Hemidakota Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 EXCERPT: Backman, who was speaking at BYU's Church History Symposium, indicated that the importance of the First Vision in Mormon thought makes it a target for others to criticize. He told about how an anti-Mormon pamphlet claimed that there was no revival activity in Palmyra, New York where the First Vision took place. The critic's reasoning was that since Joseph said there was a revival in 1820, and since there was no record of a revival until 1823, then Joseph must have made everything up.ARTICLE LINK: MormonTimes - The First Vision and 1820 revivals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) Just because no revival was recorded in 1823 doesn't mean there was no religious furvor in the area. This was the heart of the "burned over district" which is called the Second Great Awakening a period between 1790 and 1840 which covered all of Western New York. It seems more implausable that Smith woudn't have known of such things prior to 1820. The flaw in the anti-Mormon argument is that they are limiting time and geography to prove a point. Edited March 5, 2009 by bytebear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Just because no revival was recorded in 1823 doesn't mean there was no religious fervor in the area. This was the heart of the "burned over district" which is called the Second Great Awakening a period between 1790 and 1840 which covered all of Western New York. It seems more implausible that Smith wouldn't have known of such things prior to 1820. The flaw in the anti-Mormon argument is that they are limiting time and geography to prove a point. Bytebear is so right with this point. Those who dwell on exact dates and happenings are just being sticklers for detail. They are forgetting the overall message.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 The flaw in the anti-Mormon argument is that they are limiting time and geography to prove a point. Of course- that kind of argument is the heart and soul of anti-Mormon arguments: misdirection and misstatement. Thanks for pointing that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Of course- that kind of argument is the heart and soul of anti-Mormon arguments: misdirection and misstatement. Thanks for pointing that out.which is why you only hear this particular argument from anti-Mormons and not from historians. Real historians know better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 which is why you only hear this particular argument from anti-Mormons and not from historians. Real historians know better. Exactly. In fact, I often find the anti-Mormons arguing with 'facts' that are disproved by history and archeology. As time goes on, it seems that the science of archeology is drifting towards validating the Book of Mormon and the Church's claims completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maya Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Sometime i think that Finland has written the history all new... peopel there are so ignorent about te truth. Sometimes it is like: to talk to finnish gaynsayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Sometime i think that Finland has written the history all new... peopel there are so ignorent about te truth. Sometimes it is like: to talk to finnish gaynsayers. Maya all is okay, even if they Finnish last.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted March 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maya Posted March 6, 2009 Report Share Posted March 6, 2009 I am NOT allowed to lauhgh here.. so i try to be very serious...:):roflmbo: I think I did not quite make it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.