"Second coming"?

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

By the way, which part is absolutely incorrect? And if so, what scholarly sources are you willing to cite? Do you take the word of one book? or have you truly studied out the resurrection accounts on your own and drawn your own conclusions?

[Aesa]

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.

You're still not getting it -- Joseph Smith was one person, we're talking about multiple accounts written by different people.

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.

So that's a pretty simple conclusion really, Luke arrived later.

Ofcourse I've studied them on my own -- but what's the point of a young person citing their own independent research? It'll instantly be dismissed.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Actually, you are not getting it. The point is Matthew is one person, the Gospel of Mark is disputed among Biblical scholars as to the attribution of the Gospel being attributed to Mark, Luke states at the beginning of his gospel that he has taken his gospel from various accounts themselves.

And, are you positively sure that all the accounts are from Joseph Smith and not attributed to him, but written by others?

You made the statement, please provide actual substantiation for your statement regarding all accounts being in Joseph Smith's own hand.

[Aesa]

They're not all his, but at least two come from his diaries -- and they both differ highly.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Originally Posted by Aesa

I wanted to make a topic of discussion about the Second coming of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is not supposed to return until the world ends, so if he returned to Joseph Smith the world should have ended ... since he returned. This is in the scriptures.

So, how do mormons reconcile this?

Where do you get "the end of the world" from anyways?
What do you mean by the phrase?

The Bible teaches the earth will be renewed and be inhabited throughout all eternity.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

So, then, not all of the First Vision accounts were written by Joseph Smith, as you have earlier stated.

[pam]

Actually Aesa I'm still very confused about something. I asked this of you in another thread but I never did see an answer. Your profile states you are an atheist. But yet in this and other threads you mention God etc. Do you believe in God or are you an atheist? It would answer to me how serious you are in getting the answers to the questions you are asking.

[Aesa]

Oh my, I'm sorry I didn't actually know that my profile says that.

So, then, not all of the First Vision accounts were written by Joseph Smith, as you have earlier stated.

But two which contradict, both came from his own diaries.

[qoute]Where do you get "the end of the world" from anyways?
What do you mean by the phrase?[/quote]

The Bible teaches the earth will be renewed and be inhabited throughout all eternity. [/quote]
Oh, well to be clearer -- Earth as we know it.
Earth before the second coming, it is "the end of the world" when Christ makes His second-coming.

I get the notion of the end of the world from the verse where Jesus says "I will be with you always, even unto the end of the world." [some people translate world as "age"]

[Elgama]

Originally Posted by Aesa

They're not all his, but at least two come from his diaries -- and they both differ highly.

are you sure they are of the same vision? I am not, one states he was 16 and is a very personal account in 1832, therefore happened in 1822 not 1820 although Joseph Smith is notoriously bad at remembering timelines lol. Joseph Smith was 14 at the time of the first vision. It maybe one of the accounts is of a vision we are unaware of - we all have personal religious experiences that are not to be shared. I've had many - or the account may be of several visions that were then put together in the story of the First Vision. What I know is the version in the canon is the one that Heavenly Father directed be placed in the Standard Works which means its the version that will bring me closest to Him, the others just bring me closer to an understanding of Joseph Smith. Of the roughly 10 versions (some after 1842) the 1832 and 1838 are the only two that I can see were actually written by Joseph Smith - the first is highly personal and spiritual and talks about repentance the second is more physical in its description. The first is how we are taught to write notes at General Conference not covering exact words but our own thoughts and feelings about something.

I actually do believe Joseph Smith had many visions and saw the Saviour on his own many times, he probably only met Heavenly Father once, I think what we have is a coherant story put together from years of understanding and learning and probably many visions. But that is entirely my personal belief and far from church doctrine

-Charley

[Kirajo]

Originally Posted by Aesa

They're not all his, but at least two come from his diaries -- and they both differ highly.

I actually think there were about 7 different accounts written by Joseph Smith. That's what a mission president said anyway (President Callister was his name, he has a few books out now I'm not sure of the first name sorry). Anyways, I believe it was made clear that with each account written it was because he remembered things differently as time went on and would remember other things later on and so on and so forth. I guess I'd compare it to any memory/dream you've had. As time goes on and you try recounting all the small details it gets harder and harder. But it doesn't mean it didn't happen.