![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
m (→Response) |
m (→Response) |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
It should be noted that the scribe for the material which directly precedes and follows after the 1832 First Vision narrative (Frederick G. Williams) never mentioned anything about Joseph Smith's story evolving over time and becoming more elaborate with the inclusion of the Father. This, despite the fact that he faced a Church court, was rejected as a counselor in the First Presidency, and evidently lost his membership for a time.{{ref|fgwhistory}} | It should be noted that the scribe for the material which directly precedes and follows after the 1832 First Vision narrative (Frederick G. Williams) never mentioned anything about Joseph Smith's story evolving over time and becoming more elaborate with the inclusion of the Father. This, despite the fact that he faced a Church court, was rejected as a counselor in the First Presidency, and evidently lost his membership for a time.{{ref|fgwhistory}} | ||
− | Furthermore, the Godhead was understood by Joseph and the early Saints to be decidedly different from the trinitarian model which | + | Furthermore, the Godhead was understood by Joseph and the early Saints to be decidedly different from the trinitarian model which modern critics now to impose upon him in the early 1830s. (See [[Joseph_Smith%27s_early_conception_of_God|here]].) One should note that in the 1832 vision account, Jesus announces he will come "clothed in the glory of my Father." The Book of Mormon (translated three years earlier in 1829) also contains numerous passages which teach a physical separation and embodiment (even if only in ''spirit'' bodies, which are clearly not immaterial, but have shape, position, and form) of the members of the Godhead. (See: {{s|3|Nephi|11||}}, {{s|1|Nephi|11|1-11}}, {{s||Ether|3|14-18}}.) |
+ | |||
+ | Critics' attempt to make Joseph into a classical Trinitarian in the 1830s simply won't wash. | ||
==="I saw the Lord"=== | ==="I saw the Lord"=== | ||
Line 69: | Line 71: | ||
:He went to ''the Lord'', having read James' statement…He believed that statement and went to the Lord and asked him, and ''the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus'', and, pointing to the latter, said: ‘This is my beloved Son, hear him.’{{ref|lord4}} | :He went to ''the Lord'', having read James' statement…He believed that statement and went to the Lord and asked him, and ''the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus'', and, pointing to the latter, said: ‘This is my beloved Son, hear him.’{{ref|lord4}} | ||
− | Use of "The Lord" | + | Use of "The Lord" as referring to both beings may also be seen in another account in which the Lord is addressed in prayer, and yet two personages arrive: |
:Believing in the word of God, he retired into a grove, and ''called upon the Lord'' to give him wisdom in relation to this matter. While he was thus engaged, he was surrounded by a brilliant light, and ''two glorious personages presented themselves before him''...{{ref|lord1}} | :Believing in the word of God, he retired into a grove, and ''called upon the Lord'' to give him wisdom in relation to this matter. While he was thus engaged, he was surrounded by a brilliant light, and ''two glorious personages presented themselves before him''...{{ref|lord1}} |
Template:FirstVisionPortal
This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.
Critics claim that in the 1832 account of the First Vision—which is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith himself—it only says that Jesus Christ made an appearance in the wilderness; the Father is missing from the text. Since this is the earliest known written account of the First Vision story, critics presume that it provides evidence that the Prophet's story became more elaborate and impressive over time.
The theophany portion of the 1832 account does seem to indicate that only Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. The relevant text reads as follows:
Even though the Savior is quoted as making a direct reference to the Father later on in this text, there is no indication in the theophany portion of it which would indicate that God Almighty made an appearance on this occasion. However, critics have failed to notice a significant phrase found in the introductory remarks of the Prophet's 1832 historical narrative. There he says that this document is -
This paragraph outlines four major events of the Restoration in chronological order.
The significant phrase is, naturally, the one associated with the First Vision—"receiving the testimony from on high." When this phrase is compared with the Prophet's 1835 and 1838 accounts of the First Vision experience it becomes apparent that the 1832 phraseology corresponds with the words spoken by God the Father when He introduced His Son in the Sacred Grove.
The Father's identification of Jesus Christ as His Son was His "testimony" of Him.
Since it can be concluded from this documentary evidence that Joseph Smith did indeed make an oblique reference to the appearance of the Father in his 1832 history the question becomes—Why did the Prophet construct the 1832 narrative in the manner that he did (so as to exclude explicit mention of the Father's appearance)? A careful analysis of the 1832 First Vision text reveals that it was deliberately constructed on the framework of many scriptural citations. The apostle Stephen's view of both the Father and the Son is clearly utilized in one section of the 1832 text but, more importantly, the Prophet told the actual theophany portion of this narrative in language that very closely corresponds to the apostle Paul's vision of Jesus Christ (Acts 26).[2] .
Paul did not report that he saw the Father alongside the Son, and so it seems that this is the reason why Joseph Smith did not explicitly mention the Father's appearance in his text. The Prophet's strong sense of connection with Paul's visionary experience is referred to by him right in his 1838 First Vision account. The context of this connection is the persecution experienced by both men for speaking publicly about a heavenly manifestation. Joseph relates in his 1838 history that he was informed by a clergyman that his vision was "all of the devil." This piece of information may help to explain why the Prophet chose to couch his first known written account in heavy biblical language and imagery. He may have hoped that by doing so his story would have a better chance of acceptance among a populace that was steeped in the content of the Bible.
It should be noted that the scribe for the material which directly precedes and follows after the 1832 First Vision narrative (Frederick G. Williams) never mentioned anything about Joseph Smith's story evolving over time and becoming more elaborate with the inclusion of the Father. This, despite the fact that he faced a Church court, was rejected as a counselor in the First Presidency, and evidently lost his membership for a time.[3]
Furthermore, the Godhead was understood by Joseph and the early Saints to be decidedly different from the trinitarian model which modern critics now to impose upon him in the early 1830s. (See here.) One should note that in the 1832 vision account, Jesus announces he will come "clothed in the glory of my Father." The Book of Mormon (translated three years earlier in 1829) also contains numerous passages which teach a physical separation and embodiment (even if only in spirit bodies, which are clearly not immaterial, but have shape, position, and form) of the members of the Godhead. (See: 3 Nephi 11, 1 Nephi 11꞉1-11, Ether 3꞉14-18.)
Critics' attempt to make Joseph into a classical Trinitarian in the 1830s simply won't wash.
It is important, too, to note that modern readers are accustomed to thinking of the title "Lord" as applying to Jesus Christ alone. However, it is clear that this is not how at least some Latter-day Saints used the title—it had a broader usage as well, which may confuse this passage for some.
John Taylor, whose words are examined extensively elsewhere, used the term "Lord" in a way that would be unusual for a modern member:
President Taylor here appears to use the term "the Lord," to include both the Father and the Son. And, this variant usage is no one-time slip—it was very common to Taylor. For example:
Here, the term "the Lord" applies to the Father, and not the Son!
This usage was reflected in at least two other sermons by Taylor:
And
Use of "The Lord" as referring to both beings may also be seen in another account in which the Lord is addressed in prayer, and yet two personages arrive:
If John Taylor, one of the most educated and linguistically polished of Joseph's associates could use the term "Lord" in a variety of ways which do not match our modern usage, even well after Joseph's death and with LDS doctrine of deity established even for the harshest modern critic, then it should not surprise us that Joseph's early account of his vision (patterned on the language of Paul's theophany) has been the subject of misunderstanding.
The Father is not mentioned as making an appearance in the theophany portion of the 1832 First Vision account because Joseph Smith patterned that part of his narrative after the vision of Jesus Christ experienced by the apostle Paul. The words spoken by the Father during His First Vision appearance are, however, referred to in the introductory paragraph of the 1832 text. The critics have not been careful in their analysis of this early Mormon historical document.
None
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now