When DID Joseph see God and Christ?

[_Lamanite]

your post was just flyby claptrap....

Sorry I didn't give enough deference to your moderator/god title.

Your post just seemed like a flyby. I labeled it "claptrap" because the language and substance of the post seemed hollow or empty.

Bible = unreliable. At least, that's what everyone from the prophet to the smallest child in Primary would say.

Joseph said it, so it's law, truth, righteousness... teflon-coated.

You probably know damn well the Prophet would not label the Bible "unreliable". And no non Mormon Biblical historian would label it infallible, except for EV Christian scholars and we all know their crazy . So you can't have your cake and eat it too.

You probably also know that Joseph said all types of stuff that does come close to "teflon-coated". So that point is way off base. Unless your talking about 80yr old chapel Mormons who still read "The Origin of Man".

And so it seems to me to be Claptrap or hyperbole at worst. But I'd be happy to debate both points.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[_harmony]

I think the transfer of keys/authority has always required two mortal witnesses. But where an individual testifies of an event, then the witness of the Holy Ghost has always been the second witness. At least that's my understanding.

You can't be a witness to something you didn't see. And unless you're one of the 3 Nephites, you didn't see Joseph in the grove, so your personal testimony may have meaning to you, but it counts as diddly when it comes to witnessing. And witnessing is what is needed. And there are none.

The most fantastic part of spirituality is that anyone can claim anything. But the most important part of Mormonism is that no one has ever pointed to a post graduate degree from Harvard divinity, or a creed, or a moon rock etc., to establish authority. Usually it's just some lay person who says, "this is what I believe, ask God and see if its right for you". At anytime one can approach God and see if "it is not true".

And we know of millions of people who have brushed it off. So? Why is their testimony of less worth than yours?

What good is an authority that has no authority behind it?

[_Lamanite]

You can't be a witness to something you didn't see. And unless you're one of the 3 Nephites, you didn't see Joseph in the grove, so your personal testimony may have meaning to you, but it counts as diddly when it comes to witnessing. And witnessing is what is needed. And there are none.

I never said I was a witness. I said I received a witness.

And we know of millions of people who have brushed it off. So? Why is their testimony of less worth than yours?

Their experience is not any less valid than my own.

What good is an authority that has no authority behind it?

God is the ultimate Authority whether you recognize it or not. And if God tells me to be Mormon and you to be Muslim, well then I trust He/She knows what He/She is doing.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[_bcspace]

Isn't Paul's earliest mention of his experience published about 20 years after the fact?

[_cksalmon]

Isn't Paul's earliest mention of his experience published about 20 years after the fact?

Well, it appears relatively early in the MS traditions (2nd C.). I wouldn't say it was ever "published." Copied, collected, and collated, to be sure.

cks

[_bcspace]

Well, it appears relatively early in the MS traditions (2nd C.). I wouldn't say it was ever "published." Copied, collected, and collated, to be sure.

1 Cor 1:9 is said to be approx. 20 years after the fact.

[_Mercury]

Trick question Squawkeye! He NEVER DID!!!!

haha!

[_squawkeye]

"Actually a case can be made for a two personage account in the Joseph Smith 1832 account written in his own hand, (The only one written in his hand)."

This would mean at least the first two years of missionaries that did not even know the first vision account. It is a major cornerstone of understanding the Godhead and teachings. Any rational reason Joseph would not have told it and had it recorded earlier if it really happened? Especially in light of his later writing that it was the reason for so much persecution of him during the time?

[_Lamanite]

"Actually a case can be made for a two personage account in the Joseph Smith 1832 account written in his own hand, (The only one written in his hand)."

This would mean at least the first two years of missionaries that did not even know the first vision account. It is a major cornerstone of understanding the Godhead and teachings. Any rational reason Joseph would not have told it and had it recorded earlier if it really happened? Especially in light of his later writing that it was the reason for so much persecution of him during the time?

Actually I ask the same thing about the entire Christian narrative. Perhaps Jesus and Joseph both screwed up? And Joseph was a man so he was prone to mistakes; so what was Jesus' excuse.

now that's a flyby-- and blasphemous!

Lamanite

P.S. Could you provide a reference for your last sentence please? I'm being sincere. I just want to see if we are drawing different conclusions from the same texts. Thanks.