"Second coming"?

[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]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

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.

[Hemidakota]

True but you should know, how many rewrites Joseph made prior to a final version.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Hemidakota

True but you should know, how many rewrites Joseph made prior to a final version.

Absolutely no clue. However, I have seen pictures of a quilt with nine versions of the First Vision quilted on it.

[Justice]

Originally Posted by Aesa

I personally don't trust fairwiki because so many things can easily be refuted from it.
The apologetics is generally weak.

Interesting that you would trust the site you quoted from, but not one dedicated to the rebuttal toward the very sites you quote from. I'm not saying you should trust either, I'm just saying it's interesting you can trust one and not the other.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Originally Posted by Aesa

Seeing God the Father and God the Son, is a much bigger deal than going on a road trip.

I'd agree with you on your points if it weren't the major details that differ, as far as I can tell. You have the one where many angels (alone) appeared, etc,.

Tell you what if Jesus Christ visited me, I'd be out on the streets preaching Jesus Christ everyday. And I'd probably write about it the second I had the chance.

I'm sure you're aware that the 1838 account is the canonised one.

1832 Account:
[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

1835 Account to Joshua the Jewish Minister:
“being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right, in matters that involve eternal consequ[e]nces; being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and bow[e]d down before the Lord … I called upon the Lord for the first time, in the place above stated or in other words I made a fruitless attempt to p[r]ay … I called on the Lord in mightly prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me, and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; <and I saw many angels in this vision> I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed …”
Source: Joseph Smith Diary, Nov. 9, 1835 as found in Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled by Dean C. Jessee, pp. 75-77; also in An American Prophet’s Record, p. 51.

William Smith:
Gave an account, of what he knew from his brother.
[A] light appeared in the heavens, and descended until it rested upon the trees where he was. It appeared like fire. But to his great astonishment, did not burn the trees. An angel then appeared to him and conversed with him upon many things. He told him that none of the sects were right; but that if he was faithful in keeping the commandments he should receive, the true way should be made known to him; that his sins were forgiven, etc.
Source: Smith, William (1883), William Smith on Mormonism: A True Account of the Origin of the Book of Mormon, Lamoni, Iowa: RLDS Church, Smith History Vault: 1883 William B. Smith book .

Aesa,

Let us use your logic here and say "yes, there is conflict with the differing First Version accounts", and thus, because of these differing accounts, Joseph Smith is in error and the LDS Faith is inconcistent on which account is true.

Therefore, putting this same logical argument that you are employing, let us test it out on your own belief regarding the Canon of Scripture regarding the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) and then the Gospel of John concerning the Resurrection Account.

Matthew 28:1-20

According to Matthew 28 we have the following information:

1) Mary Magdelene and the Other Mary come visit the tomb of the Savior.
2) Angel of the Lord moved the stone that blocked the Tomb as the Angel of the Lord descended. The language of this in verse 2 gives the understanding that the appearance of the Angel of the Lord and the two women is present tense, hence the earthquake occurred while the Women had come to the tomb.
3) Angel of the Lord sits upon the stone that had rolled away from the opening of the tomb.
4) Due to the fear of the Angel of the Lords descension and presence, the keepers were struck dead. Possibility due to the earthquake, possibly due to the presence of the Angel of the Lord.

According to Mark 16:1-20 we have a different account of the Resurrection:

1) Unlike Matthew, Mark relates that not only was Mary Magdelene present but says the other Mary, the mother of James and Salome had brought sweet spices.
2) Mark relates a conversation amongst them about who will roll the stone away. Also, Mark relates their purpose in coming to the tomb, to anoint the body of Christ.
3) Mark doesn't mention an earthquake but mentions that the stone was "already rolled away" from the opening.
4) Mark does not mention the keepers being struck dead, nor the mention of an Angel of the Lord having descended, sitting upon the rolled away stone; but Mark does mention that the three women enter into the tomb itself and sees a young man sitting on the right side.
5) Mark stops at verse 8. Actually, Earlier manuscripts have the Gospel of Mark end at verse 9. Later manuscripts of Mark that have been discovered show what is known as the "Long Ending of the Gospel of Mark".

"In the first few centuries of the church's existence there was some awareness of the textual problem of Mark's ending. The writing known as Quaestiones ad Marinum, attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260-340) and a letter of Jerome (ca 345 - 420) written to a certain Hedibia contain evidence of early church scholars wrestling with discrepancies in the manuscript tradition of Mark. Both of these writers attest that the Long Ending (16:9-20) was absent from almost all Greek Manuscripts known to them." {The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel, p. 19 - N. Clayton Croy - Abingdon Press, 2003}

In the Appendix, Clayton lays out the nature of the Textual Variants of the Gospel of Mark:

The Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8 within the following manuscripts: Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and manuscript 304 (11th Century), and certain Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Gregorian manuscripts. ... No further ending was known to Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Most Greek manuscripts known to Eusebius and Jerome had nothing further. (The Mutilation of Mark's Gospel, Appendix B - pp. 178-9}

Thus, with this information, we notice that in Mark 16:9, the Resurrection account is different than that in Mark 16:1-8 where it says that Jesus appeared to only Mary Magdelen whom he had cast devils out of, requesting her to go unto his disciples.

The Long Ending of Mark continues with how he appeared to two men on the road to Damascus and they knew him not.

Also, the Long Ending of Mark says that while the Disciples sat in a room and ate, Christ appeared to them, whereas in Matthew, it is stated that the eleven had retreated to a mountain where they were previously instructed to go and Christ appeared to them there (Matthew 28:16-18).

According to The Gospel of Luke, we find this resurrection account:

Luke not only differs from Matthew, but also Mark.

1) Luke does not record specific names of those who came to the tomb of Christ, but states "They" and "certain others", from the beginning, but mentions them by name later.
2) They stepped into the tomb (much like Mark), but instead of finding a young man sitting on the right side, Luke records: And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabut, behold TWO MEN stood by them in shining raiments.
3) Luke names those who arrived at the tomb by name: Mary Magdalene, Joanna (neither mentioned in Matthew and Mark's account) and Mary and the mother of James. Luke also mentions "other women that were with them". All these ladies came to the eleven. Luke then, further explains that Peter ran to the tomb, not believing the women to see for himself.

Luke further develops the account stating that the women had related visions of angels.

Luke also records that Christ appeared in the midst of the Eleven who were gathered, along with those ladies who had come to relate the experience.

The Resurrection account according to the Gospel of John:

John differs than those of the Synoptic Gospels:

John, unlike the other three gospels, state that it was "still dark" in the early morning. John also records that only Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, and that upon seeing the stone rolled away ran to Simon Peter, the other disciple whom Christ loved. Upon hearing this, John relates that Peter runs to the tomb along with the other disciple whom Christ loved, this unnamed disciple of Christ outrunning Peter and coming to the tomb was the one who stooped down to look inside the tomb, but not entering. Unlike Luke where Luke said it was Peter who stooped down and looked into the tomb.

Joh also relates that Peter and this other disciple left bewildered, only Mary Magdalene remaining outside of the Tomb. Then, Mary is said to have stooped in and looked and saw two angels, one sitting at the foot where Christ laid and the other at the head of where Christ laid.

John also states that Mary turned from them after questioning them of where Christ's body was removed to, she turns to find Christ standing behind her, but not recognizing him and mistaken him for the gardener.

So, Aesa, if the first vision accounts, according to your line of reasoning and logic, are false, then so also is the resurrection accounts of the Synoptics and the Gospel of John. Why that is is because of your own argument that stipulates that if the differing versions don't agree, then they are in conflict. Thus, these accounts of Christs resurrection are in conflict amongst each other and even amongst themselves - referring to the Gospel of Mark.

Further, if the implication of your own logical reasoning is conclusive and evidentiary reasoning, then that not only means the resurrection accounts are in conflict amongs the gopels, that therefore concluding that these gospels are false according to your own reasoning, then the entire gospels themselves are in question and thus, the whole of Holy Writ is false because, after all, God is not a God of confusion.

So, how would you reconcile the Synoptic Accounts and the Gospel of John concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Once you answer this question, then you have answered your own argument regarding the differing first vision accounts of Joseph Smith, and in so doing, disprove your own argument and line of thinking.

Timothy

[Aesa]

Once you answer this question, then you have answered your own argument regarding the differing first vision accounts of Joseph Smith, and in so doing, disprove your own argument and line of thinking.

That is absolutely incorrect, let me start by reminding you that Joseph Smith was one person -- and since the Gospels appear not to have been "copied off" each other, the differences and so called contradictions on further investigation don't exist and fit fairly well.

If the gospels were completely identical in the ways which they describe the events, then people would have questioned them and realised that people had conspired to put them together.
Now you could turn that around to Joseph Smith, but you see, the problem is it was Joseph and Joseph alone who was responsible for his grove testimony -- and he writes it many different ways.

Here's an interesting quote:

Blomberg acknowledged that there are numerous points at which the gospels appear to disagree. "These range all the way from very minor variations in wording to the most famous apparent contradictions," he said.
"My own conviction is, once you all for the elements I've talked about earlier -- of paraphrase, of abridgement, of explanatory additions, of selection, omission -- the gospels are extremely consistent with each other by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it's fair to judge them
The Case for Christ, pg. 57

Now, you could ofcourse say "well then I'll apply that to Joseph and say he abridged, ommited, paraphrased, and so forth. The problem is the major details disagree.

If the gospels were too consistent on the smaller less important details, that would invalidate them. As I've said, and I think you really have no choice but to agree if we're being honest -- "many angels" and "jesus and god" and a changing message are not little details. Things that might be considered little details: the time of the day, who he told, etc,.

All those little details you've picked out, most biblical scholars would agree -- really are not contradictions at all. The reasno why they can vouch for this is because most if not all of them understand the gospels in the original language very well.

Whereis with Mormonism originals it's all english, so we need not delve further.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Originally Posted by Aesa

That is absolutely incorrect, let me start by reminding you that Joseph Smith was one person -- and since the Gospels appear not to have been "copied off" each other, the differences and so called contradictions on further investigation don't exist and fit fairly well.

Actually, it is not absolutely incorrect. Let me clarify.

Mark says an Angel is sitting on the rolled away stone, keepers are dead and only two women are present.

Luke states that three women are present, no earthquake and one man sitting inside the tomb.

Mark has two versions within itself. The Long Ending of Mark is very well-known among conservative and liberal Biblical Scholars. Bruce Metzger being the foremost authority on the New Testament, especially since he was one of the main proponents of the Greek New Testament and the Textual Variants to the Greek New Testament.

So, unlike your generalized statement from your response (and yes, I have and am familiar with the Case for Christ), the issue that most critics bring up is the different personages that appear to Joseph Smith.

If this is an argument against the Prophet and his account, then the similar argument has to be imposed upon the nature of the accounts because they two have differing personages who appear to them.

So, again, unless you are willing to conclude that there is conflict and logically decree that the gospels are in error with their account, you have no logical reasoning to do the same with the first vision accounts

If the gospels were completely identical in the ways which they describe the events, then people would have questioned them and realised that people had conspired to put them together.
Now you could turn that around to Joseph Smith, but you see, the problem is it was Joseph and Joseph alone who was responsible for his grove testimony -- and he writes it many different ways.

Here's an interesting quote:
Now, you could ofcourse say "well then I'll apply that to Joseph and say he abridged, ommited, paraphrased, and so forth. The problem is the major details disagree.

If the gospels were too consistent on the smaller less important details, that would invalidate them. As I've said, and I think you really have no choice but to agree if we're being honest -- "many angels" and "jesus and god" and a changing message are not little details. Things that might be considered little details: the time of the day, who he told, etc,.

All those little details you've picked out, most biblical scholars would agree -- really are not contradictions at all. The reasno why they can vouch for this is because most if not all of them understand the gospels in the original language very well.

Whereis with Mormonism originals it's all english, so we need not delve further.

I agree, there is harmony within the Gospels themselves (except for the Long Ending of Mark, which is clearly admitted by conservative and liberal Biblical Scholars as to the Long Ending appearing much later in the textual variants of the differing texts of the Gospel of Mark).

Still, your conclusion is based on an inerrant assumption that the gospels were written in different languages. This assumption is false and historically disproven because the Gospel of Mark, much like that of the majority of the new testament, were written in Greek and then translated into various languages because in First Century Christianity and Roman History, the major language was that of Greek and Aramaic, Greek being spoken of all people, Aramaic and Hebrew spoken of those of the Jews.

So, again, your assumption is off and illogical, historically inaccurate and weak.