Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast

[_grindael]

Yeah, it was normal to call it the 15th year. But in the 1832 account Joseph says that from ages 12 to 15, he "contemplated" many things, and then in the "16th year of his age" he went to pray. This is just way off. Then a year later, he sees an angel? Uh-uh, that doesn't work. Scrap this account. But in a few years, he gets it down with his account to Robert Matthews...

[_Shulem]

What was the Prophet’s report made to the minister with whom he was friendly? Here it is in his own words:

“I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”

Wrong! You're lying Joseph Fielding Smith and you know it. You know full well that the 1832 account written in Joseph Smith's own hand says absolutely nothing about Smith seeing two Personages. The Methodist minister in whom Smith claimed to have seen a vision heard nothing about two Persons. The idea of two Persons wasn't declared until 1838, some 18 years later.

[_Shulem]

Yeah, it was normal to call it the 15th year. But in the 1832 account Joseph says that from ages 12 to 15, he "contemplated" many things, and then in the "16th year of his age" he went to pray. This is just way off. Then a year later, he sees an angel? Uh-uh, that doesn't work. Scrap this account. But in a few years, he gets it down with his account to Robert Matthews...

It's clear evidence that Smith was having trouble keeping his math consistent while telling tales. Suppose he had gotten the math right and told a consistent story. Mormon apologists would be milking that to the hilt and boast how the inspiration and instrumentality of the Spirit allowed the prophet to perfectly detail the accounts of his glorious visions and maintained a consistent story through the years. Too bad the apologists don't get that luxury. Not by a long shot. The apologists are left picking up pieces that don't add up -- it disagrees and contradicts.

Frankly, I don't believe the First Vision account any more than I do the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. Smith was a total loser and a liar. He lied about seeing God and he lied about translating Egyptian.

[_grindael]

Yeah Shulem, one thing that I brought up in the Podcast was that these "prophets" claim to have the gift of the Holy Ghost, and Christ said (and so did Smith) that it would enable them to remember perfectly what happened to them when they interacted with God. So where is that vaunted gift of the Spirit? Nowhere to be found. They will claim when they can, divine aid, but when there are so many mistakes, they make secular arguments about memory and how faulty it is. It's just plain hypocritical.

[_grindael]

James E. Faust,

I believe that the Spirit of the Holy Ghost is the surest guardian of our inner peace. It can be more mind-expanding and can make us have a better sense of well-being than any chemical or other earthly substance. This Comforter can be with us as we seek to improve. It can function as a source of revelation to warn us of impending danger and also help to keep us from making mistakes. It can enhance our natural senses so that we can see more clearly, hear more keenly, and remember what we should remember. It helps us to be happy.

[_moksha]

Wrong! You're lying Joseph Fielding Smith and you know it. You know full well that the 1832 account written in Joseph Smith's own hand says absolutely nothing about Smith seeing two Personages.

Would you have prevented Franco Zeffirelli or Arthur Laurents, Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim from making small alterations or even reinterpreting Shakespear's Romeo and Juliet in a west side New York setting and adding in music?

What if Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm wished to rewrite any of their tales? Remember, the Church holds the copyright to Smith's works.

[_Meadowchik]

Yeah, it was normal to call it the 15th year. But in the 1832 account Joseph says that from ages 12 to 15, he "contemplated" many things, and then in the "16th year of his age" he went to pray. This is just way off. Then a year later, he sees an angel? Uh-uh, that doesn't work. Scrap this account. But in a few years, he gets it down with his account to Robert Matthews...

So Orson Hyde's German pamphlet says fifteenth. It's interesting to me that if a person looked carefully then, they could see holes in the stories, too. But once indoctrination is in place, the holes matter less.

[_I have a question]

Yeah, it was normal to call it the 15th year. But in the 1832 account Joseph says that from ages 12 to 15, he "contemplated" many things, and then in the "16th year of his age" he went to pray. This is just way off. Then a year later, he sees an angel? Uh-uh, that doesn't work. Scrap this account. But in a few years, he gets it down with his account to Robert Matthews...

So Orson Hyde's German pamphlet says fifteenth. It's interesting to me that if a person looked carefully then, they could see holes in the stories, too. But once indoctrination is in place, the holes matter less.

The holes become evidence of its genuineness.

If the account was perfect some might suggest that is evidence that it was manufactured, because real people make mistakes and leave holes etc. Believers would say that its perfection is evidence of its genuineness/truthfulness.

If the account has holes some might suggest that is evidence that it was manufactured, because real people make mistakes and leave holes etc. Believers would say that its lack of perfection is evidence of its genuineness/truthfulness.

It’s subjective.

[_Meadowchik]

The holes become evidence of its genuineness.

If the account was perfect some might suggest that is evidence that it was manufactured, because real people make mistakes and leave holes etc. Believers would say that its perfection is evidence of its genuineness/truthfulness.

If the account has holes some might suggest that is evidence that it was manufactured, because real people make mistakes and leave holes etc. Believers would say that its lack of perfection is evidence of its genuineness/truthfulness.

It’s subjective.

Sure, the holes can be made into evidence of genuineness by people already disposed to believe or who already believe.

Yet for an outside observer, the holes or discrepencies of stories are simply evidence that they are stories. The stories themselves don't have any intrinsic authority. People do not generally swallow the power-allocating tales of others without an incentive to do so.

In other words, existing belief makes stories more important than they are. But a mind concerned more with objective reality will have access to the clues, the holes, if they look.

[_I have a question]

The holes become evidence of its genuineness.

If the account was perfect some might suggest that is evidence that it was manufactured, because real people make mistakes and leave holes etc. Believers would say that its perfection is evidence of its genuineness/truthfulness.

If the account has holes some might suggest that is evidence that it was manufactured, because real people make mistakes and leave holes etc. Believers would say that its lack of perfection is evidence of its genuineness/truthfulness.

It’s subjective.

Sure, the holes can be made into evidence of genuineness by people already disposed to believe or who already believe.

Yet for an outside observer, the holes or discrepencies of stories are simply evidence that they are stories. The stories themselves don't have any intrinsic authority. People do not generally swallow the power-allocating tales of others without an incentive to do so.

In other words, existing belief makes stories more important than they are. But a mind concerned more with objective reality will have access to the clues, the holes, if they look.

I believe the official term is “confirmation bias”