"Second coming"?

[KristofferUmfrey]

Um, not really. So from what I understand you're trying to say ... "I don't care if he contradicted himself, he's still right!!" ... Please elaborate/correct me.

Yes, you are correct... I don't care. I know that God appeared to Him, which account is right and which is embellished for the audience he was directing it to doesn't make me lose any sleep.

[Aesa]

Even the 4 Gospels disagree as to timing and events, and none of the 4 are comprehensive, and they all use different language and wording. In my estimation, that doesn't mean any of the epistles are fasle, or as a better comparison here, that all the books of the Bible are all false together because the 4 gospels are not in complete harmony.

This is actually not the case, at least not to any decent extent, if you really look into it they show amazing harmony.

[Hemidakota]

If we dig hard enough through the Vactican vaults, we may find the other missing 8 accounts. :)

[Kirajo]

Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla BLA.

[Elrond]

Christs second coming has nothing to do with visions seen by people after his resurrection or ascencion. It means when he comes in glory with the armies of heaven. Scripture makes a very clear distinction. Jesus can appear to as many as he will and even appear physically, but until he comes in the full glory and power as described in Revelation his second coming hasn't happened yet.

[Aesa]

If we dig hard enough through the Vactican vaults, we may find the other missing 8 accounts. :)

Well, if they lived long enough to write them.

And it's almost certain that the Vatican doesn't have them, they would have no need to hide something like that becuase they could use it to authenticate their "church".

[Hemidakota]

Are you really sure?

[Aesa]

Ofcourse I am sure.

What basis do you have for even saying the catholic church was the first church to begin with, and then even further that they hold other ancient biblical documents that none know about?

[Wingnut]

Chill out. Hemi was being facetious.

[Traveler]

Ofcourse I am sure.

What basis do you have for even saying the catholic church was the first church to begin with, and then even further that they hold other ancient biblical documents that none know about?

One interesting fact that more Christians should be aware of is that when Communism fell apart in Russia - among the religious treasures documented and turned back to the Eastern Orthodox Church were New Testament documents that dated back to the 1st century.

I was personally involved with some of my Orthodox friends to get these documents available to all Christians. As it turns out no documentation was released - not even a list of what scripture texts were involved. Many of us feel that these documents would be as or more important than the Dead Sea Scrolls. I would also point out the Catholic Church made attempts to keep 50 of the Dead Sea Scrolls from becoming public but an accident ended up getting all 50 missing documents sold on microfiche in 1993 that got the documents published.

History indicates that traditional Christians have not been straight forward in disclosing the manuscripts that were available - and valuable documents that were genuine like the Book of Enoch and the Testaments of the Patriarchs claimed that they were medieval counterfeits. Which because of the Dead Sea Scrolls we now know was absolutely not ture.

The Traveler

[Heavenguard]

Two few points I'd like to bring up:

The book of Mormon teaches that Jesus did indeed appear in the flesh - and not just in a vision - post-ascension: he appeared among the Nephites in America. I have no sort of conclusion to this matter, I just wanted to point it out, since nobody else had.

Next, the differences in the gospels can't be compared to the differences in Joseph Smith's accounts, as four different people wrote the gospels, and Joseph Smith is the single source of his accounts.

If four people were to tell exactly the same story four times, the logical conclusion is that they collaborated together to concoct (or at least "iron out the details of") the story. This is an understanding that police and investigators use to catch falsehoods in alibis. Conversely, I would have to agree that the differences between the appearances of an angel, Jesus, and Jesus and God are very major points of differences. It's not quite the difference of 'there were three guys sitting at the table across from me' and 'actually, there were four'. Its the difference between 'a heavenly host' and 'the Creator of the universe'.

[Hemidakota]

Chill out. Hemi was being facetious.

U da man! Yes I was...however, the church does have and holds many scrolls. What importunacy are they today? We will never know. :) Though, it really doesn't matter.

[Hemidakota]

Two few points I'd like to bring up:

The book of Mormon teaches that Jesus did indeed appear in the flesh - and not just in a vision - post-ascension: he appeared among the Nephites in America. I have no sort of conclusion to this matter, I just wanted to point it out, since nobody else had.

Next, the differences in the gospels can't be compared to the differences in Joseph Smith's accounts, as four different people wrote the gospels, and Joseph Smith is the single source of his accounts.

If four people were to tell exactly the same story four times, the logical conclusion is that they collaborated together to concoct (or at least "iron out the details of") the story. This is an understanding that police and investigators use to catch falsehoods in alibis. Conversely, I would have to agree that the differences between the appearances of an angel, Jesus, and Jesus and God are very major points of differences. It's not quite the difference of 'there were three guys sitting at the table across from me' and 'actually, there were four'. Its the difference between 'a heavenly host' and 'the Creator of the universe'.

Same goes to the argument of Job, is he real or fictional character? A few BYU professors beat this to 'pulp' but my reply was, if the Lord mentioned it in the D&C, then he was real. Now that there has been latter discovery of various OT and NT texts from different location, comparison to what is canonized can be made. :) Accuracy? Without the aid of a Seer, then we are still at the mercy of someone interrupting the manuscripts. Noting that Joseph was a Seer, if anything was not right, he would have mentioned it to be fraudulent. However, he never did but corrected the clergy earlier mistakes Somthing to think about...

[KristofferUmfrey]

Same goes to the argument of Job, is he real or fictional character? A few BYU professors beat this to 'pulp' but my reply was, if the Lord mentioned it in the D&C, then he was real. Now that there has been latter discovery of various OT and NT texts from different location, comparison to what is canonized can be made. :) Accuracy? Without the aid of a Seer, then we are still at the mercy of someone interrupting the manuscripts. Noting that Joseph was a Seer, if anything was not right, he would have mentioned it to be fraudulent. However, he never did but corrected the clergy earlier mistakes Somthing to think about...

Actually Joseph was not a Seer as the angel had taken the Urim & Thummim and he gave the Seer Stone away saying he didn't need it anymore. There has not been a Seer since that day. Prophets and Revelators, yes, a Seer, no.

Where does Bro. Kris come up with this crazy stuff?...

"72 Now Ammon saith unto him, I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records: for he hath wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date: and it is a gift from God.

73 And the things are called interpreters; and no man can look in them, except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he had not ought, and he should perish.

74 And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer."

[Mosiah 5 (1990 Temple Lot Edition)]

[Aesa]

But, still in the end, obviously Joseph told people of all his vision accounts.

No one mistakes "Jesus and God" for "many angels," nobody is that stupid.

[Hemidakota]

Are you referring too the FIRST VISION Aesa?

[Aesa]

I'm reffering to all the different accounts of the first vision, yes.

This, as far as I'm aware, isn't just a discussion of the canonised 1838 edition.

[Hemidakota]

I only know the canonized version which is published by the church. What he saw, was two beings. What he felt was the evil presence of an evil force. What he was told, he could write of which is given but what other things he did see, he was not allow to write.

Those two beings, were not angels but GOD the FATHER and Jesus the Christ.

[Aesa]

Okay, then, lets take a look for the second time in this thread. :)

The earliest extant account of the First Vision was handwritten by Joseph Smith in 1832, but it was not published until 1965.

[T]he Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in <the> attitude of calling upon the Lord <in the 16th year of my age> a pillar of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life <behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned aside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them according to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father . . . ."

Source: Smith, Joseph, Jr. (1832), "History of the Life of Joseph Smith", in Jessee, Dean C, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, ISBN 1-57345-787-6, History of the Life of Joseph Smith - Wikisource

On November 9, 1835, Smith recorded an account of the First Vision in his diary that mentioned a vision of two unidentified personages and "many angels" when he was "about 14 years old." Jesus is identified as the Son of God, but neither "personage" is identified with Him. Smith also noted that he had another vision in his bedroom when he was 17. Unlike previous and subsequent accounts, there is no mention of all churches being condemned as corrupt.

Source: One Two

These are just some of the non-canonised 1838 editions.

Grant Palmer has noted that Joseph Smith had a clear motive for changing his story in 1838, a period of crisis within the Latter Day Saint Movement. At the time there was open dissent against Smith's leadership. A quarter of the original Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and some 300 members—perhaps fifteen percent of the total membership—had left the church. Palmer argues that Smith "fearing the unraveling of the church," wrote a new "more impressive version of his epiphany" in which Smith claimed that his original call had come from God the Father and Jesus Christ rather than from an angel.

Source: Palmer, 248-252. Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were excommunicated on April 12-13, 1838. The following week Smith contemplated rewriting his history. On April 26, he renamed the church. The next day he "started dictating a new first vision narrative." (248)

Edited December 5, 2008 by Aesa

[Hemidakota]

Did you retrieve that from anti-mormon site? Here is usual help for resource:

First Vision accounts - FAIRMormon

[Aesa]

Did you retrieve that from anti-mormon site? Here is usual help for resource:

First Vision accounts - FAIRMormon

I personally don't trust fairwiki because so many things can easily be refuted from it.

The apologetics is generally weak.

[Hemidakota]

Usually I don't post anything from a Wiki but the amount of effort and work that went into this one in refruting many of the antis was amazing. However, I have over 11,000 electronic books, 20,000 plus articles, and so forth, utilizing infobase search spider to query phrases. They are accurate on this one.

Those who know me here would testify, I against the Gospel of Wiki...

[Aesa]

Hmmm, not really, a lot of the first vision content I've read so far is a real stretch.

[Hemidakota]

How would you disapprove it? Or how would you prove it? If GOD allows you the same respect as a prophet, would then believe it?

[Moksha]

Did you retrieve that from anti-mormon site?

I think Church Historian Leonard Arrington let the earlier accounts come to life when he opened the Church archives up for study. As FAIR would be the first to point out, not all history is valuable unless it is faith promoting.