I wish to point out that at no time during this "VISION" did either of the celestial parties identify themself as "God"
According to Joe JR. one of the parties said "this is my son". I have a son and could say the same thing without lying. It was alluded to that this beng was God but the being himself never so stated.
WHAT THINK YOU? YOU READERS ?

From my perspective, you are nit-picking along the same lines as debating what shade of red Rudolph's nose was that fateful Christmas Eve.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From my perspective, you are nit-picking along the
> same lines as debating what shade of red Rudolph's
> nose was that fateful Christmas Eve.


Actually my point was that if it were really God why did he not identify himself. which leads me to question the entire event.
Did it actually happen?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/15/2019 02:28PM by thedesertrat1.

"Hi, I'm God. Who the hell are you?"

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Hi, I'm God. Who the hell are you?"

I am John J.Weatherbeatten Dearforth! That's who!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2019 03:07PM by thedesertrat1.

Would you like some cookies, my son? How about a planet?

>> "Actually my point was that if it were really God why did he not identify himself. which leads me to question the entire event. Did it actually happen?"

This is a very minuscule point regarding the veracity of the first vision. There are many more larger points that show the entire event did not actually happen.

Rudolf's nose was Pantone Red 032 C.

Everyone knows that. End of discussion.

I'm God. Who the hell are you?

A non-color blind reindeer enthusiast?

And the color of your robe is Pantone P 115-1 U (bleached coral)!

God surreptitiously opens Google. . .

Do you have any tokens? Will you give them to me for Pantone colors?

Do you have any money? You can get any Pantone color in the world for money.

God has no tokens. She used all her tokens on Chuck-E-Cheese games.

Well, at least you got your moneys worth out of them. I'm surprised they did get stuck in the slot and cause the machine to short circuit.

God does not apologize for broken video games.

Or broken families.

Hey, don't blame me for what the Mormon church does. I have NOTHING to do with that bunch.

Its about time you gave an honest answer! There's hope for you yet. Maybe you'll get a new planet!

Do you really think I need another planet, you silly ex-Mo?

Planets are for gods, not for silly ex-mo's.

Everyone knows that.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From my perspective, you are nit-picking along the
> same lines as debating what shade of red Rudolph's
> nose was that fateful Christmas Eve.

Sorry, brought up many times before. Could easily have been Satan lying to him - just like the "revelation" to sell copyright to the Book of Mormon in Canada.

Joe was not a truth teller and his stories changed too often.

You can look with spiritual eyes but don't touch it with real hands.

I don't want to go back and read the first vision, but did JS even say the older one was a man ?

Since the Sacred Grove was really Lucy Smith's sacred grove, I'm guessing Lucy showed with and pointing to Smith's brother, Sam, and said, "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased." What was left out was, "Now get off your sorry ass and get back to the farm!"

kathleen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't want to go back and read the first vision,
> but did JS even say the older one was a man ?

I don't know but I think he was a Nephite.

--> "I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

"One of them spake"....

Okay. One of the personages. Not a very clear identification. No formal introduction. No business card. No flashing of a badge. Not even any names. Who's the 'one' who introduced the other one as his son? No indication whatsoever. And the introduction doesn't even include the name of the son. Could it be the son of Gorkeekbiggenxerk? Were they playing with lasers and quantum projection in their garage on Planet Zan and somehow their images got projected into Joe's head on Planet Earth?

The son's favored pronouns were apparently "he/him". And after the first glow-person introduced the second glow-person as "my beloved son" we have to assume that in Joe's hallucination (actually, completely fabricated story), that only the son was speaking everything. So, yeah, nothing definite on even the gender of the first glow-person. Not even favored pronouns are indicated for the first glow-person.

The description of the meeting that took place in the vision/hallucination/fictional tale did not even identify the son person as Jesus or God. At best it's just assumed from context as in, "I went into the woods to pray to God and then two glowing beings appeared to me in a vision."

It would have been funny (and actually more believable) if at the main event in the vision, the first personage had said, "Hi, I'm Ralph and this character here is my son Harold, and we are not the druids you're looking for." But as it turned out, they are only identified as "personages" in the main event and then, afterward, Joe keeps referring to them as "God". Not sure why. They didn't even leave a business card with him.

God's name is too sacred to speak. Even for God.

Whats gods pronoun?

"She," of course, or "her," capitalization optional.

If God appeared to you in your backyard and didn't say He/She was God, would you recognize Him/Her as God?

How would you relate the experience to your family and friends?

The 1st vision was written 18 years later by committee with Orson Pratt for the British mission as part of a pamphlet. I don't think it was intended at the time for folks to take it word for word literally, it wasn't even written by Joe.

Hinkley use to say the church hangs on this vision as recorded in POGP. But obviously Hinkley didn't do his homework or know any of the history of where it came from... Sad really, especially when there's correlation that should be covering for the bretheren. I guess they weren't doing their jobs either.

Too bad there isn't someone, like a prophet, who could talk to God weekly. The prophet could get the story straight and clear up all these conflicting versions.

would be just as accurate as "The First Vision."

Remember, a "vision" is something that happens inside someone's head. That's why it's not called the "First Encounter" or the "First Face-to-Face" or the "First Rendezvous in the Woods" or the "First Meet and Greet".

Even if it happened as described, the fact that it is described as being a "vision" indicates that if any bystander had been in the woods nearby, they wouldn't have seen any glowing lights. They would only have seen Joseph Smith looking like an idiot staring off into space or laying on the ground with his eyes closed or something like that. The chipmunks, squirrels and birds would all be doing their regular stuff. And the bystander would be wondering if the boy in the woods is okay.

So even as officially described in the canonized version, the event never "happened" anywhere but inside Joseph Smith's head. It was a vision. Not a real-world meeting between some "personages" and Joe that could have been seen by anyone else through their physical eyes.

--I think "vision" is the correct word. Dictionary.com defines vision (#3) as:

an experience in which a personage, thing, or event appears vividly or credibly to the mind, although not actually present, often under the influence of a divine or other agency:

As opposed to hallucination (also dictionary.com):

a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.

So the event, as described, was external to the "prophet." LDS would have been better terming JS a "seer," but it's too late for that now. And yes, I don't think anything actually happened in the woods, or his bedroom, or anywhere else either. Pardon me for nit-picking on nomenclature, but, as related, it was a "vision."

Perhaps "apparition" would be the better word

But you make make an interesting point, Wally, in your two posts: The "Personages" did NOT identify themselves as Deity, nor did JS ask for identification or apply Biblical criteria, either. Thus, we can reasonably argue that they were demonic, impersonating Deity?

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> --I think "vision" is the correct word.
> Dictionary.com defines vision (#3) as:
>
> an experience in which a personage, thing, or
> event appears vividly or credibly TO THE MIND,
> ALTHOUGH NOT ACTUALLY PRESENT, often under the
> influence of a divine or other agency:
>
> As opposed to hallucination (also
> dictionary.com):
>
> a sensory experience of SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST OUTSIDE THE MIND, caused by various physical
> and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain
> toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual
> or auditory images.
>
All true. BUT....

Who would be in a position to objectively and conclusively make the determination of which category the "experience" belongs in with regard to any particular instance?

Would we trust a hallucinator to make the distinction? "It was so real and vivid to me. I was sure that it was God speaking to me and telling me to drive the bus off the cliff because the anti-Christ was one of my passengers. I'm still sure of it. Why won't anyone believe me??"

What came of Joseph Smith's "vision"? Answer: Nothing truly indicating any kind of divine instruction or enlightenment.

Although I know the difference between the definitions of a "vision" in a religious context versus a hallucination, I'm saying that there's nothing in the historical record that suggests that "hallucination" would be any less accurate a label than "vision". In both cases, it would have all been in the head ("mind") of the experiencer.

Beyond that, in the case of the "First Vision" there was never any credible effort made by anyone at the time to question Joseph Smith as to the details in order to make a reasonably objective evaluation of his claimed experience. Was it a hallucination? Was it a vision? Which label is more accurate? Joseph Smith says "vision". But a person who had a hallucination could in many cases self-describe their experience as being a vision. No reason really to take their word for it.

Of course, that's all academic...a situation where we suspend disbelief and take Joseph Smith's account as being sincere for the sake of argument. But IMO, the historical record makes it clear that it didn't even happen in Joe's mind (hallucination or vision), but rather was a complete fabrication that came many years later as an attempt to boost the authority and standing of Joseph Smith in the minds of his followers. As the story evolved through several re-tellings, it became more grandiose....culminating in the version that implies that Elohim and Jehovah were personally talking to Joe. (Whereas earlier versions only referred to angels and all versions came many years after the purported date of the incident).

The elements of the story were very similar to standard "vision" stories that many evangelists and preachers of the time would tell when beginning their "ministries". (See Charles Finney, for example.) It was just a way of defusing the whole "you're just some guy, so why should I listen to you?" type of skepticism that they would often be greeted with when attempting to deliver a sermon.

"I'm not just some guy. I was called to the ministry by [fill in blank as desirable, e.g.: angels of the Lord/ By the Lord / By a glowing personage]. I am therefore very special and that's why you should hang on every word I tell you."

Being an earth-shaking claim, I don't think it's wise to overlook any detail.

I really appreciate it when I recieve as good a response as this to one of my"intellectual" posts. I believe that it is important to analyze and even pick apart claims of events that are not substantiated. When I do this I generally do not draw conclusions but allow the readers and commenters to draw their own.
Keep responding. This is how we sort out issues.

Just to put it logically, without delving into anything intellectual:

First of all, when something extraordinary happens to me, I have a strange habit of remembering the exact time, date, event, and persons involved.

Monday, April 6, 2015 7am-9am: listening to a local talk show host. Subject: Changing Your Thoughts. This program is what led me to the rabbit hole and further investigations about the lds Church. I chose the red pill.

I wish that I had realized something years ago that I just recently heard , and it’s my opinion also, that “every time a teenager opens his/her mouth, it’s a lie”. JS was pretty good at lying; problem was he couldn’t keep the stories consistent.

valkyriequeen wrote:

“First of all, when something extraordinary happens to me, I have a strange habit of remembering the exact time, date, event, and persons involved.”

That sounds like a flashbulb memory... extraordinary or traumatic news can make us remember details ... like details of where we were when we heard about 9-11.

On the other hand, eyewitness testimonies aren’t always reliable. When the real person isn’t in the lineup, people tend to pick the person who looks most like him/her. Memories are fallible. The story of Ronald Cotton shows that we would at least need a piece of gods DNA to prove it was him/her in that grove.

God and his son have been on the run for thousands of years now. I don’t think we’ll be catching them any time soon. But based on pure common sense, what’s the likelihood of seeing them floating in a forest ... if I saw two beings, floating by, I’d probably check and see if I’d lost a contact, then head for the doctors office.

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish to point out that at no time during this
> "VISION" did either of the celestial parties
> identify themself as "God"
> According to Joe JR. one of the parties said
> "this is my son". I have a son and could say the
> same thing without lying. It was alluded to that
> this beng was God but the being himself never so
> stated.
> WHAT THINK YOU? YOU READERS ?

In the earliest First Vision account from 1832--and the only one that survives in his handwriting (the others are all dictations or copies)--only one person appears and says, "...behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world...." The second version of 1835 says two persons appeared in succession (the first doesn't speak), does not identify either, and says the second "testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God...."

It isn't until the third version of 1838, which the church now considers the "official" story, that Joseph says there were two people and one of them said, "This is my beloved Son, Hear him."

So, all iterations of this story are short on self-verification attributed to the phantoms.

After seeing several depictions of the First Vision, I surmise that the one who spoke was Kenny Rogers (pre-plastic surgery).

Chicken N. Backpacks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After seeing several depictions of the First
> Vision, I surmise that the one who spoke was Kenny
> Rogers (pre-plastic surgery).

Kris Kristofferson? (Bearded version)