- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Link to original thread at FacesEast if someone wants to see the original conversation up to this point: http://www.faceseast.org/viewtopic.php?t=302 Posted by Ahman at FacesEast.org. I moved it to this community to discuss. It was an excellent, well-thought post, but wasn’t appropriate for the tone of FacesEast. I am asking Ahman if he would like to come here and continue further.
By Ahman:I can understand why Brianj’s point might be well taken by those spouses on this board who are married to someone that is disaffected(I’ll call him/her the disaffector, and you, the spouse that wants to stay LDS the disaffectee). While Brianj’s post may be comforting to the disaffectee, if I may be so bold, let me explain why it will not mean much to the disaffector. I’m not trying to convince you, if you know this stuff and chose to believe anyway I have no problem with that. But if you want to understand what your spouse is going through you can’t underestimate the size of this problem. Church apologetics works by first not understanding the problem it tries to solve.
First, your analysis, which seems to be well researched, has a flawed assumption: those 4 “Basic Elements of the First Vision” – are not at all common to the multiple accounts. Your interpretation based on wanting to keep your testimony might read certain things into it, but it just isn’t there in the written record. There is WAY too much to explain here, but the best resource for this I’ve found is:
http://www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/fvision-accounts.html Second, you’re addressing one thing, overlap in the storys. This goes way beyond the mere similarity/dissimilarity of the multiple first vision accounts, the major point you’re missing is the contradictions between them. Is it reasonable to think that JS wouldn’t have been able to remember who, or how many people appeared to him? Or how old he was? All religious epiphanies are going to be similar to some extent, you seem to be comparing the various accounts trying to show that a similarity or common thread implies plausibility for the current version. It doesn’t because although there are similarities the varying accounts are unreasonably different, just like if one of our children told us the same story 5 different ways, with different people there or not there, vastly different messages, telling us they happened at different times, and clearly embellishing the story as time went on, we wouldn’t believe them even if the stories all shared some commonality. Surely no two accounts of the same story will ever be the same, but when they contradict on time, place, nature of visit, who was there, what they said, and what he did afterwards in accordance with that it is not reliable.
Looking outside the words of the accounts themselves, JS’s behavior is even more revealing. Based on what he did in the 1820s and 1830s the the church’s official FV story (supposedly happened in 1820) is, at least in the minds of this disaffector, utterly impossible.
1. How could JS have translated and printed the 1830 edition of the BoM with all the scriptures in it that unambiguously state there is ONE and only one God (not 2 or 3 Gods that are one in purpose, but that HF and JC are the SAME person, same being)? Is it reasonable to think that JS would dictate the entire BoM that way and have it printed, uncorrected, if he knew that HF and JC were two separate and distinct beings?
2. Why did JS join the methodist church with his 1st wife Emma in Harmony Penn. in June of 1828 if God told him to join none of the other churches eight years ago and the BoM was in his possession? Why was Emma even going to another church if she was married to the prophet? Is this behavior that would seem reasonable to someone that had been commanded by God to not join any of them, for they are all an abomination?
3. Why would Joseph Smith pray in 1823 to know “if a Supreme being did exist” (Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Dec. 1834, vol.1, no.3.
http://www.irr.org/MIT/first-vision/1834-35-account.html 4. Keep in mind that this same article (from Messenger and Advocate) clears up the previous “error in the type” that the FV had occurred in 1820, it corrects that date, stating JS prayed in 1823, in his 17th year (age 16), in his bedroom, he saw an angel, not God, etc. That was in the church press, which Joseph Smith closely oversaw and was the editor, in the golden era of Kirtland. Is it reasonable to think that JS would redact correct information and replace it with incorrect information? Moreover, this article was written by Oliver Cowdery, and edited by JS. Is it reasonable to think that Oliver, who had been so close to JS for years, would have a misunderstanding of the first vision in 1834?
4. Even granting that BY said all kinds of crazy stuff, how likely is it that the sole person on earth who has all the keys and revelations from God would have such an incorrect understanding of the origins and authority of the church? Wouldn’t all the years spent with JS, and personal revelation from God, at least mean BY understood when and how the church started? Do you find it reasonable that the second prophet of the church did not have a testimony of the first vision, or even know that it occurred?
I could go on, and on, and on. There is so much more (monogamy was evil, etc). When you really dig deep into this, I don’t think there is a reasonable argument to be made, except one from blind faith. My point isn’t that you should leave the church (I don’t care) my point is that you’re wasting your time if you think glossy apologetic arguments are going to be effective against people who have objectively looked at this stuff and asked hard questions, and acted on the answers regardless of how painful the truth seems. If you’re going to have faith, then do it, have faith, which means believing in something you don’t know, in the absence of proof or evidence. But trying to twist the evidence into a shape that might, kinda, sorta make still believing plausible, and then trying to use that against someone that has already accepted and come to terms with the church not being what it claims, simply won’t work.
Quote:my point is that you’re wasting your time if you think glossy apologetic arguments are going to be effective against people who have objectively looked at this stuff and asked hard questions, and acted on the answers regardless of how painful the truth seems. If you’re going to have faith, then do it, have faith, which means believing in something you don’t know, in the absence of proof or evidence. But trying to twist the evidence into a shape that might, kinda, sorta make still believing plausible, and then trying to use that against someone that has already accepted and come to terms with the church not being what it claims, simply won’t work
Thanks for reposting this, Brian. This is the crux of the issue that I think is at the heart of most problems disaffected folks have with the Church. I know we can talk about stages of faith or about keeping the doctrines that speak to us while discarding those that don’t but the reality is (at least from my point of view) that, as Ahman states, the Church is not what it claims to be. And the more that individuals try to prove that it is, the more that dissaffected people (and I unfortunately am starting to consider myself among that group) feel as if our intelligence is insulted with what Ahman calls “glossy apolgetic answers”. I wrote my first post on this board a couple of days ago titled “why can’t church leaders be more straightforward?”. I think that title about sums up my point in relation to this post. Old paradigms of trusting our leaders to never lead us astray won’t work with the disaffected because by definition they are disaffected…disaffected from leaders, dogma, church authority, whatever. Folks (like me now) want answers.
Could you imagine ever buying a car after only reading the literature of the company whose car you are buying? Not with consumer reports and other websites. And how would you take Ford or whomever telling you they have the best car and you are wrong to read any article from anyone else that may dispute that? Sure, some sites are just plain wrong (just as some anti-mormon sites are) but let us decide for ourselves. Don’t discourage outside reading or study with no place but sites like these to explore our questions. No matter how good this site may be, it is still not official. So we may come to answers here that satisfy us but at the end of the day, they are still just for us. Sounds great in theory, until you walk into the temple recommend interview and then have to decide to stand on principle and lose your recommend, you privilege of attending your child’s wedding, or whatever or keeping it to yourself and having to justify it to yourself by parsing words or otherwise re-defining the questions in a way you know the leaders don’t intend them.
When it comes to what will be the biggest decision we ever make in our lives (no offense to my wife and our wedding
The fact that this site and other sites like it as well as the “anti” sites (postmo, etc) are out there should be a huge red flag that the membership wants and I would say needs and deserves more than they are getting. I think the leaders can ignore this, but they do it at their own peril. I hate to be a nerd and quote Star Wars but, to paraphrase, the more they tighten their grip, the more (members) will slip through their fingers.
I’ll write a lengthy response later when I have some time. But there are two things about this that bother me: 1. The only sources he/she cites are from the Institute of Religious Research, an Evangelical apologist group that IMO has about the same credibility as FARMS. These are not unbiased researchers. A quick review of their website will clearly show they have an agenda.
2. The OP’s claim at the end that he/she doesn’t care what people do with the information. If you don’t care, why spend so much time coming up with a lengthy, passionate thesis including references? That seems disingenuous to me.
First off, for those that aren’t familiar with FacesEast, it is a refuge, a support group for the still-believing spouse of a disaffected member to sort things out with other pro-LDS community members in the same situation. The whole focus is about trying to save marriages, not apologetics per se. FWIW, I think the IRR does a decent job of laying out the historical fact elements in a clear manner. I actually used that site when I was creating my original post about the First Vision over at FacesEast. The rest of the site has a clear agenda, but that’s just how it is.
I would like to keep the discussion focused on the First Vision and the conclusions that we here have made about the information — the reconciliation strategies. Ahman makes a conclusion. One obvious judgment that can be made is that inconsistencies and contradictions mean that whole thing is a lie to deceive people. That is a rational decision.
Are there other possibilities?
Well, there’s my own conclusion, that the vision, or dream, or transcendental experience did occur and did change Joseph’s life, and was an important part of his emerging sense of prophetic mission, much as my own has been for me. Also that the contemporary LDS understanding of it as a dispensational visit is far astray from the meaning Joseph, Emma, Lucy, David (Whitmer), and Oliver understood it to have. diamondback wrote:We focus too much on Smith or Monson and not enough on Christ and Heavenly Father. Our leaders are just men doing the best they can because they care about you. Whether or not they are God’s prophet is not as important as whether or not what they say makes sense. Test it in your own lives. Pray about it. Compare it to other churches and see what we believe to be the best way to worship Heavenly Father.
Very well stated, DB. I think this should be the focus and I wish there was more straight-forward talk like this in the church. I almost feel there is a fear from leadership that this would change the message of the church from “the only true and living church with restoration of truth from God directly” to “this is one good way to find God, among many others”. That would change the message.
Brian Johnston wrote:I would like to keep the discussion focused on the First Vision and the conclusions that we here have made about the information — the reconciliation strategies. Ahman makes a conclusion. One obvious judgment that can be made is that inconsistencies and contradictions mean that whole thing is a lie to deceive people. That is a rational decision.
My question on trying to reconcile these things is how to really know what sources are valid. When I have questions on authenticity and accuracy, I find it difficult to formulate my own reconciliations and theories when it could all be a waste of time because I am uncertain of establishing a correct starting point we can all agree on. Without that, Ahman’s conclusions could be just as valid as any other in my opinion, and so I focus more going forward with what I feel works for me in my life, and don’t try to reconcile history or find accurate facts to debate.
That is not to say I’m not interested in this, and find the discussion interesting…but ultimately I’m not sure there is any way to know one conclusion is any more valid than another.
I posted a reply to this just before the site went down for a few days…and I guess it got lost somewhere 😡 . My response was more geared at the situation with Ahman’s marriage, and I posted my thoughts on FacesEast today. So here I’ll give my 2 cents worth about the first vision.I think Ahman makes some reasonable conclusions. If we were approaching the “truthiness” of the church, and (the reported) Joseph’s claims about the “restoration” as the courts do today, it would fail miserably. But I think many posts above make some great points. The culture and environment around Joseph, and in his time, was vastly different than most of us live in today.
The movie “The Crucible” demonstrates the bizarre way of thinking during the Salem witch hunts (admittedly a slightly different situation, but it demonstrates the point I’m trying to make), and frankly, we don’t know, and I don’t think we can ever really know what happened in Joseph’s day. By physical evidence, his claims fail. Relying on “spiritual witness”to affirm historical events is too subjective, IMHO.
So to me, it comes down to results. Many of my “teachers” have taught me that you can’t really rely on the word, or even the actions of a person to determine truth or intention. Results are the best indicator. One could say that Joseph’s death “seals his testimony,” another says that it is karma for his immoral and deceptive behavior. I don’t need to judge which it is. I’m okay to see that one result of his work is an organization that provides positive community for millions of good people today.
So I don’t feel the need to over-analyze what happened in the early church. I try to live my life with love and service as best as I can today. Surprisingly (or maybe not so), that is mostly a Mormon lifestyle! Imagine that!
😆 My thoughts are similar to what Rix and others have said. When I first learned of the different accounts I wanted to over analyze, pull out everything that was contrary to what I had always pictured, and feel hurt about the whole situation. Time does help to heal somewhat. Maybe I’ve just decided to not be bothered by details of who understood what in any particular way (people close to Joseph clearly did not understand the FV in the terms that the “church” does today). I have come to accept that in reality it’s messy, the glass is dark, but I still enjoy and benefit from my participation in the church – so I remain. It is hard to understand the “messiness” for the first time, but I think it’s a step toward spiritual maturation. Especially when the goal is to side with love, goodness, and truth. I think humility kicks in after one realizes any position to the extreme is difficult to defend.
Best wishes to all who struggle, my heart is with you.
what orson and rix said. Fantastic!! Orson wrote:It is hard to understand the “messiness” for the first time, but I think it’s a step toward spiritual maturation. Especially when the goal is to side with love, goodness, and truth. I think humility kicks in after one realizes any position to the extreme is difficult to defend.
Well said, Orson. I think maturity can be a different outcome for different people, but that is also what I’ve accepted … we each have our own unique path or journey as we work through these opportunities to grow spiritually. Whatever the outcome for each individual, it can be beneficial. IMO, It is worth going through and paying to price, sort of speak, to see the end result of “wrestling with the Lord” on these things, to come out with a personal knowledge or belief on what is beneficial for living today and tomorrow and in the future going forward, regardless with how difficult the past is to understand.Steve-hpias wrote:
1. The only sources he/she cites are from the Institute of Religious Research, an Evangelical apologist group that IMO has about the same credibility as FARMS. These are not unbiased researchers. A quick review of their website will clearly show they have an agenda.2. The OP’s claim at the end that he/she doesn’t care what people do with the information. If you don’t care, why spend so much time coming up with a lengthy, passionate thesis including references? That seems disingenuous to me.
I can’t stand IRR, personally.That being said, I really appreciate that the IRR article included sources (images of the original info being discussed), though they did leave out a little bit, it wasn’t the critical part, IMO. The critical part involving Oliver’s confusion, was right there.
I regret that Ahman didn’t join us. And I’m amazed at the leap of faith in the article referred to by Ahman point # 3. Wow.
HiJolly
What a tough topic. And it is further complicated since so many of us are so emotionally invested in it. I’m not a huge fan of IRR, but they do okay with their facts, even if they generally portray things in a negative light. Quote:If you’re going to have faith, then do it, have faith, which means believing in something you don’t know, in the absence of proof or evidence. But trying to twist the evidence into a shape that might, kinda, sorta make still believing plausible, and then trying to use that against someone that has already accepted and come to terms with the church not being what it claims, simply won’t work.
This is what I feel is important. I think it’s fair to have faith in Joseph’s story. I think it’s fair to have faith that the BoM is historical. That is to say, I don’t think it’s of the same nature as claiming “the earth is flat” as some groups tend to do. The story, especially using all the in-group logic, seems plausible, and coupled with a spiritual witness, I don’t think people unreasonable for choosing to believe. I also don’t think it unreasonable to look at the facts and conclude otherwise. In fact, it’s my personal belief that if the entire membership of the church were openly exposed to all the problems and history, a not insignificant number would leave the church.What really irritates me though is bad apologetics. I think it’s insulting, and it’s used widely in many religious groups. It makes it all very hard to get to the facts, as Heber has pointed out. Although I still enjoy the discussion, and the unearthing of new facts, like Rix, I’m really past the debate altogether. I’m just more interested in enjoying my life and learning from all the good in the world.
Quote:I would like to keep the discussion focused on the First Vision and the conclusions that we here have made about the information — the reconciliation strategies. Ahman makes a conclusion….Are there other possibilities?
For me, my renewed commitment to the Church and its primary claims have come in a round-about fashion. I stumbled across some anti-Mormon stuff on the internet that was so blatantly biased, manipulative, and absolutely left me cold. Although my commitment was shaky, I found myself correcting their errors in-fact, in logic. and in the finer points of civic discourse. The would have nothing of it, and launched into a personal attack on me.
The contrast between their version of reality and the Church’s was the difference between black and white. I know that I sound like TBM saying that, but I am well aware of the warts of the GA’s, BofM, Church history, etc. All that doesn’t particularly matter to me because I simply feel better inside when I live the Mormon lifestyle. It simply works for me. So anomalies in Church History, are just background noise. I compare my life now with what it might have been if I had grown up Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, or whatever. I suspect that I am much more self-controlled, confident, more comfortable in my relationship with deity and with fellow Christians. I love Mormon concepts of Obedience/Free-agency, Pre-existence, Truth, Eternal Progression, Nature of God & Man, that ALL mankind will have the opportunity to accept the Gospel (in this life or the next). No other religion, especially those who believe in the importance of goodness and truth, pretends to believe non-believers will also have a chance to accept God. Either they must worship the “right god” in this life or they are damned for eternity! So as time goes on, I find there is more, not fewer reasons to stay LDS.
BTW, much of Joseph Smiths, foibles have become public recently because the Church is revealing them. Very specifically, the book Rough Stone Rolling is based on the Joseph Smith Papers, which was made possible only with the full uncensored support of the Church. Their goal over 30 volumes, 2 of which are printed, is to publish EVERYTHING said by JS or people who wrote about him. (They will only be publishing these historical documents, with some descriptions giving backgrounds or contexts. But they will not be doing any interpreting, justifying, or anything. Just unvarnished facts.) While that kind of honesty hasn’t made it into the SS manuals, it is available to all who seek it out. While I wish for more upfrontedness from the Church in its manuals, I still think the JS papers is pretty gutsy. No other church is doing anything like it.
dash1730 wrote:For me, my renewed commitment to the Church and its primary claims have come in a round-about fashion. I stumbled across some anti-Mormon stuff on the internet that was so blatantly biased, manipulative, and absolutely left me cold. Although my commitment was shaky, I found myself correcting their errors in-fact, in logic. and in the finer points of civic discourse. The would have nothing of it, and launched into a personal attack on me.
…
So as time goes on, I find there is more, not fewer reasons to stay LDS.
…
While I wish for more upfrontedness from the Church in its manuals, I still think the JS papers is pretty gutsy. No other church is doing anything like it.
What a great post, dash.That really was moving to me and spoke to my spirit. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts that way. I needed to hear that today!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.