Talk:First Vision/Archive 7

message: This one is easier to explain.  'LDS Church' typically refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes called the 'Utah' church, and by far the largest denomination of the Latter Day Saint movement.  The 'movement' refers to all denominations that trace their ancestory back to Joseph Smith, Jr. and claim to be the legitimate successor to the church he organized in 1830 (for more information see Succession crisis).  This criticism is related to the 'JS Jr., made it up' POV I explained above, and goes something like this:
::Not only did JS, Jr. make up the FV, his immediate successors knew that he did, that's why they never talked about it!  But later leaders were desperate for something to strengthen the faith of the Church after stopping the practice of plural marriage, so they siezed on the First Vision, after all, it's such a good story and those silly mormons are all so gullible, they believe everything their leaders tell them! 74s181 03:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course the other LDS movement churches all had so much love and respect for the Utah church (after the bitter |succession fight) that they immediately followed their lead and also adopted the FV as a core doctrine after having kept it a secret from their members for over 50 years. And this is why all the LDS movement denominations teach the FV as a foundational event today, even though it wasn't 'emphasized' in the early church.  74s181 11:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 74, can you provide citations for the stated fact that "...most [Latter Day Saint denominations] teach that the vision ended the Great Apostasy, inaugurated the Latter Day Saint movement, and laid a foundation for the theology and authority of Mormon churches."?  The fact is new to me, and I would appreciate a pointer or some references to educate me before we discuss this further.  Tom Haws 19:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that 'ended the Great Apostasy' was something you added, Tom Haws.  Or, maybe you're questioning whether 'most' LDS denominations believe this.  I didn't think any of this is disputed, but if so, I think there are adequate references in the 'Beliefs' section.  74s181 00:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "maybe you're questioning whether 'most' LDS denominations believe this"  That's right.  I honestly don't know.  I know the LDS Church view.  But I don't think (though I don't know for sure) that it is the standard sympathetic view.  We want to present the consensus sympathetic view, but I am not sure what that might be.  Tom Haws 18:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By 'sympathetic view' do you mean, the view of those 'sympathetic' to the FV, or in other words, those who believe 'something' happened?  If so, I have to say that most of the LDS denominations that I know about teach that the Great Apostasy occurred, and that JS, Jr., was called by God to restore His church.  The Community of Christ has de-emphasized the 'apostasy' aspect of the FV, so 'ended the Great Apostasy' doesn't apply to them, so 'most' is probably correct. The First_Vision#Community_of_Christ section explains this, I don't think it is a detail we need to cover in the lead, but if someone wants to suggest different wording I say, go for it, but I think there are much bigger problems in the article than this. 74s181 00:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope change from LDS church to LDS movement churches 

message: I don't think its profitable or possible to go any further with this article without getting hard citations for the following question (Tom Haws 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TCoJCoLdS - covered in the beliefs section, with links. With 13 million members TCoJCoLdS is 10 times larger than all the other groups put together, so anything that is true about TCoJCoLdS is true about 'most' within the LDS movement. 74s181 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: CoC (aka RLDS) - refers to FV as the 'grove experience', covered in the beliefs section, with links. 74s181 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Church of Jesus Christ (aka Bickertonites) - Ok, we have nothing in the article about them, a quick search didn't uncover anything about the FV on their website.  With 15,000 members they are larger than Church of Christ (Temple Lot). If we can find a reference that says they DO NOT teach the FV we should state that in the article. 74s181 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Restoration Branches - 10,000-15,000 members, they consider themselves a continuation of the RLDS church, so they probably have similar beliefs to CoC regarding the FV.  74s181 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: FLDS - Everything I can find about this group focuses on their practice of polygamy, but I remember someone somewhere saying that they also believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to JS, Jr., but they refer to God the Father as 'Adam'. Of course, that doesn't really answer your question.  74s181 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Jan Shipps - Not really sure what you're looking for re: groupings.  Maybe you're thinking that variations in belief vary along regional lines, i.e., 'prairie saints' believe X and 'Rocky mountain saints' believe Y.  Well, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) HQ is right across the street from Community of Christ HQ, both 'prairie saint' groups, but the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) FV beliefs are much closer to TCoJCoLdS. 74s181 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I would think if we could get a tight handle on all this, we might be able to craft an accurate and NPOV intro.  Tom Haws 18:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that to the extent that reliable sources are available, the views of these different denominations on the FV should be in the article.  But I also think that there are much bigger problems with the article than presenting the views of groups that represent 1/10th of 1% of the believers.  74s181 00:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts needed 

message: I know that we have discussed this in the past, and I know that I said that we should name the person and state their qualifications. 74s181 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grant Palmer, a former paid LDS religious instructor and currently a disfellowshipped member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has noted... 74s181 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I only described Allen when I found I couldn't link to him.  (There's a musician James B. Allen with a Wiki bio.)--John Foxe 10:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair, but why did you change from Brodie to Allen at all? 74s181 10:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution, or, IOW, "high-ranking-super-duper-mormon-history-expert-who-doesn't-believe-in-the-First-Vision John Doe wrote..." 

message: Within the context of the First Vision article, an anachronism would be a criticism based on an error in temporal sequence, and would be a specific type of the more general 'contradictions' criticism. An example of this would be: 74s181 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...his mother said that he regaled the family with "the most amusing recitals that could be imagined" about "the ancient inhabitants of this continent."
*What makes this an anachronistic criticism is that JS, Jr. is supposedly sharing information from the Book of Mormon before he has translated any of it, therefore, he had to be making it up, therefore, he made up the Book of Mormon.  However, this only works if the critic ignores JS, Jr.'s claim that at the time he was 'regaling the family' he was receiving instructions from Moroni, a historian from the Book of Mormon time period. Therefore, no anachronism, no contradiction.
*This criticism is based on events that didn't occur until several years after any possible date for the FV, and so it is anachronistic in its use in the article as historical context of the FV. 74s181 12:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: At least I agree with the final sentence, Les.--John Foxe 12:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronisms section contains no anachronisms 

message: If historical facts are to be challenged by Mormon apologetics, i.e. Jeff Lindsay, then these comments need to be labeled as apologetics. 
People don't react to the First Vision today as they did in Joseph Smith's day because almost no one had heard of it in Smith's day; and those who did clearly didn't think it was very important.  Smith's story about his discussion with the minister and his claim that he was persecuted for telling the FV story, has no independent documentation.--John Foxe 20:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was waiting for you to explain why you reverted hours worth of edits in less than 30 minutes.  And that's such a complete explanation that I'm just going to calmly agree with you.  Well, first I'm going to count them up and see if you've got four reverts. 74s181 20:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's plenty of written evidence about people's reaction to the Book of Mormon.  If so many people knew about the First Vision, why is there not similar written evidence about reaction to it.  You'd think that Smith claiming to see God in the flesh, a heretical doctrine in orthodox Christianity, would have aroused a storm of reaction from every corner.--John Foxe 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I restored the deleted section with some tweaks.  John, if you objected to "as they did in Joseph Smith's day" you could have simply removed that phrase.  The idea of collaboration is that you are supposed to work with people to arrive at a common solution.  This is best done by tweaking what you find objectionable, rather than deleting anything you don't personally agree with.  Remember, the opinions of experts on the topic are valid regardless of whether or not you agree with them. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical facts versus Mormon apologetics 

message: Evidence shows that the basic outline of events depicted in all accounts of the FV written by JS, Jr. was present from the foundation of the church.  See D&C 20:5-12: 
*(5) manifestation, AKA First Vision or grove experience
*(5) relapse into sin
*(6) repentance
*(6) appearance of an angel (Moroni) 
*(8) translation of the Book of Mormon
This seriously undermines, perhaps even disproves the fundamental POV of the article; the assertion that JS,Jr. fabricated the FV sometime after the organization of the church.  Of course, WP is not about 'proof', it is about:
:...representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.
So we have to include the criticism even though we can 'prove' it is all false. But John Foxe won't allow even the acknowledgement that there is such a thing as criticism. That is wrong, John Foxe is wrong. 74s181 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasting time 

message: We've been arguing about this for months, I thought it was past time to properly tag the article. I tried tagging a section as WP:OR a couple of days ago, but John Foxe deleted the tag.  74s181 21:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add the list first, Les, then tag.--John Foxe 22:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research / NPOV dispute - entire article 

message: Bill, the 1830 allusion (also D&C 20:5-12) contains the same outline as subsequent accounts, including the 1838 account, mentioning both the FV and the visit by Moroni.  The 1830 account barely mentions the FV, but the manifestation in v5 is the FV, the holy angel in v6 is Moroni. 74s181 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think my edit is wrong, then I have no problem if you remove or correct it. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 01:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1830 allusion 

message: The quotations at the end of the section on the beliefs of Mormon Fundamentalism are meaningless in the context of the First Vision.  In fact, the whole section should be eliminated unless better evidence can be provided.  At this point, the paragraph says in effect, "Mormon Fundamentalists believe in plural marriage.  We don't have a clue what they believe about the First Vision specifically."  Besides, putting these quotations near the end emphasizes the connection between Mormonism and plural marriage. I have acquaintances who think that members of the LDS Church still practice polygamy.--John Foxe 21:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A week or so ago in the Talk:First_Vision#Facts_needed section, Tom Haws said we needed info on FLDS.  I was looking at something else and happened across the website I cited, and thought it might serve as a reference for what Mormon Fundamentalists think about the FV. 74s181 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, I just worked on it a bit, trying to deal with John Foxe's concerns about plural marriage.  I tried to clarify the distinction between 'Mormon Fundamentalists' and TCoJCoLdS, possibly a bit too much. 74s181 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The whole thing is a bit of a stretch, maybe OR, but I thought if I added it, maybe someone who knew something more specific would see it and fix it.  I'm ok if someone wants to tag it as WP:OR and delete it in a couple weeks or so if it doesn't improve. 74s181 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: However, as long as the 'fundamentalist' section is there, I think the two paragraphs of the quote should remain. They are at least as relevant to the FV as the 'abrac' quote, that is, they are a positive affirmation of JS, Jr's character, while the 'abrac' quote is an attempt to portray Smith and his family as a bunch of heathen wizards, IOW, a character attack. 74s181 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's certainly no problem about delineating how Mormon fundamentalists view the First Vision: What are they? But I fail to see how testimonies to Joseph Smith's sterling character by child molesters who deliberately reject the teachings of the LDS Church provide a "positive affirmation."--John Foxe 10:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They affirm the First Vision, albeit indrectly, but I agree, it is certainly ironic.  John Foxe, you probably do the best you can to live according to the teachings of the Savior as you understand them, and as part of that you criticize Joseph Smith, Jr., while convicted child molesters praise him."Wake up the world for the conflict of justice" is still true. 74s181 13:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider their approbation appropriate rather than ironic.--John Foxe 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you would, John Foxe. But, "Death cannot conquer the hero again".  74s181 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it would be better to delete the 'fundamentalist' section for now.  Does anyone else have an opinion? 74s181 13:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamentalist affirmation 

message: Edit by John Foxe! 07:50, 5 September 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (83,318 bytes) (→Questions about the First Vision -some strengthening of the "critical" position-if we have to use that word, let's do it with gusto)
:"The only evidence for the First Vision are the accounts by Joseph Smith and his followers. Critics claim that there are serious discrepancies between the various accounts, as well as anachronisms revealed by lack of contemporary corroboration. Apologists argue that such claims are overstated."   
74s181 13:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe we are making progress after all? 

message: For more info, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John Foxe.
One other person needs to certify the RfC within 48 hours or it will be deleted.  More information 74s181 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submitted Request for Comments on John Foxe 

message: This is useful info that we need in the article, unforunately the cited reference is an email which doesn't meet the criteria for reliable source.  I added a tag. 74s181 02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--John Foxe 14:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad we can agree on something.  You'll notice that I tagged it rather than deleting it.  Hawstom brought up The Church of Jesus Christ a short time ago, I checked their website, did a little searching on the Internet and couldn't come up with anything about their position on the FV, reliable or not, so I didn't add it myself.  Although the addition doesn't support my POV, I recognize it as a good faith attempt to improve the article and I hope that someone will find a reliable source reference that either supports the assertion or clarifies the position of TCoJC relating to the FV.  If a month or two goes by and no one comes up with anything we'll have to delete it. 74s181 17:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed reference to Smith's 1838 history because I don't understand how the church's literature can refer to the 1838 account and yet have only one "personage." Otherwise, my edits were intended to improve style.--John Foxe 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Church of Jesus Christ 

message: Both Jensen and Mouw are experts quoted from a reliable source.  John Foxe originally added the Jensen quote, I added the Mouw quote for balance.  I believe that the Mouw quote provides a good wrap up for the FV discussion.  74s181 03:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've kicked these quotes around for several months.  The Jensen quote was always a bit difficult to present in context, but I think I've finally found a way to do it, at least I don't think we've tried it this way before. I've placed the Jensen and Mouw quotes back into the article, arranging them with the Maxwell and Anderson quotes in a more logical progression. 74s181 04:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jensen - Mouw quotes 

message: Suggestion:  Maybe we should have a sub-page with a harmony of the accounts, like you often see for the Gospels except using the actual text instead of references (there probably are not references for the first vision). --Blue Tie 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is Joseph Smith's First Vision – A Harmony, a pretty major piece of work, uses the actual text from the accounts.  Unfortunately I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. 74s181 01:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think COGDEN wrote most of the "What Smith said he saw" section which is a composite account but mostly does not use the account text.  I am concerned that it could be interpreted as OR, I've thought about trying to replace it with excerpts from the accounts, but that would be a job, and I'm afraid it would be just as OR. 74s181 01:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not worried about OR, if things are referenced and verifiable.  I thought a subpage would be good but perhaps an external link is better, if we are agreed it is a good harmony. --Blue Tie 12:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a good job.  I think it was John Foxe who originally pointed it out, but I'm sure he'll resist it being referenced in the article, he'll say it isn't a reliable source, and he would be right, it is someone's personal website. 74s181 12:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This comment by Blue Tie about OR reflects my understanding.  I recall a statement of Jimbo's indicating that the primary reason NOR was instituted was to forestall self-published quacks.  In practice, NOR can also be helpful to remind us to get references and make sure we are following published sources.  However, when there is no disputation about a matter, it is not objectionable to ramble on with original prose.  In general, the community tends to be overly reactionary about NOR and too uninformed and inexperienced about NPOV.  Tom Haws 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub page with a harmony? 

message: Here are some useful responses from John Foxe in the "Revivalism" discussion. 
:Prove that your account hasn't been hijacked by aliens.--John Foxe 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just large enough to defend a tenuous religious dogma and not a kilometer more.--John Foxe 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I prefer to remain neutral on the matter. --Blue Tie 13:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And I notice (at least I think I do) that you have been civil and have not gone willy nilly and reverted all his stuff. If anything I have done more of that (though it had nothing to do with him or his block.. I just thought some things were not best the way that they were).  But anyway... I commend you on your good manners in that regard, not taking advantage of the "opportunity". --Blue Tie 03:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I was the one who submitted the 3RR report, I didn't think it would be fair for me to edit the article during his enforced absence. But I'm not encouraged by his latest additions of specific criticisms to the lead.  He has also added specific doctrinal statements to the 'most teach' part of the paragraph that are true about TCoJCoLdS but not 'most' other LDS movement churches.  74s181 12:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for arbitration? 

message: The section says he was quite and taciturn.  It says he was jovial and a romancer of the first water.  This is contradictory or at least appears to be contradictory.  So, how was he?  I think the best sources (in order) for this would be: 1) his family, 2). friends who knew him well, 3) acquaintances who had repeated, long-term dealings with him  and 4)memorialists who met him briefly or had limited contact.  No one else should be able to weigh in on this except perhaps modern biographers who have taken these ideas and commented on them.  However, I think that going into lots of commentary detail on his personality is crufty and irrelevant to the article's main purpose. --Blue Tie 13:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hugh Nibley wrote an article on Anti-Mormon writings.  Some described him a quiet and taciturn, while others said he was jovial and a romancer.  Some said he was tall, others short.  Some said he was shifty and wouldn't look you in the eye, while others said he had piercing eyes.  I'm guessing you can find sources to back up pretty much what you want.  Nibley's point was that if the writers couldn't even agree on what he looked like, how much confidence should we have in what they say he said or taught? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's annoying.  It means we can't even have a consensus on basic things. No wonder this article is disputed.  We should apply our attentions on how to present something that is so hard to confirm.  Perhaps we can take a look at the pages on the Life of Jesus -- or his birth or things like that, to get a clue on how such disputes might be handled. --Blue Tie 20:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the criticisms currently missing is questions about JS, Jr.'s character.  The different perspectives on JS, Jr. would fit into that section.   However, the main body of the article does need something about the JS, Jr., he is the 'who' of the FV. 74s181 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I once suggested Virgin Birth as an article with similar problems.  Also consider Jesus: Empty tomb and Resurrection. 74s181 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What we lack is a consensus on how the article should be structured.  The article will continue to be 'crufty' until we establish that consensus. 74s181 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the Joseph Smith Jr. personality profile 

message: I've brought this up before.  There's been a lot of water under the bridge since then, so I thought I would give it another try. 
There is a lot of good info in the article, and I include the criticism in that. 
But there are many really fundamental problems with the article.  It radiates anti-Mormon POV.  It is full of NPOV bloat.  There are parts that are nearly incomprehensible. The lead goes from summary to specifics to summary. 
We argue about one thing, then another, then back again.  One editor adds something, another editor feels a need to balance it, then back and forth. I really think this is the biggest problem, we have no consensus on structure. 
As I mentioned earlier, I've been discussing this problem at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Plausibility with some other editors.  It didn't start out well, but I think I have a much clearer picture of what the problem is.  Spenny really put his finger on it when he said: 
:In the real world, if you are presenting something you say, stop interrupting, hear me out, then let's discuss the issues. Spenny 08:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article restructuring 

message: To those in the IT biz I say that my heap has become fragmented, I'm having a stack overflow, I'm thrashing.
To everyone else I say that I've reached a point where I have to step back for a bit and take a break.  
74s181 12:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thrashing 

message: The lead was getting bloated with details that were not covered as well in the body of the article.  So I moved a couple things from the lead to the body and added a short summary to the lead.  74s181 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten and restored some of this material.  Right from the get-go it's important to note the growing importance of the First Vision during the nineteenth century and the unique LDS doctrines that it supports.  Perhaps we also need further emphasis on these matters later in the article.--John Foxe 10:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...important to note..."  I agree.  However, the lead should not contain more detail than the body of the article, and with these two quotes it does. 74s181 12:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Let's just stick with the single phrase: "it did not become an important doctrine of the LDS Church until the late nineteenth century."--John Foxe 14:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloated lead 

message: There is also the question of tone.  John Foxe, I'll try to illustrate what I think you're trying to do.  From the Last Supper:
:Many Christians describe this as the institution of the Eucharist, a ritual act of symbolic cannibalism.  Some Christians go even further and believe that they are consuming the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, through the miracle of transubstantiation. 
Is there anything factually incorrect in this statement?  Do you think I could not find references to support it?  And it is certainly more relevant to the subject of the Last Supper than the statements about the nature of God that you added.  But, is it 'fair'? 74s181 12:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not NPOV compliant.  Not sympathetic enough.  At least not for an intro.  Tom Haws 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My purpose with the statement on the Eucharist was to illustrate how statements that are factually correct and beyond dispute can be unfair and lead the uninformed reader to a negative impression of the subject.  John Foxe had done something similar in the lead of the FV, I was trying to convince him to stop it. 74s181 11:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairness of tone in the lead 

message: I see references to digging for money.  Did the Smiths also practice water Dowsing or other things like that? --Blue Tie 16:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The treasure seeking is important to critics because they want to tie the account of the the Golden plates / Book of Mormon to treasure seeking.   Only possible connection to dowsing that I am aware of is that JS, Jr. found a seerstone while digging a well for a neighbor.  I don't think anything is recorded about whether or not JS, Jr. or any other members of the Smith family had used any kind of 'magic' to select the spot for this particular well.  Other than this, I don't recall seeing anything that would suggest that JS, Jr. practiced water dowsing. 74s181 21:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folk Magic 

message: By Blair Bryant:
"I will be glad to read your article and give you feedback from the CofChrist perspective.  But our church does not tell us what to believe.  We do not have a creed.  So, when I give you a perspective, you must be aware that it will be MY perspective as a member of the CofChrist rather than a definitive statement about what the CofChrist 'believes.'  Nevertheless, in most areas, we are pretty homogeneous in our beliefs."
"From my perspective, The First Vision is a good example of how the LDS church has taken a historic event and come to some definite conclusions regarding the nature of the godhead.  Our church does not do that and consequently there is a rather broad spectrum of beliefs as to whether there are Three with one purpose or One in multiple manifestations.  Gordon Hinkley would not agree with my position."
"LATER"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.76.199 (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review by Community of Christ adherent Blair Bryant