The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 4

There is no mention in the 1832 account of the First Vision of a struggle with Satan. The 1838 account records this struggle as follows:

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

Since this story element is not present in the earliest known account of the event, but shows up in later retellings, critics claim that it is evidence that this tale evolved over time - becoming more dramatic and elaborate.

Once again we find ourselves in a logical quandary - the only way to avoid our critics is to repeat the story of the First Vision identically each time you tell it. But if that were done the critics would certainly jump on the fact that the story never varies and therefore must be memorized. From that they would deduce that only a liar memorizes a story in order to avoid making mistakes. Its a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". In my experience honest people do not put others in such quandaries - only the dishonest resort to such tactics. Doesn't speak well for our critics does it? A sincere seeker after truth would be repulsed by such strategies.

PS In the dozens of written accounts by Joseph and others who recorded conversations with Joseph, it seems that Joseph included this detail (the struggle with Satan) less than half the times he told the story. He also omitted it in the Wentworth Letter, the only account written in the Prophet's own handwriting.

The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 3

There are a number of things missing from the 1832 account of the First Vision that are found in the 1838 account. One of the missing items is that there is no mention of a new dispensation of the gospel. The basic criticism is that, like a fisherman's tale of the fish that got away, the Joseph's story gets bigger and bigger as time goes on.

The vital question here is not whether the two versions are identical; we've already conceded that that are not. We have already discussed how perfectly natural it is for a story to be told differently each time it is recounted. Implied in those differences it is expected that some details will be missing, while others added. What matters is whether it is the truth or not.

No New Dispensation

In Joseph Smith's 1832 account he states that before the First Vision took place he was of the opinion that “mankind . . . had apostatized from the true and living faith, and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” When the Prophet saw the Savior during the First Vision experience Jesus verified what Joseph previously had believed. There are at least a dozen written recollections of people remembering Joseph speak of a new dispensation.

Did Joseph mention a new dispensation in the 1832 account? No. Is the 1832 account about a new dispensation consistent with other contemporary records? Yes. The only rational conclusion is that he simply omitted that detail in the written account, although he made that point on at least a dozen other occasions. The charge that his "story evolved over time" is false relative to this detail.

The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 2

In the 1832 account of the First Vision the Prophet Joseph Smith records that he was "in the 16th year of [his] age" when the manifestation took place. Since the 1838 account, the one found in the Pearl of Great Price, states that he was in his 15th year, the dates contradict each other. The charge is that this is evidence that the Prophet's story evolved over time, and is thus a fabrication.

First of all lets agree that Joseph contradicted himself. That part of the charge is 100% accurate. The 1838 account says that he was in his "15th year" and the 1832 account says that he was in his "16th year" - a clear contradiction. But does that mean that he made it up? Does that mean that he is lying? Be careful about making someone an offender for a word (Isaiah 29:21). In this verse Isaiah is describing the last days and he uses this expression to define some of the wicked in our day. I'm certain that none of us want to be one whom Isaiah calls wicked.

That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

Now I am not saying that if you find fault with the Prophet Joseph Smith, that you are guilty of making him an offender for a word. I'm simply suggesting that you precede with caution when you find yourself needing to parse words in order to make your point.

Our critics are definitely parsing words at this point. But are they guilty of making someone an offender for a word? One way of testing this is to see how consistent they are. Our critics are almost without exception, members of other Christian faiths. If they apply this same standard to their faith, then they are not guilty of "making someone an offender for a word". But if we can find duplicity in their stand, then they are. Readers of this blog probably remember how often we could point out our critics' inconsistencies in judging prophecies made by Joseph Smith (1, 2, 3, 4). I'm afraid they are guilty of that same inconsistency in this case.

To test our critics sense of honesty and consistency in applying the same standard to their beliefs. What do they say about the conflicting versions of Paul's Damascus experience? Do our critics reject Paul as a prophet because of this? Do they reject the Bible because of these errors? Almost without exception the answer is NO! Yet if one reads the two versions of this experience they find that Paul's version in Acts 9 and Acts 22 completely contradict each other. Therefore if our critics truly believe that Joseph Smith made it up and this is evidence of his fabrication, why do they not charge Paul with the same?

In recent years scholars have become aware of the duplicity of their criticisms of Joseph Smith and have made rather lame attempts to show that Paul's accounts really aren't in conflict. But once again they have to parse words and "strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel". Truth is not on your side when you have to do that. Remember that it was Christ who first used that expression in describing his Jewish critics. Why do you think our critics are doing the same thing? Could it be that they are motivated by the same spirit?

The real reason for this mistake is that Joseph Smith was horrible with numbers. His close associates tell us that it was in mathematics that his lack of schooling was most glaring. He even made the same mistake when telling the story of his brother Alvin's death - one time getting the year right, and another time being off by a year (sound familiar?). However in the case of Alvin's death, editors caught the Prophet's error before it went to press and made the needed correction. We have the original manuscripts and can clearly see where the Prophet says that Alvin died in 1824 instead of 1823.

Joseph was a man, just as Paul was a man. The measure of whether they were prophets does not lie in whether we can find fault with them. Of course we can find fault, they were human. The question for both men is whether they were commissioned of God and whether there are fruits worthy of a prophet, despite their human flaws. I submit that both men pass the test with flying colors, despite sometimes getting the details mixed up. And I submit that if you are honest in heart, you recognize that I am telling the truth as well.

The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 1

Critics of the LDS Church often focus on the pivotal event in Mormon history, the First Vision. The mostly commonly known version is called the 1838 version, the one found in the Pearl of Great Price. This version seems to be the one that draws the most criticism - we will address about a dozen specific charges about differences between the 1832 and 1838 versions.

The first charge that often arises is that the 1832 account of the First Vision—which is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith—only says that the Savior appeared to the Prophet; the Father is missing. Since this is the earliest known account critics believe this is evidence that the story evolved and became more elaborate over time. The relevant text (in its original form) reads as follows:

"a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day c[a]me down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy 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 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 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 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 in the glory of my Father."

The critics have, however, failed to notice a very significant phrase located in the introductory paragraph of the Prophet's historical narrative. There he indicates that the 1832 document is:

"A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brough [it] forth and established [it] by his hand he receiving the testamony from on high secondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel—<—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—>and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God."

Did the Prophet refer to the Father in his phrase "receiving the testimony from on high"? There is evidence that he believed this phraseology to mean exactly that. But that is not my major point. It is an "enforced either/or" logical fallacy to conclude that unless one explicitly lists all major details in all versions of the story then they must be lying. Joseph made an admittedly vague reference to the Father in this account; choosing instead to focus on the message given by the Son. Is this unlearned man less than a perfect witness - yes. But that is not evidence of lying. Lying is found in contradictions. There are no contradictions here.

PS For individuals troubled by the spelling in the Prophet's account it is important to note that the standardization of spelling had not yet occurred in the Prophet's lifetime. Everyone wrote phonetically. In our day it gives the appearance of ignorance but that is not accurate nor kind. No standard for spelling had yet been invented.

Four Different Versions of The First Vision

It is accepted by both critics and advocates that there are four versions of the First Vision that can be attributed to the prophet Joseph Smith: an 1832 edition, an 1835 version, the 1838 account that is found in the Pearl of Great Price, and the Wentworth Letter. Naturally each version has slight differences between them as would be expected by anyone who has ever told a story twice.

Police love to get witnesses to write down their testimony when they are interviewed. The reason behind this is that they want them to be on record with what they saw happen. If they change their story at any time, they can use the original recorded version to then impeach them. Opposing lawyers love it when witnesses change their stories as they can also use it to impeach a witness. In preparation for testifying in court, an attorney does their level best to make sure that the witness does not do what is normally natural - tell the story differently. They go over their recorded testimony and coach them on how to tell the same story without repeating the same words exactly. It takes effort and it takes practice.

Joseph Smith did not live in our modern litigious world. He recorded what happened four different times and predictably there are differences. An honest investigator expects there to be differences. Identical stories would be more suspicious than ones that different modestly. Our critics say that these differences disprove the prophet. In our next few posts we will address the different accounts; point out where they differ from the version found in the Pearl of Great Price, and examine whether these differences are normal, or are they evidence of someone trying to pull off a hoax. We will cover it completely (and it will take a lot of posts to do this) and you will be the judge at the end - are our critics being fair, or are they "straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel"? Stay tuned!

The First Vision

The First Vision which are are discussing in this series of posts is Mormonspeak for the inaugural event in Mormon history – when the Prophet Joseph Smith was visited by God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. This experience is considered by Latter-days Saints to be the most significant event from the atonement of Christ to the present day. The best known version of this event is found in the Pearl of Great Price – one of the four books that Latter-day Saints accept as scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price). The following selection is taken from Joseph Smith – History 1:7-20.

7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father's family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.

8 During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.

9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.

10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?

11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.

13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to "ask of God," concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.

14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.

15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

Not surprisingly this has come under attack by critics of the Mormon Church for if this event happened in the way which we claim; it is a devastating blow to every other religion on the face of the earth. The part that sticks in their craw is found in verse 19.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof."

Interestingly, the early Mormon missionaries did not share this story with converts. It was considered either too sacred, or not important. Instead early missionaries started their discussions with the Book of Mormon, something tangible.

The Prophet Joseph Smith also did not speak of this event often. The evidence suggests that he first shared his experience with a Methodist minister, Reverend Lane, and was ridiculed for the effort. We believe it was Reverend Lane who first suggested to Joseph the scripture in the Epistle of James for we know that Joseph was partial to the Methodist faith and often attended their services. We also know that Reverend Lane preached on James 1:5 during this time and it is possible that Joseph was in attendance. Joseph’s account of this is found in verse 21.

21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

There is some doubt to when he even told members of his own family. Our best evidence suggests that Joseph was very closed-mouthed about this experience throughout his life; although he did speak of it publicly from time to time. In our next post we will address the four written versions before addressing our critics’ claims.

First Vision

Critics of the LDS Church often point to the several versions of the First Vision that are in circulation. The claim is that this is somehow proof that the Prophet Joseph Smith made it all up. As has been our pattern, it will take several posts to set the stage and then address the exact criticism, and counterargument. Stay tuned!

Order of the New Testament Books

In recent posts we have been addressing the criticism that Mormons are adding to the Bible in violation of Revelation 22:18-19.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

We have shown in previous posts (1, 2) that the Bible wasn't even compiled until the 4th century. Next we shall examine the historical order in which the books of the New Testament were written. In compiling this list I have been careful to avoid even looking at the work of LDS scholars on the same subject. My list is from a traditional Christian website. Although there is disagreement about the following list in minor ways, it is representative of a consensus among a majority of New Testament scholars.

1. James - 50 AD
2. First Thessalonians - 52-53 AD
3. Second Thessalonians - 52-53 AD
4. Galatians - 55 AD
5. First Corinthians - 57 AD
6. Second Corinthians - 57 AD
7. Romans - 57-58 AD
8. Philippians - 62-63 AD
9. Colossians - 62-63 AD
10. Philemon - 62-63 AD
11. Ephesians - 62-63 AD
12. Luke - 63 AD
13. Acts - 64 AD
14. First Timothy - 65 AD
15. Titus - 65 AD
16. Second Timothy - 66 AD
17. Mark - 66 AD
18. Matthew - 67 AD
19. Hebrews - 67 AD
20. First Peter - 67-68 AD
21. Second Peter - 68 AD
22. Jude - 68 AD
23. Revelation - 68 AD
24. John - c 85 AD
25. Epistles of John - 90-95 AD

You will notice that Revelation was the first of John's writings. John wrote 5 books of the New Testament. Four of them were written after the Book of Revelation.

If John truly meant that no one was to add to a book that wasn't compiled yet; then why did he add most of his writings to it? The argument that enemies of the Mormon Church make claiming that we are adding to the Bible is false. It represents a total lack of understanding of the history of the Bible and is a really bad interpretation of Revelation 22:18-19.

Bible Differences

In our last post we commented on the canonization of the Bible that took place in Carthage in 397 AD. Some of the books listed in that decision appear unusual to readers of the King James Bible. Basically it boils down to this - the Bibles used by Catholics and Protestants are not the same. A Catholic explains the differences this way.

Bible translations developed for Catholic use are complete Bibles. This means that they contain the entire canonical text identified by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome (382) and the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), contained in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation (420), and decreed infallibly by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1570). This canonical text contains the same 27 NT Testament books which Protestant versions contain, but 46 Old Testament books, instead of 39. These 7 books, and parts of 2 others, are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics (2nd canon) and Apocrypha (false writings) by Protestants, who dropped them at the time of the Reformation. The Deuterocanonical texts are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. Some Protestant Bibles include the "Apocrypha" as pious reading.

The King James Bible, the one used by English speaking Latter-day Saints, is considered a Protestant Bible by scholars. Isn't it interesting that Catholics do not make a big deal about Protestants taking books out of the Bible? Both Catholic and Protestants tend to be really concerned about Mormons who are allegedly adding to the Bible by accepting the Book of Mormon. To be consistent, the scripture in Revelation that we are discussing in this series of posts condemns both those who add and those who take away.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Why charge Mormons with adding to the Bible without a peep for Protestants who took away from the Bible defined in 397 AD? Why this lack of consistency? Could it be that they know the true meaning of these verses?

Now that we've laid an historical foundation, we will address the specific charge of Mormons adding to the Bible in our next post. Stay tuned!