LDS Revelations

I came across this link on online board and although the information is not necessarily new to me, it’s better organized than anything I have.

As I’ve shared in at least one other post that I think that the accounts Joseph Smith First Vision were influenced as much by things Joseph Smith saw in the world around him as any supposed event did. What I specifically did include in the post was that what became known as Joseph’s First Vision was not the only event of it’s kind in the 19th century— in fact, there were a number of people who claimed similar experiences before the 1820 date assigned to the event as well as many after. The similarities between these events and even the words used in recounting them suggests these people were likely aware of other accounts when writing there own. At the least they came from the same religious tradition that provided the same language to describe them.

This BYU Studies article by Richard Bushman identifies “over 33 visionary tales published between 1783 and 1815″. The site I inked to focuses on six examples specifically that could have provided material for what eventually became Joseph’s First Vision account.

Bushman sees the other visions occurring in Joseph Smith’s time and vicinity as perhaps God’s way to prepare people to receive Smith’s story. Maybe. It does seem odd though then that Joseph would 1) evolve the telling of the events over time and 2) that he would wait so long to share them. If the other visions were the warm up act it would seem better to strike while the iron was hot— as it were.

I think it’s far more likely that Smith’s vision, like those before it, were natural expressions of the religious excitement of the Second Great Awakening in the United States. Smith’s own family and many of his associates were both religious and visionary— so it would not be surprising at all for him to have these similar experiences. And as I’ve noted before it was only after a number of years that Smith’s vision became the foundational event it is seen as now. Initially it was far more personal and private for Joseph much like the visions others were having.

Thoughts?

A favorite old chestnut of LDS defenders is that the disaffected and LDS critics lose faith because they expect too much of Church leadership. They expect perfection from God’s chosen prophets and are, no surprise, disappointed when these men turn out to be nothing more than human. They lose their faith because the prophets are not infallible.

I addressed this idea in a post a year or so ago but thought I’d address the topic again after reading this this in the Salt Lake Tribune. I think the points here are essentially the same but this post may present them a little differently. Sorry, but I am likely repeating myself. I do that.

My take on infallibility in Mormonism in some respects echos the article and goes as follows:

1- Some LDS do actually think the Prophets and Apostles are infallible if not close to it— meaning that they could never lead the Church astray on a matter of revelation. Why do people think this? Well, because the Church teaches it…at least indirectly. True, I have never heard a prophet claim to be perfect or sinless— and there are even a number of instances where leaders have said they are not perfect. But we’re not talking about whether they drink Pepsi or sometimes get impatient with their wives (at least I’m not). The mistakes I’m worried about are the prophetic kind— the getting a revelation wrong kind. Are they ever wrong when they say “God said do this?”

Many Mormons can’t even conceive of this happening. Really. It’s outside of anything they can wrap their heads around largely because they have been taught for years that the Church is God’s only Church and is lead by the apostles and prophets. How can the Church be correct and good and true and the guys at the top— the ones making the decisions and giving revelations— get really important stuff wrong? In the black and white world of many Mormons it can’t, so they opt for the infallible or close to it option to fix things. And I agree…. to a degree. At some point if you get enough stuff wrong you no longer get to be called a prophet.

But for now the common LDS thought is that the Brethren inspired if not downright revelatory  and know better than we do on just about everything. Any rejection of what they say is seen as a lack of understanding on the part of the individual and it is their job is to bring themselves back in line with the Prophets .

2- As Edward Kimball said in the article LDS give lip service to the idea that the Brethren are human and fallible, but have a difficult time really believing it. They feel like they have to say that LDS leaders could be wrong about what God wants (revelations) because, well, it’s obvious. Nobody gets it right all the time and anyone who’s seen the Church function up close can’t help but the see that it is run by men. Mormon though rarely talk about what the Prophets say that they disagree with. mentioned before the desire to believe the LDS Church is “true” is extremely powerful and I think it likely colors how Mormons view their leaders. I’m the same way with Apple (the company). I love their vision and aesthetic and so I am more willing to turn a blind eye to higher prices and bad mouse design in past models. I gloss over the uncomfortable truths because I want to believe.

But I think there’s more to it than just wanting to believe the Church is ‘true’ in play here. There’s pressure from the Church to see leadership as inspired prophets, seers and revelators who will never lead the Church astray in any meaningful way. Lots of pressure. See, obedience is highly valued in Mormonism and calling the leaders fallible is just public disobedience by different name and for the most part that doesn’t happen. People who do that are labeled ‘less-valiant’ or worse ‘apostate.’ Obedience is to important. You begin singing “Follow the Prophet” at age 3 and it never stops from then on. There is no real alternative presented other than a miserable existence and sin and LDS leaders have repeatedly assured the membership that God will never allow them to lead the flock astray. So why would someone do anything else other than obey? Why risk the embarrassment of being seen as disobedient and of ending up in a lower kingdom to boot.

“Unquestioning obedience to the Lord indicates that a person has developed faith and trust in Him to the point where he or she considers all inspired instruction — whether it be recorded scripture or the words of modern prophets, or direct inspiration through the Holy Ghost — to be worthy of obedience.” - Elder Robert C. Oaks

“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.”
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 289, 1862.

“When the Prophet speaks the debate is over”.
N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979

“Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.”
Boyd K. Packer (General Conference, Oct. 1992; Ensign, Nov. 1992)

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.”
President Wilford Woodruff
(Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture” -Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95)

Perhaps an even more important issue is that criticism of the leadership— especially the General Authorities— is essentially forbidden in Mormonism. So if people disagree and decide not to obey it is likely that they wouldn’t talk a lot about it. Evil speaking of the Lord’ Anointed, which for many Mormons includes pointing out where Church leaders are/were wrong, for the most part does not happen. In fact over the 180 years the Church has been in existence a reverence towards the leadership has grown to the point of almost hero worship. Sure you’re supposed to say that the Brethren aren’t prefect but don’t even think of criticizing them or what they do.

It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true.
-Elder Dallin H Oaks

“My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors.”
- Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography
and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii

“Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, revelators’ of the church, is cultivating the spirit of apostacy. One cannot speak evil of the lord’s annointed… and retain the holy spirit in his heart. This sort of game is Satan’s favorite pastime, and he has practiced it to believing souls since Adam. He {Satan} wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking.”

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”
-Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945
Also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945

3- I wonder if any of this really matters anyway because many LDS would likely be obey their leaders even if they thought the counsel was wrong. Why? They’ve been taught to do this. I was for sure. I was taught to obey even when my leaders were wrong and that I would be blessed. The idea a was favorite of my mission president and I heard it before and since. And I think it happens when the thing being asked is relatively harmless— wearing one set of earrings, doing your home teaching, accepting a calling.

“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”
LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS
President(and prophet) Heber J. Grant “Conference Report” Oct. 1960 p. 78

This sort of idea is supported (kind of) in an April 1842 letter to Nancy Rigdon (daughter of Sidney) from Joseph Smith:

“…..That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.”

“God said, “Thou shalt not kill;” at another time He said “Thou shalt utterly destroy.” This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.”

The letter was a follow-up to a proposal of plural marriage to 19 year old Nancy by Smith. She had rejected the proposal and Joseph apparently was attempting to change her mind by teaching her that some things normally considered sinful or wrong are acceptable, even good when revealed by a prophet. Smith makes it clear that if you thought a request from a prophet was inappropriate it was because you hadn’t gotten the memo yet because the actions now “were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.”

In any case being blessed for obedience whether or not the direction comes from God is a good deal for believers since it’s next to impossible to know if what the Prophet says is revelation or not. No need to worry about whether you’re wasting your time obeying or not because you’re covered either way. This makes the issue of prophetic infallibility somewhat moot.

If this is the case people better be damn sure the person they’re following is actually a bona fide prophet. From what I gather there are get obedience points for following those who merely think they are God’s chosen spokesmen.

So to recap: Many LDS do think their leaders are virtually infallible. Many LDS who are willing to say they are fallible really don’t believe it—  and those who may really think it won’t dare say it. Lastly, even if they do think leaders might be wrong, many members are likely to obey anyway because they have been taught to.

Your thoughts?

The pattern continues. There’s an angel appearing in vision telling a man to marry a bunch of wives— and people are still buying it. Amazing.

See other examples of the ‘pattern’ here, here and here.

….back into activity.

Since conference there has been a lot of buzz about the pending changes for YSA wards in the LDS Church— specifically those in Utah for the time being. LDS apostle M. Russell Ballard recently spoke to nearly 5,000 young LDS in Taylorsville, UT about the specifics of the changes and made the reason for them at least a little more clear. Peggy Fletcher Stack writing for the Salt Lake Tribune coverage of the event can be read here and a few of the things I found more interesting can be found quoted below.

Ballard and other speakers acknowledged that the Utah-based faith was worried about massive losses of members in this age group — one of the reasons behind the change in ward structure — and challenged those in attendance to bring at least one other person back into the fold.

…………..

Ballard repeated LDS President Thomas S. Monson’s recent admonitions to young single Mormon men to stop “hanging out” and start dating with an eye toward marriage. Ballard said he was confident that this change would improve the group’s spiritual and social opportunities.

…………..

“We hope you’ve got the message: You have no option to bounce around,” he said, referring to a common practice dubbed ward-hopping in which young Mormons shop around for congregations they like. “We know where you are. We’ve got our radar focused on you.”

…………..

After studying the outcomes, LDS leaders concluded the change was a resounding success at better serving young single Mormons’ needs, bringing some back to church activity and getting them to the marriage altar. Members of these newly created YSA wards in the experimental areas visited at least 4,600 of their peers who were “lost” to the church and 1,100 returned, Evans said.

General LDS Relief Society President Julie Beck said she has been part of the discussions on this move and wholly supports it. “These are wise, inspired decisions,” Beck said. “This is the Lord’s way to bless you in your lives.”

…………..

Ultimately, the change will affect about 150,000 young single Mormons in Utah.

I know I’m a bitter apostate and all but even when I put on my TBM hat this all still seems a little draconian— especially because we’re talking about young single people here. The approach is very little carrot and a whole lot of stick. Nothing would make me want to come back out to Church more than being told “We know where you are. We’ve got our radar focused on you.” Can I get a “Yikes?”

The Brethren though likely figure that they are separating wheat from chaff and have accepted that there will be some loss. In the test case they reactivated 1100 out of the 4600 who were ‘inactive’ and 24% is certainly better than none.

I think that long-term though it will become clear that marriage and courtship within the Church has changed just as it has in the larger culture— and there is little the Church can do about it. In fact in the end I think the Church will end up changing to accommodate this evolution in society. It always does.

So my advice to Mormon YSAs: Do what you need to do. Go to Church where you want and date who and when you want. Eventually the Church will catch up with you. Eventually.

I’ve talked about it before here, here and here. “Religious leader uses position to get sex.”

But what the hell, let’s take a look once again at “How to Use Religion to Get Sex”.
Read about it here.

I pulled out a few of the more interesting parts:

“Rather than be ‘kicked out of the Kingdom of Heaven,’ 37-year-old Geody Harman had sex with a 15-year-old girl…”

“She said Dalton had promised “the Lord would give me a great blessing if I fulfilled the commandment” of having sex with Harman, who was first counselor of the church. When she had sex with Dalton several months later, he again promised her a blessing from God, she said.”

“The alleged victim testified she was “really uncomfortable” with the idea of having sex. “I was 15, and a virgin. I wasn’t sure what sex was,” she said.

But she felt pressure from the congregation of nearly 75 people, as well as Harman and Dalton, who were referred to by church members as ‘God in the flesh.’”

“Harman said the idea of having sex with the girl came to him as “an impression,” which he said was “a spiritual communication from God to man.”

When he told Dalton about the impression, Dalton told him to “go pray about it” as a way of double-checking the impression was valid, Harman said.

Later, Dalton said “he felt the same impression,” Harman testified. “He told me, ‘You’d best fulfill it.’ ”

“Harman said that “giving seed” was a church policy, and that he did not feel he could refuse an order by Dalton, whom he called the “prophet, seer and revelator” of the church.”

“Harman said that before having sex with the girl, he asked her if she really wanted to do it.

The girl said no, Harman testified. But when he asked “Do you want to do what God wants you to do?” she nodded her assent, he testified.

The next day, Harman said, he reported to Dalton: “It is fulfilled.”

“The religious sect — which never had more than 100 members, according to testimony — left Utah and moved to Idaho before moving to southern Montana.”

Any of this sound familiar to anyone else?

As my Mormon belief has waned over the past half-decade the question, “What does it mean to be Mormon” has come up again and again— and after a fair amount of thought on it I don’t know that have any great answers. My views of belief have expanded enough that asking the question sometimes seems silly, but then I also think that, while I hate labels for the most part, they have meaning and are useful.

So what makes someone Mormon?  What beliefs and doctrines must a person accept and what behaviors must they engage in to be a Mormon?

If you think that the term Mormon can apply to members of the Salt Lake Church as well as the FLDS, Community of Christ, Strangites, etc equally then the question gets a bit sticky and those finer points perhaps belong in another post. For this post I’m focusing on what it takes to be of the SLC Mormon variety— or a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. What are the standards of belief and behavior that qualify someone as a member and who decides what those are? Is there a social component to it? Can you be Mormon if you don’t believe any of it but are merely born into the ‘tribe’.

I asked some LDS co-workers this question and the consensus was that a Mormon must at least accept “Mormon Doctrine.” My response was “Well, what exactly is Mormon Doctrine?” How does one go about defining that? Years of dealing with LDS apologetics has convinced me that the saying “trying to define LDS doctrine is like nailing Jell-o to the wall” is just about right. Solid doctrine of past years has a way of becoming implicit doctrine and personal opinion over time.

For the sake of discussion consider for example these two approaches to being Mormon—

Example One (Long Mormon Stories podcast)

Example Two (Mormon Times piece)

Are both of these approaches equally valid? Is Mormonism a big enough tent to allow space for people of diverse beliefs and motivations?

My opinion: Currently not really. The membership— mostly younger membership— is getting a little better at allowing and accepting divergent ideas and thought. No surprise though that the leadership still frowns on heterodoxy and only gives up ground as it is required to. That’s kind of their job and something you tend to see less of in more mature religions.

Your thoughts?

Few events in Mormonism are as important as Joseph Smith’s First Vision. It not only marks the official beginning of what LDS call ‘the Restoration’ but it also stands as a unique symbol of what makes Mormonism different from the rest Christianity. For believers the event is literal justification of the LDS claim of continuing revelation and being God’s one true church. It is the first thing taught by missionaries and often one of the last stands for challenged testimonies. Considering the importance of this event it’s not surprising that LDS have a well-rehearsed familiarity with how the Vision officially went down. What is surprising is that LDS know little of the larger story surrounding this foundational event.

What I was taught:
Like nearly all LDS for the past 100 years I was taught Joseph Smith’s First Vision from the official LDS account found in the Pearl of Great Price. It goes something like this:
Joseph Smith was a conscientious young boy born growing in the middle of the Second Great Awakening and wanted to know which Church to join. The various denominations vying for his religious attention in the “burned over district” of New York state where he lived, had differing views on God’s will concerning man. Joseph was confused about which church to join because of the differences.
One day while reading the Bible he came across James chapter 1- verse 5 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.”
In the spring of 1820 Joseph retired to a grove of trees near his house and prayed, offering up the “desires of (his) heart” — which were to find out which Church was God’s true Church. Joseph said about attempting to pray: “I 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.” Joseph exerted all his powers to call upon God to deliver him. He then saw a pillar of light over his head and God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. According to Joseph, God the Father said pointing to Jesus “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”
Joseph asked which Church he should join and was instructed to join none of them for they all were wrong and their were creeds an abomination— also ”they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” Joseph was taught many more things which he could not then reveal.
Joseph came to himself lying on his back looking up. Regaining his strength, he returned home.
A few days later while speaking to a Methodist preacher who was involved in the revivals, Joseph related the experience. The preacher claimed the vision was of the devil and that revelation had ceased. Joseph claimed that telling the story caused other religious leaders to persecute him. The story was, as he said “sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.”

What I’ve learned (the revelation):
First, I learned that the actual truth about Joseph Smith’s First Vision— when and how it happened etc— is anything but clear. There are a number of conflicting sources that make the event far less clear than the Joseph Smith History account suggests. Here’s what I think is clear.

The First Vision was not taught in the early Church— neither was it seen then as the foundational event it is now. No account of the event was published before 1842 (Times and Seasons) and sources suggest it wasn’t commonly taught in the Church until even later. In fact, Joseph neglected to include the First Vision at all in the first history of the Church he and Oliver Cowdery published in 1835. What is now the official account was recorded as part of an official history begun in 1838 (eighteen years after the official date) and not published until 1842 (see above)— 22 years after the 1820 date.

From 1829 to the mid-1800s the Mormon narrative instead focused more on the Book of Mormon and angelic visitations (in some accounts Nephi , in some Moroni) as the origins of the restoration. Brigham Young and other leaders in Utah often spoke of Joseph’s mission beginning with visits from an angel rather than a vision of God.

There is some question about the timing of the event. Joseph Smith says the vision took place in 1820 when he was 14 but other evidence challenges this assertion. Recollections by William Smith and Oliver Cowdery instead place the event around 1823 or 1824. Cowdery wrote in the Times and Seasons in 1840 that Joseph Smith was 17 when the vision took place. William, the prophet’s brother, claimed Joseph told the Smith family of the event the day after it occurred in 1823. (Interestingly, William recalled that Joseph was “was overcome, became unconscious, did not know how long he remained in this condition” but eventually “came to himself.” This closely matches what Joseph himself said in his official 1838 account of the event.) Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph’s mother, does not mention any vision or subsequent persecution in talking about her son’s religious experiences but does talk about the revivals in the area, dating them around 1824— as do William Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Both Cowdery and William Smith state that Joseph was inspired to pursue true religion after hearing the preaching of Methodist minister George Lane who arrived in the Palmyra area in 1824. Defenders dismiss these accounts claiming that they are late and the sources are unreliable due to age (too young, too old) etc. In my opinion though these accounts deserve consideration and the fact that they independently support each other on certain key facts makes them credible.

The 1820 date is further complicated by the fact that there appears to be little if any revival activity in immediate Palmyra area in 1820. The type of “religious excitement” Joseph refers in Palmyra seems more likely either before or after 1820. Conversion records from the local congregations support this, showing greater revival activity either around 1817 or not until 1823-24.

There were multiple accounts of the First Vision recorded by Joseph Smith (or a scribe)— which present substantially different versions of the event. The differences between the accounts are striking enough for some to question the accuracy of one or all of the accounts. It’s no surprise that apologists and defenders often write the differences off as minor and inconsequential oversights that are common when retelling a story.

The first account was recorded in 1832, twelve years after the official date for the event— with the last version being recorded in 1842 in what has become known as the Wentworth letter. The 1838 account was canonized as the “official” version of the religion’s foundational event.

The 1832 account was recorded in Smith’s own hand in what was to become Joseph’s first official history. It was chronologically closest to the event and differs from the official 1844 version in some key ways. First, there is no mention of the religious revivals being the impetus for Joseph’s searching for truth but instead he mentions becoming aware of his sins and praying for forgiveness. Joseph specifically mentions that he had become aware that the current Churches were in a state of apostasy BEFORE praying and does not mention this as something he learned in the grove. By contrast in the 1838 he says that “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.”

By far though, the biggest discrepancy between the 1832 account and the official account is that Joseph only mentions “the Lord”, clearly Jesus Christ, appearing in the vision. There is no mention of two beings and there is no mention of the God the Father.

“therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in attitude of calling upon the Lord a piller of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come 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 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 ac[c]ording 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 and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but [I] could find none that would believe the he[a]v[e]nly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart”

The 1835 account was recorded in Joseph’s journal by scribe Warren Cowdery and recounts Joseph’s rehearsal of the First Vision to Joshua, a “Jewish minister.” Here unlike the 1832 account but similar to the official version Joseph says he went to pray to learn which church was true. In this account Joseph discusses being startled by hearing footsteps before he attempts to pray. Once he prays, one personage appears “in the midst of this pillar of flame” followed by another. The first being says Joseph’s sins were forgiven and testifies that Jesus was the Christ however neither personage is identified. Joseph also claims to have seen many angels in this vision. Read the account here.

A history of the church begun in 1838 included a version of the First Vision, which has become canonized by the LDS Church as official. It was not published until 1842. In this version Joseph goes to pray because he did know which church to join and had not considered they all could be wrong. “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.” As already mentioned this contradicts the 1832 account where he says after studying the Bible he had concluded that mankind “had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ…” before even going to the grove. In this version Joseph talks of difficultly speaking and being overpowered by a unseen force before praying rather than merely being startled by the sound of footsteps. Joseph claims the experience was so powerful it “seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.” Following his prayer and delivery, two distinct personages appear— and while not specifically identified in the account— the line “this is my Beloved Son hear Him” unmistakably implies they are God the Father and Jesus. In this account there is no mention of forgiveness of sin or angels. Joseph is told all the religious sects are “wrong”, “that all their creeds (are) an abomination in (God’s) sight” and that their religious “professors (are) all corrupt.” Joseph is instructed to join none of the churches.

What does it all mean?
Obviously that depends on your point of view. Here are a few of my observations:

First, it’s extremely surprising that the First Vision was not taught in the early Church and was not seen as the foundational event of Mormonism as it is now. This is the same event that President Gordon B. Hinckley was talking about when he said:

Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. It was the parting of the curtain to open this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life. (Ensign article)

Why would such a miraculous and revealing theophany not be discussed openly (and often) from day one? There are a number of possibilities. Here are the likely scenarios:

1. The First Vision took place as the 1838 account claims, Joseph shared it and was persecuted for it as he said. For some unexplained reason though there is no personal account of Joseph sharing the vision and no account of the persecution— in any journal or newspaper before 1832.

2. The First Vision took place as the 1838 account claims, but Joseph did not share it as he claimed. This explains the lack of accounts talking about the experience or accounts of the persecution in any before 1832. In 1832 he began to tell various versions of the story with the last recorded in 1842.

3. Joseph saw his First Vision as a personal event and felt no need to share it with others. The mention of the forgiveness of sins mentioned in the 1832 account supports this.

4. Joseph made up the story later on and there was nothing to share in the 1820s.

Defenders maintain that Joseph did share the First Vision before the first published account in 1842 but there appears to be no contemporary evidence of such— either as an a recounting from Joseph or anyone else for that matter. By contrast the story of the gold plates and angel was discussed by both Mormon and anti-Mormon sources repeatedly and early on. Certainly one could expect similar contemporary evidence of the First Vision. In trying to explain the lack of early evidence apologists have claimed that perhaps Joseph resisted sharing the vision because of the persecution he experienced after speaking of it initially. If so this refutes Joseph’s own words in the 1838 account: “I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation.”

Really, one can really only speculate why Joseph took so long to share accounts of the First Vision. It’s odd that he doesn’t seem to have but claimed to. Certainly it seems likely though that anyone who had seen a vision of God would have recorded it, or at least have told others about it. If that vision taught them that God and Jesus were two separate beings— quite a revelation in 1820s New York— it’s hard to imagine that anyone could have kept quiet about it.

The next issue is the date of the event. Joseph claimed in the 1838 account that the vision was in 1820 but a number of other sources suggest that the event would have been more likely in 1824. Does this really matter? Perhaps. First, along with may other inconsistencies it makes the account(s) less credible. If Joseph has the first vision in spring 1824 the claim that Moroni appears to him in September of the previous year becomes problematic. An 1824 date puts the vision closer to the time Joseph began sharing stories of being visited by angels (Nephi/Moroni). Some suggest perhaps that the angel story occurred first and was initially the “first vision” in Smith’s religious narrative and that was then later evolved to as Joseph’s beliefs did.

But while the timing issues are significant— the clear evolution of the First Vision accounts is a far bigger concern in my view. Why did Joseph share different stories over the years?
These are some of the possibilities.

1) The event was as claimed in 1838 but Joseph didn’t understand it in 1820 and waited until he did to share/record it.

2) The actual event was exactly as claimed in the 1838 account but Joseph only shared certain details of the story in his initial tellings (1832, 1835)— making the 1838 account the most accurate and complete.

2) The actual event was different than what the 1838 account records and Joseph merely evolved his experience to match his current theology.

3) The event did not actually take place and was invented later.

As mentioned there are at least 4 significantly different accounts, either written or dictated by Smith, with some details in some versions and not in others. While people have been known to omit or include details in stories at different times it should be noted that what Smith leaves out are not mundane and inconsequential. And I am inclined to call some of them key elements too rather than ‘details.’ Whether or not there were two beings or just one, for example, is a pretty big ‘detail’. And that one of those separate and distinct beings was God the Father is huge— a fact that one would hardly forget to recount when recording such a momentous event. One would think that this detail above all others would be in the first recorded account because of it’s novelty. Also, if the whole purpose of Joseph going to pray was to find out which Church to join why didn’t Joseph share in earlier accounts that he’d been told all churches were wrong and to join none of them. Logically it makes more sense that Joseph would have shared these things especially in his initial sharing of the story.

Looking at the various accounts and details given in each, it appears likely that Joseph Smith didn’t merely remember his experience differently over the years but instead evolved the narrative. Why do I think this? Because the accounts show a clear progression—becoming more miraculous, impressive and dramatic with time. The first accounts of the vision are more vague, the latter more detailed. This is odd because memory doesn’t work like that. Memory fades and changes with time and over the years people often embellish memories— which is why accounts closer to an event are considered reliable. Such big omissions in early stories that appear later cause me to ask “Are these details more like what actually happened or the products of Joseph’s imagination and evolving theology?” and “Shouldn’t the earlier versions of the vision be considered likely more accurate?”

Certainly the fact that Joseph does not mention or identify God the Father in the early accounts is surprising. The 1832 account only mentions the “Lord”— clearly referring to Jesus. In 1835 Joseph says one being appeared followed by another but identifies neither. Remember, this was not an everyday event and the big facts would be nearly impossible to gloss over. How likely is it that Joseph Smith, after seeing God the Father, would neglect to share that specific fact……for eighteen years? For anyone— let alone a young unlearned farm boy— the vision alone would be an amazing event. Learning that God the Father is separate and distinct from Jesus in a predominantly Trinitarian world, would be mind-blowingly huge. It’s not the type of thing one would forget to mention especially when writing an official history— and yet the 1832 account (no Father) was written for inclusion in an early history of the Church. Unbelievably, the 1835 history of the Church written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery does not mention the First Vision at all either.

Looking at Joseph’s teachings on the nature of God between 1820 and the 1840s is useful in making sense of these accounts and in doing so it quickly becomes clear the First Vision accounts mirror Joseph Smith’s fairly dramatic theological evolution over this time. While the actual events of any vision wouldn’t have changed over time but it seems likely that the story did in order to bring it in harmony with Smith’s current views on God.

Joseph’s early view of God as seen in the Book of Mormon and other early sources is as some argue essentially Trinitarian (some say Modalist). The 1832 First Vision account reflects this sort of belief. In this account a single physical manifestation of God— “the Lord” appears and communicates with Joseph and the idea of two separate beings is nowhere in this account. By 1835, the two beings which are not specifically identified (possibly God and Jesus????) show the beginning of a shift in Smith’s theology. Lectures on Faith written and complied by Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery between 1834 and 1835 define God the Father as a ‘personage of spirit’ and Jesus as ‘who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle’ moves closer towards distinct beings but still favors a more Trinitarian view. The mind of the Father and Son, ‘which Mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son’ is how the Holy Ghost is described. By the late 1830s however Joseph’s view of God had evolved even further. The 1838 First Vision account clearly identifies the two beings in the grove as the Father and Son with the “this is my Beloved Son hear Him” line. A series of changes to the text of the BoM in the 1837 and then again in 1840 edition also more clearly support the idea that Smith now saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate physical beings.

1 Nephi 13:40— 1830 edition:
“… These last records … shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior … “

1 Nephi 13:40— Modern Version:

“…These last records… shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior…”

Mosiah 15
How Christ is both the Father and the Son—He shall make intercession and bear the transgressions of his people—They and all the holy prophets are his seed—He bringeth to pass the resurrection—Little children have eternal life. About 148 B.C.
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

And finally by the 1844 Joseph is teaching the plurality of Gods which is of course more in line with the 1838 account of the First Vision than his earlier.

Did Joseph Smith plagiarize the first vision? Some people think so — or at least that his claims were a influenced by what others were claiming around him. See some of the evidence here.

Read more on the First Vision here and here as well.

I came across a link to this story in the SL Trib a while back and started a post. Like many others the post went unpublished due to the fact I’m busy these days at work and being a husband and father. I eventually got it posted (if you’re reading it, I finally got around to it) but it’s old news. Anyway, I found the story interesting.

To summarize for those to lazy to click on the link, the LDS Church has changed the chapter headings in its online version of The Book of Mormon to remove the more racist references.

In the summary for 2 Nephi, Chapter 5, the words “skin of blackness” was removed in describing the “curse” God put on disbelieving Lamanites.

Deeper into the volume, in Mormon, Chapter 5, the heading changes from calling Lamanites “a dark, filthy, and loathsome people” to “because of their unbelief, the Lamanites will be scattered, and the Spirit will cease to strive with them.”

Now, I know that defenders claim that there is no racism in the Book of Mormon and that “white” really means pure but I think the evidence is against them. There are a number of verses in the Book of Mormon clearly stating that the dark skin of the Lamanites was a curse from God and that it was a result of thier wickedness. Take 2 Nephi 5:22—

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Or Alma 3:6

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

and 3 Nephi 2:14-15

And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;

And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

To say that the text of the Book of Mormon does not clearly state that the dark skin of the Lamanites (Native Americans) is the result of a curse from God is just dishonesty— and no amount of apologetic spin and willful ignorance will change that.

Either that or, the Book of Mormon despite it’s claim, is not  book of plainness and LDS leaders have been completely wrong on the race issue since Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley. So far no other argument has been compelling enough to cover a century and a half of racism in the name of God.

All that said, I do think it’s a good thing that the Church is choosing to downplay the racism that is in it’s scriptures. I think it would be even better if they 1) spoke out clearly and repeatedly against such ideas and 2) actually removed the racist content in the book itself— rather than just what is in the chapter headings. Failing to do so makes it look like LDS leaders don’t really want to give up the racism Mormonism has taught since it’s beginning.

LDS Doctrine and Racism

Mormonism and Racism

Last May after weeks of trying to avoid it I met with the Stake President where I live. I’d hoped my inactivity and the fact I hadn’t tithed in years had made my position clear—I no longer believe. No such luck. Clearly, I needed to have a talk with someone to stop the reactivation efforts— so when the Bishop told the SP wanted to extend a calling I decided to meet with him. I decided to decline the calling, tell him I no longer believed and avoid arguing history or doctrine. From my experience discussing the finer points with LDS leadership is a fruitless endeavor.

When we met, the SP told me that they wanted to call me a an assistant ward clerk. Translation: We want you back in Church and preferably somewhere the Bishopric can keep an eye on you.” I essentially told him ‘No, thanks’ and he asked why. “Is it because of your work schedule or because of faith issues?”  I told him that I didn’t believe the Church was what it claimed to be, that I had studied foundational events and doctrine only to find that what was taught was not accurate. As politely as I could I told him I thought LDS leader were no more inspired than anyone else and that I was agnostic on God.

For about an hour and a half we generally discussed faith, belief, and Mormonism— trying hard to avoid a point for point discussion and both trying to be respectful. He said there were issues in LDS history but admitted he hadn’t researched many (if any) of the issues. He did say though that he had heard LDS writer/scholar Terryl Givens say that if the case for the Church is as compelling as the case against it, why not choose to believe and be a part of it. My response was that the cases for and against the Church are not equal and that the evidence against is far more compelling.

Generally the Stake President seemed open and honest but tipped his hand a little at one point in the conversation. He claimed that truly honest critics would have to admit that they are not being ‘intellectually honest’ if they do not give weight to the spiritual feelings and manifestations that believers see as evidence.

We discussed the idea a little but I mostly let it go— there would be no changing his mind and it was time for me to leave. I have however thought about the comment since— and so finally here’s my point. What this guy said is extremely telling and in many ways is Mormonism in a nutshell. A Stake President and the religious leader for a few thousand people in the LDS Church, says that critics are not intellectually honest if they do not recognize his personal spiritual experiences as evidence for the LDS Church and God— while admitting that the he, himself, has not really researched the issues leveled against the Church.

Wait. WTF? Really? Let’s recap here. You think I should somehow know that the feelings you have are 1) real and 2) mean what you claim they do but you will not look at any of the historical or doctrinal issues that critics bring up? And you still feel comfortable saying critics are intellectually dishonest? Pot, meet Kettle.

Seriously, I doubt I can think of a more dishonest position than ignoring verifiable empirical evidence while claiming superiority through unverifiable feelings. But then to claim those who have looked at the facts and find them more compelling (or at least verifiable) than your feelings are intellectually dishonest is lunacy. I guess nothing makes a bad line of reasoning easier to swallow than a huge dose of hypocrisy.

In fact, Mormonism, rather than holding high ground on this issue has a pretty bad record— especially in the past few decades. It promotes intentional intellectual dishonesty (or perhaps even worse, intellectually laziness) because despite all the claims of continuing revelation and the retelling of the First Vision story, Mormons have all the truth they want. When you believe you belong to God’s one true Church there’s no reason to look any further. Nobody really wants to upset the apple cart, so why would anyone go poking around? The result then is that any so called Mormon intellectual undertaking is aimed at a single point— ”the Church is true.”  The conclusion is drawn even before the experiment begins. Being deliberately obtuse is rewarded.

So Mr. Stake President, thank you for the talk. If nothing else our discussion has once again made it clear that I cannot accept an LDS calling or Mormonism as a belief system and, most of all, I cannot accept the so-called intellectual honesty common to the LDS Church. As I said before “No, thank you.”

The following is description of whom?

…he used religion to get what he wanted. “Whenever he wants anything, that’s when he gets a revelation,”

…wrote in his manifesto that she kept silent with tears in her eyes “because she knew the great sacrifice the Lord God Almighty had called upon her to make.”

…wicked, manipulative, sneaky, slimy, selfish, greedy, not spiritual, not religious, not really close to God.”

It sounds just like Joseph Smith—at least to me, but these lines are from a CNN write up of Brian David Mitchell. The first 2 phrases are from Elizabeth Smart herself.

Sorry for hitting this same note over and over but— How is it that no one sees that Joseph Smith and Brian David Mitchell did similar things? Can no one see this? Can true believers ever allow themselves to?

True Smith never kidnapped, chained down or raped anyone to my knowledge— but he, like Mitchell, was deluded enough to think God had given him certain women for the taking. And in my opinion both men manipulated these women to get what they wanted.

Joseph used his position of authority and threats of damnation. Brian David Mitchell used a knife.

Anyway I thought I’d share just one more brick in that argument. I’d say I won’t go there again…but we both know I likely will.