Jesus appearance to Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, Mores said:

Ah, so the Nephites should never have defended themselves because they wanted to believe as they wished.  Got it.

Sorry, I stand corrected - I should have stated Started over differences in doctrine.

 

The Traveler

[Guest Mores]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I wonder how often covenant, law and ordinance (or specific ordinance like sacrifice) is used?

Ordinance: about 100

Covenant: about 400

Law: about 800

Sacrifice: over 300

[Alaris]

I may be echoing what's already been said here (and said more eloquently) ... 

A. Beware of false prophets means there will be true prophets; otherwise the Lord would have said, "Beware of all who claim to be a prophet."

B. As with many answers, the question helps give context: 

Matthew 24:3 ¶ And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

C. And, yes, contextually Jesus is clearly referring to His second coming to the world at large at the end of the world. Did the world end in the 1800s? Given A. above, he will obviously be speaking to and maybe even appearing to his prophets.

Fortunately the Lord also taught us to not lean upon our own understanding and that if we lack wisdom we can but ask God.

The context here is the second coming at the end of the world:

 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

 

 

[Robert Rost]

On 5/21/2019 at 9:25 AM, Mores said:

Joseph did indeed see the Father and the Son in the grove.  Yet he himself cited

As time went on and more revelation was offered to mankind, other witnesses did follow and confirm the claims Joseph made. 

Three witnesses saw the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and the angel who held them, testifying that they were the word of God.
Other witnesses also saw Jesus Christ (and/or other heavenly beings) with Joseph and provided additional witness. 
Many more instances that would take up a lot of time to itemize.

How has God dealt with prophets of old?  He always spoke with them individually at first.  And He provided additional witnesses as time went on.

God only spoke with Noah about the ark.  No one else.
God came to Amos while he was gardening alone.
God came to Samuel as a child while Eli was asleep.
God spoke to Joseph (of Egypt) about Pharaoh's dream.
God spoke to Elijah alone throughout the drought.

I can go on.  The point is that while the basic statement you make is true, you seem to be straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel.  There is nothing wrong with Joseph claiming to have seen God alone.  But at some point, additional witnesses will be provided.  If no witnesses show up, then you're right in making the claim that this could be false.  But in the beginning, a single witness is very common.

It seems you're very willing to make excuses for prophets in the Bible.  But you seem bent on creating artificial barriers for Joseph Smith's credibility.  Double standard.  Why is that?

Corinthians...Hmm.  I thought it was D and C or something.  Forgot it was in the New Testament.

[Just_A_Guy]

34 minutes ago, Robert Rost said:

Corinthians...Hmm.  I thought it was D and C or something.  Forgot it was in the New Testament.

Not quite sure I’m following your logical implications here.  Are you suggesting that Joseph Smith’s testimony of the Book of Mormon is true (because he had witnesses; but his testimony of seeing Jesus (the first time) isn’t because there was no additional witness?  Are you suggesting that Smith was telling the truth *part* of the time, but not *all* of the time?  

Pardon, but you seem to be throwing out semi-random factoids and scriptural passages without tying them into a comprehensive theory or argument here; so it’s hard for me to know what your overall point is.  

[Robert Rost]

On 5/26/2019 at 1:40 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Not quite sure I’m following your logical implications here.  Are you suggesting that Joseph Smith’s testimony of the Book of Mormon is true (because he had witnesses; but his testimony of seeing Jesus (the first time) isn’t because there was no additional witness?  Are you suggesting that Smith was telling the truth *part* of the time, but not *all* of the time?  

Pardon, but you seem to be throwing out semi-random factoids and scriptural passages without tying them into a comprehensive theory or argument here; so it’s hard for me to know what your overall point is.  

I am saying there is no second witness present when Jesus and God appeared to Smith in the woods of New York, therefore if Corinthians says that sacred things are established by a witness of at least two or three people then Smith's claim to have seen Jesus and God by only himself is not supported by scriptural authority in Corinthians, which undermines not only the Book of Mormon, but also tends to paint the Christian religion in a bad light.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Robert Rost

[Robert Rost]

However the next question would be is if Smith's claim is not supported by Corinthians since only Smith was present at the Sacred Grove, then why is everybody receiving a burning in the bosom from God to confirm things which violate scriptural authority like appearances to a single person in the woods.   It's one thing to accept things on faith, giving everyone a burning in the bosom tends to put them at odds with scripture.  Why would God give people a supernatural witness like the burning of the bosom, or why did God not arrange a second witness to be present with Joseph when Jesus and God appeared in the woods?   Seems to me it would have been an easy thing for God to have arranged a second witness to confirm Joseph testimony about Jesus appearing in the Sacred Grove.

[Anddenex]

27 minutes ago, Robert Rost said:

However the next question would be is if Smith's claim is not supported by Corinthians since only Smith was present at the Sacred Grove, then why is everybody receiving a burning in the bosom from God to confirm things which violate scriptural authority like appearances to a single person in the woods.   It's one thing to accept things on faith, giving everyone a burning in the bosom tends to put them at odds with scripture.  Why would God give people a supernatural witness like the burning of the bosom, or why did God not arrange a second witness to be present with Joseph when Jesus and God appeared in the woods?   Seems to me it would have been an easy thing for God to have arranged a second witness to confirm Joseph testimony about Jesus appearing in the Sacred Grove.

Clarification for highlighted portion, that Smith's claim is not supported via a personal interpretation of Corinthians. The resulting statements and questions are pigeon holed by that interpretation.

In that light, what would you consider a second witness then of Joseph Smith's first vision -- Sacred Grove? Keep in mind, no one was there when Jesus showed himself unto Mary. Keep also in mind when Stephen was martyred. We have testimony of what he saw, but no record of anyone saying they saw the same thing. From what I am reading from you I would then have to throw out Stephen's testimony as given by someone else who did not see the same thing.

[Just_A_Guy]

6 minutes ago, Robert Rost said:

I am saying there is no second witness present when Jesus and God appeared to Smith in the woods of New York, therefore if Corinthians says that sacred things are established by a witness of at least two or three people then Smith's claim to have seen Jesus and God by only himself is not supported by scriptural authority in Corinthians, which undermines not only the Book of Mormon, but also tends to paint the Christian religion in a bad light.

 

1 minute ago, Robert Rost said:

However the next question would be is if Smith's claim is not supported by Corinthians since only Smith was present at the Sacred Grove, then why is everybody receiving a burning in the bosom from God to confirm things which violate scriptural authority like appearances to a single person in the woods.   It's one thing to accept things on faith, giving everyone a burning in the bosom tends to put them at odds with scripture.  Why would God give people a supernatural witness like the burning of the bosom, or why did God not arrange a second witness to be present with Joseph when Jesus and God appeared in the woods?   Seems to me it would have been an easy thing for God to have arranged a second witness to confirm Joseph testimony about Jesus appearing in the Sacred Grove.

OK, I think I have a better idea where you’re going.   

For what it’s worth—the First Vision isn’t the only time Smith claimed to have encountered the divine.  For example, in 1832 he and an associate named Sidney Rigdon had a joint vision of Jesus and heaven, that is now recorded as the seventy-sixth section of our Doctrine and Covenants.  If we have *one* attested manifestation of the Savior to a particular individual, are we more willing to believe that individual’s claim to have also received a second, unwitnessed manifestation?

[Guest Mores]

1 hour ago, Robert Rost said:

 Why would God give people a supernatural witness like the burning of the bosom, or why did God not arrange a second witness to be present with Joseph when Jesus and God appeared in the woods?

What do you think these mean?

Quote

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

-- 1John 5:9

Quote

17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

John 8:17-18

 

[Guest Mores]

On 5/21/2019 at 2:16 PM, Traveler said:

Sorry, I stand corrected - I should have stated Started over differences in doctrine.

• Napoleon
• Stalin
• Alexander the Great
• Caesar
• the French Revolution
• The American Revoluion
• The American Civil War
• WWI
• WWII
• Anglo-Indian Wars
• Finnish-Soviet Wars
• Mexican-American war
• French-Indian war
• The Cold War
• The Korean War
• Vietnam
• Lybia
• Russian-Afganistan War/Occupation

I can keep this up all day.

Either you're using an overly broad definition of "doctrine" or you're using an overly small sample size to make your point.

[Robert Rost]

3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Clarification for highlighted portion, that Smith's claim is not supported via a personal interpretation of Corinthians. The resulting statements and questions are pigeon holed by that interpretation.

In that light, what would you consider a second witness then of Joseph Smith's first vision -- Sacred Grove? Keep in mind, no one was there when Jesus showed himself unto Mary. Keep also in mind when Stephen was martyred. We have testimony of what he saw, but no record of anyone saying they saw the same thing. From what I am reading from you I would then have to throw out Stephen's testimony as given by someone else who did not see the same thing.

So essentially what you are reasoning here is two wrongs make a right.  If something violates scriptural authority like Stephen being the only witness of what he saw, and Smith too.  If it only happens once then the witness is invalid.  If two people individually claim to see ON THEIR OWN, with no second witness then it is valid.  Or could this be the reason why Osama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi have gone unpunished by God, if they are in fact fighting for a valid religion, but from our perspective have killed thousands of people in the name of a false religion, but yet have not endured any chastisement from the Almighty.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Robert Rost

[Robert Rost]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

OK, I think I have a better idea where you’re going.   

For what it’s worth—the First Vision isn’t the only time Smith claimed to have encountered the divine.  For example, in 1832 he and an associate named Sidney Rigdon had a joint vision of Jesus and heaven, that is now recorded as the seventy-sixth section of our Doctrine and Covenants.  If we have *one* attested manifestation of the Savior to a particular individual, are we more willing to believe that individual’s claim to have also received a second, unwitnessed manifestation?

My problem is not the Divine manifesting to man.  It's manifesting to man in opposition to Corinthians, ie "two or three witnesses".   And also the Divine manifesting Himself to individuals as a burning in the bosom to authenticate events like Divine Appearance to just one person in the woods with no second witness.  And yet God said in the Bible He is not the author of confusion.

[person0]

4 minutes ago, Robert Rost said:

And yet God said in the Bible He is not the author of confusion.

I would suggest that the reason it is confusing is because other's (not God) who have authored confusion have led you to a stance where it is confusing.

God not being the author of confusion does not mean that the things God does/says will not be confusing to us; it means that any confusion regarding His statements and actions does not originate from Him.  How much sense does it make to look at a snake o a stick and be healed? Hence, we can trust that a manifestation from Him via the Holy Spirit should be adequate to assuage any confusion we may have that is the result of our mortal state, or intentional confusion created by man or devil.  That doesn't mean we will fully understand it, but if we rely on and trust in His guidance, we can cope and trust that eventually we will.

[Just_A_Guy]

39 minutes ago, Robert Rost said:

My problem is not the Divine manifesting to man.  It's manifesting to man in opposition to Corinthians, ie "two or three witnesses".   And also the Divine manifesting Himself to individuals as a burning in the bosom to authenticate events like Divine Appearance to just one person in the woods with no second witness.  And yet God said in the Bible He is not the author of confusion.

So, what do we make of Mary Magdalene and Paul and John, then?  Is the Bible contradicting itself?  If not, why not?

[Robert Rost]

5 hours ago, person0 said:

How much sense does it make to look at a snake o a stick and be healed?

It makes more sense than continually appearing to people in private while doctrine in Corinthians forbids anything less than 2 people to corroborate a Sacred event.  There is no doctrine forbidding looking at a snake to be healed.

[Robert Rost]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So, what do we make of Mary Magdalene and Paul and John, then?  Is the Bible contradicting itself?  If not, why not?

It would appear that the Bible is contradicting itself.  But then why would God make a statement in Corinthians which forbids single person visitations and then violate that time and time again.

[Jane_Doe]

18 minutes ago, Robert Rost said:

It would appear that the Bible is contradicting itself.  But then why would God make a statement in Corinthians which forbids single person visitations and then violate that time and time again.

Logically, we must conclude that the Corinthians passage is not forbidding single person visits, but has another meaning.  

9 hours ago, Robert Rost said:

However the next question would be is if Smith's claim is not supported by Corinthians since only Smith was present at the Sacred Grove, then why is everybody receiving a burning in the bosom from God to confirm things which violate scriptural authority like appearances to a single person in the woods.   It's one thing to accept things on faith, giving everyone a burning in the bosom tends to put them at odds with scripture.  Why would God give people a supernatural witness like the burning of the bosom, or why did God not arrange a second witness to be present with Joseph when Jesus and God appeared in the woods?   Seems to me it would have been an easy thing for God to have arranged a second witness to confirm Joseph testimony about Jesus appearing in the Sacred Grove.

The Holy Ghost's purpose is to witness to each individual.  It's not "work", it's divine purpose and love. 

Also: the Holy Ghost is by far the most important witness any person can have.  If 500 mortals told me something was true, but the Holy Ghost did not witness of it, I would go with the Holy Ghost a million times over.  

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Robert Rost said:

It would appear that the Bible is contradicting itself.  But then why would God make a statement in Corinthians which forbids single person visitations and then violate that time and time again.

I am not aware of any such statement in 1 or 2 Corinthians, or in any other part of the Bible.  Precisely what passage are you thinking of?  Are you sure it says what you think it says?  Are you sure it means what you think it means?

[Guest Mores]

13 hours ago, Robert Rost said:

It would appear that the Bible is contradicting itself.  But then why would God make a statement in Corinthians which forbids single person visitations and then violate that time and time again.

Did you read what I posted?  It's not a contradiction.  You're reading it wrong.  But you're so hell bent on considering Joseph Smith a false prophet that you would rather throw Stephen and the entire Bible under the bus rather than admit that you're making a mistaken assumption.

Instead of asking,"Why does the Bible contradict itself?" try asking,"What am I not understanding that would clarify this?"  It's amazing what a little humility will do in helping one's understanding.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Mores

[Anddenex]

17 hours ago, Robert Rost said:

So essentially what you are reasoning here is two wrongs make a right.  If something violates scriptural authority like Stephen being the only witness of what he saw, and Smith too.  If it only happens once then the witness is invalid.  If two people individually claim to see ON THEIR OWN, with no second witness then it is valid.  Or could this be the reason why Osama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi have gone unpunished by God, if they are in fact fighting for a valid religion, but from our perspective have killed thousands of people in the name of a false religion, but yet have not endured any chastisement from the Almighty.

So essentially what you are reasoning here is two wrongs make a right. 

This would be an incorrect interpretation of what I was inquiring from you. I believe in both Stephen's record and Joseph Smith's record, neither of which violate scripture.

If something violates scriptural authority like Stephen being the only witness of what he saw, and Smith too.  If it only happens once then the witness is invalid.  If two people individually claim to see ON THEIR OWN, with no second witness then it is valid.  Or could this be the reason why Osama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi have gone unpunished by God, if they are in fact fighting for a valid religion, but from our perspective have killed thousands of people in the name of a false religion, but yet have not endured any chastisement from the Almighty.

This appears to be contradicting what you previously said about Joseph Smith. You asked "Why no second witness." I simply asked the same question to you and your given thoughts regarding Stephen who also had no second witness, and what you would consider a second witness for Joseph Smith's claim.

I made no claim of the Bible violating anything. You made the claim that Joseph Smith's vision violates Corinthians. Osama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr Al-Bagdadi have nothing to do with the question I asked you. I pointed out that your pigeon holed interpretation of Corinthians is not accurate and provided scriptural reason for this.

Would you like to try to answer the question again?

Edited May 30, 2019 by Anddenex

[Robert Rost]

5 hours ago, Mores said:

Did you read what I posted?  It's not a contradiction.  You're reading it wrong.  But you're so hell bent on considering Joseph Smith a false prophet that you would rather throw Stephen and the entire Bible under the bus rather than admit that you're making a mistaken assumption.

Instead of asking,"Why does the Bible contradict itself?" try asking,"What am I not understanding that would clarify this?"  It's amazing what a little humility will do in helping one's understanding.

Well then why do so many Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists oppose LDS doctrine as heresy and label it as non-Christian.   Seems to me if LDS doctrine and beliefs are scripturally supported there wouldn't be ANY opposition.   The baptized Christians who oppose it far out number the 11 or 12 million LDS adherents.

[Guest Mores]

2 hours ago, Robert Rost said:

Well then why do so many Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists oppose LDS doctrine as heresy and label it as non-Christian.   Seems to me if LDS doctrine and beliefs are scripturally supported there wouldn't be ANY opposition.   The baptized Christians who oppose it far out number the 11 or 12 million LDS adherents.

You're still not asking: "What am I not understanding?"

Instead, you prefer to ask: "Why does the Bible contradict itself?" before you would question your own lack of knowledge.  And while you still hold that position, any explanation of anything by anyone will be useless.

A little humility goes a long way.

Remember, YOU started this thread about the statement regarding Matt 24.  Then YOU used that to attack our beliefs.  And at the end of the road which YOU set up leads to the conclusion that the Bible contradicts itself -- YOUR words, not ours.

So, anyone listening to you, and you alone, one would conclude that your set of beliefs leads one to believe that the Bible contradicts itself and Stephen never saw the Father and the Son.  Again, YOUR words. YOUR premise.  YOUR conclusion.

But you don't want to step back and see if you might have missed something.  No, you'd prefer to double down on the "absolute truth" that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and conclude that the Bible is messed up, rather than maybe, possibly, admit that you're simply misinterpreting something about how you're reading the Bible.  Tell me how that feels.

And you really want us to believe you're different than those you characterize thusly?

On 5/14/2019 at 3:37 PM, Robert Rost said:

...it troubles that I don't really like what other churches are doing in condemning LDS doctrine.  ...  I also would like to be able to approach LDS doctrine rationally without throwing logic out the window.

But you did.  When you decide to double down ad absurdum, rather than take a moment to re-evaluate your assumptions, you just threw logic out the window.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Mores

[estradling75]

16 minutes ago, Robert Rost said:

Well then why do so many Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists oppose LDS doctrine as heresy and label it as non-Christian.   Seems to me if LDS doctrine and beliefs are scripturally supported there wouldn't be ANY opposition.   The baptized Christians who oppose it far out number the 11 or 12 million LDS adherents.

This is laughably and demonstratively wrong.

If it were true there would not be any other Christian faiths... Catholic oppose Methodists and Baptists, Methodists oppose Catholics and Baptists, Baptists oppose Catholics and Methodists...  Yet everyone of those groups claim scriptural support for their beliefs.

Yet their critics (aka all the other faiths) will tell them they are wrong... that they have the wrong understanding of what the scriptures are saying...

Therefore is clearly repeatedly historically demonstrated that the "Must be Scripturally Supported" argument is really a "You must agree with my interpretation of scripture or you are wrong" argument and that is just a fallacy.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

35 minutes ago, Robert Rost said:

Well then why do so many Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists oppose LDS doctrine as heresy and label it as non-Christian.   Seems to me if LDS doctrine and beliefs are scripturally supported there wouldn't be ANY opposition.   The baptized Christians who oppose it far out number the 11 or 12 million LDS adherents.

You’re flirting with argumentum ad populum here.  And if you’re looking to join whatever Abrahamic religion has the most followers, I believe you need to be taking a stronger look at Islam.

But taking your question at face value, the short answers are:

1) On some issues, many orthodox Christians are frankly advancing arguments based on bad logic or bad scriptural exegesis; and 

2) On other issues:  if the Bible had been clear/unambiguous, there would have been no need for God to reveal Himself to latter-day prophets and form up a church willing to listen to what those prophets had to say.  So, no; not *every* aspect of Gospel doctrine will be found in the Bible alone.

But the simple fact is, as it pertains to the question that originated this particular thread; there is a fundamental contradiction between what your mainline Christian friends have apparently told you about how God can/should reveal Himself to mankind, versus what the New Testament shows He has actually done.  It is a contradiction you acknowledge, but you seem disinterested in resolving it—rather, you take the incoherency of their argument to suggest that the doctrines I follow, are wrong.

That isn’t really my problem.     

Edited May 30, 2019 by Just_A_Guy