An entire article devoted to evading the issue it pretends to resolve.

Anyone who reads this and takes it seriously must be certifiably insane. In the near future an examination of the ward house pews will disclose batshit as the only remains.

?

Yeah, a little context would have been nice.

http://www.ldsliving.com/A-Closer-Look-at-Critiques-of-Joseph-Smith-s-First-Vision/s/92128?utm_source=ldsliving&utm_medium=email


Sorry. Even I can make a mistake. And my pc has not yet become sophisticated enough to read my mind. Maybe next year.

If these devices were really smart they’d know what I’m trying to do.

Computers aren’t smart. But, they are mean-spirited.

I hope you said that out of earshot of your computer...

Probably won't help you though; your phone's gonna rat you out.

I would toss my computer but then how would I access RFM?

Starting with a forgone conclusion in order to lambast foregone conclusions. You gotta love it.

This is just another big ball of "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The ole Mormon favorito.

My favorite tidbit: "More than a century later and in a literary style that masked her weakness in following the historical method, Fawn Brodie wrote that Joseph invented the vision years after he said it happened."

Mormons attacking style rather than substance. Pathetic.

I smell desperation.

One of the GA's (I forget which one) said it was a blessing to have so many versions of the first vision. Something about how inconsistency proved consistency. Of course he didn't say "conflicting accounts of the first vision".

Is it just me, or does the author actually reverse the meaning of "a priori" and "a posteriori" for his apologetic purposes?

'a priori: something that can be known without experience or sense data'

'a posteriori:relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes.'

IOW, Joe Smith said it happened, so it happened vs. Joe Smith said it happened, but criticism, BASED ON HIS INCONSISTENCIES AND OTHER FACTORS, casts doubt on his veracity.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe my morning Lucifer coffee hasn't kicked in, maybe I didn't get up at 5:30 a.m and prayerfully read the BoM with the family so I'm not in the right state of mind. :-)

Joseph’s accounts of his visions definitely came from his posterior.

Written by someone with a book to sell. Priestcraft available at Deseret Book now!

Of course, he never addresses conflicting versions, and assumes "a priori" that Smith actually did tell a Methodist minister in 1820, with no corroborating evidence.

LDS Living is for people for whom The Friend is too challenging.

Just a big lie that has been repeated over and over.

Although the Internet killed journalism, LDSliving was never really that either. Isn’t it more like Mormon Watchtower?