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?

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.