Comments on: First Vision http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/first-vision/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=first-vision Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:27:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Kris http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/first-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-6386 Kris Mon, 03 Apr 2006 01:04:40 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/595/#comment-6386 YOWZERS people. K. YOWZERS people.

K.

]]> By: Kim Siever http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/first-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-6383 Kim Siever Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:55:57 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/595/#comment-6383 I am not avoiding it. I have not seen an opportunity that caused me to present my opinion. I am not avoiding it. I have not seen an opportunity that caused me to present my opinion.

]]> By: ltbugaf http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/first-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-6368 ltbugaf Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:44:05 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/595/#comment-6368 So if simple declarations of personal belief are all you want, why do you so assiduously avoid making your own? So if simple declarations of personal belief are all you want, why do you so assiduously avoid making your own?

]]> By: Kim Siever http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/first-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-6312 Kim Siever Sat, 01 Apr 2006 04:28:42 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/595/#comment-6312 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. 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 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/first-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-6272 ltbugaf Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:49:28 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/595/#comment-6272 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? 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 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/first-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-6260 Kim Siever Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:29:43 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/595/#comment-6260 #15 did not indicate whether you believe angels were present. #15 did not indicate whether you believe angels were present.

]]> By: ltbugaf http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/first-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-6238 ltbugaf Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:04:11 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/595/#comment-6238 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. 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 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/first-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-6231 Kim Siever Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:51:27 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/595/#comment-6231 I didn't say there were no angels present. I didn’t say there were no angels present.

]]> By: ltbugaf http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/first-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-6209 ltbugaf Fri, 31 Mar 2006 03:25:53 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/595/#comment-6209 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? 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 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/first-vision/comment-page-1/#comment-6182 ltbugaf Thu, 30 Mar 2006 20:43:53 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/03/28/595/#comment-6182 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. 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.

]]>