NOM

Russell Nelson gets up in GC and says Joseph Smith organized the church in 1830, however, according to the essay on the 4 different accounts of the 'first vision', Smith didn't even tell anyone about it until 1832 which was the only account of him seeing God and Christ, thus, how could the church have been organized 2 years before Smith even saw them?

He had the vision before 1830, but maybe he didn't tell too many people before then. I mean, he did tell his father and a minister, then word spread.

But he still could have organized a church without spreading around the first vision because the religion was based on the Book of Mormon not the vision he had when he was 12-15 years old.

It's not like Professor Tolkien, who had worked out whole Elvish languages before publishing his books.

Random wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 3:30 pm He had the vision before 1830, but maybe he didn't tell too many people before then. I mean, he did tell his father and a minister, then word spread.

But he still could have organized a church without spreading around the first vision because the religion was based on the Book of Mormon not the vision he had when he was 12-15 years old.

Right, Joseph's stories about the First Vision and the persecution around it come from Joseph himself as recalled (or invented) many years later. There was real persecution regarding the gold plates, but it came from the people Joseph and his father had contracted with to find buried treasure. If there really was gold the partners were due a share of it, and they wanted to find out where Joseph was hiding it.

Random wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 3:30 pmHe had the vision before 1830, but maybe he didn't tell too many people before then. I mean, he did tell his father and a minister, then word spread.

While he may have told his father, there is no evidence that he told a minister. There is no historical evidence for any of the "unusual excitement on the subject of religion," or any of the large religious revivals around 1820 that Joseph writes about in his 1838 "history." Those thing happened later than 1820.

Someone smarter than me can probably recall the exact timeline from memory.

The First Vision stuff is a complete mess

1. The evidence of a great excitement isn't apparent until 1824... which is a complete mess for the timeline for Joseph's claims (remember he claims to see Moroni in 1823)

2. Obviously the evolution of his FV accounts show how he changed his account to separate Jesus/God just as he began changing that teaching elsewhere

3. He never told anyone about it, which is because that kind of vision was so common. Even Richard Bushman found dozens of these visions in joseph's area at the time.

I could go on and on, but the most damning thing of all to me is that not only did Joseph Smith present a trinitarian/modlastic view of God in the Book of Mormon, but when he "translated" the Bible he actually went out of his way to *strengthen* the trinity. If he saw God and Jesus, why in the #$%# would he strengthen the trinity when "translating" the Bible.

If you're bored I tried to do an "overview" of all the First Vision stuff @ https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/firstvision-overview

As I recall, Joseph did mention A vision to friends or family. Which was supposedly the visitation of Moroni.

The church has tried to conflate any early recollections of angelic "visions" with the later fabricated First Vision.

I don't believe there are any early recollections from Joseph's aquaintences, friends or family that specifically state that Joseph stated he had a visitation from God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Might be wrong but that's what I recall reading awhile back.

Joseph never told anyone about the First Vision because it never happened until he needed it to bolster his prophetic standing. And then it only happened in his mind.

Palerider wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:52 am As I recall, Joseph did mention A vision. Which was the visitation of Moroni.

This is true but I think this was even retrofitted later on... I can't remember when the first real documentation of this was, but the "revelation"I believe was recorded after a bunch of other ones were. I need to look that up.

Palerider wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:52 am The church has tried to conflate any early recollections of angelic "visions" with the later fabricated First Vision.

I don't believe there are any early recollections from Joseph's aquaintences, friends or family that specifically state that Joseph stated he had a visitation from God the Father and Jesus Christ.

No one mentioned the visitation of Jesus/God before 1835... I am almost positive there is no reference to a first vision by any contemporary source at that time.

And not only does the church conflate "visions of angels" for the First Vision, but the priesthood restoration as well. There's no mention of Peter, James, and John, so they use the "angelic visitations" to backdate it after Joseph changed both the revelation and the teachings.

jfro18 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:38 pm
I could go on and on, but the most damning thing of all to me is that not only did Joseph Smith present a trinitarian/modlastic view of God in the Book of Mormon, but when he "translated" the Bible he actually went out of his way to *strengthen* the trinity. If he saw God and Jesus, why in the #$%# would he strengthen the trinity when "translating" the Bible.

Yep, I almost laughed yesterday when, who was it, Rasband?, stated that Joseph learned about the true character of God from the first vision.

If he had truly learned about the character of God in the first vision he would have known that the BoM doctrine about God was incorrect when he translated it. He would have known that whichever "ancient prophet" had written that was way too trinitarian and likely a false prophet.

Plus he would never have written that ridiculous description of the Godhead in the Lectures on Faith.

Doesn't it make so much more sense to see that the first vision was fabricated well after the BoM was created by Joseph and/or his cronies?

Palerider wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:21 am Yep, I almost laughed yesterday when, who was it, Rasband?, stated that Joseph learned about the true character of God from the first vision.

If he had truly learned about the character of God in the first vision he would have known that the BoM doctrine about God was incorrect when he translated it. He would have known that whichever "ancient prophet" had written that was way too trinitarian and likely a false prophet.

The one I learned about maybe a year ago that I didn't realize was that Joseph Smith literally strengthened the idea of the trinity when translating the Bible.

I mean how the hell do you claim you knew they were separate and then STRENGTHEN the trinity in the Bible translation? Even if you concede the BoM was a translation and maybe Joseph just didn't realize what he was doing (stupid argument, but it's made), you can not get around that one.

Luke 10:22 (King James Bible): “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.”

Luke 10:22 (Joseph Smith Translation): “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.”

I mean... I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:28 am

Palerider wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:21 am Yep, I almost laughed yesterday when, who was it, Rasband?, stated that Joseph learned about the true character of God from the first vision.

If he had truly learned about the character of God in the first vision he would have known that the BoM doctrine about God was incorrect when he translated it. He would have known that whichever "ancient prophet" had written that was way too trinitarian and likely a false prophet.

The one I learned about maybe a year ago that I didn't realize was that Joseph Smith literally strengthened the idea of the trinity when translating the Bible.

I mean how the hell do you claim you knew they were separate and then STRENGTHEN the trinity in the Bible translation? Even if you concede the BoM was a translation and maybe Joseph just didn't realize what he was doing (stupid argument, but it's made), you can not get around that one.

Luke 10:22 (King James Bible): “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.”

Luke 10:22 (Joseph Smith Translation): “All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.”

I mean... I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

I feel certain that there's some LDS "apostle" who could translate Joseph's clarifying re-translation so that you could understand it. Because as we all know, that was Joseph's job; to restore the plain and precious parts of the Gospel.