Jump to content

The First Version of the First Vision


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

By recommendation I've been reading Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

I'm fascinated by the author's discussion of the various accounts of Joseph Smith Jr.'s visionary experience in the woods near his home. It strikes me that the first written account, written in Joseph Smith's own hand, describes a vision of Jesus, and of forgiveness of sins.

This account strikes me as being more possibly within the context of historical Christian mysticism and/or private revelation.

I don't presume to judge and am simply trying to understand as I ask:

  • Is it possible for an LDS person to favor this first version over the other versions?

and

  • Is it possible for the LDS Church to put this version forward as official? 

 I apologize if this is an absurd question. I'm just trying to understand.

Edited by Saint Bonaventure
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Is it possible for and LDS person to favor this first version over the other versions?

Yes :)

24 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Is it possible for the LDS Church to put this version forward as official? 

One of the things "official" about the 1838 version is that it was published in the Times and Seasons in 1842 (an early Latter-Day Saint newspaper) and made it into the Latter-day Saint canon of scripture in 1880 by virtue of its publication in the Pearl of Great Price (originally compiled in 1851 by Franklin D. Richards in Liverpool, England).   I don't think the church has a single "official" version of what happened, as each of the versions gives us more information as to what happened.  But the 1838 version is also included in the official "History of the Church", so I suppose that makes it a little more official, since that is the version prepared by Joseph Smith for publication.

Edit:  I don't know if you followed some of the publications and podcasts that were put out in 2020 for the 200th anniversary of the First Vision.  The Joseph Smith Papers website has a lot of good material on this, and some of it provides good information about the historical context of how each of the versions were written and the intended audience for each version.  

See:  The First Vision: A Joseph Smith Papers Podcast

And:  Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

So, after a long meeting, I went home and someone asked me what happened at the meeting, and I said "Fred acted like an idiot and almost got me fired."

The next day at work, a co-worker wanted a report from the meeting, and I said "Fred handed some shoddy work to Melba, told me it was my work, and Melba immediately found three errors in it."

Later that week at lunch with a friend, I mentioned my stupid meeting, and he asked me what happened.  I told him "Fred and his cadre of sycophants hate me, and I finally saw the gloves come off on Monday."

 

Later, as folks are posthumously going over my affairs to write the official biography, all 3 accounts come to light.  You tell me, which one should be the "favored" account?  Which one the 'most true'?  Which details were invented later?  Perhaps there should be a chapter questioning whether Melba even exists?  And don't forget the thorough inventory of gloves I left behind - fodder for speculation that I had some sort of a clothing fetish.

 

Honestly people, it consistently amazes me how weird we get about such things.  It's like people don't have a grasp of their own native language.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

I assume in the moment, the implications for all the exact details he was seeing only later became theologically important. Maybe he didn't know what he was seeing. One figure says almost nothing but to introduce Jesus Christ to him, then Jesus proceeds to do all the talking. Do you say you talked to both of them? Jesus only tells him not to join a church, not that he was going to start a church, and so only now in hindsight can we comprehend that Jesus was trying to tell him something bigger than he took away from the encounter. Without that understanding, he would probably be most interested that he was forgiven of his sins, made apparent since God found him worthy to speak to and perhaps after this he wasn't even considering himself as someone important or a prophet until Moroni started popping up.

I suppose there is another question here.

Are there Evangelical miracle minimalists, willing to accept something happened to Joseph Smith, perhaps even divine that was blown out of proportion? Mormons are All or Nothing when it comes to the church, so do Evangelicals have to be all or nothing when I comes to the church or can they pick and choose what might be true to them?

That seems to be the source of hostility. Its not merely vision or revelations, it the mere moment you call yourself a "prophet" that the red flags come up, because if you are not a prophet, then you aren't just an honest fool with strange interpretations but an evil man. Like every time you hear about governments wanting chip implants in your hands such and you've been told all your life to watch out for something like that. Though it doesn't mean that government is the Beast. Typically the best Evangelicals can manage as far as acceptance of Joseph Smith is to a hope that if Joseph was as a false prophet that the sin is on his head, instead of the members of his church. But the question at hand seems to be could Joseph be a true believer in Christ, is there a foundation story in the church well within the realm of Christian possibility and acceptance, and what would those things be?

I don't believe in the false dichotomies, there are always more possible options than 2 the critics give people. I run into them all the time, I have to argue just because Joseph Smith taught something that is plainly true but not taught by other faiths I'm aware of doesn't mean Joseph was a Prophet, per se (I do this so I can share my Mormon truths about priests and temples with my interfaith friends, they otherwise tend to take my unique, yet Mormon aligned, teaching to mean if some teaching is true that the church must be true, and so they start attacking other aspects of church that have nothing to do with the topic. My truths stand on their own, and the fact that mine is the only church that teaches this is for you to deal with, but disproving my faith won't win the debate at hand).

Then is somewhat of an inverse possibility; if the foundational claims as taught by the church false, can the church still be true? Its fairly hard to assume the best of intentions from something that may be untrue, sounds like how some RLDS who believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction. Joseph Smith was smart and had good ideas, maybe even inspired, but needed a medium to convey his correct ideas through, so he wrote a parable, something a kin to Narnia. Or is Joseph an idiot savant, or otherwise picking up truth from the ether, but didn't know how to express the truths that he knew, so his brain just concocted these stories.

I would have to consider such possibilities if I ever lost faith in the Church, or if a nuke killed all the leadership, I would still have to credit Joseph's vision and would have to adapt his teachings in the construction of my own faith because they are so much closer to my understanding of the ancient religion that I could never escape the notion Joseph Smith must have been a genius and knew what he was talking about even if his church had unfounded claims.

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

That seems to be the source of hostility. Its not merely vision or revelations, it the mere moment you call yourself a "prophet" that the red flags come up, because if you are not a prophet, then you aren't just an honest fool with strange interpretations but an evil man.

I totally agree on the reason for the hostility.  That said, if Christians would read their friggin' old testament, they'd see an awful lot of flawed prophets, some of them with an evil act or two to their name.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

it possible for the LDS Church to put this version forward as official? 

There is our canon (also known as standard works or when published as one book the Quad for the books the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price; the last three are often published together and called the Triple Combination) and then there are texts published by the Church.  All the various First Vision accounts have been published by the Church for both devotional/study reading and scholarly research and are available on its own main website, so in that sense that version is already official.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/canon?lang=eng

That First Vision version is not part of our canon though.  As explained above, another version was used and imo, that one is more appropriate if one had to choose as it is more relevant to the Church as a whole.  But there is nothing in our canonization process that prevents multiple versions from being canonized that I know of if believed to serve the purpose of canonized scripture.  We have a view of scripture that already expands it beyond our canon, after all (see https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/scripture-study-the-power-of-the-word-teacher-manual/lesson-1?lang=eng ).  In the past I have heard our patriarchal blessings referred to as our personal scriptures and mine are printed up to resemble the format of a past set of scriptures as I inserted my own blessing in them***.  

Our canon is officially open.  We expect future scripture to be given to add to it.  In the past, two visions received first by Joseph Smith and by a later prophet were added to the canon in 1976, so it is possible that scripture we already have may be added to the canon (even scripture we don’t think of as scripture nowadays).  There is speculation (and debating whether they are actual revelation themselves or just compiling of other revelations, but they are similar to the Articles of Faith included in the Pearl of Great Price so that doesn’t matter, imo) by some that The Living Christ or the Family Proclamation might be added eventually****.  I would not be surprised if sometime in the future if the more personal version of the First Vision was added to the canon as a witness to Joseph’s experience, but I don’t see a need for it in terms of educating the members on crucial gospel doctrine because we have other similar examples already in scripture.

***https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/patriarchal-blessings?lang=eng

****https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles/the-living-christ-the-testimony-of-the-apostles?lang=eng 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world/the-family-a-proclamation-to-the-world?lang=eng

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

May I introduce you to some of our popes? 😁

I imagine 2k years of papal documentation weaves a rich papistry.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I would have to consider such possibilities if I ever lost faith in the Church, or if a nuke killed all the leadership, I would still have to credit Joseph's vision and would have to adapt his teachings in the construction of my own faith because they are so much closer to my understanding of the ancient religion that I could never escape the notion Joseph Smith must have been a genius and knew what he was talking about even if his church had unfounded claims.

What makes you think that by accepting any of this that you are not constructing your own faith right now?

We are creating worlds- our own worlds- right here and right now!

Accept nothing until you have your own testimony of it!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 5/29/2022 at 5:16 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

By recommendation I've been reading Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.

I'm fascinated by the author's discussion of the various accounts of Joseph Smith Jr.'s visionary experience in the woods near his home. It strikes me that the first written account, written in Joseph Smith's own hand, describes a vision of Jesus, and of forgiveness of sins.

See this part of the Joseph Smith Papers.  It's a record of the name of the angel
who is said to have appeared to Joseph.

The room was exceedingly light but not so much so as immediately around his person 
When I first looked upon <him> it I was afraid; but the fear soon left me: calling 
me by name, <he> said. that he was a messenger. sent from the presence of God to me. 
and that his name was Nephi.— that he had a work for me to do that my name should 
be had for good and evil. among all nations. kindreds. & tongues— that there was a 
book deposited: written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants 
of this Continent. as well as their origin
.

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

How exactly is this relevant to the first vision accounts?  

I had the same question in mind.

I think someone has confused two separate events, and that needs to be clarified.

The first vision in the grove was just that- the FIRST vision, while the angelic announcement about the plates was a bit later

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think someone has confused two separate events, and that needs to be clarified.

Not confusion in the post I don't think, but an attempt to show confusion in the original documents, and it's a red-herring to the whole first vision topic. 

The name "Nephi" in that particular document is in the handwriting of Howard Coray, and the name was either misspoken by the dictator, or written in error by the scribe.  That error is often used to try to say Joseph Smith made the story up, or changed the name from Nephi to Moroni later on.  But that theory doesn't square with the historical facts, because elsewhere Joseph is consistent in saying it was Moroni who first appeared to him in 1823 and introduced him to the plates.

Edit:  Apparently the error originated from a document in the handwriting of James Mulholland, of which the others are copies.

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
On 5/29/2022 at 5:38 PM, Pyreaux said:

Are there Evangelical miracle minimalists, willing to accept something happened to Joseph Smith, perhaps even divine that was blown out of proportion? Mormons are All or Nothing when it comes to the church, so do Evangelicals have to be all or nothing when I comes to the church or can they pick and choose what might be true to them?

That seems to be the source of hostility. Its not merely vision or revelations, it the mere moment you call yourself a "prophet" that the red flags come up, because if you are not a prophet, then you aren't just an honest fool with strange interpretations but an evil man. Like every time you hear about governments wanting chip implants in your hands such and you've been told all your life to watch out for something like that. Though it doesn't mean that government is the Beast. Typically the best Evangelicals can manage as far as acceptance of Joseph Smith is to a hope that if Joseph was as a false prophet that the sin is on his head, instead of the members of his church. But the question at hand seems to be could Joseph be a true believer in Christ, is there a foundation story in the church well within the realm of Christian possibility and acceptance, and what would those things be?

I don't believe in the false dichotomies, there are always more possible options than 2 the critics give people. I run into them all the time, I have to argue just because Joseph Smith taught something that is plainly true but not taught by other faiths I'm aware of doesn't mean Joseph was a Prophet, per se (I do this so I can share my Mormon truths about priests and temples with my interfaith friends, they otherwise tend to take my unique, yet Mormon aligned, teaching to mean if some teaching is true that the church must be true, and so they start attacking other aspects of church that have nothing to do with the topic. My truths stand on their own, and the fact that mine is the only church that teaches this is for you to deal with, but disproving my faith won't win the debate at hand).

Then is somewhat of an inverse possibility; if the foundational claims as taught by the church false, can the church still be true? Its fairly hard to assume the best of intentions from something that may be untrue, sounds like how some RLDS who believe the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction. Joseph Smith was smart and had good ideas, maybe even inspired, but needed a medium to convey his correct ideas through, so he wrote a parable, something a kin to Narnia. Or is Joseph an idiot savant, or otherwise picking up truth from the ether, but didn't know how to express the truths that he knew, so his brain just concocted these stories.

I would have to consider such possibilities if I ever lost faith in the Church, or if a nuke killed all the leadership, I would still have to credit Joseph's vision and would have to adapt his teachings in the construction of my own faith because they are so much closer to my understanding of the ancient religion that I could never escape the notion Joseph Smith must have been a genius and knew what he was talking about even if his church had unfounded claims.

I have no idea what an "Evangelical miracle minimalist" is? I don't know any Evangelicals who don't believe in miracles or the supernatural. I know of no Evangelical who minimizes such things. Perhaps you might explain that phrase a bit more. Do Evangelicals have to be all or nothing when it comes to the church? Of course not. I know of no Evangelicals who "have to be" anything other than committed to Christ. The Evangelical community is big, wide, and very diverse in all but the most basic basics.

I would also suggest that Evangelicals don't pick and choose what might be true to them. That sounds much too reductionist or simplistic. I would guess that most Evangelicals don't give much if any thought to the LDS church. Those who do, probably go overboard studying and trying to figure the LDS church out. Once they figure that out, then they make decisions based on the information they have researched. Most of that study would not include Fundamentalist websites, articles, or books. Remember please, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are at best frenemies with significant tensions between them that would not focus on what to think about the LDS. They are too consumed with focusing on what to think about each other.

Most Evangelicals I know view modern prophets as those who are gifted by Holy Spirit with a special gift in the forthtelling of the gospel as opposed to those who model OT prophetic foretelling. Probably most Evangelicals would not be comfortable with prophets in the latter (OT) model, but very comfortable in the former (forthtelling) model. Most Pentecostal Evangelicals would certainly be more comfortable with either model. I disagree with your portrayal of the "best Evangelicals can manage as far a acceptance of Joseph Smith." You mention a sin on his head . . . perhaps you would clarify what sin you are talking about? 

I disagree that what Joseph Smith taught was "plainly true" to anyone other than his faithful followers. I know that there is not unanimity within LDS affiliated scholars on a lot of LDS history and doctrine, especially those who studied in "secular" graduate schools. I would have to study each sermon, talk, letter, etc., before I could make a determination on the truth of any one teaching. I am more than happy to take them one by one. I can tell you I have read all his letters from the Liberty Jail. I don't know of anything in them I don't believe is true, at least to a member of that day. He says the governor of Missouri was a "wimbling willow!" I like that term. I have no idea of its truth, but I live on a river with willows, so I sure can picture a wimbling willow and what that implies. Perhaps Gov. Boggs was that. I have no idea.

I am sorry if as you indicate, your Evangelical friends do nothing but attack. I regret that. I might also suggest that those who you consider Evangelicals might in actuality be something else, possibly dispensational Fundamentalists? If you told me where they go to church and where, if any they went to college, I could probably help you out with their true affiliation. I personally like a lot of the positions of the RLDS. I am also fascinated by the positions, frankness, and upfrontness (is that a word) of the Church of the Firstborn of the Lamb of God in our area. I would not compare the BOM to Narnia. I don't get into the BOM origin controversies. Not my cup of tea. Nothing anyone is going to "discover" is going to change anyone else's mind.  Waste of energy. Both LDS apologetes and non-LDS "attackers" to use your term, are wasting their time, thumping their chests and getting nowhere. Just yesterday I spent a lot of time reading about the evolution in LDS Canon of the Lectures on Faith. That does interest me because it shows how history, current culture, and doctrine impact each other. Now that is a conversation I will join any day regardless of the specific faith under discussion. Thanks. Take care.

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Navidad said:


I would also suggest that Evangelicals don't pick and choose what might be true to them.

The problem with that is that they tend to do just that when it comes to the Bible.  It is often I think taken as an Axiom of existence that it is the Word of God- among both fundamentalists and other more liberal views.  Often I think,they do not even question that it might NOT be "true" whatever that word itself even means in the context.

First step is deciding what "true" means.   Philosophy has not done it in 2500 years.

They just accept it- I think- without thinking about its origins etc- or are not aware of the history of where it came from

Once one needs to understand that step 1 is getting to understand testimony- if God does not veryify to you that the Bible is the word of God then there is no reason to accept it.

That is step number 1 of "picking and chosing".

To be a thinking human being one MUST pick and choose or one is an unthinking robot.

IF the bible can be "true" and found to be such through asking God - then so can other books like the BOM.

And on it goes.   That is part of my critique of Evangelicalism- that they DON'T tend to pick what might or might not be true.   I don't even know how to live like that- I have and will continue to question EVERYTHING

MY OPINION

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have no idea what an "Evangelical miracle minimalist" is? I don't know any Evangelicals who don't believe in miracles or the supernatural. I know of no Evangelical who minimizes such things. Perhaps you might explain that phrase a bit more. Do Evangelicals have to be all or nothing when it comes to the church? Of course not. I know of no Evangelicals who "have to be" anything other than committed to Christ. The Evangelical community is big, wide, and very diverse in all but the most basic basics.

I would also suggest that Evangelicals don't pick and choose what might be true to them. That sounds much too reductionist or simplistic. I would guess that most Evangelicals don't give much if any thought to the LDS church. Those who do, probably go overboard studying and trying to figure the LDS church out. Once they figure that out, then they make decisions based on the information they have researched. Most of that study would not include Fundamentalist websites, articles, or books. Remember please, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are at best frenemies with significant tensions between them that would not focus on what to think about the LDS. They are too consumed with focusing on what to think about each other.

Most Evangelicals I know view modern prophets as those who are gifted by Holy Spirit with a special gift in the forthtelling of the gospel as opposed to those who model OT prophetic foretelling. Probably most Evangelicals would not be comfortable with prophets in the latter (OT) model, but very comfortable in the former (forthtelling) model. Most Pentecostal Evangelicals would certainly be more comfortable with either model. I disagree with your portrayal of the "best Evangelicals can manage as far a acceptance of Joseph Smith." You mention a sin on his head . . . perhaps you would clarify what sin you are talking about? 

I disagree that what Joseph Smith taught was "plainly true" to anyone other than his faithful followers. I know that there is not unanimity within LDS affiliated scholars on a lot of LDS history and doctrine, especially those who studied in "secular" graduate schools. I would have to study each sermon, talk, letter, etc., before I could make a determination on the truth of any one teaching. I am more than happy to take them one by one. I can tell you I have read all his letters from the Liberty Jail. I don't know of anything in them I don't believe is true, at least to a member of that day. He says the governor of Missouri was a "wimbling willow!" I like that term. I have no idea of its truth, but I live on a river with willows, so I sure can picture a wimbling willow and what that implies. Perhaps Gov. Boggs was that. I have no idea.

I am sorry if as you indicate, your Evangelical friends do nothing but attack. I regret that. I might also suggest that those who you consider Evangelicals might in actuality be something else, possibly dispensational Fundamentalists? If you told me where they go to church and where, if any they went to college, I could probably help you out with their true affiliation. I personally like a lot of the positions of the RLDS. I am also fascinated by the positions, frankness, and upfrontness (is that a word) of the Church of the Firstborn of the Lamb of God in our area. I would not compare the BOM to Narnia. I don't get into the BOM origin controversies. Not my cup of tea. Nothing anyone is going to "discover" is going to change anyone else's mind.  Waste of energy. Both LDS apologetes and non-LDS "attackers" to use your term, are wasting their time, thumping their chests and getting nowhere. Just yesterday I spent a lot of time reading about the evolution in LDS Canon of the Lectures on Faith. That does interest me because it shows how history, current culture, and doctrine impact each other. Now that is a conversation I will join any day regardless of the specific faith under discussion. Thanks. Take care.

... . . ... I don't know if you picked up what I was putting down.

The question was is it possible for the first-first vision be become the official version because its the most acceptable to other Christians.

You know the problem is much bigger than that, the LDS claims are too grand in scope. Could it ever be toned down so it could co-exist with its Christian neighbors without much complaint? Now the Church can't do it, this is how we are, we are just all in or we're out, but non-LDS have the luxury to pick what principles of the gospel they accept, like a Jack-Mormon, or an Ancient Alien theorist (say "Yes"). But they'd have to do lots of things, minimize the miracles, keep saying things like "spiritual eyes", etc so that its subjective and open to interpretation, not the paradigm shifting assault on the foundational pillars of all Christians everywhere.

I'm not in favor of this way of thinking personally, its not how I personally feel, I just assumed this as a premise, and explored it a little.

What does that look like? Well, that is when The Book of Mormon would have to be deemed a work of religious fiction that simply tells truths. Because the implications of it being a scripture are too large for a Christian of another denomination to accept. Something like the Baptist Version of the Book of Mormon.

http://centerplace.org/library/bofm/baptistversionofbofm.htm

Honestly, I'm having some difficulty understanding your reply, rather I don't understand the parts where you are framing and interpreting what I am saying. So, that is most likely my fault, I was probably pontificating to the point of being incoherent, so naturally the responses are not going to end up coherent. So I'm going to just drop it and not speak of it again too soon. I'll go back in the corner with my coloring book...

th-1586039538.jpg

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

changed my mind on my response…

Saint B, if you are interested in seeing how some apologists reconcile differences between accounts, see here:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Differences_in_First_Vision_accounts
 

Full disclosure, I am one of the volunteers who help with this group, though I haven’t contributed much to the web content, mostly answer questions and track controversies we might want to address.  Just an FYI…Our work is considered reliable enough, there are links to it in some of the For Further Study sections on the Church’s website.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

changed my mind on my response…

Saint B, if you are interested in seeing how some apologists reconcile differences between accounts, see here:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Differences_in_First_Vision_accounts
 

Full disclosure, I am one of the volunteers who help with this group, though I haven’t contributed much to the web content, mostly answer questions and track controversies we might want to address.  Just an FYI…Our work is considered reliable enough, there are links to it in some of the For Further Study sections on the Church’s website.

Thank you so much, Calm. I'll follow the link and read it.

Link to comment

Just an FYI, I offer additional info as an option, for those interested, please don’t feel obligated to read the stuff.  It is hard to tell sometimes how thorough someone wants to be and lots of people have very limited time to spend on this stuff, so I would feel bad if anyone feels driven by guilt because they think I sacrificed myself to do research and share it…I have as much time as I can spare from the few mindless games I am addicted to in order to fill my insomniac hours and from the Korean shows I am currently binging on…so I see it as a blessing to have something to use my wonky mind on and it is worth the effort just to exercise that. :) I figure if I can save those who have few resources to spare a few minutes, it is a plus sign in my day. 

Link to comment
On 5/29/2022 at 5:15 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

So, after a long meeting, I went home and someone asked me what happened at the meeting, and I said "Fred acted like an idiot and almost got me fired."

The next day at work, a co-worker wanted a report from the meeting, and I said "Fred handed some shoddy work to Melba, told me it was my work, and Melba immediately found three errors in it."

Later that week at lunch with a friend, I mentioned my stupid meeting, and he asked me what happened.  I told him "Fred and his cadre of sycophants hate me, and I finally saw the gloves come off on Monday."

 

Later, as folks are posthumously going over my affairs to write the official biography, all 3 accounts come to light.  You tell me, which one should be the "favored" account?  Which one the 'most true'?  Which details were invented later?  Perhaps there should be a chapter questioning whether Melba even exists?  And don't forget the thorough inventory of gloves I left behind - fodder for speculation that I had some sort of a clothing fetish.

 

Honestly people, it consistently amazes me how weird we get about such things.  It's like people don't have a grasp of their own native language.

I'm sorry, but direct revelation from God is A LOT more important that some work meeting. What actually happened has cosmic implications and such a claim HAS to be validated and solidly confirmed by the historical record at every turn. No room for ambiguity or inconsistencies there.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Islander said:

I'm sorry, but direct revelation from God is A LOT more important that some work meeting. What actually happened has cosmic implications and such a claim HAS to be validated and solidly confirmed by the historical record at every turn. No room for ambiguity or inconsistencies there.

Totally disagree.  It's not how human brains work, it's not how we process, retrieve, and communicate information.  Doesn't matter how important something is, moving through grey matter and voice boxes is hardly a perfect thing. 

Even the process for translating the Book of Mormon, with its direct divine miraculous aid, is flawed and error prone because humans are involved.

Edited by LoudmouthMormon
Link to comment
On 6/4/2022 at 10:01 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Totally disagree.  It's not how human brains work, it's not how we process, retrieve, and communicate information.  Doesn't matter how important something is, moving through grey matter and voice boxes is hardly a perfect thing. 

Even the process for translating the Book of Mormon, with its direct divine miraculous aid, is flawed and error prone because humans are involved.

I understand that human beings are imperfect. However, God has relied on human beings as a channel for revelation for thousands of years and there is no room for error when revelation is concerned. Either God said something of He did not. Otherwise there is absolutely no confidence in ANYTING that has been allegedly revealed. If we can question anything and everything a prophet says they he might as well not say anything. 

You are attempting to create room for errors and omissions when, otherwise, God is very clear about wen and how He speaks. If a prophet says something that God has not said that "prophet should be put to death..." that sounds very serious to me.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...