Comments on: First Vision

By: Kris

Kris — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 01:04:40 +0000

YOWZERS people.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:55:57 +0000

I am not avoiding it. I have not seen an opportunity that caused me to present my opinion.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:44:05 +0000

So if simple declarations of personal belief are all you want, why do you so assiduously avoid making your own?

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 04:28:42 +0000

I don’t need to explain why it is or is not feasible to believe angels were present. I asked you a simple question, and quite frankly I was hoping for a simple answer. I was hoping you would actually say whether you thought there were angels present or not, not try to put together a thesis on the possibility of it having happened.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:49:28 +0000

OK, look at #8 again. If even one version of the First Vision story said it, then we’re reasonable in concluding that it’s true.

Now, look at #15 again. There’s no reason to believe it’s not true.

Do you need any more help putting this together?

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:29:43 +0000

#15 did not indicate whether you believe angels were present.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:04:11 +0000

I know you didn’t say that. I’ve been literate from a young age.

You asked whether I thought angels were present. I assumed (foolishly, it turns out) that you desired an answer.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:51:27 +0000

I didn’t say there were no angels present.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Fri, 31 Mar 2006 03:25:53 +0000

Re: Comment 7–what reason do we have to conclude there were no angels present? The fact that they aren’t mentioned in other accounts? By that reasoning, should we then strike out of the four gospels any happening that isn’t described in at least two of the four?

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:43:53 +0000

Re: Comment 9

Unless my reading of Doctrine & Covenants 129 is drastically wrong, I think we can be safe in this conclusion: Merely looking at a being is not sufficient to tell whether that being is a spirit only or has a tangible body.