Page 1 of 6

What is Apologetic Explanation for Variance of Versions

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:52 pm
by _moksha
Abinaldi's Fire posted this on another thread:

Please pardon the interjection, but there are a few historical points relevant to the discussion of authority that some might be interested in.

In Grant Palmer's book, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, there is a chapter on Priesthood Restoration. There are two journal entries referenced, one by Lucy Mack Smith and another by David Whitmer.

Neither entry mentions an "angel" or three Apostles as present at the baptism of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey.

Excerpt from Chapter 7, entitled Priesthood Restoration:


Quote:
Like the early narratives about how the Book of Mormon came to be, the early accounts of priesthood restoration are more nuanced and fascinating than the simple, unified story that is told today. The earliest reference to priesthood authority appeared in the 1833 Book of Commandments, the earliest version of, and precursor to, the Doctrine and Covenants. According to a revelation received in June 1829, Oliver Cowdery was "baptized [one month earlier on 15 May] by the hand of my servant Joseph Smith], according to that which I have commanded him." Lucy Smith, the prophet's mother, explained the circumstances and medium by which she understood that this command from God had come to her son:

One morning however they sat down to their usual work [Joseph and Oliver were translating in Third Nephi in the Book of Mormon] when the first thing that presented itself to Joseph was a commandment from God that he and Oliver should repair to the water & each of them be baptized[. T]hey immediately went down to the susquehanae river and obeyed the mandate given them through the Urim and Thummin[. As they were on their return to the house they overheard Samuel [Smith] in a secluded spot engaged in secret prayer [.] They had now received authority to baptize ... and they [then] spoke to Samuel who went withe them straightway to the water and was baptized.


At this early date the view was that the commandment received through the Urim and Thummim is what gave Joseph and Oliver the authority to baptize.

In 1885 David Whitmer, another New York church member and one of the three special witnesses to the Book of Mormon, told a similar version of how Joseph and Oliver received their authority:


Quote:
I moved Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to my father's house in Fayette, Seneca County New York, from Harmony, Penn. in the year [June] 1829 [so they could finish translating the Book of Mormon]. On our way I conversed freely with them upon this great work they were bringing about, and Oliver stated to me in Joseph presence that they had baptized each other seeking by that to fulfill the command ... I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood until the year 1834[, 183]5[,] or [183]6--in Ohio. My information from Joseph and Oliver upon this matter being as I have stated, and that they were commanded so to do by revealment through Joseph. I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver as stated and believed by some. I regard that as an error, a misconception.


There are timeline problems associated with the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood as well.


What is the Apologetic explanation for variances of eyewitness and earlier reports from the official version of events?
What are the Melchizedek Priesthood timeline problems he also mentioned?

...

Re: What is Apologetic Explanation for Variance of Versions

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:56 pm
by _the road to hana
moksha wrote:What is the Apologetic explanation for variances of eyewitness and earlier reports from the official version of events?


Different audiences, different recollections, different times.

Personally, I'd think if someone had actually seen deity they'd have a pretty hard time not remembering it correctly and recounting it consistently.

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:59 pm
by _Doctor Steuss
If seeing deity is anything like seeing... ummmm... other stuff; the exact memory of the event probably fades leaving only traces of the intellectual, spiritual, and emotion enlightenment felt during the experience.

<--- Experimented with lysergic acid diethylamide, but did not digest.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:09 am
by _the road to hana
Doctor Steuss wrote:If seeing deity is anything like seeing... ummmm... other stuff; the exact memory of the event probably fades leaving only traces of the intellectual, spiritual, and emotion enlightenment felt during the experience.

<--- Experimented with lysergic acid diethylamide, but did not digest.


You think you wouldn't remember whether you saw one being/personage/angel/God/whatever or two?

You think you wouldn't remember whether the angel who came to you was named Nephi or Moroni?

You think you wouldn't remember whether the being who appeared to you was an angel or God?

Personally, it sounds to me like a story that evolved with every retelling, and became increasingly nuanced.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:12 am
by _Doctor Steuss
the road to hana wrote:You think you wouldn't remember whether you saw one being/personage/angel/God/whatever or two?

You think you wouldn't remember whether the angel who came to you was named Nephi or Moroni?

You think you wouldn't remember whether the being who appeared to you was an angel or God?

Personally, it sounds to me like a story that evolved with every retelling, and became increasingly nuanced.

Of all the things going through my mind during such an event, and the potential flood of emotions and questions (not to mention the metaphysical implications of such an event, if one wants to examine that kooky avenue), I think those type of details would probably be the furthest from importance in regards to my memory cataloging.

Re: What is Apologetic Explanation for Variance of Versions

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:14 am
by _Abinadi's Fire
moksha wrote: What are the Melchizedek Priesthood timeline problems he also mentioned?


Don Bradley posted this at what used to be the FAIR board a couple of years ago:

The May-June 1829 dating for Peter, James, and John, as described in the D&C, is impossible.

Joseph Smith placed the experience around Harmony, PA, where he lived from December 1828 to approximately June 1, 1829, at which time he moved to the Whitmer home in Fayette, New York.

He returned to Harmony in 1830, taking up residence there again from about May 1830 to March 1831.

Joseph placing the Peter, James, and John experience in the Harmony area:

D&C 128:20 The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times!


LDS historians date the event to May or early June 1829, because Joseph Smith did not return to the Harmony area again until after the organization of the church - and they are quite insistent that Peter, James, and John had to have come before the church was organized.

However, in his official 1839 history (some four years after he began talking about the visit of Peter, James, and John), Joseph Smith described not having the Melchizedek priesthood after moving from Harmony to the Whitmer residence in June 1829:

"almost daily we administered the ordinance of Baptism for the remission of sins, to such as believed. We now became anxious to have that promise realized to us, which the Angel that conferred upon us the Aaronick Priesthood had given us, viz: that provided we continued faithful; we should also have the Melchesidec Priesthood, which holds the authority of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."

"We had for some time made this a subject of humble prayer, and at length we got together in the Chamber of Mr Whitmer's house in order more particularly to seek of the Lord what we now so earnestly desired: and here to our unspeakable satisfaction did we realize the truth of the Savious's promise; "Ask, and you shall recieve, seek, and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you;" for we had not long been engaged in solemn and fervent prayer, when the word of the Lord, came unto us in the Chamber, commanding us; that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ, And that he should ordain me to the same office, accordin and then <to> ordain others as it should be made known unto us, from time to time: we were however commanded to defer this our ordination untill, such times, as it should be practicable to have our brethren, who had been and who should be baptized, assembled together, when we must have their sanction to our thus proceeding to ordain each other"

Papers of Joseph Smith 1:299; Saints Without Halos


Joseph Smith therefore reveals that he and the others did not hold what he refers to as "the Melchesidec Priesthood" prior to moving to Fayette.

If he had already received this authority from Peter, James, and John in Harmony, he would have had no need to "earnestly desire" and pray for it after leaving Harmony.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:25 am
by _the road to hana
Doctor Steuss wrote:
the road to hana wrote:You think you wouldn't remember whether you saw one being/personage/angel/God/whatever or two?

You think you wouldn't remember whether the angel who came to you was named Nephi or Moroni?

You think you wouldn't remember whether the being who appeared to you was an angel or God?

Personally, it sounds to me like a story that evolved with every retelling, and became increasingly nuanced.

Of all the things going through my mind during such an event, and the potential flood of emotions and questions (not to mention the metaphysical implications of such an event, if one wants to examine that kooky avenue), I think those type of details would probably be the furthest from importance in regards to my memory cataloging.


Then maybe it wasn't even an angel, or deity, at all. Maybe it/they didn't actually have a body. Maybe they weren't male. Maybe Joseph Smith didn't get any of the accounts correct.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:26 am
by _Abinadi's Fire
One morning however they sat down to their usual work [Joseph and Oliver were translating in Third Nephi in the Book of Mormon] when the first thing that presented itself to Joseph was a commandment from God that he and Oliver should repair to the water & each of them be baptized


Taking a naturalistic view of the origins of the Book of Mormon, the reference to Third Nephi becomes a question of which came first, what was written or the event itself.

This would fit within an overarching theory that the Book of Mormon reflects real-world persons represented in the book as characters, projected back to an ancient setting, and is reconcilable with a modern expansion theory.

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:33 am
by _Doctor Steuss
the road to hana wrote:Then maybe it wasn't even an angel, or deity, at all. Maybe it/they didn't actually have a body. Maybe they weren't male. Maybe Joseph Smith didn't get any of the accounts correct.

Maybe. Then again, maybe all accounts are right, and Joseph in having the heavens opened was able to dwell within the multiverse thus causing a seeming paradox to those who were limited to the confounds of only this "reality."

<--- Thinks the Muslims may be right, and we’re all going to a hell with 70 times 7 scorpions.

If I'm not mistaken...

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:17 am
by _cksalmon
Lucy Mack Smith, in her letter to her brother Solomon Mack Smith, and dating from January 1831, extolling the virtues of her son's Restoration, the coming forth of Book of Mormon, etc., apparently in an attempt to evangelize Solomon to Mormonism, utterly fails to mention any priesthood restoration. One might conclude that she knew nothing of it.

CKS