The First Vision Versions

[kimg901]

Sigh…the poster from the other thread was adamant that the versions were not contradictory and told me to prove it. I started this thread for him…he never showed up to defend his statements.

what does that tell you?

Nor did he show up on another thread that he said we should start as not to derail another

 

[TexanKnight]

Nor did he show up on another thread that he said we should start as not to derail another

well…he is back…lets see if he has the courage to address this

 

[lynnettejane]

So, your two scenarios do indeed contradict each other. But again, (for the third time now), the word “just” does NOT appear in Joseph’s accounts. I see you are bolding it - but what you are bolding, is a word that TexasKnight claimed is there, and not actually a word that Joseph put there. Nowhere, in either 1835 account, does Joseph use the words “just” or “only” when talking about who appeared.

If he did, please point them out, because yes indeed, that would seem to indicate a contradiction. Got link? Got source? Got image of the document? I’d love to see them.

[Edit: I’m heading home for the weekend, and will likely not be online much until Tuesday.]

This is so typical of mormon arguments, they pick on a word or phrase, that is fairly innocuous and then try to totally derail the conversation by focusing on that one thing. You know exactly what TK meant as does everyone else, so move on

 

[Nicea325]

Sigh…the poster from the other thread was adamant that the versions were not contradictory and told me to prove it. I started this thread for him…he never showed up to defend his statements.

what does that tell you?

That it was all fabricated just as purple elephants with wings.

 

[TexanKnight]

I love it when Mormons dodge…

 

[Nicea325]

I love it when Mormons dodge…

A clear sign they have been cornered. As my former pastor once told me:

The TRUTH is always defended, while lies and innovations are never defended.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Again, I WROTE what I posted. I said “just angels” because in HIS versions, all he mentioned was Angels. He did not mention God or Jesus or even “personages”

So, I know folks here are patting each other on the back and declaring victory, finding justification in thinking negative things about mormons, but I’m still thinking there’s a massive problem with Texan’s claim.

I started by asking for a concrete example of a single contradiction.

TexanKnight:

TexanKnight
1835- Who was there- Two unidentified personages and many angels

1835- Who was there- Just Angels

Texan: Would you consider this to be an example of a contradiction?

To which Texan replied:

Yes…I believe saying only one person there and later two were there and then two were there plus angels and then ionly angels are definite contradictions. Don’t you?

Texan’s first claim was Joseph said “Just angels”. Texan’s revised claim: “only one person there”.

We all agree that if someone says “I saw lots of one people” in one account, and I say “I only saw one person” in the next account, they are contradicting themselves. We do not agree that Joseph ever said “I saw only angels” or “I saw only one person there”.

I have posted links to the source text of all the accounts, and asked someone to point out where Joseph said any such thing. Nobody has. Texan has refused or ignored my repeated requests to identify his sources (he says “I wrote this several years ago after researching the different accounts from several sources”, but he does not reveal those sources or post links. Texan, what you wrote is not a source. It’s a claim about a source. And until you or someone else can back up your claim, then my challenge to your claim is going unopposed.

Texan, I am challenging what you wrote several years ago on this point. I am challenging you to prove that Joseph said what you claimed he said. Please point to where Joseph claims to have seen only angels, or have seen only one person there. You cannot, because the words are not there.

Truthseeker32 seems to get it.

TexanKnight holds up his credentials as a lawyer, who deals with sworn testimony daily, to try to make the definition of the word “contradiction” fit what he wants it to fit.

I reject that definition, in favor of the dictionary definition, and the way the word is used and understood amongst most english speaking peoples.

Texan, I see your personal attacks on me - accusing me of knowingly throwing out red herrings, and demanding that I “stop obsessing”. Your personal attacks do not answer my valid challenge. You claim Joseph said something he didn’t. Either prove he did, or your claim stands correctly judged as incorrect, invalid, wrong, false.

I am not a lawyer, and I have no legal training. But I do know the definition of the word “contradiction”, and I know that in the case of the two 1835 accounts, you have to put words in Joseph’s claims that he did not make, in order to accuse him.

Texan, thank you for opening this thread. I appreciate it’s stated purpose:

Let’s see for ourselves and let the readers be the judges…

I am happy to consider other examples of contradictions. But I would like to see one last time if you are able to prove that Joseph said “just angels/only one person there” in one account, and “God and angels” in another.

I hope everybody had a good weekend.

 

[RebeccaJ]

What is not said is as important as what is said?

I have experienced several times where LDS members purposely withhold information about Mormon beliefs. I can’t say, claiming Smith purposely withheld information, conveys something positive.

At any rate, purposely withholding information in this case, portrays God as having different natures, which is a contradiction. The accounts are contradictory in the message that is conveyed. God cannot be one, while the same time being two.

 

[NeuroTypical]

What is not said is as important as what is said?

Again, the claim is that Joseph contradicted himself. Arguing about what is more or less important, is a different argument.

I can’t say, claiming Smith purposely withheld information, conveys something positive.

Again, the claim is that Joseph contradicted himself. Arguing about purposely withholding information, is a different argument.

I’ve been accused on this board in other threads, of changing the subject, moving the goal posts, avoiding the issue. I’d really like to keep it to looking at this one specific claim of contradicting, if that’s ok.

At any rate, purposely withholding information in this case, portrays God as having different natures, which is a contradiction.

No it doesn’t, and no it isn’t. If I tell you I saw angels, I am not portraying God as having any nature at all, because I didn’t say anything about him.

Can anyone substantiate TexanKnight’s claim that Joseph said “just angels” or “only one person there”?

 

[TexanKnight]

So, I know folks here are patting each other on the back and declaring victory, finding justification in thinking negative things about mormons, but I’m still thinking there’s a massive problem with Texan’s claim.

Really? You overlook all Joe’s inconsistencies and still obsessing about one? Is that because you are red herring tossing?

I started by asking for a concrete example of a single contradiction.
To which Texan replied:

Texan’s first claim was Joseph said “Just angels”. Texan’s revised claim: “only one person there”.

Not true. My typed OP is still what I typed. His story only mentioned angels, not anyone else. So, I typed “just angels.” I have explained this over and over. Yet, still you obsess.

We all agree that if someone says “I saw lots of one people” in one account, and I say “I only saw one person” in the next account, they are contradicting themselves. We do not agree that Joseph ever said “I saw only angels” or “I saw only one person there”.

Not true. Not all agree. That is a dishonest statement. If I am telling a story about a vision of God that leads me to start a new church and in one of my many versions I do not even mention God was there, that is a contradiction to a story where I say God was there and a contradiction to a story where I say God and Jesus were there. Tell you what…try your theory as a witness in court and see how far you get

I have posted links to the source text of all the accounts, and asked someone to point out where Joseph said any such thing. Nobody has. Texan has refused or ignored my repeated requests to identify his sources (he says “I wrote this several years ago after researching the different accounts from several sources”, but he does not reveal those sources or post links. Texan, what you wrote is not a source. It’s a claim about a source. And until you or someone else can back up your claim, then my challenge to your claim is going unopposed.

I told you…several sources. And your challenge IS opposed. The problem is, you cannot refute anything, so you nitpick. It is a common strategy when someone has no real argument to do exactly what you are doing. I see it almost daily in trials, hearing and depositions. If you think I am wrong in any of my accounts, tell me where I am wrong. So far, you haven’t. You have picked on ONE word that I have explained several times.

Texan, I am challenging what you wrote several years ago on this point. I am challenging you to prove that Joseph said what you claimed he said. Please point to where Joseph claims to have seen only angels, or have seen only one person there. You cannot, because the words are not there.

I met the challenge and typed from my studies. You cannot prove me wrong, so you obsess on ONE word out of ONE version of ALL the versions. I understand why you do this…everyone does. I see defense attorneys who defend liars do this all the time because they have to. You are defending a liar, so you are doping the same thing. I told you the year he said angels without mentioning anyone else. If you can, show me his version from that year that proves me wrong.

Truthseeker32 seems to get it.

TexanKnight holds up his credentials as a lawyer, who deals with sworn testimony daily, to try to make the definition of the word “contradiction” fit what he wants it to fit.

No. I have simply told you how juries and judges view people who have multiple versions of a story.

I reject that definition, in favor of the dictionary definition, and the way the word is used and understood amongst most english speaking peoples.

Of course you do. If my leader had so many versions of a vision, I would reject common sense, too

Texan, I see your personal attacks on me - accusing me of knowingly throwing out red herrings, and demanding that I “stop obsessing”. Your personal attacks do not answer my valid challenge. You claim Joseph said something he didn’t. Either prove he did, or your claim stands correctly judged as incorrect, invalid, wrong, false.

I DID prove it. Prove I am wrong. I have made no personal attacks. I have simply said the obvious. And you keep proving me correct

I am not a lawyer, and I have no legal training. But I do know the definition of the word “contradiction”, and I know that in the case of the two 1835 accounts, you have to put words in Joseph’s claims that he did not make, in order to accuse him.

Nope. Joe used all the words I need

Texan, thank you for opening this thread. I appreciate it’s stated purpose

And thank you for proving my thread correct

 

[TexanKnight]

oh…and from your source materials…in 1835…Joe said THIS:

A Gentleman called this after noon by the name of Erastus Holmes of Newbury Clemon [Newberry, Clermont] Co. Ohio, he called to make enquiry about the establishment of the church of the latter-day Saints and to be instructed more perfectly in our doctrine &c I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14.

Now, again…he JUST SAYS ANGELS.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Again, the claim is that Joseph contradicted himself. Arguing about what is more or less important, is a different argument.

Again, the claim is that Joseph contradicted himself. Arguing about purposely withholding information, is a different argument.

I’ve been accused on this board in other threads, of changing the subject, moving the goal posts, avoiding the issue. I’d really like to keep it to looking at this one specific claim of contradicting, if that’s ok.

No it doesn’t, and no it isn’t. If I tell you I saw angels, I am not portraying God as having any nature at all, because I didn’t say anything about him.

Can anyone substantiate TexanKnight’s claim that Joseph said “just angels” or “only one person there”?

Dodging dodger! . your argument is exactly, that what wasn’t said is more important than what was said. Make up your mind.

Angels is not as important as “two personages”. If they were equally important, what would your argument mean? (Hint: nothing.)

It’s ok, I understand the need to explain away the many things in Mormonism that scream IT’S A LIE!

Protect your church at all costs, including that of your soul.

 

[NeuroTypical]

His story only mentioned angels, not anyone else. So, I typed “just angels.”

Ok. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Thanks for quoting the source text - I think it illustrates the difference between your claim and my response.

I see a difference between the claim “His story mentioned just angels” and “His story just mentioned angels”. The latter is an accurate statement about what Joseph said, and not a contradiction. The former is what Texan incorrectly said Joseph said, and would be a contradiction, if Joseph had actually said it, which he didn’t. And the word “just” is something which Texan adds, and Joseph never said. His claim loses a lot of oomph, in my opinion, without that word.

I’m no more an english teacher than I am a lawyer, so I’ll leave it up to people reading this thread to agree or disagree. I’m content to stop “obsessing” and “red herring tossing”.

Would anyone who uses the word ‘contradiction’ as the way the dictionary defines it, care to discuss any other of the supposed contradictions? I do see one - Joseph messed up his age in one account.

Any others?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Would anyone who uses the word ‘contradiction’ as the way the dictionary defines it, care to discuss any other of the supposed contradictions? I do see one - Joseph messed up his age in one account.

Any others?

I did already, twice.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Dodging dodger!
…
It’s ok, I understand the need to explain away the many things in Mormonism that scream IT’S A LIE!
…
Protect your church at all costs, including that of your soul.

I acknowledge your personal attacks on me, RebeccaJ. I also note, they do nothing to address Texan’s false claim that Joseph said something he never said.

I did already, twice.

Sorry I missed it - what are the post numbers?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I acknowledge your personal attacks on me, RebeccaJ. I also note, they do nothing to address Texan’s false claim that Joseph said something he never said.

Address what I said about your visions, coward.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Purposely withholding information in this case, portrays God as having different natures, which is a contradiction. The accounts are contradictory in the message that is conveyed. God cannot be one, while the same time being two.

If it clarifies for you, if you say to a Christian, I saw two personages, everyone will know you are making things up. If you say I saw The Lord, people will think you believe you saw Jesus. If you say I saw angels, people will NOT make an assumption that you saw The Lord, or two personages.

Clever, perhaps to you, contradictory to the people on the receiving end of the story.

God is not one and two at the same time, and angels are not God.

Pretending like everyone who Smith spoke to is sitting there at a computer with the nine different versions in front of them to compare, doesn’t support your argument.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Address what I said about your visions, coward.

I acknowledge your pretty blatant personal attack on me, RebeccaJ.

I notice the forum rules, Conduct Rule #1:

Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language.

I’ve reported your post to the admins, and will be interested to see what action they take. I’ll try to revisit this thread tomorrow.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I acknowledge your pretty blatant personal attack on me, RebeccaJ.

I notice the forum rules, Conduct Rule #1:I’ve reported your post to the admins, and will be interested to see what action they take. I’ll try to revisit this thread tomorrow.

Predictable.

Mormons always go for the report button when they can’t address the topic, and can’t support their arguments.

I could die from that surprise!

I call it what it is, cowardly!

 

[TexanKnight]

Ok. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Thanks for quoting the source text - I think it illustrates the difference between your claim and my response.

Yes…it does. Joe just says angels. JUST ANGELS. Which is exactly what I said. If God actually appeared, why leave Him out? What possible reason could Joe have? Anyway, your source text proved I was correct. Thank you

I see a difference between the claim “His story mentioned just angels” and “His story just mentioned angels”. The latter is an accurate statement about what Joseph said, and not a contradiction.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. If I say one time I was visited by God…then one time I say I was visited by angels, that is a contradiction. Only someone who believes Zerehemla exists can believe differently. Now, again, I dare you to try your thoery in court. I wanna be there with popcorn.

I’m no more an english teacher than I am a lawyer, so I’ll leave it up to people reading this thread to agree or disagree. I’m content to stop “obsessing” and “red herring tossing”.

Your problem is, faced with so many contradictions, you do what defense attorneys do and picked on ONE thing and kept on about it ignoring all the other contradictions. Even had you been right, which you were not, ther other contradictions were sufficient to show Joe a liar. Yet, you hoped by obsessing on one, it would draw attention from from the others.