What Joseph Smith did NOT learn from the first vision.

[Bernard Gui]

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not only did he not touch Him, but I question whether he actually saw Him with his physical eyes.  The way I read the first vision accounts, it sounds more like an actual "vision" rather than a physical sighting.

In the 1842 account, Joseph speaks of losing consciousness of his physical surroundings:  

When the vision ended, Joseph reports coming back to consciousness and finding himself lying on his back in the 1838 version:

It is my opinion that if there was witness to these events, someone walking in the woods at the time who happened upon Joseph, it would have appeared to them that while Joseph was praying he fell unconscious on his back, and regained consciousness again a few minutes later.  

Which is consistent with the descriptions of similar visions others have made....Alma, Lehi, Nephi, Paul, Moses, Isaiah, and others. Those who were with Paul and Alma were aware something extraordinary was happening. The Brother of Jared's experience is informative because of the details Moroni included in his narrative. He was apparently lucid and contemplative during the vision. If we had more details of both Joseph's and the Brother of Jared's visions, we could know more of the revelatory process. I suspect they were similar.

Quote

Ether 3: 6 And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear......

17 And now, as I, Moroni, said, I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites.

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So I guess the question might be, was it just a vision, like John the Revelator might have experienced,  or was it an actual visitation? 

It was the spiritual version of Skype

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, Joseph would not have known from his vision whether or not the father had a body or if he was a spirit.

It is possible he was taught this but did not mention it because it seemed obvious to himself.  See something that looks like a body, they talk to you...why wouldn't you assume as a teenager unfamiliar with finer points of theological doctrine, they were flesh and bone?  Maybe he was even touched as a blessing, but it was intensely personal so he did not speak of it. (Unless he says specifically he was not touched and I am forgetting it?)  or maybe he saw the Father touch something else or cause a breeze to move a leaf...something that conveyed material to Joseph.

Not saying it had to be that way, just saying it is pretty clear to me more was going on than what we have been told and I am open to that being one of the known by Joseph, known by no one else.

Add-on:  I am not trying to defend the idea that Joseph didn't know, I had noticed that there was no reason that was obvious evidence that the Father was flesh and bone and then decided to see if I could think of ways .I might be wrong about it.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Even if you go that route you are then left with the problem that it's not clear what ontology is meant by spirit in the LoF.

I think the LoF are somewhat clear about the distinction, and it sounds very Christian to my ears, not a uniquely innovative conception.  

Quote

They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Not only did he not touch Him, but I question whether he actually saw Him with his physical eyes.  The way I read the first vision accounts, it sounds more like an actual "vision" rather than a physical sighting.

In the 1842 account, Joseph speaks of losing consciousness of his physical surroundings:  

When the vision ended, Joseph reports coming back to consciousness and finding himself lying on his back in the 1838 version:

It is my opinion that if there was witness to these events, someone walking in the woods at the time who happened upon Joseph, it would have appeared to them that while Joseph was praying he fell unconscious on his back, and regained consciousness again a few minutes later.  They would not have seen any light or personages in the grove.

Yes, I agree with you about the terms of the language in the 1838 account and in others.  I think this tells us more about what Joseph thought about his experiences, how he saw them in terms of spiritual sight.   From my reading of the accounts, there is an evolution from the earlier narratives to the later narratives where the earlier versions sound more visionary in nature, and later accounts seem to get more descriptive and tangible sounding. 

This is broad generalization, but I think we see this with the FV accounts as well as other angelic accounts like with the restoration of the priesthood.  

[Jeanne]

so uh...what are missionaries telling people now?  I am really having a hard time with this ...again.  The explainations and stretching of the original story is astounding.

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh

Form what I understand this one statement by itself may have been the reason the LoF were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. However it is not a false statement, because God the Father is also a personage of spirit. But if you look at the entire phrase "a personage of spirit, power and glory", this may be referring mostly to His divine exalted nature and not to His physical condition. 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Form what I understand this one statement by itself may have been the reason the LoF were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. However it is not a false statement, because God the Father is also a personage of spirit. But if you look at the entire phrase "a personage of spirit, power and glory", this may be referring mostly to His divine exalted nature and not to His physical condition. 

It definitely was part of the reasoning in the early 20th century for the decanonization of the LoF.  If you haven't read this essay before, its an important read on this topic.  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N03_73.pdf

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Something I have noticed is that there are many places in church literature that tells us that in the First Vision Joseph Smith learned that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone. I remember being taught that too as I grew up in the church. Here are some examples:

"Joseph Smith Learned Many Things from His Vision
Ask the children what Joseph Smith learned from his vision. Bring out the following points:
Joseph saw Heavenly Father and Jesus. He learned that they have bodies of flesh and bone."
(“Lesson 5: The First Vision,” Primary 3 (1994), 20–23)

"A new truth, a concept not understood by the myriads of people on the earth, burst forth, and in that moment (first vision) there was only one man on the face of the whole earth who knew with absolute assurance that God was a personal being, that the Father and Son were separate individuals with [glorified] bodies of flesh and bones [and that he] had been created in their image. As the Son was in the image of his Father, the Father God was the same kind of image as the Son."
(“Chapter 21: The Prophet Joseph Smith,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball (2006), 226–35)

"Another truth we learn because of the First Vision and the Prophet Joseph Smith is the true nature of God. Just imagine how blessed we are to know that God is a being with a body of flesh and bones as tangible as ours," (Essential Truths—Our Need to Act, By Elder Adilson de Paula Parrella, Of the Seventy, Oct 2017)

From Wikipedia:
"According to the LDS Church, the vision teaches that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bone;"

Joseph Smith already knew Jesus had a resurrected body of flesh and bone based on the following scripture when Jesus appears to His Apostles:
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24: 39)

But Joseph Smith could not have known from the first vision alone that God the Father had a body of flesh and bone without having touched Him. 

According to FairMormon
"There is no documentary evidence that indicates exactly when Joseph Smith learned that God the Father had a glorified and perfected body of flesh and bone.
And there is also no indication that Joseph learned any such thing during his 1820 First Vision."

This is one point of confusion that I have heard from other church members and investigators where they have gotten the impression or were directly taught that Joseph learned God the Father has a body of flesh and bone during the first vision when we don't really know for sure when he learned that.  

I am much inclined to agree with Pogi and B Gui. The vision by itself is not sufficient to conclude that the Father has a body of flesh and bone - that is an inference. This claim fairly routinely made from the pulpit of Church conferences has always bugged me. After all, Joseph seemed to call the event a vision. From what we know of many other visions, the subject of the vision was not seen by others there - they were not physically there - but made theirselves known by a vision in the mind of the recipient. The Father seems to say those who see me must die, and yet we have all these Church presidents saying Joseph Smith physically saw the Father. It is just not consistent, and I feel should stop or be clarified. 

Nevertheless, i do testify that the Father does have a visible corporeal body, and there are scriptures which tell us so. Moses was not allowed to see him, but saw His "back parts."  We are told we are formed (ie made) in His image. Being that this is speaking of our physical, corporeal bodies, and not our spirits which we are told came from Him and return to Him, being formed in His image has a very solid meaning that the Father's image is one like our own physical and visible bodies with hands and other physical body parts mentioned in scripture - a soul as well, see Isa 42:1. Christ is said to have been in His express image... I read that to include marks in His hands.. Something Christ alluded to when He said the time was coming when He would show us plainly of the Father.

When Christ is called the Father, will He give up His resurrected body? I think not. Thus, He will be the Father with a physical body - just like His Father before Him.  Just like He saw His Father lay down His life, so did He as Joseph Smith taught us. See King Follett discourse.  So there you have it - the oracles of God. The Jews called Him the invisible God, because of tangible reasons. His image was not in their temple. All the other pagan gods of the surrounding peoples had visible images of their gods in their temples. Not YHWH. He wished to be believed according to our faith, and only divulged His secret in the person of His Son, Yeshua Christ. However, even their shared name of YHWH reveals this secret. They are one Lord, one YHWH because they both earned that name. When the day comes that the Church starts teaching this rather than the pablum that we know this because of the first vision, then the Church will be ready for new scripture.

[Gray]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is possible he was taught this but did not mention it because it seemed obvious to himself.  See something that looks like a body, they talk to you...why wouldn't you assume as a teenager unfamiliar with finer points of theological doctrine, they were flesh and bone?  Maybe he was even touched as a blessing, but it was intensely personal so he did not speak of it. (Unless he says specifically he was not touched and I am forgetting it?)  or maybe he saw the Father touch something else or cause a breeze to move a leaf...something that conveyed material to Joseph.

Not saying it had to be that way, just saying it is pretty clear to me more was going on than what we have been told and I am open to that being one of the known by Joseph, known by no one else.

Add-on:  I am not trying to defend the idea that Joseph didn't know, I had noticed that there was no reason that was obvious evidence that the Father was flesh and bone and then decided to see if I could think of ways .I might be wrong about it. 

Well, I think to begin with the idea that Joseph learned about the Father's physicality from that experience is just assumed in modern teaching materials. Did Joseph ever say he got the doctrine from that experience? Not that I'm aware of. And of course as has already been mentioned, LDS doctrine on the Father was, initially at least, that the Father was a spirit without a body. So if that's the lesson he learned, why publish the LOF to undercut that doctrine?

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It definitely was part of the reasoning in the early 20th century for the decanonization of the LoF.  If you haven't read this essay before, its an important read on this topic.  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V20N03_73.pdf

I actually have a 1907 triple combination in my collection that includes the LoF but I have never read it all the way through.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I should add there is an other reason to think of Stoic influence, perhaps (speculatively) due to reading about Tertullian's view of the Trinity. Take the other Jan 5, 1841 notes.

This is very interesting.  Also footnote #4 on the boap site says this, and I'm wondering what evidence they have to support this claim that the saints as early as 1836 were claiming God had a material body.  

Quote

4. The doctrine that God the Father is a resurrected being is here announced. However, at least by 1836 the Saints were publically saying that God had a material body. Even before this, we have JST Gen. 6:9 which suggests the idea. See notes at 7Apr44. Also Milton V. Backman, "Truman Coe's 1836 Description of Mormonism," in Joseph Smith's First Vision, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1980) 347, 354.

The JST Gen 6:9 uses interesting language when you consider how it uses the word "body".  I actually checked the Adam Clarke commentary on the bible to see what it says with the recent findings on some borrowing from Clarke for the JST, I was wondering if it said anything about this and it doesn't sound like this was from Clarke.  However, I wonder if this reading could just refer to how Joseph conceived of the image of the body of the Son perhaps.  At any rate, its interesting that the boap people think this is evidence of an early suggestion of this idea.  I would like to see more supporting evidence.  

Quote

Gen 6:9 And a genealogy was kept of the children of God. And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying, In the day that God created man (in the likeness of God made he him), in the image of his own body, male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created, and became living souls in the land, upon the footstool of God.

 

[pogi]

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

From my reading of the accounts, there is an evolution from the earlier narratives to the later narratives where the earlier versions sound more visionary in nature, and later accounts seem to get more descriptive and tangible sounding. 

I don't see the same evolution.  If anything, I see the opposite.  The earlier versions are much more descriptive in detail with what the Lord says and what he saw.  There is no mention of him being unconscious in the 1832 or 1835 accounts.  In the 1835 version he even speaks of a pillar of fire and being surprised that nothing around him was being consumed in it.  This makes it sound more "tangible" to me; as if he saw this pillar of fire in the nature that surrounded him in the midst of the woods. 

The 1838 (official version) is the first indication that he was unconscious, stating "When I came to myself again I found myself lying on <my> back looking up into Heaven."  And finally, the latest version 1842, it again speaks of him losing consciousness of the objects surrounding him as he was enwrapped in a heavenly vision. 

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I actually have a 1907 triple combination in my collection that includes the LoF but I have never read it all the way through.

That's cool.  I think its really sad that the LoF were removed (without a vote by the people too), although its understandable considering that the FP didn't like all the questions they kept getting about these topics.  But to be honest, I find the conflicting ideas some of the most rich parts of scripture, and if church leaders attempted to remove all the conflicting portions of scripture we wouldn't have much left. 

It would be better to just keep everything in, that way people can easily recognize that there are many differences of opinion in scripture and not get the false impression that everything harmonizes, which is what correlation attempts to portray, yet a closer reading of scripture quickly debunks.  

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't see the same evolution.  If anything, I see the opposite.  The earlier versions are much more descriptive in detail with what the Lord says and what he saw.  There is no mention of him being unconscious in the 1832 or 1835 accounts.  In the 1835 version he even speaks of a pillar of fire and being surprised that nothing around him was being consumed in it.  This makes it sound more "tangible" to me; as if he saw this pillar of fire in the nature that surrounded him in the midst of the woods. 

The 1838 (official version) is the first indication that he was unconscious, stating "When I came to myself again I found myself lying on <my> back looking up into Heaven."  And finally, the latest version 1842, it again speaks of him losing consciousness of the objects surrounding him as he was enwrapped in a heavenly vision. 

Those are good points.  Its definitely not going completely in one direction.  There are many more words quoting Jesus in the 1832 account, than in the 1838 account as well.  Evolution isn't always linear, and the more I study about things the more I recognize that the immediate context of what was going on often has a large influence on what was recorded.  For example, it would be very interesting to know as much as we could about the events surrounding Joseph and the saints when he wrote the 1832 account, including what D&C sections were recorded as well as any other events happening at that time period.  

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That's cool.  I think its really sad that the LoF were removed (without a vote by the people too), although its understandable considering that the FP didn't like all the questions they kept getting about these topics.  But to be honest, I find the conflicting ideas some of the most rich parts of scripture, and if church leaders attempted to remove all the conflicting portions of scripture we wouldn't have much left. 

It would be better to just keep everything in, that way people can easily recognize that there are many differences of opinion in scripture and not get the false impression that everything harmonizes, which is what correlation attempts to portray, yet a closer reading of scripture quickly debunks.  

The thing about the LoF is that they were not dictations of JS like D&C. They were largely compilations of Sidney Rigdon. Where they conflict with revelations of JS, the Lord has told us that His revelations through JS supercede. We don't really know how much JS revelation we are getting in the LoF - it seems to me, not much. I don't regard them as scripture. They were essentially early attempts at Sunday School. I also find myself disagreeing with pronouncements made in SS too - one of the most recent I heard is that the WoW has been made a commandment to us. Anyway, I will never consider the LoF to be scripture or anywhere near on par with D&C. I don't believe scripture conflicts with itself in essential teachings. I believe interpretations conflict.  

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is very interesting.  Also footnote #4 on the boap site says this, and I'm wondering what evidence they have to support this claim that the saints as early as 1836 were claiming God had a material body.  

The Truman Coe report. Coe, a non-Mormon, wrote the following in 1836:

• "They contend that the God worshipped by the Presbyterians and all other sectarians is no better than a wooden god. They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself."

This is somewhat ambiguous since he may have gotten confused about Jesus as God. However it can also easily be read - especially given the 1841 account - as a doctrine of the embodiment of the father.

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The JST Gen 6:9 uses interesting language when you consider how it uses the word "body".  I actually checked the Adam Clarke commentary on the bible to see what it says with the recent findings on some borrowing from Clarke for the JST, I was wondering if it said anything about this and it doesn't sound like this was from Clarke.

Most of the borrowing from Clarke was for replaced words and was most heavily accessed when he returned to the Old Testament. Genesis I believe starts before he gets the Clarke commentary. The ambiguity comes again over who the God in the garden is. Is it Jesus of Ether 3 or his Father? This then gets into the issue of Joseph's understanding of the distinction between the beings. But by and large Moses 6:9 seems to expand upon Ether 3. Again how significant that is depends upon how you view Joseph's connection to both the Book of Mormon and JST. I think the JST seems more significant. But both suggest God has a body of a sort.

Ether 3:15-16 "Seest thou that ye are created after mine own cimage? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh."

35 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I actually have a 1907 triple combination in my collection that includes the LoF but I have never read it all the way through.

It's worth reading. It also, given the Ether and Moses uses, shouldn't be taken to imply immaterial. It says,

• There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible; whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space. They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness. The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man—or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image. He is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father, possessing all the fullness of the Father, or the same fullness with the Father, being begotten of him;

The problem is that it clearly identifies the Son with the figure in the garden after whose image Adam is made. Which is why I'm not sure Moses 6:9 or Ether 3 do the job some task it to do.

 

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The thing about the LoF is that they were not dictations of JS like D&C. They were largely compilations of Sidney Rigdon. Where they conflict with revelations of JS, the Lord has told us that His revelations through JS supercede. We don't really know how much JS revelation we are getting in the LoF - it seems to me, not much. I don't regard them as scripture. They were essentially early attempts at Sunday School. I also find myself disagreeing with pronouncements made in SS too - one of the most recent I heard is that the WoW has been made a commandment to us. Anyway, I will never consider the LoF to be scripture or anywhere near on par with D&C. I don't believe scripture conflicts with itself in essential teachings. I believe interpretations conflict.  

True, but I don't really see that much of a difference between the D&C and the LoF.  Remember that committees were involved in the final published versions of the D&C, the JST is the same the BoA is also similar.  I wonder about the BoM as well based on the evidence we have about how other revelations developed.  Honestly, I don't think much came exclusively from Joseph without other contributing environmental elements. 

So how do you rank all these revelations, should we have a group of scholars do conduct a Joseph seminar to rate everything similar to the Jesus seminar?   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

 

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The Truman Coe report. Coe, a non-Mormon, wrote the following in 1836:

• "They contend that the God worshipped by the Presbyterians and all other sectarians is no better than a wooden god. They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself."

This is somewhat ambiguous since he may have gotten confused about Jesus as God. However it can also easily be read - especially given the 1841 account - as a doctrine of the embodiment of the father.

Thanks, I had forgotten about this.  It is interesting and I think part of the total picture that should be considered. 

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Most of the borrowing from Clarke was for replaced words and was most heavily accessed when he returned to the Old Testament. Genesis I believe starts before he gets the Clarke commentary. The ambiguity comes again over who the God in the garden is. Is it Jesus of Ether 3 or his Father? This then gets into the issue of Joseph's understanding of the distinction between the beings. But by and large Moses 6:9 seems to expand upon Ether 3. Again how significant that is depends upon how you view Joseph's connection to both the Book of Mormon and JST. I think the JST seems more significant. But both suggest God has a body of a sort.

Ether 3:15-16 "Seest thou that ye are created after mine own cimage? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh."

I'm not sure when exactly the Clarke material was first found, but I thought it included the earlier parts in Genesis as I attended a book signing with Wayment a couple months ago, and I thought he made mention of this in the Genesis section.  But we'll see when his entire findings are published.   

I guess with respect to Ether aligning with the statements in the book of Moses or BoA, I don't see a lot of evidence that Joseph's theology was consistent or systematic, many things in the JST contradicted earlier biblical quotes in the BoM.  So I wouldn't expect that these sections to conform.  

 

[clarkgoble]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure when exactly the Clarke material was first found, but I thought it included the earlier parts in Genesis as I attended a book signing with Wayment a couple months ago, and I thought he made mention of this in the Genesis section.  But we'll see when his entire findings are published.   

I believe he was partway through Genesis when he got Clarke. I'm trying to find the source on that but can't right now. But I want to say around Genesis 30 or so. 

Quote

I guess with respect to Ether aligning with the statements in the book of Moses or BoA, I don't see a lot of evidence that Joseph's theology was consistent or systematic, many things in the JST contradicted earlier biblical quotes in the BoM.  So I wouldn't expect that these sections to conform.  

I don't have a problem with that since I think the OT is ridiculously composite. However in this case I think the significance is their similarity. There are a few other JST areas that seem to eerily reflect the Book of Mormon.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I believe he was partway through Genesis when he got Clarke. I'm trying to find the source on that but can't right now. But I want to say around Genesis 30 or so. 

I don't have a problem with that since I think the OT is ridiculously composite. However in this case I think the significance is their similarity. There are a few other JST areas that seem to eerily reflect the Book of Mormon.

I'll see if I can find anything about that Clarke evidence as well.  

As for the JST reflecting the BoM, that doesn't surprise me at all and is to be expected considering that this was the language that Joseph was enmeshed in and I think borrowed heavily from, sometimes conscientiously and other times it was just the language of religion that he was brought up on.  The interesting thing I think is his approach isn't consistent as we see many examples of contradiction across time.  

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

True, but I don't really see that much of a difference between the D&C and the LoF.  Remember that committees were involved in the final published versions of the D&C, the JST is the same the BoA is also similar.  I wonder about the BoM as well based on the evidence we have about how other revelations developed.  Honestly, I don't think much came exclusively from Joseph without other contributing environmental elements. 

So how do you rank all these revelations, should we have a group of scholars do conduct a Joseph seminar to rate everything similar to the Jesus seminar?   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

Absolutely not. Scholars are partially to blame for the correlated mess the Church has gotten itself into. Scholars judging what were the authentic words of Yeshua some 2000 years later seems somewhat ludicrous to me. That is like believing only the Jefferson Bible. I believe there is abundant evidence for the authenticity of the 4 gospels. There are a few questions like the periocope of John, but that just rings of a true story which wasn't in the gospels at first. It has definite Jewish tones throughout. A version of it was referenced by one of the earliest Christian commentators. So who cares if it wasn't in the earliest version of John we have?

Do we get cultural references and English anachronisms in the BoM? Of course we do. What else would one expect? If God is going to speak to you, will it include cultural anachronisms and figures of speech you use? Of course. That is how you will understand it. So we get the BoM using the French word adieu which even my spell checker recognizes as being a correct word. Most English words came from other languages. If you read the Quran in its "original Arabic" and you are a student of Middle Eastern languages, you will realize that it has a lot of Syrian and other words in it. This is contrary to the usual Islamic teaching that Arabic is the language of God from the beginning and is what the Quran was written in heaven as. Instead we find Arabic was a new language which formed out of usage of words in the larger societies around Arabia, so borrowed a lot of words from Syria and elsewhere. This can have a major impact on how one reads/interprets the Quran. To try to interpret the Book of Mormon, we need to read it in the context of that society which it was written for rather than believing that we are getting a word for word translation. So it contains anachronisms and hyperbole like that found in the KJV. Trying to apply a scholarly comparison of it to say the D&C as to which to accept as scripture is not the right way to go. I have told you I really don't like your penchant for relying on scholarly analysis for determining scripture. Scholars generally totally discount prophecy, so if it was up to them there would be no prophecy in the Bible. They will have a bigger problem yet with the BoM though since there is no denying its existence since 1830. They won't be able to deny it was written before its prophetic events happened like they do with Daniel and other Biblical books. As its prophesies continue to come true in their plainness and undeniable simplicity, the scholarly approach will go out the window.

So how do I rank Church revelations? Besides the Bible, those coming through Joseph Smith are at the top: the Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price. The JST which was never published in his lifetime comes in as worthy of study, but taken with a grain of salt. It is clear by the time we are getting to "borrowings" from Clarke that the Lord may have been done with what He thought were essential revelations at the time, and JS was just trying to leave no stone unturned. In his own right, I've never considered JS to be a good translator. He clearly thought he was better than he was. He did not have a good grasp of Hebrew, Greek or any other language that I know of. He was even initially fooled by the Kinderhook plates. 

All subsequent "revelations" are subject to closer scrutiny in my mind. I do not hang on every word of Joseph F Smith's vision, because it includes his interpretation of what he was shown rather than a word for word dictation from the Lord. I definitely do not run my life by every word which comes over the podium of conference. I generally follow the teachings of the Church, but where I perceive conflict with scripture, I apply close scrutiny, scripture study and prayer. So, I do not always see eye to eye with pronouncements which have come over the Church podium, and live my life as I understand scripture. That seems to bother some in the Church. It doesn't bother me. I know my salvation is sure. I find the search satisfying and at times exciting even if I don't care for Church attitudes about it. I find the attitude that only the Church President can properly interpret scripture to be disturbing. No scripture is subject to private interpretation. The spirit will confirm it. If there is no spirit of confirmation then it is not scripture as far as I am concerned.

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

But that verse only refers to Jesus having a body of flesh and bone; you assume the same is the case for God the Father. 

Then you take other scripture - if you have seen me you have seen the Father; I and the Father are one; I think there are a few others that make it clear that the Father and Jesus are identical, yet separate beings.  

It is much harder for me to support the proposition that the Father is spirit only.  There are just too many conflicting verses with that premise.  

JAHS, you may have a different biblical position; I am saying that I cannot conclude differently than what I have stated. 

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Then you take other scripture - if you have seen me you have seen the Father; I and the Father are one; I think there are a few others that make it clear that the Father and Jesus are identical, yet separate beings.  

It is much harder for me to support the proposition that the Father is spirit only.  There are just too many conflicting verses with that premise.  

JAHS, you may have a different biblical position; I am saying that I cannot conclude differently than what I have stated. 

Oh, I agree it's just that you only mentioned the one scripture that specified Jesus.  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'll see if I can find anything about that Clarke evidence as well. 

Found it.

• Now looking at the text, we can say that a lot of the material that happens after Genesis 24. There are no parallels to Clarke between Genesis 1–Genesis 24. But when we start to get to Matthew, it’s very clear that Adam Clarke has influenced the way he changes the Bible.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

As for the JST reflecting the BoM, that doesn't surprise me at all and is to be expected considering that this was the language that Joseph was enmeshed in and I think borrowed heavily from, sometimes conscientiously and other times it was just the language of religion that he was brought up on.  The interesting thing I think is his approach isn't consistent as we see many examples of contradiction across time.  

Of course what is or isn't a contradiction depends upon how you read the text.