C
Casen
Guest
Can you help us understand which parts “the LDS church has tried to spin”? Perhaps an example or two?
- Status
M
majick275
Guest
Well it was originally published in England in 1853 but in 1865 Brigham Young had all copies returned and destroyed. A significantly altered version was published in 1901 and and even further altered version was published in 1954.
Apparently there were folks who read her story and realized that it revealed conflicts with the “official” history of the church.
Some examples of which would include Joseph Sr. visions, joseph jr. first vision details.
Brigham Young said it was full of lies, Later that was softened to inacuracies due to Mother Smiths failing memory, at one time it was claimed to be inaccurate due to trancription errors attributed to a secretary.
Finally after numerous rewites it was pronounced doctrinally sound by the church historian Preston Nibley.
Apparently there were folks who read her story and realized that it revealed conflicts with the “official” history of the church.
Some examples of which would include Joseph Sr. visions, joseph jr. first vision details.
Brigham Young said it was full of lies, Later that was softened to inacuracies due to Mother Smiths failing memory, at one time it was claimed to be inaccurate due to trancription errors attributed to a secretary.
Finally after numerous rewites it was pronounced doctrinally sound by the church historian Preston Nibley.
V
Vidar
Guest
On the surface, that sounds plausible. When you dig a bit deeper, it falls flat to the ground.
There was no revival in “the place where [Joseph Smith] lived” in 1820. The details he and his family provides points to a revival four years later. His mother said the revival took place after Alvin was dead. Alvin Smith died November 19, 1823
Oliver Cowdery and William Smith mention a “reverend Lane” what was present during the revival. He was not assigned to Palmyra until 1824.
William Smith also talks abot a reverend “Stockton” who had preached at Alvins Smith’s funeral and suggested that he went to hell. Stockton was installed in Palmyra february 1824.
Stockton himself writes about the revival and says it broke out in 1824, and spread to other than his own presbyterian denomenation in 1825.
The church records of the time show a large increase (percentage wise) in 1824-25, but not in 1820. In 1820 most of the denomentations lost members or had no significant increase in the number of members.
The publications of the different denomenations talk about a revival in 1816/17 and 1824/25, but do not mention any revival in 1820.
I invite you to read “Inventing Mormonism - Tradition and The Historical Record” by H. Michael Marquardt & Wesley P. Walters.
FARMS can deal with some of the facts, but they cannot include all of them in their hypothesis…
V
Vidar
Guest
The first vision account of 1832 mentions only one person, “the Lord” Jesus Christ. LDS apologists claim that this can be reconciled to the official 1838 version. An 1820 revival does not fit well with the available historical data, as I pointed out above.
The fact that the 1832 version of the first vision mentions only one person is probably due to the fact that Joseph Smith did not yet believe that there were three distinct persons in the godhead at the time he wrote it.
This is consistent with the book of Mormon, and other revelations written up until this point, which present the Father, Son and Spirit as modalites of the same God, not seperate and distinct persons.
When Smith’s view changed, he doctored his revelations to make room for his new view. The first vision account was rewritten to include two personages. The book of Mormon was edited. Where the original called Mary the “Mother of God”, the text was changed to say “Mother of the Son of God” in 1837 (If I remember correctly there are atleast four changes where “God” is replaced with “Son of God”.
The book of Moses creation account from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible says “God” created the heavens and the earth. In the later book of Abraham account it says “the Gods”.
When the lectures on faith were written and published in the Doctrine & Covenants, the Holy Spirit was called the “common mind” of the Father and the Son, not a seperate person. And it stated that the Father was a personage of spirit, while the Son had a body of flesh and bone. It was later removed from the D&C.
What most mormons do, is read back into the early revelations concepts that were invented by Joseph Smith later. And Smith himself had no problem with altering revelations already received according to his new views, interpolating hundreds of words into a single text. Names of people he had seen in heaven in his “visions” were crossed out and replaced with others when they left the LDS church, new ideas about prieshood were added into already published revelations, even his own ordination etc…
What I find ironic is that such evidence is far stronger than anything I have seen the LDS apologists in here, bring against the Catholic Church.
I find this to be characteristic of religious organisations like the mormons and the Jehovah’s witnesses. They are extremely good at finding weaknesses in the religious belief systems of others, but are blind to their own, even though they may be ten times worse.
Vidar
T
Thomas_More
Guest
I fail to see how Casen can look at all the different accounts and not see problems. If God were to visit me, I would not forget have old I was, how many personages were there, if there were angels there or not, what God told me, etc.
F
flameburns623
Guest
Actually, I think Casen has done a fair to middling job of attempting to reconcile the divergent accounts of the First Vision. If you accept his central point–that at various times, under differing circumstances, Smith either enlarged upon or summarized his First Vision in order to make a particualr point to a particular audience–MANY of the issues being raised here do in fact disappear. For example–if there were TWO personages, then there was certainly ONE personage, and may have been a tad off-topic to stress at the time that Smith saw not only God and his identical-twin Son Jesus (I’m adding a bit of levity here, but as I recollect Smith DID say the two looked alike). The angels may have been a superfluous detail. It is rather unfair to assume that Smith ‘forgot’ some details. Remember that the Apostle Paul is recorded as having recounted his own vision of Jesus several times in the Book of Acts: none of the accunts is exactly identical with the others, a fact normally attributed to Paul’s desire to stress some issues in one case which were irrelevant in other cases.
It might be better to eleborate on the details of each separate account, what Smith claimed to be doing in each account, the circumstances underwhich he recounted his First Vision in each case. One could better evaluate whether Smith left out details for the sake of parsimony, added to those details for the sake of a more complete account etcetera. If one found a claim that a truncated account was vouched for by Smith as a "full and complete account of everything which transpired during my first vision of God’–this would be a more damning piece of evidence. On the other hand–if one of the accunts was something hastily written down or even was recorded second-hand by a non-LDS reporter–the discrepancies might well be the fault of the person recording the account and not Smith’s own inability to accurately convey his experience.
F
flameburns623
Guest
Vidar: good alternative understanding of the divergent accounts of the visions. I concur with your understanding of why the First Vision accounts are often so different. See my post immediately prior however for some kudos to Casen’s efforts as well.
V
Vidar
Guest
I think the biggest problem with the official account of 1838 is the revival, and I do not think FARMS log cabin explanation holds water, because it cannot account for all the details. When it comes to the number of persons involved, I also find it problematic. Not because the accounts cannot be reconciled when looking at the number of persons isolated from other problems. It is possible that Smith saw two beings + angels and emphasised different aspects of the vision. I do not find it likely due to the nature of the accounts, but I concede it is possible.
The biggest problem, I think, is that I find no clear evidence that Joseph Smith believed that the Father and the Son were distinct persons in 1832, when the “Jesus only” account was written. Sure, one can read this into the Book of Mormon and the revelations as they were at the time, but to me it seems like Smith’s understanding of the godhed had not yet developed to the point where he believed the Father, Son and HS were distinct persons.
When I look at Smith’s behaviour with regards to the revelations in the Book of Commandments, where he interpolated and changed about 2500 words in them to include new ideas, and to make some of them say the exact opposite of what they used to, I personally find it overwhemingly likely that he did the same to his account of the first vision.
There are liberal mormons who do not believe God dictated anything to Smith. They think he was “progressively inspired” towards truth. They view the book of Mormon as an inspired allegory. Such a view is at least consistent with the facts of early LDS history. But once we allow the idea that there was no first vision, no golden plates, no dictated revelations. Only allegories by Smith under some sort of “inspiration”, I see no reason to believe he was a prophet at all. A burning in the bosom simply isn’t enough for me.
And of course, positively, I am convinced that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. Not merely because of the poweful spiritual experiences I have had since joining the Church, but because it makes sense theologically, historically, philosophically and scientifically as well.
Vidar
A
arieh0310
Guest
I really like to emphasize the historicity of our faith, you see no revisionism. The extra-biblical evidence for the fidelity to which the Church has kept to the Truth is beyond question. In addition, the fact that 11 of the 12 disciples died a martyr’s death for a faith that can be proven to be handed down to us unaltered is much more impressive that a few signatures confirming that golden plates really existed.
M
majick275
Guest
Let’s not forget that these “witnesses” were a small group of friends and reatives (not quite “objective”) and that later Joseph Smith himself called some of them Liars. (or worse) Joseph gives us reason to believe (through excommunications and denunciations) that these weren’t all exactly men of great character.
T
Thomas_More
Guest
Actually, I think Casen has done a fair to middling job of attempting to reconcile the divergent accounts of the First Vision.
I don’t
If you accept his central point–that at various times, under differing circumstances, Smith either enlarged upon or summarized his First Vision in order to make a particualr point to a particular audience–MANY of the issues being raised here do in fact disappear. For example–if there were TWO personages, then there was certainly ONE personage, and may have been a tad off-topic to stress at the time that Smith saw not only God and his identical-twin Son Jesus (I’m adding a bit of levity here, but as I recollect Smith DID say the two looked alike).
No. To say there was one when there was 2 is misleading. IF God and Jesus visited, there would never be a situation where I would leave one of them out.
The angels may have been a superfluous detail. It is rather unfair to assume that Smith ‘forgot’ some details.
No it isn’t. When someone gives so many different versions of one spectacular event, it is certainly most fair to question the story-teller.
Remember that the Apostle Paul is recorded as having recounted his own vision of Jesus several times in the Book of Acts: none of the accunts is exactly identical with the others, a fact normally attributed to Paul’s desire to stress some issues in one case which were irrelevant in other cases.
Big difference. We have no idea with Paul who he told and who told whom etc to get into the Book of Acts. Joseph either told the story, or wrote it, or told scribes who were hired to write exactly what was said. Additionally, the others who recounted were apostles of Joseph. There would be no excuse to
I was a Mormon for several years. I served as a missionary. I have been to the Sacred Grove. I am now an attorney. As a prosecutor, if a person took the stand and gave nine different versions, no amount of explanation would make him credible.
I don’t
If you accept his central point–that at various times, under differing circumstances, Smith either enlarged upon or summarized his First Vision in order to make a particualr point to a particular audience–MANY of the issues being raised here do in fact disappear. For example–if there were TWO personages, then there was certainly ONE personage, and may have been a tad off-topic to stress at the time that Smith saw not only God and his identical-twin Son Jesus (I’m adding a bit of levity here, but as I recollect Smith DID say the two looked alike).
No. To say there was one when there was 2 is misleading. IF God and Jesus visited, there would never be a situation where I would leave one of them out.
The angels may have been a superfluous detail. It is rather unfair to assume that Smith ‘forgot’ some details.
No it isn’t. When someone gives so many different versions of one spectacular event, it is certainly most fair to question the story-teller.
Remember that the Apostle Paul is recorded as having recounted his own vision of Jesus several times in the Book of Acts: none of the accunts is exactly identical with the others, a fact normally attributed to Paul’s desire to stress some issues in one case which were irrelevant in other cases.
Big difference. We have no idea with Paul who he told and who told whom etc to get into the Book of Acts. Joseph either told the story, or wrote it, or told scribes who were hired to write exactly what was said. Additionally, the others who recounted were apostles of Joseph. There would be no excuse to
I was a Mormon for several years. I served as a missionary. I have been to the Sacred Grove. I am now an attorney. As a prosecutor, if a person took the stand and gave nine different versions, no amount of explanation would make him credible.
A
arieh0310
Guest
Just to back up what Thomas_More is saying, the three retellings of the Damascus road incident are nearly identical. The only real difference is when Paul is in front of King Agrippa he seems to tell the entire dialog he had with Jesus. Whereas in the earlier retellings you have an abbreviated statement from Jesus. Seems to me that Paul was simply giving a more complete recounting of his experience to King Agrippa.
What JS does is completely change his story. Paul doesn’t say one time that Jesus was there, then at another time say that Jesus and the Father were present, then at another time say that angels gave him the message.
- Status