First Vision
Start: Introduction
Previous: Book of Mormon Translation
Last Updated 6-Sep-24
Contents for this section:“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that [first] vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.”
– PRESIDENT GORDON B. HINCKLEY, THE MARVELOUS FOUNDATION OF OUR FAITH
Like the first Book of Mormon section, the Church makes a bold claim: God really did appear to Joseph Smith. Jeremy of course takes the opposite view and so is quoting this with the opposite in mind.
1. There are at least 4 different first vision accounts by Joseph Smith, which the Church admits in its November 2013 First Vision Accounts essay:• 1842 ACCOUNT•
For consistency, I made all the links point to the Joseph Smith Papers. I also added the link to the parent Joseph Smith Papers article. Once again, Jeremy says the Church "admits" this, implying that there was some reluctance, but this is hardly the first time the Church has talked about these accounts. And in my opinion, the first vision is an extremely faith-promoting event, and there's no reason to assume that Joseph Smith only spoke about it once
To be sure, I didn't know about the other accounts either when I was younger, but I figured he probably talked about it often. I'm not sure that Jeremy intended to imply that there being multiple accounts his problem, or even what his question is—I've noticed that for a document supposedly "just asking questions" that Jeremy asks surprisingly few questions. I suppose it is just the implied question of "here's a thing, how does the Church explain this?"—But based on the rest of his section, his problem actually seems to be that they are not identical. We'll talk about that in a minute when we get there, for now lets talk about the accounts themselves.
The 1832 account was Joseph's first attempt at writing his history. The history is written by Frederick G. Williams, but Joseph Smith wrote his first vision account in his own handwriting. This was never published in Joseph's lifetime, nor does it seem intended to be published. It was first transcribed in a 1965 BYU graduate thesis by Paul R. Cheesman.
There is only one 1835 account. On November 9th, Robert Matthews spoke to Joseph Smith under the pseudonym "Joshua the Jewish Minister". Joseph told him about his first vision, and Warren Parrish wrote it down in Joseph's journal. This journal was later copied into a a history covering 1834-1836. This account was also never published until rediscovered by Dean Jessee and first printed in the Fall 1966 issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought in an article by James B. Allen, an associate professor of history at BYU.
It appears that the other 1835 account Jeremy is referring to isn't really an account, but part of a line that Warren Parrish wrote in Joseph Smith's journal several pages later on November 14th. Erastus Holmes visited him, and Joseph said, "I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6, years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14, years old and also the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church, up to this, date".
If a non-descriptive phrase counts as a first vision account, I think we should also include the 1830 account, "For after that it truly was manifested unto the first elder that he had received remission of his sins, he was entangled a gain in the vanities of the world, but after truly repenting, God visited him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all whiteness, and gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high, and gave unto him power, by the means of which was before prepared that he should translate a book;"
John Whitmer was the Church Historian, and when he was excommunicated in 1838, he took his records with him. So in 1838, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon began a new Church History project, beginning at the beginning. This manuscript no longer exists, but in 1839, James Mulholland took the 1834-36 history book, flipped it over so that the back cover became the front, and began copying Joseph's Smith's history there. This volume was later labeled A-1, the first of several volumes of Joseph's history and came to be known as the "Manuscript History of the Church." Beginning in 15 March 1842, this history was published in Times and Seasons. This account was again published in 1851 in the Pearl of Great Price, and the 1878 edition was accepted as scripture in the October 1880 General Conference.
The 1842 account is best known as the Wentworth Letter. It was written at the request of John Wentworth, the editor of the Chicago Democrat. It's not known if he ever received it, but Joseph Smith published it on 1 March 1842 in the Times and Seasons. This is where the Articles of Faith came from, which are also part of the Pearl of Great Price.
Dean Jessee published an article in BYU Studies in the Spring 1969 on The Early Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision. The April 1970 Improvement Era published an article called Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision—What Do We Learn From Them? by James B. Allen that talked about the four firsthand accounts and the four contemporary secondhand accounts (now there are five, the missing one was Levi Richard's Journal) and created a synthesis combining them. So the Church "admitted" the four accounts in 1970—or more like celebrated it.
In the only handwritten account by Joseph Smith, penned in 1832, but not publicly published until much later, describes the first vision in an unfamiliar way:
“…and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. Go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life...”
Jeremy describes it as "unfamiliar" but it seems very familiar to me. (And thinking it "unfamiliar" sounds a little odd to me, coming from someone who said reading The First Book of Napoleon was like reading the Book of Mormon.) It should be instantly recognizable to anyone familiar with the first vision.
But what Jeremy is talking about is that the details are unfamiliar to him. Throughout this section it appears that Jeremy expects Joseph to relate the account identically every time he tells it, but that's not how people behave in real life. Actually, if it was the same every time, it would be accused of sounding rehearsed instead.
I would imagine Jeremy should also be familiar with this by now, on a personal level. Some have accused Jeremy of being manipulative regarding the purpose of the CES letter, and he responds to these criticisms by insisting that he has always been honest about his intentions. I'm not here to judge Jeremy's intentions, but if he really is honest, he should be aware that seeming contradictions can have honest explanations. There's an old saying that goes something like, "We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions."
We can't enter someone's mind and discover their true intentions. But as I go through the facts of the argument, I recommend thinking about what might happen to you in a similar situation, or how how you have recorded or talked about your own history.
- No mention of two beings.
The Gospel Topics Essay on the First Vision Accounts addresses this. The most common explanation is that since Jesus is the one delivering the message, that is who Joseph focused on in relating his experience.
Some of the other accounts describe the two personages appearing one after the other. So another suggestion is that when Joseph says, "I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord" that the first Lord refers to the Father, and the second Lord refers to the Son.
- 12 years after the vision happened.
I had thought Jeremy was pointing out things unfamiliar to him, but maybe he is just pointing things out. The canonized account was recorded 18 years after it happened, and was thought to be the earliest account until this one was published in the 1960s. In 1945, Fawn Brodie made the criticism in No Man Knows My History that he may have invented the first vision experience some time after 1834. The publication of the 1832 account shows that this is incorrect, that Joseph related the experience earlier than previously believed.
- Age is 15-years-old (“16th year of my age”), not 14-years-old.
When you look at the original on the Joseph Smith Papers website, you can see that "in the 16th year of my age" is an insertion by Frederick G. Williams. That being said, Joseph did earlier say that "from the age of twelve years to fifteen" he pondered the situation of the world.
In the canonized account, he said "I was at this time in my fifteenth year" and "between fourteen and fifteen years of age" and "a little over fourteen" and is the only account to specify a time: "on the morning of a beautiful clear day early in the spring of Eightteen hundred and twenty."
Personally, I don't remember how old I was when I gained my testimony, but I can calculate the year it happened, so I was either 14 or 15.
In the 1832 account, Joseph went on to describe Moroni's visit. He correctly said his age was 17, but got the date a year off, 22 September 1822, which would have been when he was 16. This is consistent with him thinking he was 15 in the spring of 1820 so perhaps it is no wonder that he is a a year off for the first vision, too.
- No reference to asking the question about which church he should join.
In this account, there isn't reference to Joseph asking any questions—Jesus appears and just starts talking. But you can get a clue as to what Joseph's questions were by the things he says leading up to the vision. With grammar, punctuation, and capitalization regularized, this is what Joseph wrote:
At about the age of twelve years, my mind become seriously impressed with regard to the all-important concerns for the welfare of my immortal soul, which led me to searching the scriptures—believing, as I was taught, that they contained the word of God and thus applying myself to them. My intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations led me to marvel exceedingly, for I discovered that they did not adorn their profession by a holy walk and godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository. This was a grief to my soul.Thus, from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind, the contentions and divisions, the wickedness and abominations, and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind. My mind became exceedingly distressed, for I became convicted of my sins, and by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith, and there was no society or denomination that was built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament. I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world, for I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday, today, and forever, that he was no respecter of persons, for he was God.
So we see that Joseph was concerned for his soul, but what was his problem?—He couldn't find a denomination that aligned with the scriptures. Shouldn't we assume that has something to do with the welfare of his soul? He eventually "cried unto the Lord for mercy" and Jesus appeared and said:
Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Go thy way, walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments. Behold, I am the Lord of glory. I was crucified for the world, that all those who believe on my name may have eternal life. Behold, the world lieth in sin at this time, and none doeth good, no, not one. They have turned aside from the gospel and keep not my commandments. They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me. And mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth, to visit them according to their ungodliness and to bring to pass that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and apostles. Behold and lo, I come quickly, as it is written of me, in the cloud, clothed in the glory of my Father.
The focus of Joseph's earliest account is his own personal standing before God and his forgiveness of sins, but in the context of the second great awakening, the way one became right with God was by joining a church. It's not explicitly stated, but luckily this isn't the only account, and because we know the surrounding context, enough is there to see that this was part of Joseph's question.
- No description of being attacked by Satan.
Leaving out details is pretty normal behavior when describing things that happened to you. In fact, Joseph said that Jesus told him many other things, but none of the accounts say what else he was told.
Perhaps leaving this detail out made the account unfamiliar to Jeremy, but I didn't think it strange, especially since as missionaries, we always left that part out anyway.
Overall, the 1832 account is not only the earliest, but also contains the most elements. The 1838 account is more detailed in what it describes, but is lacking Joseph's concern for his future state and for mankind in general, and also his quest for forgiveness, which he receives. The 1832 account lacks the period of religious excitement, the strange opposing force, and clear reference to two personages. But it has all the other essential elements of the 1838 account: his dissatisfaction with the various denominations, his quest to know which church (if any) was right, his searching the scriptures, his prayer, the appearance of light, and of Deity, the testimony of Jesus, that all the churches were wrong, and his unsuccessful effort to get others to believe the story.
I think it is great that we have the multiple First Vision accounts, because that helps us fill in the gaps, and we get a fuller view when we consider them all together.
2. Contradictions: In the 1832 account, Joseph wrote that before praying he knew there was no true or living faith or denomination upon the earth as built by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. His primary purpose in going to prayer was to seek forgiveness for his sins.
“…by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith, and there was no society or denomination that was built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ…”
In the official 1838 account, however, Joseph wrote:
"My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join"..."(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong).”
This is in direct contradiction to his 1832 first vision account.
The 1838 account had actually earlier said, "I often said to myself, what is to be done? Who of all these parties are right? Or all they all wrong together?" So apparently, he did consider that they were all wrong, and it aligns really well with the 1832 account.
But then so why is Joseph contradicting himself only eight verses later? I would suggest that there is a difference between him saying that "I found that" there was no true church, and actually believing there was no true church—that is to say, it had not "entered into [his] heart". Perhaps he thought something like, "I can't find a true church, but I bet God knows different."
In Orson Hyde's 1842 account of the first vision, he describes it as "the hope of ever finding a sect or denomination that was in possession of unadulterated truth left him" and yet went on to pray, so apparently it is not contradictory, given that both elements appear in the same account. In fact, we learn from this account that it was his conclusion that led him to search the scriptures in the first place.
In Joseph's 1842 account he said, "God could not be the author of so much confusion" and perhaps that was the nature of his conclusion.
3. Late appearance of claims: No one - including Joseph Smith’s family members and the Saints – had ever heard about the first vision from twelve to twenty-two years after it supposedly occurredThis is an unsupported claim, and I'm not sure how Jeremy came to that conclusion. It's one thing to say that the first vision account wasn't written until 1832, and not published until 1842 (which still isn't quite accurate, since the first secondhand account was published in 1840 by Orson Pratt). But it is quite another to say that no one had ever heard of it.
There are other earlier sources, and I'll go over them in my response to the next couple paragraphs, but I should comment here that just because something isn't written down doesn't mean it didn't happen. Should we also claim that no one had ever heard that Joseph had leg surgery as a child until he mentioned it in 1842 (not published) or until his mother's book was published in 1853? Jeremy will criticize Joseph Smith for his practice of plural marriage in a later section, but he doesn't seem concerned with the "late appearance of claims" there.
Joseph said that he told the first vision to others. In an 1842 addendum to the 1838 account, Joseph said he told his mother that "I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not True." Joseph also claimed in the 1838 account that he told a Methodist minister who dismissed him saying "it was all of the devil". In the 1832 account, he said that he "could find none that would believe the heavenly vision".
Based on stories told by family members, it appears that he did tell them. His sister Katharine told her grandchildren that their sister Sophronia was slighted by her friends, and she became ill at 17 (which would have been 1820) due to persecution the family family received after Joseph talked to the minister, who warned other other ministers in the area. While accounts from his brother William and mother Lucy seem to conflate the first vision the angel Moroni, the timing is still to this 1820-23 period.
When Moroni visited him three years after the first vision, Joseph kept it to himself until the angel specifically told him to tell his father. It appears to me that he was reluctant to share his experience. Given the reaction the Methodist minister had, I can understand why he'd be reluctant.
The first and earliest written account of the first vision in Joseph Smith’s journal was 12 years after the spring of 1820. There is absolutely no record of any claimed “first vision” prior to this 1832 account.This was Joseph's first attempt to write a history. It is not a journal. Prior to this time, All of Joseph Smith's surviving records are almost exclusively sacred texts: The Book of Mormon manuscripts, his Bible revision, and his own contemporary revelations. So the first time he ever writes his history, he opens it by relating his first vision. In fact, the only earlier sample of Joseph Smith's handwriting is for 28 words in the original manuscript for Alma 45:22.
It wasn't until 1830 that the Lord commanded Joseph that a record be kept. And because of the efforts of the Saints, our Church history is extremely well documented.
I mentioned it earlier, but there is also what is now Doctrine and Covenants 20, first received in 1830, parts of which as early as 1829. There, it mentions that "it was truly manifested unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins" which according to the 1832 account, we know it is in reference to the Lord appearing to Joseph and forgiving him of his sins. That was first published in April 1831 in the Painesville Telegraph.
While true it is not specific and relies on knowing what event caused him to have a remission of sins, the same cannot be said for an article published a couple months earlier in a 14 February 1831 issue of The Reflector, a Palmyra publication, where they reported that "Smith (they affirmed), had seen God frequently and personally".
Sometime between fall 1831 and 16 February 1832, while Joseph Smith was working on the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, he changed John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time" to add the line, "except he hath born record of the son. for except it is through him no man can be saved." Between then and 24 March 1832, he changed 1 John 4:12, "No man hath seen God at any time" to add the line, "except them who beleive".
Still a few months before he wrote his 1832 account that summer, On 7 March 1832 the Fredonia Censor published an article (later reprinted in the Reprinted in the Franklin Democrat) that related the events leading up to the first vision, though not the vision itself: "Having repented of his sins, but not attached himself to any party of Christians, owing the the numerous divisions among them and being in doubt what his duty was, he had recourse prayer."
Despite the emphasis placed on it now, the first vision does not appear to have been widely taught to members of the Church until the 1840s, more than a decade after the Church was founded, and 20 years after it allegedly occurred.
James B. Allen, former BYU Professor and Assistant Church Historian explains:
“There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830’s Joseph Smith was telling the story in public. At least if he were telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it. Not even in his own history did Joseph Smith mention being criticized in this period for telling the story of the first vision…The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830’s, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision is convincing evidence that at best it received only limited circulation in those early days.”
Here, Jeremy shifts from "No one had heard about it" to it being "not widely taught" in those early days.
James B. Allen's article highlighted the two first vision accounts that were newly discovered at the time, the 1832 account and 1835 account, and discussed the new evidence: "In spite of the foregoing discussion, there is some interesting evidence to suggest the possibility that the story of Joseph Smith's first vision was known, probably on a limited basis, during the formative decade of church history."
Four years later, he wrote an article for the Church magazine where he made a similar observation. (And as a minor correction, James B. Allen was an associate professor of history at BYU at the time, still two years before he became assistant Church Historian.)
Apparently Joseph Smith did not relate his First Vision very widely during the early years of Church history, for neither Mormon nor non-Mormon publications of the 1830s carried accounts of it. Although contemporary literature included several allusions to the idea that Joseph had beheld Deity, none of these brief references gave details of the vision. Because of the absence of the vision from early publications, one hostile writer suggested in 1945 that Joseph Smith did not even "make up" the story until 1835 or later.
Nevertheless, it can now be demonstrated that the Prophet described his experience to friends and acquaintances at least as early as 1831-32, and that he continued to do so in varying detail until the year of his death, 1844.
I think it is important to look at these early allusions to the first vision he mentions, as this shows that people did know about the first vision.
I already talked about several subtle references before 1832 in the previous paragraph. Here are some more after Joseph Smith wrote his first account.
The Christian Watchman reported on 12 October 1832 (Republished in The Christian Messenger) that "they profess to hold frequent converse with angels; some go if we may believe what they say, as far as the third heaven, and converse with the Lord Jesus face to face." It is possible that this is not a reference to the first vision, but rather the more recent vision that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon had of Jesus Christ standing on the right hand of the Father in what is now Doctrine and Covenants 76. First received in February 1832, it was published that summer.
Sometime between July 1832 and July 1833, in the Joseph Smith Translation, he made several changes to Psalm 14 using similar language to how he described his first vision.
On 2 August 1833, The Western Monitor published the proceedings of a large group of Jackson County residents, who resolved to drive the Saints out of the county. They said "Of their pretended revelations from heaven.— Their personal intercourse with God and his Angels— the maladies they pretend to heal, by the laying on of hands— and the contemptible gibberish with which they habitually profane the sabbath, and which they dignify with the appellation of unknown tongues, we have nothing to say." This was reprinted in other news publications, and later copied into the History of the Church.
Mormonism Unvailed, published in 1834, contains a statement from Joseph Capron who claims to have become acquainted with Joseph Smith Sr. in 1827. "They have, since then, been really a peculiar people—fond of the foolish and the marvelous—at one time addicted to vice and the grossest immoralities—at another time making the highest pretensions to piety and holy intercourse with Almighty God."
Oliver Cowdery published an early history of the Church in his Messenger and Advocate. In the December 1834 edition he clearly is building up to the first vision by describing how 14-year-old Joseph was caught up in religious excitement but they all professed to be the true church and so could not convince him. However, when Oliver picks up the story again the following February, Oliver corrects himself, saying Joseph was in his 17th year, 1823 [actually Joseph's 18th year], downplays the religious excitement that was the whole point of the previous installment, and then goes on to tell about the glorious messenger that appeared in Joseph's bedroom informing him that he would translate a record of the ancient inhabitants of this country.
Some have suggested that since Oliver skipped over the first vision that it was a later invention, and only the Moroni visit was known to him. Roger Nicholson wrote an article for the Interpreter Foundation where he argued that evidence suggests that Oliver had Joseph's 1832 account and used it as a basis for his own account, and it still contains several allusions to the First Vision. He suggested that even though Joseph was telling visitors about it later on in 1835, Joseph might not have wanted it published at that time, since if Oliver had the account, then the only rational reason to skip it is if Joseph asked him not to.
Anyway, I agree with James Allen's assessment that Joseph probably mostly only told those closest to him, and it received only limited circulation compared to the angel Moroni and the Book of Mormon. Richard Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling suggested he must have first understood it "as a personal conversion." He goes on to say, "At first, Joseph was reluctant to talk about his vision. Most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision. 'The angel of the Lord says that we must be careful not to proclaim these things or to mention them abroad,' he told his parents after one early vision."
There are also late second- or third-hand accounts where people remembered hearing about it in those early years. Martha Cox wrote how a Mrs. Palmer told her that their family farm was near where the Smith's lived. She remembered hearing about the first vision, and that her father saw it as "the sweet dream of a pureminded boy." She also remembered him defending Joseph when a churchman came to criticize his association with them, saying that Joseph was the best help on the farm they had. It was only after Joseph's second vision that they turned on him, agreeing with the churchman.
In 1937, Lorenzo Snow's son LeRoi C. Snow shared his father's testimony in his own words. Part of that was that he first heard Joseph Smith in 1831 in Hiram, Ohio, where he "testified that he had had a conversation with Jesus, the Son of God, and had talked with Him personally, as Moses talked with God upon Mount Sinai, and that he had also heard the voice of the Father".
Charles Walker wrote in his diary on 2 February 1893 that at a Fast Meeting, Brother John Alger said that when he was a small boy in Kirtland (sometime between May 1831 to September 1836) that he heard Joseph relate his first vision, including a detail that God touched Joseph's eyes, and then immediately he saw the Savior.
Patriarch Samuel W. Richards shared in 1907 that when he was ten years old (1834-1835) that he had heard that "a young man in the west named Joseph Smith had been visited by God and His Son Jesus Christ was with Him." Not long afterwards, he said the missionaries came teaching the the same thing.
In October 1834, Joseph made a trip up to Michigan, and Edward Stevenson later wrote in an undated autobiography that he remembered Joseph visiting when he was a recent convert. (He also wrote about it in 1886) He said he felt "highly honoured by entertaining a Prophet of God who had stood in the presance of God the Father and JESUS CHRIST his only Begotten (in that way) upon this Earth, and while we herd him tell in his plain and simple way about this open vision and also of the visit of Maroni The Angle to him I had a Testimony of the truth, for the Spirit of God witnessed and the Holy Ghost sealed upon me his truthful words". John Curtis wrote a reminiscence about the same meeting in Michigan and also related Joseph's first vision. This was followed by John's diary, beginning in October 1839.
Isabella Horne recalled in 1920 that Joseph Smith related his first vision to the Saints in Canada in 1837. Wandle Mace recalled in around 1890 that shortly after they arrived in Illinois (1839) Lucy Mack Smith told them of the first vision.
Jeremy doesn't come out and say it, but as I said before, it seems like he is trying to imply that because Joseph Smith didn't write it down until 1832 that it never happened. For me personally, I received my testimony of the gospel when I was a teenager, but the experience was deeply personal to me, and I don't feel comfortable sharing all the details. I've only shared it with a few people, and I never wrote it down until nearly 15 years after it had happened.
Critics who believe Joseph Smith made it up struggle to come up with a motive that would explain why Joseph continued to not have it published, and was not widely shared for a decade after first writing it.
They are not "all over the place." Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph, accompanied by many angels. Not every account mentions every detail, which is normal in relating experiences, but taken together they paint a full picture. Here are the four firsthand accounts as originally written describing who appeared to him:4. Other problems:
- Who appears to him? Depending upon the account, a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels or the Father and the Son appear to him – are all over the place.
1832: "I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life"
1835: "a personage appeard in the midst, of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God; <and I saw many angels in this vision>"
1838: "I saw two personages (whose brightness and glory defy all description) standing above me in the air. One of <them> spake unto me calling me by name and said (pointing to the other) 'This is my beloved Son, Hear him.'"
1842: "I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon-day."
So in the four firsthand accounts, we have the Lord, two personages, two personages, and two personages. Taken together and using context clues, we can identify these personages as Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ.
- The dates/his ages: The 1832 account states Joseph was 15-years-old while the other accounts state he was 14-years-old when he had the vision.
This was brought up before, but being a year off isn't bad. It's pretty normal to misremember ages and dates years later.
1832: "thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart"
1835: "I was about 14. years old when I received this first communication;"
1838: "I was at this time in my fifteenth year."
1842: "When about fourteen years of age I began to reflect upon the importance of being prepared for a future state"
- The reason or motive for seeking divine help – Bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists, wanting to know which church to join – are not reported the same in each account.
We discussed this before as well. Joseph Smith wanted to get right with the Lord, which in the culture he was living in at the time, meant to repent and join a church. He couldn't find a church, but after reading in the scriptures, he prayed and asked God. Again, taken together we can get a more complete picture.
1832:
with regard to the all importent concernsoffor the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to searching the scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of differant denominations led me to marvel excedingly for I discovered <that they did notadorn>instead ofadorningtheir profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divi[si]ons the wicke[d]ness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded theof theminds of mankind my mind become excedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found thatmand<mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world … therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go andtoobtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness
1835:
being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking upon<at> the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong and concidering it of the first importance that I should be right, in matters that involved eternal consequences; being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and bowd down before the Lord, under a realising sense that he had said (if the bible be true) ask and you shall receive knock and it shall be opened seek and you shall find and again, if any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men libarally and upbradeth not; information information was what I most desired at this time, and with a fixed determinationIto obtain it, I called upon the Lord
1838:
Sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodist, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country, indeed the whole district of Country seemed affected by it and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division among the people, Some Crying, “Lo here” and some Lo there. Some were contending for the Methodist faith, Some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist; for notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great Zeal manifested by the respective Clergy who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling in order to have every body converted as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased[.] Yet when the Converts began to file off some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the Priests and the Converts weremere pretencemore pretended than real, for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued; Priest contending against priest, and convert against convert so that all their good feelings one for another (if they ever had any) were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions. …During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness, but though my feelings were deep and often pungent, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties though I attended their several meetings as occasion would permit. But in process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them, but so great was the confusion and strife amongst the different denominations that it was impossible for a person young as I was and so unacquainted with men and things to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.My mind at different times was greatly excitedforthe cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all their powers of either reason or sophistry to prove their errors, or at least to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally Zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.In the midst of this war of words, and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself, what is to be done? Who of all these parties are right? Or are they all wrong together? and if any one of them be right which is it? And how shall I know it?While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, First Chapter and fifth verse which reads, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.[”] Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man that this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did, for how to act I did not know and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had [I] would never know, for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage of Scripture so differently as <to> destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion or else I must do as James directs, that is, Ask of God. I at last came to the determination to ask of God, concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally and not upbraid, I might venture.
1842:
upon enquiring the plan of salvation I found that there was a great clash in religious sentiment; if I went to one society they referred me to one plan, and another to another; each one pointing to his own particular creed as the summum bonum of perfection: considering that all could not be right, and that God could not be the author of so much confusion I determined to investigate the subject more fully, believing that if God had a church it would not be split up into factions, and that if he taught one society to worship one way, and administer in one set of ordinances, he would not teach another principles which were diametrically opposed. Believing the word of God I had confidence in the declaration of James; "If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given him," I retired to a secret place in a grove and began to call upon the Lord
In each of the firsthand accounts, Joseph mentions being dissatisfied with the different religions and reading the scriptures. The 1838 account is the only one that explicitly says Joseph wanted to know which church to join, though it is implied to various degrees in all the others. The 1832 account is the only one that explicitly says that he had a conviction of his sins, though it is implied in the 1835 account. None of the firsthand accounts mention a revival, just an "unusual excitement" in the 1838 account. A revival is mentioned in Alexander Neibaur's journal, but Jeremy never brought up the five contemporary secondhand accounts, so I haven't focused much on them. None of the accounts mention a desire to know if God exists.
- Contrary to Joseph’s account, the historical record shows that there was no revival in Palmyra, New York in 1820. FairMormon concedes:
"While these revivals did not occur in Palmyra itself, their mention in the local newspaper would have given Joseph Smith the sense that there was substantial revival activity in the region.”
There was one in 1817 and there was another in 1824.
Joseph never actually said that there was a "revival in Palmyra, New York in 1820." Joseph said that "Sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion." 1820 is when he prayed, but he had been studying the different religions for some time before then.
Joseph didn't specify a revival, but there is a secondhand account from Alexander Neibaur which says "Br Joseph tolt us the first call he had a Revival Meeting his Mother & Br & Sister got Religion, he wanted to get Religion too" but he also doesn't specify that the revival was in Palmyra itself.
FAIR isn't "conceding" that there wasn't a revival in Palmyra in 1820, since they weren't making that argument.
Jeremy had actually linked to an article from FAIR in an earlier section where they talk about how the surrounding historical record confirms Joseph Smith's account. Jeremy didn't use the article itself in that earlier section, ironically he just used it to point out that it referenced Pomeroy Tucker's book, and accused FAIR of only using Tucker's information when it supported their own viewpoint. Jeremy quoted a paragraph from Tucker's book, but the paragraph right after was on religious revivals:
Protracted revival meetings were customary in some of the churches, and Smith frequented those of different denominations, sometimes professing to participate in their devotional exercises. At one time he joined the probationary class of the Methodist church in Palmyra, and made some active demonstrations of engagedness, though his assumed convictions were insufficiently grounded or abiding to carry him along to the saving point of conversion, and he soon withdrew from the class.
In that same section of the CES Letter, Jeremy had also made the argument that Joseph Smith was well acquainted with the region, so to turn around and require that the revival must have been in Palmyra itself seems contradictory to me.
The Gospel Topics essay on the First Vision Accounts also addresses this. Revival meetings and "unusual excitement" in the region regarding religion is well documented. Joseph Smith Sr. left Vermont in the summer or early fall of 1816, and the rest of the family joined him in Palmyra in early 1817. For a year and a half, they didn't have their own farm, only renting land and and supplementing their farming by hiring out their labor. In 1818 or 1819, they built their house in Palmyra near the border to Farmington, the eastern part of which became Manchester in 1822.
Jeremy mentioned the revival of 1817 in Palmyra—that was a Presbyterian revival from 1816-1817 and would have still been going on when Joseph's family arrived. I take it that Jeremy thinks it was still too early, since he assumes it must have been in 1820. In Joseph's 1832 account, he said that he was "about the age of twelve years" when he began to be concerned for the welfare of his soul and discovered that the different denominations did not align with the scriptures. Joseph would have turned 12 at the end of 1817, which Richard Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling notes that "the aftereffects of the revival of 1816 and 1817 were still being felt." (And if he got his age wrong, that would make it even earlier.)
However, in Joseph's 1838 account, he said that the excitement began with the Methodists. In June 1818 there was a large Methodist camp meeting at Palmyra. Bishop Robert Roberts, one of the leaders of the church, attended, and based on the number of converts, it is estimated that there was a cumulative attendance of around 2,000 people for the Friday to Monday meetings, which was twice the population of Palmyra at the time.
In July 1819, there was another Methodist camp meeting, the Genesee Conference, where 110 Methodist ministers, including Bishop Roberts, met for eight days in nearby Vienna (now called Phelps) within 15 miles of the Smith farm. Notably, Reverend George Lane attended, whom Oliver Cowdery mentioned in his aborted first vision account that I talked about earlier. William Smith also spoke of George Lane in a couple accounts (which I will relate in my response to the next paragraph).
It is perhaps one of these camp meetings that Pomeroy Tucker was referring to, also supported by Orasmus Turner who wrote that Joseph Smith, "after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings."
There was a revival in Palmyra reported in 1824 (other articles from 1824 and 1825) with people joining Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches. In 1824, Reverend George Lane was assigned to the Ontario District within the Genesee Conference, so it is possible stories Oliver Cowdery and William Smith shared were from this later period. Some argue that Joseph's story fits in better with the 1824-1825 revival, but that discounts the reality of the religious excitement between 1816-1820 and fails to align with the angel Moroni first visiting Joseph in 1823.
There are records from his brother, William Smith, and his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, both stating that the family joined Presbyterianism after Alvin’s death in November 1823 despite Joseph Smith claiming in the official 1838 account that they joined in 1820 (3 years before Alvin Smith’s death).
Lucy Mack Smith said that they joined a church shortly after Alvin's death, which was two months after Joseph learned about the plates and told his family, which she also described. She said that Joseph refused to go with them, saying "I will take my Bible and go out into the woods and learn more in two hours than you could if you were to go to meeting two years".
William Smith is believed to have given four accounts. In his second, third, and fourth accounts, he mentions that several family members joined the Presbyterian church, and like Joseph he puts their conversion prior to Joseph having the first vision. The difference is that he dates the religious excitement later than Joseph does. In the first account, which is attributed to William, he says "About the year 1823, there was a revival of religion in that region," and in the second, "In 1822 and 1823, the people in our neighborhood were very much stirred up with regard to religious matters". The third and fourth, he doesn't give a year, but still puts the events in the same order: the revival followed by members of the family joining the Presbyterians, Joseph praying and being told not to join any church, then receiving the plates.
In his fourth account, he says that the reason his father didn't join was "because a Rev. Stockton had preached [Alvin's] funeral sermon and intimated very strongly that he had gone to hell, for Alvin was not a church member".
Though no one agrees on the exact year they joined the the Presbyterian Church, they all agree that it was in that same ballpark. Richard Bushman just wrote that Lucy joined the Western Presbyterian Church "sometime in the half dozen years after 1818".
I should also note that it appears as though Lucy and William Smith conflate the first vision with the appearance of Moroni. It might be the case that Joseph didn't tell them about his first vision experience until he told them about Moroni, though as mentioned earlier, it seems like Katharine remembered hearing about it earlier.
Why did Joseph hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead, as shown previously with the Book of Mormon, if he clearly saw that the Father and Son were separate embodied beings in the official first vision?
As I explained in the Book of Mormon section, Trinitarianism teaches that God is three persons in one essence, and so seeing two separate individuals would not refute Trinitarian teachings. It only refutes Modalism, which is a heresy according to Trinitarian belief, but seems to be a common misunderstanding of what the Trinity is.
Because of the similarities between Latter-day Saint theology and Trinitarianism, one can't really say whether Joseph held a Trinitarian view or not until he specifically discredited it. If his views really did change over time, then it would be because God revealed more doctrine to Joseph Smith.
As with the rock in the hat story, I did not know there are multiple first vision accounts. I did not know of their contradictions or that the Church members did not know about a first vision until 12-22 years after it supposedly happened. I was unaware of these omissions in the mission field, as I was never taught or trained in the Missionary Training Center to teach investigators these facts.
Although the multiple first vision accounts have been talked about far more frequently in general conference and Church publications than the rock in the hat story, I did not know about the multiple first vision accounts either. But unlike Jeremy, when I read them, I was excited.
The "contradictions" are actually just not mentioning all the details, and the accounts taken together paint a clearer picture than any one story alone. For example, Steven C. Harper published a synthesis of the four firsthand accounts and the five secondhand accounts on the Church website.
Church members certainly did know about the first vision "12-22" years later. As discussed earlier, evidence shows that it received limited circulation in those early years: it was alluded to at the organization of the Church, newspaper articles were accusing Joseph of making that claim as early as 1831, all four of Joseph's firsthand accounts were written within this time period, and Orson Pratt published it in 1840.
The omissions in the 1838 account are: that Joseph desired not only to join a church, but to also be forgiven of his sins; that Joseph went to a place where he was working before and had left his ax in a stump; and that also many angels appeared as well. These aren't really necessary to know to teach investigators. After all, we also left out that the adversary tried to prevent Joseph from praying.
I think the Missionary Training Center is a little late to be learning principles of the gospel. But we did know about the first vision, just not some extra details about it. There are many faith-promoting stories that don't often get shared. I recommend reading the Saints books, it has a lot of good stories that I hadn't heard before, and I think it's awesome.
Next: Book of Abraham
No comments:
Post a Comment