Since we have decided to close the comments to end the spamming and the debate, it is fitting that the last word be in accordance with the topic rather than an attack on the Church.

Um, no. You described it as a “picture of JS translating the gold plates.” I described it as a picture that “shows him transcribing the characters.” Since the picture does show him transcribing and does not show him translating, your description was inaccurate. My description of the picture is accurate. That was my point.

You’ll notice that I didn’t say anything about whether or not the use of the picture at that point in the discussion was or was not appropriate.

Somewhat like the many differences in the Bible (Chronicles v. Kings for example).

Later scribes were aware of the conflicts and chose fidelity.

Thanks for the link.

Note that there are other discrepencies between the two sources as well. “Angel” vs. “Angels” wasn’t the only one.

What I find interesting is that we now have positive proof that there is no “conspiracy” but only different sources (likely both secondary unless you honestly believe the web designers were going to the Church archives to find quotes) being quoted accurately by the LDS Church employee(s) putting this up. No attempt was made to harmonize the discrepency because they came from two different secondary sources and there was fidelity to both.

We would do well to realize that once you go down the “conspiracy” route for an explanation you can literally explain everything that ever happens that way… and you will from that point forward.

http://josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7a19b84d09042010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab2
Note the difference between the singular and the plural between this link and the one above. It would be interesting to examine the handwriting in the original. This is a late statement from Oliver Cowdery when he rejoined the Church.

Interesting comment on “too many gaps” ….

However, I think Stephen might have misunderstood me. I am not suggesting that there is not a Mormon source somewhere that added an “s”. I just don’t know where it is because the link provided didn’t contain it and linked to an unaltered source.

I think we’re making too big a deal out of the “s”. I think John, in good faith, made that comment: “Note that the Church has added an “s” to “holy angel(s) in the link to the Oliver Cowdery account above to soften the ambiguity, under the guise of correcting “spelling, grammar, and punctuation”

I simply can’t find it and I am curious if it was a mistaken link. I actually believe him.

A startling and interesting choice of words that I believe drives to the very heart of the real but unspoken question.

I ask not to be inflammatory, but to get at the heart of the criticism and the discussion of bias. The church source surely would not contradict what the church says, right?

The criticism is not only directed at Joseph Smith, but rather at the entire picture. Why the differences in accounts? Why the wait to see this show up in records? Why didn’t other influential Mormons know about it until much later if it were so vital?

You do not need to like the questions for them to be fair. As Bruce said to me, certainly you have the right to believe what you wish, and to grant that you see facts for what you see them as, this as Bruce granted, goes my direction as well. When I look at the evidence, I see more question marks than answers. When I look that way, I see too many gaps to grant it truth. But, I believe differently and therefore have a different bias.

This is the problem I have with your quote. Using a Mormon source does not make it true in my eyes.

Further, as to the “This is the sort of thing we have,” this specific detail kind of encaptulates it all, doesn’t it? See, it comes down to this question to me and to so many others out there: can we trust the Mormon sources? If there is evidence to form a different story, very different from the one presented and taught as absolute truth, can you blame one for questioning?

You can indeed see what you want to see, and I respect that completely, and will defend you that right. My intent is to simply raise an issue. Hopefully you will see it as that.

Thank you again.

compared to:

I searched around and I could only find this which does quote OC but leaves the “holy angel” wording with no plural. Note, this is on the Church’s own website and is quoting the very footnote I just mentioned in 104.

I still can’t find the change to plural that is mentioned.

Well, I think that goes to the honesty and accuracy of the criticism, all in all. It is the sort of thing that made me sigh when I was involved in apologetics. A false statement, repeated over and over, as the basis for a criticism of the Church, and no substantiation. A quick look at the Church source would show the falsity of the assertion that the Church is deliberately changing things.

Mormon Coffee, which links to this essay, pretty much is a site full of that sort of misrepresentation and misuse.

I need to avoid any more comments on this topic.

Most of the criticism of Joseph Smith’s narrative is similar to

“Guess that Xonophon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophon really did not lead a Greek Phalanx out of Persia — he didn’t write about it until years after the event ….”

It seems intended to keep us from being able to discuss what Bruce was trying to write about by perverting the conversation into something entirely different.

It would have been nice to have had an honest discussion about:

Does the restoration of priesthood/authority need to have been a literal laying on of hands by resurrected beings in the same order in which 12 year old boys and 18 year old men experience it in the contemporary Church?

Does imagining that things happened this way make it easier for LDSaints to serve confidently in the Church, fulfilling their callings, learning to love God and their neighbor?

Could God have restored priesthood by an act of will, divine fiat?

Why do we rely on these stories as told and recounted in our secondary literature?

Instead, we have the sort of thing we have.

The really interesting question is why didn’t Oliver go “Gee, Joseph, I don’t remember things happening that way?!” when he was in his state of being critical of the Church and of Joseph Smith? Would have been an easy point of departure for him to make.

“Note that the Church has added an “s” to “holy angel(s) in the link to the Oliver Cowdery account above to soften the ambiguity, under the guise of correcting “spelling, grammar, and punctuation”.”

The only link given above is to this which does not contain the wording in question.

I searched around and I could only find this which does quote OC but leaves the “holy angel” wording with no plural. Note, this is on the Church’s own website and is quoting the very footnote I just mentioned in 104.

I still can’t find the change to plural that is mentioned.

I appreciate your respectful tone — as always. You are a rare gem. You have a real ability to express yourself non-offensively.

“My beliefs now involve the perception that the church depicted much of its history from a very one sided and even wishful world view”

I hope you’ll emphasize this statement more. While of course I do not believe I am a poor deluded fool (see #104) I would much rather be called that than deceptive. I see this statement above as the anthesis of:

“Much of the criticism aimed at the church today is result of us teaching correlated historical events. All the while knowing that in reality there was much more to the story and knowing the additional information would put a different light on the history. My mother used to say that any communication with the intent to deceive is a lie. Lies should not be part of teaching people the gospel.”

For better or for worse, we view the evidence differently, you and I. You may think I’m an OJ jurist that can’t see the obvious truth because I’m seeing the trees and not the forest. I feel the same way but in reverse. It is okay for us to agree to disagree.

But please continue to speak of the church as naive rather than deceptive. If we are wrong, this will turn out to be the real truth. And I’m fine with being well intentioned but naive at the judgement bar of God.

Oh (this isn’t pointed at Michael even though I’m using his quote.) Where did the LDS church change this to plural? This post has no link to an example. I’m not saying they didn’t. I’m just curious.

Last night, when I looked up Joseph Smith’s account in History of the Church, I noticed that B.H. Roberts quoted the 1848 OC and that it was *printed singular* in History of the Church. I underlied the whole section back when I read it. I had, at the time, never conceived that someone might see this as a discrepencie because I had assumed he was refering to the angel (Peter) performing the ordination.

It was not until this post that I had ever heard they changed it to be plural on the grounds that it was recorded wrong. I have to say that while this thought never occurred to me, it’s very reasonable. Recording methods were very poor back then. But I still not aware of the place the LDS Church changed it and I am aware of where they didn’t change it and just left it as it was right in their own official account.

Thanks for your explanation. I see we agree on much in your comments about the natural bias and the challenge that presents.

I do think it’s important to point out that the quote you made, of John, is a secondary and interpretative source. The original primary source in question does not state that there was only one event, only one angel, and one priesthood as you are claiming.

There is a technical difference between someone telling of one event and not mentioning another and claiming only one event took place. For better or worse, this seems to be where we differ. You see OC’s 1834 account as claiming only one event while I understand it as describing one of two events.

I am happy to agree to disagree with you on this. And I even feel that I can see where you are coming from, though I believe you are mistaken.

I hope you can see, Michael, that I am not asking you to believe my narrative of the facts. I am only asking you to believe that *I believe* my narrative of the facts. (And by extension the LDS church does too.)

Even if we are poor deluded fools, your original comment here is still inaccurate and problematic: “To me, if the church were determined to present the truth, it would in all phases”

By saying this, you are saying that if we don’t accept your narrative as factual, or at least acknowledge it as a possibility, that we are being deceptive. I do not agree with this and in any other circumstance, I doubt you would either.

We are honestly presenting the truth to the best of our knowledge in all phases. This is because we reject your interpretation of the facts as not being a significant challenge to the official Joseph Smith account that Peter, James, and John did come and they did ordain him to the Priesthood (and he specifically mentions by laying on of hands.)

We specifically believe you are making a logical error in equating absence of evidence to evidence of absence. And we specifically believe you are discounting OC’s private account a year later where he, again emphasizing the first angel, mentions there was another event later. (Clearly OC remembered his first heavenly visitation the best. But doesn’t this make sense?)

Again, I am not asking you to agree with me one whit on what really happened. This is for you to decide for yourself. But I am asking you to not call the LDS church — or by extension, me — deceptive like you did.

Michael, I appreciate the respectful way you presented yourself. And I am grateful for your contributions here. Please feel free to continue to contribute.

“This is partly because Joseph had a co-participant, Oliver Cowdery, who left his own account of these experiences, and that many other early Church members wrote as if they did not hear of these ordinations until 1834 or 1835. Cowdery’s account is especially interesting, as he mentions only one occasion of priesthood bestowal, only one priesthood, only one angel visiting, and declines to name the angel as either John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. (Note that the Church has added an “s” to “holy angel(s) in the link to the Oliver Cowdery account above to soften the ambiguity, under the guise of correcting “spelling, grammar, and punctuation”. Compare to the wording here)”

Cowdery here is listed as saying there was one occasion when a preisthood was bestowed, one preisthood, and angel, no names, and the addition mentioned in the link is indeed interesting.

Bias, I am biased, yes, as we all are, aren’t we? This is the historians biggest struggle, IMO– getting past the bias both in himself and from the source. Even in primary sources, this is true– a king would say his reign was glorious while his people might say the king was cruel and times were lean. So, who’s right? How do we know? We have to look at all the evidence we have available, no matter how overwhelming all the information is. This in addition to who is giving the information and why.

In the current topic, we are discussing whether or not the differing accounts of the bestowal of the priesthood is significant. As you might guess, I think it is, for a variety of reasons that extend even beyond the LDS church making Cowdery’s angel plural. Given that this discussion would go beyond the scope of the topic at hand, and I sincerely wish not to boil the pot, I will not go into these other areas of consideration.

Like anything, the topic is not black and white, and while I understand the need to simplify, I see much more than what is presented.

Thank you for allowing me to contribute.

Ray will know what I mean

Sorry that you got the wrong impression.

Though to answer your question, the secondary literature always exists because the primary sources lend themselves to analysis and narrative — though in our case we have later primary sources (i.e. Joseph Smith talking about what happened) that suffice to support the secondary narratives.

I have dealt with truly anti-Mormon groups for over 20 years. I have seen everything that they say (all of it) – and I have seen it in many, many different forms. It hasn’t changed a bit in 20 years. I have seen all kinds of levels of sincerity, and I have seen all kinds of levels of understanding. I am fine with those who simply are misinformed and act out of sincere love and concern, but I have a very difficult time with those who know the nuances of our actual beliefs and intentionally choose to ignore those nuances and paint with a broad, prejudicial brush – who claim to act out of true Christlike love while engaging in duplicitous and deceptive and mean-spirited attacks. Generally, it’s not any one thing; it’s the totality of the blatant distortions that frustrate me and cause my ire.

I have dealt previously with Joe’s group. They have been around for long time, and they know better than to present much of what they do in the way they present it. Before looking at the link in the comment I had gone to the site, seen who it was and perused a bit to see if they still were the same organization I remembered from my past – twisting things they knew better than to twist. (For example, one of their favorite ploys is to quote controversial statements from long ago – even ones that were not generally accepted even when they were first said – and present them as standard Church doctrine. Another tactic of some groups with whom I have dealt is to change scriptural citations to say what we teach, making the defense you did – that it was an innocent attempt to make their point in the easiest, quickest way. The issue is that they know the reader / hearer isn’t making that distinction – that the audience really believes that what is being presented is actual canonized scripture. I have seen that over and over and over again, and sometimes it is downright disgusting and vulgar.) The web site is full of these things – things that I know the leadership understands but prints anyway.

My experience as well.

Perhaps I should check my sources more carefully on “Mans Search for Happiness”. My brother was on a mission several years after me and is the one who told me of the MTC pulling the film from the library and a General Authority explaining that the film contained too many things that were not considered doctrine. I really thought this was common knowledge to anyone from my era. Again, according to my brother, the film makes a statement that was very offensive to Christians in general and was pulled about the same time the church started a much greater emphasis on Christ. The offensive statement, which was the key point of the film, was near the end where the narrator states that through the atonement of Christ all mankind will be saved. However, in-order to go to the highest level of the Celestial kingdom, which is the greatest of Gods rewards, that you must EARN.

As far as I know, the church as no desire to have the outside world believing we can EARN our way into heaven. The statement would seem to minimize the role of the Savior in our salvation as it implies everyone will get to heaven, but anything more is based on YOUR works. Now please, let’s not get all wrapped up in some deep theological discussion about salvation. That’s not my point, my point is the church pulled this because they didn’t like the perception it gave the outside world about us.

Granted, I’m getting this information from my brother who was there when it happened. As he is still very TBM, I don’t believe he was telling me a story. I also find that it fits with the church’s reemphasis on Christ, the importance of the atonement, and its desire to be seen as a Christian religion.

#86 Left Field “The flipchart picture used in the C discussion doesn’t depict Joseph Smith translating, it shows him transcribing the characters. Perhaps that explains the absence of seerstone, urim and thummim, breastplate, or scribe.”

Sir, please go back and read my discussion about this picture. I think you’ll find that I described it just as you did, so what’s your point? I however put it in contents with the “C” discussion being taught. The place the little asterisk appears in the text (indicating to show that picture) is exactly where the line is stating that JS translated the plates by the gift and power of God. Your comment actually makes my point. Not lonely does the picture not show the hat and sear stone, it doesn’t show the urim and thummin or breast plate either. What we did was show them a picture of him staring at the plates, with a pen and paper nearby, and state that he was translating. Thanks for helping me make my point about deliberately deceptive pictures of the restoration.

Bruce, you know I appreciate your perspective and your desire to defend your beliefs. I don’t have time tonight to go into all your questions and I’ll be on vacation with my family until the middle of next week. By then, you guys will probably close this thread… If you ever decide to take me up on that dinner, I would be pleased to bring you my missionary decision book for your perusal.

Let me just say this, every point made in that first discussion as significant problems with the historical record. I can’t quite go with your feeling that the brethren were ignorant of the historical records available from church historians. I actually give them more credit than that, but I can’t discount the possibility either…

Even though you don’t seem to mind the discrepancies, they are real to many of us. I would ask that you give me and those like me the same respect that I try and show you. My beliefs now involve the perception that the church depicted much of its history from a very one sided and even wishful world view. I don’t think even you would state that our perceptions are groundless. You shouldn’t be surprised that stepping back from the trees and seeing the forest differently has been one of the most gut wrenching things I have ever been through. It’s been hard on my family and ward members who don’t understand my lack of full activity. Nor am I allowed to explain to them why I have such issues.

The restoration of the MP is just one of many, many problems with the correlated history of the church. If it were just this one thing, then of course I would put it on the shelf. For apologist, they approach these issues like a good lawyer and try and discredit or minimize each point, on its own, as if it doesn’t fit into a much bigger picture. This is how OJ Simpson can get a not guilty verdict from our court system. It may work to keep the flock (jury members) in one piece, but it doesn’t do much for those outside (the rest of the world) looking in. He was guilty you know…

I typed this very poorly. I can’t edit any more, so let me reword –

I suspect, from the way you worded this, that you honestly feel that believing historians are all biased and some non-believing ones are unbiased. Please let me know if I misunderstood your point of view. But if this is what you mean, I am going to have to just agree to disagree with you.

And of course I feel such a belief is itself biased, though I’m sure it seems very “sensible and unbiased” to you from your point of view.

I mean that half joking, but it’s really the point I’m trying to make. Due to your biases believing scholars might honestly look to you like they are being unreasonable. Due to their bias, your point of view might honestly look to them to be unreasonable.

I’m not sure there is much else need to explain the difference in point of view. But that is why I feel so strongly about the charges of deception being leveled. They themselves are the real issue: an inability to realize that there is more than one way to explain a set of facts and that not everyone will agree. But we do not have to treat each other intolerantly because of that by leveling unsubstantiated charges at each other.

I would really prefer to talk to you about this. I have no idea what you mean by the evidence not being strong for the laying on of hands in summer of 1829.

I agree that the evidence *is* strong that the Church did not refer to the order of Melchizedek priesthood prior to 1831 (with the possible notable exception of of Alma 13.) I agree the evidence *is* strong that there was no concept of two priesthoods prior to that point and it came to them gradually afterwards. I would even say the evidence is decent that there may have been a concept of three priesthoods back then — at least amongst some. (Aaronic sub to Melchezidek superset being High Priesthood and not interchangeable with Melchezidek directly, though apparently considered related: probably related like teacher and priest in the Aaronic) I’d also agree that the evidence is strong that there was no concept of “priesthood” as meaning “power” at all back before 1831 *including in the Book of Mormon*. (This is important.) I’d admit the evidence is strong that the word “priesthood” prior to 1831 was “authority” and “priesthood” was restricted to mean the body and/or office itself.

But I really really don’t understand how any of those points somehow casts doubt on either a visitation, nor at the date specified, nor with a physical laying on of hands. That is the gap I just can’t seem to cross. They seem unrelated to me.

Would I be asking the same thing in your mind if I reworded the question to: What ramifications is there to the fact that the Church went through drastic changes in their understanding of what we now call “priesthood”? Is this the question you are asking?

I appreciate that you are doing your best to try to understand my post. The questions I asked remain to be answered. If anything, those were the thread of my thoughts.

Boiled down to this, here is the thread of my thoughts on this post: Most active Mormons probably assume the evidence for two priesthood bestowals by the LAYING ON OF HANDS (as shown in the artwork above) in the summer of 1829 to be clear-cut and strong. It is not. What implications does this have for how we view the priesthood? Any, none?

>>> Actually, I am more focused on the huge discrepancy in details from Cowedery’s account and JS’s accounts.

Michael, please be specific. I’m afraid I simply do not know what you are talking about here. This is, very likely, because you know something I don’t. It’s just as likely that you are reading the data on way and I another. At this point I can’t say.

I am not sure what “huge discrepancies” you are talking about. I am unaware of any huge discrepancies at all.

Now, I am aware that Oliver didn’t mention Peter, James, and John in an 1834 account talking about John the Baptist. But that’s not a discrepancy unless you start with the assumption that that any information not stated is a discrepancy to information that is stated.

I’m also aware that Oliver specifically stated two occurrences in 1835. This is clearly not a discrepancy.

I’m also aware that in, what, 1848 or something, he stated again there are two occurrences and that much is made over the singular use of ‘angel’ as the recorder happened to write it down (as John points out in the post.) But this is nothing close to a huge discrepancy for more than one possible reason.

I am also aware that Melchezidek’s order of the priesthood is specifically discussed in Alma 13 (1829 reference) despite the utter lack of knowledge the early leaders had to the whole concept at that time.

Is there something else you are referring to? Again, please be specific.

>>> You touch on the bias issue, when you mention the fact that believing historians have come with something they are satisfied with. Would non-believing historians come up with the same thing?

I think this goes to the heart of an issue that I guess I can’t expect you to ever agree with me on. My answer is “no, of course not, because they are biased against miraculous events just like believing historians are biased in favor of them.”

I see no difference between the two groups in terms of bias. (I am not using that as a pejorative because I’m “accusing” both sides of it equally.)

I suspect, from the way you worded this, that you honestly feel that believing historians are biased and non-believing ones are not. Please let me know if I misunderstood your point of view. But if this is what you mean, I am going to have to just agree to disagree with you.

And I need to point out what a strong bias that is on your part — even though you think you’re just being “sensible.” I mean that half joking, but it’s really the point I’m trying to make. You are biased so the believing scholars might look like they are being unreasonable. They are biased so what you are saying might look unreasonable. I’m not sure there is much else going on here. But if you are not lying (and I don’t believe you are) then they aren’t either.

A few weeks ago we had something of a regional leadership meeting. An Area Seventy spoke. There was a very powerful, palpable presense of the Spirit, and everyone felt remarkably instructed. Yet, when we discussed the meeting ten days later in PEC, everyone had different impressions concerning the most salient points made. The thing that to me came through crystal clear seemed to be something no one else had even noticed.

~

The other my, I thought, summary of the same:
“I don’t want to put words in your mouth either, John, but could it be that you feel so strongly about your view (of it being a later invention)…”

I somehow lost the thread of John’s thoughts… actually, I don’t think I ever had them… and I emailed him asking him to call me to explain himself better. I do not see the connection between the facts he is presenting and the questions he is asking.