Joseph’s First Vision - 1838 - fact and supposition

[malkie]

Perhaps I was wasting my time pursuing Hinckley's distortions of the truth, and MG was wasting his time defending Hinckley's "amplifications". We should both have declared it moot, Hinckley having died several prophets ago

Interaction with MG is always a waste of time if you are expecting anything other than to go round in circles with MG refusing to accept anything other than he’s right and you’re wrong. He’s special and you’re not. And he will never, ever, acknowledge when he’s made a mistake or that you’ve demonstrated a flaw in his thinking. And look out if you’re a female poster. You’re in for a whole load of disparaging sexism.

Now that’s the picture I’ve built up based on his interactions on this board. You’ve met him. Have you any reason to believe his behaviour in real life is similar to his behaviour on this board?

I let this comment sit in draft for a while, to let it run around in my mind, and have modified it a bit before posting.

About 10 years ago I met a much kinder and gentler MG than I currently see here, and (dare I say) someone I thought was sincerely arguing in good faith. My wife, as a TBM, had a similar impression. Actually, I have to say that I was delighted with the opportunity to meet him, if only for a short time.

If I recall correctly, it was a couple of years later that I first told MG that I thought that his way of addressing other posters was unnecessarily and inappropriately harsh, and that he was not (in my opinion) being a good example of what his religion taught. I've seen nothing since then to change my mind.

On several occasions since then I've driven past MG's home town, but have never felt the urge to try to meet in person again, and it makes me sad that I feel that way.

Sorry - TMI? - I'm not usually very fond of exposing my own inner thoughts, and wonder if I'm oversharing here.

[I Have Questions]

Interaction with MG is always a waste of time if you are expecting anything other than to go round in circles with MG refusing to accept anything other than he’s right and you’re wrong. He’s special and you’re not. And he will never, ever, acknowledge when he’s made a mistake or that you’ve demonstrated a flaw in his thinking. And look out if you’re a female poster. You’re in for a whole load of disparaging sexism.

Now that’s the picture I’ve built up based on his interactions on this board. You’ve met him. Have you any reason to believe his behaviour in real life is similar to his behaviour on this board?

I let this comment sit in draft for a while, to let it run around in my mind, and have modified it a bit before posting.

About 10 years ago I met a much kinder and gentler MG than I currently see here, and (dare I say) someone I thought was sincerely arguing in good faith. My wife, as a TBM, had a similar impression. Actually, I have to say that I was delighted with the opportunity to meet him, if only for a short time.

If I recall correctly, it was a couple of years later that I first told MG that I thought that his way of addressing other posters was unnecessarily and inappropriately harsh, and that he was not (in my opinion) being a good example of what his religion taught. I've seen nothing since then to change my mind.

On several occasions since then I've driven past MG's home town, but have never felt the urge to try to meet in person again, and it makes me sad that I feel that way.

Sorry - TMI? - I'm not usually very fond of exposing my own inner thoughts, and wonder if I'm oversharing here.

Thanks for that malkie. I agree that he conducts his board interactions in a manner that is not a good reflection of how his Church leaders, and Christ, would want him to behave. I find his rude behaviour towards you even more inexplicable. He’s met you in real life, he knows you know who he is, and still he’s a rude jerk to you. Bizarre.

I suppose I’m left wondering if his board persona is an accurate reflection of his in real life persona. If it is, then I’m surprised he finds anyone willing to have lunch with him.

[malkie]

I let this comment sit in draft for a while, to let it run around in my mind, and have modified it a bit before posting.

About 10 years ago I met a much kinder and gentler MG than I currently see here, and (dare I say) someone I thought was sincerely arguing in good faith. My wife, as a TBM, had a similar impression. Actually, I have to say that I was delighted with the opportunity to meet him, if only for a short time.

If I recall correctly, it was a couple of years later that I first told MG that I thought that his way of addressing other posters was unnecessarily and inappropriately harsh, and that he was not (in my opinion) being a good example of what his religion taught. I've seen nothing since then to change my mind.

On several occasions since then I've driven past MG's home town, but have never felt the urge to try to meet in person again, and it makes me sad that I feel that way.

Sorry - TMI? - I'm not usually very fond of exposing my own inner thoughts, and wonder if I'm oversharing here.

Thanks for that malkie. I agree that he conducts his board interactions in a manner that is not a good reflection of how his Church leaders, and Christ, would want him to behave. I find his rude behaviour towards you even more inexplicable. He’s met you in real life, he knows you know who he is, and still he’s a rude jerk to you. Bizarre.

I suppose I’m left wondering if his board persona is an accurate reflection of his in real life persona. If it is, then I’m surprised he finds anyone willing to have lunch with him.

I'm generally not very bothered by anything MG has said to or about me. I suppose that, in the final analysis, I've just not felt that it was a good use of my time to attempt to have another meeting with him.

[I Have Questions]

Thanks for that malkie. I agree that he conducts his board interactions in a manner that is not a good reflection of how his Church leaders, and Christ, would want him to behave. I find his rude behaviour towards you even more inexplicable. He’s met you in real life, he knows you know who he is, and still he’s a rude jerk to you. Bizarre.

I suppose I’m left wondering if his board persona is an accurate reflection of his in real life persona. If it is, then I’m surprised he finds anyone willing to have lunch with him.

I'm generally not very bothered by anything MG has said to or about me. I suppose that, in the final analysis, I've just not felt that it was a good use of my time to attempt to have another meeting with him.

Entirely understandable.

[I Have Questions]

Did he? In the first account (written 27 years after it was supposed to have happened) he only mentions seeing one person.

Why wait 27 years to jot it down and mention it?
Why only mention seeing one person of you clearly saw two?

The time lapse and inconsistencies are what undermine the credibility of the story. Add to that the Church putting words into Joseph’s mouth (leading the witness I think that’s called), and we have a testimony that would not be believed under any other circumstances than “religion”.

It's too bad that the witness is not available for questioning about the first vision. If the church were to lead Joseph while he was under oath, I think that the critics' cross examination would be devastating, especially for someone like Hinckley. I doubt that it would ever be possible to "convict" Joseph of the doctrines that Hinckley "amplified" (according to MG) in the first vision narrative.

No. I’m still waiting for MG to list out the sources he thinks Hinckley used to draw from for the “revisions” to the original. So far, nothing.

[huckelberry]

As long as I can remember I thought Identity for first vision was implied enough that people always thought they knew who. I am unaware of disputes in the church in the past. There may be a sort participation of the believers in thinking they know who Joseph saw.

I am unaware of disputes over physicality amongst believers.

[I Have Questions]

As long as I can remember I thought Identity for first vision was implied enough that people always thought they knew who. I am unaware of disputes in the church in the past. There may be a sort participation of the believers in thinking they know who Joseph saw.

I am unaware of disputes over physicality amongst believers.

I think malkie has done a good job of articulating the difference between what the First Vision says, and what Hinckley said the First Vision says. MG professed to having an inkling about what sources Hinckley drew from for those revisions, but he’s yet to enlighten the board as to what they are.

[I Have Questions]

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.

What are those sources?

[MG 2.0]

I'm generally not very bothered by anything MG has said to or about me.

Same here.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

As long as I can remember I thought Identity for first vision was implied enough that people always thought they knew who. I am unaware of disputes in the church in the past. There may be a sort participation of the believers in thinking they know who Joseph saw.

I am unaware of disputes over physicality amongst believers.

What is interesting is that Charles Finney, William Miller, Ann Lee, and others...none of them...reported a vision with both divine figures, the Father and the Son, appearing together. Granted, this was amplified/fine-tuned as time went on, but it is Joseph's account that is unique among all the others in that time and place.

Orson Pratt (primary source) and Orson Hyde (secondary source) were the two that helped flesh out Joseph's original experience in the grove. President Hinckley then built on that.

Regards,
MG