Joseph’s First Vision - 1838 - fact and supposition

[Limnor]

Limnor, are you presuming access to Joseph’s interior world, his motives, and the authenticity of his experience?

I’m saying it’s confessed within the book. He gave us access. You just have to see it.

[MG 2.0]

Limnor, are you presuming access to Joseph’s interior world, his motives, and the authenticity of his experience?

I’m saying it’s confessed within the book. He gave us access. You just have to see it.

OK.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

This is where I get to say “because it really wasn’t his vision.”

The gold plates were never sidelined or discarded in early Mormonism. Instead, they served as a foundational artifact validating Joseph Smith’s prophetic role and the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.

The plates validated the new scripture that had come forth, the First Vision validates prophetic authority and theological distinctiveness. The church did run into a period where there were theological challenges. It was at this time that the vision was put front and center. This became more useful in doctrinal debates than a buried artifact.

Together, the plates and the First Vision narrative actually complement each other. One is material and the other falls into the 'mystical' realm. Both of these are pretty much off limits for any rational person on this board, of course.

You gave an example of a man wrongly convicted because the judge and jury took the word of eye witnesses whose testimony was coordinated by an involved party (the police and prosecution). Don’t you see the parallel and how you are contradicting yourself?

[I Have Questions]

I’m saying it’s confessed within the book. He gave us access. You just have to see it.

OK.

Regards,
MG

Limnor is correct. You need to do the work and read the Book of Mormon.

[sock puppet]

The gold plates were never sidelined or discarded in early Mormonism. Instead, they served as a foundational artifact validating Joseph Smith’s prophetic role and the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.

The plates validated the new scripture that had come forth, the First Vision validates prophetic authority and theological distinctiveness. The church did run into a period where there were theological challenges. It was at this time that the vision was put front and center. This became more useful in doctrinal debates than a buried artifact.

Together, the plates and the First Vision narrative actually complement each other. One is material and the other falls into the 'mystical' realm. Both of these are pretty much off limits for any rational person on this board, of course.

You gave an example of a man wrongly convicted because the judge and jury took the word of eye witnesses whose testimony was coordinated by an involved party (the police and prosecution). Don’t you see the parallel and how you are contradicting yourself?

Are you really surprised that MG 2.0 lacks introspection and being self-aware?