The First Vision

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7110
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

It’s a mountain not a molehill

Post by Shulem »

The Backyard Man wrote:
You see that mountain behind me. It isn’t half the size compared to how big God the Father is! If Joseph Smith had seen two persons in that grove and one of them was Heavenly Father with a body of flesh and bones then Joseph Smith would have mentioned it in his 1832 personal testimonial. There is no question about it.

Shulem has hit the hammer on the nail, yeah baby!

Image
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 6136
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: The First Vision

Post by Moksha »

So is that the cover for the Backyard Professor Christmas Special?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7110
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The First Vision

Post by Shulem »

Smith’s 1832 autobiography detailing the First Vision experience tells us exactly what was on Smith’s mind at that time. Smith’s testimony was typical of the Father and Son being one God with manifestations that were physical and spiritual according to Christian theology. That doctrine was embraced by all the other religions of his day. Mormonism was no different than other churches with respect to Smith’s idea of what and who God is. The same goes for the descriptive content in the Book of Mormon which says nothing about the Father being his own Personage with a body.

The later development of the plurality of the Gods makes the 1832 testimony absolutely inconceivable in the idea that the Father did not personally address Joseph and introduce his Son. The theology of the Father being the head God and the one who is over Christ demands that the 1832 account testify of the introduction as the later versions did. But there was no introduction from the Father. There was no pointing of the finger. No mention of the Father’s physical presence whatsoever which should have taken preeminence in revealing to the world that they are TWO PERSONS having bodies.

This really is a nail in the First Vision coffin. Little wonder this portion of Smith’s first autobiography was ripped from the letterbook and hidden up and kept from the Church. It’s a testimony in and of itself that Smith never claimed to see the Father and that Church leaders are corrupt in maintaining their vain testimonies that Smith saw God and Jesus.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7110
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The First Vision

Post by Shulem »

The physical manifestations of the resurrected Jesus Christ to people in the Bible and the Book of Mormon are very similar in nature. The Son of God was portrayed as a resurrected Man-God and represented the physical manifestation of God on earth while at that same time the spiritual manifestation of God the Father resided in heaven. Hence, the Christian God manifests both spiritually and physically. The Spirit of God is the mind and power.

Joseph Smith’s 1832 account of the First Vision accords with the very concept that God and Christ are one God that manifest physically and spiritually as described in the Bible and Book of Mormon. In scripture, the Father is manifested in voice only and not that of a physical Man as in Jesus. All of this accords with the 1830 declaration given in the Testimony of Three Witnesses: “And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God.”

The idea that Smith saw two Persons in his First Vision experience came years later. The plurality of the Gods was a new doctrine that was conceived when Smith was dabbling in Egyptian interpretations of the papyrus and his attempt to translate them. The whole point of this thread is to highlight Smith’s own confession in which he inadvertently revealed the very *time* in which he determined that the Father and Son were two separate Persons. He “learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house.” Thus, he did not learn it in an 1820 visionary experience which he recalled for the first time in 1832! The evidence to this effect is conclusive and cannot be rationally disputed by faith promoting apologists who have not a leg to stand on.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7110
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

The shoe drops

Post by Shulem »

And now I will provide my opinion on why the doctrine of plural marriage evolved in Smith’s mind and became center stage for a new theology in Smith’s private brand of Christianity. The bottom line is this: Smith was obsessed with his sexuality and desires for women and girls. Joseph Smith had strong desires for sex and craved female intimacy with many different women and felt that he should continue the legacy of biblical polygamy by divine right. Smith’s desire to have sexual relations with many women saturated his mind with adultery and the only way he felt he could cure those appetites and passions was to sanction them by divine right. Smith was determined to go forward as if it was a commandment of God and restore the biblical practice in the last days through him.

Smith was unable to control his appetites and passions for desiring sex with other women apart from his wife. His mind was constantly filled with sexual thoughts and impropriety He channeled his desires of what he wanted to become by imagining God as a Man who eternally has sex with women in heaven. Joseph transposed his own desires on God and came up with the idea that the Father is a Man filled with eternal sexual desires who has a physical penis for the soul purpose of giving his seed to women for the continuation and perpetuation of a divine dynasty in heaven. Thus, polygamy in Kirtland and Nauvoo stems from the idea of God the Father having a penis and manifesting the reproductive human function through Joseph Smith who would one day become like God and have his own heavenly dynasty.

For Joseph Smith, it was all about sex. He craved sex. He craved women. He craved girls. The idea of the Father appearing to him as a separate Person from Christ is all based on Smith’s impropriety. It was originally founded within and from his desires to have sex and universalize his own sperm in creating a new race of gods.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5146
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: The shoe drops

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:43 am
And now I will provide my opinion on why the doctrine of plural marriage evolved in Smith’s mind and became center stage for a new theology in Smith’s private brand of Christianity. The bottom line is this: Smith was obsessed with his sexuality and desires for women and girls. Joseph Smith had strong desires for sex and craved female intimacy with many different women and felt that he should continue the legacy of biblical polygamy by divine right. Smith’s desire to have sexual relations with many women saturated his mind with adultery and the only way he felt he could cure those appetites and passions was to sanction them by divine right. Smith was determined to go forward as if it was a commandment of God and restore the biblical practice in the last days through him.

Smith was unable to control his appetites and passions for desiring sex with other women apart from his wife. His mind was constantly filled with sexual thoughts and impropriety He channeled his desires of what he wanted to become by imagining God as a Man who eternally has sex with women in heaven. Joseph transposed his own desires on God and came up with the idea that the Father is a Man filled with eternal sexual desires who has a physical penis for the soul purpose of giving his seed to women for the continuation and perpetuation of a divine dynasty in heaven. Thus, polygamy in Kirtland and Nauvoo stems from the idea of God the Father having a penis and manifesting the reproductive human function through Joseph Smith who would one day become like God and have his own heavenly dynasty.

For Joseph Smith, it was all about sex. He craved sex. He craved women. He craved girls. The idea of the Father appearing to him as a separate Person from Christ is all based on Smith’s impropriety. It was originally founded within and from his desires to have sex and universalize his own sperm in creating a new race of gods.
This was, realistically, all due to his exposure to the Egyptian God Min, the ithyphallic deity of the Egyptians in Facsimile 2.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7110
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The shoe drops

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:13 pm
This was, realistically, all due to his exposure to the Egyptian God Min, the ithyphallic deity of the Egyptians in Facsimile 2.

There is no doubt in my mind that Smith’s experiences with polygamy were sexually driven and fueled by his insatiable sexual appetite for women and girls and having power over them. Smith wanted to follow in Abraham’s tracks and like him receive a throne of exaltation with the gods as expressed in D&C 132:49, “I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.” Smith’s religious views ultimately turned to god-making and the continuation of the seeds through endless sexual intercourse within the highest degree of heaven.

Smith embellished the First Vision account by adding Heavenly Father into the picture and introducing him as a separate Man-god -- thus the “Man of Holiness” portrayed in the 1830 Genesis revision that was publicized in the Book of Moses changes the singular God into pluralized physical Men of Holiness! But that is not what Smith original expressed when he dictated the Old Testament Revision to Sidney Rigdon who understood the Father to be a personage of spirit according to the Lectures on Faith.

Wow! Just wow!!
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 9142
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: The shoe drops

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Nov 20, 2022 5:21 pm
Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:13 pm
This was, realistically, all due to his exposure to the Egyptian God Min, the ithyphallic deity of the Egyptians in Facsimile 2.

There is no doubt in my mind that Smith’s experiences with polygamy were sexually driven and fueled by his insatiable sexual appetite for women and girls and having power over them. Smith wanted to follow in Abraham’s tracks and like him receive a throne of exaltation with the gods as expressed in D&C 132:49, “I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father.” Smith’s religious views ultimately turned to god-making and the continuation of the seeds through endless sexual intercourse within the highest degree of heaven.

Smith embellished the First Vision account by adding Heavenly Father into the picture and introducing him as a separate Man-god -- thus the “Man of Holiness” portrayed in the 1830 Genesis revision that was publicized in the Book of Moses changes the singular God into pluralized physical Men of Holiness! But that is not what Smith original expressed when he dictated the Old Testament Revision to Sidney Rigdon who understood the Father to be a personage of spirit according to the Lectures on Faith.

Wow! Just wow!!
Image

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7110
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The shoe drops

Post by Shulem »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:44 pm
- Doc

I can’t imagine a loving father forcing his child to enter into polygamous marriages. I can’t imagine a loving father threatening their child with death unless they agree to practice polygamy. I can’t imagine such behavior has anything to do with love. The apologetic reasoning that a loving father is willing do kill his child unless he submits to practicing polygamy is what I consider to be an abomination and a crime against humanity.

I’m afraid the apologetic of the angel with a drawn sword in order to enforce polygamy is evil and despicable. If it were me, I’d pick up the nearest object and throw it at the angel and command him to depart and leave my presence. If he refused, I would punch him in the gut, knock him down, and drag him to the front door and throw him out!

That is what I think of the angel with the drawn sword who comes to threaten me in my house!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7110
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: The First Vision

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:11 pm
I have been furiously working on slides for my presentation of the First Vision! It is going to be the visual BOMB, as well as informative bomb (thanks to your discoveries Shulem!). I am going to shout it from the roof tops, well.....o.k., in the live video! It is going to be gorgeous! It is going to be discussed, shown, elucidated, expounded upon, talked through and through, exposed, philosophized, and henceforth elaborated upon in the way only the Backyard Professor can do. Shulem shall reign as KING of the exposes, and the Backyard Professor shall be the mouthpiece and videographer of said information. The touchdown is in huddle right now, and we are about to get up to the line and throw the Hail Elohim pass of all time and the touchdown shall go down in history for its glorious amazing information and obvious answer to all charges showing it to be utterly invented and evolutionarily added upon. The contradictions shall not escape exposure. The weird doctrines shall not be able to flee into a dark corner, for lo and behold, the Backyard Professor shall speak the informational content of Shulem, and the world shall be enlightened, verily amen, and amen!
Shulem wrote:Yeah, baby!!!

Image
Post Reply