To everyone else who so kindly tried to help me on this blog, I say thank you. It is wonderful that you are willing to let people express their true thoughts here – it is a good place to be able to vent a little.

Fwiw, Doug, I wish everyone had that same attitude. Just remember that it would be nice if tigers brushed their teeth. *grin*

“While it is true that I think most of you good folks are naïve or perhaps even deceived, that doesn’t mean you’re not good people or that your heart isn’t in the right place.”

Interesting. That’s how I view most non-Mormon Christians. *huge grin*

“You made me grin with this comment Doug. I almost find it a compliment that you find my attitude naive. I know a wonderful woman who has a strong faith that Joseph Smith had a vision of Deity”

Rigel, I suspect I owe you an apology for my posting above. I do need to learn to put my comments in a less offensive way. While it is true that I think most of you good folks are naïve or perhaps even deceived, that doesn’t mean you’re not good people or that your heart isn’t in the right place. I also think that believing JS had a vision of Deity isn’t going to affect your salvation one way or the other. Salvation, IMHO, is based on much more important things such as loving God and your fellow man. All the rest of this is just trappings…As I’ve stated before, I think God just barely tolerates religion in general…

The real question is, does your particular religion provide you with meaningful opportunities to provide service and does it charge your spiritual battery by participating. If you can answer yes to these questions, then why would someone even care if any of the restoration claims of the church are true? I think someone already made this point earlier. Most members haven’t looked into the history and they don’t want to. Trust me on this point, if you don’t want to know, nothing in this world is going to make you study and find out.

For me, and this is just for me, church stopped filling my spiritual battery years ago. I found meetings focused on anything but the Savoir and lots of assignments that didn’t seem to be making a difference to anybody. Don’t get me wrong, I always had more than enough to do, but none of it was truly helping anyone. Home teaching families that almost cheered if we were out of their home in 10 minutes or less. Sunday school classes with youth that didn’t want to be there and made it their goal to disrupt the lesson. Lots of trips to the temple doing work for the dead, at the expense of doing things for the living. (In the grand scheme of things I can’t believe in a God who would hold someone back because I was too lazy to do their temple work.) The list goes on and on, so finding out that the restoration claims of JS were questionable, it wasn’t a big leap for me to decide that this was just another man made religion with a mixture of good and bad people, just like all the rest. For others, it is all they could have ever hoped for and a bag of chips. I don’t want to ruin it for them, so I take out my beliefs on you folks who for whatever reason, want to look into the mouth of the tiger.

Sorry this was long…Again, please except my apology for calling you naïve. The fact that you’re here means you obviously are not…

I think part of the problem is that local leaders are simply not always equipped to deal with some of the questions. Maybe we catch them on a bad day. In my case I can assure you that my bishop thought I was crazy when I said I struggled with woman’s role. He could have handled me having lots of promiscuous sex, stealing money, etc. but to have an issue with a core issue in the gospel was beyond what he could deal with. Anyone not knowing him who heard the conversation would have thought he was a first class jerk, and at first I did. Then I realized with time that my questions were so outside his grasp of understanding that he didn’t know what to say. After much thought I also realized that “men can just do some things that women can’t” was not something God would have said to me. At that point he was not representing God, but simply a man doing his best when he was beyond tapped. And I think the fact that he couldn’t solve this one scared him.

I think part of the struggle is finding where we can go with our serious questions. Many local leaders don’t know about aspects of church history and docterines that make some of us feel uncomfortable. They are so busy with their 4 millions hours a week of meetings-of the husband/wife in the abusive relationship, the family who has someone with cancer, the family that cannot pay their bills, the teenager in to drugs, etc-not to mention their own family concerns and their own career. If they haven’t devoted time before their calling to understand all of the this, they simply may not be able to deal with this one. The question is where can people go with their questions to someone who can genuinely relate and do their best to explain, offer insight, or just plain be compassionate.

Whatever your reasons are, they are certainly real to you, and certainly nobody here wants you to fall away or go inactive. My words are observations, and aren’t judgements of your situation. They are what I see, not what you see, and certainly you can see something I don’t, especially if your ward is different than my ward, since I certainly don’t live in your ward, and perhaps not in your area. But really all we can do is make suggestions to you, and you would have to act if any of this is of help to you. And, aside from what I have already said, I would suggest that you seek the Spirit, and try to find good reasons to stay if the old reasons you have no longer work for you.

I was just studying more on conversion during a Saturday stake conference meeting when the talks were starting to make me drowsy, and I agree with you here. In the LDS scripture Bible Dictionary, we are taught, “complete conversion comes after many trials and much testing.” So what is “complete conversion”? (The type that “will change a natural man into a sanctified, born again, purified person–a new creature in Christ Jesus”?) Studying this concept makes me well aware that this is a level of conversion I have yet to acheive. Coming to this conclusion is, for me, a good thing! It helps me see that quote about the brother who had never been truly converted in a new light.

Matthew 18:3 refers to the level of conversion needed as becoming as a little child, and verse 4 expands that it involves “humbling himself as this little child.”

Re 56 “Perhaps Rigel Hawthorne gives us a clue about how to stay naïve.”

You made me grin with this comment Doug. I almost find it a compliment that you find my attitude naive. I know a wonderful woman who has a strong faith that Joseph Smith had a vision of Deity. She chooses not to research historical details, and with young kids, barely has time to check her own email. In fact, I should probably be helping her fold clothes right now rather than blog! One could consider her faith to be naive, but hers is the type of faith that I aspire to.

I decided once that I no longer needed to read every document about why the church couldn’t be true in order to have a testimony of the church. If you call that “the ability to read into history what you want it to mean,” I wouldn’t say that is unfair. I believe that Joseph did learn line upon line, and that sometimes he was allowed to learn some doctrinal details incorrectly before later gaining better light, as part of his progression. This doesn’t make him a false prophet, IMO. It actually deepens my respect for his challenges, and it is something I relate to.

I once asked my mission president why a verse quoting Isaiah in 2nd Nephi (the purer translation from the brass plates, as I learned in seminary) was different than the same verse of Isaiah in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Old Testament. Why wouldn’t they be the same, by nature of his prophetic ability? His answer was not helpful to me, but the still small voice whispered an answer that was what I needed.

Intensity of belief has nothing to do with accuracy of perceptions – if anything, there is a reverse corollary. And as I said before, intensity of feeling, so easily manipulated by religious and political ideas, has nothing to do with testimony. The difference I see in where you and I are is that I take the Holy Spirit as a source of truth, and you rather take it to be an emotional experience analagous to any number of others. It is right enough to say that there is a subjective element in all our experiences. However, in the end, it is up to us individually to determine how and where and if we will seek, and we are answerable to God and not to the religious experiences of other people – for which we neither can nor can be expected to give an account. From an outside perspective, with all the systems and variations on belief, what is the chance that the one you’re following has any claim to exclusiveness in any respect? The answer is none. All the same, straight is the way and narrow is the gate and few there be that find it.

~

“I don’t choose to be offended by the things that get said here. And I try to be straight forward in my writing as I would in a conversation. If that is offensive to you and others, I am sorry about that.”

It’s all good, don’t lose any sleep over it and I won’t either.

Bruce,

I live in Northern Utah and I think it would be great to meet you. I believe you have my e-mail address, go ahead and send me a note and we’ll set something up…

Thanks,

I apologize. I re-read and I can see what you mean. I feel very bad about the way it came out. Please accept my apology, workingmother.

Please allow me to explain myself more fully now that the kids are in bed and I’m not in such a hurry.

Yes, I most certainly think starting with the assumption that if Joseph didn’t mention the first vision at first that it must have been made up later does in fact cause a person to fail to see other completely legitimate possiblities. And yes, I am of the opinion (I’m entitled to my opinion) that this is what you are doing.

However, if you read much of what I say, then this next statement won’t shock you: I do the same thing only in reverse. We all do. We see what we want to see in history… or more to the point, once we’ve been shown a pattern, it’s really really hard to break it.

I’m going to venture a guess that you didn’t find out about JS not mentioning the first vision in his 1835 account in a pro-Mormon book. And I’m going to venture a guess that once you had the thought stuck in your head (from wherever you originally found out about it) that this might be evidence that it never happened, that you couldn’t help but see it that way even if you wanted.

Meanwhile, I found out about that same fact in a pro-Mormon book that was not trying to hide that fact at all because they used it as proof of the first vision (complicated to explain. If you let me write to you I will.)

So my mind latched on to that pattern and I have a hard time breaking it (and don’t want to anyhow.)

We both latched on to patterns and we couldn’t help it. Our choice was which books to read and how to receive the information.

*whew* that was a lot to say…

So in other words, what I meant by “ask that question without assuming it’s fall false (and do so prayerfully) you’ll find it an incredibly enlightening questions worthy of your time.” was simply that if you start to recognize that there are multiple possible reasons for a set of facts, you’ll find your mind is very good at coming up with alternative possiblities. But! you have to want it. If you don’t want it, it can’t happen. (thus the reference to prayer.)

“Your last paragraph was also unwarranted IMHO. You put words in my mouth that I never said, then insulted me by saying that it doesn’t make any sense at all.”

This was bad of me too. I am sorry.

Again, I didn’t take enough care on how I worded things. What I meant here was it would never make sense to assume that if something didn’t happen the way we thought it should have to have the first thought be “it’s all made up.” Can you think of any case where this would be true? Would, for example, coming to realize that Columbus didn’t really prove to the world that the world was round mean that Columbus made up his voyage altogether?

History just doesn’t work that way. History rarely if ever unfolds the way we expected it or the way it was “whitewashed” for us as children (or even as adults that didn’t bother to look into it further). There is nothing in American history, for example, that you have learned that coulnd’t be challgened by an anti-American scholar. If you were, you’d quickly find that you have a “whitewashed” view of American history.

But this would rarely mean that it’s all made up. Instead, it forces us to understand the great complexity of life and humanity.

I think Church history is exactly the same way. Joseph Smith did indeed supress the first vision for years. We know this factually because he wrote it down in 1832 but didn’t publish it and then OC left it out in the 1835 history even though he was aware of Joseph’s written account. Presumably OC was asked not to include it.

I’m asking you to start with the assumption that there might just be a reason for the supression and it might be a really good reason. It might even be a reason you’d agree with.

I can only tell you my theory as to why (which I personally think is pretty dang good! ) but I can’t tell you the REAL reason, and I and know one on earth can tell you with certainty the real reason. Such is how history works. It’s all guess work.

But why start with the assumption it’s all false and never even explore any other possiblities? That would be a “groundless” assumption in the case of Columbus, wouldn’t it? (Don’t read too much into my “groundless” wording. I should not have said it that way.) I just meant that in the case of JS it’s insufficient to make a case by itself.

(Update: Saying your assumption is ‘groundless’ makes it sound like I’m saying you are saything unreasonable or stupid, which is not what I meant. What I really meant was that your assumption that this means it’s made up and not a historical event is no better or worse an explanation than simply treating it like a real historical issue — history is full of such things that seem odd to us because life is just that way — and making an attempt to come up with an explanation. Also, the only reason you are considering this evidence of non-occurance is because it’s a religious truth claim instead of a more objective seeming non-religious event. So your view is certainly not “groundless” but there are not “stronger grounds” for it compare to just assuming it happened as JS said it did and then looking into reasons for the surpression.)

Again, I apologize for my bad use of words. I really was in a hurry and I woulnd’t have made that mistake (or needed to give you this long explanation) if I had chosen my words better.

“Jeff, you certainly like to dish it out with statements like the ones above and yet you don’t see why folks, such as myself, get offended at your tone and want to bring you down a notch or two.”

I don’t choose to be offended by the things that get said here. And I try to be straight forward in my writing as I would in a conversation. If that is offensive to you and others, I am sorry about that.

One person’s history is another person fairy tale. I like how Ray and Bruce put it. And you didn’t address the example about scientists looking at the same data and drawing different conclusions. That is equally valid here as well. i choose to put my trust in what I have studied and the spiritual witnesses I have received.

Your Bishop might or might not be correct; he might or might not be insensitive; he might or not be a good man *and* a jerk. I don’t know, but all I can say is, “Follow the dictates of your conscience. You don’t have to “know” nearly as much as most members assume. You can believe those who feel they know, or you can not believe and still participate in the organization and try to become more Christ-like.

Suffice it to say that many of us have considered and studied everything you have considered and studied and have chosen to remain and believe – and even believe we “know” some foundational things. Deep down in your heart, what do you want to DO? Figure that out and then do it – whatever it is. It is your choice – nobody else’s.

Fwiw, my views on many things are not common in the Church. I hold a visible calling of relative authority in the Church, so I’m sure most members believe I am a standard, ultra-conservative Mormon – but that’s because I am able to address my unique perspectives from within a scriptural framework, so my unorthodox beliefs sound orthodox. (I think it helps that they are correct, and so the Spirit testifies when I speak from the pulpit, but that might simply be hubris. *grin*) I would never dream of discussing things like some of the topics on this blog, since I don’t see Church as the proper venue for these discussions. I see Church as the place to strengthen understanding and conviction of basic Gospel principles and to help people commit to LIVE the Gospel more fully. If many members knew how I view some of the more esoteric doctrinal questions of the Church, they would be shocked. I’m fine with that, since I probably would be shocked at many of theirs.

I don’t think that many members are choosing to do anything other than just stand fast in the faith. The majority are not confronted with these things. And I can assure you that from what I have seen, they wouldn’t care even if they were confronted. It is only the overly curious or overly intellectual that even care about these things. The majority of people that go inactive go inactive for much more mundane things that this sort of stuff. Not to say that any soul isn’t precious. Maybe I’m wrong, but this is my perception.

Your last paragraph was also unwarranted IMHO. You put words in my mouth that I never said, then insulted me by saying that it doesn’t make any sense at all.

I do, in fact, consider you a friend. Do you, by any chance, live in Utah so that we can meet and do lunch?

workingmother asks: “…motive for suppressing this amazing experience of incredible importance to the church.”

Workingmother, I’m afraid I am out of my alloted time. I suppose the short answer is that I have strong reason to believe Joseph was indeed trying to supress the first vision exactly as you indicate… just not for the reason that you indicate (i.e. that he was making it up.)

And while we are on the subject, how in the world do you explain that he had already mentioned the first vision twice by then, once in 1832 and once in 1835. Doesn’t sound like your interpretation fits the facts, to me. I can’t even begin to figure out how you fit those facts into your concern that Joseph Smith might have made it up. The simple fact is that Joseph had already reported the first vision by then so it’s obvious he chose to not include it. Your theory that he made it up after that point simply cannot be true. At a minimum he must have made it up prior to that point.

The real question you should be asking is why would Joseph supress the first vision to his 1835 Church. If you ask that question without assuming it’s fall false (and do so prayerfully) you’ll find it an incredibly enlightening questions worthy of your time.

Workingmother, I have enjoyed this conversation. If you are serious about wanting to know my take on why Joseph Smith would want to supress the first vision, I would have to write to you privately. With your permission I will (and I’ll then later turn it into a post.)

But for now, let’s just say that I feel you are starting with the assumption that if history didn’t unfold the way *you personally* think it should have that it must all be made up. I think this is a groundless assumption. In fact, I don’t see why you would assume that… it just doesn’t make any sense at all.

BTW, I did ask God if Joseph saw Him and Jesus. I did not get an answer – just nothing. Are you just going to tell me to keep trying until I get the right answer (which I guess by definition is a positive answer)? I am almost 60, have read the BoM daily for years, have always been active, have served as RS president twice, and many other callings, etc., etc. I am not any more of a sinner than most other Mormons out there (TR worthy I think the term is).

I wonder if your answer to just pray about it, is any better than what I am getting from my bishop.

May I respectfully ask, why do you want to talk about these things to uninformed people who can’t help you anyway? You have now joined the ranks of people such as us who are really the only type of people that can even fathom what you are saying. Forgive me but the bottom line is, 99% of Church membership are naive, and most don’t care anyway. It seems to me that you have already found people like ourselves that are on blogs such as this that can even deal intellectually with what you are saying, and now you are talking to us. It sounds like you have found somebody to talk to, and I think if I were in your shoes, I’d stick to talking about these things with people online. If you have doubts about foundational stories, then I suggest that you seek revelation from the Spirit of the Lord on the foundational stories. Perhaps not about each and every detail of these things that are somewhat contradictory. But why don’t you ask simple questions to God and simply try to get testimonies of each question, like “Did Joseph Smith really see both Elohim and Jesus?” That is a very simple question to test with the spirit, and if you get a positive answer, all the details and contradictory garbage in the historical accounts doesn’t mean a hill of beans. This may not help you, but this is the way I see things from my point of view. You need specific questions answered about historical quagmires, or at least, I know some people do. I don’t know whether you fit the description of one of those that do.

Also, where is your evidence that he told the first vision to a minister, was persecuted for it, so shut up about it? There are absolutely no contemporary accounts that I am aware of that indicate this was the case.

I posted that one before I read your response.

On your other point about the whether the event actually occured. I think if you go back and read my past posts, you’ll see that I already made that very point. I’ve never made statements on this thread about whether or not the vision occured. That’s a job for another day…

Doug, you aren’t undertanding. No one is arguing this point with you.

There are two theories on the table, neither of which is what you claim we are saying:

1. William conflated the first vision with the Moroni visit (i.e. he’s talking about both but thinks he’s talking about the Moroni visit)
2. William Smith is correctly reporting a made up account of his brother that hadn’t yet emerged into the first vision (i.e. he’s talking about an early version of the Moroni visit that at that time had elements of the first vision that later separated into two distinct accounts.)

Either way, you are correct that he’s talking about the Moroni visit… and yet, that was never the point being made. You have misunderstood what we are saying. (Or at least what I am saying.)

For what it’s worth, I always enjoy your take on things and the way you present them. You know we seldom agree, but that shouldn’t prevent us from being friends…

Thanks,

Sorry, that was one more then one last thing…