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

[malkie]

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

I disagree. And you'll need a better source of support than this "synthesis", if that is what you are using to support your claim. Let's see what it says:

In the midst of the “pillar of fire,” Joseph saw a glorious personage standing above him in the air. He called Joseph’s name and said, “This is my beloved Son. Hear him.” Joseph saw another personage appear who “exactly resembled” the first. The Son then called Joseph by name and said, “Thy sins are forgiven.”

Joseph asked the heavenly beings which church was right. “Must I join the Methodist Church?” he asked. “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong.” The problem was that “all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines.” God did not acknowledge any of them “as his church and kingdom.” The everlasting covenant, the tie between the ancient Christian gospel and the present day, “had been broken.”

Jesus Christ confirmed Joseph’s observations that “the world lieth in sin” and that the existing churches had “turned aside from the gospel and keep not my commandments. They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me.”

I must be missing something if you think that this article resolves anything.

Tell me where, in the article you refer to, it says explicitly that Joseph said that he saw God and Jesus - or any other specific entities, for that matter. The connection of the entities to God and Jesus are apparently assumed by the writer of the article, on no better basis than you have given for your personal belief, and with no better warrant than I have for mine.

(by the way, I cannot get the Note popups to show any text - 3 browsers on 2 platforms, and no content to be found)

[MG 2.0]

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.

I think it does.

Nor is it taking a broader perspective.

I think it does.

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.

I don’t have a problem/concern in starting with a position and/or belief in a creator God. To me, it is reasonable/logical to do so.

It's not asking one be open to the possibility. It's requiring it be assumed as fact.

It’s more of a propositional statement. To begin somewhere rather than nowhere.

This is what your argument comes down to when it makes faith more important than evidence.

I believe that faith and evidence can coexist.

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

No dishonesty on my part.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I think that is highly unlikely.

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

Regards,
MG

I disagree.

The Son then called Joseph by name and said, “Thy sins are forgiven.”

A Son has a Father in this instance. Is that a radical idea?

As I’ve mentioned, everything…EVERYTHING…depends on whether or not the First Vision happened in the way and for what purpose(s) Joseph said. One’s position on this matter determines one’s views on both peripheral matters and core doctrine.

Nothing else supersedes it in importance.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

This is what your argument comes down to when it makes faith more important than evidence.

I believe that faith and evidence can coexist.

Provided evidence is kept peripheral, it seems.

[malkie]

I disagree.

The Son then called Joseph by name and said, “Thy sins are forgiven.”

A Son has a Father in this instance. Is that a radical idea?

As I’ve mentioned, everything…EVERYTHING…depends on whether or not the First Vision happened in the way and for what purpose(s) Joseph said. One’s position on this matter determines one’s views on both peripheral matters and core doctrine.

Nothing else supersedes it in importance.

Regards,
MG

That a son has a father is not radical at all. I just don't see that this fact is significant/relevant to what we are discussing.

Who is the father? Joseph doesn't tell you. All he says its that one called the other his son - Joseph apparently had no way of knowing who either one was - nor, for that matter, if the statement about sonship was true - it was just a claim by an unknown personage. So the possibilities are wide open at this point.

Consider this amplification of my previous suggestion: Joseph said that he was overcome by the powers of darkness. Then he called on God and the light appeared, etc. Let's assume, again for the sake of discussion, that this is accurate. The personages who appeared could have been Satan and his minion - just playing with Joseph, because there is (once again, with feeling) nothing in the canonized scripture, or in the synthesized account, that says that Joseph even claimed that the personages were God and Jesus. The writer of the article unsurprisingly makes the same assumption as you do - and fails to clarify that it is an assumption, unsupported by the scripture. Do you really not see that?

I remain unconvinced that your guesses, and the guesses of the author of the article, are necessarily any better than mine - you have given me no basis, even though I'm conceding, for the sake of the discussion, that the incident happened as recorded in JSH.

I'm glad that you have stated that "[n]othing else supersedes [the First Vision] in importance", because the FV narrative promulgated by the church, and taught by the missionaries, is so poorly substantiated by the scripture that said narrative is based on, that it makes for an extremely weak foundational story. The church is like (to borrow another scripture) a house built on sand.

The church has significantly oversold the FV narrative even though they control the scriptures that the story is based on - that's clear to me.

by the way, you've also apparently ignored most of what I had to say in my previous comment, which is why I have repeated and paraphrased it here; and you have, once again, failed to show that your quote of my comment is not complete.

[MG 2.0]

A Son has a Father in this instance. Is that a radical idea?

As I’ve mentioned, everything…EVERYTHING…depends on whether or not the First Vision happened in the way and for what purpose(s) Joseph said. One’s position on this matter determines one’s views on both peripheral matters and core doctrine.

Nothing else supersedes it in importance.

Regards,
MG

That a son has a father is not radical at all. I just don't see that this fact is significant/relevant to what we are discussing.

Who is the father? Joseph doesn't tell you. All he says its that one called the other his son - Joseph apparently had no way of knowing who either one was - nor, for that matter, if the statement about sonship was true - it was just a claim by an unknown personage. So the possibilities are wide open at this point.

I see your point of view expressed above as a nonstarter. After the vision Joseph said:

I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true. . . . I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation”

As you mentioned Joseph was somewhat dumbfounded as he experienced the vision. He didn’t fully comprehend it. His understanding grew as he had time to process what had happened and he had other spiritual manifestations/experiences. But he knew for a fact that God knew he had seen a vision. I don’t think God would be offended if Joseph had see Satan. He would be concerned though.

That the Son appeared and Joseph referred to him as ‘Lord’ in addition to Joseph later confirming that there were two personages that appeared, and that he would later have a healthy fear of offending God, tells me that indeed, it was the Father and the Son that appeared to Joseph Smith.

If he was telling the truth.

I find your ‘no evidence’ based on Joseph not explicitly naming both of them by name to be a bit discombobulating. The inference and the mention of multiple beings, one of them being the Son, is enough for me.

The narrative doesn’t allow for your interesting interpretation that it was Satan that appeared. That’s WAY out there.

But I do understand that by hook or by crook the First Vision has to be explained away somehow. Everything rests on it.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I believe that faith and evidence can coexist.

Provided evidence is kept peripheral, it seems.

The evidence can run in tandem with faith. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Provided evidence is kept peripheral, it seems.

The evidence can run in tandem with faith. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Regards,
MG

I assume here by evidence you mean the lack of evidence for things like the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[honorentheos]

Provided evidence is kept peripheral, it seems.

The evidence can run in tandem with faith. They don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Regards,
MG

So issues with the first vision account have direct bearing on the reliability of the church's claims about the godhead? You agree the evidence shouldn't stand to the side of faithful acceptance of the church's claims? Can the evidence weigh against faith such that chosing faith must be acknowledged as being counter the evidence?

[malkie]

That a son has a father is not radical at all. I just don't see that this fact is significant/relevant to what we are discussing.

Who is the father? Joseph doesn't tell you. All he says its that one called the other his son - Joseph apparently had no way of knowing who either one was - nor, for that matter, if the statement about sonship was true - it was just a claim by an unknown personage. So the possibilities are wide open at this point.

I see your point of view expressed above as a nonstarter. After the vision Joseph said:

I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true. . . . I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation”

Having not said earlier who the personages were in his vision, after the vision he once again fails to identify them! What does he say?

"I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it." Not: I saw God in my vision. Why so obtuse? It's almost as if he's afraid to say it, and so dances around, making folks guess what he means.

As you mentioned Joseph was somewhat dumbfounded as he experienced the vision. He didn’t fully comprehend it. His understanding grew as he had time to process what had happened and he had other spiritual manifestations/experiences. But he knew for a fact that God knew he had seen a vision. I don’t think God would be offended if Joseph had see Satan. He would be concerned though.

That the Son appeared and Joseph referred to him as ‘Lord’ in addition to Joseph later confirming that there were two personages that appeared, and that he would later have a healthy fear of offending God, tells me that indeed, it was the Father and the Son that appeared to Joseph Smith.

If he was telling the truth.

And yet the truth, if that's what he was telling, does not mention God and Jesus. His calling the son "Lord" could mean either he was being deferential to a superior being, or he assumed, without proper identification, that this was a Lord. We simply cannot tell from what Joseph says, because he is not being open about it.

I find your ‘no evidence’ based on Joseph not explicitly naming both of them by name to be a bit discombobulating. The inference and the mention of multiple beings, one of them being the Son, is enough for me.

The narrative doesn’t allow for your interesting interpretation that it was Satan that appeared. That’s WAY out there.

Yes, I'll give you that - it's out there, but not impossible, based on the lack of specificity in Joseph's description, meaning that one must infer who he saw, because he is certainly not telling us, and that makes other inferences possible. You are determined to stick to the one that is consistent with your established beliefs, and seem to be unwilling to consider seriously that there are so many holes in the story that other possibilities exist.

But I do understand that by hook or by crook the First Vision has to be explained away somehow. Everything rests on it.

And yet I'm not trying to "explain away" the FV - merely pointing out that when Joseph had lots of opportunity to tell us explicitly who he saw, he completely fails to mention your preferred explanation. You're satisfied, as you have said. Good for you. Please allow that other reasonable people can be justified in seeing more than one possible explanation - yours is not the only explanation, and, unfortunately it is one of the weakest possible, because it goes beyond the plain non-specific words, and insists on only one highly specific resolution of the question.

Regards,
MG

The inference (as you say) and the mention of multiple beings, one of them being the Son, is not enough for me - not when there was plenty of opportunity to be explicit, and tell the world that he had seen God and Jesus.

Let me ask you: if someone (let's call him Bob) told you that he had had a vision, and saw two personages, one of whom called the other his "beloved son", would you accept that, if Bob was telling the truth (not yet established), the two personages must have been God and Jesus, even if Bob didn't say that that's who they were?

If Bob then said that God knew that he (Bob) had had a vision, would you take that as confirmation that God knew that Bob had had a vision of God and Jesus, not just what he stated: that he had had a vision?

If Bob wrote about his vision several times, and in none of these accounts said that he met God and Jesus, only two "personages" (or perhaps one), at some point would you not start to wonder who Bob really saw. Or would you continue to believe, in spite of Bob's lack of identification of them, that the personages were God and Jesus?