Missing: The First Vision?

[TasteForTruth]

I would just like to say to this that when the early Mormon church was in it's infancy (first year or so of being), a very prominent Campbellite minister joined it's ranks and brought his whole congregation with him, and he influenced the theology of the early Mormon church to the point that, aside from it's foundational event(s), the church was very similar to a Disciples of Christ church. Early on there was no "first vision", there was no baptism for the dead, there was no celestial marriage, there was just the Book of Mormon, and the church was Trinitarian. The other more esoteric stuff did not come along till later on in the life of the early Mormon church.

As someone mentioned earlier, there are two main branches of the Mormon Church, the other being the Community of Christ. The Community of Christ is the church that adopted the beliefs of the early early Mormon church, the teachings that were influenced by Campbellite doctrine.

I'm curious... on what evidential, historical basis do you make your claim that "early on" in the LDS church "there was no 'First Vision'"?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The biggest evidence against the idea of our enemy's that the First Vision was "made-up" years later is that when the official version was written, NOT A SINGLE PERSON OBJECTED, not even our enemy's.

If the official account was made up, our enemy's especially would have noticed it immediately. Yet, not a single publication or statement from our enemy's of the time had a problem with the "versions" and with the content.

It was only years and years later when time and history passed in which testimony's and witnesses faded away and we only have a "few" known "written" records of Joseph or others talking about the First Vision has it all of a sudden become a "Joseph Smith LIE".

Everyone knew about the first vision from the very beginning. If they hadn't, someone would have said something about it when the written versions were penned, especially those closest and in top leadership.

Joseph Smith's First Vision - FAIRMormon

Joseph Smith's First Vision/Joseph Smith's early conception of God - FAIRMormon

Joseph Smith's First Vision/No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications - FAIRMormon

I respectfully suggest that you provide a much more fair, unbiased source of information than comes from the mouthpiece of the LDS, FAIRMormon.

That said, it hardly matters much at all to me that your church embraces variant and contradictory versions of the same story. After all, it embraces contradictory doctrines and beliefs which are far more significant that whether or not Mr. Smith was visited by an angel or by Jesus Christ Himself.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I would like to re-emphasize that the OP is not about whether or not Joseph Smith's accounts of the First Vision are contradictory, whether or not the LDS church embraces contradictory doctrines.

I am wondering if anyone has any evidence to support the claim that in the early LDS church "there was no First Vision." And if no one does, I would like to know from anyone who believes so... why they believe so.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I think it's safe to conclude at this point that no one really believes that the First Vision played no part in the early LDS church—either that or no one can produce evidence to support such a claim.

 

[gort]

there's no evidence that there was a first vision in your early church either.

 

[TasteForTruth]

there's no evidence that there was a first vision in your early church either.

Well, fortunately for me, that is not germane to the OP.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This reminds me of some denominations which claim Apostolic Authority for certain doctrines which have no historical record until centuries after the Apostolic era. When confronted with the absence of historical data, their response is to require their critics to prove such evidence indeed, never existed. This is a vain and worthless tactic IMO.

It is rather like the fact that not a single temple was erected for conducting Mormon rites until the Temple in Kirtland, Ohio was erected in the early nineteenth century and, even then, that temple failed to meet the requirements of later Mormon ceremonies. When confronted with the lack of first-century temples the standard LDS response is to require the critic to prove that such temples actually never existed. It is rather like someone requiring a critic to prove that the United States was never really a monarchy.

 

[TasteForTruth]

This reminds me of some denominations which claim Apostolic Authority for certain doctrines which have no historical record until centuries after the Apostolic era. When confronted with the absence of historical data, their response is to require their critics to prove such evidence indeed, never existed. This is a vain and worthless tactic IMO.

LOL, well I believe that it is poor forum conduct to make claims and then provide no substantiation for them. It isn't my fault that someone makes a negative claim that he or she cannot substantiate for lack of evidence. The problem arises in that the person making the claim also wants others to take the claim serious, and—more than likely—to form judgments about the topic based on that claim. That's just plain irresponsible. If there exists no evidence to support one's claim, one ought not present such a claim as though it is common knowledge, for the dots he's connected to craft the "clear" picture he paints exist only in his mind.

So my invitation is still open to anyone who wishes to present any kind of evidence—no matter how small—that would give credence to the idea that the First Vision did not exist in the early LDS church, or that it did not weigh in the doings or doctrine of the early LDS church.

 

[Conor B]

Not true there are a number of differing versions of the "First Vision" differing not only in detail but even in the number of personages who supposedly appeared to young Joseph.

Here is the earliest known attempt at an ‘official’ recounting of the ‘First Vision, from History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d119/ShinobiWaNeko/firstvisionjosephsmith1832large.jpg

The pertinent portion of the transcription follows:

&#8230; thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind the contentions and divi[si]ons the wicke[d]ness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the of the minds of mankind my mind become exceedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins and by searching the scriptures I found that <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ &#8230;
marvilous even in the likeness of him who created him (them) and when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed well hath the wise man said the (it is a) fool (that) saith in his heart there is no God my heart exclaimed all all these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotant and omnipreasant power a being who makith Laws and decreeeth and bindeth all things in their bounds who filleth Eternity who was and is and will be from all Eternity to Eternity and when I considered all these things and that (that) being seeketh such to worship him as worship him in spirit and in truth therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in (the) attitude of calling upon the Lord (in the 16th year of my age) a piller of fire 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 (Lord) opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph (my son) thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy (way) 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 (behold) the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not (my) commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to th[e]ir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which (hath) 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 (clothed) 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 could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart &#8230;

As you can see young Joseph's accounts definitely do not agree with what is today's official version of the "First Vision". Even a cursory study of LDS history shows that Joseph Smith's stories on this and other matters flip faster than even Mitt Romney's political positions.

If you cannot even trust the founder or a religion to keep his story straight how can you trust his successors or even the religion itself?

 

[Conor B]

"As to trust of leadership or the religion, there is plenty of evidence of trust for those who actually have faith to learn it"


So, does the LDS church itself actually have any sound basis upon which to stand?

I am convinced that it does not. Here are just a very few of the reasons I believe that it does not:

There is no compelling reason to accept the First Vision as an actual historical event:

1.) There are no witnesses.

2.) Joseph did not keep his story straight.

3.) Joseph is first known to have brought it up a decade after it allegedly happened.

4.) It is patterned after the many widely known visionary experiences in New England during the early 1800's all of which were both recorded and widely known prior to Joseph's 1832 diary entry which is the first known accounting of his "First Vision".

Examples:

Norris Stearns (1815), Elias Smith (1816),Solomon Chamberlain (1816),Charles G. Finney (1821) ,Asa Wild (1823)

It appears after reading all of these competing "visions" that the official 1842 version of Joseph Smith's &#8220;First Vision&#8221; borrowed liberally from all of them but particularly from Charles Finney. The evidence when examined strongly suggests he plagiarized themes from other visionary tales in order to fabricate his own visionary tale.

No account of the event was published before 1842 (Times and Seasons) and sources suggest it wasn&#8217;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.

Conclusion:

The First Vision is not credible, it was not taught in the early Church neither was it then seen as the foundational event it is now.

Nor are the books of Moses or Abraham in any way credible as the papyri they were purportedly translated from are Egyptian funerary documents that definitely do not say what Joseph Smith said they did. On the contrary, the Papyri which are currently in the possession of the Smithsonian are in no way similar to what Joseph Smith claimed.

For further study read: "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri" written by Brigham Young University graduate Charles M. Larson

Finally the Book of Mormon itself has no factual basis at all, archaeologically, anthropologically, linguistically, etc.

On the contrary there is very strong evidence suggesting that much of the BOM was plagiarized directly from the 1611 version of the KJV including misspellings and errors in translation.

Even Mormon scholar, Dr. Stan Larson who was considered one of the foremost authorities in the church in textual analysis and was featured in the Ensign Magazine, was sorely disappointed after attempting to prove the antiquity of the Book of Mormon&#8217;s Sermon on the Mount.

After careful analysis, he concluded that &#8220;its dependence on the KJV is apparent.&#8221; He sadly reported that the Book of Mormon &#8220;follows the KJV into error, echoing mistranslations &#8230; A variety of examples has shown that the Book of Mormon text follows errors of the KJV, but no clear evidence shows the Book of Mormon restoring the long lost original.

Additionally the Book of Mormon borrows a number of Biblical story lines and changes the names turning them into "new" BOM stories.

Compare for example the similarities between The Book of Mormon's
Alma and the New Testament's Paul.

1.) Both Alma and Paul were very wicked men before their conversions. (Mosiah 27:8 / I Tim. 1:12-13)

2.) Both Alma and Paul traveled about trying to destroy the church of God. (Alma 36:6 / I Cor. 15:9)

3.) Both Alma and Paul were rigorous in their persecution of the church. (Alma 36:14/ Acts 22:4)

4.) Both Alma and Paul were out on one of their missions of persecution on the day of their conversion. (Mosiah 27:10-11 / Acts 26:11-13)

5.) In both cases the people present fell to the earth. (Mosiah 27:12 / Acts 26:14)

6.) The companions of both Alma and Paul were unable to understand the voice that spoke. (Mosiah 27:12 / Acts 22:9)

7.) In the vision which followed, both Alma and Paul were asked why they fought against the work of the Lord. (Mosiah 27:13 / Acts 9:4; 22:7)

8.) Both Alma and Paul became helpless after the vision and had to be helped by their friends. (Mosiah 27:19 / Acts 9:8)

9.) Both went without food for a period of time. (Mosiah 27:23 / Acts 9:9)

10.) Both Alma and Paul were converted to the Lord. (Mosiah 27:23-24 / Acts 9:18)

11.) After their conversions both Alma and Paul traveled about preaching the word of God. (Mosiah 27:32 / Acts 9:20)

12.) Both Alma and Paul labored with their own hands for their support. (Alma 30:32 / I Cor. 4:12)

13.) Both Alma and Paul performed a similar miracle. (Alma 15:11 / Acts 14:10)

14.) Both Alma and Paul were put in prison. (Alma 14:22 / Acts 16:23)

15.) In both cases they prayed to the Lord. (Alma 14:26 / Acts 16:25)

16.) In both cases there was a great earthquake. (Alma 14:27 / Acts 16:26)

17.) In both cases the prisoners&#8217; bands were loosed. (Alma 14:28 / Acts 16:26)

Another peculiar Book of Mormon storyline parallel is that of Ammon and the Lamanite king, Lamoni. Compare this with the New Testament story of the raising of Lazarus (Alma 19 and John 11):

1.) In both stories a man seems to die.

2.) In both cases the servant of the Lord comes to the scene.

3.) A period of time elapses in both stories.

4.) In both cases there is great sorrow.

5.) Martha and the queen both use the word "stinketh."
It is significant to note here that this is the only time this word is used in the Book of Mormon and it is only used one other time in the Bible.

6.) Both Ammon and Jesus use the word "sleepeth" with regard to the man.

7.) Ammon and Martha both use the words "he shall rise again."

8.) The conversation between Ammon and the queen contains other phrases that are similar to those used by Jesus and Martha.

9.) In both cases the man arose.

In summary:

I cannot put any faith whatsoever in Joseph Smith's &#8220;First Vision&#8221; nor in any of the church's other foundational &#8220;Scripture&#8221; which leaves me very skeptical of all the rest of their teachings as well.

This being the case I can only conclude the Latter Day Saints have no true basis whatsoever. Therefore, other than some basic core Biblical doctrines they hold which don't drift too far from orthodoxy it is obviously an entirely man made religion not worthy of investigating for any reason other than as an aberrant curiosity.

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm curious... on what evidential, historical basis do you make your claim that "early on" in the LDS church "there was no 'First Vision'"?

Sorry for not responding sooner, I just saw this thread.

The reason I said this is because the earliest mention of a first vision is in JS's private journal in 1832, which didn't see the light of day till about 1960s. In the next 10 years, there were a couple second-hand tellings of the story, but nothing was published to the church until March, 1842, and then a month later in April, 1842, the official version was printed, also in the Times & Seasons.

It's just that, for something as important as a vision in which God told JS to start down a path that eventually would lead to the restoration of the true church, it wasn't part of the church's story till just shortly before JS was killed.

Kind of makes one go hmmmmm............

 

[TasteForTruth]

Sorry for not responding sooner, I just saw this thread.

The reason I said this is because the earliest mention of a first vision is in JS's private journal in 1832, which didn't see the light of day till about 1960s. In the next 10 years, there were a couple second-hand tellings of the story, but nothing was published to the church until March, 1842, and then a month later in April, 1842, the official version was printed, also in the Times & Seasons.

It's just that, for something as important as a vision in which God told JS to start down a path that eventually would lead to the restoration of the true church, it wasn't part of the church's story till just shortly before JS was killed.

Kind of makes one go hmmmmm............

From your claim from the other thread (which was quoted in the OP) and this most recent post, I'm tracking a few potential points. But let's start with just one, to keep things under control.

Is one of your positions that, because it took so long for the First Vision account to be written and incorporated officially into Church publications that the account is a complete fabrication?

 

[A New Dawn]

From your claim from the other thread (which was quoted in the OP) and this most recent post, I'm tracking a few potential points. But let's start with just one, to keep things under control.

Is one of your positions that, because it took so long for the First Vision account to be written and incorporated officially into Church publications that the account is a complete fabrication?

It is my position that, because it took so long for the first vision account to even be known, even to JS's closest friends and family (there being no record, at all, that there was a mention of a first vision prior to the mid 1830s, 15+ years after it happened), and the fact that history doesn't align with what was said to have happened in the surrounding time frame, that the account is a complete fabrication.

 

[Rescued One]

"There is no evidence of prejudice resulting from this first vision. If his report that 'all the sects...united to persecute me' were accurate, one would expect to find some hint of this in the local newspapers, narratives by ardent critics, and in the affidavits D. P. Hurlbut gathered in 1833. The record is nevertheless silent on this issue. No one, friend or foe, in New York or Pennsylvania remember either that there was 'great persecution' or even that Joseph claimed to have had a vision. Not even his family remembers it."
83.^ Turner (1852, p. 214)
Palmer, Grant H. (2002), An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, Signature Books, ISBN 156085157 .
First Vision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grant Palmer was employed by the LDS Church as a Church Education System (CES) teacher for 34 years. He retired in 2001.
Grant Palmer, Mormon Author HomePage

Some LDS disagree with this. I'd love to see newspapers from that time.

 

[Rescued One]

No 1820 Revival

Joseph Smith's neighborhood experienced no revival in 1820 such as he described, in which great multitudes joined the Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches. According to early sources, including church conference reports, newspapers, church periodicals, presbytery records and published interviews, nothing occurred in 1820-21 that fits Joseph's description. There were no significant gains in church membership in the Palmyra-Manchester, New York area,3 during 1820-21 such as accompany great revivals. For example, in 1820, the Baptist Church in Palmyra only received 8 people through profession of faith and baptism, the Presbyterian church added 14 members, while the Methodist circuit lost 6 members, dropping from 677 in 1819 to 671 in 1820 and down to 622 in 1821 (see Geneva area Presbyterian Church Records, Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia, PA; Records for the First Baptist Church in Palmyra, American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, NY; Minutes of the [Methodist] annual Conference, Ontario Circuit, 1818-1821, pp. 312, 330, 346, 366).

In his 1838 account, Joseph Smith stated that his mother, sister and two brothers were led to join the local Presbyterian Church as a result of that 1820 revival. However, Joseph's mother, Lucy, tells us that the revival which led her to join the church took place after the death of her son, Alvin. Alvin died on November 19, 1823, and following that painful loss Lucy Smith reports that,

about this time there was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest, flocked to the meeting house to see if there was a word of comfort for us that might relieve our over-charged feelings (First draft of Lucy Smith's History, p. 55, LDS Church Archives).

Lucy adds that although her husband would only attend the first meetings, he had no objection to her or the children going or becoming church members . There is plenty of additional evidence that the revival Lucy Smith refers to did occur beginning in the spring of 1824. It was reported in at least a dozen newspapers and religious periodicals (see for example, a letter of George Lane, dated January 25, 1825, in Methodist Magazine 8, [April 1825]:159 and a note in a Palmyra newspaper, the Wayne Sentinel 1 [September 15, 1824]:3).4 Church records from that time period show outstanding increases in membership due to the reception of new converts. The Baptist Church received 94, the Presbyterian 99, while the Methodist work grew by 208. No such revival bringing in great multitudes occurred in 1820 in the Palmyra-Manchester area as Joseph claimed. It is clear from this evidence that the revival Joseph Smith described did not occur in 1820, but in 1824. When Joseph Smith wrote the 1838 version of his history, he arbitrarily moved that revival back four years to 1820 and made it part of a First Vision story that neither his mother nor other close associates had heard of in those early days. (For further details see, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1969, pp. 59-100.)

Does a discrepancy of four years cause a major problem for Joseph's story? It certainly does. Joseph described a 10-year sequence of events that begins with the First Vision and ends with the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830. If this sequence did not start until 1824, there are only six years in which to fit the ten year sequence Joseph claims occurred before the Book of Mormon was printed.
New Light on Joseph Smith's First Vision

 

[TasteForTruth]

"There is no evidence of prejudice resulting from this first vision. If his report that 'all the sects...united to persecute me' were accurate, one would expect to find some hint of this in the local newspapers, narratives by ardent critics, and in the affidavits D. P. Hurlbut gathered in 1833. The record is nevertheless silent on this issue. No one, friend or foe, in New York or Pennsylvania remember either that there was 'great persecution' or even that Joseph claimed to have had a vision. Not even his family remembers it."
83.^ Turner (1852, p. 214)
Palmer, Grant H. (2002), An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, Signature Books, ISBN 156085157 .
First Vision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do Christian churches usually keep records their acts of persecution?

 

[TasteForTruth]

No 1820 Revival

Joseph Smith's neighborhood experienced no revival in 1820 such as he described, in which great multitudes joined the Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches. According to early sources, including church conference reports, newspapers, church periodicals, presbytery records and published interviews, nothing occurred in 1820-21 that fits Joseph's description. There were no significant gains in church membership in the Palmyra-Manchester, New York area,3 during 1820-21 such as accompany great revivals. For example, in 1820, the Baptist Church in Palmyra only received 8 people through profession of faith and baptism, the Presbyterian church added 14 members, while the Methodist circuit lost 6 members, dropping from 677 in 1819 to 671 in 1820 and down to 622 in 1821 (see Geneva area Presbyterian Church Records, Presbyterian Historical Society, Philadelphia, PA; Records for the First Baptist Church in Palmyra, American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, NY; Minutes of the [Methodist] annual Conference, Ontario Circuit, 1818-1821, pp. 312, 330, 346, 366).

In his 1838 account, Joseph Smith stated that his mother, sister and two brothers were led to join the local Presbyterian Church as a result of that 1820 revival. However, Joseph's mother, Lucy, tells us that the revival which led her to join the church took place after the death of her son, Alvin. Alvin died on November 19, 1823, and following that painful loss Lucy Smith reports that,

about this time there was a great revival in religion and the whole neighborhood was very much aroused to the subject and we among the rest, flocked to the meeting house to see if there was a word of comfort for us that might relieve our over-charged feelings (First draft of Lucy Smith's History, p. 55, LDS Church Archives).

Lucy adds that although her husband would only attend the first meetings, he had no objection to her or the children going or becoming church members . There is plenty of additional evidence that the revival Lucy Smith refers to did occur beginning in the spring of 1824. It was reported in at least a dozen newspapers and religious periodicals (see for example, a letter of George Lane, dated January 25, 1825, in Methodist Magazine 8, [April 1825]:159 and a note in a Palmyra newspaper, the Wayne Sentinel 1 [September 15, 1824]:3).4 Church records from that time period show outstanding increases in membership due to the reception of new converts. The Baptist Church received 94, the Presbyterian 99, while the Methodist work grew by 208. No such revival bringing in great multitudes occurred in 1820 in the Palmyra-Manchester area as Joseph claimed. It is clear from this evidence that the revival Joseph Smith described did not occur in 1820, but in 1824. When Joseph Smith wrote the 1838 version of his history, he arbitrarily moved that revival back four years to 1820 and made it part of a First Vision story that neither his mother nor other close associates had heard of in those early days. (For further details see, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1969, pp. 59-100.)

Does a discrepancy of four years cause a major problem for Joseph's story? It certainly does. Joseph described a 10-year sequence of events that begins with the First Vision and ends with the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830. If this sequence did not start until 1824, there are only six years in which to fit the ten year sequence Joseph claims occurred before the Book of Mormon was printed.
New Light on Joseph Smith's First Vision

So there are no records of religious revival described by Joseph Smith in the area in which Joseph lived during the period 1814-1824? Am I correct in that this is your claim?

 

[Rescued One]

So there are no records of religious revival described by Joseph Smith in the area in which Joseph lived during the period 1814-1824? Am I correct in that this is your claim?

Did you even look at the reference?

 

[A New Dawn]

Do Christian churches usually keep records their acts of persecution?

I believe that it is not uncommon for churches to have historians to keep a record of what happens in the church, both religiously and socially. In which case, yes, if there was persecution, it would be documented somewhere.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Did you even look at the reference?

Yes, I did.