NOM

Now from the outset let me be clear that I don't belong to the apologist camp. But throwing Oliver under the bus and saying he got the two stories mixed up seems like a great argument to me. All those parallels then just go to show how familiar Oliver was with the story, he just mixed the two. Also, the fact that the first vision wasn't a big hook for anybody back in that day could explain why it wasn't corrected later on. Now we have successfully punted the issue into the weeds of arguing whether Oliver could really have been such a bungler that he could have messed something like that up. We are then in the familiar territory of skeptics raising their eyebrows and saying "really, you really think that?

This thread just makes me want to go back to eborn books in downtown SLC.

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:03 pm Now from the outset let me be clear that I don't belong to the apologist camp. But throwing Oliver under the bus and saying he got the two stories mixed up seems like a great argument to me. All those parallels then just go to show how familiar Oliver was with the story, he just mixed the two. Also, the fact that the first vision wasn't a big hook for anybody back in that day could explain why it wasn't corrected later on. Now we have successfully punted the issue into the weeds of arguing whether Oliver could really have been such a bungler that he could have messed something like that up. We are then in the familiar territory of skeptics raising their eyebrows and saying "really, you really think that?

Good point!! I could almost buy the apologist argument of a bungling Oliver and he got the stories mixed up ... almost. If it weren't for two facts:

• It is not just Oliver. No one else seems to know about the Grove Vision story that should have known, such as: Lucy Smith, Joseph senior, Joseph's brothers, Emma, any of the witnesses, or the people who persecuted Joseph for telling the Grove Vision story, or people who lived near the family farm..... no one knows. I have seen several attempts by the apologists to take early public accounts of the Gold Plate Vision and twist them to fit the Grove Vision.

• The revivals are essential to get Joseph questioning religion and seeking answers from God, this is what gets the ball rolling in the 1820 Grove Vision and also in Oliver's 1823 Gold Plate Vision testimony. Oliver's Gold Plate Vision dating of the revivals in 1823 actually correctly matches the known historical religious context of 1823-1824. The historical dating of the revivals does NOT match the 1820 First Vision Grove Story. The revival historical dating disconnect is a well known problem for the apologists.

el-asherah wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:51 pm
I assume it is the author's speculation that Oliver was told not to talk (lie) about the Grove Vision? Is there anything backing this up? any journal entry, any diary, any reference anywhere? ... or is there any reference anywhere to the First Vision before 1835? or is this pure unbridled speculation by the author, .... because ... well gosh darn it ... there just has to be a Grove Vision, so lets throw Oliver under the bus.

Yup, that's exactly what it is, just good ol' fashioned apologetics. The trick is to skip right over a problem before you have enough time to think too much about it.

ETA:The book where the Cowdery letters are collected is called The Prophet and the Plates: Oliver Cowdery on the Events of the Restoration, published by Waking Lion Press.

Another interesting comment in these letters is that Cowdery refers to Joseph as "one of the president's of our church," suggesting that it was not yet the one man show that it eventually became.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:23 am Another interesting comment in these letters is that Cowdery refers to Joseph as "one of the president's of our church," suggesting that it was not yet the one man show that it eventually became.

Interesting isn't it! In the early church it was NOT a one man show, Oliver Cowdery was the 2nd president of the church and was also a prophet, seer, and revelator. I don't know if there were more than 2 presidents, anybody know?

Oliver's position was NOT that of a counselor in the 1st presidency. At the time, Joseph Smith also had his counselors in the 1st presidency- Jesse Gause and Sidney Rigdon. So I suppose Oliver Cowdery had counselors in his 2nd presidency? Anybody know?

Oliver had just as much authority to receive revelations and direction for the church as Joseph did. This part of history has been pushed down the memory hole. If Oliver revealed something we now dismiss it, such as the old section D&C 101 "Articles of Marriage".

This was also before the Q12 had even been formed, there was no requirement for the presidents or counselors to be apostles, nor were apostles required to organize and run the church.

Here is another interesting link:

http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/firs ... rized.html

These letters were first printed in 'The Messenger and Advocate in late 1834-early 1835. I'm reading through them and Oliver's flowery writing and the spacing of the letters in several different issues, combined with my bad short term memory, is giving me fits. I think this is a fascinating topic that deserves more light. Thanks for all the contributions so far.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2017 8:33 am These letters were first printed in 'The Messenger and Advocate in late 1834-early 1835. I'm reading through them and Oliver's flowery writing and the spacing of the letters in several different issues, combined with my bad short term memory, is giving me fits. I think this is a fascinating topic that deserves more light. Thanks for all the contributions so far.

Since this thread has been resurrected lately, I've also have been re-reading the Oliver letters. A few more tibits jumped out for me:

• Man can Oliver write, very flowery language!!!! He is very intelligent, and articulate (and wordy), shows an advance education, or was everyone articulate in the 1800s.

• The letters show an extremely in depth knowledge of the Bible and Isaiah. I'm convinced by reading these letters that Oliver could of easily written the BoM, .... oh wait he did write the BoM....

• The missing First Vision, Gold Plate Vision has many of the same attributes as the Grove Vision (beaten to death in this thread)

• The Gold Plate Vision: Oliver does not seem to know the name of the angel

• They were commanded by an angel to be baptized and received the Levical priesthood but he doesn't seem to know that the angel was John The Baptist

• The letters do not seem to talk about the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood, very odd

• The exact Hill Cumorah where the Nephite civilization fell is in upstate New York

• The church published this in 1844 after Oliver was forced out of the church. I find it interesting they were willing to publish the letters of an apostate at the time to promote the church.

Also there is a letter from Joseph Smith, to Oliver, where Joseph wants to make sure certain information is included in the 1834 history see https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letters_ ... er_Cowdery

Joseph wants to make sure that everyone knows he fell into the "vices and follies" of youth, that he regrets and then he adds ". But as the “Articles and Covenants” of this church are plain upon this particular point, I do not deem it important to proceed further. I only add, that I do not, and never have, pretended to be any other than a man, “subject to passion” and liable, without the assisting grace of the Saviour, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk!"

I think he protesth too much!!!

Joseph does not seem to notice or care that the First Vision account is missing from the letters, or is conflated with the Gold Plate Vision. Maybe he never read them? But I find it odd that he doesn't make sure that the First Vision is included in the 1834 history, when supposedly he had written this down in the1832 letter book account.

el-asherah wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:29 am

• The Gold Plate Vision: Oliver does not seem to know the name of the angel

• They were commanded by an angel to be baptized and received the Levical priesthood but he doesn't seem to know that the angel was John The Baptist

Yeah, these are very curious points.

According to the version of Joseph's First Vision account in The Millennial Star in 1842 the angel was named Nephi and he continued to be named Nephi in the official canonized Pearl of Great Price account in 1851, so it seems like a lot of people were confused about who this angel was, including Joseph, his scribes and Brigham Young's correlation committee. I believe there were earlier references to Moroni (I'm not certain about this) but it took a while for everyone to get on board with Moroni as the official answer, kind of like it took Talmage's Jesus the Christ to finally put to bed Brigham's teachings that Adam is our god. Here it is directly from the horse's mouth (1851 PofGP):

Korihor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:11 pm This thread just makes me want to go back to eborn books in downtown SLC.

I saw that bookstore the other day. What's in it?

2bizE wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:02 pm

Korihor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:11 pm This thread just makes me want to go back to eborn books in downtown SLC.

I saw that bookstore the other day. What's in it?

Just go check it out one day. I had wondered about it and I went in a couple weeks ago. Shock and awe. Shock and awe.

I just discovered another historical quote that goes along with this discussion:

“The Scriptures discover not only matters of importance, but of the greatest depth and mysteriousness. There are many wonderful things in the law of God, things we may admire, but are never able to comprehend. Such are the eternal purposes and decrees of God, THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the manner of the operation of the Spirit of God upon the souls of men, which are all things of great weight and moment for us to understand and believe that they are, and yet may be unsearchable to our reason, as to the particular manner of them.” (The Evening And Morning Star, Vol. I, INDEPENDENCE, MO. JULY, 1832. No. 2. page 12)

I believe this was written by W.W. Phelps in July 1832 in Missouri.

• This clearly shows that the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ was being preached from the Mormon pulpits in the early church (consistent with the first version of the BoM). No one is going around saying that is not right.

• Even if Joseph Smith had the First Vision (Grove Vision) with two personages and is not telling anyone about it (common apologist argument), Joseph is not correcting the preaching of widespread false doctrine (the Trinity) within the church, when he supposedly already knows better.

el-asherah wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:35 am

• This clearly shows that the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ was being preached from the Mormon pulpits in the early church (consistent with the first version of the BoM). No one is going around saying that is not right.

This falls in line quite well with the description of the Godhead given in the Lectures on Faith published in 1834-5 and puts the lie to the apologist idea that Joseph didn’t know what was contained within them even though he is listed as author.
If he had learned what the church now claims about the Godhead in the first vision there's no way he would have allowed these things to be taught.

First vision is just a made up revelation of convenience.