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 "Multiple accounts of the First Vision"
m (→Endnotes) |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{FirstVisionPortal}} | ||
==Criticism== | ==Criticism== | ||
Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the First Vision. Critics charge that differences in the accounts show that he changed and embellished his story over time, and that he therefore didn't have any such vision. | Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the First Vision. Critics charge that differences in the accounts show that he changed and embellished his story over time, and that he therefore didn't have any such vision. | ||
Revision as of 16:11, 16 October 2006
Contents
Criticism
Joseph Smith gave several accounts of the First Vision. Critics charge that differences in the accounts show that he changed and embellished his story over time, and that he therefore didn't have any such vision.
Source(s) of the Criticism
- Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005).
- Isaiah Bennett, Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe (Catholic Answers: 1999).
- Grant Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2002).
- Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Case Against Mormonism, 2 vols., (Salt Lake City, 1967), 1:120–128.
- Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Changing World of Mormonism (Salt Lake City: 1980), 164.
- Dan Vogel, "The Earliest Mormon Concept of God," in Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine, edited by Gary James Bergera, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 17–33.
Response
Figure 1: The Sacred Grove, near Palmyra, New York, by George Edward Anderson, photograph, 1907.
Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often seek to point out differences between the various accounts which Joseph Smith gave of his First Vision. In defence of their position that the Prophet changed his story over a six year period (1832 to 1838) they claim that the earliest followers of Joseph Smith either didn’t know about the First Vision, or seem to have been confused about it.
Did Joseph claim only one heavenly being in his 1832 account?
Critics also complain that Joseph only had one heavenly visitor appear to him in the 1832 First Vision account.
The 1832 record reads:
- 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 <behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside 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 acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me...[1]
One should first 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.)
Furthermore, the Godhead was understood by Joseph and the early Saints to be decidedly different from the trinitarian model which later critics tried to impose upon him. (See here.)
"I saw the Lord"
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:
- as a commencement the Lord appeared unto Joseph Smith, both the Father and the Son, the Father pointing to the Son said ‘this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him.’[2]
President Taylor here uses the term "the Lord," as a term for both the Father and the Son. And, this variant usage is no one-time slip—it was very common to Taylor. For example:
- But when the Lord manifested himself to Joseph Smith, presenting to him his Son who was there also, saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him;" he then knew that God lived [3]
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:
- The Lord has taken a great deal of pains to bring us where we are and to give us the information we have. He came himself, accompanied by his Son Jesus, to the Prophet Joseph Smith.[4]
And
- 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.’[5]
Use of "The Lord" with 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...[6]
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 well-established, then it may be asking too much to expect Joseph's relatively uneducated first attempt to record his story—in one breathless, run-on sentence—to make the clear distinctions which the critics demand.
Joseph's 1832 focuses mostly on what he was told, and the telling was done by Jesus in all the accounts. But, Joseph's later explicit claim to have seen two personages may be present in his first account as well.
Regardless of the linguistic details, nothing in the 1832 account states that there was only one personage. If one announces a visit with the President of the United States, does this mean that the Vice President and First Lady were not present?
Comparison to Paul's vision
Paul the apostle gave several accounts of his vision of the resurrected Lord while on the road to Damascus. Like Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision, Paul's accounts differ in some details but agree in the overall message. Richard Lloyd Anderson made the following comparisons.
- Many Christians who comfortably accept Paul’s vision reject Joseph Smith’s. However, they aren’t consistent in their criticisms, for most arguments against Joseph Smith’s first vision would detract from Paul’s Damascus experience with equal force.
- For instance, Joseph Smith’s credibility is attacked because the earliest known description of his vision wasn’t given until a dozen years after it happened. But Paul’s earliest known description of the Damascus appearance, found in 1 Corinthians 9꞉1, was recorded about two dozen years after his experience.
- Critics love to dwell on supposed inconsistencies in Joseph Smith’s spontaneous accounts of his first vision. But people normally give shorter and longer accounts of their own vivid experiences when retelling them more than once. Joseph Smith was cautious about public explanations of his sacred experiences until the Church grew strong and could properly publicize what God had given him. Thus, his most detailed first vision account came after several others—when he began his formal history.
- This, too, parallels Paul’s experience. His most detailed account of the vision on the road to Damascus is the last of several recorded. (See Acts 26:9–20.) And this is the only known instance in which he related the detail about the glorified Savior prophesying Paul’s work among the Gentiles. (See Acts 26:16–18.) Why would Paul include this previously unmentioned detail only on that occasion? Probably because he was speaking to a Gentile audience, rather than to a group of Jewish Christians. Both Paul and Joseph Smith had reasons for delaying full details of their visions until the proper time and place.[7]
Conclusion
Joseph's varied accounts of the First Vision were targeted at different audiences, and had different purposes. However, they show a remarkable harmony. Evidence of how Joseph Smith and others understood the doctrine of God early in Church history demonstrates that the supposed 'evidence' for Joseph altering his story later is only in the eyes of critical beholders.
Endnotes
- [note] Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, revised edition, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2002), 9–20.Direct off-site
- [note] John Taylor, "The Revelation Of The Father And Son To Joseph Smith, And The Bestowal Upon Him Of The Priesthood, etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by George F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and others, (4 January 1880), Vol. 21 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1881), 65.off-site (emphasis added)
- [note] John Taylor, "Gathering The Result Of Revelation, etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by D.W. Evans, G.F. Gibbs, and others, (14 November 1877), Vol. 19 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1878), 151–152.off-site (emphasis added)
- [note] John Taylor, "Eternal Nature Of The Gospel, etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by George F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and others, (28 November 1879), Vol. 21 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1881), 116–117.off-site (emphasis added)
- [note] John Taylor, "Restoration Of The Gospel Through Joseph Smith, etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by George F. Gibbs, John Irvine, and others, (7 December 1879), Vol. 21 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1881), 161.off-site (emphasis added)
- [note] John Taylor, Letter to the Editor of the Interpreter Anglais et Francois, Boulogne-sur-mer (25 June 1850). (emphasis added) Reprinted in John Taylor, Millennial Star 12 no. 15 (1 August 1850), 235–236.
- [note] Richard L. Anderson, "Parallel Prophets: Paul and Joseph Smith," Ensign (April 1985): 12.off-site