First off, Paul's Damascus road experience both in Acts 7 and 22, do not have him confusing Jesus with an angel and is structurally consistent. However, smith's vision is very inconsistent.
Who you believe and which way you interpret it is up to you. but I believe in the Theophany of Jospeh Smith just as I believe the theophany of Paul. If you choose not to believe as I do that is fine with me.
Perhaps you can answer for me which of the three versions released under Smith's authority one is to believe? My sources are D&C; Messenger and Advocate, 1834, vol.1, no.3 and History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith. Again, these are based upon mormon documents of the tale and I have not included the multiple second and third hand passages by your other prophets regarding the event, so perhaps you can answer me.
Was his age at the first visitation: 14, 15 or 17 yrs old?
Was it a)in the woods b) in his bedroom or c) who knows?
Who visited him a)an angel b) Jesus only c) both Jesus and the father?
Fred seemed to be unable/willing to answer them, he wouldn't say.
What is realy interesting is the Book of Abraham (mormon scripture) ....
Is this the same boa that was translated from the papyri that was returned to Slc in 1968 and found to be a common pagan prayer generally known in egyptology as a "book of breathing", whose 20th century translation has nothing to do with Abraham at all? Have you heard about smiths translation of the Kinderhook plates? How about an old Greek Psalter Smith was given to translate? Only a bogus prophet translates bogus plates and documents.
Straw Man. I never claim Paul said it was an angel.
Paul gives accounts that differ in detail to different audiences.
Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
That Paul gave differing accounts to different audiences does not bother me. I still know he is an Apostle of God. Peter denied Christ . THis does not invalidate the fact he was chosen as God's Apostle. Mormons do not claim Apostles are infallible. The Apostle Joseph Smith gave differing accounts to differing audiences, as did Paul.
from wiki- Paul himself is very disinclined to talk about the precise character of his conversion (Galatians 1:11–24) though he uses it as authority for his independence from the apostles. In Acts there are three accounts of his conversion experience:
The first is a description of the event itself (Acts 9:1–20) in which he is described as falling to the ground, as a result of a flash of light from the sky, hearing the words "Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me?" The second is Paul's witness to the event before the crowd in Jerusalem (Acts 22:1–22). The third is his testimony before King Agrippa II (Acts 26:1–24).
My sources are D&C; Messenger and Advocate, 1834, vol.1, no.3 and History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.
Please provide a link to your source as I do not have acces to 2 out of 3 of them. You'll also have to reference which part of the D&C as well as there are over a hundred sections.
>>>Is this the same boa that was translated from the papyri that was returned to Slc in 1968 and found to be a common pagan prayer generally known in egyptology as a "book of breathing", whose 20th century translation has nothing to do with Abraham at all?
Hugh Nibley kicked this canard to the curb back in the 1960's. The Book of Breathings didn't match descriptions of the original book of Abraham though it had a similar picture which has since been found in other funerary texts as well, besides the book of Hor. Why should I waste my time repeating what was debunked 40 years ago.
That you still rely on it shows you haven't kept up with the debate. What is the website you are cutting and pasting old canards from? Here is a link to an article from cephasministry that discusses some of Nibley's work among other things. Don't worry it's from Evangelicals not from some "biased" Mormons. Perhaps you should read it and get up to speed.
http://www.cephasministry.com/mormon_apologetics_losing_battle.html
Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It? by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen
The paper has now been published in Trinity Journal (Fall '98, p179-205). Mormon Apologetic, Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It? Carl Mosser and Paul Owen 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Far West Annual Meeting April 25, 1997
The Hebrew text of Isaiah 63:8-9 "For he [Yahweh] said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them . . . ."
The Greek Septuagint explains that it was Yahweh who delivered them as well and the scripture refers to Yahweh not some other unnamed angel.
What is really interesting though is that the Book of Abraham also refers to Yahweh as the angel of the Lord's prescence.
And as they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God and the Lord hearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty, and the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately unloosed my bands; And his voice was unto me: Abraham, Abraham, behold, my name is Jehovah, and I have heard thee, and have come down to deliver thee, and to take thee away from thy father's house, and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou knowest not of . . . . (Abraham 1:15-16)
Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity
In light of the link in my previous post about scholarship from cehphasministry what is your explanation of the term the angel of the Lord's presence? And why does it take "Mormon" scholarship to remind modern Christians what the early Christian Fathers plainly understod?
My answer is that the restoration is real. Apostles are neccessary today. John Smyth, if you have heard of him, agreed with me on the point that the modern church has to have Apostles to be valid.
If you disagree that's fine with me I suppose, though I'll stick with Isaiah and John Smyth on the points I raise.