charity wrote: RETROSPECTIVE ENLIGHTENMENT I just learned the name, although the phenomena are familiar to us all. It means when something doesn't strike you as important, or you don't understand it completely at the time.
That makes perfect sense. When J.R.R. Tolkien first had an idea for a Hobbit character, the Noldarin and Sindarin languages complete with runes and grammatical structure did not jump out at him that instant. Ideas need time to germinate and evolve.
Sure, the whole thing is imaginary, developed and adapted over time. David Whitmer of course attributed some of the adaptations to Sidney Rigdon.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
charity wrote:Two words for you critics. RETROSPECTIVE ENLIGHTENMENT.
For us idiots, could we get more than two words, Charity?
MANY RETROSPECTIVE ENLIGHTENMENTS
I just learned the name, although the phenomena are familiar to us all. It means when something doesn't strike you as important, or you don't understand it completely at the time. But when you have learned or matured, you understand it better later. Children often have experiences they don't have the vocabulary to describe, but can describe it later when they learn more words. Another would be when make some little decision, but then it ends up having a large impact. In the case of the first vision, Joseph, at age 14, went into the woods to ask a personal question for only his own edification. What happened was the restoration of the Gospel and the beginning of an entire new dispensation. The enormity of the event could hardly have been fully known to the a young boy. Yes, he had a personal visitation from God and Jesus. But at the time he could not have anticipated all that would flow from that.
I like more the other definition of Enlightenment : A philosophical movement of the 18th century that emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms. Used with the.
"But when you have learned or matured, you understand it better later."
- This is what we need. Learned and matured ones.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
The Nehor wrote:When I share spiritual experiences I decide what to share based on audience. Sometimes I tone it down, sometimes I focus on different aspects. I don't have a problem with all the accounts.
So, if you met Gordon B. Hinckley personally, you might tell some people you met President Hinckley, in another that you met both President Hinckley and President Monson, and in another that you met Dallin Oaks instead, or maybe it was Jeffrey Holland.
Is that about right?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
The Nehor wrote:When I share spiritual experiences I decide what to share based on audience. Sometimes I tone it down, sometimes I focus on different aspects. I don't have a problem with all the accounts.
So, if you met Gordon B. Hinckley personally, you might tell some people you met President Hinckley, in another that you met both President Hinckley and President Monson, and in another that you met Dallin Oaks instead, or maybe it was Jeffrey Holland.
Is that about right?
If they were all there, sure. In fact I might state that I once met Elder Oaks and that he said, "Yada yada yada." If I later stated I met President Hinckley and Elder Oaks would you accuse me of lying the first time.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The problem associated with the authority to baptise is different than the First Vision - the story changed from receiving authority via the Urim and Thummin to receiving authority from an angel who announced himself as John the Baptist.
Abinadi's Fire wrote:The problem associated with the authority to baptise is different than the First Vision - the story changed from receiving authority via the Urim and Thummin to receiving authority from an angel sent in the name of John.
I've been reading a book about honesty and openness in marriage, and the authors keep saying that when you lie, you have to remember what the lie was, or it gets difficult to keep track of and you end up making it up as you go and embellishing. That's what this thread reminds me of.
Last edited by cacheman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Nehor wrote:When I share spiritual experiences I decide what to share based on audience. Sometimes I tone it down, sometimes I focus on different aspects. I don't have a problem with all the accounts.
So, if you met Gordon B. Hinckley personally, you might tell some people you met President Hinckley, in another that you met both President Hinckley and President Monson, and in another that you met Dallin Oaks instead, or maybe it was Jeffrey Holland.
Is that about right?
If they were all there, sure.
What if they weren't?
In fact I might state that I once met Elder Oaks and that he said, "Yada yada yada." If I later stated I met President Hinckley and Elder Oaks would you accuse me of lying the first time.
Only if when telling the story of meeting Dallin Oaks you claimed he was the only other person present at the time.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
The Nehor wrote:When I share spiritual experiences I decide what to share based on audience. Sometimes I tone it down, sometimes I focus on different aspects. I don't have a problem with all the accounts.
So, if you met Gordon B. Hinckley personally, you might tell some people you met President Hinckley, in another that you met both President Hinckley and President Monson, and in another that you met Dallin Oaks instead, or maybe it was Jeffrey Holland.
Is that about right?
If they were all there, sure.
What if they weren't?
In fact I might state that I once met Elder Oaks and that he said, "Yada yada yada." If I later stated I met President Hinckley and Elder Oaks would you accuse me of lying the first time.
Only if when telling the story of meeting Dallin Oaks you claimed he was the only other person present at the time.
I don't know of any First Vision experience where Joseph claimed that he saw ONLY this or that person.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
If this were any other person who told various conflicting accounts of such a supposedly significant event in his/her life, would they find him/her credible?
I think we all know the answer to this question.
Joseph Smith could have been caught copulating with a horse, while cursing up a blue streak, beating up some child with one hand, while injecting heroine with the other, and believers would still find some way to explain it away all nice and tidy.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."