Three Questions (Split from, ‘Vogel Responds …’)

[MG 2.0]

While you appear to be saying this in regards to judgement after death, if you do believe accountability is a core doctrine of the LDS faith then how do you imagine accountability is possible if one also asserts that evidence supporting claims are merely peripheral?

Evidence cannot be maintained as separate from the claims that rely on the evidence to establish their primacy.

Accepting there was an atonement demands the New Testament be largely historical.

Mormon views on the godhead demand both the evidence for the Judeo-Christian religious tradition being fact but also that the majority of that tradition is wrong about God while one needs evidence the Mormons have it right. Enter the first vision...

Faith, repentance, baptism...these are practices that only have meaning if there is reason to accept the LDS church in SLC is the chosen vehicle of the Judeo-Christian God defined by Mormonism.

You can't detach the evidence from the claims that these socalled doctrines are core. Calling the supporting evidence peripheral is dismissing the evidence that those doctrines rely on to be accepted as anything other than assertions by the LDS faith. That is essentially saying people should pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

As I commented in another thread, the canonized version of the First Vision is not adequate to the task that is usually assigned to it: showing that the young Joseph Smith had an interview with God and Jesus. His own words are missing the essential information about who the "Personages" were. Even if the event happened as described, we are left with no idea as to who he encountered in the grove.
viewtopic.php?p=2843219#p2843219

The so called First Vision is the key to it all, isn’t it?

malkie, you said:

In spite of all of the ballyhoo made about this description of Joseph's experience, it is notable (along with other versions, of course) in that Joseph does not say that he this was an encounter with God and/or with Jesus Christ! Actually, it is completely open to interpretation as to who the "Personages" were. For all we know, either of them could have been Satan. We don't even know for sure that one was the son of the other - only that the claim was made.

You quote your preferred version of the first vision account:

16 ... I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

To me it’s rather clear that these beings were being referred to as the Father and the Son.

The ‘peripheral’ issues that we’ve been discussing are just that. IF (big if, right?) the vision that Joseph went into the woods and claimed to have seen occurred. Yes, I am fully aware of the issues revolving around the First Vision.

As I’ve mentioned periodically on this board I tend to look at what I consider to be the ‘larger picture’. The Monet analogy applies to everything I try to understand. The larger picture is ‘purpose’. God’s plan. God’s truth. Something larger and grander than what man can construct as meaning and purpose.

And where to go looking for it.

Now if there is no larger picture and purpose then we are in a position where we find meaning and purpose on a smaller scale. But it doesn’t have a place for a creator God with a plan/purpose.

We will always come back to this in our discussions. And we have, a number of times.

The First Vision account fits in with a larger whole of instances where it is claimed that God introduces His Son in the Judaeo Christian record. And Joseph Smith, as prophet, fits in with prophets having been called and activated throughout history, within the Judaeo Christian tradition, to teach God’s plan. In part or with greater clarity/fullness.

I’ve referred in the past to the market place of ideas and that within that marketplace the Christian tradition/theology rises to the top, in my estimation, as fulfilling the requirements for a fully comprehensive ‘God’s Plan’ and Purpose. The restoration adds to that and fleshes it out much much more in comparison/contrast to what is available elsewhere.

The Monet becomes recognizable as something more complete than only individual blotches of paint. That’s what I observe as I look at the CofJCofLDS.

The core doctrines fit into a greater whole of meaning that, for me, seem to surpass anything else that I’ve observed in the world at large.

Unresolved issues are interesting and at times perplexing but play second fiddle to the larger picture. My eyes are wide open to the ‘unresolved issues’ but I am patient and move forward with faith (which I believe to be a key attribute of mortality) and patience until all things are revealed.

But that’s me.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...Now if there is no larger picture and purpose then we are in a position where we find meaning and purpose on a smaller scale. But it doesn’t have a place for a creator God with a plan/purpose.

We will always come back to this in our discussions. And we have, a number of times.

No, "we" don't. YOU come back to this, in my opinion usually when you are unable to support your comments. For example:

...Unresolved issues are interesting and at times perplexing but play second fiddle to the larger picture...

It's been pointed out several times that your larger picture relies specifically and entirely on the evidence found in what you define as 'unresolved issues.' How can your "larger picture" be based in "second fiddle" issues? If it is by faith alone, okay. We've discussed the basis for that many times. Your brain tells you to believe in the religion you were born into.

If you just believe, then say so, but this pretence that there is evidence (the nonexistence of which you define as a peripheral, 'second-fiddle' problem) doesn't help your case.

[MG 2.0]

How can your "larger picture" be based in "second fiddle" issues?

Even though some of the second fiddle issues are unresolved it doesn’t mean that those issues are by default ‘game killers’. There is enough evidence in many cases to give the benefit of a doubt to the apologetic.

Whether it be Biblical studies, Book of Mormon historicity (mainly internal evidences and Old World corollaries), Polygamy narratives and practices that give rhyme/ for the practice, etc.

Resolved to the satisfaction of all? No. Again, that’s where a degree of faith comes into play.

My previous post explains how this can all take place within a broader historical/world perspective.

And most importantly an openness to Purpose and a creator God having an overall plan for His creations. We being part of that.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

How can your "larger picture" be based in "second fiddle" issues?

Even though some of the second fiddle issues are unresolved it doesn’t mean that those issues are by default ‘game killers’. There is enough evidence in many cases to give the benefit of a doubt to the apologetic....

No, there is not. And your comment bypasses the issue.

...You can't detach the evidence from the claims that these socalled doctrines are core. Calling the supporting evidence peripheral is dismissing the evidence that those doctrines rely on to be accepted as anything other than assertions by the LDS faith. That is essentially saying people should pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

[MG 2.0]

Even though some of the second fiddle issues are unresolved it doesn’t mean that those issues are by default ‘game killers’. There is enough evidence in many cases to give the benefit of a doubt to the apologetic....

No, there is not.

I disagree.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

No, there is not.

I disagree.

Regards,
MG

Please use ellipses if you are going to partially quote someone. Here is my full point.

Even though some of the second fiddle issues are unresolved it doesn’t mean that those issues are by default ‘game killers’. There is enough evidence in many cases to give the benefit of a doubt to the apologetic....

No, there is not. And your comment bypasses the issue.

...You can't detach the evidence from the claims that these socalled doctrines are core. Calling the supporting evidence peripheral is dismissing the evidence that those doctrines rely on to be accepted as anything other than assertions by the LDS faith. That is essentially saying people should pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

[malkie]

Not to put too fine a point on it:

Because the canonized scripture doesn't say who the personages are, anyone may make any assumption about their identity. But there is no actual evidence - not even Joseph Smith's own words - to support the assumption that they were indeed God and Jesus. The person making the assumption may also claim that the meaning is clear. But is it really clear that they were any specific entities? Not at all.

If they were indeed God and Jesus:

• Why would Joseph not say "I saw God and Jesus"? He had ample opportunity to do so. It's clear to me that he did not do so because he had no way of knowing for sure who they were, and they did not unambiguously identify themselves.
• Would it not have made sense for them to introduce themselves, and not leave everyone, including MG, guessing?

Yes, yes - God's ways are not my ways. But if one of the personages was God, it seems to me that this is yet another example of him being a p*ss-poor communicator.

Since my guess is as good as anyone's, I can confidently state that it's irrefutably clear to me that it is equally likely that the personages were Satan and one of his minions. (I try not to privilege one imaginary entity over another.)

[MG 2.0]

Since my guess is as good as anyone's, I can confidently state that it's irrefutably clear to me that it is equally likely that the personages were Satan and one of his minions. (I try not to privilege one imaginary entity over another.)

I think that is highly unlikely.

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org ... s?lang=eng

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

No, there is not. And your comment bypasses the issue.

I disagree. My post(s) do cover the issue.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

No, there is not. And your comment bypasses the issue.

I disagree. My post(s) do cover the issue.

Regards,
MG

You stated the following:

Resolved to the satisfaction of all? No. Again, that’s where a degree of faith comes into play.

My previous post explains how this can all take place within a broader historical/world perspective.

And most importantly an openness to Purpose and a creator God having an overall plan for His creations. We being part of that.

Regards,
MG

Your position does not involve a degree of faith coming into play. Nor is it taking a broader perspective. It is simply restating your arguments require faith there is a creator god, and this creator god aligns with the description provided by Mormonism which is the religion you grew up in. It's not asking one be open to the possibility. It's requiring it be assumed as fact. This is what your argument comes down to when it makes faith more important than evidence.

It doesn't really matter. It just seems dishonest of you to argue in this way.