Showdown: 1st Vision vs. PJ&J visit

[_jon]

Am I right in thinking that when the Book of Mormon was first written it actually spoke contrary to God and Christ being seperate beings, but was changed at a later date?

[_just me]

Would people agree that the concept of God having a body 1.) required a vision and 2.) is more important than restoration of God's power on the earth?

The FV doesn't demonstrate that the Mormon God and Mormon Jesus have bodies at all.

Did anyone get a hug? A handshake? Did Joseph Smith hand the Mormon Jesus a fish and watch him eat it?

nope.

No matter how one spins it, fiction is not palpable.

Yeah, I don't get how a VISION is somehow the same as a physical VISITATION.

[_Buffalo]

Am I right in thinking that when the Book of Mormon was first written it actually spoke contrary to God and Christ being seperate beings, but was changed at a later date?

The Book of Mormon concept of God is completely trinitarian. It remains trinitarian today. The "two personages" narrative was written many years after the Book of Mormon was published, and after Sidney Rigdon had convinced Joseph that Jesus and the Father were two separate people.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Zee,

I will probably do a lot more reading/lurking in this thread than contributiing (It should be interesting to see how it evolves)

Would people agree that the concept of God having a body 1.) required a vision and 2.) is more important than restoration of God's power on the earth?

As a never-Mo, I am not comfortable in suggesting what I believe to be "more important" (Perhaps the perspectives/thoughts of LDS folk is entirely more important than mine), but I would certainly think that the FV is required to have the platform needed for anything else that comes along.

It seems to me that the First Vision is the foundation for what Mormonism is based upon (Without it, there is no Mormonism. My opinion)
It is, in my opinion, a necessary claim for everything else that follows.

Anyhooo, I am interested to see how this thread develops (I hope there are some LDS folks who participate)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Themis]

It seems to me that the First Vision is the foundation for what Mormonism is based upon (Without it, there is no Mormonism. My opinion)
It is, in my opinion, a necessary claim for everything else that follows.

I can see this as a precursor of why Joseph is creating a religion, even though we have different accounts and can't be sure what he is really basing it on, but it wasn't a neccessary claim because no one knew about until after the Book of Mormon and church organization. PJ&J is a pivotal event becuase all MP authrotity is suppose to come from it, yet these two forgot to write it down or tell anyone until years after. Smells fishy to me.

[_zeezrom]

I think, for the purposes of the argument, that we need to assume the events took place. Can we do that for this thread?

[Guest]

I think, for the purposes of the argument, that we need to assume the events took place. Can we do that for this thread?

In that case then the first vision would be a neccessary precursor to the events after. It had to start somewhere, so what ever beginning event would be the most important event even though later events may be considered vital.

[_stemelbow]

I'm not downplaying. I'm trying to put things in perspective.

Your opinion about the first vision being preparatory to the Mel Priesthood is interesting. I'm willing to consider it.

So, God needed to prepare Joseph for the big one? Maybe Joseph would not be able to see the apostles if he hadn't been prepared first? Maybe that's why Oliver could only see "an angel".

You got it. If God knew what it would take to get Joseph ready for all that was to come and it started with the First Vision, then it was essential, so essential it was required for everything that followed.

[_stemelbow]

The Book of Mormon concept of God is completely trinitarian. It remains trinitarian today. The "two personages" narrative was written many years after the Book of Mormon was published, and after Sidney Rigdon had convinced Joseph that Jesus and the Father were two separate people.

The Trinitarian explanation requires philosophical concepts not found inthe Book of Mormon, or the Bible for the matter. I think on this you are wrong. It takes a presumptuous read to get things like aseity, or homoousios out of the Book of Mormon. Of course the mainstream ideas on the Trinity are so pervasively inherent in our reading of texts I see how it seems so strongly stuggested as you say, but since we also know that such pervasive inherent reading is also true of the Bible it all makes sense. You have clearly over-stated your position here.

by the way, CFR on the Rigdon convinced Joseph that the Father and Son were two separate people.

[_Buffalo]

The Book of Mormon concept of God is completely trinitarian. It remains trinitarian today. The "two personages" narrative was written many years after the Book of Mormon was published, and after Sidney Rigdon had convinced Joseph that Jesus and the Father were two separate people.

The Trinitarian explanation requires philosophical concepts not found inthe Book of Mormon, or the Bible for the matter. I think on this you are wrong. It takes a presumptuous read to get things like aseity, or homoousios out of the Book of Mormon. Of course the mainstream ideas on the Trinity are so pervasively inherent in our reading of texts I see how it seems so strongly stuggested as you say, but since we also know that such pervasive inherent reading is also true of the Bible it all makes sense. You have clearly over-stated your position here.

by the way, CFR on the Rigdon convinced Joseph that the Father and Son were two separate people.

No, it really doesn't, Stem. This is very clearly Trinitarian doctrine:

http://LDS.org/scriptures/Book of Mormon/mosiah/15.11?lang=eng

And all the readers would have recognized these familiar concepts.


Regarding Sidney, it's somewhat speculative, but see:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12884&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=42