Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast

[_Meadowchik]

I believe the official term is “confirmation bias”

Yes and it's a vast space, unfortunately. Why else would Dan Peterson remain invested in his apologetics? Like many of us were, it's likely because he's still thoroughly in his bias, and not just financially, although that would not be a small variable, but psychologically. You can think you're being open-minded when you've barely scratched the dirt off the glass because the view beyond is psychologically untenable.

I think that our brains protect us from ideas that threaten the existing framework. We have to build a partially-redundant scaffolding in order to minimize excessive influence of dogma. I think I was building redundnat scaffolding when I used reason and science to undergird some of my religion-based choices throughout my life. The more I did that, the more I prepared myself to survive the collapse in my life of the church's authority framework and for a healthier way of living.

Unfortunately, I think that the type of dishonesty we are seeing in Peterson's writings serve to undermine the chances of alternative scaffolding.

[_Shulem]

The First Account (1832) of the First Vision (1820) should be taken as the Original Account. It's the one which offers the freshest expressions and explanation to what allegedly occurred. This is the account which is closest to the time in question and the testimony is more like an innocent baby which Smith just birthed. This account offers raw impressions and first hand experience of his early so-called prophetic thinking. Later, in 1838, the extended account becomes more detailed and the story more distanced as Smith doctors up his original story with new twists and turns. It's more than just line upon line and precept upon precept. It's changing the original size and shape and coming up with a whole new concept altogether. Smith's later account of the First Vision is a direct contradiction to his original statement and bears the hallmarks of one who fabricates and embellishes.

The First Account of the First Vision is Smith's original baby and he threw it out with the bathwater in order to make something else fit his current thinking.

[_Shulem]

The First Account of the First Vision is Smith's original baby and he threw it out with the bathwater in order to make something else fit his current thinking.

In other words, Smith jettisoned the Trinity in order to develop a whole new concept and interpretation of the New Testament God. He threw everything into his newfound idea to include the kitchen sink -- the Father having a body as tangible as man's.

[_I have a question]

The First Account of the First Vision is Smith's original baby and he threw it out with the bathwater in order to make something else fit his current thinking.

In other words, Smith jettisoned the Trinity in order to develop a whole new concept and interpretation of the New Testament God. He threw everything into his newfound idea to include the kitchen sink -- the Father having a body as tangible as man's.

It’s worth remembering that Smith’s Mormonism was a new Start Up in a very competitive and already congested market. He had to find new and unique features to draw people away from the Baptist and Methodist religious camps that were so popular.

[Guest]

It’s worth remembering that Smith’s Mormonism was a new Start Up in a very competitive and already congested market. He had to find new and unique features to draw people away from the Baptist and Methodist religious camps that were so popular.

Exactly and Smith set out to overthrow the Catholic and Protestant church and supplant it with something entirely different with himself as the prophet-king based in America. But why would anyone want Mormon crunchberries when you can have the traditional flavor of Catholic crunch?

[_Meadowchik]

The First Account (1832) of the First Vision (1820) should be taken as the Original Account. It's the one which offers the freshest expressions and explanation to what allegedly occurred. This is the account which is closest to the time in question and the testimony is more like an innocent baby which Smith just birthed.

I agree.

And it is problematic that a less legitimate account usurps its place in the LDS canon. That is, if the church's canonical intent is historical accuracy.

[_Meadowchik]

It’s worth remembering that Smith’s Mormonism was a new Start Up in a very competitive and already congested market. He had to find new and unique features to draw people away from the Baptist and Methodist religious camps that were so popular.

That's a good reminder. Starting a new business, ie. plumbing, restaurant, priestcraft, is hard work!

[_Shulem]

Shulem's Church of Christ
Summer of 1832

Dear Reverend Joseph Smith of the Mormons,

Thank you for sharing your visionary experience you had as a boy in the state of New York. Although it is generally believed and accepted by Christian churches throughout the land that visions and angelic appearances ceased with the apostles: Nonetheless, good sir, we always must keep an open mind to the will and power of God knowing full well that God has promised in the revelations of Saint John that angels will do a work in the last days and an angel flies through the midst of heaven.

It is my sincere hope, as a fellow Christian minister, that you sir, will continue to preach the gospel of Christ crucified to the Church of Christ in whom you lead. As long as you preach Christ crucified as you declared in your vision and that God is a spirit and that his power is manifested in the spirit then you can find fellowship with the Christian community. As Christians we believe in God the Father, his Son, and the Holy Ghost which is one God and was manifested in the flesh in Jesus Christ.

It is reported that you teach God is a spirit and we must worship him in spirit and in truth. For this you are commended.

As ever,

Your friend in Christ,

Reverend Shulem

[_grindael]

He had to find new and unique features to draw people away from the Baptist and Methodist religious camps that were so popular.

He had that, the Book of Mormon. When the Book of Abraham and all that came along, he was trying to recreate that "magic". But for some reason, it was much more difficult, huh? Think about it, Smith supposedly banged out the Book of Mormon in a couple of months, but took years to get the Book of Abraham (what little we have) "translated"?

I find that very odd, myself. I mean, he had multiple willing scribes and lots of time to do it.

[_candygal]

It’s worth remembering that Smith’s Mormonism was a new Start Up in a very competitive and already congested market. He had to find new and unique features to draw people away from the Baptist and Methodist religious camps that were so popular.

Exactly and Smith set out to overthrow the Catholic and Protestant church and supplant it with something entirely different with himself as the prophet-king based in America. But why would anyone want Mormon crunchberries when you can have the traditional flavor of Catholic crunch?

I happen to know that Captain Crunch is Scott Lloyd's favorite cereal...wish you could put this up in MD@D.