But what about his other blog entries on Scriptural Mormonism - those in which he is expounding on a topic, rather than attempting to make people engage him in schoolyard fisticuffs?
by the way, I find it interesting that there does not appear to be a mechanism to comment on his blog. Perhaps he fears being overrun.
Anyway, I had a quick look at an entry on Bro Boylan's blog from a few weeks ago. I openly admit that I chose this entry because I was able to understand it (I think!), unlike many others in which the scholarly terminology puts them beyond my abilities. In this one, the argument seems quite straightforward.
https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.co ... tland.htmlAPR 1
The Appearance of Jesus in the Kirtland Temple being called a "Vision"
In D&C 110:1-10, Joseph Smith records Jesus' appearance to him and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple:
"The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened. We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber. His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying: I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father. Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice. Let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all my people rejoice, who have, with their might, built this house to my name. For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house. Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not pollute this holy house. Yea the hearts of thousands and tens of thousands shall greatly rejoice in consequence of the blessings which shall be poured out, and the endowment with which my servants have been endowed in this house. And the fame of this house shall spread to foreign lands; and this is the beginning of the blessing which shall be poured out upon the heads of my people. Even so. Amen."
Note the language: this is clearly and [sic] event that took place in time and space. Why is this noteworthy? Note the beginning of v. 11: “After this vision closed . . .” Here, it shows that, for Joseph, “vision” does not mean an event that took place in a dream state or an event that did not take place in space and time (as some think the First Vision was).
Posted 1st April by Robert Boylan
Is this really intended to show that 'for Joseph, “vision” does not mean an event that took place in a dream state or an event that did not take place in space and time'?
Firstly, in what way is it clear that this was a real event, and not an event that took place in a dream state? Regardless of "the language", do people not sometimes describe unreal events in the same words as real events, because in their minds it was real, or because of limitations of the language? But thinking something is real, or describing it as if it were, does not make it so.
Secondly, even if we were to grant that D&C 110:1-10 does describe a "real" event, is it even remotely possible that Joseph used the word "vision" sometimes to mean "an event that took place in a dream state", and at other times to mean an event that took place in space and time. I mean, people do that, don't they - use different meanings of the same word at different times?
I expect that Bro Boylan has done that himself, from time to time, but perhaps not: perhaps he's a "one word, one meaning" kind of guy, or a Humpty-Dumpty.
Or is this just an April Fool's joke?
If this is a real example of Boylan's depth of thought, then I'm not too impressed. Even in a blog entry of this sort, should the writer not at least make a nod in the direction of obvious possible counter arguments, and provide a defence of some sort against them?