Sandra Tanner Interview: "I came to Jesus through the Bible...and the Book of Mormon"

[Phoenix]

... I would say, if you have several people giving the same story, then chances are good that it IS true.

So if you have several people giving the same story about Joseph Smith being a true man of God, who treated others with kindness and charity like a Christian should do....chances are good that those stories are true? And if you have several people claiming that they heard the voices of the heavenly beings who were conversing with Joseph Smith...chances are good that those stories are true?

But you believe that NO beings visited him. Doesn't that contradict what you are now saying?

[Libby]

So if you have several people giving the same story about Joseph Smith being a true man of God, who treated others with kindness and charity like a Christian should do....chances are good that those stories are true? And if you have several people claiming that they heard the voices of the heavenly beings who were conversing with Joseph Smith...chances are good that those stories are true?

But you believe that NO beings visited him. Doesn't that contradict what you are now saying?

I was talking about people who had actually witnessed an event. There were no witnesses to Joseph's vision...and he, himself, changed it, several times, over the years, which should raise a red flag, don't you think?

[Phoenix]

I was talking about people who had actually witnessed an event.

So then you doubt that the Stephen theophany really occurred?

[Libby]

So then you doubt that the Stephen theophany really occurred?

No, I do not. No reason to doubt.

[alanmolstad]

No, I do not. No reason to doubt.
any appearance has to be judged against the scriptures and the words of Christ.

So if I were to claim "Jesus appeared to me" then you have to then judge my claim against the scriptures.

If what I claim is in agreement with the text, then there is no problem.

On the other hand, if I were to claim "Jesus appeared to me" and then add things that I also claim that Jesus said to me that go against the Scriptures, then you are to reject my claim .....


In all things we are to put such claims to the test and reject everything that goes against the text we have already received....as Paul taught us to do....

[Libby]

Yes, exactly.

[Phoenix]

No, I do not. No reason to doubt.

Sure you do, by your standards, since there weren't two or three other witnesses to corroborate what Stephen said he was seeing.

[Libby]

Sure you do, by your standards, since there weren't two or three other witnesses to corroborate what Stephen said he was seeing.

Well, that's only part of it. Stephen's story is in the Bible. Joseph was only in there, after he put himself in. :(

Also, as far as know, Stephen didn't change his story ten different times.

(Bet I won't get a "cheer" from you for this post :) )

[alanmolstad]

Sure you do, by your standards, since there weren't two or three other witnesses to corroborate what Stephen said he was seeing.we do not have 2 witnesses....but whatr we have is a statement from him about what he saw, and we have the context of his life up to that point and his other statements....

So can we confirm what he saw?...not really.

But on the other hand we dont have a real problem with his claim as nothing he claimed to have seen runs counter to the Faith as received.....

So the question is left open.
We cant confirm, but we dont really have a issue with what he said as its in agreement with the words of Christ and the Bible.





So once again, what we do when anyone comes out with a claim of haveing "seen Jesus" is to take their claim and put it to the test against the Scripture.

If what is said in the claim is in agreement, then we dont have a problem with it.

But if what is said is different?...then we are to reject it, regardless of who made the claim, or what the claim was.....

[alanmolstad]

Well, that's only part of it. Stephen's story is in the Bible. Joseph was only in there, after he put himself in. :(

Also, as far as know, Stephen didn't change his story ten different times.

(Bet I won't get a "cheer" from you for this post :) )get one from me.....because that was what I was going to say!




We have to look at the claim made, and test it by the Bible, regardless of who is making the claim.
If you were to suddenly tell me that you also "saw Jesus" then we would have to put your claim to the test just like Paul tells us we should do if even he were to come out with a claim about what he saw or a new teaching.


We are to put "all things" to the test....and only hold fast to the things that are true

[Libby]

Yes, the test of, already established, scripture.

[Phoenix]

Well, that's only part of it.
Okay. So if I am not mistaken, what we have is a story, written by Luke, that claims that Paul heard Stephen claim to see Jesus standing on the right hand of God.

In the case of Joseph Smith's vision, we have proof that he definitely made the claim. It can be proven that he really did claim that he had the vision. But in the case of Stephen's vision, all we have is Luke's claim that Paul said that Stephen said he saw Jesus at God's side. We have nothing written by Stephen himself about it, which would have been difficult anyhow since he was being killed at the time of the vision.



Stephen's story is in the Bible.
Yes, it's in there because some anonymous person or council put it there, but it's not really Stephen's story, since as I said, it's Luke's story about what he claims Paul saw and heard regarding what Stephen claimed he saw.


Also, as far as know, Stephen didn't change his story ten different times.
He didn't even change it once. He died rather soon after the vision in question.

[Libby]

Okay. So if I am not mistaken, what we have is a story, written by Luke, that claims that Paul heard Stephen claim to see Jesus standing on the right hand of God.

In the case of Joseph Smith's vision, we have proof that he definitely made the claim. It can be proven that he really did claim that he had the vision. But in the case of Stephen's vision, all we have is Luke's claim that Paul said that Stephen said he saw Jesus at God's side. We have nothing written by Stephen himself about it, which would have been difficult anyhow since he was being killed at the time of the vision.



Yes, it's in there because some anonymous person or council put it there, but it's not really Stephen's story, since as I said, it's Luke's story about what he claims Paul saw and heard regarding what Stephen claimed he saw.


He didn't even change it once. He died rather soon after the vision in question.

Well, you should get my point then. I know calling Joseph a "liar" upsets you, but wouldn't the changing of his story several times, be a perfect example of why people might doubt his word?

Stephen's experience was written by Apostles of Jesus. I tend to think they were pretty reliable, don't you?

[Phoenix]

Well, you should get my point then.
I think I get it; I just think it's incorrect.


I know calling Joseph a "liar" upsets you, but wouldn't the changing of his story several times, be a perfect example of why people might doubt his word?
Only if you're also saying that calling the Bible a liar is the right thing to do ALSO, because IT ALSO has changing stories.
As for me, that is not good enough evidence that the Bible lies.


Stephen's experience was written by Apostles of Jesus. I tend to think they were pretty reliable, don't you?
But I also believe that Joseph Smith was an apostle of Jesus, so obviously I give see his story as being as reliable as the NT apostles' stories. An atheist would deem ANYONE claiming to have been divinely called, to be a liar or insane. You are not an atheist when it comes to the NT apostles' claims, but you are (currently, you may change your mind again someday) like an atheist as far as modern-day apostles' claims are concerned.

Therefore, it's no surprise that you have no problem with one changing story (the NT one), but you do have a problem with the other one (the latter-day one).

[Libby]

Show me where one single Apostle in the Bible gave ten different stories about something...and then we'll talk.

[Phoenix]

Show me where one single Apostle in the Bible gave ten different stories about something...and then we'll talk.

How about 2 different, contradictory versions of a story? If it's true and inspired and all, there shouldn't be ANY "errata" right? ALL stories should agree 100%.

Here's one for you to explain for me (When I posted it on Carm, it got me banned once):


Matt. 14:

...took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the mul***ude. 20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. 21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

Matt. 15:

:And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the mul***ude. 37 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full. 38 And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.

[alanmolstad]

Well, you should get my point then. I know calling Joseph a "liar" upsets you,.....LOLO...I perfer the term "born Liar"....its more descriptive of Joe's real lack of morals.....

[Phoenix]

LOLO...I perfer the term "born Liar"....its more descriptive of Joe's real lack of morals.....

Were YOU born a liar?

[Libby]

How about 2 different, contradictory versions of a story? If it's true and inspired and all, there shouldn't be ANY "errata" right? ALL stories should agree 100%.

Here's one for you to explain for me (When I posted it on Carm, it got me banned once):


Matt. 14:

...took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the mul***ude. 20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. 21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.

Matt. 15:

:And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the mul***ude. 37 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full. 38 And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.

It got you banned?? Why?

Okay, did Matthew give both of those? I haven't referenced it.

It's only two, not ten.

Seriously, how do you explain Joseph's ever changing story?

[Libby]

But I also believe that Joseph Smith was an apostle of Jesus, so obviously I give see his story as being as reliable as the NT apostles' stories. An atheist would deem ANYONE claiming to have been divinely called, to be a liar or insane. You are not an atheist when it comes to the NT apostles' claims, but you are (currently, you may change your mind again someday) like an atheist as far as modern-day apostles' claims are concerned.

I don't have a problem with the idea of a modern day "prophet", as long as they appear to be reliable and don't contradict the Bible. Joseph doesn't p*** the test on either of these points.

[Libby]

Actually, I think the standard belief for mainstream Christians is that Christ was the last prophet. No need for prophets, now, because Christ is our intermediary. So, a new prophet would be highly unlikely, yes?

That's another strike against Smith.

[Phoenix]

It got you banned?? Why?
It was "divisive." In other words: It asked a question that caused Bible-Inerrantists some discomfort, or it posed the "danger" of making some Evangelicals realize that the scriptures they believe to be perfect, are as prone to contradictions as the scriptures they daily mock and ridicule as being amateur fiction. Can't have that, right?


Okay, did Matthew give both of those?
All I know is they are both in the book of Matthew.


It's only two, not ten.
But if there are differing, changing stories, then it has to be made-up, right? Wasn't that pretty much what you said?


Seriously, how do you explain Joseph's ever changing story?
I use the "Harmony of the Gospels" as one helpful resource. It tries to show that what SEEM to be contradictions in Bible accounts, could just be differing emphasis on details about the event in question. For example, did Paul hear stuff by see nothing when he had that "vision" while on the way to Damascus? Or did he see stuff but hear nothing?

[Phoenix]

Actually, I think the standard belief for mainstream Christians is that Christ was the last prophet.
So all prophecies made after Jesus had left the building are false prophecies? So long, St. John, I guess....
When do you plan on tearing his prophecies out of your Bible, seeing as how they were given to John after Jesus, 'the last prophet,' had died?

And what about "every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head" in 1 Corinthians 11:5?
Doesn't that suggest that Paul thought there could be women prophesying after "the last prophet" ?


No need for prophets, now
Does Kate agree with you on that? It's hard to figure out, since on the one hand, she demands the "right" to become one, but on the other hand, she rejects what the current one has been telling her.

[Libby]

It was "divisive." In other words: It asked a question that caused Bible-Inerrantists some discomfort, or it posed the "danger" of making some Evangelicals realize that the scriptures they believe to be perfect, are as prone to contradictions as the scriptures they daily mock and ridicule as being amateur fiction. Can't have that, right?


All I know is they are both in the book of Matthew.


But if there are differing, changing stories, then it has to be made-up, right? Wasn't that pretty much what you said?


I use the "Harmony of the Gospels" as one helpful resource. It tries to show that what SEEM to be contradictions in Bible accounts, could just be differing emphasis on details about the event in question. For example, did Paul hear stuff by see nothing when he had that "vision" while on the way to Damascus? Or did he see stuff but hear nothing?

The commentary I have found says that Matt 14 and 15 are actually two different occasions on which Jesus performed this same miracle.

Your example, regarding Paul, on the road to Damascus, is really not comparable to Joseph's first vision. The changes in Joseph's story were not minor, they were major, with completely different personages (first an angel, then it was just Jesus, I think, and then, much later, Jesus and the Father. Many "important" details were changed, over the years. Not easy to explain, IMO...just looks bad, even to people who want to believe.

[Libby]

So all prophecies made after Jesus had left the building are false prophecies? So long, St. John, I guess....
When do you plan on tearing his prophecies out of your Bible, seeing as how they were given to John after Jesus, 'the last prophet,' had died?

And what about "every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head" in 1 Corinthians 11:5?
Doesn't that suggest that Paul thought there could be women prophesying after "the last prophet" ?


http://carm.org/question-modern-prophets




Does Kate agree with you on that? It's hard to figure out, since on the one hand, she demands the "right" to become one, but on the other hand, she rejects what the current one has been telling her.

Are all Melchezedek priesthood holders, prophets? I do know that LDS believe, all members in good standing, have the ability to receive revelation.

[Libby]

You have to understand that I don't really agree with Kate's religion. I agree with her on feminist principles, only. Equality for women, in whatever area of life they are pursuing it.

[alanmolstad]

Were YOU born a liar?

No, and I have not cheated on my wife too....
There are many things that separate old Joe from moral people. For in Old Joe's case, he seems to me to have had a hard time telling the truth.....as well as a hard time not chasing after younger and younger skirts.;)

[alanmolstad]

Okay, did Matthew give both of those? I haven't referenced it.


Mark 8:19 " And do you not remember, when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces you picked up?" They said to Him, "Twelve." "When I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of broken pieces did you pick up?" And they said to Him, "Seven."…

jesus was known to feed people...one time he had 5 loaves at the start....and another different time he fed people and had 7 loaves at the start...

And these are only the recorded two times he fed people with a great likelihood that Jesus did this type of feeding a few more times too that are not recorded for us.


So there is no contradiction here....and this can not be used as an excuse for old Joe's ever-changing story...LOL

[alanmolstad]

Libby...I will tell you a story about something that is related to the way some Mormons attempt to point to conflicts in the Bible as a means to make Joe's lies not look so bad.


A few years ago i was on jury duty.
It was a trial of a guy in the Airforce that got drunk and went down the street one day and attacked a bunch of different people.

It was an open and shut case....there were all kinds of witnesses to that attacks...The guy was even trouble for the cops later and was p***ed out in the hospital in photos of that night taken by the police.


I thought as we went into the jury room that "This will not take long"
The guy was clearly guilty and so I was ready to vote "GUILTY" and head home.
But I was wrong...

It turns out that once in the Jury room I discovered that there was this one lady on the jury that simply was not going to vote "guilty" regardless.
She felt that because the man was nice looking that he should be given a "break"

So we argued with her for 3 hours with nothing gained.

Then when she was pressed by the Jury foreman, she said that the witnesses had told different stroies....and were giving conflicting stories about what happend.

And this was true at times.

One witness said that the Air force guy punched a guy in the face with his Left hand, but a different person said it was with his right hand.
The defense tried to make a big deal out of this difference.
The Airforce guy also had changed his story too.
After his arrest the cops took him in and questioned him and they showed a recording of what his answers were, and he talked about all the drinks he had that night, and how he was in a bad mood because of stuff, and had no idea who he attacked because they were just there when he wanted to start hitting people.

Later during the trial he told a totally different story....that he "Only had one beer" and that different people on the street kept getting into fights with him for no reason when he just wanted to go home.

The lady defended this change of story by pointing out how the story of Jesus feeding the people was changed in the Bible too.


THAT.....That was the moment I had to step in and I started to talk to the lady.

I told the lady that whenever two or more people see something unusual, like a car crash, or a street fight, or something that they have never seen before and dont really understand, that its normal to hear later slightly different accounts of the same event.

In fact i told the lady that the slightly different accounts kinda supports that something actually did happen, and that the witnesses have not just all gotten together in a conspiracy and told the same invented story word-for-word.

BUT, this is different than ONE GUY telling an ever-changing story as one version is torn down and gets replaced by different versions in an effort to hide the truth.

When ONE guy tells a different story it means that he is just making stuff up.



And.....I told the lady that a closer reading on the matter of the accounts of Jesus feeding the people and the different times this is talked about in the Bible,. shows us that there is no contradiction, but that at times in the whole text we do see slightly different accounts of the very same event.( "This is my Son" compared to "You are my Son", etc)


That is different than one guy running around changing his story all the time to make it more believable......



the lady saw this , and we were all able to vote "GUILTY"

[Phoenix]

No, and I have not cheated on my wife too....
So you don't believe the doctrine of inherited depravity? You believe that in your early years, you weren't a sinner yet? It wasn't until later in life that you "became" a sinner?

Can you prove that "Joe" was telling lies at an earlier age than you?

[Phoenix]

The commentary I have found says that Matt 14 and 15 are actually two different occasions on which Jesus performed this same miracle.
Yes, Alan apparently did a good *** of explaining it. I am grateful to him for that.



Your example, regarding Paul, on the road to Damascus, is really not comparable to Joseph's first vision.
You need to read "The accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision: A Harmony" so you can see that mentioning one thing in one account, and omitting the mention of it another account, doesn't mean that the accounts contradict each other. Just like with Paul's accounts.


P.S.--I was mistaken about the reason Cram's moderator listed for deleting my post about the Matthew account "discrepancy." I checked my archived copy, and it says their stated reason was "off topic."

[alanmolstad]

So you don't believe the doctrine of inherited depravity?
I only inherited by good looks from my mom's side and wonderful blonde hair from Dad's....

[alanmolstad]

You believe that in your early years, you weren't a sinner yet?

I never claim to be better than any other person....

Im forgiven, but not better....Im sure others, some who are even Mormon, lead more moral and sin-free lives.
If I can boast in anything, it's that I can boast in what Jesus had made out of me.....

[alanmolstad]

It wasn't until later in life that you "became" a sinner?


If you are asking me, "Alan can you remember when you first sinned?".....I dont have a clue.....who remembers stuff like that?

[alanmolstad]

Can you prove that "Joe" was telling lies at an earlier age than you?

I seem to remember a quotation by Joe's mom about his telling wild stories.....
We do see the whole Treasure hunter -scam he was running that he was a good liar by what?...his 20s?....

Im not really sure how old he was when someone finally took him to court for that scam?....but I think we get a good idea at the type of born-liar that old Joe seems to have been at a young age.....

a skill that he honed to be able to tell tall tales about angels etc...

[alanmolstad]

If you are asking me, "Alan can you remember when you first sinned?".....I dont have a clue.....who remembers stuff like that?

one thing not lost on me?....that fact that when you list The Mormon founder as a "Born Liar" you see the Mormons try to come back with the excuse, "But you are no better Alan"

>>>>>>>>>wonderful religion you guys got there ....

[Libby]

I think he just means that no one is a "born liar". One becomes that way.

[Phoenix]

one thing not lost on me?....that fact that when you list The Mormon founder as a "Born Liar" you see the Mormons try to come back with the excuse, "But you are no better Alan"

>>>>>>>>>wonderful religion you guys got there ....

No, it's a wonderful (not) religion that YOU have there, where you yourself know that you were born, you know that you have lied (most humans have), yet you feel no "pot and kettle" hypocrisy by accusing others of being a born liar.

In fact, if you believe as the typical anti-LDS Evangelical does that just getting angry at someone makes you a murderer, then you're not just a born liar: You're a born murderer. You don't feel any "cognitive dissonance" as you unilaterally throw accusations at Joseph Smith? Are you better than him, really? I want to see you claim to be better than others. That will put the icing on the hypocrisy cake.

[Phoenix]

I think he just means that no one is a "born liar". One becomes that way.
You are perceptive as usual.

[Libby]

Yes, Alan apparently did a good *** of explaining it. I am grateful to him for that.



You need to read "The accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision: A Harmony" so you can see that mentioning one thing in one account, and omitting the mention of it another account, doesn't mean that the accounts contradict each other. Just like with Paul's accounts.


P.S.--I was mistaken about the reason Cram's moderator listed for deleting my post about the Matthew account "discrepancy." I checked my archived copy, and it says their stated reason was "off topic."

I'm fairly sure I have read the LDS explanations of all of the different versions of the first vision....but, it's been awhile. I don't remember being satisfied with it.

CARM's ship is a bit too uptight for my taste. I've gone over there a few times, recently, and even posted a little, but the whole board is just so "angry" and divided. Not much good going on there, IMO.

[Libby]

Mark 8:19 " And do you not remember, when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces you picked up?" They said to Him, "Twelve." "When I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of broken pieces did you pick up?" And they said to Him, "Seven."…

jesus was known to feed people...one time he had 5 loaves at the start....and another different time he fed people and had 7 loaves at the start...

And these are only the recorded two times he fed people with a great likelihood that Jesus did this type of feeding a few more times too that are not recorded for us.


So there is no contradiction here....and this can not be used as an excuse for old Joe's ever-changing story...LOL

Thanks, Alan. I hadn't even had time to look at the scriptures, which I was going to do this evening.

[alanmolstad]

No, it's a wonderful (not) religion that YOU have there, where you yourself know that you were born, you know that you have lied .

You might want to review the forum rules......

[alanmolstad]

Thanks, Alan. I hadn't even had time to look at the scriptures, which I was going to do this evening.

Im just so busy lately...no time to chime-in and help you out.....
I can post a few sentences in the morning as I grab an egg to go...
and at night I simply got just time enough to check to see whats new before I got to get going on the house projects that need doing by the weekend.

[Libby]

Oh sure, we all have things we need to take care of. I usually do this in the evenings, after dinner and all that.

[Libby]

No, it's a wonderful (not) religion that YOU have there, where you yourself know that you were born, you know that you have lied (most humans have), yet you feel no "pot and kettle" hypocrisy by accusing others of being a born liar.

In fact, if you believe as the typical anti-LDS Evangelical does that just getting angry at someone makes you a murderer, then you're not just a born liar: You're a born murderer. You don't feel any "cognitive dissonance" as you unilaterally throw accusations at Joseph Smith? Are you better than him, really? I want to see you claim to be better than others. That will put the icing on the hypocrisy cake.

I think we should try very hard not to make our posts personal. Public figures, like Joseph Smith, are always fair game...and he is the central figure in Mormonism. We have all lied, that's fairly certain, but we haven't all started a religion on, what some/many (?) people believe to be, untruths.

[RealFakeHair]

I think we should try very hard not to make our posts personal. Public figures, like Joseph Smith, are always fair game...and he is the central figure in Mormonism. We have all lied, that's fairly certain, but we haven't all started a religion on, what some/many (?) people believe to be, untruths.

Okay, I wont type about you, but everyone can type about me, why? Because ii is always about me.

[John T]

How about 2 different, contradictory versions of a story? If it's true and inspired and all, there shouldn't be ANY "errata" right? ALL stories should agree 100%.

Here's one for you to explain for me (When I posted it on Carm, it got me banned once):


Matt. 14:

...took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the mul***ude. 20 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full. 21 And they that had eaten were aboutfive thousand men, beside women and children.

Matt. 15:

:And he took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and brake them, and gave to his disciples, and the disciples to the mul***ude. 37 And they did all eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets full. 38 And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.

How silly!

You ***ume that the Disciples could not count to seven. These ate TWO DISTINCT EVENTS, and there is sufficient differing details in the entire p***age to indicate that. Especially telling is the difference between 4000 men and 5000 men

Per usual, toy Mormons want to take something superficial, ignore the context of the entire event, and then make an issue of a non-issue. Of course, I will not convince you of your error because you are programmed to see it as a contradiction.

In the same manner as you are programmed yo believe in a non-existent language, a non-existent "lost tribe", a non existent submarine voyage of 8000+ nautical miles, etc tou also believe in the existence of neas, sheums, curelomons cummons and perhaps unicorns.

You will NEVER be able to promote Mormonism by bashing the Bible, as you guys consider it one of your 5 "Standard Works"--(or something similar) because you actually bash a fundamental book for yourselves.

[Phoenix]

How silly!
It's silly to ask a question?

[Phoenix]

You might want to review the forum rules......

If you are willing to state that you have never lied, then I would like your autograph.

[alanmolstad]

I think you should reacquaint yourself to the rules.....and that is no lie....

[alanmolstad]

How silly!

You ***ume that the Disciples could not count to seven. These ate TWO DISTINCT EVENTS, and there is sufficient differing details in the entire p***age to indicate that. Especially telling is the difference between 4000 men and 5000 men

Per usual, toy Mormons want to take something superficial, ignore the context of the entire event, and then make an issue of a non-issue. Of course, I will not convince you of your error because you are programmed to see it as a contradiction.

In the same manner as you are programmed yo believe in a non-existent language, a non-existent "lost tribe", a non existent submarine voyage of 8000+ nautical miles, etc tou also believe in the existence of neas, sheums, curelomons cummons and perhaps unicorns.

You will NEVER be able to promote Mormonism by bashing the Bible, as you guys consider it one of your 5 "Standard Works"--(or something similar) because you actually bash a fundamental book for yourselves.
Good post!

You show good spirit and have a good grasp of the many problems found in Mormonism.

[Phoenix]

Good post!
I was thinking of saying "No, it is a pathetic post," but in a way, it is a good post, because it shows how anti-LDS people want to take something superficial (such as differences in accounts of the first vision), ignore the context of the entire event, and then make an issue of a non-issue. Of course, I will not convince you of your error because you are programmed to see it as a contradiction.

[Libby]

Phoenix, I'm not sure why you would consider those differences "superficial". They were not just superficial...there were some very important and huge differences between the first tellings and the last.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix, I'm not sure why you would consider those differences "superficial". They were not just superficial...there were some very important and huge differences between the first tellings and the last.

You are really, really looking at it in about the most superficial way as possible.

For starters, not all the accounts were even written by him. I am willing to bet that if you put the Bible's accounts to the SAME level of doubt and suspicion that you put this account to, you'd be apologizing like crazy.

[jookco]

what is the different between the Mormon? and the Pentecostal church, I own a christian http://www.everydaydevotional.com/ but always think posting mormon devotions will anger my readers because i don't know if mormon is considered true christian organisation.

[RealFakeHair]

what is the different between the Mormon? and the Pentecostal church, I own a christian http://www.everydaydevotional.com/ but always think posting mormon devotions will anger my readers because i don't know if mormon is considered true christian organisation.

There are some things the LDSinc. and Pentecostals have in common, but they are two very different religious intenties. The LDSinc. come out of the imaginary mind of Joseph the skirt chase'er Smith jr. and the other from some back woods hillbillies.

[Libby]

You are really, really looking at it in about the most superficial way as possible.

For starters, not all the accounts were even written by him. I am willing to bet that if you put the Bible's accounts to the SAME level of doubt and suspicion that you put this account to, you'd be apologizing like crazy.

They were written by those who heard the story directly from him. They were first hand witnesses. Plus there were a couple of early versions written in his own handwriting that differed from the final version.

It's kind of strange that Joseph did not write this final version until 18 years after it happened...doncha think? That only verbal versions were told to various people..and then, not until seven years later? The "faith promoting" stories I've read always have Joseph telling everyone of his vision (including his family, who never mention it) right after it happens.