Drawing the Line for Mormons: A Closer Look at the LDS Church

[ben_dy]

…continued…

Zakuska:

Joseph does not mention “Grandious Fire from heaven tent Revivals at all”.

And who said that he did?

Zakuska:

Simply "Excitment in his Neighborhood starting with the Methodists. The Methodists where indeed the first to hold tent meetings in his neighborhood.

I’ve never argued that the excitement did not begin with the Methodists - that’s what Smith writes.

Zakuska:

If this is the best you’ve got… heaven help the Bible with its screwed up Chronology that does not aline correctly. (eg There are 2 missing years for Noah, things get really fuzzy around the time of Abraham, many missing years there.)

This is not the “best (I have) got” but I am only willing, at this time, to stick with the Standard Works and the history of the time to prove, to all that will read with an open mind, that the “great excitement” of which Smith wrote did not occur in 1820 and that a single mention of a Methodist camp meeting, compared with the numerous articles of “great excitement” amongst all the sects in the area in 1824, do not prove Smith’s date of his ‘First Vision’.

[/quote]

Indeed.

 

[ben_dy]

AugustineH354:

Hi Ben,

I am quite familiar with the tactics used by opponents of the RCC. For instance, James White (and a legion of other anti-Catholic authors) use similar arguments concerning be evidence for any successor to St. Peter (as universal pastor of the Church) before the 6th century, that they use for evidence of 1820 revivals in the Palmyra area. But, if one is trying to be objective, and really looking for it, the evidence for successors to St. Peter’s chair is there.

I submit that if you re-read the essay provided by FAIR with the same objectivity, evidence for revivals in 1820 is there.

Grace and peace,

Aug

Aug,

Sorry, but I disagree.

One July 18th, 1820, Palmyra Register record of a single Methodist camp meeting can’t convince my oh-so-trying-to-be objective mind that this was but a single example of a camp meeeting and not the great religious excitement, fervor, and proselytizing which was reported extensively in 1824.

There’s just no meat on that bone.

All manner of explanations can be made to fit the discrepancy, but not to be found in that article, nor the FAIR article in which the Register article (not for the first time, I should add) is mentioned.

There are many other records I could cite, but they only prove the “excitement” in the region in 1824 - and other ‘first visions’ that could be cited but, in fairness, I’ll stick to the one in the ‘Standard Works’.

 

[Courtneyjo]

I started this thread to get opinions on whether or not the linked article was on the mark. It sounds like it is. My interest was piqued when on Ascension Thursday, a poster from another website mentioned she was Momon but had no idea what the Ascension was. She said that there was still so much to know about her new religion (she was an adult convert).

 

[Zakuska]

And who said that he did?

You did when you said the “revivals” did not happen until 1824.

Just as JS said “it started with the Methodists” as History has shown with a tent meeting 15 miles from his home.

Second you are reading his words in this matter as if they are Chronological and to a sense they are. The fire eventual did burn over into ever sect. in 1824. However… he sprinkles thoughts he had during all this in with it that may or may not be Chronological.

Example:
7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year

He jumps back into his 15th year.

This is a common writting method even in scripture. Nephi Does it when he brotjher bind him on the ship. He tells what his brothers do to him and his interaction with them andthen he jumps back to the beginning and tells what his father and family where doijng at the same time.

 

[Zakuska]

There are many other records I could cite, but they only prove the “excitement” in the region in 1824 - and other ‘first visions’ that could be cited but, in fairness, I’ll stick to the one in the ‘Standard Works’.

And again you tare Josephs words from their context.

He says it started with the Methodists and it did. And eventually poured ovver into all sect in 1824.

You also miss that he jumps back into his 15th year.

Theres a 2 year discrepancy with the story of Noah:
direct.ca/trinity/noah.html

You going to stone him now?

 

[majick275]

I’m not sure that the current JS-History in the PoGP is really Joseph’s words. There are numerous differing accounts of his first vision and if we are to look at what HE published while he was president of the LDS church we don’t see it at all.

What is written in his own hand and what his mother wrote in her biography of him is completely different than what you have today.

I think there is still some question as to what Joseph really experienced when he started his path towards founding the LDS church.

 

[Zakuska]

Yes there are differing accounts. Just like there are differing accounts in the Gospels themselves. Take a look at how Pauls theolephany (sic) morphed in grandure over the 3 times it was recorded.

 

[majick275]

and I am therefore not willing to choose which JS account (if any) is correct. The difference between JS story and the gospels is that the Gospels are accounts by different individuals of what they witnessed.

JS is the only “witness” to the first vision, therefore all acounts other than his own are second hand. That his own account differs fundamentally from what is published today is significant but not necessarily conclusive since the only sample we have today does not appear to be a finished product or even necessarily intended for publishing.

I think we are left not truly knowing for sure some fundamental facts about this first vision. We do know that JS did not publish it as scripture during his tenure as “prophet”. That creates questions but certainly not answers.

In one account he is visited by the angel nephi in another moroni. In one account he is only visited by an angel not God in another he is only visited by a single personage who he identifies as God. (possibly addtional evidence that he was originally orthodox trinitarian) In yet another he is visited by Father and Son. (which would tend to support lectures on Faith view of 2 personages sharing one mind, the holy ghost)

The LDS can easily just discard evrything except the current version since their “prophet” tells them so and thus it is the canonized version.

Non-LDS have reason to be skeptical as JS and his mothers accounts would seem to have more weight. The question on why HE didn’t publish it in the canon (especially in light of his D&C tendency to publish just about every “revelation”) The lectures on faith being in the canon also appear significant the non-LDS mind.

Bottom line… I don’t think we can clearly define just what JS even claimed to have happened in this case.

 

[Zakuska]

JS is the only “witness” to the first vision, therefore all acounts other than his own are second hand. That his own account differs fundamentally from what is published today is significant but not necessarily conclusive since the only sample we have today does not appear to be a finished product or even necessarily intended for publishing.

Hmm the same thing can be said about the accounts of Pauls Theolephany. One being in first person and then the others in second. Was it not Luke that wrote most of Acts?

What I want to know is in the first retelling only Paul fell to the ground. But by the time it was ready for publishing to King Agrippa. Paul, his men, and the yellow dog wagging his tail had all fallen to the ground. I mean come on now… this was the King. Just Paul falling down… thats not going to impress the King much. now is it?

In one account he is visited by the angel nephi in another moroni. In one account he is only visited by an angel not God in another he is only visited by a single personage who he identifies as God. (possibly addtional evidence that he was originally orthodox trinitarian) In yet another he is visited by Father and Son. (which would tend to support lectures on Faith view of 2 personages sharing one mind, the holy ghost)

The ‘Nephi’ account has been delt with and can be atributed to his mother.

Second you forgot the one account that just the Lord showed up… but looking deeply into the words you can see the others there. No trinitarian thought needed.

The LDS can easily just discard evrything except the current version since their “prophet” tells them so and thus it is the canonized version.

Hows that so? The body of the church voted on those scriptures and cannonized them. Is that not how the Bible came about as canon as well?

 

[majick275]

Not exactly. We all know that when things were (and pretty much still are) brought before the members of the LDS church they sustain the leaders, otherwise they are “on the high road to apostasy”. It’s a straight up sustain or oppose vote without discussion. Those who dare oppose are immediately taken aside and dealt with so that they either see the light and understand the inspired position the leadership took or they get to go through the disciplinary process. Very rarely they will actually have evidence requiring a reversal which then makes the leaders position look rather uninspired.

Catholic councils like the one that set the canon for the bible were (are) lengthy affairs involving church leaders where everyone goes over the case in great detail.

Those who just refused to follow the leaders in BOTH cases tended to have split off on their own.

 

[Zakuska]

majick275:

Not exactly. We all know that when things were (and pretty much still are) brought before the members of the LDS church they sustain the leaders, otherwise they are “on the high road to apostasy”. It’s a straight up sustain or oppose vote without discussion. Those who dare oppose are immediately taken aside and dealt with so that they either see the light and understand the inspired position the leadership took or they get to go through the disciplinary process. Very rarely they will actually have evidence requiring a reversal which then makes the leaders position look rather uninspired.

Catholic councils like the one that set the canon for the bible were (are) lengthy affairs involving church leaders where everyone goes over the case in great detail.

Those who just refused to follow the leaders in BOTH cases tended to have split off on their own.

Hmm… Ive seen some one who objected to a leader being called… Was asked why after the meating by the bishop.

It was brought to his attention that the person was not worthy to hold that calling because of this and that that this operson was privey to and so the person was sumarily released.

No reprisal or anything for the person who objected.



I also remmeber that two bishops where exilled to Egypt for not voting in favor at Nicea.

How is it unispired?

Was it uninspired when Nathan Told david he could build the temple only to have God speak his mind latter that night?

2 sam 7

Why did Paul give opinion as Scripture only to over turn it latter with a direct command from God?

1 Cor 11
1 Tim

Whats wrong wasnt Paul “inspired”?

 

[Courtneyjo]

Zakuska:

This ones new to me. We take pride in the “of Latter-Day Saints” It distinguishes us from the Church Christ set up when the Apostles walked the earth. We claim to be a restoration of that church.

It was reported in newspapers late last year of early this year that soon that church would be called, “The Church of Jesus Christ”, but strangely I cannot find it in a Google search.

 

[Zakuska]

Courtneyjo:

It was reported in newspapers late last year of early this year that soon that church would be called, “The Church of Jesus Christ”, but strangely I cannot find it in a Google search.

You must be thinking of the RLDS church.

They have changed their name twice since the broke of from the main branch of the church.

 

[PaulDupre]

No, I remember seeing that article, too. It was the SLC Church that was considering dropping the “of Latter-Day Saints” from its name. They thought it was too long and confusing to potential converts. We discussed it in this forum.

It’s also difficult to translate. In Mandarin Chinese, the language of my mission in Taiwan, the name of the LDS church translates literally to:

“The Jesus Christ Doomsday Good-Ones Church”

A tough sell.

 

[Zakuska]

Do you know where the thread is? Because I live in SLC and I never heard anything about this. Sounds more like an urban legened. Than anything else.

 

[majick275]

it may be. I’ve not heard that one before but even JS changed the name of the LDS church. (according to him more than once)