Radio Free Mormon: Daniel C. Peterson: The Artful Dodger

[_tapirrider]

So which is it? Did Joseph decide on his own from searching the scriptures that there was no true church, or did Jesus tell him that which surprised him because he had never considered that all were wrong? I haven't seen an apologist explain this point, (maybe I have missed it).

1832
by searching the scriptures I found that mand <?mankind?> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... mer-1832/2

JSH
it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.
(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)
https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.17

[_Holy Ghost]

So which is it? Did Joseph decide on his own from searching the scriptures that there was no true church, or did Jesus tell him that which surprised him because he had never considered that all were wrong? I haven't seen an apologist explain this point, (maybe I have missed it).

1832
by searching the scriptures I found that mand <?mankind?> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... mer-1832/2

JSH
it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.
(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)
https://www.LDS.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.17

Despite their protestations to the contrary, for TBMs there's not much difference between Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ.

[_Stocks]

He admitted "it is possible" there was suppression, both in today's blog post and in the comments section.

Case closed.

[_Shulem]

Nobody need know what's in my safe. What's in my safe is safe from you. The personal testimony of Joseph Smith is for me to know and nobody else. Now, you may be excused.

I'm busy. Close the door on the way out.

[_RockSlider]

show me a list of official LDS documentation references (magazines, CES material, Conference Talks etc.) that have made this issue so clear to the rank and file over the last 50 years.

[_consiglieri]

Just wanted to make sure everybody is aware that Daniel Peterson posted a second defense to the allegation he is a liar on his blog post from today, in addition to his blog post from yesterday.

"Plainly I've hit a nerve!"

[_Shulem]

Just wanted to make sure everybody is aware that Daniel Peterson posted a second defense to the allegation he is a liar on his blog post from today, in addition to his blog post from yesterday.

"Plainly I've hit a nerve!"

Oh, you've hit nerve, you've hit a nerve!

He's singing like a canary.

[_Shulem]

It's a leap to assume that it happened and then that it was Joseph Fielding Smith who did it. It's an even bigger leap, then, to hypothesize motive.

What's to stop you from opening your big mouth? Start hypothesizing and let's see what's REALLY on your mind. What WAS his motive in committing suppression?



Come on Dan-boy, what was Joseph Fielding Smith thinking? Spit it out!

[_Lemmie]

“Is it possible that Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, who headed up the then very small and non-professional office of the Church Historian and Recorder from 1921-1970 — a position that never in those days entailed the production of academic historiography — “sat on” one or more unpublished First Vision accounts? Yes, it is. I’ve heard some assertions to that effect, but I no longer recall the details, such as they were, and I would need to research a bit to be sure of the facts (if, indeed, it is possible to be so). Since the mid- to late 1960s, however — which is to say, just as I said, for the past fifty years — there can be no serious, plausible claim that the Church has suppressed the non-canonical accounts of the First Vision.“

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... ision.html

He has a short memory then. From a june 2018 post on his blog that is very similar to this year's version:

When I replied, asking whether I could quote him on my blog, Professor Jackson answered as follows:

"...By the way, even if it’s true that Joseph Fielding Smith didn’t want to make the 1832 account public, that ended in the 1960s, which was over half a century ago! That’s ancient history. Paul Cheesman (BYU religion professor) analyzed the accounts in his 1965 MA thesis at BYU, then Dean Jessee published them in 1969. Yeah, keeping it under wraps."

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... ision.html

It's interesting that this year, while re-working the 2018 post for this year's repeat, he leaves off the comment by kent Jackson detailing what joseph fielding smith did, and replaces it with a paragraph feigning ignorance about what joseph fielding smith did.

Itnellectual dishonesty at its finest.

[_Shulem]

I understand the doubt about whether it was JFS or not. But is the evidence that the pages were cut out of the diary lacking?

No, but there may have been reasons other than suppression for doing so.

Riiiiight, good one, Dan-boy. And what are those *other* reasons that compliment the purpose of SUPRESSING the 1832 testimony? You know, the account of the 1832 First Vision that was SUPRESSED?