New Topic

Followers of this blog know that we have addressed a number of controversies over the past 6 months: claims of false prophecies, claims of an "evolving First Vision", priesthood restrictions, etc... It is time to tackle a new topic. Before I just grab one and run with it, are there any things you would like me to research?

The Only Critiques of the 1835 Account

Critics of Latter-day Saints claim that the reference to angels in the 1835 account of the First Vision listed below gives rise to two complaints, both rather specious:

• Since the word angels is capitalized it must be referring to Deity thereby contradicting other accounts who refer to a visitation by the Father and the Son.
• The Official History of the Church was falsified because this contradiction isn't noted.

Both of these claims are weak. What really happened that day in 1820 is that Heavenly Father appeared with the Savior, accompanied by angels. The upper-case detail is trivial and simply is what an unlearned man, in an era before grammar had been standardized, wrote. To find fault with this account over this detail is evidence of the paucity of arguments by our opponents. Come on guys, you could at least make it challenging. It isn't even any fun shooting down such pathetic attempts to smear the Prophet of the Restoration. If this is all you have its a wonder everyone doesn't join the Mormon Church. These arguments are beyond lame.

The 1835 Account of the First Vision

The 1835 account of the First Vision is as follows. There is only one frequent criticism of this account that we will cover in our next post. In the meantime, here is the 1835 account.

From Joseph's journal entry of 9 November 1835 (Monday)

I commenced giving him a relation of the circumstances connected with the coming forth of the book of Mormon, as follows being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking at the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong and I considered it of the first importance that I should be right, in matters that involve eternal consequ[e]nces; being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and bow[e]d down before the Lord, under a realising sense that he had said (if the bible be true) ask and you shall receive knock and it shall be opened seek and you shall find and again, if any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men libarally and upbradeth not; information was what I most desired at this time, and with a fixed determination to obtain it, I called upon the Lord for the first time, in the place above stated or in other words I made a fruitless attempt to p[r]ay, my toung seemed to be swolen in my mouth, so that I could not utter, I heard a noise behind me like some person walking towards me, I strove again to pray, but could not, the noise of walking seemed to draw nearer, I sprung up on my feet, and looked around, but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking, I kneeled again my mouth was opened and my toung liberated, and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me , and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and I saw many angels in this vision I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels in the night season after I had retired to bed

From Joseph's journal entry of 14 November 1835 (Saturday)

I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old and also the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon

Done With 1832

The 1832 version of the First Vision is the most criticized version of the four that are considered authentic. I've addressed enough of the criticisms so unless someone wants a specific criticism addressed, I'm done with it and will move onto the other criticisms and my replies. Anyone?

The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 6

One of the more interesting critiques of the 1832 account of the 1832 account of the First Vision is one concerning something that the Prophet reported was said by Deity. The claim of our critics is that when Jesus Christ spoke to Joseph Smith in the 1832 First Vision account He said that all of those who believe on His name may have eternal life - regardless of what church they are affiliated with.

I find this interesting because our greatest critics tend to be people who hold to this doctrinal view - that it doesn't matter what church you belong to as long as you believe in Jesus Christ. Basically they are claiming that they are right, and that the 1832 account of the First Vision proves that they are right. But is their interpretation accurate?

The people at The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) answer that question this way.

While it is true that the Lord is quoted in the 1832 First Vision account as saying "all those who believe on my name may have eternal life" it can be seen in an earlier revelation dated 7 March 1831 that those who "believe on [Christ's] name" must also "come unto [Him]" in order to "have everlasting life" (D&C 45:5).

The Lord does not state in the 1832 narrative that eternal life is available to members of every Christian church. Rather, He declares unambiguously in that account that "none" of the existing Christian denominations of the time were keeping His commandments; they had all turned aside from His gospel. From this piece of information alone, it is clear that eternal life could not be made available to them. In the 1832 text Jesus Christ says to Joseph Smith - "keep my commandments," and in connection with this it can be seen in a revelation dated March 1829 that the Lord informed the Prophet that he could only be granted "eternal life" if he was "firm in keeping the commandments" that Christ gave unto him (D&C 5:21-22; D&C 14:7; D&C 18:8; D&C 30:8).

On 1 November 1831 the Lord affirmed to adherents of the LDS faith that there was "only [one] true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30). Earlier—in May 1831—He had spoken specifically to members of "the church that profess my name" (compare with the 1832 document wording) and indicated that only the faithful members of it who endured would "inherit eternal life" (D&C 50:4-5). Thus, the blessing of eternal life could not be obtained without complying with certain conditions.

Before Joseph Smith penned the Lord's words that are found in the 1832 First Vision text he clearly understood that:

• Profession of the Lord's name alone is not sufficient for the reception of eternal life; a person must also "come unto" Him.
• Eternal life is granted only to those people who keep the Lord's commandments.
• One of the Lord's commandments is to be baptized by, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost through His authorized representatives (D&C 49:11-14 / March 1831; D&C 76:51-52 / 16 February 1832).
• There is only one church on the earth that is recognized by Jesus Christ as being His own.

The implication of this last point is that only one church can perform ordinances that will be considered valid in the sight of the Lord. And so a person can only be truly obedient to all of the Lord's commandments by holding membership in His one true Church. Joseph Smith indicated in the introductory remarks of the 1832 history that he had received priesthood authority, from a heavenly source, which enabled him to "administer . . . the commandments . . . and the ordinances".

In summary, the interpretation of our critics is not accurate. I still find it fascinating that they would find validation of their doctrine in a vision that they contend never happened. The duplicity of that position should be obvious to everyone.

The 1832 Account of the First Vision - Criticism 5

The criticism of the 1832 account of the First Vision that we are going to examine today is one of our critics' weakest arguments to date. In the several months that I have been addressing the claims of our critics, there has sometimes been some merit to their criticisms. As you will see, that is not the case with today's critique. Yet our enemies include this in their never-ending lists of reasons why Mormons are so misguided (that is the most charitable way to characterize their discussions about us).

The criticism consists of an alleged failure to mention the feeling of religious fervor or sense of revival that is featured in the 1838 version. This is how this "omission" is characterized in the Pearl of Great Price.

5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.

6 For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.

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.

To the charge that this is not really mentioned in the 1832 we plead guilty. Who cares? So what if something isn't mentioned in different accountings of a story? That is perfectly natural. What is important is whether this religious revival really occurred or whether Joseph Smith was making it up. If you could prove that this has no basis in fact - that would be a significant critique of the prophet, because he would be shown to be a liar. So why don't our critics make that claim?

The reason they do not make that claim is because it is an historical fact! See just a few references below.

GREAT REVIVALS IN RELIGION. The religious excitement which has for some months prevailed in the towns of this vicinity...This is a time the prophets desired to see, but they never saw it....—Palmyra Register, June 7, 1820

REVIVAL. A letter from Homer [N.Y.] dated May 29, received in this town, states, that 200 persons had been hopefully converted in that town since January first; 100 of whom had been added to the Baptist church. The work was still progressing.—Palmyra Register, August 16, 1820

REVIVALS OF RELIGION. "The county of Saratoga, for a long time, has been as barren of revivals of religion, as perhaps any other part of this state. It has been like 'the mountains of Gilboa, on which were neither rain nor dew.' But the face of the country has been wonderfully changed of late. The little cloud made its first appearance at Saratoga Springs last summer. As the result of this revival about 40 have made a public profession of religion in Rev. Mr. Griswold's church....A revival has just commenced in the town of Nassau, a little east of Albany. It has commenced in a very powerful manner....—Palmyra Register, September 13, 1820

FROM THE RELIGIOUS REMEMBRANCER A SPIRITUAL HARVEST. "I wish you could have been with us yesterday. I had the pleasure to witness 80 persons receive the seal of the covenant, in front of our Church. Soon after 135 persons, new members, were received into full communion. All the first floor of the Church was cleared; the seats and pews were all crowded with the members...Palmyra Register, October 4, 1820

When I was in college at Southeastern Louisiana University in the late 1970's I took a course on the history of religion in America and a one-hour lecture was devoted to this period of revival that occurred in the Northeast in the 1818-1821 timeframe with the greatest activity occurring in western New York. Our critics do not dare address the factual argument here - they cannot do it with a straight face. Instead they attempt to smear the Prophet with this incredibly pathetic attempt to label him a liar simply because he failed to repeat the story identically each time he recorded it. Do you see what I meant about this being one of their lamest critiques?