Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast

[_Shulem]

What you don't know won't hurt you.

[_Shulem]

Nobody need know. Keep it safe.

[_Meadowchik]

What's interesting is that Orson Hyde produced a pamphlet in German (in 1842) with an account of the claimed First Vision.

But since the beginning these "apostles" knew the story that Joseph was telling from the beginning, that when he FIRST prayed, he was answered by an ANGEL, who told him what to do. This was the story that was told by Joseph and retold by those early missionaries like Orson Hyde.

In his 1842 Pamphlet, Hyde also stated that Joseph was beaten and assaulted by numerous people BEFORE he left Palmyra. These embellishments were common with them, and shows that they had no problem making things up to bolster Smith's credibility. Of course, they then would know that Smith was doing the same thing.

I'd love to read the German if you have a link to it.

[_grindael]

I'd love to read the German if you have a link to it.

Ask and ye shall receive...

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... -extract/3

[_Shulem]

Prior to the vision Joseph Smith said:

they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ

My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.

Clearly Joseph had forgotten what he had previously written (fabricated) and changed his story to better suit the times at hand. Thus we see a liar caught in his own words while telling stories.

[_Shulem]

Joseph Smith's 1832 fabricated account of the first vision doesn't include God the Father. Basically, Smith claimed to see the pillar of light and lo and behold Jesus himself came down and started conversing with him. No introduction from the Father -- nothing about TWO personages. Just a single person and a huge clue can be ascertained from Smith's narrative that he only saw one personage, not two.

Do you want to know what that clue is?

[_consiglieri]

I look forward to listening to these podcast as well, Grindael!

One thing I have noticed, and I am certain it has been observed before, is that the question Joseph Smith asks in the 1832 account (regarding his standing before God due to his sins) gets shifted to the Moroni account by 1838.

In other words, the 1832 account has Joseph crying unto God for mercy and Jesus appears.

In the 1838 account, this question to God has been supplanted by "which church is true" and the question regarding his spiritual standing forms the framework for the story about Moroni's first appearance.

Is this significant, do you think?

[_grindael]

Sure Shulem, let us know!

[_grindael]

Consig,

Yes. Because Joseph was telling the story (before 1832) that he had read the Bible found all of the churches to be corrupt. He then went to inquire if God did exist and what his standing was with him, and the angel appeared and told him his sins were forgiven. Joseph in 1832 wrote how he had been studying the Bible from age 12 on, and that he had come to the conclusion that all the churches were corrupt, but in that account he claims that he believed that God did exist from reading the Bible. But he still could not make it all fit into a coherent timeline and abandoned that attempt (plus he only believed in one god at that time). He then later, had to take elements of the original story of the angel and move them back in time. He could not continue to claim he was inspired by George Lane, because it didn't fit. So that was abandoned completely. Joseph leaves a clue in the 1832 version, he starts to mention that at the time he had this vision of Jesus, his mother and... this is crossed out, but he was going to write about his mother and other family member's conversion to Presbyterianism, but again, that would date the account to 1824/25. There are so many things that show he was making up the earlier vision.

[_Shulem]

Sure Shulem, let us know!

I thought you'd never ask.

I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord

Smith claimed the Lord (JESUS) opened the heavens and made his appearance. No Fatherly introduction and no illusion to Jesus standing on the right hand of God is given. Jesus was ALONE with Joseph Smith and even called him "son", and declared himself in the first person:

"he spake unto me saying . . . . behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world".

Then, Jesus goes on to tell Joseph how he's angry and will come in a cloud as prophesied in scripture. But something Jesus says makes it clear that Jesus and Joseph are indeed alone during this conversation and that the so-called first member of the Godhead (God the Father) is nowhere present. Jesus brags how he will come again "in the glory of my Father" when he rides upon the cloud to judge the earth. Here we see that Joseph Smith claimed to converse with a single personage (JESUS) and that when Jesus comes again he will be in the glory of his Father. Thus, Jesus is talking about his Father in a distant sense, one who is apart from the very scene at hand. We have a Jesus that is full of himself and doesn’t mention his Father at all other than that when he comes again he'll come in his glory. You get the feeling that the next words out of Jesus's mouth could have been, "Behold and lo, I ascend to my Father."

Thus, there was no Father in 1832. That came later when Smith developed his theology.