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.
Difference between revisions of "Joseph Smith's First Vision/Early knowledge of the nature of God"
(→Criticism: source) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
According to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820. | According to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820. | ||
| − | + | ===Source(s) of the Criticism=== | |
| − | + | *{{CriticalWork:Persuitte:Origins|pages=24}} | |
==Response== | ==Response== | ||
Revision as of 09:18, 26 June 2009
Contents
Criticism
According to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820.
Source(s) of the Criticism
- David Persuitte, Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon (2nd edition), (McFarland & Company, October 2000), 24 ( Index of claims )
Response
The text that critics are referring to was created by Oliver Cowdery and printed in the Church's official Kirtland, Ohio newspaper in February 1835. The relevant passage reads:
- "This would bring the date down to the year 1823....[Joseph] continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine approbation, and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im." (Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1, no. 5, February 1835, 78; emphasis added).
There are three major problems with the interpretation of Oliver Cowdery's text that is insisted upon by critics.
(#1) - Oliver Cowdery himself was teaching at the first of November 1830 that Joseph Smith had - previous to that time - seen God "personally." (The Reflector, vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831 [Palmyra, New York])
(#2) - Joseph Smith's 1832 history plainly states that his "Parents . . . spared no pains to instructing [him] in <the> [C]hristian religion" and at the time of his First Vision he himself believed "<it is a> fool <that> saith in his heart there is no God." (Dean Jessee, ed., Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, rev. ed. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2002], ---). It can be demonstrated that Oliver Cowdery had possession of the Prophet's 1832 history while he was writing his own 1835 historical account and so Cowdery knew not only about Joseph's personal belief in a Supreme Being prior to the First Vision but also that he saw Deity during that event.
(#3) - A close look at Joseph Smith's description of the First Vision given on 9 November 1835 (just a few months after Cowdery's statement was published) demonstrates that Cowdery was modifying a set of ideas that he had obviously heard the Prophet relate in verbal form.
- OLIVER COWDERY (February 1835): "the all important information, if a Supreme [B]eing did exist, to have an assurance....[H]is word remains steadfast"
- JOSEPH SMITH (November 1835): "under a realising sense that [the Lord] had said (if the Bible be true)"
Notice that both sets of remarks speak of (1) a supreme Being/the Lord (2) the Lord's word/the Bible, (3) being steadfast/true, and (4) the parenthetical question of "if."
Since Oliver Cowdery knew Joseph Smith believed in God before the First Vision took place, and knew for a fact that God existed because of his First Vision experience, then it is unreasonable to interpret Cowdery's printed words to mean that 'Joseph Smith was not sure if there was a God in 1823.'
Most importantly, it cannot be forgotten that "1823" in Cowdery's article represents an incorrect editorial change by him which was reset to 1820 by the Prophet in subsequent historical texts (such as the 1838 recital and the Wentworth Letter).
Conclusion
Oliver Cowdery's February 1835 historical narrative should not be interpreted in the manner that critics of the Church insist upon. Their understanding of this issue is limited by their focus on the exploitation of perceived problems. An attempt to understand the nature and context of the document is much more enlightening and provides insight into an early period of the Church.
Endnotes
None