Joseph’s First Vision - 1838 - fact and supposition

[Marcus]

Another thing to keep in mind. There were more things to draw from besides what Joseph initially described and what morphed into the 1838 version. Granted, we weren't there and we don't know what encounters Joseph did or did not have with the divine. In the last sermon before his death, however, we have this:



In 1843 we have this:


Joseph may have grown line upon line and precept upon precept in his understanding of the godhead, but his understanding became fully fleshed out throughout his life as he naturally grew and matured.

This paper really goes into it at the 'wonky' level if you're interested:

https://www.andrewmbailey.com/trinity/J ... rinity.pdf

David Paulsen, if I'm not mistaken, was one of the church's more well-known philosopher/academics.

You've brought up some interesting points/dilemmas, malkie. Before 1838 things are sparse. This has been an interesting thread for me. Hopefully for others also. When it comes down to it I think President Hinckley had a number of sources to look to as he put the 1838 First Vision account at the forefront.

Thanks.

Regards,
MG

Do I really need to say it again - am I so bad at explaining?

Oh well, ...

Not to the typical reader, malkie. It's obvious what MG is doing in his refusal to address your actual points. I really appreciated how you laid out the canonized position, and clearly demonstrated how little of that canonized work is respected by LDS leaders.

[malkie]

Do I really need to say it again - am I so bad at explaining?

Oh well, ...

Not to the typical reader, malkie. It's obvious what MG is doing in his refusal to address your actual points. I really appreciated how you laid out the canonized position, and clearly demonstrated how little of that canonized work is respected by LDS leaders.

Thanks, Marcus.

[Morley]

For example, “revision” happened between the “Book of Commandments” and the “D&C” in the early 1830s - which version is “true?”

MG doesn't believe in absolute truth. He sees truth as fungible.

[Shulem]

Critics have a difficult time making it to square one. Revelation from God.

Ring around the rosie and a pocket full of posies -- Mormons are like little kids playing games. Children of the Corn! Spiritual murder and mayhem!

Blah, blah, blah.

Lies and more lies.

Hey, MG, can you spell the name, SHULEM?



What's the king's name in Facsimile No. 3? Where is the royal Cartouche to signify a name is present?

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,

Get lost, MG. We know all your deception and games.

U, are evil minded.

And, I can see through U!

[I Have Questions]

We should also keep in mind that believers and skeptics are going to be operating under different premises. Believers are coming at all of this with the underlying belief that God reveals his will in an ongoing fashion according to the understanding of men and that He intervenes in human history/affairs.

You believe God intervenes in human history and human affairs? Okay. That’s good news. I’d like that to be true. Please can you explain God’s intervention in the holocaust.

[Limnor]

For example, “revision” happened between the “Book of Commandments” and the “D&C” in the early 1830s - which version is “true?”

MG doesn't believe in absolute truth. He sees truth as fungible.

Interesting. Again, from an outsiders point of view, an understanding of how a claim that the “Book of Mormon is true” and “the Church is true” within an institution that allows for truth to be variable casts serious doubts on those claims.

What’s “true” today could be “not true” tomorrow.

It is at the same time puzzling and fascinating to me how a person places any confidence in those claims.

[Limnor]

Do I really need to say it again - am I so bad at explaining?

This thread has been very valuable to me, thank you malkie.

Summary conclusion from my perspective, based on yours and others’ points: “the Book of Mormon and First Vision are true today, but they might not be the same kind of true tomorrow, because continuing revelation.”

[malkie]

MG doesn't believe in absolute truth. He sees truth as fungible.

Interesting. Again, from an outsiders point of view, an understanding of how a claim that the “Book of Mormon is true” and “the Church is true” within an institution that allows for truth to be variable casts serious doubts on those claims.

What’s “true” today could be “not true” tomorrow.

It is at the same time puzzling and fascinating to me how a person places any confidence in those claims.

My first reaction, without thinking it through (just after midnight in my timezone) is that the rescinding of the "Priesthood Ban" may give some clues. After all, what happened in 1978 directly contradicted statements by Brigham Young that I believe were previously considered to be solidly "true".

Some of the messiness can be seen in a 2008 article (comments being a must-read) in Times and Seasons:

Generally speaking, when anyone wants an easy quote on the past racist theologies of Mormonism, they quote Bruce R. McConkie. I am one of those people who would like a clearer statement repudiating past theological justifications for the priesthood ban. On the other hand, I think that at times folks understate the extent to which they have already been repudiated explicitly. In August of 1978, two months after the publication of the revelation to President Kimball, Elder McConkie told an audience at BYU:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more

.

Blacks and the Priesthood, a Request to the Media

[Marcus]

Interesting. Again, from an outsiders point of view, an understanding of how a claim that the “Book of Mormon is true” and “the Church is true” within an institution that allows for truth to be variable casts serious doubts on those claims.

What’s “true” today could be “not true” tomorrow.

It is at the same time puzzling and fascinating to me how a person places any confidence in those claims.

My first reaction, without thinking it through (just after midnight in my timezone) is that the rescinding of the "Priesthood Ban" may give some clues. After all, what happened in 1978 directly contradicted statements by Brigham Young that I believe were previously considered to be solidly "true".

Some of the messiness can be seen in a 2008 article (comments being a must-read) in Times and Seasons:

Generally speaking, when anyone wants an easy quote on the past racist theologies of Mormonism, they quote Bruce R. McConkie. I am one of those people who would like a clearer statement repudiating past theological justifications for the priesthood ban. On the other hand, I think that at times folks understate the extent to which they have already been repudiated explicitly. In August of 1978, two months after the publication of the revelation to President Kimball, Elder McConkie told an audience at BYU:

Blacks and the Priesthood, a Request to the Media

So, it would be prudent for Mormons to be aware that what is being taught, revealed, preached, or expected of them today, may end up being defined in the future as limited and lacking in knowledge, and from a place of darkness.

Using the phrase 'line upon line and precept upon precept' is incorrect then, as that phrase implies building upon and adding to, not trashing something and starting over.

[I Have Questions]

My first reaction, without thinking it through (just after midnight in my timezone) is that the rescinding of the "Priesthood Ban" may give some clues. After all, what happened in 1978 directly contradicted statements by Brigham Young that I believe were previously considered to be solidly "true".

Some of the messiness can be seen in a 2008 article (comments being a must-read) in Times and Seasons:

Blacks and the Priesthood, a Request to the Media

So, it would be prudent for Mormons to be aware that what is being taught, revealed, preached, or expected of them today, may end up being defined in the future as limited and lacking in knowledge, and from a place of darkness.

Using the phrase 'line upon line and precept upon precept' is incorrect then, as that phrase implies building upon and adding to, not trashing something and starting over.

Yes. You can always trust the living Prophet, until he’s dead, and then you cannot trust a word he said.