There are several First Vision accounts, and we’re going to tackle the 1835 account in our next episode. What distinguishes it from the 1832 account, and the much more famous 1838 account? Historian Dan Vogel will answer that question.
Dan: Yeah, from the 1832 to 1835 accounts, there’s two people. How those two people figure, they both looked the same. They are mirror images of each other. But how he viewed that, it’s not so clear from the description. Even the 1838 account, there’s two personages, but is it God the spirit like in the Lectures on Faith? And Jesus, the tabernacle? Is that how he views that when he’s dictating that? You can’t take the Nauvoo period where God has a body of flesh and bones and the Son also, you can’t take that and read it into this.
That’s why the 1832 account has one Jesus. In the meantime, what happened to make it in 1838? There’s another issue. In 1832 account, he’s already concluded that all the churches are false. In 1838, he hasn’t. He’s praying to ask which church is true. Those contradict each other. You can you can try to harmonize them like Richard Anderson tried, by just making general description so general that they look the same, but they are diametrically opposed. Why does it change?
So, my view on that is that in 1820, or 21, he has concluded all churches are false. He has a born again experience. But the revival he describes where his mother is proselyted to the Presbyterian Church, he says, “I was at this time in my 15th year. My father’s family were proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church namely, my mother, Lucy, my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison, and my sister Sopronia. That’s part of his 1820 [account], but we know that didn’t happen in 1820. We know that they joined in 1824 and 25 revival, because Lucy in her own history says it was after Alvin’s death. After Alvin died, she was grieving and she wanted to have religious community, and she went. They went and actually the Presbyterian minister at the time, Reverend Stockton preached Alvin’s funeral sermon, and implied that Alvin had gone to hell because he hadn’t been baptized. Joseph Smith, Sr. got angry at that, incensed and refused going anymore. Joseph Smith’s family was split. Lucy, like a good convert, is trying to get other people in the family converted. She’s hounding people, and three of her older children do join. Joseph Smith is caught between his parents. He’s ambivalent. He doesn’t want to join a church. He said he was more in tune with Methodism anyway, probably because of the emotional appeal it has and Presbyterianism is a little more conservative and is of the quietest tradition, they call it where the Spirit comes on you and you’re quiet and peace.
GT: Is that what’s happened to Mormons, we’ve become Presbyterians?
Dan: Yeah, yeah. You became the church of Hyrum Smith.
Joseph Smith gave multiple accounts of his First Vision experience. Some people find the differing accounts problematic, while others don’t think they are a big issue. We’ll talk about these First Vision conflicts with historian Dan Vogel and discuss the different perspectives.
GT: For some people, these First Vision conflicts are a big deal and they prove Mormonism isn’t true. And for other people, it’s like, what’s the big deal? Why is this an issue? So I guess my question is, where do you fit in there? I mean, in my mind, would it be inconsistent (and I’m a believer) to say, well, maybe he had something in 1820 or 1821, maybe it was a born again experience. Maybe he didn’t tell everything in that 1832 account, and then in 1838, he’s having these persecutions. Maybe he’s misremembering some things and going to 1824. To me, it’s not it’s not a testimony killer. I’ll put it that way. So number one, where do you fit among those two groups?
Dan: Okay, so my goal is not to kill people’s testimony. I’m just a historian. This is how to look at the documents in a historically minded way.
GT: Okay.
Dan: Historians look for these kinds of things to show development. Now, some of the details you can write off as memory problems. But you can’t use faulty memory like Stephen Harper does, as an apologetic, to explain away contradictions. You might use faulty memory, like there’s false memory syndrome, where people can actually create false memories, trying to remember vague memories, and it works.
Dan: I mean, an example would be the Spalding witnesses. They have vague memories about a manuscript in the past. We know that what they remembered was wrong. Because they could only remember what they had read in the book of Mormon, and nothing else. We know that the the Book of Mormon is not about the lost 10 tribes. That was a common misconception, but these witnesses that’s gotten into their memory somehow. It’s a vague story, they vaguely remember the names. The memories become sharper, the more they talk to each other. So we know from other methods that they were wrong. Okay. But we don’t use false memory syndrome to prove that they’re wrong. We use that as an explanation of how they got it wrong. Okay.
Dan: So you can’t come up on Joseph Smith, and say, well, there’s these contradictions, and they can all be explained away by this false memory syndrome theory, or else you can never catch anyone making things up or prevaricating, on whatever issue. They could always say, it’s memory. A lot of politicians try that. But it’s not what historians do. It’s what apologists do.
GT: Okay.
Dan: So I’m not trying to kill people’s testimonies. That’s not my concern. I don’t care about that question. Okay. It’s not that I don’t care about your religion or anything. I don’t care about destroying people’s faith or anything. I’m just trying to get it close to what probably really happened as I can. That doesn’t mean that some people of faith can’t hang on to that faith, but maybe it has to evolve a little bit. I’m just trying to find the facts, and what is probably the best evidence, the best scenario to explain the evidence. It’s not my job to figure out how people of faith, or to what to do with this. I could just point out the problem, and not the answer, maybe. So I think there is a way to hang on as long as you want for people in different ways. It’s a very personal thing.
GT: So you wouldn’t be opposed to somebody that says, Yeah, I think Joseph conflated maybe one or two visions here, conflated 1820 with 1824, and it’s not that big of a deal. Yeah, there’s some contradictions there. But it’s a faulty memory, big deal.
Dan: Well, I think he changed it on purpose to teach a lesson. He’s more concerned–he’s a charismatic leader. He’s not a historian. He could care less about history, facts, keeping the revelations pure as they were originally given. He doesn’t care about any of that. He is trying to get things done, motivate people to do things that they wouldn’t do without this motivation.
Do you think these changes are significant?
Wheat & Tares 
None of your poll choices are satisfactory. I recognize that there are differences, and on a couple of points there are actual contradictions between the accounts. But the accounts differ in exactly the way that you would expect independent truthful accounts to differ when told over a period of years. The accounts hang together and tell a credible story, in part *because* of the differences, not in spite of them. I would be more suspicious if he recited the same story every time with no variation. So putting the emphasis on things he “got wrong” and still insisting that there’s a “problem” makes that an unacceptable choice for me. This is my answer:
“There are differences and some contradictions as would be expected from someone independently telling the same truthful story to different people in different personal circumstances over a period of years. The differences are significant because they help establish the credibility of independent candid accounts.”
Left Field, The 1832/1835 accounts are contradictory on whether Joseph had already determined that the churches “had apostasized 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” or whether his “object in going to [the grove was to] inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that [he] might know which to join.” I am wondering how that difference helps “establish the credibility of independent candid accounts.” I would appreciate an explanation of your thinking.
What is important to me about the survey response: “No Big Deal. Joseph got things wrong, but it’s insignificant problem to me.”
is *what* things Joseph got wrong! Let the party begin.
Wondering asks Left Field, but the question is interesting so I’ll intrude:
I think it is *both*.
Go to the googly earth thing, put in: 43.063551 -77.233406
Activate street view. Look around. Four churches at one intersection in Palmyra. So here you are wondering which of these four churches should I go to? All of his family faced the same choices; as did everyone else in Palmyra and surrounding farms. I daresay several people probably prayed to God to know which of those four to join, because if you get it wrong you are going to hell.
So Joseph prayed, and learned that none of those four! were right, which coming from God means exactly right. One of them might have been 75 percent right and another only 65 percent right; should you then join the one that is 75 percent right? Maybe, but this might be the time to make one 85 percent right. Now it may be that other people were inspired to join one or another according to their temperament and purpose in life (if any). That is still the case.
I’m sure today’s Google Earth looks exactly like Palmyra in 1820. Geez dude. That’s a patently ridiculous statement. Watch the videos. You might learn something, and avoid saying something stupid, unless your goal is to look stupid. Based on your past comments, it seems you enjoy saying patently absurd things.
Michael 2: In the 1832 account JS was “exceedingly distressed” and “convicted of his sins,” cried for mercy and was answered by the Lord with forgiveness. That account of the first vision does not have him questioning whether there was a right church, though it does have the Lord confirming that the “world” was “in sin at [that] 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.” Your last paragraph echoes the 1838 version and purports that Joseph learned that none of the four Palmyra churches was “right.” In the 1832 version he had already decided that before praying in the grove where he did not ask that question; he then had a different object — personal forgiveness. Those 2 accounts are in blatant contradiction as to what JS’ object was in going to the grove to pray. On that point, they do not tell a consistent story.* My question is how this difference helps establish credibility.
*Both of the conflicting reported objects could have been present, I suppose, if JS had even sought confirmation of his own prior determination that “there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ…” But that each of 1832 and 1838 would report one or two very significant, distressing objects and ignore the other, seems a stretch unless there is some context for those two accounts from which one could at least infer a reason for each ignoring a major facet of the other. I don’t know what that context could be.
He reports that he was troubled about the different teachings of the various denominations. Being troubled means that he had many conflicting thoughts as he tried to sort it out. It does not mean that he was of one mind and knew the right answer.. In 1832, he reports that he remembered deciding from the scriptures that there was “no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament.” In 1835, he said that he “knew not who was right or who was wrong.” Together, the accounts tell of a youth who was “perplexed in mind” and “exceedingly distressed.”
I don’t pretend to know whether “knew not who was right or who was wrong” or if he had decided there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Probably it was both. Maybe it was one after the the other. Maybe he went back and forth. Certainly he was “perplexed.” How can it be perplexing to us, that more than a decade later, he looks back on that confusing time and remembers the various thoughts that led him into the grove?
LF, It can be perplexing both because of the nature and apparent confidence in his conflicting reports showing no confusion at all as to his object in going to the grove, and because the existence of such conflicting reports of an overwhelming experience is so very different from one’s own personal experience. My vision-less testimony/revelation experience, for example, is more than 50 years old and memory of it has never varied either as to purpose, place, or result. So how does that difference in JS’ accounts help establish credibility?
In the second video Rick makes a point that he doesn’t see the different versions as a testimony killer. That was my assessment when I first read the accounts back in the earlier 80’s as an assignment from a BYU religion class. Part of my reasoning was based on my “knowledge” that the church was true and Joseph Smith was a prophet, so if he said it, it happened, and any discrepancies could or would eventually be explained. My journey, however, has led me out of the church independent of the vision accounts. As part of my re-assessment of the church’s truth claims, though, I did confront the possibility that Joseph Smith made things up to suit his needs. This possibility I now accept. It is interesting to revisit Joseph Smith’s teachings from this new perspective. For instance, I find the differing First Vision accounts are compatible with the evolving Christology between the BoM and later sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. I used to resolve the Mosiah 15 discussion of the Father and the Son as Abinidi not being fully aware of the nature of God. Now I view it as Joseph Smith’s understanding of the nature of God, at the time he dictated it.
Dan makes an interesting point that Joseph’s account of a minister rejecting his vision probably had to do with Smith’s account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon:
“…but if you read it really carefully it doesn’t sound like he told them about the First Vision… the response ‘well God doesn’t give revelations anymore… the Bible is all there is basically’…would be a response to the gold plates not to God appearing. We just talked about how Methodists and other revivalists and even other ministers when they have their conversion experiences talk about similar visions… They wouldn’t have condemned the First Vision. There is nothing to condemn in it.”
Great point, Dave C. — it was the Book of Mormon that got Christians of all stripes riled up, not visionary accounts.
Which brings up the point that the LDS emphasis on the First Vision is really a 20th-century development. In the 19th century it was the Book of Mormon and, of course, polygamy that defined the LDS Church. When early LDS missionaries went out, it was the Book of Mormon they used as a proselyting tool, not the First Vision. And present-day discussion of the First Vision uniformly recounts the event as a physical visitation, which is something different from a vision, which is a mental event, not a physical one — as emphasized in the Book of Mormon, where a vision is described as equivalent to a dream. “Behold, I have dreamed a dream; or, in other words, I have seen a vision” (1 Ne. 8:2).
I have been reading critical literature for years and I have never quite understood how the multiple accounts of the first vision are a huge deal. In other words, among the reasons that might cause someone to doubt the official church narrative, I would rank the multiple accounts very low. At most they show that Joseph Smith’s concept of God evolved from a Trinitarian/modalist view where God is one in substance to a unique view of the Godhead where God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate personages.
Critics have commonly interpreted the multiple first vision accounts in the context of modern suspect investigation where in asking the suspect to recount what happened several times, the aim is to see if there are discrepancies in how the suspect or witness is the various accounts and if there are the likelihood that s/he is lying increases. These First Vision accounts are spread across years, so it really isn’t the same thing. Plus Joseph Smith in recounting the First Vision isn’t under investigation or cross-examination. I appreciate Dan’s view in that he doesn’t indulge in the gotchaism of the common critical narrative, but at the same time doesn’t fully dismiss discrepancies as insignificant. I think his approach is genuine and that he is really trying to get to the bottom of this all and not just tally points in the ongoing polemic between apologists and critics.
John W, I mostly agree. However, your “at most” seems wrong to me. It seems to presume that the common use of the [1838] first vision account to show two personages is the point and content of the accounts. And most of the attempts I’ve seen to reconcile the various accounts focus primarily on the number of personages issue. However, in the long ago time when I was a missionary it was also used to answer the question “Which church is right?” The 1832 account seems to undercut that use in a way some find significant and others do not. Perhaps, the resolution is to take them all with a grain of salt (or confusion) and as partly rhetorical devices. After all “none [of the world — not the churches of the time] doeth good, no, not one” seems to be more rhetoric than fact, even if JS did remember it as the word of the Lord.
Joseph had differing recollections of The Vision. You can say he altered it, added to it and deleted from it, but he never recanted it or renounced it. How many of us, suffering what he did because of it, could be that strong?
The discrepancies among accounts bothers me, but not as much as Joseph Smith marrying women behind Emma’s back and pressuring those women to marry him once he sent their husbands on missions. That is the classic behavior of a sexual predator. Having said that, I do think multiple versions are problematic, mainly because of the Mormon Church’s insistence on Smith’s virtue and honesty and its insistence on the “truth” of the vision. As Dave B. points out, the First Vision really only started being emphasized in the 2oth century and it was Gordon B. Hinckley, I believe, who basically put the truth of the entire Mormon narrative on the shoulders of the First Vision by saying it was either absolutely true or that the whole church was a lie. Why on earth you’d do something like that with a narrative that’s as fraught with controversy and different versions as the First Vision, I have no idea. Better to say that about the Book of Mormon, which, while it’s quite likely not to be literally “true” at least has enough mystery surrounding its creation that it can hold a little more weight of the whole “it’s either all true or all false” binary.
Having said that, I think the different versions are problematic, mainly due to the question of how many beings Smith saw. I have to imagine that after having such an experience, the details would linger with significantly more clarity than, say, a car accident one might have seen twenty years earlier. To say that the chosen first prophet of God in this dispensation couldn’t get his story straight about who he saw and what they said or didn’t say is just too convenient an excuse to be legit, IMHO. I think Vogel is correct that Joseph Smith was trying to motivate people, perhaps for a good cause, which would, I suppose, puts him in the “pious fraud” category? I don’t know. Also, to Dave B.’s other point about visions, I know there’s a lot of talk about Wilford Woodruff and his “visions” (like when the Founding Fathers supposedly visited him and asked to have their temple work done, but it turns out, that work had already been done) and just what those “visions” were. I wonder if folks have delved into terminology and language about the First Vision? Could Smith have “seen” something with his “spiritual eyes”? How much of a possibility is that for either apologists or historians? Because insisting the literalness of these things seems to be increasingly problematic.
Interesting comments. For those who want to minimize the contradictions, I wonder what kinds of discrepancies they expect which point to truthfulness and those that would cause them concern? There are differences of minor detail that are normal, but there are two that are major: the purpose of JS’s going to pray and the number of personages. I don’t look at these problems as an opportunity to catch JS, but I see them as clues to reconstruct what probably happened. The discrepancies point to development in the story and are only a small piece of a larger puzzle.
I question the narrative that Joseph “wouldn’t have asked the Lord which church is true because he had already made up his mind”. I make up my mind about a lot of things but then my next step is to pray about it to make sure I’m in the write. The fact that the Lord quotes Roman’s that “none doth good, no not one” which is quoting Psalms, and in both cases is about widespread apostasy. That indicates to me that the Lord was confirming that there are no true churches.
The most important thing to remember is that the different accounts were to different people with different contexts while the 1838 version wast be the official narrative.
I would expect that the story is going to shift from a personal, hey I need to be forgiven to hey which church is true.
I expect this knowing that people are going to be reading this and applying it to them. The 1832 version could make you think that there is a possibility that in order to know you’ve been forgiven of sins, the Lord needs to show up to you.
Do I want that or would I rather them focus on the fact that the leader of this new movement wasn’t sure which church to join and because he prayed, God showed up to him, told him not to join any of them and he’d be starting his own. Now, as a member reading the account, you know that the person in charge of your new religion is a prophet who has personally seen God.
That’s how I critically view the two accounts and can accept both.
I typed up a response that went on for several paragraphs. Took me a half hour at least. It was a brilliant piece that would have lain all dissent to rest. Then I accidentally clicked on the wrong thing and like the Book of Lehi, it’s gone forever. I’ve got other stuff to do now, and I don’t have the energy to recreate it. Maybe sometime later, I can post a small-plates version. Maybe that future version will be identical in all respects to the first account. Or maybe the accounts will differ. In the meantime, you’ll just have to accept on faith that it was brilliant.
Andy, I think you should look closely at both the 1832 and 1838 versions. In 1832, JS had concluded all churches were apostate. In 1838, JS goes into detail how and why he could not decide which church is true. This is likely because he is trying to tap into his potential converts’ emotions. In 1832, he was familiar with the different denominations and knew they were false because he compared them to the Bible; but in 1838, “it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who wa right and who was wrong.”
Andy, I’d be glad to hear a contextual approach. I just don’t have enough context for any of the versions to be able to evaluate such a contextual approach. It may be out there, but I’m no historian and currently can’t take time to dig through the Joseph Smith Papers looking for it. In the meantime, I think I’ll accept on faith that Left Field’s lost missive was brilliant! 🙂
Just a couple of thoughts. Emphasis on the First Vision predates Prez Hinckley. In the 1960’s, in the mission field, our 1st discussion emphasized the First Vision. It was designed to emphasize that: (1) JS was not to join any of the existing churches and (2) Christ and God had physical bodies.
If I had a vision of or communication with Christ and God, I pretty sure I would remember the details forever. It I had a vivid dream, I think I would probably remember the details. If it was just a dream, anything is possible.
The contradictions in JS’s accounts don’t threaten my testimony at all, so to speak, but I think it’s really interesting. I’m in Left Field’s camp, in that I think the contradictions might actually substantiate the reality of the event more than discredit it. Recently, I was recounting an event from my life that was pretty significant and that I actually recounted as “burned into my brain” such that I would never forget it. Yet, in the re-telling, something I said didn’t seem to line up, even to me. Fortunately, I’d written it down in my my journal within hours of the event, so I could go back and read my account from the day it actually happened. What I wrote didn’t really contradict my recollection, but it didn’t include certain aspects of the event that my current self remembers and considers among the most important. Does that mean that those details are wrong? Or does it just mean that at the time, I didn’t think they were important enough to write down? To be completely honest, I don’t think there’s any way to know for sure. That bothers me, because the significance of the event is framed in its details and those details have either shaped my thinking, or my thinking has re-imagined the event to include these details. Don’t get me wrong, the event clearly happened, but it’s not quite clear if my interpretation of the event was clearer at the time or clearer now with the benefit of years of hindsight.
It looks like there are many people who believe that the differences between the accounts are normal and expected, and also many people who think that the differences between that accounts are too extreme to be dismissed so easily. Over time, I have found myself in both camps.
When I was a standard orthodox believer, I believed that the accounts were consistent enough in all the ways that were important, and I still respect anyone who believes this.
Once I had doubts about other aspects of the church, other explanations for these differences made more sense.
Even as a somewhat-doubter, I can see how one could forget or modify their memory of the purpose behind a prayer in a grove. That is not a big deal to me.
However, in the issue of the number of personages, I don’t think that one can dismiss that as changing memory. Saying one visited with one God or two is such a fundamental difference that, if it really happened, forgetting it would be on the verge of unthinkable.
On the other hand, as a believer I imagined that Joseph refrained from discussing the “two personages” until the church was ready to hear it. So I thought it was a line-upon-line kind of thing. One problem with this line of thinking is that the earliest account was in a personal journal. It’s not clear to me why a personal journal would not be ready for the doctrine of separate personages.
The biggest problem for me is the betrayal. I have been a member since 1958, I have been on missions for 10 years, my father joined the church in 1958, and by 1960 was a building supervisor, he was on missions until the programme changed, he was then employed by the church until he retired. He never knew their was more than one version of the first vision.
I found out on the internet and assumed it was a lie, because I had never heard about it at church. Apart from a couple of years at Ricks I never lived in Church corridor.
I know there is an article about it, but I am not aware of a conference talk or other public acknowledgment or discussion of this subject. We had all the teachings of the prophets, no mention.
There a lies, and there is not telling the whole story. Loss of credibility for church leadership again.
I still don’t have time to respond as I wanted, but I just want to say that the number of personages is not remotely a contradiction to me. I’m not saying that it’s a contradiction that I understand, or that makes sense. I’m saying that there’s no contradiction at all. In 1832 Joseph said, “I saw the Lord.” He didn’t say “I saw the Lord and nobody else.” He didn’t say “I saw only one personage.” If I go to the White House and meet the President and First Lady, I might later tell someone that I saw the president in the White House. And that would be a completely truthful statement. If I later say that I spoke with the president and First Lady, the chief of staff, and several Secret Service agents, that is still not a contradiction. All of those descriptions could well be true. I’m not obliged to proved a complete list of everyone I saw in the White House every time I tell the story. If Joseph Smith saw the Father and Son as he said in other accounts, then “I saw the Lord” is a truthful description of his experience and seems perfectly natural to me.
Was there a reason why he didn’t mention both in 1832? I dunno. I can speculate and easily think of several possibilities. But that isn’t even a question that demands an answer. I don’t know if there would have been a particular reason at all. I could think of several reasons why I might say that I met the president and not mention the First Lady. Or maybe I would omit mention of the First Lady for no particular reason. If it’s a truthful story, I’m likely to include different elements every time I tell it. Sometimes, I tell a long version with lots of details. Sometimes I give an abbreviated version. I might emphasize or de-emphasize different aspects of the story for any number of reasons. Or for no particular reason. It’s even possible that on some occasion, I might leave out some detail, that makes the story seem inconsistent with something I’ve said before. All that happens when people naturally relate their experiences. That is why I say that differences among the accounts is part of what makes them ring true.
I don’t understand the expectation that a truthful account of a personal experience must include a full description of every element of the experience every time it’s related. That’s just not how humans do things when discussing their experiences. It’s more likely how humans do things when they’ve made something up.
Dave B: “… present-day discussion of the First Vision uniformly recounts the event as a physical visitation, which is something different from a vision”
This is the type of disconnect that started me wondering about the veracity of current prophets, seers, and revelators. When I grew up in the 70’s, it was commonly thought, among the members, that the Q-15 had personnel visitations from Christ. That sense persists to a great extent among members today, encouraged by cryptic comments from church leaders.*** These leaders, having their own “First Vision” experience so-to-speak, lent authority to Joseph Smith’s 1838 account. On top of this, I was steeped in apostle written books like “The Marvelous work and the Wonder” espousing that what made our church different was the interaction between heavenly beings and modern day prophets – just like the primitive church. We continue to sing with gusto “The visions and blessings of old are returning, and angels are coming to visit the earth.”
But after 50 years of TBM living, I had never met an angel. I never met anyone, outside of a psych ward, who told me they met an angel from heaven. But most importantly, I never heard any Q-15 member in my lifetime actually state they had met an angel or spoke face to face with God or Jesus. Those experiences were supposedly sacred. Except apparently for leaders in the first half of the nineteenth century.
Eventually I concluded the Q-15 not only weren’t having these heavenly experiences, they weren’t receiving revelation any better than I was (based on examples like the priesthood ban and the PoX fiasco).
So either the leaders had 1) lost the way or 2) thus it always was. Having gone back over the historical record in the past year, this time also using sources outside of church approved curriculum and FARMS/FAIR, I’ve concluded that physical interactions with heavenly beings very likely have never occurred. Additionally, I’ve found many examples of clear-cut deceit by Joseph Smith and learned the 20th century church had taken active measures to keep information away from members, such as Joseph Fielding Smith excising the 1832 account from the letter book. I’ve learned an additional eight leaves -16 pages – of the letter book are still missing. I continue to observe the church gas-light members about church history.
So when I now look at the discrepancies of the First Vision accounts, I’m no longer willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Joseph Smith.
***Such as this statement by Sister Wendy Nelson: “What if you learned that the Savior had already returned to this earth? That he, as part of His second coming, had already met with some of his true followers in several marvelous large gatherings. Gatherings about which the world, including CNN and the blogosphere, knew nothing. If you found out that the Savior was already on the earth what would you desperately want to do today and what would you be willing and ready to do tomorrow? – Worldwide Devotional for Young Adults, 10 January 2016, speaking before her husband’s address.
Dave C, I have a lot of the same feelings and ideas. The biggie for me is that if JS had a ‘vision’ of God the Father and Jesus and JS’s understanding changed over time (and I’m not against understanding changing. I see that as very human), why does that prove God has a physical body? Visions in the bigger picture of humanity seem to be about symbolism. Why since JS saw God as a person does that prove God is a person? I mean, did Moses believe God was literally a burning bush because that was how his human eyes saw him?
That may be true for you. For an alternative perspective: I know someone (of sound mind and unimpeachable honesty) who saw an angel. Direct intervention to save her life, literally. Her assailants saw him too.
ReTx, Not just a burning bush. Later:
Exodus 33:21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
At a Lutheran service I attended recently, the minister mentioned this in his sermon as the time God mooned Moses! 🙂
But seriously, no version of JS’ first vision ever proved anything more about God having a physical body or the Father and Jesus being separate personages than did Stephen’s vision. Acts 7:55. The “proof” claims seem to me to be a mis-use of scripture and story, etc. I don’t see how JS’ theology of divine physical bodies either derives from or depends upon the first vision. Instead, it is merely consistent with the first vision — in any version — because physical bodies are irrelevant to visions, even in Mormon scripture — at least when the brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord, whom we now identify as Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, being the same person as Jesus of the New Testament whose physical body was born long after the brother of Jared story.
Just wanted to add about the contradictory reasons for going to the Grove.
I believe Greg Price has interpreted:
“Which is the right Church should I get baptized into?” and “What should I do to obtain forgiveness of sins?” as two sides of the same coin with different emphasis depending on audience. Always sounded reasonable to me.
It’s all part of a tapestry I have been trying to weave together that attempts to take all the individual details and data points into account, which of course doing fully is impossible. The picture that has been emerging for me over the past few years is an upstart 19th century religion that pulled heavily from its surrounding cultural milieu and developed over time.
The various first vision narratives are just a part of that larger tapestry. But I see in them, as others have said, a developing narrative that coincides very nicely with Joseph’s developing theology. The timeline fits, the puzzle pieces match, and I think it’s the best explanation of the data.
Someone can look at the data and see “line upon line” revelation, but this idea that Joseph knew the true nature of God in 1820 because of the first vision (which is what I was taught to teach on my mission) simply does not fit the rest of the data suggesting a developing theology.
Dan,
I’ve read both accounts several times, and I’ve just now reread both. I honestly don’t see a contradiction in the portions of the accounts that you’re pointing out. In both accounts, Joseph has serious doubts about whether any of the religious sects were “right”. ( “are they all wrong together?”). I don’t see any conflict with coming to a conclusion and continuing to question it. That, to me, is a hallmark of sincere inquiry. If I have concluded that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of Christ’s original church (which I have), I’m not done asking that question in different iterations. I prayed to know whether the Book of Mormon was true after already concluding that it was.
It’s also possible for someone to have multiple purposes in going to God in prayer. In fact, in my experience, it is unlikely for someone to have only one purpose. When you interview someone, do you ever actually go with the purpose of asking a single question? They may all be related questions, but as jpv pointed out, where should I be baptized (which church should I join) and how do I gain forgiveness of sin are tightly interwoven questions.