Willy Law wrote:What made you decide to ignore the "facts" in the earlier versions of the first vision to accept the JSH version as fact? If you accept the JSH version as fact, then the earlier versions are not factual correct?
I don't remember them being contradictory. What I remember was that they all recounted different parts of a long event. If I go to a party and say I saw Dr. Shades but later tell the story and say I met Willy Law, does my latter story contradict the earlier one, or could I have met both of you and simply not bothered to list everyone every time I talk about the event?
The JSH version has the most important parts for the general public.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Willy Law wrote:What made you decide to ignore the "facts" in the earlier versions of the first vision to accept the JSH version as fact? If you accept the JSH version as fact, then the earlier versions are not factual correct?
I don't remember them being contradictory. What I remember was that they all recounted different parts of a long event. If I go to a party and say I saw Dr. Shades but later tell the story and say I met Willy Law, does my latter story contradict the earlier one, or could I have met both of you and simply not bothered to list everyone every time I talk about the event?
The JSH version has the most important parts for the general public.
Unless by Dr. Shades you mean God the Eternal Father and by Willy Law you mean Jesus Christ. But apart from that, I'm not talking about contradictions, I'm talking about facts. You say you take the JSH version as fact and I just want to know why you decided to take that version as fact vs. the earlier versions.
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. Bruce R. McConkie
Willy Law wrote:You say you take the JSH version as fact and I just want to know why you decided to take that version as fact vs. the earlier versions.
From what I recall of earlier versions (appearing in the Ensign and which I read at BYU), I take them as fact too. I just happen to believe the JSH version contains the most important details. Also, I believe the JSH version has had a bit more scrutiny for clarity--at least on the most important details.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Willy Law wrote:You say you take the JSH version as fact and I just want to know why you decided to take that version as fact vs. the earlier versions.
From what I recall of earlier versions (appearing in the Ensign and which I read at BYU), I take them as fact too. I just happen to believe the JSH version contains the most important details. Also, I believe the JSH version has had a bit more scrutiny for clarity--at least on the most important details.
I guess my quibble is with your use of the word "fact". If the JSH version is fact, then the others contain error and are not factual. Simple example would be his age. If JSH is "fact" then he was 14, this would make the other versions not factual.
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. Bruce R. McConkie
beefcalf wrote:I am honestly baffled that anyone who professes to believe in Smith could hear these charges and not attempt to discover everything possible to either support or refute those charges.
So why not you?
What am I supposed to do? I'm not a student of history, nor a crime scene investigator. I believe there is much misinformation on Joseph Smith. I don't have the resources to investigate every claim someone makes against my faith.
I find this fairly common that members do not want to research to much out of fear that they may find things they are not prepared for. It's interesting in the polygamy example, one can easily check to see what rules Joseph set up, and then to see how much evidence shows he did very clearly break them. How much evidence is available that shows Joseph marrying married women, which is clearly against the rule he set down. I think this is why it is easier for many to just say we don't know for sure and leave it at that.
Simon Belmont wrote:How about this one: you're either LDS, or an anti-Mormon.
Every spring has its turds, and my old comment seems to have finally dislodged one to let it float up to the surface. Hello, Simon. I did not say "any." Try thinking clearly once in a while. Eventually you just might succeed.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Willy Law wrote:You say you take the JSH version as fact and I just want to know why you decided to take that version as fact vs. the earlier versions.
From what I recall of earlier versions (appearing in the Ensign and which I read at BYU), I take them as fact too. I just happen to believe the JSH version contains the most important details. Also, I believe the JSH version has had a bit more scrutiny for clarity--at least on the most important details.
asbestosman, I know my opinion of you doesn't matter, but for the record, you lost some points on my esteem meter over this one.
One can make a case that scripture in many forms is full of errors. This can be organized around man's logic and the argument can be sound. Each religion can be dismantled this way. The people who lived in scriptural times did things which also can viewed as full of errors. The men who write about the past can make errors as well. This is expected.
But what is the message that we are to receive? Some feel like myself that there is a message and the problems in scripture are there on purpose. If you look for problems you will find them. If you look for God then you will find Him. In this way the scripture is both written for the world and also written for spiritual discernment.
So with this view in mind I see no fraud and I have no problem with the arguments made by the unbeliever. There is a truth to the world and a truth to the spirit. The two are not able to be mixed.