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

[malkie]

...

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.

...

Actually, I retract my concession. Having thought a bit more about it, I don't think that my "interesting interpretation that it was Satan that appeared" is "WAY out there".

Later in his life, Joseph taught that the devil could appear "as an angel of light", and explained, in D&C 129, how to distinguish God's messengers from such deceiving spirits. However, at the time of the first vision, Joseph was ignorant of the "grand keys" that allowed the distinction to be made. At least, there is nothing in the JSH that suggests he had any such idea. In other words, he was naïve and ripe for deception.

Heck, with the "thick darkness" being replaced by a pillar of light, perhaps Satan was pulling a "bad cop, good cop" stunt, and Joseph fell for it.

So the narrative certainly does not exclude the possibility that the two personages were Satan and a buddy, or two evil spirits sent by Satan.

I can, however, understand how motivated you are to avoid any interpretation that conflicts with your preconceptions, informed as they are by decades of assumptions, and inferences.

(All the while assuming, for the sake of discussion, that God, Satan, angels, etc actually exist.)

[malkie]

honor and malkie, at the end of the day as we look back through the lens/fog of history we rely upon the written word and testimonies of contemporary witnesses. Joseph and his associates had to go through learning curves as did other early members of the church.

Joseph’s comment,that I referenced before, that he knew that God knew what had transpired is very revealing. That along with the ‘sincerity factor’ that Joseph demonstrated throughout his life brings us to a place where we either trust what he said or we don’t. As time went on there wasn’t any argument among the believers as to the fact that he had been visited by the Father and the Son.

That the ‘learning curve’ for Joseph included gaining further light and knowledge in regards to his visionary experience. That this would show up in his other writings along the way shouldn’t surprise us.

As the First Vision account evolved and matured through understanding it came to a place where it was ‘in cement’. It didn’t change thereafter. Just as with other things within the gospel/church framework we see the processes of change and evolution take place. Line upon line, precept upon precept. That shouldn’t come as any great shock.

I’ve mentioned the ‘silver platter’ concept before. Some folks either think…or demand…that God dispense his knowledge and wisdom in total, rather than incremental chunks. The First Vision falls into this category in my view. Joseph and others had certain knowledge. They saw what was happening through their own lens of understanding. That understanding evolved over time and experience.

Everything hinges non whether or not Joseph was telling the truth about what he saw and what he then came to further understand.

As it was/is, we/they came to understand that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph. We learn that God and Christ are two separate beings. And from that point on, after the First Vision, the heavens were open.

To those that are unable to determine the truth of this narrative and/or are unable to have faith in the probability/possibility that this could/would happen at this particular time and place, the heavens remain closed and they are left to their own understanding.

Regards,
MG

And yet you still cannot say, from the plain words of canonized scripture, that Joseph met God and Jesus - you have to make assumptions that go beyond the words.

Compare with Moses' experience:

1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.

2 And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

4 And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

[honorentheos]

honor and malkie, at the end of the day as we look back through the lens/fog of history we rely upon the written word and testimonies of contemporary witnesses. Joseph and his associates had to go through learning curves as did other early members of the church.

Joseph’s comment,that I referenced before, that he knew that God knew what had transpired is very revealing. That along with the ‘sincerity factor’ that Joseph demonstrated throughout his life brings us to a place where we either trust what he said or we don’t.

MG,

He lied to his father-in-law and eloped with Emma. He lied to Emma and cheated on her repeatedly, inventing a religious requirement to cover it up.

The Book of Mormon is clearly detached from American pre-Columbian history. It's clearly based on racist 19th century beliefs about the Native Americans.

The Church codified the worst of the racial prejudices in American history to the point it held onto them over a decade past the time the Supreme Court ruled against state laws criminalizing interracial marriage. It stands today against equal rights, it gives cover to anti-science positions.

You're right. We choose to trust what Joseph, and by extension the LDS church, said. Or we don't.

The evidence, however, is anything but peripheral to that choice. One chooses to acknowledge it and allow it to inform ones choice...or one doesn't.

[malkie]

honor and malkie, at the end of the day as we look back through the lens/fog of history we rely upon the written word and testimonies of contemporary witnesses. Joseph and his associates had to go through learning curves as did other early members of the church.

Joseph’s comment,that I referenced before, that he knew that God knew what had transpired is very revealing. That along with the ‘sincerity factor’ that Joseph demonstrated throughout his life brings us to a place where we either trust what he said or we don’t.

MG,

He lied to his father-in-law and eloped with Emma. He lied to Emma and cheated on her repeatedly, inventing a religious requirement to cover it up.

The Book of Mormon is clearly detached from American pre-Columbian history. It's clearly based on racist 19th century beliefs about the Native Americans.

The Church codified the worst of the racial prejudices in American history to the point it held onto them over a decade past the time the Supreme Court ruled against state laws criminalizing interracial marriage. It stands today against equal rights, it gives cover to anti-science positions.

You're right. We choose to trust what Joseph, and by extension the LDS church, said. Or we don't.

The evidence, however, is anything but peripheral to that choice. One chooses to acknowledge it and allow it to inform ones choice...or one doesn't.

What has disappointed me most about this recent discussion is that I seem to have failed completely to persuade MG that any resolution of the vague wording of JSH might be held by a reasonable person, or is even possible.

The passive-aggressive last para of his latest comment, with the implication that MG's explanation is the only possible "truth", is the icing on the cake:

To those that are unable to determine the truth of this narrative and/or are unable to have faith in the probability/possibility that this could/would happen at this particular time and place, the heavens remain closed and they are left to their own understanding.

[malkie]

MG,

He lied to his father-in-law and eloped with Emma. He lied to Emma and cheated on her repeatedly, inventing a religious requirement to cover it up.

The Book of Mormon is clearly detached from American pre-Columbian history. It's clearly based on racist 19th century beliefs about the Native Americans.

The Church codified the worst of the racial prejudices in American history to the point it held onto them over a decade past the time the Supreme Court ruled against state laws criminalizing interracial marriage. It stands today against equal rights, it gives cover to anti-science positions.

You're right. We choose to trust what Joseph, and by extension the LDS church, said. Or we don't.

The evidence, however, is anything but peripheral to that choice. One chooses to acknowledge it and allow it to inform ones choice...or one doesn't.

What has disappointed me most about this recent discussion is that I seem to have failed completely to persuade MG that any resolution of the vague wording of JSH might be held by a reasonable person, or is even possible.

The passive-aggressive last para of his latest comment, with the implication that MG's explanation is the only possible "truth", is the icing on the cake:

To those that are unable to determine the truth of this narrative and/or are unable to have faith in the probability/possibility that this could/would happen at this particular time and place, the heavens remain closed and they are left to their own understanding.

ETA: I feel like Charlie Brown.

[honorentheos]

MG,

He lied to his father-in-law and eloped with Emma. He lied to Emma and cheated on her repeatedly, inventing a religious requirement to cover it up.

The Book of Mormon is clearly detached from American pre-Columbian history. It's clearly based on racist 19th century beliefs about the Native Americans.

The Church codified the worst of the racial prejudices in American history to the point it held onto them over a decade past the time the Supreme Court ruled against state laws criminalizing interracial marriage. It stands today against equal rights, it gives cover to anti-science positions.

You're right. We choose to trust what Joseph, and by extension the LDS church, said. Or we don't.

The evidence, however, is anything but peripheral to that choice. One chooses to acknowledge it and allow it to inform ones choice...or one doesn't.

What has disappointed me most about this recent discussion is that I seem to have failed completely to persuade MG that any resolution of the vague wording of JSH might be held by a reasonable person, or is even possible.

The passive-aggressive last para of his latest comment, with the implication that MG's explanation is the only possible "truth", is the icing on the cake:

To those that are unable to determine the truth of this narrative and/or are unable to have faith in the probability/possibility that this could/would happen at this particular time and place, the heavens remain closed and they are left to their own understanding.

To be fair the argument conceded a lot of ground on the front end by assuming Smith had an actual visit and the final version should be given priority. Could Smith have been deceived by a supernatural evil being in that case? It's possible. But once one is entertaining supernatural visits and ignoring the grounded issues with the accounts and evolution of the godhead in scripture, it still leaves Smith as the recipient of a supernatural visit apparently deserving the attention of Satan or God or something.

The only evidence for that is Smith's word it occurred. I'd say we are on solid ground questioning the reliability of a serial liar, adulterer, professional treasure seeker, and would-be US President who proclaimed himself even greater than Jesus because his people stood by him...until some of them participated in his lynching because see above re: serial lying, adultery, financial schemes and ego.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

honor and malkie, at the end of the day as we look back through the lens/fog of history we rely upon the written word and testimonies of contemporary witnesses. Joseph and his associates had to go through learning curves as did other early members of the church.

Joseph’s comment,that I referenced before, that he knew that God knew what had transpired is very revealing. That along with the ‘sincerity factor’ that Joseph demonstrated throughout his life brings us to a place where we either trust what he said or we don’t. As time went on there wasn’t any argument among the believers as to the fact that he had been visited by the Father and the Son.

That the ‘learning curve’ for Joseph included gaining further light and knowledge in regards to his visionary experience. That this would show up in his other writings along the way shouldn’t surprise us.

As the First Vision account evolved and matured through understanding it came to a place where it was ‘in cement’. It didn’t change thereafter. Just as with other things within the gospel/church framework we see the processes of change and evolution take place. Line upon line, precept upon precept. That shouldn’t come as any great shock.

I’ve mentioned the ‘silver platter’ concept before. Some folks either think…or demand…that God dispense his knowledge and wisdom in total, rather than incremental chunks. The First Vision falls into this category in my view. Joseph and others had certain knowledge. They saw what was happening through their own lens of understanding. That understanding evolved over time and experience.

Everything hinges non whether or not Joseph was telling the truth about what he saw and what he then came to further understand.

As it was/is, we/they came to understand that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph. We learn that God and Christ are two separate beings. And from that point on, after the First Vision, the heavens were open.

To those that are unable to determine the truth of this narrative and/or are unable to have faith in the probability/possibility that this could/would happen at this particular time and place, the heavens remain closed and they are left to their own understanding.

Regards,
MG

The intractable cynicism it takes to type that out, after 20+ years of having the Internet at one’s hands, is a monument to sheer existential fear. I’m convinced the Mormons who choose to stay put in their cult are some sort of sociopath or coward. Take your pick with MG.

- Doc

[drumdude]

DCP had a genuinely good story today on his blog. We all see the same set of facts differently.

It reminds me just a little bit of a German-born medieval art historian who taught at the University of California at Los Angeles decades back. At the invitation of a friend, I attended her seminar on medieval stained glass one day. He was astonished at her approach, and wanted me to witness it for myself. She wasn’t merely a Marxist of the fashionable academic kind; she was an old-style Communist who came across as a fossil remnant of the nineteen teens or twenties. And, sure enough, every window in every cathedral, no matter what its ostensible subject was, became, in her telling, merely yet more illustration of the struggle of the revolutionary proletariat against the petty bourgeoisie. At first, it was interesting because ingenious. After the fourth or fifth window, though, it became unspeakably tedious. I never went back. Once I got the hang of the technique, which I did pretty quickly, I figured that I could easily do it myself. I never did.

DCP gets it wrong at the end. He actually did. Not with stained glass windows and class struggles, but with evidence against the church and apologetic arguments. The rationalizations quickly become formulaic. After a while you see it is also tedious and just a pattern repeated over and over.

It’s how you arrive at Indians riding tapirs. A lot of the criticism of MG here is the same, he is the Marxist professor of DCP’s story who can always find a faithful narrative to fit the facts.

[MG 2.0]

What has disappointed me most about this recent discussion is that I seem to have failed completely to persuade MG that any resolution of the vague wording of JSH might be held by a reasonable person, or is even possible.

malkie, you are a reasonable person from where I sit. So what you say is true. A reasonable person can often take a position that makes sense from one perspective and not from another.

That happens all the time.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I’m convinced the Mormons who choose to stay put in their cult are some sort of sociopath or coward.

- Doc

Think what you will, Doc.

Regards,
MG