Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast

[_Shulem]

Some critics of Mormonism deny that any reference to Joseph Smith’s First Vision existed prior to 1832. This claim is false: Hostile witnesses had demonstrably heard elements of the First Vision by 1827, and newspaper reports strongly suggest that Latter-day Saint missionaries were alluding to it by early 1831 (i.e., within a year of the founding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

I won't deny that "elements" of the First Vision existed prior to 1832. But what are those elements when you compare them to the 1838 written account? What exactly are those elements heard by hostile witnesses in 1827? Was it that Smith saw Two Personages, perhaps? You'd think that someone who was personally visited by the bodily Persons of the Father & Son would have mentioned elements to that very claim since it's pretty much the gist of the whole First Vision.

Isn't it true that Smith doesn't get around to telling people that he actually saw God the Father in bodily form until 1838? Why did he leave the main character out of his earlier claim of a glorious visitation? I'll tell you the very reason: Smith never actually saw God the Father in bodily form but made that up later to embellish his visionary experience and develop his new theology.

[_grindael]

I've been fascinated for a long time with Peterson's gig at the Deseret News, and of course his blog, and how he tries to break down complex issues into a page or two with a few links for references. I would simply call all of this fluff, basically meaningless drivel crafted for a certain audience. He is a Professor with credentials, but you wouldn't know it from reading any of his contributions on these various forums. Nothing about what he does conveys professionalism, and his issues with plagiarism and lifting things from FAIRMORMON and other sources is very troubling. What I see is a wasted life, and a person who has been backed into a corner and is desperately trying to stay relevant. There is nothing new coming from any of these Apologists, just more lame excuses and silly posturing about foundational issues that real researchers have shown are deeply flawed. When you aren't searching for the truth, the real evidence of it, this is what you get. Can anyone point to a really good article (complete with serious footnotes), or a book that Peterson has authored that has in any way benefited the study of Mormon History? I can't think of one, but perhaps some on you may know of one.

[_grindael]

When I think of Peterson, I think of the flip side of what some great Mormon Historians have done, the publishing of the Joseph Smith papers. There is simply no comparison here between the two.

[_grindael]

It is also a matter of trust. As a writer and researcher, I KNOW I can trust what the folks at the JSP publish, even though I don't agree with some of their conclusions. You just can't make that claim with rabid Apologists like Peterson.

[_Shulem]

Moreover, he seems initially to have regarded his First Vision as a private personal experience and not as the mighty dispensation-opening theophany that we now treasure for its doctrinal richness.

It's fair to say that the First Vision was nothing more than a private and personal experience because there were no witnesses or collaborating testimony that the event actually took place. But is it fair to say that Smith initially regarded the event as a private and personal matter? I suppose you could come to this conclusion based on the fact that there is no written record of this telling prior to 1832. But it could be construed that the reason for this lack of telling or a written account could be simply that it didn't really happen but was fabricated and crafted later when it seemed like a good idea to put an account of a spiritual vision to pen and paper.

According to the vision, Smith learned that there was no true church on the earth. That's utterly mind shattering and an earth shaking revelation. It certainly points and paves the way to a dispensation-opening theophany seeing God & Jesus came down to personally inform Smith, therefore it must be concluded that Smith is going to lead the charge in getting this corrected -- hence the First Vision.

Smith was forbidden to join any of the Christian churches and then this:

"many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time"

[_Shulem]

Moreover, he seems initially to have regarded his First Vision as a private personal experience and not as the mighty dispensation-opening theophany that we now treasure for its doctrinal richness.

But, Smith said this:

many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time

Perhaps Daniel Peterson might take a moment to explain what those things might have been in order to justify his statement in the Deseret News. Come on Daniel, bring your sorry ass back to Mormon Discussions so Shulem can throughoughly kick it. Just what might have been those MANY THINGS that were told to Smith straight from the mouth of Jesus while his Father stood at his side speechless letting his Son do all the talking?

Care to speculate, Mr. Peterson, sir?

Come on, don't be chicken. You're a big school teacher and I'm just little ole Shulem talking to you. I want to kick your ass.

[_Shulem]

Having considered for many years the standard arguments against the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, Daniel C. Peterson says he “can’t manage to disbelieve.”

This is because Mr. Peterson is assuming the Book of Mormon is true no matter what -- the very core and foundation to what he claims is true cannot be refuted because it's already true. He believes in the Book of Mormon because it's already true so the evidence to the contrary is already DOA. It's just a formality to dismiss it and does so based on the testimony that he received from a Ghost.

My argument would be that all of the counter-explanations of the Book of Mormon that I’ve looked at—and I think I’ve looked at all of them—run into walls

It can be argued that claims to the validity of the Book of Mormon run into walls. Plagiarism, horses, swords, and a host of all kinds of problems run into walls. The Book of Mormon reads like a book of fiction and all those problems hit the walls. Nonfiction books substantiated with valid evidence and scientific proofs don't run into walls like the Book of Mormon does.

I just don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story

What you're really saying is that Joseph Smith's story is based on fact and is true regardless of faith. You are basing your belief on sure knowledge that you know the story is true no matter what. Hence, your original belief in Smith is not based on faith but on the declaration that you know it's true -- true facts which can never be refuted. This however is not the basis of the Christian religion which is based on FAITH and which is the first principle of the LDS gospel. But here we see that you put your beliefs in Smith higher than you do in Jesus. You claim to have absolute knowledge that Smith is true and there is just no room for faith to say otherwise but reduce Jesus to the level of faith as afforded by the LDS Article of Faith. Hence, Mormons put Smith above Jesus.

[_Kishkumen]

My argument would be that all of the counter-explanations of the Book of Mormon that I’ve looked at—and I think I’ve looked at all of them—run into walls

There is no reason for anyone to take the claim that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document seriously. There is no argument to be made for considering it an ancient document. The book has all the marks of a 19th century text. Period. There is absolutely no need for anyone to provide a counter explanation for the production of the Book of Mormon, as there is no evidence that it dates to antiquity.

I challenge anyone to provide me with the text from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Then I will consider the possibility that it is an authentic ancient text.

[_Meadowchik]

My argument would be that all of the counter-explanations of the Book of Mormon that I’ve looked at—and I think I’ve looked at all of them—run into walls

There is no reason for anyone to take the claim that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document seriously. There is no argument to be made for considering it an ancient document. The book has all the marks of a 19th century text. Period. There is absolutely no need for anyone to provide a counter explanation for the production of the Book of Mormon, as there is no evidence that it dates to antiquity.

I challenge anyone to provide me with the text from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Then I will consider the possibility that it is an authentic ancient text.

The same goes for the authority claims. "You say god told you to tell me? How can you be sure enough of your ability to channel god so much as to oblige me to heed your word as god's?" I understand how this happens, but I do not see a way to respect god but still accept someone as god's mouthpiece. I cannot believe anyone could properly make such a claim.

[_grindael]

That's just it, Kish, the COUNTER ARGUMENTS "run into walls", which are speculation. But this is a neat way to avoid the actual evidence, (the book itself) which tells us that it is a 19th century production. Joseph purposefully avoided speaking of how he "translated" the Book of Mormon, for obvious reasons.