Dr Mark Scherer is the retired Church Historian from the Community of Christ. He’s written a 3-volume work called “Journey of a People,” similar to the 4-volume Church history work by the LDS Church. Volume 1 contains the shared history of the Community of Christ & LDS Church and we’ll talk about differences in interpretation, like the First Vision and other events.
In a previous conversation with Dan Vogel, we discussed Dan’s belief that Joseph embellished his accounts over time, making the visions serve authority and theological purposes. I was surprised to hear that Mark agreed with this. We also discussed the timing of the restoration of Melchizedek Priesthood, whether Joseph Smith was educated, dating the First Vision, and the difference between a religious historian and a historian of religion. (Do you know the difference?)
In part 2, the Civil War Prophecy & Baptism for the Dead are 2 of Joseph Smith’s most famous revelations,. While important to the LDS, the Community of Christ no longer canonizes either revelation. We’ll learn more about their view from Community of Christ historian Dr Mark Scherer.
I was surprised to learn the Civil War prophecy was never canonized by the RLDS Church. Mark also explained the process where the RLDS Church moved away from baptism for the dead, and why it was finally abandoned in the 1960s-70s. I also asked Mark about RLDS views of polygamy (there are still some who cling to Joseph Smith never practicing it, and how that seems to be infecting the LDS Church), and whether Joseph used a seer stone or urim and thummim to translate the Book of Mormon.
What are your thoughts on these topics?
Wheat & Tares 
LDS apologists argue that different versions of the same story demonstrate the authenticity of the event because they aren’t uniform and programmed but rather genuine and sincere depending on the intended audience. So just remember that if you are ever recounting an event in your life, be sure to do so with different versions to different people. Otherwise, we might think you’re lying in an effort to be so consistent.
If I had a personal visit with the Father and Son, it would be firmly planted in memory. I’d probably get the telling of it right the first time, and every time afterwards. The details wouldn’t get more precise with time.
Josh – I think this is a very weak position taken by apologists. The Church, up to the age of the internet, was the sole voice for the defendant, which in this case, I will call “The Restoration Story”. The defense had a huge advantage in convincing a captive jury, because there was no prosecution challenging their version of events. The church had silenced the prosecution and convinced the jury that any voice challenging their version of events, was a liar. Well, that control of the narrative no longer exists, the prosecution, as it turns out, has a few (a lot) things to say, and now the job of the jury has become the reality of “Truth”, instead of free reign to create whatever truth you wanted.
I, as a jury member, responsible for weighing the evidence, would not respond well to the defense suggesting that different versions of the story prove credibility. That argument would likely make me even more wary.of the defenses story. I would trust them less and less and less the more they gaslighted me, trying to convince me not to trust my own eyes.
Houston, I think we have a problem.
Stories change kind of like the wind. Religions form and change following the stories. What stories a person believes has more to do with family and friends than it has to do with the “truth” of a story. The nuances in a story are justifications for personal beliefs. While we all long for a standard truth, it’s pretty hard to find with all the loud voices pushing their own agenda.
There is more nuance to Mark than most comments here. Quoting from Mark directly.
Mark 28:52 Okay. All right. All right. So I had written some articles about this. And I cited Dan Vogel at times and I and here’s the Community of Christ historian identifying the vision the First Vision explanation as a moving target. It was embellishment. So several members of our Council of 12 called me in. Oh boy, no, yeah, yeah. Well, actually, I was teaching a class in the temple.
GT Was this a temple seminary sort of a thing?
Mark: No, it really wasn’t this is this for like this was this was for their own understanding. Where’s the church historian coming from? You know, he’s written this. So what I did was, I was feeling kind of under pressure, okay. So what I did was I made the same type of intreaty to the Divine understanding. How do I handle this? These guys are wanting, and there was a couple of women as well. One wanted me to explain where I’m coming from. So you know what I did? Okay. So I went to a florist shop. Okay, this was like Wednesday of the of the class. It was a weeklong. I went to a florist shop, and I got 12 Roses. Okay, so they’re all sitting around this table. So I want I set a rose down on each. I said, “Okay, do this for me. I want you to describe in writing, I want you to smell and describe the smell.”
Oh, boy. And then after three or four minutes, I saw people kind of sit back. A couple of people just immediately sat up and didn’t write anything at all. And so I said, “Okay, let’s do some telling. Now tell me what did you write?”
“Well it always smells very, very sweet. It had a wonderful fragrance.”
And a person next to him, “No, no, no, no. That’s not that’s not what I smelled. Here’s what I smell. It was a full fragrance. But it wasn’t so sweet.” And we went around, and they couldn’t establish consensus.
Now, how does that figure into the First Vision, Joseph gave six major accounts of the First Vision. Only two of them actually agree. The others he evolved the experience. Now, that’s what got me in trouble. How is that embellishment ? Right? To me it proved the efficacy, the efficacy, the authenticity of the experience, because if he had been if he had been insincere or if he had conjured it up, he would have had an explanation the same way exactly everyone because he didn’t want to be proven to be wrong. Instead, the experience worked within him to evolve the understanding. And with that, changed the story. And for me, as a historian, that authenticates the story. I would have been very suspicious, I would have called him a charlatan, had he said, that this is exactly what happened every time from 1820 to 1842. Had he said the same thing. I would have just shook my head. But the fact that he changed the story, to me is authentication, that he didn’t understand completely. And that understanding had to grow within him. And as it did, then the story changed.
Now there are certain facts that that cause me as a historian problems, severe problems, but nonetheless. For example, early on, there’s only he only sees one person, one person each. Right, right, you know, I saw the Lord and he spake unto me. Okay. But as you move through the experience, now he’s got Jesus Christ involved. And, and which is, which is I don’t have a problem with from my own experience, because it’s a heavenly inspiration. And this is why I think Vogel is right on this and this part, but it was an epiphany. He was inspired. And that there’s one personage or there’s two personages. This is my beloved Son. Hear ye him. It’s just verification that he didn’t understand what he had encountered. And I’m okay with that. I’m absolutely okay with that.
I’ve had time to watch part 1 and have several comments/questions: It seems that historical regard of religious events have no true objectivity. Our personal preferences influence how we present our opinions, and we find “facts” to support them. Apologists ignore the mistakes of Joseph Smith; Secularists emphasize them. I read an essay by an RLDS scholar about the Inspired version of the bible. “I reject, I repudiate, I deny”. Was that an objective opinion?
Dr. Scherer mentions a “Harvard” attitude and I would say I encountered it when I was RLDS. Geoffrey Spencer repudiated my opinions on revelation because he was Harvard. A friend who believed the purpose of the Independence Temple was partly to bring about the second coming was repudiated with “we don’t believe THAT way anymore”. Wayne Ham repudiated my opinion that there was a conservative perspective. He separated humanistic from liberal thought but lumped all conservative thought as fundamentalist. William D. Russell categorized RLDS thought not as conservative and liberal, but as 19th century or mainstream.
Rick: since becoming LDS, I’ve heard many members believe the 1st vision occurred on April 6th.
Rick B – I don’t disagree with the nuance. I have recently thought a lot about the gap between “Experience” and the expression of experience. Words are slippery little suckers, but outside of actually having an experience with another person (like sex), words are all we have to describe our experience to others. The problem is that, over time, we humans codify the experience of one person and project it onto everyone else.
The rose example is not the same thing as Joseph’s differing descriptions however. It’s expected that different people will use different words to describe the rose. It’s even understandable for one person, over time, to describe different aspects of the rose. I understand how or why Joseph may, over time, describe his experience with different words. The messy part is how WE, as a church, have codified his experience. Joseph’s experience is stated as a “Vision”, not a visitation. His facts between versions of the vision are not consistent, but we, the latter-day church have imposed a certain set of facts on the vision and now we are stuck defending the version we adopted.
Mark, I have heard of April 6 as a date, but think John Lefgren and John Pratt make an extremely compelling case for March 26, 1820. See https://gospeltangents.com/2022/11/john-lefgren-on-first-vision/
Todd, I agree with you that we make the First Vision much too concrete. Mark and I discussed that exact point when we talked about the distinction between vision and visitation. LDS want to make this a refutation of the Trinity, and that was never the purpose of the vision.
To me, the bigger issues (or at least as big) are that there is absolutely no evidence that he shared this story with anyone who then persecuted him over it (something he only claimed later, but which is now canonized for us), and that the Church didn’t use this as a missionary tool until much, much later. Someone at some point saw the myth-making value in the story, but it wasn’t something that was truly foundational to the Church when Joseph formed it in 1830, which tells me there’s less, not more, to the story than we were teaching as missionaries. Was it a vision? A dream? An idea? A divine visit? Personal or universally applicable? A restoration or a comforting incident? The case is there to be made for any of these things or none of them. “The older I get, the more clearly I remember things that never happened.” ― Mark Twain
I have a suspicion that some of us are commenting on the title and have not actually listened to Dr. Scherer’s comments. I mean, why would Rick get 5+ down votes for calling people’s attention to the fact that Scherer holds a much more nuanced and “friendly” view of how spiritual experience is documented over time? Are we not talking about Scherer’s views? Who down votes a clarification or reminder?
Angela,
You said it well…. those are the potential variables or vagaries we have to wrestle with. And as several others have noted, many past interpreters of the First Vision introduced more dogma than is justified by the documentation. Scherer created a framework in which a variety of interpretations is possible. In the long run, that may be healthier for religious belief than the more dogmatic approach.
Old Man, I have a feeling some people here just like to downvote me, mostly because I always defend my guests (whether believing or unbelieving.) It’s a trend I’ve noticed for a while, even on relatively innocous comments like you said.
You have to figure audience as well–who he was talking to and what the circumstances were..
Jack – That argument works as far as the purpose of the story is concerned.
I don’t know what Joseph’s motives or purposes were each time he expressed different versions of his experience.
Joseph’s purpose may be nuanced, however, the Church’s retelling of the story tends towards using Joseph’s vision as a proof text. The Churches narrative is not to inspire or
encourage people to seek after their own experience with God, but to make a specific point that gives them “Authority” on the topic of God. And, their authority is severely
threatened by the facts not lining up, it seriously dilutes their credibility.
Rick, thank you for this intriguing interview and for all the work you do in providing us with these interviews.
Thanks Vajra2.
I’m late to the discussion.
I share Vogel’s view regarding First Vision embellishment. Indeed, I’ve written a detailed essay on the subject: https://thewellexaminedlife.com/making-sense-of-the-first-vision/
I also wrote a piece about the changing role the first vision has played in the church’s history and theology: https://thewellexaminedlife.com/the-first-vision-a-brief-history/
If nothing else, these essays will help you fall asleep should you suffer from insomnia.