if one was reporting something as trivial as to who was attending a party, the inconsistencies would not necessarily be contradictory.  For me, those inconsistencies make them contradictory mostly because of the importance of those events would be in retelling of such a significant event.  For me, saying in one version that God and Christ appeared and in another  version saying that God alone appeared is a contradiction.  I can not for the life of me think of a rational reason to not mention that Christ was not present in such a vision.

One would think that Christ being there would be the most consistent..not to mention that the church bases our very Godhead on this vision and the reliance of this is their bodies of flesh and bones..

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

If God appeared to me, I really don't know who or how many people I would tell.  I think I would be prompted by the spirit to answer that question.  And while I might not tell everyone, I would think it safe enough to tell anyone who knew me well unless I was told by God to not tell anyone.  

And I never called anyone a liar for not writing down what happened.  I only expressed that is what I would do because I would not want to forget even one smidgent of what took place.  

 

I am not a journal keeper by nature either.  Though I did keep a daily journal while on my mission so that I would never forget that experience.  I haven't written down a minute-by-minute account of each of the 5 births.  But I certainly could.  I remember each of those 5 events in vivid detail.  My oldest daughter is in her 40's but to this day I could tell you where I was living, who the first people I told that we were headed to the hospital, what hospital we went to, how long we were in the hospital before my wife gave birth, how difficult the birth was, what time of day it was, what year, what day, and on and on.  While a birth is important, it would be nothing compared to the appearance of God.

Like I said to Russell, I don't fault either one of you for your faith nor your ability to be able to reconcile the differences in the various accounts of the First Vision.  But I can't.  It would be just to important of an event to not tell in detail what and who appeared and how old I was.  Overwhelming important parts of such a vision would never be left out.  Just like the important parts of the birth of each of my children would not be left out when they or anyone else asks me about their births.

I think if it's a vision maybe that could happen, have an unclear memory perhaps. But if it's in real life, not say a vision or in the mind, I can definitely say that one would not be changing their story much. I guess we could say "vision" is the operative word. Has the church came out with whether it happened in real life or a vision only. I think it might clear everything up if we knew the distinction of the word "vision". 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Actually I think they are quite consistent. What they don't do is simply repeat each other. Joseph didn't just memorise a story and recite it verbatim.

That might be significant.

That said, there are some inconsistencies among them. I argue that such inconsistencies are themselves consistent with authentic recollections, as opposed to fabricated stories.

But again (and I know I'm sounding like a broken record here) the significance or otherwise of the event being reported is completely irrelevant to the question of what a contradiction is. That's a change of subject that addresses a completely different question.

So you are relying upon a private definition of "contradictory." I see.

Okay, you've got it backwards. It is Christ who is prominently mentioned in the 1832 account. (He's actually rather more prominent than the Father in the 1838/9 account too, just BTW.)

But if you actually read through my discussion of the 1832 account, you'll see that the Father is there.

But apart from all that, the really key point is this: What you can or cannot think of is not dispositive of what constitutes a contradiction.

We just see the different accounts in a different light.  I don't fault you for your opinions.  I just don't share those opinions.  I have clearly stated why.  And I understand your need to quibble over what I have stated.  It is pretty consistent in the way you like to post on this forum.

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

O

One would think that Christ being there would be the most consistent..not to mention that the church bases our very Godhead on this vision and the reliance of this is their bodies of flesh and bones..

That is certainly how I look at the significants of the various accounts.  To me it is problematic and not easily dismisses as other have.

[Calm]

"But if it's in real life, not say a vision or in the mind, I can definitely say that one would not be changing their story much"

I really have to wonder sometimes how much attention people pay to what others say when they say things like that.

Maybe they just remember themselves as saying things a different way.

I find it remarkable how years later I may first hear a key part of a story about a relationship (family history is so convoluted and always morphing in my experience, from what I have heard reported business stories change as well...all because what is most important to the person changes overtime).