DiscussMormonism.com

Exiled wrote:The complete history makes the church into complete nonsense.

The complete history is certainly a dangerous thing. But when it is combined with an account of the efforts, active and passive, that the CoJCoLDS has made to ensure that the mass of members does not become acquainted with that history - that is likely to be the game changer.

"They knew it, they knew what we would think of it, and they tried to keep it from us. So now we know what to think of them."

If one has it in their head someone is good or great they will defend that nearly forever. Oaks & Co thrive on this.

Remember there are those who claim Charlie Manson is a good man.

Water Dog wrote:MG, is your troll intentional, calculated deception, or is this just another sunbeam comment?

Not quite sure where you're going with this. I simply answered a question that was asked.

Regards,
MG

Water Dog wrote:t. The link you provided is to an opinion piece about the multiple first vision accounts, not the accounts themselves.

Links go to JSP's. Primary source material.

Regards,
MG

Water Dog wrote:RFM had a good response.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/ ... ws-church/

Pretty damning evidence against the church. I think it is very clear, using evidence, that the LDS church has lied and hidden much of its history to the members themselves. Ballard lied. Oaks lied. What more can you say? They are not honest men. The LDS church is very corrupt at it's core.

mentalgymnast wrote:Links go to JSP's. Primary source material.

Regards,
MG

It is in the JSP that you can actually see where the pages of the 1832 First Vision account that were cut out and removed and hidden by Joseph Fielding Smith in the 1930s were taped back into the Letter Book in the mid-1960s after existence of the account was leaked to the press.

mentalgymnast wrote:

Shulem wrote:Are the different accounts of the first vision published on LDS.org?

link please.

https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision ... s?lang=eng

Regards,
MG

Funny, that link is good evidence of the church continuing to deceive the members and the general public. Who wrote the essay? The church hides that information. The church also deceptively asserts that the differences in the vision accounts are not material and that all the different accounts are harmonious (among other misleading assertions in that and the other essays on controversial topics). Thanks, MG, for reinforcing consiglieri's point that the church not only has been hostile to transparency in the past, but still is.

Equality wrote:Funny, that link is good evidence of the church continuing to deceive the members and the general public. Who wrote the essay? The church hides that information. The church also deceptively asserts that the differences in the vision accounts are not material and that all the different accounts are harmonious (among other misleading assertions in that and the other essays on controversial topics). Thanks, MG, for reinforcing consiglieri's point that the church not only has been hostile to transparency in the past, but still is.

And secondary to your good points, aren't there some 9 different accounts floating out there? I know these are the 4 first hand accounts but isn't it still hiding to suggest that only 4 versions of this story exist?

That link does talk about the 9 different accounts but makes a poor attempt to downplay the differences. Here is an example:

Joseph’s increasingly specific descriptions can thus be compellingly read as evidence of increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience. In part, the differences between the 1832 account and the later accounts may have something to do with the differences between the written and the spoken word.

Pure nonsense. Generally memory fades over time and being more specific over time is usually a sign of an embellishment (except for superman Joe of course)