Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast

[_Shulem]

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.

Smith was a busy man leading a large community of believers. He was married and even had a harem of women (including 14 year old girls) in which to please. It's hard to stay on top of things when you're on top of other men's wives.

[Guest]

I'm positive that others knew about it, like George A. Smith (the historian). They poured over all those documents when writing Joseph Smith's history.

Fielding Smith was Assistant Church Historian in 1906. He could have stumbled upon it between then and the early 30's, (one of the pages was torn and fixed), and then sometime after he became Church Historian in 1921 he hid up the letterbook. Others may have learned of it, so he tore out the pages. All speculation, I know.

I can imagine those historians roughly handling old documents without white gloves but tearing pages out from the very binding of a book's spine seems disrespectful having little regard to the integrity of the original document as a whole. How could any historian do such a thing without questioning the wishes of what the original penman would have thought of such an action? It seems an affront to the concept of preservation. It's more than just total disregard to preserving the integrity of an original document -- it was utter vandalism!

Not only was Joseph Fielding Smith a horrible historian and a crooked thief -- he was a vandal.

[_Shulem]

Ask and ye shall receive...

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... -extract/3

Orson Hyde, A Call from the Desert, Frankfurt 1842

"On one occasion, he went to a small grove near his father's flat and kneeled down to solemn prayers before God. . . . Two glorious, heavenly persons stood before him, who were very similar in face and form. These instructed him that his prayers were answered, and that the Lord had resolved to favor him with special favor."

Here it appears that the 1838 version of the First Vision was taught to the Germans.

[_Shulem]

It could be argued that Joseph Smith's new concept of a Father having a tangible body is backed by one of the greatest visions recorded in the Bible. It certainly gives reason to pause.

And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

[_Shulem]

[_Shulem]

[_RockSlider]

This critic "Gleefully points out" how small poor Dan's old school apologetics world has become as it continues to collapsed around him.

He now rates two blistering podcasts highlighting how ugly his generation of apologetics is and how obsolete it is rapidly becoming in an enlightened internet age with many eyes upon him.

I feel sorry for Dan and the legacy of his life being so exposed and documented and shamed.

[_Meadowchik]

Grindael, is there a combined timeline with all of these accounts, first-hand (including dictated) and otherwise?

[_Shulem]

gleefully

Mormons, including Daniel Peterson, love to gleefully go about and testify of the First Vision as if it was a fact and that they know it actually happened. They gleefully turn their faith/hope into a matter of absolute knowledge as if it's already etched in stone and there is nothing anyone can do to excuse the reality of the First Vision.

The problem with the Mormons is that they don't claim Smith's miraculous vision is a matter of faith but is a matter of fact in which they "know" to be true. I simply can't think of anything more threatening to humanity than for a religious leader to come along and make a miraculous claim and then believers saying it happened absolutely and since it can't be disproven it may be accepted as reality and fact because of feelings they claim to get from an invisible Ghost. But this Ghost never at anytime makes an appearance or proves that it's an actual living Being. The Ghost is ever hidden and invisible.

Bottom line: The First Vision is simply a claim made by Joseph Smith and there is absolutely zero evidence to support that it actually happened. Further, the so-called Ghost that enters the minds of Mormons can't be validated as anything other than their own thoughts and emotional feelings.

[_grindael]

Meadowchick,

I've done some comparisons here. https://mormonitemusings.com/tag/first-vision/#Think2

But I'm not sure there is a comprehensive timeline that has been done. I'll be doing one when I get back to work on my paper on the claimed First Vision. It is no easy task to congeal all of the apologist arguments and rebut them. But I feel it is necessary.

There is even a thing about the weather for the year 1820 and how it could have been on certain days... http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds ... ision.html

There are so many things wrong with this, but these things get out there (like the Matthew Brown comparison - see the first link above) and Mormon Apologists quote it as a reference without giving any real information and when you buy the books, and finally see the evidence it's all made up BS. Time after time I run into this.