The first shocker for me was finding out about the rock in the hat "translation" of the BOM.

The nail in the coffin for me was finding out the multiple versions of the first vision. I was always taught that the foundational truth of TSCC rested on the truth of Joe Smith's first vision testimony. If the first vision story is false, the entire foundation of the church crumbles. As TBM, the first vision story brought tears to my eyes and kept the thread of belief secured to TSCC. A vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ would be an experience so profound that the receiver would shout it on the rooftops immediately and remember the details so vividly that the story would not deviate from the factual points that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared. Belief in TSCC crumbled once i found that Ole Joe did not share this story until years later, the story changed several times regarding who appeared and what was said, the original teachings did not include the First Vision, and that Old Joe penned the story only after the Kirtland Bank failure with people leaving TSCC.

I found the LDS.org spin story below:

From LDS.org. "What are the main problems of interpreting so many accounts? The first problem is the interpreter. One person perceives harmony and interconnections while another overstates differences. Think of how you retell a vivid event in your life—marriage, first day on the job, or an automobile accident. A record of all your comments would include short and long versions, along with many bits and pieces. Only by blending these glimpses can an outsider reconstruct what originally happened. The biggest trap is comparing description in one report with silence in another. By assuming that what is not said is not known, some come up with arbitrary theories of an evolution in the Prophet’s story. Yet we often omit parts of an episode because of the chance of the moment, not having time to tell everything, or deliberately stressing only a part of the original event in a particular situation. This means that any First Vision account contains some fraction of the whole experience. Combining all reliable reports will recreate the basics of Joseph Smith’s quest and conversation with the Father and Son."

TSCC spit shines the history like a shiny rock. They insist you only look at the top of the rock because it is so pretty and shiny. They tell you not to pry it up to look at the unseen underside because some truths are not useful. They tell you to believe that the rock is the same top and bottom, but you only need to examine the top of the rock because that is its true face. Those who find the courage to lift up the rock and check its underside find the facts were not as they were told. They find the shiny top rock TSCC story they have been told their entire life and learned to testify of hid the truth of the crusted on dirt, the misshapen surfaces, the slimy creatures living underneath. They find that if they dare tell others the truth of what they found under the rock, they are called liars and are deemed anti-mormons and/or apostates eligile for excommunication.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2013 12:21PM by evergreen.

I think one of the best, quickest although antagonistic questions to ask a TBM is

"Which version of The First Vision do you know is true?"

Follow-up to most any response.

I know if I saw God and a living man/God who died 2,000 years ago, my version would be the same all the time. I think He, I mean They, would have wanted it that way too, don't you?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2013 12:21PM by gentlestrength.

I asked myself one question; "What would the story look like if Joe made it up as he went along?"

Why it would look exactly like it does, of course! Changing the story each time he told it, embellishing and refining it. In the legal world, this is the tip-off that a witness is lying.

That shocked me too. I'd no idea there was any version other than the one that I was taught by the missionaries. I just did a double-take at the screen when I first read that and went, "What?!!"

Then add the KF discourses and the changes to the nature of the son of god in the first edition of the BoM and poof, the hoax is revealed. Anyone who uncovers this and possess an honest intellect must either become a NoM, ex, or an accessory to the fraud.

In the "Lectures on Faith," (School of the prophets) Joseph taught that God was a personage of spirit, and Jesus as a personage of tabernacle. It's footnoted, saying "we have since learned....."

Looking at church history in written chronological order makes it clear he was making it up as he went along.

Yes and why would he say that if he had seen god the father with a physical body?

I can't believe you would look at the underside of the shiny rocks.

TSCC does a good job spinning the truth so the TBMs who hear about the various versions are lulled back into the fold and feel the issues are resolved.

The TSCC doesn't do a good job of spinning the truth! Comparing the evolution of the story with how the story of your marriage, first day on the job, or automobile accident might evolve in the telling! Like when you tell the story of your marriage you can't quite remember who you married, and you've got to suss it out in the retelling? Or when you recount that first day on the job and you can't remember who worked for. And like that accident, did you really get hit by car or was it a train. Ah, I remember it well. . .

And that begs the question, so what if the first vision even were consistent? Why would anyone believe that some farm kids saw God or God or Jesus, or whomever? And if they did, so what? Why does some kids' delusional vision mean other people should be credulous enough to follow it? If I said I saw God and he told me I've got to start the one true church, I'd simply be dismissed as a crank or investigated for schizophrenia, or normal people would assume I'm an L Ron Hubbard-style fraudster (which happens to be the general consensus on JS).

evergreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "The first problem
> is the interpreter.

In other words, YOU are the problem for not going along. Standard LDS defense tactic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2013 01:46PM by Stray Mutt.

The LDS spin really pisses me off. They present the issue as one telling a story at different points in their life and not telling the story exactly the same each time. They then liken it to having "missing" pieces of the story, like in a puzzle. Its not that they are MISSING parts of the story its that they CONTRADICT each other.

They LIE by omission when they say the different accounts "complement" each but fail to point out that the different accounts actually CONTRADICT each other.

And I love how they don't let the reader actually read the different accounts. They paraphrase them and offer their own spin on them. They don't let the reader decide for themselves.

http://www.lds.org/topics/accounts-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

I read a book on Mormons and Masons that did the opposite, to show that the temple and the masons had nothing to do with each other, he listed 100 things from mason ceremonies not seen in the temple, rather than the dozen key things in the temple taken from masonry.

It dumbfounds me how stupid that argument is. It's like if I copy word for word the first 10 pages of a 100 page book written by someone else and then claim I did not plagiarize it because the last 90 pages are not similar.

I believe Occam's razor applies--the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

So we have the multi-paragraphed, convoluted TSCC explanantion of the multiple and conflicting stories Joe Smith told vs. Joseph Smith lied.

Which one would Occam's razor say is right?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/20/2013 02:14PM by evergreen.

Don't forget the word "supernatural", as in God and a dead person talked to a farm boy.

Yeah, it OR applies, but the TBMs just believe!

And by believe they mean they know, not only for themselves, but for everyone including people in Pakistan, just not enough to go there and testify on the walls of a mosque.

Where are our modern day Samuel the Lamanite and Stripling Warriors? If we had those Mormonism would be really entertaining.

Instead we get GBH on Larry King and 60 Minutes doing the "rope-a-dope" and kids hunting down inactives, former Mormons and Christians in California to see if they would like to know about Christ.

Press, press, press. The tree is dead, it is still standing, but just barely, the rot is setting in and the fungus is growing.

Granted, if you’re going to tell (or record in writing) an event in your life, there will be some minor discrepancies over the years, but…..if you have been witness to the most significant manifestation of deity since the fall of Adam, there are few things that would be absolutely, 100% consistent: 1) the reason for your prayer, 2) the number of beings you saw, 3) who visited you (an angel? the “Lord”? the Father and the Son?), 4) the gist of the message you received. Any variation of any of these “facts” in any account certainly calls the entire story into question.

CrispingPin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Granted, if you’re going to tell (or record in
> writing) an event in your life, there will be some
> minor discrepancies over the years, but…..if you
> have been witness to the most significant
> manifestation of deity since the fall of Adam,
> there are few things that would be absolutely,
> 100% consistent: 1) the reason for your prayer, 2)
> the number of beings you saw, 3) who visited you
> (an angel? the “Lord”? the Father and the
> Son?), 4) the gist of the message you received.
> Any variation of any of these “facts” in any
> account certainly calls the entire story into
> question.

Totally agree! I will have to remember these four talking points when dealing with Mormon spin.

Lori

Shortly after I turned 10, the Mormon Church published the following nonsense in its monthly periodical for children, The Friend:

"Translating the ancient and strange looking writing on the gold plates was not a job that just anyone could do. Such an important work needed to be done by someone who was especially prepared by the Lord to do it.

"Because of his spiritual nature and his willingness to learn the truth, Joseph Smith was tested [by God] and found worthy to be the translator of the Book of Mormon. To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates 'a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.'

"Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. The translating was done at Peter Whitmer’s home, a friend of the Prophet’s where Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith (Joseph’s wife), one of the Whitmers, or Martin Harris wrote down the words spoken by the Prophet as soon as they were made known to him.

"Martin Harris said that on the seer stone 'sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by [the one writing them down] and when finished [that person] would say "written"; and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another take its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates.'

"Even with the help of the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone, it wasn’t easy to translate the sacred record. It required the Prophet’s greatest concentration and spiritual strength."

(Ref. http://www.lds.org/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart?lang=eng)

What year was that friend?

As if whoever wrote the article for the Friend knew for a fact most of the information stated so profoundly in this article; just make it sound wonderful and inspirational and make joe or whatever the topic is exceptional. Who told him that translating the scribbles found on them-thare-fools-gold plates "was not a job just anyone could do."

The writer was not quoting Joseph Smith's direct words beamed to him from the heavens. Church writers, the 15 Stooges, mission presidents, stake presidents, etc.etc.etc. do this repeatedly.

The first time I crashed a car I remember it clearly.

The first time I had sex I remember it clearly.

When my children were born I remember it clearly.

When my Mom died I remember it clearly.

C'mon, Mr. Smith Jr., this GOD and JESUS we're talkin' about here! I know I'd remember THAT!! Geez, I wonder what JS would be like under withering cross-examination....

This is the biggest issue for me as well. I remember memorizing the first vision on my mission and telling it in discussions with great emotion. The Church making me a liar, wasting 2 years spreading their lies. It's disgusting. What a scam, the prophet can't remember the important parts of a meeting with god? Weren't prophets taught to keep a record or not for a few years later when you need it most.

If Joseph stated in one version that he saw two personages and one referred to the other as "My Beloved Son", then if in another version he mentions only one personage, that is a lie of omission.