More on the "First Vision".  What really happened?.

Who did Joseph Smith see?  Was it God the Father and Jesus Christ as the Official version
maintains (1838)? Or only Christ as Joe wrote in 1832 (Ledger Version)?

Or two unnamed personages with angels, as he wrote in the 1835
(Diary Version)? Or one or more angels, as Smith's inspired
successors, Brigham Young and John Taylor, maintain? [See Journal of
Discourses 2:171, 13:78, 18:329, 20:167].

It's hard to keep all these versions straight, you guys.

Answer:

A few weeks ago, I forwarded some dialogue from ARM about the "first vision."
This looks like a good place to repeat it for the newcomers:

A Mormon had claimed that the Tanners "had lied through their teeth" when
they repeated Wesley Walters' research which showed that there had been no
religious revivals in Palmyra in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's assertions
about a "great excitement on the subject of religion," which prompted him to
seek inspiration.  Below is some dialogue on the subject.

A questioning Mormon wrote:

In
"Changing World of Mormonism" on their website, they just claim that
there was no religious revival in 1819-20 as Joseph Smith claimed, but
mention that there were revivals in that area in 1816-17 and 1824-25.
Is the lie that there was an 1820 revival that the Tanners don't
mention, or that they word their claim in "Shadow or Reality" to
preclude any revivals in the area at other times? --- Roy Stogner

I don't own a copy of Shadow or Reality.  What I've read in it, I read
in the SLC library.  Your request is appropriate in light of my claims,
so I am hoping (and requesting) that someone else with a copy will put
the exact wording for you.  Perhaps Steve has a copy.  If an exact quote
weakens my position, I'm sure someone will be glad to supply a quote.
Perhaps on their website, they are more thorough due to Quinn's
research.

Randy replied:

"Mormonism: Shadow or Reality" is on-line in full at

<A HREF="http://www.concordance.com/mormon.htm"http://www.concordance.com/mormon.htm</A


*In Smith's original 1832 account of his "first vision," he didn't even
mention a revival spurring him to inquire about religion.

*In his later "official version", Smith claimed that he had been "persecuted"
for telling ministers and others about his 1820 vision; but even though there
exist more than 100 affidavits and accounts from people who knew Smith and
his family intimately in the 1820's, not a single one of them related a word
about Smith claiming to have a vision circa 1820, nor anything about "persecution."

*Several accounts of Smith's 1826 "glass-looking" trial exist, which as a
group, comprise the very earliest public information about Smith.  But none
of them give a hint that Smith had any religious leaning whatsoever, let alone
visions of God, Jesus, or Moroni.  All of those accounts, including Smith's
own trial testimony, paint him as a poor-man's fortune-teller and money-digger,
and that he was rather embarrassed at, and seemingly repentant of his hobby.

*The earliest widely-published newspaper articles about Smith and his "Gold
Bible," from 1830-31, tell nothing about Smith having any visions circa 1820
or 1823.  In fact, those early news articles reveal quite a bit about how Smith
transformed himself from a "peep-stoner" into a Biblical-style "prophet" in
1827, rather than 1820 or 1823.  Read some of them at

<A HREF="http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/NY/courier.htm"http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/NY/courier.htm</A

<A HREF="http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYS1.htm#090229"http://www.lavazone2.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYS1.htm#090229</A

*In addition to the lack of non-Mormon sources for evidence of the "first
vision," pro-Mormon versions of the alleged event are convoluted and
contradictory to Smith's "official version."  A few examples:

*Oliver Cowdery's account in the 1834 "Messenger and Advocate" stated that
the "first vision" occurred in 1823---not a word about an 1820 vision.   Cowdery's
account also related that Smith's interest in religion was sparked by the
preaching of Methodist elder George Lane, rather than Smith's version which
claimed that he was inspired by reading in the Bible at at 14.  Cowdery also
stated that the date of the "religious excitement in Palmyra and vicinity"
was in Smith's "17th year," which would have been 1823, rather than 1820.

Joseph's brother William's account of the event was closer to Cowdery's than
to Joseph's:

"In 1822 and 1823, the people in our neighborhood were very much stirred up
with regard to religious matters by the preaching of a Mr. [George] Lane, an
elder of the Methodist Church.....The consequences [of this growing religious
revival] was that my mother, my brothers Hyrum and Samuel, older than I,
joined the Presbyterian Church.  Joseph, then being about seventeen years of age
[1823], had become seriously inclined, although not 'brought out',
[converted] as the phrase was, began to reflect and inquire, which of all these sects was
right.....He continued in secret to call upon the Lord for a full
manifestation of his will, the assurance that he was accepted of him, and that he might
have an understanding of the path of obedience.
At length he determined to call upon the Lord until he should get a
manifestation from him.  He accordingly went out into the woods and falling
upon his knees called for a long time upon the Lord for knowledge.  While
engaging in prayer a light appeared in the heavens, and descended until it
rested upon the trees where he was.....An angel then appeared to him and
conversed with him upon many things.  He told him that none of the sects were
right; but that if he was faithful in keeping the commandments he should
receive, the true way should be made known unto him; that his sins were
forgiven, etc.....he.....told us.....that the angel had also given him a sort
of
account of the inhabitants who formerly resided upon this continent, a full
history of whom he said was engraved on some plates which were hidden, and
which the angel promised to show him....."

Note that William's and Cowdery's accounts both pinpoint the preaching of
George Lane as Joseph's impetus for seeking "inspiration."  That calls into
doubt Joseph's claim that his "first vision" occurred in 1820, because Lane
did not preach in the area until 1824.  And where William and Cowdery's accounts
pinpoint Lane as being Joseph's source of inspiration, Joseph himself claimed
that local ministers "persecuted" him.

Note also how William's account co-mingles elements of the alleged "first
vision" with those of "Moroni's visit" of supposedly 1823.  That same
contradiction also occurred in Lucy Mack Smith's original manuscript of her
"Biographical Sketches":

"One evening we were sitting till quite late conversing upon the subject of
the diversity of churches that had risen up in the world and the many thousand
opinions in existence as to the truth contained in scripture......After we
ceased conversation he [Joseph] went to bed and was pondering in his mind
which of the churches were the true way but he had not laid there long till he saw
a bright light enter the room where he lay.  He looked up and saw an angel of
the Lord standing by him.  The angel spoke, I perceive that you are enquiring in
your mind which is the true church.  There is not a true church on earth."
(This original version was deleted by Brigham Young when Lucy's book was
ordered recalled and re-published, obviously because Lucy's version
contradicted Smith's 1842 "official version.")

And of course, Smith's 1842 "official version" contradicts on many points his
original 1832 version.  All of these contradictions, originating in accounts
from Smith and his closest family and friends, indicate that those involved
couldn't keep their stories straight----and that, of course, leads us to
believe that Smith simply invented the "first vision" story, probably around
1832 when he wrote his original version of it----and the story changed
somewhat with each re-telling.

There are other contradictions which cast doubt on the "first vision," such
as the Smith family joining the Presbyterian church AFTER God had supposedly
told Joseph that all churches were corrupt; Cowdery's statement that Smith had
wondered, several years after the alleged "first vision," as to whether "a
Supreme Being did exist"; and the fact that as late as 1851, church
publications such as the "Times and Seasons" were calling the angel that
visited Joseph "Nephi," rather than Moroni.  Seeing as how Joseph Smith was
the editor of the "Times and Seasons," it seems incredible that he would allow
his own paper to misstate the name of the angel, and not issue a correction.

Bottom line----all of these contradictions cast serious doubts on Smith's
"first vision" claims.  If this level of contradictions existed in any
"anti-Mormon" claims or publications, Mormon apologists would ridicule and
discredit them.  But unfortunately, Mormon apologists hold "anti-Mormon"
claims and writings to a much higher standard of inerrancy than they do the claims
and writings of their "prophets."  And that double standard renders all the
efforts of modern Mormon apologists nothing more than a silly game of
pot-kettle-black.

Randy J.

Oct. 8, 2002

Those of us who point out discrepancies in the stories or versions of
the First Vision are accused by the Morg authorities as lacking in
spirit (of fidelity) and of submission to authority (their
authority). Apostle Neal A. Maxwell writes, "In our own time, Joseph
Smith, The First Vision, and the Book of Mormon constitute stumbling
blocks for many (you don't say, Neal?!)--around or over which they
cannot get--unless they are meek enough to examine all the evidence
at hand, not being exclusionary as a result of accumulated attitudes
in a secular society. Humbleness of mind (I love this term) is an
initiator of expansiveness of mind."  [Neal A. Maxwell, Meek and
Lowly, 76].

Isn't it curious that this Morg mouthpiece seems to applaud a
conscientious examination of all the data available on the subject of
the First Vision and BOM, yet he draws the line when such research
proves unable to support the official version. It seems to me that
Morg apologists find the only way to explain contradictions is to
deny that they exist.

Listen to another Morg space cadet, James B. Allen, former church
historian. "The variations in these and other accounts suggest that
in relating his story to varius individuals at various times, Joseph
Smith emphasized different aspects of it and that his listeners were
each impressed with different details. This, of course, is to be
expected, for the same thing happens in retelling any story." 
[Allen, "'The Significance of Joseph Smith's First Vision' in Mormon
History" in The New Mormon History, edited by D. Michael Quinn, 1992,
pp.48-49.] Former mission president, Richard I. Winwood, echoes
Allen's sentiments, in "Be Not Deceived", "The basic truths disclosed
in each account are in complete harmony (ROTFLMAO). The differences
that do exist are simple grammatical changes or observations that
show different facets of the same event" (p.40). Winwood believes
that these "differences in details" were the result of Smith's having
an "enormously significant message" couched in "complex and
astounding events" (41). But others, more sober, commentators argue
it was not an uneducated and innocent farm boy who was overwhelmed,
but a religious leader whose determination to provide "evidence" for
his peculiar theology succumbed to his own forgetfulness. Smith
simply couldn't keep track of the various versions that he had spun.

To my thinking, it is difficult to imagine a more deceitful statement
from both James Allen,  and by implication, Gordon Hinckley. We are
not dealing with mere conflicts over how many angels may have
appeared, or how many "personages" there were. The discrepancy
involves what Allen, Hinckley and Ezra T. Benson, describe as bedrock
theology of their church. [Benson, Fourteen Fundamentals in Following
the Prophets, Feb 2, 1980, p. 101]. Given this situational context,
how likely is it that Smith would forget that the Father and the Son
appeared to him? How likely is it, as some apologists argue, that the
version which mentions only one personage (the Son) does not thereby
rule out the presence in bodily form of the Father? Is it likely that
the version that mentions two undefined personages, one of whom
mentions Jesus Christ in the third person, could actually refer to
both the Father and the Son? And is it probable that the version
described by later Mormon prophets as comprised of angels only could
really intend to refer to Christ as an angel?

Why is the dating of the First Vision so important? Why does the
church insist on the earlier dating? One very possible explanation
involves Smith's attempt to authenticate his own mission along with
his changing theology. A vision displaying Father and Son in bodily
form would corroborate the radical changes he later made in the
doctrine on the Nature of God. Further, an earlier vision, received
by an innocent youngster, might serve to thwart his critics'
contentions of a sophisticated manipulation of this "founding event"
of Mormonism. Besides, the date of 1820 would be needed, given
subsequent reported visitations by angels from 1823 to 1827, when he
finally received the golden plates. Not many within his following
would have remembered or have been familiar with the dating of the
Palmyra revival that allegedly led him to the sacred grove.

Problems with the Book of Mormon.  Hinckley does not understand why
the christian world does not accept this (BOM) book? Well, .... , in
a nutshell, Gordo, let me tell you. Those who believe in any but the
true gospel are accursed, Paul said. If he, or "an angel from
heaven," preach anything other than the pure faith delivered once by
Christ to his apostles, they are under condemnation. [See Galatians
1:8]. Neither Scripture nor Tradition makes provision for "another
treatment" of Jesus Christ, much less one containing a gospel at odds
with the one contained in the New Testament.

The dubious coming forth of the BOM, its implausible translation and
its unreliable witnesses, if they are not enough to expose it as a
fraud, then its CONTENTS certainly are:

Consider its GEOGRAPHY and ARCHAEOLOGY, the book's LANGUAGE, and the
vagaries of the THEOLOGY found within the BOM and how that theology
conflicts with later Morg theology. The most accurate statement or
description that one can make about the BOM is to describe it as a
BRIDGE between "authentic" Mormonism that later evolved and orthodox
Christianity. Its language and themes are familiar enough to make it
appear like a pious story about faraway Christians. It is silent
concerning central Mormon teachings. Its "gospel" does not appear so
different from the historical accounts of Christianity. It is a good
tool in converting unsuspecting people. By carefully choosing
plausible passages for investigators to read, missionaries can
convince many of them that Mormon theology is resonable. But, of
course, the real message of the LDS church is not found anywhere in
the BOM, but in other writings of Smith, and in the changing
revelations of later prophets.

Gus

The excerpt below comes from the a report in Monday's Oct 7, 2002 SL Trib concerning LDS conference.   Hinckley seems to be drawing a line in the sand and going into a circle-the-wagons, siege mentality.  Consider his comment "[The first vision] either occurred or it did not occur.  If it did not, then this work is a fraud."  That is a very bold statement considering all the evidence that the first vision didn't quite happen the way the Mormon Church officially claims.  Of course, the highly faithful heard his statement, agreed with it, and will think little more about it.  But, the problems surrounding the several accounts of the first vision are becoming better understood, I believe, by more and more active Mormons.  This now puts these members in the difficult position of having to confront this issue.  Some will, to be sure, error of the side of safety and jump inside the circled wagons--exactly what I think Hinckley is attempting to bring about.  That is, I think the church hierarchy is beginning to realize that members, mainly via the internet, have a wide variety of credible information available to them that does not quite agree with the official version of the first vision.   Hence, I believe Hinckley is showing a little (perhaps a lot) of desperation with his statement.  He has drawn a line and is gambling that it will force the budding intellectuals to jump onto his side of the line.  Personally, I doubt that it will and may very well end up doing the exact opposite.  That is, the internet is not going away any time soon and Hinckley can not, even drawing on all the powers of heaven, turn the course of this mighty river.

Ron "Jethro"


"LDS faithful believe it all began with when 14-year-old Joseph Smith, the church's founder, had a vision of God and Jesus Christ in a grove of trees in 1820."

"Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision," Hinckley declared. "It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most wonderful and important work under the heavens."

That "unique, singular and remarkable event is the pivotal substance of our faith," he said.

Hinckley said although he can understand why outsiders do not accept Smith's account -- "it is almost beyond comprehension" -- the vision story "is so reasonable" to him and church members.   Oct 2002 Conference from the SL Tribune Oct. 7, 2002