President Nelson's Invitation for 2020

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Can you say what you would do?

I don't think so.  I've never walked in those shoes.  I'm not sure anyone could say what they would do until the moment came.

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You don't think you would remember if one or two personages appeared to you?

 

I can tell you in great and specific detail what I was doing the morning of 9/11. And I have never varied it.

I can still remember the pinnacle spiritually defining moment in my life which happened 22 years ago in good detail.  I have shared that experience a handful of times in my life with different people, I know that I have emphasized different aspects in each retelling depending on who I was sharing it with and the context of the discussion.  If each retelling would have been recorder, I guarantee some would question whether or not I was even talking about the same event.

[Teancum]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can still remember the pinnacle spiritually defining moment in my life which happened 22 years ago in good detail.  I have shared that experience a handful of times in my life with different people, I know that I have emphasized different aspects in each retelling depending on who I was sharing it with and the context of the discussion.  If each retelling would have been recorder, I guarantee some would question whether or not I was even talking about the same event.

I canno imagine anyone who actually saw God and Jesus would get the two persons account vs just Jesus account wrong. Emphasizing different aspects is fine and I think that happens in the 1835 account and 1838 account. Adding the father after the 1832 account seems to follow Jospeh's changing vie on the Godhead which clearly was more "orthodox" and trinatarian before 1835.

[carbon dioxide]

On 1/14/2020 at 12:41 PM, 2BizE said:

Which account of the First Vision are we to study?

Study all of them.  They are all good. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I canno imagine anyone who actually saw God and Jesus would get the two persons account vs just Jesus account wrong. Emphasizing different aspects is fine and I think that happens in the 1835 account and 1838 account. Adding the father after the 1832 account seems to follow Jospeh's changing vie on the Godhead which clearly was more "orthodox" and trinatarian before 1835.

The 1832 account was not "wrong".  He focused this account on the more personal aspect of remission of sins - thus emphasizing the appearance and words of Jesus, the Savior, and shared the very personal first part of the vision.  The second part of the vision is shared more in the 1835 and 1839 accounts.  The 1835  account suggests that the Father only appeared later (second part).  The 1839 account seems to be a more general description saying "I saw two personages" without going into much detail about the Savior appearing first before the Father - he left out the more personal details and focused more on the overall mission presented in the second part of the vision.  There is no account that contradicts another, that I can see, they simply emphasize different parts or take on a more general overview. 

As far as claiming that Joseph was trinitarian before 1835, the evidence simply doesn't suggest that.  As early as 1831, there are written testimonies by John Whitmer and Levi Hancock of Joseph claiming to see Jesus on the Right hand of God. That is not all. See https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Early_beliefs 

Scroll down to this section:

Question: Did Joseph Smith begin his prophetic career with a "trinitarian" idea of God?

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by pogi

[california boy]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

The 1832 account was not "wrong".  He focused this account on the more personal aspect of remission of sins - thus emphasizing the appearance and words of Jesus, the Savior, and shared the very personal first part of the vision.  The second part of the vision is shared more in the 1835 and 1839 accounts.  The 1835  account suggests that the Father only appeared later (second part).  The 1839 account seems to be a more general description saying "I saw two personages" without going into much detail about the Savior appearing first before the Father - he left out the more personal details and focused more on the overall mission presented in the second part of the vision.  There is no account that contradicts another, that I can see, they simply emphasize different parts or take on a more general overview. 

As far as claiming that Joseph was trinitarian before 1835, the evidence simply doesn't suggest that.  As early as 1831, there are written testimonies by John Whitmer and Levi Hancock of Joseph claiming to see Jesus on the Right hand of God. That is not all. See https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Early_beliefs 

Scroll down to this section:

Question: Did Joseph Smith begin his prophetic career with a "trinitarian" idea of God?

 

When you think back on 9/11, do you ever forget that there were two buildings that went down?  Do you ever relate that only one building went down, and completely ignore that there were two buildings when someone asks you what happened on 9/11?  Especially when you are making a record of what happened?

Honestly, I have heard this argued back and forth a number of times.  I just haven't found the idea that Joesph just didn't happen to mention that God the Father was a part of the vision when he was relating what many would consider a pivotal moment in the restoration of the Church.  But, everyone has their own basis of what they find believable.  I get that.

[Okrahomer]

This is an interesting 10-year study of how  memory of a so-called “flash-bulb” event actually changes over time, using 9/11 as the event.  Some of the findings:

1.  “Although participants continued to report elaborate recollections of reception details over the 10 years, participants showed a considerable level of inconsistency in their long-term retention.”

2.  “There was considerable initial forgetting over the first year.”

3.  “The level of inconsistency remains fairly stable thereafter.“

4.  “External influences, such as the films Fahrenheit 9/11 and United 93, led to corrections.”

5.  “Also important was the contribution of media attention and ensuing conversation to event memory accuracy and confidence ratings, at least for the first 3 years.”

6.  “Of course, external influences can do more than correct erroneous memories. They can also do the reverse: create erroneous memories.”

7.  “It is only by considering both that one can understand why something as seemingly unforgettable as the 9/11 attack can produce long-held stable memories with marked inconsistencies.”

8.  “We may recollect the events of 9/11 with great confidence over an extremely long period of time. That longevity might speak to the stability of the memory, but it does not ensure its accuracy.”

Edited January 16, 2020 by Okrahomer

[Bede]

On 1/14/2020 at 1:27 PM, stemelbow said:

So so much better.  If he only knew.  

How would anyone know?  

Stem, you're making me cry, my dude. I've followed you around the Mormon themed boards for the past few years. You were a strength to me, and stood up for LDS people who were being slandered online. I never thought I would see you leave the church.

So here is my question for you:

Assume the Book of Mormon is 19th century prose--a meditation even, written by whomever you want to believe wrote it. The historicity, the DNA, the geography, none of that matters any more. Are there not nuggets of goodness and spirituality found within? Can I not read Tennyson and also get the same fulfillment from reading Byron, yet still think Tennyson's works are valuable?

And can you not find stories, allegories, parables, and yes, poetry in the Book of Mormon that is valuable without being caught up in the historical arguments? Can you not still be part of the LDS community, the ward family, and a believer in the basic tenants of Christianity?

I think we have to be okay with not knowing everything. Not knowing everything does not mean we must discard everything.

 

 

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

When you think back on 9/11, do you ever forget that there were two buildings that went down?  Do you ever relate that only one building went down, and completely ignore that there were two buildings..,

Joseph didn’t forget that the Father was there.  There are many accounts of building 1 only without mentioning building 2, and vise Versace.  There are many accounts of both buildings.  In fact, it is curious and ironic that you neglected to mention flight 93 and the Pentagon.  Was that not all part of 9/11?  Did you forget?  Did it not really happen?  Or, were you simply focusing on one aspect of the larger picture...much like Joseph did?

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/14/2020 at 12:27 PM, stemelbow said:

So so much better.  If he only knew.  

How would anyone know?  

I met and married Sister Gui and earned an MA in music from BYU. 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

This is a poor argument. A vision of God and Jesus would be so shocking and overwhelming that most would remember it in specific detail. Similar to what you were doing on 9/11 or the day JFK was killed. 

I remember both of those but not the details of what I was doing.

When JFK was killed I was home from school sick and it came on TV.  I was building a model car but I have no idea which car it was, or if I actually heard on TV or radio - I think radio but then I turned on the TV but can't remember which.  We are talking 56 years ago here.  You gotta be old just to have any memory of it!

9/11?

I just remember who told me and then watching it on TV

I don't think your argument is convincing.  To remember anything that long ago requires it to be a "memorable" event, and that is both the good news and bad news.

Edited January 16, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

On 1/14/2020 at 12:41 PM, 2BizE said:

Which account of the First Vision are we to study?

 

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Study all of them.  They are all good. 

Indeed.  Perhaps one could start here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Bede said:

Stem, you're making me cry, my dude. I've followed you around the Mormon themed boards for the past few years. You were a strength to me, and stood up for LDS people who were being slandered online. I never thought I would see you leave the church.

I really dislike the acrimony that arises when it comes to discussing things like religion and politics.  It often causes mistreatment and overly emotive attacks.  

9 hours ago, Bede said:

So here is my question for you:

Assume the Book of Mormon is 19th century prose--a meditation even, written by whomever you want to believe wrote it. The historicity, the DNA, the geography, none of that matters any more. Are there not nuggets of goodness and spirituality found within? Can I not read Tennyson and also get the same fulfillment from reading Byron, yet still think Tennyson's works are valuable?

Of course.  I agree.  There are nuggets of goodness.

9 hours ago, Bede said:

And can you not find stories, allegories, parables, and yes, poetry in the Book of Mormon that is valuable without being caught up in the historical arguments? Can you not still be part of the LDS community, the ward family, and a believer in the basic tenants of Christianity?

Yes to the first question, the second?  Not really.  Tried it, failed it.  But it's a happy and not a disappointing failure.  

9 hours ago, Bede said:

I think we have to be okay with not knowing everything. Not knowing everything does not mean we must discard everything.

 

Couldn't have said it better.  

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

The 1832 account was not "wrong".  He focused this account on the more personal aspect of remission of sins - thus emphasizing the appearance and words of Jesus, the Savior, and shared the very personal first part of the vision.  The second part of the vision is shared more in the 1835 and 1839 accounts.  The 1835  account suggests that the Father only appeared later (second part).  The 1839 account seems to be a more general description saying "I saw two personages" without going into much detail about the Savior appearing first before the Father - he left out the more personal details and focused more on the overall mission presented in the second part of the vision.  There is no account that contradicts another, that I can see, they simply emphasize different parts or take on a more general overview. 

As far as claiming that Joseph was trinitarian before 1835, the evidence simply doesn't suggest that.  As early as 1831, there are written testimonies by John Whitmer and Levi Hancock of Joseph claiming to see Jesus on the Right hand of God. That is not all. See https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Early_beliefs 

Scroll down to this section:

Question: Did Joseph Smith begin his prophetic career with a "trinitarian" idea of God?

 

I am familiar wit all the apologetics and used to use the same defense that you are now. I also have spent countless hours studying, reading and one time arguing against the idea that Joseph was trinitarian and later evolved to his 1838 views forward.  I no longer find them compelling. 

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I remember both of those but not the details of what I was doing.

When JFK was killed I was home from school sick and it came on TV.  I was building a model car but I have no idea which car it was, or if I actually heard on TV or radio - I think radio but then I turned on the TV but can't remember which.  We are talking 56 years ago here.  You gotta be old just to have any memory of it!

9/11?

I just remember who told me and then watching it on TV

I don't think your argument is convincing.  To remember anything that long ago requires it to be a "memorable" event, and that is both the good news and bad news.

Ok. I don't think yours is either. Joseph claims to have seen God and his son. I cannot imagine leaving out God the father in the first record of his claimed vision. Such an earth shattering and heaven opening event would burn into anyone's memory. And it was not 56 years later, nor 20 years when he first recorded it. It was 12 years. I don't really worry much about the differences in the later accounts and even the 1832 account is not a deal breaker to me. I think there far more clear problems for Joseph Smith's claims to fall apart then the vision accounts.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I am familiar wit all the apologetics and used to use the same defense that you are now. I also have spent countless hours studying, reading and one time arguing against the idea that Joseph was trinitarian and later evolved to his 1838 views forward.  I no longer find them compelling. 

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I don't really worry much about the differences in the later accounts and even the 1832 account is not a deal breaker to me. I think there far more clear problems for Joseph Smith's claims to fall apart then the vision accounts.

That's kind of what I suspected.  I don't think it would matter if the accounts were exactly the same for you.   You no longer find the evidence compelling because your paradigm has shifted. You are interpreting the evidence of this individual account based on your underlying beliefs of the larger picture.  That's understandable.  How could you believe this without believing the rest?  Your hands are tied.  I suspect we all practice confirmation bias to some degree. If I had not experienced what I experienced, I probably wouldn't believe it.  I think Joseph said something to similar effect.  My own spiritual experience is unquestionable.   The evidence, on the other hand, seems to drift towards our own preferred belief. You have experienced that drift personally.  I don't think we can come to the truth by weighing the historical evidence only. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by pogi

[Teancum]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's kind of what I suspected.  I don't think it would matter if the accounts were exactly the same for you.   You no longer find the evidence compelling because your paradigm has shifted. You are interpreting the evidence of this individual account based on your underlying beliefs of the larger picture.  That's understandable.  How could you believe this without believing the rest?  Your hands are tied.  I suspect we all practice confirmation bias to some degree. If I had not experienced what I experienced, I probably wouldn't believe it.  I think Joseph said something to similar effect.  My own spiritual experience is unquestionable.   The evidence, on the other hand, seems to drift towards our own preferred belief. You have experienced that drift personally.  I don't think we can come to the truth by weighing the historical evidence only. 

I understand. But I will point out, as I have before, that I have been where you are though you have not been where I am. I don't say that in a condescending way.I don't think I am better than you or you better than me. What is intriguing to me, both for my own self reflection and introspection, is that I was a full on board LDS believer for most of my life. I have had spiritual experiences that I could, would, did call unquestionable. I do not deny them even still though I may view them differently then I once did. Also, at least for me, apologetics nd the defense that I gave and my fellow LDS defenders made just became more and more increasingly bad an weak. I felt the hoops we had to jump through the the things we had to dismiss were just to overwhelming to be take seriously. I knew the personally I would never accept similar paradigms, approached and take it on faith for almost any other thing in my life.  If that was the case then why do it for my religion?  Am I open to changing on this?  I think so. I hope so. But it won't be because of the apologetic defense because I think they fall far short. It will have to be something else and I am not sure what. Does that mean I am biased? As you point out we all drift to confirmation bias to some degree. Anyway thank you for your thoughtful remarks.

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, Bede said:

Stem, you're making me cry, my dude. I've followed you around the Mormon themed boards for the past few years. You were a strength to me, and stood up for LDS people who were being slandered online. I never thought I would see you leave the church.

So here is my question for you:

Assume the Book of Mormon is 19th century prose--a meditation even, written by whomever you want to believe wrote it. The historicity, the DNA, the geography, none of that matters any more. Are there not nuggets of goodness and spirituality found within? Can I not read Tennyson and also get the same fulfillment from reading Byron, yet still think Tennyson's works are valuable?

And can you not find stories, allegories, parables, and yes, poetry in the Book of Mormon that is valuable without being caught up in the historical arguments? Can you not still be part of the LDS community, the ward family, and a believer in the basic tenants of Christianity?

I think we have to be okay with not knowing everything. Not knowing everything does not mean we must discard everything.

 

 

 

I'm not stem, but just wanted to answer, if you don't mind. I was thinking the other day of returning to church because I miss the friendships made and the service done. It would be nice if what you describe could be real though. The church asks for more than that from it's members, IMO. Or they want you to work on attaining the testimony of more than what you describe here. But if it were okay for members to just have that, I think the church will be on the uphill and retain members through that avenue. Because the church has a problem of retaining members now, and the numbers are stagnant from recent reports. 

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

When you think back on 9/11, do you ever forget that there were two buildings that went down?  Do you ever relate that only one building went down, and completely ignore that there were two buildings when someone asks you what happened on 9/11?  Especially when you are making a record of what happened?

Honestly, I have heard this argued back and forth a number of times.  I just haven't found the idea that Joesph just didn't happen to mention that God the Father was a part of the vision when he was relating what many would consider a pivotal moment in the restoration of the Church.  But, everyone has their own basis of what they find believable.  I get that.

Just what I was thinking, maybe a few details you'll forget, but not the main event. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

But I will point out, as I have before, that I have been where you are though you have not been where I am.

But this is wrong to state unless you can read a person's mind and then have somehow frozen a record of your own experience to compare it to.  You walked your own path and pogi walked his.  Maybe you both saw some of the same sites, but that does not mean automatically the same understanding of what was seen occurred.  Nor is it likely that experience was then fitted into the context of the rest of life's experiences in identical fashion.

 At best one might say "based on what you have said, it seems we have had similar experiences and maybe even ideas".  But peoples' reactions to even the identical situation are so varied plus how they experience one aspect of life is impacted by a myriad of other aspects that are likely very different in at least some ways that for someone to claim "I have been where you are" is a gross oversimplification of both individuals' experiences, imo, and an arrogant presumption that one can predict the feelings and thoughts of the other.

For example, I know one couple after hearing a doctor explain the diagnosis of their child's medical condition, one walked away knowing their child was sentenced to a tragic life, if not death and the other knowing the child would beat it with the family's help and they could come out stronger. Neither has doubted their first reaction even decades later as far as I can tell.  They were both there hearing the same words from the same doctor and they walked out having completely different experiences. Would it later make sense for the parent who saw the cancer as a horrible burden for their child to carry for the rest of their life years later to tell a parent whose child had the same diagnosis that "I have been where you are" if in fact that parent was responding in a more positive way or the parent who hadn't been hit with fear and depression to tell a parent who had "I know what you are going through".

Edited January 16, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I understand. But I will point out, as I have before, that I have been where you are though you have not been where I am. I don't say that in a condescending way.I don't think I am better than you or you better than me. What is intriguing to me, both for my own self reflection and introspection, is that I was a full on board LDS believer for most of my life. I have had spiritual experiences that I could, would, did call unquestionable. I do not deny them even still though I may view them differently then I once did. Also, at least for me, apologetics nd the defense that I gave and my fellow LDS defenders made just became more and more increasingly bad an weak. I felt the hoops we had to jump through the the things we had to dismiss were just to overwhelming to be take seriously. I knew the personally I would never accept similar paradigms, approached and take it on faith for almost any other thing in my life.  If that was the case then why do it for my religion?  Am I open to changing on this?  I think so. I hope so. But it won't be because of the apologetic defense because I think they fall far short. It will have to be something else and I am not sure what. Does that mean I am biased? As you point out we all drift to confirmation bias to some degree. Anyway thank you for your thoughtful remarks.

I don't find the fact that you have left the faith after believing any more intriguing to me than the experiences of others who first reviewed the apologetic evidence and doubted, only later to be fully spiritually converted.  What I do find intriguing is that you don't deny your spiritual experiences, but that your interpretation of them has changed only as a result of a paradigm shift - but the experiences themselves remain.  Have you continued to nurture that spiritual side of you?  I hope so.

I find the apologetic leave sufficient room for belief.  I have researched what the alternative to my faith would be, and I don't find it compelling. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Ok. I don't think yours is either. Joseph claims to have seen God and his son. I cannot imagine leaving out God the father in the first record of his claimed vision. Such an earth shattering and heaven opening event would burn into anyone's memory. And it was not 56 years later, nor 20 years when he first recorded it. It was 12 years. I don't really worry much about the differences in the later accounts and even the 1832 account is not a deal breaker to me. I think there far more clear problems for Joseph Smith's claims to fall apart then the vision accounts.

Either you have a testimony or not. Logic is irrelevant. It's about the effects of the belief in your life- either you want them or not.

History doesn't even show that Jesus was who he said. It's about the pragmatic effects of a belief system in your life. Either you want that or not.

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

I find the apologetic leave sufficient room for belief.  I have researched what the alternative to my faith would be, and I don't find it compelling. 

Besides what I know is communication with the divine, this is IT for me, and is my "intellectual testimony"

We worship a Divine family, the human ideal of what we all should be.

How can you do better than that for a value system?

[Teancum]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

But this is wrong to state unless you can read a person's mind and then have somehow frozen a record of your own experience to compare it to.  You walked your own path and pogi walked his.  Maybe you both saw some of the same sites, but that does not mean automatically the same understanding of what was seen occurred.  Nor is it likely that experience was then fitted into the context of the rest of life's experiences in identical fashion.

 At best one might say "based on what you have said, it seems we have had similar experiences and maybe even ideas".  But peoples' reactions to even the identical situation are so varied plus how they experience one aspect of life is impacted by a myriad of other aspects that are likely very different in at least some ways that for someone to claim "I have been where you are" is a gross oversimplification of both individuals' experiences, imo, and an arrogant presumption that one can predict the feelings and thoughts of the other.

For example, I know one couple after hearing a doctor explain the diagnosis of their child's medical condition, one walked away knowing their child was sentenced to a tragic life, if not death and the other knowing the child would beat it with the family's help and they could come out stronger. Neither has doubted their first reaction even decades later as far as I can tell.  They were both there hearing the same words from the same doctor and they walked out having completely different experiences. Would it later make sense for the parent who saw the cancer as a horrible burden for their child to carry for the rest of their life years later to tell a parent whose child had the same diagnosis that "I have been where you are" if in fact that parent was responding in a more positive way or the parent who hadn't been hit with fear and depression to tell a parent who had "I know what you are going through".

I was speaking in generalities.  I like your approach on bold above.

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Either you have a testimony or not. Logic is irrelevant. It's about the effects of the belief in your life- either you want them or not.

History doesn't even show that Jesus was who he said. It's about the pragmatic effects of a belief system in your life. Either you want that or not.

I just cannot get my head around your approach and I am highly skeptical of it. It leaves the door open for humans to pretty much believe what ever and claim some special knowledge without evidence of almost anything. And then act on it. And often those acts can be detrimental to the person and to society as well.