Stake Pres coming to visit

[_zeezrom]

Of course there are problems. But, my comments aren't to suggest that since their are problems someone can think that the events didn't happen as claimed. I am contesting the idea that since there are problems that must mean it never happened as claimed. I disagree with this type of criticism vehemently, even though its by far the mostcommonly used tactic here.

The witnesses of the event fails to document the event within the first 6 years after it occurs. The witnesses report conflicting testimonies. Other people wholly unconnected to the event establish what exactly happened, and when it happened. No caveat, no notice, is given regarding the witnesses statements by the official church statements.

You don't see a problem with this? Does this not seem disingenuous?

[_Mephitus]

It's really hard for me to dismantle the authority I feel these men have over me. I have a lifetime of teachings and feelings in me that prevents me from looking at them as regular people. In other words, I can't just flip a switch that turns it all off. Maybe if I imagine them naked? Or maybe with nothing but Gs on?

The answer? Ass pennies
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f7112b ... y-sketches

[_stemelbow]

Stem,

Oliver:

"I was present with Joseph when an holy angel from God came down from heaven and conferred on us, or restored, the lesser or Aaronic Priesthood, and said to us, at the same time, that it should remain upon the earth while the earth stands. I was also present with Joseph when the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angel from on high. This Priesthood, we then conferred on each other by the will and commandment of God."

I guess Peter and James may have hidden themselves from Oliver. Is that what you are thinking? Joseph Smith talked to Oliver later on to inform him that there were actually 3 beings present not 1.

I don't why this is such an issue. Since Oliver was being somewhat vague here I see no reason to assume as you have regarding only one. Is it just standard ordaining practice to have one speak when conferring priesthood. perhaps he was thinking, when he said this, that there was just one doing the conferring since only one would have spoken, if the same protocol was followed. Its completely reasonable for my son to say his father conferred the priesthood on him even though many were in the circle taking part in the ordinance.

I'm totally and completely amazed that the most important event in LDS history was not recorded. What event is more important to LDS?

The church had not yet been organize.d Joseph Smith wasn't particularly an organized person. He didn't record his First Vision until years later too. I simply don't see how it has to be thought of as a lie on that basis.

According to this church article http://LDS.org/ensign/1996/12/the-resto ... priesthood, the evidence showing the MP was restored May 1829 is the following:

"Well, if they didn't have it, how could they have started a church? Duh!"

that is the evidence used. Ridiculous.

That's the evidence is all? You do't think Joseph Smith' claims are in consideration here?

Well, Hirum Page and BY confirmed PJ&J came and restored the priesthood but the problem is, they kinda weren't there.

Doesn't mean Joseph Smith and Oliver couldn't have detailed that for them.

Too bad the guys who happened to be present were more interested in documenting other things, like the time Joseph saved a woman and her baby from a runaway coach and the time he went sledding with his kids.

You are right. Too bad. There are things that were not properly documented. but that alone doesn't carry all that much weight. Skepticism seems to weigh prominently in this thread, for instance.

[_stemelbow]

The witnesses of the event fails to document the event within the first 6 years after it occurs. The witnesses report conflicting testimonies. Other people wholly unconnected to the event establish what exactly happened, and when it happened. No caveat, no notice, is given regarding the witnesses statements by the official church statements.

You don't see a problem with this? Does this not seem disingenuous?

I think skepticism must be accompanied to draw the same conclusions as you, which is fine. I don't' fault anyone for being skeptical. I simply don't see the big conflict you keep alluding to. I've already said what I think there. No conflict at all. The lack of recording the details of it in a timely fashion was par for the course, as Joseph Smith didn't record the first vision until years later. As he grew and matured it certainly seems he started getting better at it.

[_Buffalo]

It's really hard for me to dismantle the authority I feel these men have over me. I have a lifetime of teachings and feelings in me that prevents me from looking at them as regular people. In other words, I can't just flip a switch that turns it all off. Maybe if I imagine them naked? Or maybe with nothing but Gs on?

The answer? Ass pennies
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f7112b ... y-sketches

Classic

[_Buffalo]

I think skepticism must be accompanied to draw the same conclusions as you, which is fine. I don't' fault anyone for being skeptical. I simply don't see the big conflict you keep alluding to. I've already said what I think there. No conflict at all. The lack of recording the details of it in a timely fashion was par for the course, as Joseph Smith didn't record the first vision until years later. As he grew and matured it certainly seems he started getting better at it.

Yes, that's right. That's because he invented that one later too.

[_stemelbow]

Yes, that's right. That's because he invented that one later too.

Indeed, that would have to be the only possible conclusion. oh wait...No there are othe possibilities.

[_Buffalo]

Yes, that's right. That's because he invented that one later too.

Indeed, that would have to be the only possible conclusion. oh wait...No there are othe possibilities.

In any case you care to talk about there will always be any number of unlikely alternative explanations, and one explanation that is most likely. When it comes to Mormonism you always pick one of the former, it seems.

[_zeezrom]

Yes, that's right. That's because he invented that one later too.

Indeed, that would have to be the only possible conclusion. oh wait...No there are othe possibilities.

Stem,

My concern is more about the conflict in the testimonies. The First Vision took it's toll on my testimony as well. I soon realized that never happened but oh well. That is just the measly First Vision. That is not really central to Mormonism. The restoration of the Mel Priesthood is the center of the Universe. There is nothing more important. I had no idea that Oliver testified something different than the story I grew up with.

Man, all those times I sat in people's houses with my flip chart telling them how great it was that God restored the priesthood keys to the earth. That was the whole reason for being Mormon! We had the keys and they didn't! Amazing.

[_stemelbow]

In any case you care to talk about there will always be any number of unlikely alternative explanations, and one explanation that is most likely. When it comes to Mormonism you always pick one of the former, it seems.

Could be. I don't' mind if that's the case.