- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Wow, I did not know that definition of randy before–definitely learned something today. 😳 Curt, have you read Rough Stone Rolling (more faith promoting) or Insider’s View of Mormon Origins (less faith promoting)? What do you think of their views on the FV? Also, do you think Joseph was acting sincerely or fraudulently when talking about the FV?
sorry, I didn’t know about “randy” either. In fairness, it doesn’t really change my feelings, I guess. 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 I had a great time teaching this in Gospel Doctrine class this year. I listed off the different versions and told everyone about the most recently found (and the oldest) version surfacing in the 1960’s. It was a good (if short) lesson. I told the class I was SO grateful that we have various versions, so that we can learn of it from different viewpoints. I told of the blind gurus and the elephant, how each percieved the elephant differently (like a wall, a fan, a tree trunk, a rope, etc.) and they could understand best when they integrated the various views. It went very well.
HiJolly
I too taught about the various versions of the FV in RS, adopting a Bushman-like stance. I think it was illuminating to talk about what the FV meant to JS rather than what it implies to the church today. swimordie wrote:curt wrote:How is it possible to retain faith in the church given the overwhelming evidence that the FV is a made-up story? I just don’t get it. So I am curious how people still retain their faith in the church if the FV has such an improbable track record?
Using your logic of historicity, how can anyone believe anything ever claimed by any historical spiritual figure? There’s next to zero evidence that ANYTHING in the bible is historically accurate. Including the NT. Or the Quran, or the teachings of buddha or krishna or anyone pre-17th century.
I’ve been watching this thread for a few days and pondering. This site makes me do that!
I think Curt makes good points. I also think when we look at the early church — particularly Joseph’s life — with 21st century lenses, it is very confusing. Bottom line, they just
thoughtdifferently than we do today. Science was in its infancy, dreams were often considered visions from God, and natural events were given meanings quite different than we understand them today. Another (somewhat controversial) issue is how many in “the day” used hallucinogenic plants commonly to elicit spiritual events. Joseph and his family were known to dabble in this arena. And at first glance, it appears to us today as if it was a deceptive thing to do, but then, it was quite accepted. So one point I see is that, like Swim, if we look at trying to confirm the historicity of almost anything in the past — particularly before we had the ability to use science to ascertain evidence of almost anything, it’s futile. Think about it — we have words on pages that were written by a person(s) that is reporting what another said happened to him (and maybe a few more middle men)…then it is the first person’s perception, interpretation, and memory. I certainly wouldn’t want to bet more than my 2 cents on committing to what ACTUALLY happened!
So this is where I am. I’ve read most of the challenges and the apologetic responses of the big events; and when combined with the BoA translating evidence, the issue of polygamy/polyandry, dramatic changes in key doctrines/teachings of the church over the years, etc., I am okay to believe (with an open mind) that perhaps Joseph did make up many things to accomplish his goals, whatever they were.
As did every other religious figure I’ve ever read about.
But he started an organization that has evolved to an influential, supportive, loving institution that aids many people in attaining much hope and faith in themselves and others…and hope for a great life. As the Dalai Lama has said, “if one’s religion brings a person greater love, it is true for them.”
Yes, I foresee continued change in teachings…with more emphasis on becoming Christlike and learning to love and accept your neighbor. How could that be a bad thing?
Rix, That was worded very well, and I totally agree with you. I think my first reaction to some early church history “facts” was a bit of shock it wasn’t “fact” like told to me in my lesson manuals..
😯 After a while, I become a little more able to keep things in perspective, like the claims around the FV.
I think it is kind of like archeologists…they find bones and artifacts and have to piece together the most likely story of what that culture and the people were like based on the pieces that are left to explain it. It doesn’t mean they know exactly what the dinosaurs looked like…just their best guesses.
I often wonder if Joseph were to sit down with us and watch the church’s movie of the first vision, if he would squirm a little and say, “Well, it was kinda like that, but not exactly.”
Quote:I often wonder if Joseph were to sit down with us and watch the church’s movie of the first vision, if he would squirm a little and say, “Well, it was kinda like that, but not exactly.”
Without a doubt he would, and I’m sure this is not the only foundation story that is like that. Simply put, real life is not lived as a narrative. The narratives emerge in the wake of the event. Narratives have themes, but our real life is just lived.
I find it interesting how different people react to the many versions of the FV. For the record, I concluded that JS was sincere and believed that something happened to him. I think the story of this evolved over time and changed in meaning, possibly even details developed over time. I am ok with that. I think that something happened to JS, and that he lived the rest of his life motivated by his belief in these experiences. Now … that doesn’t prove them “true.” It just leads me to believe that JS believed it. I spent a lot of time personally sorting through this issue for myself. I got copies of ALL the versions, even one from a German missionary tract (I was a missionary in Germany, so I can read it just fine). When I read through them all, I saw common themes from some experience. It made me feel better about it, but I acknowledge it was surprising to find that it wasn’t what I learned growing up in the Church. Other people see vast difference instead of similarities. That leads them to a conclusion that it was all made up. I am not passing judgment on that. I completely understand. I find our reaction more interesting than the stories themselves at times.
Well, the idea that a young boy could have questions about religion after reading the Bible and visiting other churches sounds reasonable to me. What exactly happened during the FV, I don’t know for sure, but what I do know is that the gospel he brought forth has given my life meaning and purpose. I also know that if I had a vision of some kind that I thought was from God, I would not have held on to that story through constant abuse, tar and fearthering, seeing my family, friends, and members suffer, if I did not believe it was God. Heck, I did not want to finish my mission in Austria because I thought it was too hard….but I think only a really selfish egotist would make others endure such hell for a made up story. bridget_night wrote:What exactly happened during the FV, I don’t know for sure, but what I do know is that the gospel he brought forth has given my life meaning and purpose.
To me, that is all that matters.
Rix wrote:To me, that is all that matters.
That is my over arching decision too. Even if JS was crazy or a liar, I find his product useful. He wasn’t more crazy than any other prophet, and was probably just as much of a liar. Liar is way too harsh a word though. Prophets have some type of experience (whatever it really comes from) that motivates them to preach. The core experience is one thing. Their interpretations, expressions and meanings they preach are something different.
Take Samuel for example, one of the Old Testament “Ecstatic” prophets. In Samuel 19 is the story of the Prophet Samuel leading a band of “frenzied” prophets. Saul was pursuing David, and his messengers also became “frenzied” when they encountered this band. Saul came in contact with them and was overcome by the spirit of the God, became frenzied, took off his clothes and lay naked all day and night (I imagine writhing in an ecstatic state or else catatonic). From our vantage point as moderns, that is very strange to us. Do we reject several books of the Old Testament because the ecstatic prophets were weird? Yeah, we might make that decision. They were probably crazy, and then lied when they made up details about their visions while in this epileptic-like state of mind. Or maybe that is just how those “prophets” did their work.
It is easier to tolerate, I think, when we separate the core experiences from the interpretations and assigned meanings.
Rix wrote:the gospel he brought forth has given my life meaning and purpose.
To me, that is all that matters
Hmmm, I don’t think anyone on this site has ever disputed the goodness that comes from the church, or the meaning and purpose it can bring forth in all of us. If meaning and purpose is all that matters, then what stops one from accepting
allreligions and philosophies as the truth of God? ‘Cause I can see goodness is every religion. Here, in this thread, we are talking about a visit of God and Christ to a kid in the woods. We are discussing what was said based on various accounts of JS. The first, second, third ect… the circumstances surrounding the accounts, the validity of each statement, and what the differences in each one means. I have found meaning in my life from poetry, literature, movies, acts of humanity, from nature and from God; but that is not what we are talking about. JS is the prophet of a church that we are all struggling to follow. Let’s at least admit to the struggle and the reasons for it. I think the various accounts of the FV is a serious mark of concern for members of the church. JS’s life as a prophet began with a vision, and he wrote it down, then he changed it, then he changed it again, then again, and then again. This was not an idea, open to amendments, it was an event.
Did it happen or not? Did he fight with the Devil or was he just following the typical conversion motif found in so many evangelical moments of spiritual rapture? Was it a light in the sky, and a single voice forgiving him of his sins, or was it a meeting with the Father and the Son, instructing him to restore the gospel, like so many other churches around him were claiming as their task? There are specific plot points here, I think they’re important. Can anyone honestly say they were happy after discovering and reading the original account of the FV? I sure wasn’t. Hence the struggle.
Quote:JS’s life as a prophet began with a vision, and he wrote it down, then he changed it, then he changed it again, then again, and then again. This was not an idea, open to amendments, it was an event.
Hi Spacious. I apprieciate your comments and the way you boil things down. I read this last bit and I stopped and decided that I didn’t feel this way about the first vision anymore. I actually think the FW was the thing that freed Joseph from trusting or “needing” the existing churches to find truth. I actually feel the beginnings of prophethood came with the BofM and if I look at the constructs of my spiritual experience, I feel that my strongest feelings about this church and its message stem from the BofM. I think this is because Christ is the center peice of this work. He is now and always has been. What was given to JS on that day in the woods…..the church has over time brought that to the forefront and used it to convince the world, something that Joseph himself never did. Prostlyting efforts were all about the BofM and I think it become a challenge in this information age to keep our eyes on the proper focus today.
I really appreciate these words in Val’s last post….
Quote:“It is easier to tolerate, I think, when we separate the core experiences from the interpretations and assigned meanings.
…..because I feel that the “assigned meanings” given by the church to streamline its message seems to back fire in a way.
From the time I was young, I felt the FV was truth. I didn’t have a feeling inside or any reason to question it. I didn’t officially pray about the FV until I was in the MTC getting ready for the mish. (Loads of pressure there in the MTC….untended but a little cookie cutter I am sorry to say.) I prayed and actually did receive a burning in the bosom feeling……one of the first and last of its kind for me. At the time, I felt the feeling and waited for the “assigned meaning” to flow out of the experience and fill me with surety. That peice of the puzzle did not happen, so I, being compelled by all the shoulds, filled in the assigned meanings myself. And now that I analyze it, I wonder if even that is cause for concern as I try to understand things in better less air brushed ways — things about Joseph and things about myself. I think what it boils down to is that I trust the truth that I feel inside me. I trust the truth that was there about the FV before I felt compelled to go thru the praying motions. In all my doubting and tormoil, these nuggets of truth have bubbled back up and stayed with me even though there are pocket of fuzziness or misunderstanding or confusion associated with them.
You can count me as one of those who believe in the FV inspite of all the discrepancies but feel to explain that it isn’t one of the strongest most anchoring parts of my testimony. The BofM is. Which is interesting to me because it was the BofM that is was commanded to be the tool to convince the jew and the gentile…..not the FV.
Quote:I also find the differing accounts troubling, but everyone has suggested some reasonable explanations to reconcile them. I also find it troubling that the Book of Mormon has a very trinitarian view of God (such as in Abinidi’s sermon), rather than our current LDS Godhead understanding of three distinct personages.
I see this a little differently. I see that the language in the BofM and Bible are similar. I don’t see “Trinity” when I read them. I think the Trinity is one way to interpret them…..an interpretation that feels honestly like the best efforts of man rather than sound doctrine. Compelling…..but not something that I feel spiritual confirmation with. And so, I can apprieciate it…but I can’t accept it. This doesn’t effect my testimony of scripture because I don’t look to the trinity as the explanation for what I am reading. But I can see how people read it the way that they do.
Quote:If meaning and purpose is all that matters, then what stops one from accepting all religions and philosophies as the truth of God? ‘Cause I can see goodness is every religion.
Isn’t that one of the unique things about Mormonism among all the Christian denominations (except perhaps the UU) – the idea that God is the author of ALL good and that God’s good can be found in ALL religions, not even just Christian ones – that even Muslims and Hidus and Jews and (*GASP*) atheists will be saved and can be exalted? Honestly, I think if I said the exact quote above in just about every Mormon congregation in the world, with my own inflection and presentation manner, I would get almost NO negative response or argument.I think in this case, sm, you are fighting the incorrect detail / interpretation, not the core principle.
Quote:JS is the prophet of a church that we are all struggling to follow.
Just for the record, I am not struggling to remain active and involved and “believing” in the LDS Church. I’ve spent decades pondering and reconciling various issues, and, while the reconciliation isn’t perfect (complete, whole, fully developed), the struggle is over for me. Sometimes it’s hard to believe in the midst of the struggle, but it can end – and end well within the LDS Church.
I have reached a state internally where I simply don’t struggle anymore – at least emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, etc. Now, I simply explore, contemplate and construct. As Poppyseed said in another thread, I’m free
within the organizationfrom the constraints of the organization – largely because I have taken ownership of the constraints and stopped blaming them on the Church. Sure, there still are some constraints in the Church that I want to see disappear, and the LDS Church certainly isn’t perfect yet, but the important constraints aren’t in the Church; they were in me.I came across a nice quote from Pres Hinckley on this topic, again pointing out how important the First Vision is to the doctrine of the church: Quote:Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. It was the parting of the curtain to open this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life.
-Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign Magazine, Nov 1998, 70To me this is interesting that we view it as central to our doctrine, when the church was originally established and grew in its first few years through missionary work without this story of the FV even being known by new converts.
Has the church’s focus on critical doctrinal points changed over the years? It seems to me the “story” evolved into what it is today, it was not critical in the 1830s, and now it is “our entire case”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.