What is Apologetic Explanation for Variance of Versions

[_The Nehor]

Believers need to ask themselves this question:

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.

If I told you the story of my first vision when it happened, two years later, four years later, and now you'd think I wasn't credible either. My understanding of the event has changed and I also had the opportunity to relive it and discover details I missed the first time.

[_guy sajer]

Two words for you critics. RETROSPECTIVE ENLIGHTENMENT.

Two words for you apologists: Bull Sh**.

In his own official account of the first vision, Joseph Smith tells how, SOON thereafter, he told a local preacher what he had seen, which Joseph Smith remarks lead to persons ridiculing him.

He goes on to say something like, "I saw a light, and in that light I saw two personages, and they did speak to me. . . . I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it . . . ."

From Joseph Smith's own words, he understood fully what and who he saw at the time he saw it. Moreover, he goes on to avow that he could not deny it lest he come under condemnation from God.

The Retrospective Enlightenment theory is a crock of crap and is disavowed by Joseph Smith's own words.

One might also wonder why, given that he had already told the full account and given his firm statement that he could not deny it, he went out and did precisely that.

If this was anyone else, I'd bet every penny I had in the bank that Charity would sheathe her Retrospective Enlightenment sword real quick like.

[_guy sajer]

Believers need to ask themselves this question:

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.

If I told you the story of my first vision when it happened, two years later, four years later, and now you'd think I wasn't credible either. My understanding of the event has changed and I also had the opportunity to relive it and discover details I missed the first time.

That's not the question. If this were someone else making similar claims as Joseph Smith, but who changed the story over time, would you find him/her credible (assuming you did not have a vested emotional interest in it)?

[_the road to hana]

Believers need to ask themselves this question:

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.

If I told you the story of my first vision when it happened, two years later, four years later, and now you'd think I wasn't credible either. My understanding of the event has changed and I also had the opportunity to relive it and discover details I missed the first time.

Let's hear it.

[_the road to hana]

Two words for you critics. RETROSPECTIVE ENLIGHTENMENT.

Two words for you apologists: Bull Sh**.

In his own official account of the first vision, Joseph Smith tells how, SOON thereafter, he told a local preacher what he had seen, which Joseph Smith remarks lead to persons ridiculing him.

He goes on to say something like, "I saw a light, and in that light I saw two personages, and they did speak to me. . . . I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it . . . ."

From Joseph Smith's own words, he understood fully what and who he saw at the time he saw it. Moreover, he goes on to avow that he could not deny it lest he come under condemnation from God.

The Retrospective Enlightenment theory is a crock of crap and is disavowed by Joseph Smith's own words.

One might also wonder why, given that he had already told the full account and given his firm statement that he could not deny it, he went out and did precisely that.

If this was anyone else, I'd bet every penny I had in the bank that Charity would sheathe her Retrospective Enlightenment sword real quick like.

It was originally called the "First Visitation of Angels" and later changed to "First Vision" when it was incorporated into the History of the Church.

It's rare that in any of the accounts he claims to have been visited by God the Father in addition to Jesus Christ and/or an angel.

[_The Nehor]

Believers need to ask themselves this question:

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.

If I told you the story of my first vision when it happened, two years later, four years later, and now you'd think I wasn't credible either. My understanding of the event has changed and I also had the opportunity to relive it and discover details I missed the first time.

That's not the question. If this were someone else making similar claims as Joseph Smith, but who changed the story over time, would you find him/her credible (assuming you did not have a vested emotional interest in it)?

I might, it depends. I don't judge the validity of a vision in the same way I would judge the credibility of a witness to a crime. Very different things.

[_the road to hana]

Believers need to ask themselves this question:

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.

If I told you the story of my first vision when it happened, two years later, four years later, and now you'd think I wasn't credible either. My understanding of the event has changed and I also had the opportunity to relive it and discover details I missed the first time.

That's not the question. If this were someone else making similar claims as Joseph Smith, but who changed the story over time, would you find him/her credible (assuming you did not have a vested emotional interest in it)?

I might, it depends. I don't judge the validity of a vision in the same way I would judge the credibility of a witness to a crime. Very different things.

Would you establish different criteria for validity of a vision as opposed to a visitation?

[_The Nehor]

Believers need to ask themselves this question:

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.

If I told you the story of my first vision when it happened, two years later, four years later, and now you'd think I wasn't credible either. My understanding of the event has changed and I also had the opportunity to relive it and discover details I missed the first time.

Let's hear it.

Nah. I was just sharing that I noticed that seemed different in my journal between the accounts. The substance is immaterial to the discussion at hand.

[_the road to hana]

Believers need to ask themselves this question:

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.

If I told you the story of my first vision when it happened, two years later, four years later, and now you'd think I wasn't credible either. My understanding of the event has changed and I also had the opportunity to relive it and discover details I missed the first time.

Let's hear it.

Nah. I was just sharing that I noticed that seemed different in my journal between the accounts. The substance is immaterial to the discussion at hand.

No, really. You brought it up. Let's hear it.

[_The Nehor]

Believers need to ask themselves this question:

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.

If I told you the story of my first vision when it happened, two years later, four years later, and now you'd think I wasn't credible either. My understanding of the event has changed and I also had the opportunity to relive it and discover details I missed the first time.

That's not the question. If this were someone else making similar claims as Joseph Smith, but who changed the story over time, would you find him/her credible (assuming you did not have a vested emotional interest in it)?

I might, it depends. I don't judge the validity of a vision in the same way I would judge the credibility of a witness to a crime. Very different things.

Would you establish different criteria for validity of a vision as opposed to a visitation?

No.