What Joseph Smith did NOT learn from the first vision.

[clarkgoble]

42 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.  

The question is how identical and what senses the comparison is meant. Reading it as just a moral image is defensible even if I think it means more than that.

[Storm Rider]

54 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The question is how identical and what senses the comparison is meant. Reading it as just a moral image is defensible even if I think it means more than that.

Clark, 

I don't slice and dice scripture too much; I find it a colossal waste of time and maybe even a sign that I am just too stupid for the intelligentsia.  

Like many others, I have read the Standard Works countless times.  I have spent untold hours contemplating and studying on many different topics in an effort to understand.  This has been done prayerfully and at times with extended fasting.  When I read scripture I strive to sense the Spirit guidance to teach me what is true.  There are something things that are clear as the noonday sun yet there are many other things that remain a mystery to me.  

My comments are based strictly on my personal understanding of scripture.  Still don't care when Joseph first taught that both the Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone - the point for me is that it is true.

 

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Not only including all that has been said (I agree it doesnt' appear to me Joseph learned of the Father being flesh and bone at the time of his first vision) but the first recorded version of the first vision doesnt' have the Father there at all, unless the Father is the LORD and the Lord is also the Son who was crucified for the sins of the world.  In time, it appears, his perspective changed.

The 1832 account does not claim that the Father was not there.  It does not say that Joseph saw the Lord and nobody else.

[strappinglad]

John 5:19 ,as has been noted , basically says that Christ is following the lead of the Father. Does that not mean that the Father has already done everything that Christ did and was to do? That would apply to the body also , no?

[sunstoned]

10 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.

With the multiple accounts, there is some question on just what he claimed to have seen.

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 hours ago, JAHS said:

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.  

You are correct. He didn't necessarily even learn that the Father and Son were distinct persons from this vision. People have read far too many things back into the experience.

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The historical evidence about what Joseph thought about God the Father shows a theological evolution of thought.  His earlier conceptions about God were not of a person with a body of flesh and bone.  The lectures on faith written in 1835 show that Joseph at one point thought of God the Father as a personage of Spirit.  The BoM certainly doesn't talk about God having a body of flesh and bone.  The evidence shows that this concept didn't develop until late in the Nauvoo period.  

The way correlated Mormonism explains this topic is to read present theological conceptions back into the historical timeline, but thats not an accurate reflection of how church teachings developed.  

Definitely an evolved doctrine, with an evolved vision.

[Benjamin Seeker]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you make some really good points about the materialism ideas that were starting to be used in Mormonism, and the later innovations of the Pratts.  Really important to think about how those ideas influence our contemporary ideas about Mormon doctrine.  

However, I disagree that this doctrine was pretty well set in 1841, and I don't see any reason to believe that Joseph's ideas about God the Father were developed at that point or that this reading of John 5 represents a reading that clearly was descriptive of the Father or that their interpretation departed from traditional protestant Christian ideas at that point. 

Wondering if you've read John Turner's The Mormon Jesus: A biography, it has some good material in it on this topic, but I don't have it in front of me at the moment.  

Hope, in 1841 JS already has his theology that the Father  redeemed a world the same as Christ, and the resulting corporeality of the Father is integral to that. See the quote discussed here that I’ve brought up previously: https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/10/03/memories-mysteries-solved-mysteries-made-wilford-woodruffs-book-of-revelations/

Edited May 30, 2018 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

 

I think it’s significant that there is similar language in Mosiah 15’s discussion of Christ: 

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son--

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

“Because of the flesh” in both texts applies to the Son or the Son aspect of God, implicitly not the Father.

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The 1832 account does not claim that the Father was not there.  It does not say that Joseph saw the Lord and nobody else.

Yes it does.  Wherein does it say the Father was there?  Or that someone else was there?

Quote

therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in <the> attitude of calling upon the Lord <in the 16th year of my age>

a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord

16

and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life <behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to thir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles

17

behold and lo I come quickly as it [is?] written of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father

18

and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy

"History, circa Summer 1832," p. 1, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed May 30, 2018, http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1

Or are you saying it's possible the Father was there but Joseph didn't mention Him?  If so, ok.  BUt of course the account doesn't say that.

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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?

Your approach is interesting, but I don't think consistent.  You have a suspicion of some scholarship, but you also want to "scrutinize" certain revelations.  

I recognize that scholarship has limitations and that we shouldn't ever get overly confident that one construction of history is absolutely accurate.  I've learned to try and be comfortable that new information will change the way we see things, and those changes are sometimes quite dramatic. 

I just don't understand how you've constructed an approach that takes some scholarship seriously and rejects and is cynical of other scholarship.  I imagine that it all makes sense in your mind somehow, and if you are comfortable with this approach, then I guess that's all that matters.  I can better understand people that think they are rejecting all scholarship and put their entire trust in church leaders, because that approach seems consistent to me.  

As for this topic, I don't see many of the revelations from Joseph as being purely Joseph.  My reading of him is that he's a master of putting narratives together from disparate pieces of information, that he sees patterns in the random events and that he is bold and innovative.  He also relies on others around him for their ideas and borrows from his contemporaries, and even puts trust in his close confidants to make changes and additions to the things he produces.  All of this potpourri of information is mixed together in the resulting revelations that we have from Joseph today.  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

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

Thanks for finding that piece, good point to clarify.  

As for contradictions, I see a lot of creative explanations to explain away simple contradictions at times by people that want everything in the scriptures to harmonize.  

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Hope, in 1841 JS already has his theology that the Father  redeemed a world the same as Christ, and the resulting corporeality of the Father is integral to that. See the quote discussed here that I’ve brought up previously: https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/10/03/memories-mysteries-solved-mysteries-made-wilford-woodruffs-book-of-revelations/

Wow, what a cool quote.  If you shared this with me in the past, missed it.  Sorry about that.  What a cool post by WVS and what an amazing source book that Woodruff book is.  I hadn't heard about this before, and it really seems to clear up what that other quote left somewhat ambiguous.  It sounds like Joseph's theology on this topic was much more developed in 1841 than I had any idea about. 

So interesting.  Thanks again for sharing this cool information.  Gotta love Mormon history, this stuff is so fascinating.  

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think it’s significant that there is similar language in Mosiah 15’s discussion of Christ: 

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son--

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

“Because of the flesh” in both texts applies to the Son or the Son aspect of God, implicitly not the Father.

Thats interesting wording for sure.  I tried google book search for the phrase "because of the flesh" and "dwelleth in flesh" before 1830 and couldn't find any hits on those exact phrases. 

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Your approach is interesting, but I don't think consistent.  You have a suspicion of some scholarship, but you also want to "scrutinize" certain revelations.  

I recognize that scholarship has limitations and that we shouldn't ever get overly confident that one construction of history is absolutely accurate.  I've learned to try and be comfortable that new information will change the way we see things, and those changes are sometimes quite dramatic. 

I just don't understand how you've constructed an approach that takes some scholarship seriously and rejects and is cynical of other scholarship.  I imagine that it all makes sense in your mind somehow, and if you are comfortable with this approach, then I guess that's all that matters.  I can better understand people that think they are rejecting all scholarship and put their entire trust in church leaders, because that approach seems consistent to me.  

Over the course of my life in studying the scriptures I have learned to be very skeptical of scholarship. I have largely found, it led me away from the truth too often. I had to start at the basics and ask questions, and do my own investigating. I do not reject all scholarship of the scriptures, but just have found that imho, scholars have generally made a mess of things. My opinion of the early Jewish scholarship is somewhat the same. It is because of it, that the Jews were totally unprepared for the man Yeshua as their Messiah. However, they clearly believed the prophesies of Daniel more than modern scholars. Early Christian "Greek" scholars made their own "contributions" to the mess by interpreting scripture with the philosophical eyes of Greeks. They essentially invented their own theology, which comes down to us today - with God being an invisible spirit and other things commonly believed. Their attempts to reconcile the reality of Yeshua with the Jewish ideal of one God evolved into Nicene trinitarianism - which we still have with us today. I put the blame on them for "messing up" Christianity, but Roman political will was a definite contributing factor to wiping out any competing theologies. You have of yourself demonstrated the power of this replacement theology by accepting their interpretation of Daniel 10-12, hook, line and sinker - mostly sinker - since theologians themselves realize that their interpretation causes the vision to fail. But scholars are a proud bunch, and believe themselves capable of unsealing that which God said was sealed until the time of the end. Why? Essentially, because they do not believe in prophecy. They believe the Jewish scribes were just cobbling together a bunch of ideas and stories just like you basically treat Joseph Smith.

As you have noted I do not reject all scholarship, so you believe me to be inconsistent, but I apply my own intellect to the scholarship and I scrutinize it. If it appears off-kilter I criticize it, and give my reasons why I reject it. Essentially, I do not believe scholarly interpretation is inherently more reliable than interpretation by the Spirit. God's opinion of modern scholarship doesn't seem good either:

Isaiah 29:14

14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a ^amarvellous ^bwork among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the ^cwisdom of their wise men shall ^dperish, and the ^eunderstanding of their ^fprudent men shall be hid.

So, interestingly, I blame scholarship for your non-belief, while it is those very scholars in whom you place your trust. You "see" too many problems with scriptures, like they do, to believe that they come from God. Your study of them seems to be mostly a practice in cultural understanding and growth in order to claim what is "good" in them for yourself in order to live a happy, and fulfilling life. My study of them is an attempt to understand God, and to attempt to follow His will in my (imperfect) way. To be fair to you, you do not have my experiences. I am not trying to be critical of you. I am just trying to help you understand the differences in our approach. I do not place scholarship up on some pedestal to be followed. I analyze it, and use my own understanding and intellect to judge its quality and believability. Obviously, if I find problems with it, I am likely to reject it. So some I accept, and much I reject. I don't find that troublesome. 

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think it’s significant that there is similar language in Mosiah 15’s discussion of Christ: 

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son--

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

“Because of the flesh” in both texts applies to the Son or the Son aspect of God, implicitly not the Father.

Yes, and Mosiah 15 is likely the influence on lecture 5. It's a weird phrase. I did a Google search for texts before 1850 and it doesn't appear. However it does appear in some translations of Tertullian from 1885. It also appears in a translation of the Book of Concord from 1917. (Roughly the statement of beliefs of the Lutheran church) 

Edited May 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Over the course of my life in studying the scriptures I have learned to be very skeptical of scholarship. I have largely found, it led me away from the truth too often. I had to start at the basics and ask questions, and do my own investigating. I do not reject all scholarship of the scriptures, but just have found that imho, scholars have generally made a mess of things. My opinion of the early Jewish scholarship is somewhat the same. It is because of it, that the Jews were totally unprepared for the man Yeshua as their Messiah. However, they clearly believed the prophesies of Daniel more than modern scholars. Early Christian "Greek" scholars made their own "contributions" to the mess by interpreting scripture with the philosophical eyes of Greeks. They essentially invented their own theology, which comes down to us today - with God being an invisible spirit and other things commonly believed. Their attempts to reconcile the reality of Yeshua with the Jewish ideal of one God evolved into Nicene trinitarianism - which we still have with us today. I put the blame on them for "messing up" Christianity, but Roman political will was a definite contributing factor to wiping out any competing theologies. You have of yourself demonstrated the power of this replacement theology by accepting their interpretation of Daniel 10-12, hook, line and sinker - mostly sinker - since theologians themselves realize that their interpretation causes the vision to fail. But scholars are a proud bunch, and believe themselves capable of unsealing that which God said was sealed until the time of the end. Why? Essentially, because they do not believe in prophecy. They believe the Jewish scribes were just cobbling together a bunch of ideas and stories just like you basically treat Joseph Smith.

As you have noted I do not reject all scholarship, so you believe me to be inconsistent, but I apply my own intellect to the scholarship and I scrutinize it. If it appears off-kilter I criticize it, and give my reasons why I reject it. Essentially, I do not believe scholarly interpretation is inherently more reliable than interpretation by the Spirit.

Thanks for trying to explain further.  One question I would have is how is your approach not just an example of confirmation bias?  If you accept the scholarship that doesn't contradict existing paradigms, but reject the scholarship that does contradict, how is this a reliable approach to avoiding confirmation bias?  My other subsequent question would be, do you think you are willing to seriously consider evidence that contradicts truths that you hold very dear?  In other words, are there some truths that you will hold allegiance to no matter what the evidence is?  

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

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

So, interestingly, I blame scholarship for your non-belief, while it is those very scholars in whom you place your trust. You "see" too many problems with scriptures, like they do, to believe that they come from God. Your study of them seems to be mostly a practice in cultural understanding and growth in order to claim what is "good" in them for yourself in order to live a happy, and fulfilling life. My study of them is an attempt to understand God, and to attempt to follow His will in my (imperfect) way. To be fair to you, you do not have my experiences. I am not trying to be critical of you. I am just trying to help you understand the differences in our approach. I do not place scholarship up on some pedestal to be followed. I analyze it, and use my own understanding and intellect to judge its quality and believability. Obviously, if I find problems with it, I am likely to reject it. So some I accept, and much I reject. I don't find that troublesome. 

Just one quick comment, some of the terms you've used to describe my perspective, aren't accurate and aren't the way I would self identify (Non-belief, etc.)  I also think one major difference in our approaches, is that I've essentially separated spiritual/religious truth, from scholarly facts and the sciences.  From my current perspective these are two different ways of knowing the world around us.  The spiritual/religious truths are very important and I think inform the way we relate to others and are more closely related to things like love and beauty and joy.  However, these experiences we have don't tell us anything about whether or not gravity works, or how life on earth evolved, or accurate descriptions of how history unfolded.  

The things of physics, archaeology, biology, history, are in a different category of inquiry.  This field of inquiry cannot tell me how I should love another person best.  It doesn't tell me whether or not I should feel nostalgic about an experience I had with my kids, or a life changing religious moment.   On the other hand, the love I have for my kids does not tell me what happened 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem.  My religious/spiritual experiences do not tell me what happened in history, they just don't.  So no matter how much tradition has evolved over the centuries to describe the narrative of Christianity, or Mormonism, or any religion, those traditions may not have any accuracy with respect to events that happened in history.  They only reflect how people created meaning in the form of narratives and traditions that have been passed down over the centuries.  

So I look closely at the scholarship for as accurate of a picture of the events of the past as we can get.  I look at the traditions of religious groups to see how tradition and narrative has motivated individuals and shaped society.  I don't see a conflict here, but that's because my assumptions about what religious traditions can tell me about the world I inhabit is different than the assumptions you're bringing to the table.  

I hope that makes some sense, and look forward to your reply.  

 

[Okrahomer]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thats interesting wording for sure.  I tried google book search for the phrase "because of the flesh" and "dwelleth in flesh" before 1830 and couldn't find any hits on those exact phrases. 

 

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, and Mosiah 15 is likely the influence on lecture 5. It's a weird phrase. I did a Google search for texts before 1850 and it doesn't appear. However it does appear in some translations of Tertullian from 1885. It also appears in a translation of the Book of Concord from 1917. (Roughly the statement of beliefs of the Lutheran church) 

You might try the BYU Corpora -- Early English Books Online (EEOB.)  It yields 33 instances of the exact phrase “because of the flesh” between 1535 and 1658; and there are 6 instances of the phrase “dwelleth in flesh” between 1566 and 1685.  It seems like Google results are much more "proximate" than exact.  For example, Google yields references to Adam Clark's 1811 Bible Commentary for "because of the flesh"; however, the phrase is not at all exact (see below):

"suffered for us in the flesh, a. u.c. cir.8i3. arm yourse]ves likewise with the mind : for b he that hath suffered in the ... in a state of suffering, the mind loses its relish for the sins of the flesh, and because they are embittered to him through ..."

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

 

You might try the BYU Corpora -- Early English Books Online (EEOB.)  It yields 33 instances of the exact phrase “because of the flesh” between 1535 and 1658; and there are 6 instances of the phrase “dwelleth in flesh” between 1566 and 1685.  It seems like Google results are much more "proximate" than exact.  For example, Google yields references to Adam Clark's 1811 Bible Commentary for "because of the flesh"; however, the phrase is not at all exact (see below):

"suffered for us in the flesh, a. u.c. cir.8i3. arm yourse]ves likewise with the mind : for b he that hath suffered in the ... in a state of suffering, the mind loses its relish for the sins of the flesh, and because they are embittered to him through ..."

Thanks, I'll check that tool out.  

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for trying to explain further.  One question I would have is how is your approach not just an example of confirmation bias?  If you accept the scholarship that doesn't contradict existing paradigms, but reject the scholarship that does contradict, how is this a reliable approach to avoiding confirmation bias?  My other subsequent question would be, do you think you are willing to seriously consider evidence that contradicts truths that you hold very dear?  In other words, are there some truths that you will hold allegiance to no matter what the evidence is?  

I admit to having some "confirmation bias." The Lord has confirmed some things for me. So I accept those things and moved on from there, seeking to understand new things. I believe because I accepted what was confirmed to me, the Lord opened new doors for me - its the ask and ye shall receive principle of the gospel. If the Lord spoke to you, would you counter that scholars say such and such instead? I have always tried to be open minded. This is why I question many past scholars. You have your own confirmation bias. You reject old theological scholars for new textual scholars, etc. Are there some truths that I hold dear no matter what the evidence is? There are truths I hold dear, because they are covenants to me. I don't always live those covenants perfectly, but I haven't found any strong evidence against them. Rather, I have continued to find scriptural evidence to support them. What other evidence do I need for spiritual matters? Your evidence that scriptures aren't reliable? I am aware of it. We have discussed it at some length. I generally find scriptures to be reliable. I find them to be the source of truth rather than the beliefs and interpretations of man. That doesn't mean I turn my back on criticisms. I engage in both apologetics and polemics. 

Quote

Just one quick comment, some of the terms you've used to describe my perspective, aren't accurate and aren't the way I would self identify (Non-belief, etc.)  I also think one major difference in our approaches, is that I've essentially separated spiritual/religious truth, from scholarly facts and the sciences.  From my current perspective these are two different ways of knowing the world around us.  The spiritual/religious truths are very important and I think inform the way we relate to others and are more closely related to things like love and beauty and joy.  However, these experiences we have don't tell us anything about whether or not gravity works, or how life on earth evolved, or accurate descriptions of how history unfolded.  

The things of physics, archaeology, biology, history, are in a different category of inquiry.  This field of inquiry cannot tell me how I should love another person best.  It doesn't tell me whether or not I should feel nostalgic about an experience I had with my kids, or a life changing religious moment.   On the other hand, the love I have for my kids does not tell me what happened 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem.  My religious/spiritual experiences do not tell me what happened in history, they just don't.  So no matter how much tradition has evolved over the centuries to describe the narrative of Christianity, or Mormonism, or any religion, those traditions may not have any accuracy with respect to events that happened in history.  They only reflect how people created meaning in the form of narratives and traditions that have been passed down over the centuries.  

So I look closely at the scholarship for as accurate of a picture of the events of the past as we can get.  I look at the traditions of religious groups to see how tradition and narrative has motivated individuals and shaped society.  I don't see a conflict here, but that's because my assumptions about what religious traditions can tell me about the world I inhabit is different than the assumptions you're bringing to the table.  

I hope that makes some sense, and look forward to your reply.  

To some extent I agree with you. I don't look to the Bible as a history document. It plainly is not, although it contains a surprising amount of accurate history. That is not the gauge of its true relevance. It is a mix of history, symbolism, law, poetry, etc, and even some what may be termed mystical writings. The Book of Mormon can be similarly characterized. So I do not try to artificially separate my scriptural inquiries. To understand them I feel it is important to have an understanding of all these things. Without understanding its cultural history, I believe I would have a much more difficult time understanding its spiritual import. I once began reading the Quran. I found it to be very disjointed, and difficult to follow and understand. I began to think of it as a hodge podge of stuff. However, I didn't realize that as the book now appears, the surahs are not in chronological order. In fact they are basically arranged by size of the surahs. When read in chronological order the book begins to make somewhat more sense. I am sure you realize the importance of historical cultural context as well. 

My personal religious experiences do inform my historical knowledge. I know for a certainty that Christ historically existed. No amount of scholarly criticism is going to dissuade me from that. My knowledge of this is informed by personal spiritual experiences. To deny my spiritual experiences would be to deny His historical existence, and vice versa. So, I can't separate or compartmentalize these things like you apparently do. 

Further, I believe your reliance on scholarship is faulty. I hasten to point out that scholars criticize other scholars and disbelieve other scholars. It's not like they have a 100% proven track record. Scholars have often been found to be wrong by later archaeology, or other studies. So much like scholars do, I read and analyze the works of the various scholars and apply various techniques of analysis to them - one which I am fond of is the extremely scientific "gut check."  However, being trained in legal analysis and research definitely has helped me understand and analyze the weaknesses of various scholarship, as well as the body of law which is the scriptures. Rather than dismiss what many simply do not understand, I have found the scriptures to be one large intertwined mosaic of symbolism and law. To me this solidifies its position as inspired by one divine author rather than a hodge podge of miscellaneous, unrelated works like scholars seem to like to picture these days, and like you seem to nonchalantly suggest. I believe it is impossible for men to author the Bible or the Book of Mormon. These books do contain errors of men, but their inspiration is of God.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Further, I believe your reliance on scholarship is faulty. I hasten to point out that scholars criticize other scholars and disbelieve other scholars. It's not like they have a 100% proven track record. Scholars have often been found to be wrong by later archaeology, or other studies. So much like scholars do, I read and analyze the works of the various scholars and apply various techniques of analysis to them - one which I am fond of is the extremely scientific "gut check."  However, being trained in legal analysis and research definitely has helped me understand and analyze the weaknesses of various scholarship, as well as the body of law which is the scriptures. Rather than dismiss what many simply do not understand, I have found the scriptures to be one large intertwined mosaic of symbolism and law. To me this solidifies its position as inspired by one divine author rather than a hodge podge of miscellaneous, unrelated works like scholars seem to like to picture these days, and like you seem to nonchalantly suggest. I believe it is impossible for men to author the Bible or the Book of Mormon. These books do contain errors of men, but their inspiration is of God.

Appreciate the commentary and your explanations about where you are coming from.  I'm hoping we understand each other a little better after this exchange, I think it was worth it.  I think the core difference here for me, is that you see my bifurcation of scholarly knowledge and religious knowledge as a compartmentalization that is unnecessary.  Whereas I don't think people should expect religious experiences, emotions, strong personal convictions, the transcendent, the mystical, to cross over into the scientific world. 

No matter how strong someones convictions are, these convictions can't be used as evidence in a scholarly sense.  They aren't even testable and verifiable.  You might be able to test that the person is having an experience of some kind, that their body and mind is having some kind of experience, but that doesn't tell us anything about history or archaeology or any of the sciences. 

Now personally I don't see any evidence for the supernatural.  Meaning, that I haven't seen any compelling evidence to suggest that what people experience with these religious experiences is not something that is occurring naturally and eventually we should be able to describe with better clarity what it is that they are experiencing and why.  I don't see any evidence that any humans have ever been able to accurately predict future events or accurately see past events that they couldn't have possibly known.  I don't see any evidence that humans have been able to perform miracles that defy the laws of nature.  I still don't understand everything, and I've had personal experiences that I can't explain, but I suspect they were a result of natural causes. 

And all the same time, I see great beauty and transcendence and meaning in the world that I inhabit, and it gives me joy and purpose in my journey.  So for me, this is how I find the good in religion, and I'm fine if others see things differently.  I would like to better understand why and how they look at things, but not so I can change their mind, just so I can connect to people and hopefully in that connection we are able to understand each other better and possibly learn something good from each other.  

 

[RevTestament]

On 5/30/2018 at 3:05 PM, hope_for_things said:

And all the same time, I see great beauty and transcendence and meaning in the world that I inhabit, and it gives me joy and purpose in my journey.  So for me, this is how I find the good in religion, and I'm fine if others see things differently.  I would like to better understand why and how they look at things, but not so I can change their mind, just so I can connect to people and hopefully in that connection we are able to understand each other better and possibly learn something good from each other.  

I appreciate our exchange. Let me say this. When i was mostly inactive, I did keep my belief in Christ. I began to see Him as the ultimate leader. I began to see very dualistic forms of leadership in the world. Some lead by fear and force. The Star Wars "dark side of the force" where they keep their subjects in line by using threats of punishment and death. This I equated with evil and Satan's way. However, some leaders use a different approach. I was taking a course in leadership, and this became crystal clear to me. Some leaders lead by "enrolling" those around them in their ideas and ideals. They inspire those around them to want to learn more. People see them and think things like "that person is cool." That person has a great idea. I am going to listen to this person and try doing what he/she says. This person knows how to be happy. etc. I decided this was the type of leader Yeshua was. He didn't try to lead by force at all, but shunned all use of force, and taught love. I saw ultimately that our happiness is derived from our loving relationships - these ultimately form our happiest memories. So I decided I was going to follow Yeshua to the end. The sheer beauty of this ideal inspired me to commit myself to follow and learn of Him. This ties in with His atonement by example. I believe the atonement is not just something He was doing for us, it was something He was teaching us - to be one with each other and with Him. This all brought more meaning to my life and a sense of duty  in my actions, and a path to happiness.  Christ's admonition to "experiment on my words" means to try to follow Him, and see what it's like. Does it bring you peace and joy? Does He make Himself known unto you? This is what I can most suggest for you - not the intellectual rigors of textual scholarship - that cannot lead you to Christ nor bring Him into your life. If you want to know joy unbounded, He can give it to you. If you want to feel purpose and happiness in your studies and service, you can find it through Him. This is more than just seeing beauty in the world. Invite Him into your life. Seek understanding from Him. I am glad you are willing to look. I believe He is willing to show you, but you have to be willing to be shown. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I appreciate our exchange

Thanks Rev, I agree and I appreciate the beautiful post.  You seem like a good soul.  I’m following my path and my heart is a big part of that.  It may sound different in the words I choose to express myself, but I  think it’s a still a journey that I view as very compatible with the essence of a spiritual journey.  

[Paiute]

On 5/29/2018 at 9:29 AM, 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.  

"20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time."

None of us know all that Joseph Smith learned during the First Vision. Joseph Smith never revealed all that he learned from it. This was a pattern of past Prophets, each asked to seal up knowledge they received due to unbelief.

[Paiute]

On 5/29/2018 at 9:29 AM, 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.  

"20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time."

None of us know all that Joseph Smith learned during the First Vision. Joseph Smith never revealed all that he learned from it. This was a pattern of past Prophets, each asked to seal up knowledge they received due to unbelief.