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.