Joseph Smith’s ‘First Vision’ – An Analysis
“Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith.
He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.
…the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth.
If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect.”
(Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, vol. 1, p. 188)
Members and investigators of the Mormon Church are taught that in the spring of 1820, Joseph Smith had a glorious vision of God and Jesus Christ. Members believe that Smith was persecuted from the start for telling all and sundry of his visionary experience. It is assumed that he immediately told his family about it; that the version we read in ‘Joseph Smith – History’ is the first and only version of claimed events; and that he recorded it shortly after his experience. People take that concept to the Lord in prayer and consider their subsequent ‘testimony’ that it really happened, to have come to their minds as an answer to prayer from the Lord himself. After that, they rely on faith to sustain them regarding any awkward questions that may arise. After all, if Smith had that vision and later translated the Book of Mormon (a ‘testimony’ of which is also obtained through the same ethereal means) then verification of the rest hardly seems necessary…
However, suppose Joseph Smith lied. How would we ever determine that? The fact of the matter is that if Smith did lie, then the ‘witness’ one received could not have come from God and was just wishful thinking.
So… what really did happen and what evidence is there to prove the real sequence of events which led to Smith’s claim? Only that will determine the truth. The following evidence should fully answer that question.
The first thing to understand is that Joseph Smith did not record the official version which is now used, until the year 1838 and it wasn’t published until 1842, twenty-two years after the supposed event. This was a complete surprise to me, as Smith claimed he told anyone and everyone who would listen all about it immediately following the event. However, it will be discovered that this was not the case. Regarding Smith’s original concept of a ‘First Vision’, he first considered the idea in 1832. Smith’s record, dated in 1832, appears within the work A History of the life of Joseph Smith, partly written by his then scribe, Frederick G. Williams, and partly (including this version of events) in Smith’s own handwriting. In it, Smith declares that between the ages of twelve and fifteen he became “exceedingly” distressed concerning the situation of the world and of his own sins, and concluded that mankind had: “apostatised [sic] from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ.” This is an astonishing conclusion for Smith to have written down in his own hand in 1832 as it completely contradicts the official version (written in 1838 and first published in 1842) wherein Smith claims that he went to the grove “to know which of the sects was right” and that “at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong.” We know this was not the case from his handwritten claim of 1832.
Smith’s 1832 account goes on to state that he was in his sixteenth year of age. In the later official version, he was only fourteen. Within the pillar of light (originally written as ‘fire’ which Smith crossed through) the Lord, assumed to be Jesus Christ, appeared alone and addressed Smith as his son. It is also interesting to note that this account is very similar to the reported experiences of several other young men of the time (1832) who, seeking forgiveness of sins also claimed to have seen the Lord. Several accounts were published in the press, to which Smith had ready access. Smith’s own claim never appeared anywhere at the supposed time of 1820 or when he wrote this in 1832. The location, later to become a grove of trees; is not mentioned at all and there is no mention of any revival. In this account, Smith is not tormented by an evil force; he is filled with the spirit of God and has his sins forgiven, consistent with the published stories of other people who claimed similar experiences.
In 1835, within a week, Smith attempted two further ‘First Vision’ accounts. In the first one, Smith relates what he told “Joshua the Jewish Minister” (an alias for ‘Matthias’ who was actually from another cult). One personage appeared in the pillar of “flame”; then a second personage appeared who forgave Smith’s sins and testified that “Jesus Christ is the son of God”; thus clearly identifying the fact that neither visitor was actually the Saviour, as He is spoken of in the third person. Neither ‘personage’ is specifically identified but Smith confirms that he saw “many angels” during the vision and that is all. Smith states that he was about fourteen years old: “when I received this first communication.” Smith then continues in his diary to relate to Joshua “another vision of angels” when he was seventeen, thus confirming that the First Vision was deemed by Smith, in 1835, to be one of angels rather than deity. We would expect this record to be included in Church history alongside others appearing in History of the Church, Vol. 2, but it is conspicuous by its absence. The Church has simply ignored the account (along with Smith’s visitor) and it has been left out of ‘Joseph Smith – History’ altogether. Presumably, this is because it is inconsistent with the 1838 official version which they prefer. Nevertheless, it was all recorded in Smith’s personal journal in 1835 and it completely contradicts what he claimed three years later in 1838.
Erastus Holmes visited Smith the following Saturday afternoon, on 14 November 1835, enquiring about the Church and asking to be instructed. Smith recorded what he said to Holmes, in his diary. Relating the experience of his First Vision, Smith states that he was about fourteen years old when “I received the first visitation of Angels”, thus confirming his intended meaning when he had spoken to Joshua a few days earlier and he also writes that he told Holmes of later visitations concerning the Book of Mormon. Clearly, in late 1835, Smith was still sticking with the idea, in two separate accounts in his own diary, that it was an angel (or angels) rather than deity that first visited him in 1820 at age fourteen.
The exact wording of this version of the First Vision from Smith’s diary was later faithfully published, word for word, in the Church newspaper. (Deseret News, Vol.2. No.15, Saturday, 29 May 1852). This ‘First Vision’ account by Joseph Smith included the words: “I received the first visitation of Angels.”
However, when the account was entered into the History of the Church (V2:312), Smith’s own wording was deliberately altered. Rather than tell the truth about what Smith claimed at the time he wrote of the experience, the account was falsified. It was changed from “first visitation of angels” to read “first vision” instead, to make it consistent with the later, more dynamic idea that the First Vision ultimately became, which was not to be one of angels as Smith had earlier claimed, but one of actual deity. As noted above, the 9th November account related to Joshua does not even appear in the History of the Church at all. (HC V2:312). This method of falsifying the truth went on to become a regular habit within the Church. They actually have a name for it. They call it ‘lying for the Lord’ and it still continues to this day.
The fact that Smith’s own record was changed and falsified to suit later thinking clearly shows that the idea of a vision of deity had evolved over time, from one of angels rather than it being a first time, first hand, true account of something that actually transpired in 1820. It also evidences the contempt that the Church has for historical accuracy and truth. I have copies of all Smith’s verified dated journal accounts.
When questioned, the Church claims that each account gradually reveals what happened in the vision, yet the reality is that they each completely contradict each other in every way. Smith was clearly making it up as he went along. Unless pressed, of course the Church never mentions the fact that there were several conflicting accounts of the vision nor that the official version did not get published for twenty-two years.
If you carefully read JS-History, you will find the following claims (in sequence) made by Joseph Smith himself in the ‘Official Account’ of his First Vision. It should however be noted that Smith did not write this account; it was penned by his scribe; so no one knows for certain whether all the ideas contained in it were Smiths or if some were provided by other people. At the start of it all, you will note a statement in HC Vol. 1. that: “…a history more correct in its details than this was never published.” We shall see…
1. My father, Joseph Smith, Senior: left… Vermont, and moved to Palmyra… when I was in my tenth year, or thereabouts. [1814]. …about four years after… he moved with his family into Manchester [1818]. [The claimed ‘First Vision’ occurred] …in the second year after our removal to Manchester… [1820].
2. There was a religious revival in the district [in 1820].
3. Great multitudes joined various religious parties
4. Four of Smith’s family joined the Presbyterians.
5. Smith personally came across and pondered on James 1:5.
6. He went to a grove to ask God “which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join.”
7. Smith was told to join with none of them.
8. “A few days later…” the persecution started.
Once you verify the fact that those are Smith’s own surrounding statements, you are ready to proceed.
Regarding each of the above eight claims that Smith made, the following is the true historical position:
1. The Smiths early moves are correct. However, the family did not move to Manchester from Palmyra in 1818, two years before the supposed vision. They actually moved there no earlier than July of 1822, two years afterwards. Smith’s youngest sister, Lucy, is also recorded as having been born in Palmyra in 1821. The fact of the matter is that the Smith family didn’t even live in the claimed area at the time of the supposed vision.
2. There was no religious revival in the area in 1820. There was minor one a couple of years earlier, in 1818, and there was certainly one there in 1824 (possibly spanning from late 1823-1825 overall).
3. ‘Great multitudes’ did not join anything in 1820. Half a dozen less Methodists were recorded that year with a small handful of extra Baptists and Presbyterians (the three main players of the period). During the 1824 revival, there were recorded increases in membership of 99 Presbyterians, 94 Baptists and 208 Methodists.
4. Four of the Smith family did not join the Presbyterians prior to an 1820 vision. How do we know? Because Joseph Smith himself and also his own mother recorded elsewhere that she and three of Smith’s siblings joined the Presbyterians in 1824, following the death of Smith’s brother Alvin, in late 1823.
5. Smith may well have claimed in 1838 to have found James 1:5 all by himself in 1820, but considering that he didn’t live in the area – where there was no revival – when no multitudes joined any various sects – it is not surprising that he also failed to mention the fact that he and all his family attended a sermon given by a Methodist minister (Elder George Lane) who preached on the subject “What Church shall I Join” where his text was James 1:5 which Lane recommended to his listeners. The problem with this for Smith is that Lane didn’t arrive in the area until July of 1824 when the entire Smith family attended the sermon.
6. Smith’s claim to have gone to a grove to ask God which Church was right is in direct conflict with his earlier personal handwritten statement which confirms that he had already concluded they were all wrong.
7. God told Smith twice in his ‘official’ 1838 account that he should join none of the Churches as they were all wrong. Later in his narrative, Smith reminds us for a third time that he was told this. Yet in 1828, eight years after the supposed vision, he joined the Methodist Sunday School only to be asked to leave again as he was considered an undesirable due to his reputation as a glass-looker (a money-digging con artist).
8. No persecution was ever encountered during the period in question; a fact that is now accepted by BYU historians. I will come back to this important lie later as it ties in with other evidence.
So, everything Smith claimed to have surrounded the vision is provably fictitious. But that is just the start. What of the vision itself. Did Smith see God and Jesus as two separate beings with bodies in 1820 as the Church now claims? The answer lies in what Smith actually believed himself at the time. Bear in mind that the ‘official’ version of the vision was first written down in 1838. Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in 1828-29; it was published (and the Church was also formed) in 1830; his ‘Inspired Revision’ of the Bible was written between 1831 & 1834. The Book of Commandments was published in 1833. The Lectures of Faith were written in 1834 and published within the first edition of the D&C in 1835.
Let’s start with the first – The Book of Mormon.
When Smith and others conspired to write the Book of Mormon, Smith was still entirely monotheistic in his theological outlook. He remained this way until about 1836 when his ‘plurality of Gods’ theology finally started to emerge. Thus, the handwritten transcripts and the first edition of the Book of Mormon were entirely monotheistic throughout, with no mention of God having a body. With that information in mind, let’s look firstly at what the original handwritten copies of the Book of Mormon actually stated. The 1830 edition did not have verses but the equivalent page numbers and lines are shown for reference.
_____________________________________________________________
1830 Edition: p.25 lines 3-5. And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.
1981 Edition: 1 Nephi 11:18. And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
______________________________________________________________
1830 Edition: p.25 lines 10-11. And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!...
1981 Edition: 1 Nephi 11:21. And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!...
______________________________________________________________
1830 Edition: p.26 lines 8-10. ...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world...
1981 Edition: 1 Nephi 11:32. ...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the Everlasting God, was judged of the world...
______________________________________________________________
1830 Edition: p.32 lines 9-11. ...and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world...
1981 Edition: 1 Nephi 13:40 ...and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world...
______________________________________________________________
(Emphasis and underlining added to above 1981 references to identify the later falsifications). (Tanner; Mormonism: Shadow or Reality).
This last ‘scripture’ was originally not just another definitive affirmation of Jesus Christ being God; it was an instruction to ensure that everyone knows it, so it was clearly an important aspect in Smith’s theological thinking when he wrote it. If the original was indeed from God, then 1 Nephi 13:40 could never justifiably be changed and was certainly what the Nephites taught hundreds of years ago, if one accepts they were a real people.
It cannot be argued that Joseph Smith simply misunderstood the translation, because his face was buried in a hat when he translated and he didn’t even look at the gold plates. They were either tied up in a linen cloth or even buried elsewhere when he supposedly ‘translated’ them. The Church accepts that this was the case and an Ensign magazine article even refers to it. (A Treasured Testament. Russell M. Nelson, Ensign, July 1993:61). The words are claimed to have been revealed precisely to Smith, one at a time, in his hat, by means of the same seer stone that he had used in his money digging (glass-looking) days when he was arrested and taken to court for being a con artist. That the conviction occurred in 1826, long after the supposed vision of 1820 and also after the first supposed visit of Moroni in 1823 (originally mostly called ‘Nephi’ by Smith and later falsified by the Church to read ‘Moroni’ instead in Smith’s accounts), says little in favour of Smith’s character. God’s ‘chosen’ continued to be a con man – using the very same tools – in his new venture, religion, in the form of Mormonism. After the Book of Mormon was finished, remember, a voice from heaven supposedly declared it to be ‘correct’.
In 1964, Sidney B. Sperry, claimed in his book, The Problems of the Book of Mormon, that the four ‘omissions’ were simply printer’s errors. He stated:
“Why were these changes made in the text? …the early leaders in the Church… knew that typographical errors had crept into the 1830 edition in the course of printing. So they attempted to correct those errors by comparing the original manuscripts with the 1830 text. The changes they made... are simple corrections of error in the First Edition.”
However, that was not the case, as the handwritten manuscripts confirm otherwise. The Tanner’s checked the original manuscripts. In the LDS Church water damaged copy there are two later interpolations above the line. In the RLDS (now Community of Christ) original complete copy there are none. It remains as originally written. Sperry either lied outright or didn’t bother to check the original documents. Consequently, Sperry has deceived Mormons for decades. Since the first edition was published, there have been several thousands of alterations to the grammar and text of the Book of Mormon. Such is the Mormon conspiracy to deceive.
Joseph Smith was not particularly religious in 1820. He was a money-digging con artist, along with his father and others from about 1819 though to 1828. When the Church was organised in 1830, Smith and his followers were all monotheistic. He remained this way until at least 1835-1836 and this is reflected in everything he ever wrote, starting with the Book of Mormon.
We just don’t notice what is still in the Book of Mormon even today. There isn’t a single reference to God and Jesus as separate and distinct beings anywhere, as Smith considered them at the time to be one and the same being. To Smith, God was a personage of spirit with no physical attributes. Jesus was ‘in the bosom of the father’ and God Himself came to earth as a man in the form of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) was the mind or will of the Lord. Three in one; Monotheism. Consider the following – look them all up in your own modern-day copy of the Book of Mormon.
Here, Zeezrom is speaking with Amulek. Alma 11:28-29 and 38-39 remain even today as:
28. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29. And he answered, No.
And yet years later, Smith went on to claim there are many Gods…
38. Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
Now; here is a very good chance for Amulek to say – No, in fact, they are two separate and distinct beings – both with bodies – but what does he say?...
39. And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
Amulek here confirms that ‘the Son of God’ IS ‘the very Eternal Father’ as in traditional monotheism.
Mosiah 15:1-4 still reads:
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.
We just don’t ‘see’ Smith’s monotheistic theology in the Book of Mormon, as we are taught otherwise. Yet it stares you in the face when you read it in the cold light of day, with foreknowledge of his then current theology, and without a brainwashed mind. If members question, they are just told that it means ‘one in purpose’ and they go away accepting that but still feeling somewhat uneasy. Now we can understand why.
Here are some more examples in the Book of Mormon today.
2 Ne 25:12. …the Only Begotten of the Father, yea, even the Father of heaven and of earth, shall manifest himself unto them in the flesh, behold, they will reject him,…
2 Ne. 26:12 …the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God; (Between 559 and 545 BCE).
As an aside, the above ‘scripture’ uses the name of Jesus and the title of Christ five-and-a-half centuries BCE. If this were a true account of an ancient people, it should read Messias, as that was the only term Jews (Lehi and his family were Jews) would understand. Jesus is an English word, invented many centuries into the CE (the letter ‘J’ didn’t appear in the English language for many centuries and at first was not pronounced as a ‘J’ and likewise ‘Christ’ (originally pronounced Crist, from the Greek Christos), and it wasn’t that long before the first edition of the King James Version that they appeared the way we now understand them. It would have been unthinkable for them to have known such words that could be written down or understood in Hebrew (or Smith’s imaginary ‘reformed Egyptian for that matter). If anyone suggests that God ‘translated’ ‘Messias’ in Smith's hat to read ‘Jesus Christ’ for our benefit – ask why God didn’t bother to translate ‘Curelom’ or ‘Cummom’ (fictitious animals) for us (Ether 9:19), or 'neas' or 'sheum' (equally fictitious crops) (Mosiah 9:9), or even give a better description of some of Isaiah that Smith plagiarised, including Jacobean words which were used in the KJV so the Jacobeans could understand them, but which no one in Smith’s day readily understood at all - such as in 2 Nephi 13 (which Smith copied from Isaiah 3).
“In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments, and cauls, and round tires like the moon; The chains and the bracelets, and the mufflers; The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the ear-rings; The rings, and nose jewels; The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping-pins; The glasses, and the fine linen, and hoods, and the veils.”
3 Ne: 19:18 And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.
The Book of Mormon is supposed to contain the fullness of the Gospel and yet Mormons are categorically forbidden to pray directly to Jesus. Yet the Nephites did. Why? Because here they considered Him to be God.
3 Ne 5:20 …bless my God and my Savior Jesus Christ, that he brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem,…
Ether 3:14. …I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son…
Mormon 9:12 …And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son;…
Alma chapters 18 & 22 concern the traditions of a belief in the ‘great spirit’… what do they confirm?
18:5. …this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit.
18:18. King Lamoni … said unto him: Who art thou? Art thou that Great Spirit, who knows all things?”
18:26. Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?
18:28. Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things…
22:9. And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem?
22:10. And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things…
22:11. 11 And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all things…
In the Book of Mormon God is a spirit.
In Mosiah, we learn that it is God Himself who will come to Earth in the form of a man…
Mosiah 13:28. And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people.
13:32. …there could not any man be saved except it were through the redemption of God.
13:34. Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?
13:35. Yea, and have they not said also that he should bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, and that he, himself, should be oppressed and afflicted?
The Book of Mormon confirms that God is the Redeemer.
No ‘body’ is ever mentioned regarding God anywhere in the BOM. The BOM title page STILL reads:
- And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL God, manifesting himself unto all nations - (Capitals in original).
The Testimony of Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon still includes: “And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.”
So; Jesus IS God manifesting himself and the ‘three’ IS ONE GOD (singular; not even ‘are God’, let alone ‘form the Godhead’). That is what they ALL believed throughout the early years of the Church.
When the Church was organised in 1830, Smith penned a revelation confirming his monotheism.
D&C Section 20:27. …believe in the gifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son;
28. Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen
Next came the Inspired Revision of the Bible. Did Smith, in 1831-1834, take the opportunity to ‘clarify’ the Bible anywhere to confirm that God has a physical body? No, he did not. In Moses 6:9 it does say: In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them…” but whether Smith is referring to a spiritual or physical body in 1831-1833 is unclear so we must look further…
John 14:9. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew (Show) us the Father?
John 14:9 confirms God and Jesus are one and the same. Smith did notice this verse because he altered the Early Modern English word ‘shew’ to read in Modern English ‘show’ for no apparent reason other than to make himself look silly. However, he did not alter the text. Thus we need to look deeper…
Did he, being monotheistic, just perhaps, change anything that could have been contrived to mean God and Jesus were separate beings, and alter it to read that in fact they are one and the same being, thus fully evidencing his then monotheistic outlook? You bet your life he did! This is what I found:
In the King James Version, Luke 10:22 reads: “…no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.”
Now, that could be construed as slightly ambiguous. It could be argued (although weakly, considering what the rest of the Bible contains) that it means God and Jesus are two separate beings. So, Smith – in monotheistic mode – changed it. It becomes verse 23 in his ‘Inspired Revision’, and it reads as follows:
I.R. Luke 10:23. …no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.
It couldn’t be clearer than that now could it?
The Lectures of Faith (1834) include references to God as a spirit alone. This is an example:
Lecture Fifth of Faith…
“There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things … They are the Father and the Son—the Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle …”
Elsewhere in the Lectures, God is referred to as an ‘omnipresent spirit’ which means He dwells everywhere at once and that is another traditional monotheistic Christian concept. The ‘holy spirit’ by the way, is the ‘mind of God’ in these lectures and is nowhere referred to as a ‘personage’ of spirit.
Talking of the Inspired Revision – here’s an example of Smith’s ever changing ideas where he completely ignores what went before. This happened over and over again, proving he was anything but a prophet. In his infamous King Follett sermon (at the funeral of a man who was killed by a bucket of bricks falling on his head during a well construction) Smith starts on about plural Gods for the first time in public. This was on 7 April 1844, a couple of months or so before his death. Following the disclosures in his talk, thousands of Mormons left the fold as they considered it to be a heresy.
Smith takes as his text: Revelation 1:6.
Smith says: “God … is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.”
“…He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth … and I will show it from the Bible.”
Gordon B. Hinckley – at least twice, publicly stated he does not know that they teach it and that he does not know much about it. Hinckley’s comments are available to view on You Tube. They contradict Smith.
Joseph Smith declared “It is plain beyond disputation…”
Smith quotes Revelation 1:6 directly from the KJV: “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to him be glory and domination forever and ever. Amen.”
Note the phrase, “God and His Father”. Smith then states “It is altogether correct in the translation”. This is because he wants to propound his new concept that God had a father and that there are many Gods. However, Smith either forgot, or more likely simply ignored the fact, that when he had been ‘inspired’ to correct biblical scripture in his earlier ‘Inspired Revision’, he had altered that very verse in order to clarify the fact that God of course does not have a father. Here, in 1844, he completely ignores his own earlier ‘inspired revision’ and claims the KJV is ‘altogether correct’, just to suit his newly developed thinking…
Inspired Revision: Rev 1:6. “…and hath made us kings and priests unto God his Father. To him be glory and domination, forever and ever. Amen.”
If Smith’s claim that the KJV is “altogether correct” is accepted by the Church to justify his plural Gods theology; he lied in the IR. Either way, he is caught in his duplicity and his lies and does not 'qualify' as a true prophbet of any God.
For once though, Smith actually got something right, as the IR is closer to the literal translation: Young’s Literal Translation: “…and did make us kings and priests to his God and Father, to him [is] the glory and the power to the ages of the ages. Amen.” Regardless of the IR ‘correction’, Smith proves himself a fraud.
So, if it happened as Smith claimed, in 1820; when then was the ‘First Vision’ ever mentioned in print ANYWHERE before 1840? Answer – absolutely nowhere! The following publications came into print and there was no word about any kind of ‘First Vision’ ever recorded in any of them…
n 1829-1830. The Book of Mormon. (The ‘First Vision’ would have made an excellent preface).
n 1832. Delusions, An Analysis of the Book of Mormon; Alexander Campbell. (Anti-Mormon book).
n 1832-1834. Evening and Morning Star. (Church newspaper).
n 1833. Book of Commandments. (Early revelations; yet the first and most important is not mentioned).
n 1834. Mormonism Unvailed [sic]; E. D. Howe. (Another Anti-Mormon book – no mention of a FV).
n 1834-1835. Lectures of Faith. (No mention of FV but talks of God being an ‘omnipresent spirit’).
n 1835. Doctrine & Covenants. (Early revelations; and still no mention of the first most glorious one).
n 1834-1836. Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate. (Church newspaper – no FV account ever).
n 1837. A Voice of Warning. Parley P. Pratt. (Missionary booklet with well over 200 pages – includes revelations and restoration details etc., and yet no mention of any First Vision whatsoever).
n 1839-1846. Times and Seasons. (Church newspaper – no FV is mentioned before the 1842 publication).
n 1840-1970. Millenial Star. (UK publication – again no mention of any First Vision prior to 1842).
n 1842. Mormonism in All Ages; J. B. Turner. (Yet another anti-Mormon book and still no mention of any such thing as a claim to a glorious First Vision, twenty-two years after the supposed event).
So, who ever knew about this ‘First Vision’ in the early years? What did the non-Mormon newspapers have to say about Joseph Smith during those first few years? Well; absolutely nothing before 1830. For the first decade, Smith was mostly unknown to anyone outside his own small circle. In 1831, ironically, the local paper ran three articles which actually provide evidence – not that Smith made such a claim as having had a glorious First Vision in the spring of 1820 – but as it happens, just the opposite…
“It however appears quite certain that the prophet himself never made any serious pretensions to religion until his late pretended revelation [the discovery of the Book of Mormon].” (Palmyra Reflector. Vol. II Series 1. No. 12. 1 Feb 1831).
“It will be born in mind that no divine interposition had been dreamed of at the period.” (Palmyra Reflector. Vol. II Series 1. No. 13. 14 Feb 1831).
“It is well known that Joe Smith never pretended to have any communication with angels, until a long period after the pretended finding of his book.” (Palmyra Reflector. Vol. II Ser. 1. No. 14. 28 Feb 1831).
So… who ever knew about this mysterious First Vision in 1820 or shortly thereafter? Who did Smith tell?
Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, started her autobiography in the year after her sons were killed.
Lucy’s autobiography clearly states that it was the angel that appeared to Smith in his bedroom who told him “there is not a true Church on earth, no not one”. The original text of Lucy’s book does not mention a single word about any ‘First Vision’ whatsoever.
When published by Orson Pratt in Liverpool, England, in 1853; along with many other changes, Joseph Smith’s own account was then inserted, just as it had appeared in Times and Seasons, without Lucy’s permission or her knowledge. Lucy had no idea about any such thing as a First Vision when she wrote her book – and that was after Joseph Smith had died.
In 1859, Martin Harris gave an interview to Tiffany’s. He recounts what happened after Smith claimed to find the plates in late 1827…
“Joseph had before this described the manner of his finding the plates. He found them by looking in the stone found in the well of Mason Chase. The family had likewise told me the same thing. Joseph said the angel told him he must quit the company of the money-diggers. That there were wicked men among them. He must have no more to do with them. He must not lie, nor swear, nor steal. He told him to go and look in the spectacles, and he would show him the man that would assist him. That he did so, and he saw myself, Martin Harris, standing before him.”
That’s not the important part… it’s what Harris says next that reveals the facts:
“But I had the account of it from Joseph, his wife, brothers, sisters, his father and mother. I talked with them separately that I might get the truth of the matter.” (Tiffany’s Vol. V:IV:163-170).
The point here is that Smith was desperately trying to get Harris to sell part of his farm to finance the publication of the Book of Mormon. Had the First Vision been a ‘shared’ reality – surely ONE of them, if not Joseph himself, would have mentioned it to further convince Harris? Not one of the ten members of the Smith family mentioned a single word about a glorious first encounter with God and Jesus in 1820 which set the ‘restoration’ in motion. Why? Because at that time Smith had yet to invent the idea.
The first ever published mentions of any kind of First Vision were:
Orson Pratt. 1840. An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records. Pratt includes a short narrative in which two ‘unidentified’ personages appear.
I will come back to Pratt’s account in a moment when we look at the BYU take on the matter.
Orson Hyde. 1842. A Cry from the Wilderness, a Voice from the Dust of the Earth. (Printed in German). Hyde uses almost identical wording to Pratt but this time it reads “two glorious personages”.
In Hyde’s case at least, he clearly considered the First Vision to be one of angels rather than deity as he later made the following statement:
“Some one may say, ‘If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?’ Because to the angels was committed the power of reaping the earth, and it was committed to none else.” (JD. V.6:335. Orson Hyde. 6 April 1854).
Now it is time to come back to the idea of Smith’s ‘persecution’ during the first decade (1820-1830).
The following is the take BYU now has on the whole idea of Smith telling everyone about the vision.
“Orson Pratt’s ‘Interesting account of Remarkable Visions’ . . . ranks as one of the great Mormon books as it contains the first printed account of Joseph Smith’s 1820 vision. Only three manuscript accounts antedating Remarkable Visions exist in the LDS Church Archives, …”
Those three accounts are of course the 1832 and the two 1835 Joseph Smith accounts reviewed earlier.
Then BYU makes this astonishing admission:
“…reflecting that Joseph Smith discussed this transcendent vision only privately with a few trusted friends during the Church’s first decade.”
The reference for that is: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University.
http://relarchive.byu.edu/MPNC/descriptions/interesting.html
In a complete turnaround to all that Mormons have ever been taught, the Church, faced with the facts I have just covered, appears to be accepting them as proven and therefore agreeing that Smith never told anyone about his vision in those early years. The problem is that they do not address the fact that in so doing, they also make a complete liar out of Smith over and over again. Read on in JS-History and you will discover all the claims Smith made about severe persecution which never actually occurred.
Smith claimed he was: “hated and persecuted for saying I had seen a vision.”
The ‘Church inserted’ header above v.21 states: “Persecution heaped upon Joseph Smith.”
v. 20: “Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?”
v. 21: Smith met a Methodist minister a few days later and: “…took occasion to give him an account of the Vision.”
v. 22: “…my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase…”
v. 23: “a little over fourteen years of age … the most bitter persecution and reviling.”
v. 25. “they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me.”
v. 27. “…severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men”
Smith then even dates the supposed persecution to the three year period from 1820 to 1823.
v. 28. “…between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three … persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends.”
So, the Church, in order to accept the absolute fact that Smith made no First Vision claim in the early years settles instead on confirming that he lied, lied, lied, lied, lied, lied, lied. (At least seven references). If he is confirmed as telling repeated lies about all that, then what credence can be given to anything else he ever said at all? But it doesn’t end there; that was just the beginning of Joseph Smith’s hoax.
To summarise; if the First Vision did occur, as Smith claimed, in the spring of 1820 then it occurred:
2 years before the Smiths moved to the claimed area.
4 years before the revival that he claimed happened in that area.
4 years before significant recorded increases in membership to the Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians.
4 years before the four members of the Smith family joined the Presbyterians.
4 years before Elder George Lane preached on 'What Church Shall I Join' and recommended reading James 1:5.
6 years before Smith was in court for being a money-digging con artist.
7 years before the only so-called ‘persecution’ which was from other money-diggers. Smith was part of a syndicate where no one ever found anything so they all agreed that if anyone ever actually did find something of worth, they would all share in the spoils. In September of 1827, Smith claimed to have found gold plate which was rightfully equally theirs. The money-diggers were the only people to ever chase after Joseph Smith, who, as far as they were concerned, had reneged on the agreement and they were after his blood. It is said that Martin Harris may have paid them off to get rid of the threat. That’s as close as it ever got to any so-called persecution during the first decade.
8 years before he joined the Methodists. (In the 1838 official account the Lord told Smith twice not to.)
10 years before the publication of an entirely monotheistic Book of Mormon.
11 years before his ‘Inspired Revision’ of the Bible which also remained monotheistic throughout.
11-12 years before Smith wrote ‘The Book of Moses’ (with dozens of references to ‘God’ in the singular).
12 years before recording that he saw only Jesus in a Fist Vision experience.
12 years before the ‘Book of Commandments’ was published - with no First Vision account included.
14 years before the ‘Lectures of Faith’ stated that God is an ‘omnipresent spirit’ with NO body.
15 years before Smith recorded two ‘First Vision’ accounts consisting specifically and only of angels.
15 years before ‘The Book of Abraham’ was written (which included dozens of references to ‘Gods’ in the plural – still with no mention of a body – completely contradicting the earlier ‘Book of Moses’).
15 years before the ‘Doctrine and Covenants’ was published – still with no First Vision account included.
18 years before he finally concocted his whole new vision idea which became the ‘Official’ version.
22 years before the publication of the official account.
It is perfectly clear, from verifiable history (including original Church records and Joseph Smith’s own writings) that none of the circumstances that Smith claimed surrounded a First Vision in 1820, could possibly be true. Furthermore, it is equally clear that the account of the vision itself was an ever evolving concept in Smith’s overactive imagination that he first conceived in 1832 and which culminated in an 1838 ‘official version’ which he then backdated to the spring of 1820. A myriad of impossible claims exposes the fraud.
In the following quote, Mormon Apostle, Hugh B. Brown, got just one word wrong, and that is the word ‘If’.
[If] this First Vision was but a figment of Joseph Smith’s imagination,
then the Mormon Church is what its detractors declare it to be
- a wicked and deliberate imposture.
(Apostle Hugh B. Brown. The Abundant Life. 1965:310-11).
Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision...
Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach,
nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration…
This is the hinge on which turns the gate
that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life.
(Gordon B. Hinckley. Gen Conf. Oct 1998. Ensign Nov. 1998:70-71. Also see: Ensign May 2005).
Jim Whitefield. Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved.
(Extracts from TMD Volume 4, due out January 2011).
(See also: The Mormon Delusion. Vols. 2&3 for more detail and full references).
____________________
Visit: TMD BOOK STORE
