Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Coug
Does only mentioning one personage mean that he only claimed to see just Christ, but didn't see the Father? Yes, the omission may be a little puzzling, but is it really that significant?
Frankly, this early account is very rough, even a bit rambling, like it was done in a hurry.
|
No, not significant. Here's why: If you believe that Joseph saw the things he said he saw on any level, then evidence of inconsistency (implying mendacity) won't matter to you because your hopes and beliefs aren't empirically based.
This is what some people are missing. If I believe that a 14 year old boy saw God in the woods and later translated gold plates, I believe it on a spiritual level or I have suspended disbelief and chosen to believe it. Either way, apparent inconsistencies in accounts even if it is assumed they mutually excluded one another aren't going to change the spiritual belief/choice.
In the absence of those things, the whole thing is fantastical and absurd as is true with any religious tradition. But no one can convince me that chocolate and peanut butter ice cream from Baskin&Robbins isn't the very best kind of ice cream in the world by showing me evidence that 9 out of 10 prefer vanilla. That is why discussion about the likelihood of what "really" happened misses the point.