Controversy Concerning D&C 121:28 - Revision history

RogerNicholson: Redirected page to Question: Does Doctrine and Covenants 121:28 contradict the First Vision?

2017-04-19T04:48:34Z

Redirected page to Question: Does Doctrine and Covenants 121:28 contradict the First Vision?

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:48, 19 April 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	#REDIRECT [[~~Joseph Smith's First Vision/~~Doctrine and Covenants 121:28 ~~contradicts vision~~]]		#REDIRECT [[Question: Does Doctrine and Covenants 121:28 contradict the First Vision?]]

RogerNicholson: link

2011-04-09T16:56:34Z

link

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 9 April 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	#REDIRECT [[First Vision/Doctrine and Covenants 121:28 contradicts vision]]		#REDIRECT [[Joseph Smith's First Vision/Doctrine and Covenants 121:28 contradicts vision]]

RogerNicholson: redirect

2009-06-03T19:29:04Z

redirect

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 3 June 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{FirstVisionPortal}}~~		#REDIRECT [[First Vision/Doctrine and Covenants 121:28 contradicts vision]]
	~~==Criticism==~~

	In 1839 Joseph Smith received a revelation from God in which it was stated that the time would come "in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods they shall be manifest" (D&C 121:28). This was an "unnecessary revelation," since according to the official LDS Church First Vision account Joseph Smith supposedly knew that there was more than one God since 1820. This information counts as evidence that the Prophet's story was fraudulent.

	~~===Source(s) of the criticism===~~

	* Christian Research and Counsel, “Documented History of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [~~There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]~~

	~~==Response==~~

	~~This is truly one of the strangest accusations that has ever been made against the veracity of the~~ First Vision ~~story.~~

	A study of the origin of D&C 121 reveals that it consists exclusively of five widely-separated, but sequential, extracts from two letters written by Joseph Smith and others between the 20th and 25th of March 1839 (while they were imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri). The extracts run as follows:

	~~#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|1-6}}~~
	~~#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|7-25}}~~
	~~#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|26-32}}~~
	~~#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|33}}~~
	~~#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|34-46}}~~

	~~The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.~~

	Anyone who will read the original letter from whence this extract was taken{{ref\|extract1}} will quickly discover that the comment about "one God or many gods" is '''NOT''' part of a revelation from the Lord—but is rather part of comments being made by Joseph Smith.

	~~A careful reading of the first letter also reveals that references are made to all three members of the Godhead:~~

	* "God the father"
	* "our Lord and ~~savior Jesus Christ"~~
	* "the holy Ghost"

	The anti-Mormons who constructed this argument do not seem to be aware of the great inconsistency in their own reasoning. They mention the official LDS Church First Vision account but seem to fail to recognize that it was written by 2 May 1838—about ten and three-quarters months before the D&C 121 extracts were penned. The 1838 First Vision recital clearly differentiates between the Father and the Son as separate divine Beings. Do the detractors of Mormonism really expect others to believe that Joseph Smith was so blinded by his own deceit that he couldn't keep his story straight for less than a year? If they do, then it is time for them to reevaluate their position on this matter.

	~~==Conclusion==~~

	This anti-Mormon argument against the First Vision is built upon a false premise; the material being used as a weapon has been misidentified (it is '''NOT''' a revelation from the Lord). Joseph Smith did indeed understand since 1820 that the Father and Son were two separate divine Beings. And he was teaching this concept to the Saints many years before he had the 1839 letters written.{{ref\|letters1}}

	~~==Endnotes==~~

	~~#{{note\|extract1}} Joseph Smith, Letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois (20 March 1839), cited in {{PWJS1\|start=13}} {{link1\|url=http~~:~~//deseretbook.com/personalwritings/47}}~~
	~~#{{note\|letters1}} See {{s\|\|DC\|76\|20-21}}; {{EMS1 \| author=NeedAuthor\| article=A Vision\|date=July 1832\|vol=1\|num=2\|start=10\|}}~~

	~~==Further reading==~~
	~~===FAIR wiki articles===~~
	~~{{FirstVisionWiki}}~~

	~~===FAIR web site===~~
	~~{{FirstVisionFAIR}}~~

	~~===External links===~~
	~~{{FirstVisionLinks}}~~

	~~===Printed material===~~
	~~{{FirstVisionPrint}}~~
	~~[[Category:First Vision~~]]

RogerNicholson: cat

2009-03-28T04:21:18Z

cat

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:21, 28 March 2009
Line 53:		Line 53:
	===Printed material===		===Printed material===
	{{FirstVisionPrint}}		{{FirstVisionPrint}}
			[[Category:First Vision]]

GregSmith: /* Endnotes */

2007-07-22T14:35:16Z

Endnotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:35, 22 July 2007
Line 39:		Line 39:

	#{{note\|extract1}} Joseph Smith, Letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois (20 March 1839), cited in {{PWJS1\|start=13}} {{link1\|url=http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/47}}		#{{note\|extract1}} Joseph Smith, Letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois (20 March 1839), cited in {{PWJS1\|start=13}} {{link1\|url=http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/47}}
	#{{note\|letters1}} See {{s\|\|DC\|76\|20-21}}; {{EMS1 \| author=NeedAuthor\| article=~~NeedArticle~~\|date=July 1832\|vol=1\|num=2\|start=10\|~~}}{{NeedCite~~}}		#{{note\|letters1}} See {{s\|\|DC\|76\|20-21}}; {{EMS1 \| author=NeedAuthor\| article=A Vision\|date=July 1832\|vol=1\|num=2\|start=10\|}}

	==Further reading==		==Further reading==

GregSmith: /* Endnotes */

2007-07-21T18:26:50Z

Endnotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:26, 21 July 2007
Line 38:		Line 38:
	==Endnotes==		==Endnotes==

	#{{note\|extract1}} (~~the first letter~~ / ~~see Jesee, ed~~.~~, ''Personal Writings of Joseph Smith'')~~		#{{note\|extract1}} Joseph Smith, Letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois (20 March 1839), cited in {{PWJS1\|start=13}} {{link1\|url=http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/47}}
	#{{note\|letters1}} See {{s\|\|DC\|76\|20-21}}; {{EMS1 \| author=NeedAuthor\| article=NeedArticle\|date=July 1832\|vol=1\|num=2\|start=10\|}}{{NeedCite}}		#{{note\|letters1}} See {{s\|\|DC\|76\|20-21}}; {{EMS1 \| author=NeedAuthor\| article=NeedArticle\|date=July 1832\|vol=1\|num=2\|start=10\|}}{{NeedCite}}

GregSmith: /* Endnotes */

2007-07-21T18:21:59Z

Endnotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 21 July 2007
Line 38:		Line 38:
	==Endnotes==		==Endnotes==

	#{{note\|letters1}} See {{s\|\|DC\|76\|20-21}}; {{EMS1 \| author=NeedAuthor\| article=NeedArticle\|date=July 1832\|vol=1\|num=~~2start~~=10\|}}{{NeedCite}}		#{{note\|extract1}} (the first letter / see Jesee, ed., ''Personal Writings of Joseph Smith'')
			#{{note\|letters1}} See {{s\|\|DC\|76\|20-21}}; {{EMS1 \| author=NeedAuthor\| article=NeedArticle\|date=July 1832\|vol=1\|num=2\|start=10\|}}{{NeedCite}}

	==Further reading==		==Further reading==

GregSmith: /* Response */

2007-07-21T18:21:25Z

Response

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 21 July 2007
Line 18:		Line 18:
	#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|26-32}}		#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|26-32}}
	#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|33}}		#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|33}}
	#{{s\|\|DC\|121:34-46}}		#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|34-46}}

	The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.		The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.

GregSmith: /* Response */

2007-07-21T18:21:11Z

Response

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 21 July 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:
	A study of the origin of D&C 121 reveals that it consists exclusively of five widely-separated, but sequential, extracts from two letters written by Joseph Smith and others between the 20th and 25th of March 1839 (while they were imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri). The extracts run as follows:		A study of the origin of D&C 121 reveals that it consists exclusively of five widely-separated, but sequential, extracts from two letters written by Joseph Smith and others between the 20th and 25th of March 1839 (while they were imprisoned in Liberty, Missouri). The extracts run as follows:

	~~:D&C~~ 121:1-6		#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|1-6}}
	~~:D&C~~ 121:7-25		#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|7-25}}
	~~:D&C~~ 121:26-32		#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|26-32}}
	~~:D&C~~ 121:33		#{{s\|\|DC\|121\|33}}
	~~:D&C~~ 121:34-46		#{{s\|\|DC\|121:34-46}}

	The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.		The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.

	Anyone who will read the original letter from whence this extract was taken ~~(the first letter / see Jesee, ed., ''Personal Writings of Joseph Smith'')~~ will quickly discover that the comment about "one God or many gods" is '''NOT''' part of a revelation from the Lord—but is rather part of comments being made by Joseph Smith.		Anyone who will read the original letter from whence this extract was taken{{ref\|extract1}} will quickly discover that the comment about "one God or many gods" is '''NOT''' part of a revelation from the Lord—but is rather part of comments being made by Joseph Smith.

	A careful reading of the first letter also reveals that references are made to all three members of the Godhead:		A careful reading of the first letter also reveals that references are made to all three members of the Godhead:
Line 30:		Line 30:
	* "the holy Ghost"		* "the holy Ghost"

	The anti-Mormons who constructed this argument do not seem to be aware of the great inconsistency in their own reasoning. They mention the official LDS Church First Vision account but seem to fail to recognize that it was written by 2 May 1838—about ten and three-quarters months before the D&C 121 extracts were penned. The 1838 First Vision recital clearly differentiates between the Father and the Son as separate divine Beings. Do the detractors of Mormonism really expect others to believe that Joseph Smith was so blinded by his own deceit that he couldn't keep his story straight for less than a year? If they do, then it is time for them to reevaluate their position on this matter.		The anti-Mormons who constructed this argument do not seem to be aware of the great inconsistency in their own reasoning. They mention the official LDS Church First Vision account but seem to fail to recognize that it was written by 2 May 1838—about ten and three-quarters months before the D&C 121 extracts were penned. The 1838 First Vision recital clearly differentiates between the Father and the Son as separate divine Beings. Do the detractors of Mormonism really expect others to believe that Joseph Smith was so blinded by his own deceit that he couldn't keep his story straight for less than a year? If they do, then it is time for them to reevaluate their position on this matter.

	==Conclusion==		==Conclusion==

GregSmith at 18:18, 21 July 2007

2007-07-21T18:18:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 21 July 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{draft}}~~
	{{FirstVisionPortal}}		{{FirstVisionPortal}}
	==Criticism==		==Criticism==

	In 1839 Joseph Smith received a revelation from God in which it was stated that the time would come "in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods they shall be manifest" (D&C 121:28). This was an "unnecessary revelation," since according to the official LDS Church First Vision account Joseph Smith supposedly knew that there was more than one God since 1820. This information counts as evidence that the Prophet's story was fraudulent.		In 1839 Joseph Smith received a revelation from God in which it was stated that the time would come "in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods they shall be manifest" (D&C 121:28). This was an "unnecessary revelation," since according to the official LDS Church First Vision account Joseph Smith supposedly knew that there was more than one God since 1820. This information counts as evidence that the Prophet's story was fraudulent.


	===Source(s) of the criticism===		===Source(s) of the criticism===

	* Christian Research and Counsel, “Documented History of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]		* Christian Research and Counsel, “Documented History of Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” full-color pamphlet, 10 pages. [There is a notation within this pamphlet indicating that research and portions of text were garnered from Utah Lighthouse Ministry]


	==Response==		==Response==
Line 25:		Line 22:
	The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.		The comment about "one God or many gods" is found in extract #3.

	Anyone who will read the original letter from whence this extract was taken (the first letter / see Jesee, ed., ''Personal Writings of Joseph Smith'') will quickly discover that the comment about "one God or many gods" is '''NOT''' part of a revelation from the Lord -- but is rather part of comments being made by Joseph Smith.		Anyone who will read the original letter from whence this extract was taken (the first letter / see Jesee, ed., ''Personal Writings of Joseph Smith'') will quickly discover that the comment about "one God or many gods" is '''NOT''' part of a revelation from the Lord—but is rather part of comments being made by Joseph Smith.

	A careful reading of the first letter also reveals that references are made to all three members of the Godhead:		A careful reading of the first letter also reveals that references are made to all three members of the Godhead:
Line 33:		Line 30:
	* "the holy Ghost"		* "the holy Ghost"

	The anti-Mormons who constructed this argument do not seem to be aware of the great inconsistency in their own reasoning. They mention the official LDS Church First Vision account but seem to fail to recognize that it was written by 2 May 1838 -- about ten and three-quarters months before the D&C 121 extracts were penned. The 1838 First Vision recital clearly differentiates between the Father and the Son as separate divine Beings. Do the detractors of Mormonism really expect others to believe that Joseph Smith was so blinded by his own deceit that he couldn't keep his story straight for less than a year? If they do, then it is time for them to reevaluate their position on this matter.		The anti-Mormons who constructed this argument do not seem to be aware of the great inconsistency in their own reasoning. They mention the official LDS Church First Vision account but seem to fail to recognize that it was written by 2 May 1838—about ten and three-quarters months before the D&C 121 extracts were penned. The 1838 First Vision recital clearly differentiates between the Father and the Son as separate divine Beings. Do the detractors of Mormonism really expect others to believe that Joseph Smith was so blinded by his own deceit that he couldn't keep his story straight for less than a year? If they do, then it is time for them to reevaluate their position on this matter.

	==Conclusion==		==Conclusion==

	This anti-Mormon argument against the First Vision is built upon a false premise; the material being used as a weapon has been misidentified (it is '''NOT''' a revelation from the Lord). Joseph Smith did indeed understand since 1820 that the Father and Son were two separate divine Beings. And he was teaching this concept to the Saints many years before he had the 1839 letters written ~~(see D&C 76:20-21 / ''Evening and Morning Star,'' vol~~. ~~1, no. 2, July 1832, 10).~~		This anti-Mormon argument against the First Vision is built upon a false premise; the material being used as a weapon has been misidentified (it is '''NOT''' a revelation from the Lord). Joseph Smith did indeed understand since 1820 that the Father and Son were two separate divine Beings. And he was teaching this concept to the Saints many years before he had the 1839 letters written.{{ref\|letters1}}


	==Endnotes==		==Endnotes==

	~~''None''~~		#{{note\|letters1}} See {{s\|\|DC\|76\|20-21}}; {{EMS1 \| author=NeedAuthor\| article=NeedArticle\|date=July 1832\|vol=1\|num=2start=10\|}}{{NeedCite}}

	<!-~~- How to add a footnote:~~
	~~NOTE: Footnotes in this~~ article ~~use names, not numbers. Please see [[FAIRWiki:Footnotes]] for details.~~
	1~~) Assign your footnote a unique name, for example TheSun_Dec9.~~
	~~2) Add the macro {{ref~~\|~~TheSun_Dec9~~}} ~~to the body of the article, where you want the new footnote.~~
	~~3) Take note of the name of the footnote that immediately precedes yours in the article body.~~
	~~4) Add #~~{{~~Note\|TheSun_Dec9~~}} ~~to the list, immediately below the footnote you noted in step 3. No need to re-number anything!~~
	~~5) Multiple footnotes to the same reference: see [[Wikipedia:Footnotes]] for a how-to.~~
	~~NOTE: It is important to add footnotes in the right order in the list!~~
	~~-->~~

	==Further reading==		==Further reading==