Letter 6 — Latter-day Revelation and the First Vision
Letters To A Mormon Elder
by James R. White
Tuesday, June 26
Dear Elder Hahn,
I almost have to apologize for the weather. Since I moved here in 1974, it has never been this hot — in fact, it has simply never been this hot ever before — at least not as long as anyone has kept records! But, to me, 122° doesn’t feel much worse than 118° — after a while, I guess it just doesn’t matter.
Your letter arrived with this morning’s mail. Somehow, as I held the unopened letter in my hand, I knew what you were going to say. Any kind of rebuttal of what I had written to you would require more than two sheets of paper, but I could tell your letter contained no more than that. I believe that your response can be summarized under two topics: (1) the concept of latter-day revelation, and (2) the priesthood authority. Your letter provides the basis for my summary:
Mr. White, while I appreciate all the biblical information you provided to me, and while I admit that I am not a Bible scholar, l must point out to you that since you do not accept all that God has revealed — that is, since you do not accept latter-day revelation — you are not in a position to be able to make the sweeping and final judgments that you do. When all that God has said is taken into consideration, your position is found to be incorrect.
And then later,
Your interpretation of these passages of the Bible lacks the proper authorization, the proper authority. God has restored the priesthood authority upon the earth, and since God has always operated through this means, and you do not have this authority, you lack the proper means of interpretation, and, therefore, the proper understanding of the Bible. Your interpretation is at odds with the teachings of those who hold God’s priesthood authority.
I am going to ask you to allow me to address the priesthood authority issue in two stages — the first, relevant to the history of the teaching, when I discuss Joseph Smith, and the second, regarding the theology of the “priesthood” at a later point, Lord willing. For now, I wish to address the concept of latter-day revelation and the Mormon understanding of it, especially as that relates to our current discussion.
I would like to point out a few things that I believe are relevant to your claims concerning latter-day revelation and the discussion in my letters concerning the doctrine of God. First, even if such a thing as latter-day revelation existed, it would not in any way supersede, or contradict, what the Bible says in the passages we have examined. God is a self-consistent being, is He not, Elder Hahn? Does God contradict himself? Certainly not. While God may change the ways in which He works in the world, at one time through the theocracy of the nation of Israel, now through the instrumentality of the Spirit in the Church, He does not change His truth! God does not change, and the truth about God does not change. We can learn more about God over time; for example, with the coming of Jesus, much, much more was revealed about God than had ever been revealed before. But what Jesus revealed about God does not contradict what God had revealed before!
Now in the case of the teachings of the LDS Church, we do not encounter a greater revelation of the being of God as we find in the coming of Christ, but a direct and obvious contradiction of what God has already revealed concerning himself. We find D & C; 130:22 (“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s”) in direct contradiction to the Bible’s teachings concerning God (Hosea 11:9, 2 Chronicles 6:18, Jeremiah 23:24, John 4:24, etc.). Smith’s teachings concerning a plurality of gods are in direct contradiction with Isaiah 43:10,44:6-8, and Deuteronomy 6:4. It seems that you take “latterday revelation” to be superior to all else, and, if there is a contradiction, you simply dismiss the teachings of the Bible in favor of LDS doctrine.
Elder Hahn, I ask you to consider for a moment the wisdom of this course of action. Obviously, the Bible and its teaching of one eternal and infinite God, and the Mormon Scriptures (primarily the Doctrine and Covenants, as well as the teachings of the LDS prophets and apostles) and their teaching of a plurality of finite gods, are in contradiction with one another. Therefore we cannot say that the Holy Spirit of God inspired the writing of both of these sources of religious teaching, for to do so is to say that the Holy Spirit can contradict himself. I believe, as Jesus did, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God — one will search in vain in the Lord’s words for even a hint of doubt as to the complete accuracy and consistency of the Old Testament revelation of God. Since this is the case, then anything that is contradictory to the plain precepts of the Bible cannot, by definition, come from the Holy Spirit of God. By taking the LDS position as an a priori assumption, and then forcing the Bible into the mold created by Mormon teaching, you are doing great injustice to the teachings of the Bible. I note you did not do what many LDS have done by alleging that the Bible must be in error in those passages, as we have already discussed that issue and demonstrated the inherent accuracy of the biblical text. So, instead of this course of action, you allege that my interpretation is “incomplete” because I lack something you have — in this case, further revelation from God. And I reply, if you have further revelation from God, it will be in perfect harmony with what God has already revealed! As is plain to see, that which you call revelation from God is not in harmony with the Christian Scriptures, the Bible.
The Mormon claim of latter-day revelation can be approached from many different angles. We could enter into the seemingly never-ending debate about what books are and are not to be included in the Bible, that is, the canon of Scripture — is it “open” with more Scripture being revealed, or is it “closed” with what has already been revealed being sufficient for God’s people. Obviously, I would take the latter position, you the former. We could, with profit, discuss the sufficiency of the revelation of the Bible, in light of Peter’s teaching that God has “given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:3). I could point you to the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). But I have learned that, for purposes of discussion, this is not the best avenue at first. As long as you think the Mormon “revelations” are consistent, harmonious, and true, the truth of the sufficiency of the biblical revelation will be lost to you.
To examine the LDS claims to latter-day revelation, we compare those revelations with what we find in the Bible, assuming that, as I have said, if the Holy Spirit, who is called “the Spirit of truth,” is a consistent being, what He says in one portion of Scripture will be in harmony with what He says in another portion of Scripture. I have done this, Elder Hahn, and find the Mormon revelations to be lacking the stamp of divine inspiration. They are inconsistent, as we have seen already, with the truths of the Bible, and they are, in fact, inconsistent with themselves as well.1Contradictions Between the Book of Mormon and the Bible.
There are many serious objections to the claim of Joseph Smith and the LDS church that the Book of Mormon is divinely inspired latter-day scripture supplemental to the Bible. However, none are more significant than the numerous contradictions between Book of Mormon teaching and the Bible.
Latter-day revelation is based, primarily, upon the teachings and prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder and first president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most would agree with my assessment. In fact, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote,
CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH. 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. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:188)
If Joseph Smith was not what he claimed to be, then the LDS faith is built upon smoke and mirrors — it has no basis, no foundation. The whole claim of latter-day revelation will stand or fall with Joseph Smith.2From the Doctrines of Salvation, 1:188 it says; “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.”
– 10th Prophet LDS Church, Joseph Fielding Smith
I have no great desire to spend time discussing Joseph Smith, Elder Hahn. I realize that you may have the idea that those who oppose your teaching derive great enjoyment and pleasure out of “tearing down” the Mormon faith, primarily in “attacking” Joseph Smith. Some may, but I most certainly do not. I would much rather spend my time talking positively about the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the magnificent God who has revealed himself in the Word, or about the tremendous grace of God that brings salvation to men. But sometimes we have to discuss that which is not pleasant for good to come about. That is the situation we find ourselves in now.
You believe that Joseph Smith, Jr., was a prophet of God. That belief, and the beliefs that flow from it (your “testimony” of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, your acceptance of the teachings of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, and your allegiance to the continuing teaching authority of the LDS Church), stands in the way of your acceptance of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Anything that stands between a person and the gospel must be dealt with — it must be exposed by the light of truth. If this means “tearing down” falsehoods, then so be it. If I care for you, Elder Hahn, I will do whatever is necessary to present the gospel to you. Sometimes that calls for drastic measures, measures that we otherwise would not find expedient. Paul struck a man blind when he stood in the way of the proclamation of the gospel of Christ (Acts 13:6 — 13). If your belief in Joseph Smith stands in your way of finding a real relationship with Jesus Christ, I will do whatever is necessary to remove that stumbling block, simply because I care about you. I do not enjoy the task — but tough love often demands that we do that which we do not like.
Mormons often cry “persecution!” when someone such as I begins to point out the false teachings, the deceptions, of Mormon leaders such as Joseph Smith. But, Elder Hahn, such is hardly the case. Persecution is an attack without cause; what I do in pointing out the danger of belief in Joseph Smith is an attack with cause. It is done, I assure you, out of a deep love for the LDS people, and a real concern for their eternal welfare. I have often been challenged by LDS people, “If you really loved us, you would leave us alone! Christ would never do such a thing!” When I have replied that I do what I am doing simply because I really do care, and I have love in my heart for the Mormon people, I normally encounter rude retorts and statements of, “You do not! You are lying!” I ask, “If you saw that I was in a situation where I was deceived, and was in eternal danger, would you not care enough for me to warn me, even if you knew I would probably, due to my blindness, be offended at you?” I’ve received a wide variety of answers to that question!
So I take up the pen against Joseph Smith, Elder Hahn, not because I want to, or like to, but because I must! I hope my comments on these issues will be read with these words in mind.
There is one more statement I must make before I delve into the subject of Joseph Smith and the claims made by him, and about him. One could write for a very, very long time on these subjects. Others have done so, and I do not feel it would be a proper stewardship of your time, or mine, to repeat their noble efforts. So I will keep my comments as brief as possible while doing my best not to sacrifice clarity in the process. And, to allow you to dig more deeply into these historical topics, I have purchased two books at the Christian bookstore I mentioned to you when we first met — the one that is less than a mile from your apartment. The book clerk is holding them in your name right now — all you have to do is go in and ask for them, and they are yours. Actually, you will only need one of them — let me explain. Both books are by Jerald and Sandra Tanner. You may have heard of them. In my opinion, their books are the best available on the history and practices of Mormonism. Their research is top-notch, and their ministry is conducted with a great deal of integrity. One of the two books is their largest work entitled Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? This is a big book, Elder Hahn, and may discourage you from reading it simply by the huge mass it carries. So, the other book is a condensation of the first in paperback entitled The Changing World of Mormonism. If you would like them both, that’s fine with me. They are both yours, if you will honestly read them. I will bring up a number of topics in the rest of this letter, and probably in the following letters, that you could do further research into with the aid of these fine resources. I hope you will stop by and pick them up.
To be perfectly honest with you, having heard many Mormon testimonies, I would have to say I’ve heard the name of Joseph Smith at least as often, if not more often, than the name of Jesus Christ. At the very least, it can be said that Mormons view Joseph Smith as about the most important person short of Jesus who has ever walked the earth — and I include in that comparison Moses, Isaiah, Peter, and Paul. I note, for example, the words of Brigham Young as he spoke on August 31, 1871:
Well, now, examine the character of the Savior, and examine the characters of those who have written the Old and New Testaments; and then compare them with the character of Joseph Smith, the founder of this work — the man whom God called and to whom he gave the keys of the Priesthood, and through whom he has established his Church and kingdom for the last time, and you will find that his character stands as fair as that of any man’s mentioned in the Bible. We can find no person who presents a better character to the world when the facts are known than Joseph Smith, jun., the prophet, and his brother, Hyrum Smith, who was murdered with him. (Journal of Discourses, 14:203)
A number of years earlier President Young spoke about the importance of Joseph Smith in God’s scheme of things:
Joseph Smith holds the keys of this last dispensation, and is now engaged behind the vail in the great work of the last days. I can tell our beloved brother Christians who have slain the Prophets and butchered and otherwise caused the death of thousands of Latter-day Saints, the priests who have thanked God in their prayers and thanksgivings from the pulpit that we have been plundered, driven, and slain, and the deacons under the pulpit, and their brethren and sisters in their closets, who have thanked God, thinking that the Latter-day Saints were wasted away, something that no doubt will mortify them — something that, to say the least, is a matter of deep regret to them — namely, that no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are — I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation — the keys to rule in the spirit-world; and he rules there triumphantly, for he gained full power and a glorious victory over the power of Satan while he was yet in the flesh, and was a martyr to his religion and to the name of Christ, which gives him a most perfect victory in the spirit-world. He reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim “Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!” But it is true.
I will now tell you something that ought to comfort every man and woman on the face of the earth. Joseph Smith, junior, will again be on this earth dictating plans and calling forth his brethren to be baptized for the very characters who wish this was not so, in order to bring them into a kingdom to enjoy, perhaps, the presence of angels or the spirits of good men, if they cannot endure the presence of the Father and the Son; and he will never cease his operations, under the directions of the Son of God, until the last ones of the children of men are saved that can be, from Adam till now.
Should not this thought comfort all people? They will, by-and-by, be a thousand times more thankful for such a man as Joseph Smith, junior, than it is possible for them to be for any earthly good whatever. It is his mission to see that all the children of men in this last dispensation are saved, that can be, through the redemption. You will be thankful, every one of you, that Joseph Smith, junior, was ordained to this great calling before the worlds were. (Journal of Discourses, 7:289)
And, with regard to the authority of his own teaching, the same Brigham Young said,
I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them as what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. . . . I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. (Journal of Discourses, 13:95)
I realize, Elder, that the sermons contained in the Journal of Discourses are not considered Scripture by modern LDS — my point is simply to demonstrate the high view of Joseph Smith that prevailed in the early days, and it is hardly any less true of the Latter-day Saints today.
Joseph Smith is hardly to be surpassed in his own view of himself. Note these words, uttered barely a month before he was murdered (not martyred, for martyrs do not die with a pistol in their hands fighting back — see the Documentary History of the Church, 6:618):
God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil — all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. (Documentary History of the Church, 6:408 — 9)
It is not my intention to judge Joseph Smith on the basis of these comments, Elder. The Bible provides “tests” for those who would claim to be a “prophet” and I will simply apply the criteria given by God himself to the teachings and prophecies of Joseph Smith. I hope you will do the same thing.
The “tests” to which I refer are to be found in the book of Deuteronomy, chapters 13 and 18. The second is well known to most, and you are undoubtedly familiar with it:
And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)
If a person presumes to speak in the name of Jehovah, he must be completely accurate in what he says. As has been pointed out many times, just one false prophecy disqualifies one from being a prophet of God. We shall examine a few “prophecies” of Joseph Smith in this regard.
Many, however, are not as quick to apply the first test of a prophet given by Moses, that of Deuteronomy 13:1-5:
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
Note that in this instance, the “prophet” does not give a false prophecy, in fact, he prophecies correctly and is able to show a wondrous sign. But, that alone does not make him a true prophet of God. The key here is the call of this “prophet” to go after another god, a god that the people of Israel had not “known.” In other words, you can prophecy correctly, but if your teaching about God is incorrect, if your theology is wrong, you are still a false prophet. The prophets of God are accurate in both their theology of God and their prophetic utterances.
I believe that I have already laid a sufficient foundation for the “testing” of Joseph Smith as a prophet with regard to Deuteronomy 13:1-5. As we have seen, if one follows after the gods taught by Joseph Smith, one is following after a different god than the God preached by Moses and all the other prophets of the Bible. You and I have already discussed how Mormons have to face the question of which God they will worship, and how following the advice of such LDS leaders as Bruce R. McConkie results in a direct violation of the very first commandment of God! The god of Joseph Smith is not the God of the Bible, Elder Hahn. Therefore, Smith fails the first test of a true prophet of God, for to follow him is to go after a god whom Israel, and the modern followers of Christ, “have not known.”
Before looking at specific prophecies of Joseph Smith, and in connection with what I just said, I’d like to direct your attention toward the First Vision of Joseph Smith.
The First Vision
That glorious theophany which took place in the spring of 1820 and which marked the opening of the dispensation of the fulness of times is called the First Vision. It is rated as first both from the standpoint of time and of preeminent importance. In it, Joseph Smith saw and conversed with the Father and the Son, both of which exalted personages were personally present before him and he lay enwrapped in the Spirit and overshadowed by the Holy Ghost.
This transcendent vision was the beginning of latter-day revelation; it marked the opening of the heavens after the long night of apostate darkness; with it was ushered in the great era of restoration, “the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21). Through it the creeds of Christendom were shattered to smithereens, and because of it the truth about those Beings whom it is life eternal to know began again to be taught among men. (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 284 — 85)
I am aware, of course, that you would know a good deal about the First Vision, Elder Hahn. I realize that you have probably related the story to many people during the course of your fifteen months on your mission. However, I am going to go back over all the details so that I can point out the many difficulties with the whole story. I hope a little basic “review” will not be out of order.
The Pearl of Great Price, part of your “inspired Scriptures,” contains a section entitled “Joseph Smith History.” Here Smith relates the story of his early history, and included in this work is the story of the First Vision. This particular story was written by Smith in 1838, a full eighteen years after the supposed events he narrates concerning the First Vision. But, so that you can understand why I do not believe that this “vision” ever took place, both historically and theologically, let’s go over Smith’s story from the beginning to get a proper context.
Smith begins by noting that he was born on December 23, 1805, in Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont. He indicates that his father moved the family from Vermont to New York, and “in about four years after my father’s arrival in Palmyra, he moved with his family into Manchester in the same county of Ontario.” Interestingly enough, when he lists the family members that moved to Manchester, he includes his sister Lucy, who was born July 18, 1821, in Palmyra. He then immediately enters into the discussion of the revivals in the Manchester/Palmyra area, and his own resultant questions about religious truth. But note, Elder Hahn, that he writes that these revivals broke out “some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester.” If Lucy was born in 1821, and this revival took place about two years later, then so far we would have Joseph Smith asserting that this revival in religion took place no earlier than 1823, possibly as late as 1824. As we shall see, Smith’s story does not remain consistent on this point.
As Smith’s description of these revivals is very, very important, I quote it here at length:
Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.
For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued — priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.
I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.
Let’s list the specifics as given by Smith: (1) this “revival” began some time in the second year after the Smiths’ move to Manchester; (2) it took place “in the place where we lived” and spread to “the whole district of country”; (3) it began with the Methodists, and spread to the Presbyterians and the Baptists; (4) “great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties”; (5) there was strife and conflict between the various denominations regarding the converts and to what group they would join themselves; (6) Smith was at this time in his “fifteenth year” which could be taken either to mean he was 14 or 15 years of age (resulting in the years 1820-1821, depending); (7) as a result of this religious excitement, members of Smith’s family joined the Presbyterian faith. We will need to keep all these facts in mind a little later on. Don’t you feel like you are in school again?
As a result of this excitement, young Joseph’s mind was “called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness.” He indicates that he “at tended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit” but he made no commitment to any particular group, though he indicates that he was “somewhat partial to the Methodist sect” and felt some desire to join with them. But, he felt he could not decide who was right and who was wrong. The various sects spent a lot of energy proving the others wrong, and this resulted only in greater confusion for him. He continues,
While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Never did any passage of Scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act l did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than l then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
It is truly a shame that Smith never learned that his questions could have been resolved by “an appeal to the Bible.” If he had known the truth about God from Scripture, he would never have taught what he did. Note, Elder Hahn, that Smith went down the same path presented by nearly every religion of man — he did not believe that the Bible was sufficient to answer man’s questions.
Smith decided to do what James 1:5 teaches and ask God in prayer who was right and who was wrong. As a result,
I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.
After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction — not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous powers as I had never before felt in any being — just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
Please note the specifics of Smith’s account. First, he tells us that he went into the “sacred grove” (as modern LDS call it) on a beautiful spring day in 1820. Did he just make a little mistake in remembering when his sister Lucy was born in his previous listing? I shall wait to answer that till later. He went into the woods to pray to God and to ask Him who was right and who was wrong. As soon as he attempted to do so, however, he was seized upon by some kind of force, and was surrounded by thick darkness. Just at the point of despair he saw a pillar of light that descended toward him.
It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other — This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
Smith claims to have seen two personages. One calls him by name and, pointing to the other, says, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” Of course, Mormons believe that these personages were God the Father, in a physical form, and Jesus Christ, also in a physical form. The Father spoke to Joseph, and pointed him to the Son. Smith’s whole concept of a “plurality of gods” is seen in this vision. God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct “personages,” just as D & C; 130:22 teaches. This is why McConkie, in the citation above, said that this vision “smashed to smithereens” the “creeds of Christendom,” for all those creeds are united in their confession that there is only one God, and that the Father and the Son share the one being that is God. But, this is not all. We must remember that when Smith wrote this account (1838) he was engaged in his own conflict against “religionists” on all fronts. So what does Smith allege these two Personages said to him?
My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that l might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did l 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.
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
Smith asked the two Personages which church he should join. He was told he should join none of them: “They are all wrong — Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists — the whole lot are in error.” Their creeds, which present the basic elements of the Christian faith, were said to be “an abomination” in the sight of God. And what of church members, the “professors” of these faiths? “They are all corrupt.” It is not that this was new for Joseph — he included this kind of rhetoric in the Book of Mormon as well when he said that one either is a part of the church of the Lamb or the church of the devil (l Nephi 14:10). And I have indeed met many LDS who were consistent with Joseph’s position — they condemned all Christian churches as being in error, their creeds an abomination, their “professors” corrupt. Bruce R. McConkie was certainly straightforward when he said that “there is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670). But, many LDS today are attempting to get away from the “harsh tone” of Joseph Smith. Such hardly seems a possibility without jettisoning all of Smith’s story.3Does Mormonism Attack Other Religions?
Mormons try to claim that they do not go around condemning other religions like “anti-Mormons” do. They say they are forgiving, tolerant, good Christian people who don’t have anything against anyone. They claim they are being more Christ-like. Their desire for a good image is understandable. But the question remains. Does the Mormon church condemn other religious systems?
Smith goes on to allege that a few days after this vision he mentioned it to a Methodist minister who immediately told him it was of the devil. Following this he notes,
I soon found . . . that 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; and though l was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice 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.
As you are aware, Elder, according to LDS teaching the angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith beginning on September 21, 1823, and, four years later, Smith received the “golden plates” upon which the Book of Mormon was supposedly written. This “second vision” takes place, then, according to Mormon Scripture in “Joseph Smith History,” three and a half years after Smith’s vision of the Father and the Son.
And so the story is told. I can barely begin to scratch the surface of all the problems that exist with reference to the First Vision, Elder Hahn. I go into them simply because the First Vision is (1) central to LDS theology about God, and (2) said to be a true, historical occurrence that took place at a specific place and time. Therefore, we can study it and determine if indeed this took place or not.
Let’s summarize Smith’s story: On a spring day in 1820 he went into the woods to ask God which church he should join. He did so because of a revival in “the place where we lived” that resulted in “multitudes” joining the various sects, specifically the Methodists, the Baptists, and the Presbyterians. God the Father and Jesus Christ, as two separate and distinct personages, appeared to him, and Christ told him not to join any of the churches, for they were all wrong. Nearly every single LDS person with whom I have spoken has, when asked, answered affirmatively the question, “Do you have a testimony that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate and distinct beings in the spring of 1820?” The Mormon Scriptures contain this story. So, if upon study we discover that this did not take place, what would be the honest action of any LDS person? Only you can answer that, Elder Hahn.
So did Joseph Smith see God the Father and Jesus Christ in the spring of 1820? For those who have access to the relevant historical information, the only possible answer is: No, he did not! Why do I say this? Let’s look at some of the evidence.
Up until the 1960s, it was common for LDS apologists to say things similar to Preston Nibley’s statement from 1944: “Joseph Smith lived a little more than twenty-four years after this first vision. During this time he told but one story . . . , (Joseph Smith the Prophet, p. 30). But, honest historians today do not make such claims, for it is obvious that Joseph did tell many different stories, most of which, Elder, contradict the others on important points. For example, in the mid-1960’s a handwritten account of the First Vision became available to the public at large for the first time. It turned out that it was, in part, in Joseph Smith’s own handwriting, most probably written in the year 1832. And what does it say about the First Vision? Here is how it reads (misspellings and original punctuation left intact):
…and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a pillar of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filld 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 and walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was cricifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life behold the world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned aside 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 this ungodliness and to bring to pass that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apstles behold and lo I come quickly as it 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 fine none that would believe the hevenly vision.
If you would like to read this account for yourself, it is available today in many LDS sources — you might find tracking down the December, 1984 Ensign magazine to be convenient — it is on pages 25-26 in an article by Mormon scholar Dean C. Jessee. Or, you might want to look at Jessee’s 1989 work, The Papers of Joseph Smith, Volume I, pp. 6 — 7. Please note that in the earliest rendition known, and the only one we know of written in Smith’s own handwriting, only one personage is seen, not two. Clearly, the Lord Jesus is portrayed speaking to Smith, but God the Father is conspicuous by His absence! Why would Smith neglect to mention seeing God the Father? I have an answer for that, but I’d like to look at a few more pieces of information before I mention it.
Smith’s “diary” for November 9, 1835, contains yet another account of this vision. This one differs from both the 1832 account as well as the “official” 1838 account in that while it does mention two personages, these personages testify that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” In this account angels are mentioned, but not God the Father or Jesus Christ. What makes this account even more interesting, Elder, is that in the Documentary History of the Church, under the date of November 14, l835 only five days after the above account — we have another mention of this “vision.” When the account was originally printed in serial form in the Deseret News on May 29, 1852, it recounted the story of Joseph Smith’s telling a man by the name of Erastus Holmes of his experiences: “. . . from six years up to the time I received the first visitation of angels, which was when I was about fourteen years old (emphasis mine). However, recent editions of the Documentary History of the Church have changed the wording, so that it now reads, “. . . from six years old up to the time I received my first vision, which was when I was about fourteen years old . . . (DHC 2:312) Given the close proximity in time of the diary account on November 9 and the clear editing of the DHC with reference to November 14, it seems clear that at this time Joseph Smith was not claiming to have seen God the Father! In fact, Elder, I would challenge you to produce any shred of evidence that Smith claimed to have seen God the Father prior to the year 1834, a full fourteen years after the event supposedly took place!
I realize this information might shock you, as you have told many, many people that Smith was immediately “persecuted” for telling people about his “vision.” Yet, there simply is no evidence that this is true. Not only is there a massive lack of positive evidence, but there are many things that point to the conclusion that Smith did not begin to claim to have seen God the Father until the mid — 1830s. Let me point out one of the most obvious proofs of this, taken from your own Doctrine and Covenants, 84:21-22. We read,
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.
This section in the D & C; is dated September 22 and 23, 1832, the same time period as the handwritten account we examined above. Smith is speaking about the priesthood, a teaching that, as I shall show later, had begun to evolve in his mind only after the founding of the LDS Church on April 6, 1830. He asserts that it is impossible for a man who does not have the priesthood to see the face of God, that is, the Father, and live to tell about it. Now, hasn’t this passage ever struck you as being a little strange? According to LDS teaching, Joseph Smith “received the priesthood” in 1829, yet, he supposedly saw God the Father in 1820, nine years earlier! Mormon leaders have come up with some ingenious ways around this obvious contradiction in Smith’s teaching — most of the time it is said that D & C; 84:21-22 is only valid when the Church is in existence upon the earth, though the passage in no way says this. Be that as it may, I would like to suggest to you that the reason Smith could say what he did in D & C; 84:21-22 without even noticing that he was creating a contradiction is simply that at this point in time (1832) he had never claimed to have seen God the Father! Therefore, he could teach that men cannot see the Father without the priesthood and live without causing any problems at all — it was not till years later when he developed the concept of many gods that he had a problem. Smith’s beliefs obviously evolved over time, and this is just another evidence that this is so. You must accept that either (1) D & C; 84:21-22 is wrong (and therefore Smith is not a true prophet), or (2) Smith did not see God the Father in 1820 (and therefore Smith is not a true prophet), or (3) Smith did not claim to have seen God the Father until later, and the result is still the same — making up stories as you go along does not qualify one as a prophet, either.
I’m afraid that there is more, Elder Hahn. In 1834 a man by the name of E. D. Howe wrote and published what might be called the first “anti-Mormon” book. It was called Mormonism Unveiled. Howe gathered sworn affidavits from many of Smith’s neighbors and acquaintances and spoke much of his early life — his involvement in an activity known as “money digging” and other activities that do not reflect well upon Smith. He attacks the Book of Mormon and various other aspects of Mormonism. But he never mentions the First Vision. He never mentions that Smith claims to have seen God the Father. Why not? I believe the answer is simple — Smith had not yet claimed to have seen God the Father. There simply is no reference in any writing — Mormon or otherwise — prior to the mid — 1830s that clearly, unambiguously refers to the First Vision event and the supposed sighting of God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate and distinct individuals. Smith was still a monotheist at this point — he had not developed the ideas that come out so clearly in the King Follet discourse.
Rather than the modern concept of the First Vision, the early Mormon leaders spoke of angels visiting Joseph Smith — not just the angel Moroni, but angels appearing and telling Joseph that all the other churches were wrong. Look at just a few of these quotations from the Journal of Discourses:
But as it was in the days of our Savior, so was it in the advent of this new dispensation. It was not in accordance with the notions, traditions, and preconceived ideas of the American people. The messenger did not come to an eminent divine of any of the so-called orthodoxy, he did not adopt their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek, the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him. (Brigham Young, 2/18/1855,2:171)
Joseph Smith had attended these meetings, and when this result was reached he saw clearly that something was wrong. He had read in the Bible and had found that passage in James which says, “If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not,” and taking this literally, he went humbly before the Lord and inquired of Him, and the Lord answered his prayer, and revealed to Joseph, by the ministration of angels, the true condition of the religious world. When the holy angel appeared, Joseph inquired which of all these denominations was right and which he should join, and was told they were all wrong, they had all gone astray, transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant, and that the Lord was about to restore the priesthood and establish His Church, which would be the only true and living Church on the face of the whole earth. (President George A. Smith, 11/15/1863, 12:334)
How did it commence? It commenced by an angel of God flying through the midst of heaven and visiting a young man named Joseph Smith, in the year 1827. That was the time of a great awakening among the sectarians of the day — a day of revivals and protracted meetings, when the people were called upon to join themselves to the sectarian churches. This young man looked around amid the confusion among the different sects, each proclaiming the plan of salvation differently, and each claiming it was right and that all others were wrong; in the midst of this contention he did not know which to join. While in this state of uncertainty he turned to the Bible, and there saw that passage in the epistle of James which directs him that lacks wisdom to ask of God. He went into his secret chamber and asked the Lord what he must do to be saved. The Lord heard his prayer and sent His angel to him, who informed him that all the sects were wrong, and that the God of heaven was about to establish His work upon the earth. This angel quoted many of the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and told this young man that they were about to be fulfilled among the nations of the earth. (Wilford Woodruff, 9/5/1869, 13:324)
Elder Hahn, do you think that if the First Vision story as you tell it today was being told over and over again back in 1869, that Wilford Woodruff, who eventually became the President of the Church, would not know about it? Clearly, in the citation immediately above, Woodruff connects today’s “First Vision” with today’s “Second Vision” and puts them all together. Really, if the early Mormon leaders believed so strongly that God the Father had appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820, would they be saying things like this? Yes, I know that Smith’s “final edition” of the First Vision was published before he died. Why, then, would Woodruff and Young not know of it and preach it? First, remember that the Pearl of Great Price was not added to the canon of Mormon Scripture until 1880 — and Joseph Smith’s “History” is in the Pearl of Great Price. Secondly, I believe that statements like the ones made by Young and Woodruff further substantiate my contention that Smith’s story “evolved” over time. At first, he speaks of Jesus, then angels, and finally God the Father and Jesus Christ with a second visitation of the angel Moroni (though many early versions of the Pearl of Great Price even here were confused, calling this angel “Nephi”). The confusion of the early leaders after Smith’s death is natural — Smith had not told one story all along but had told many different stories between 1830 and his death in 1844.
So, as you can see, there is a great deal of evidence against the accuracy Of the modern version of the First Vision. But, Elder Hahn, I have not yet commenced to begin! There is more . . . much more.
In 1967 the whole scene of Mormon historical research was radically altered by a Presbyterian minister by the name of Wesley Walters. His research into the early years of Joseph Smith’s life — primarily in the period prior to the founding of the Church, including the writing of the Book of Mormon — was extensive. In 1967 he published an article entitled “New Light on Mormon Origins from the Palmyra (N.Y.) Revival.“ In this article Reverend Walters revealed the results of his study of a question that had not yet been addressed fully — was there really a revival in Manchester/Palmyra in 1820? Up to this point most everyone had just assumed that there had been. But Reverend Walters’ research discovered that this was not so and laid the groundwork for later discoveries, also made by Wesley Walters, that would further demonstrate that Smith’s story was the result of an evolutionary process of change over the years and that it was not founded in historical reality.
The main thesis suggested by Walters in his 1967 article is this: The revivals described by Joseph Smith, as well as other early Mormon writers such as Oliver Cowdery and William Smith (Joseph’s brother), did not take place in 1819/20, as Smith’s account in the Pearl of Great Price asserts, but in fact they took place in 1824/25. Here is just some of the evidence he presented:
1) Both Oliver Cowdery (in his history of the church published 1834/35) and William Smith mention that a Reverend Lane, a Methodist minister, was a prime mover in the revivals. Cowdery dates the revival as taking place in 1823. Reverend Lane, Walters discovered, was not assigned to the Palmyra area until July of 1824.
2) William Smith also mentions a Presbyterian minister who took part in the revivals as well Reverend Stockton. William Smith’s account is most important, as it also relates the fact that Joseph Smith, Sr., did not like Reverend Stockton, and resisted his pleas that he and his family join the Presbyterian Church. It seems that Stockton had preached Alvin Smith’s funeral, and had suggested (at least to Joseph Smith, Sr.’s mind) that Alvin had gone to hell because he did not belong to any church. Why is this important? Because Alvin Smith died November 19, 1823 — again showing that the revivals had to take place after this point in time. Since both Stockton and Lane are mentioned, and Lane was only in Palmyra from July 1824 to January 1825, and Stockton was serving as pastor of the church at Skaneateles, New York, until June of 1822, and then was officially installed at the church in the Palmyra area in February of 1824, any revival in which both ministers were involved would have to have taken place in the fall of 1824 and would have continued on into the spring of 1825.
3) Walters discovered the actual account of the revivals in Palmyra written by Reverend Lane himself. According to this contemporary, eye-witness report, the revival broke out in September of 1824 among the Methodists. It spread quickly to the Presbyterians, and then to the Baptists. By December it reached beyond the bounds of the town and into surrounding areas. It continued into the spring of 1825, and basically ended during the summer of that year. Numerous newspaper reports of the revivals in Palmyra/Manchester are to be found as well. Lane’s description matches Joseph Smith’s recounting of the revivals to a tee.
4) The records of the churches in the area also show that the revival spoken of by Smith took place in 1824/25. The Presbyterians reported 99 additions; the Baptists received 94, and the Methodists had an increase of 208. For towns the size of Palmyra and Manchester, numbers like these are truly “multitudes.”
5) The records of the churches in the area also show that no revival of this kind took place in 1819/20 in Palmyra/Manchester. In fact, the records of the Methodist circuit in that area show that in 1819 they lost a net of 23 members; in 1820, they lost a net of 6 members, and in 1821 they lost even more — 40 members. Hardly a big revival! The Baptist church in Palmyra did gain members — all of 6 in 1820, compared to 94 in 1825. The other local Baptist churches reported losses in 1820, while the Palmyra Presbyterian Church reported no significant increase.
6) The denominational publications of the day carried the reports of an earlier revival in the Palmyra area in 1816/17, as well as the story of the great revival of 1824/25, but is silent about any such revival in 1819/20. Are we really to assume that such a revival as Smith describes was just passed over in silence by the religious publications?
Much more could be added with reference to the lack of revivals in 1820, but allow me quickly to move on to even more modern information. The source of this information is again Reverend Walters, whose activities of digging into all sorts of old historical records have resulted in rich rewards — well, depending on your viewpoint, I guess. Anyway, I won’t go into a whole lot of detail on these particular findings as I’ve probably already given you enough information to examine for the rest of the summer! But, as these new findings correlate perfectly with the previous research on the 1824 revival, I present these facts to you to show how consistent is the testimony to the 1824 revivals (in opposition to the 1820 revivals).
The new information from Wesley Walters put together records photocopied by BYU in 1970, newly discovered land assessment records from Manchester township, and the records of “warning out” from Norwich, Vermont. What do these new historical records tell us? First, as I pointed out when we reviewed Joseph Smith’s 1838 version of things, the LDS story has been that the Smith family moved to Palmyra around 1816. They lived there for about two years, moving to Manchester in 1818. Then, as Smith says, “in the second year after our removal to Manchester” there were revivals, that being in 1820.
Recently the record of the Smiths being “warned out” of Norwich, Vermont, has been discovered. This “warning out” occurred on March 15, 1816. “Warning out” was a common practice of the day. Nearly all newcomers, unless they were people of obvious means, were “warned out” within a year of their arrival. Why? Because the town had the responsibility of caring for the poor, and, if too many such individuals settled in an area, it would become a burden on the whole populace. So, if a family was “warned out” they would not be able to lay claim upon the town for long-term support. This “warning out” had to take place within a year of the family’s arrival, or the town would become liable for providing support. Most towns performed this ritual soon after a poorer family would arrive, and therefore the Smiths most probably moved to Norwich in 1816 and lived there for two years, until 1818. Walters also correlated Lucy Mack Smith’s recollections of this time period with the weather records of the time and confirmed the conclusion that the Smiths did not leave Vermont until 1818, the date at which Mormon writers had the family moving to Manchester.
The next piece of information comes from the road-tax records of Palmyra. Here we find that the name of Joseph Smith, Sr., appears from 1817 through 1822. As all men 21 years of age and older as of April were required to be listed, Alvin Smith’s name also appears in 1820. What does this tell us? It is evident that Joseph Smith, Sr., moved to Palmyra before the rest of his family, who joined him there at a later date. We know this from the fact that Alvin would have been listed in the 1819 road-tax records, had he been present in Palmyra (he turned 21 on February 11, 1819). Obviously, Lucy and the children did not arrive in time for Alvin’s name to be found on the 1819 lists. It is important to note that Smith is listed as living in Palmyra until 1822 despite LDS scholars’ contention that he moved from there four years earlier in 1818. Don’t let all the dates become confusing — if the Smiths moved from Palmyra to Manchester in 1822, as this evidence suggests, then two years after this would be 1824, and this coincides perfectly with the information already presented on the revivals in the area.
Further information has come to light in the land assessment records for Manchester township. These records make it clear that the Smiths did not contract to buy the 100 acres of land for their farm in Manchester township until after June of 1820, for the tax rolls at that time show that all of the land was taxed to the original owners, the heirs of “Nicholas Evertson.” However, in the tax rolls of 1821, we see that Joseph Smith, Sr., is taxed for the first time for 100 acres at $7.00 an acre — the price of raw, unimproved land at the time. The land is given the same value in the 1822 assessment, but in 1823 the value rises to $1,000, a jump of 40 percent, even though the other land values in the area only went up 4 percent in the same time period. This indicates that, for the first time, improvements were made to the land, including the construction of a home. What does this tell us? It suggests that the Smiths moved onto the land and lived there after the summer of 1822 and before the summer of 1823, which again perfectly matches the data provided from all sources, especially the road tax records mentioned above.
Land assessment records, road-tax records, records of “warning out,” weather information, Lucy Mack Smith’s own writings, church records, newspaper accounts, and eyewitness accounts from the leading minister involved in the revivals — all pointing to the same conclusion. Joseph Smith fabricated the story years later, and, to make “room” for the First Vision without getting rid of Moroni and the golden plates, he “changes history” and pushes events back by four years. But, history has caught up with Joseph Smith.
When we put it all together, it is clear that the Smith family lived in Norwich, Vermont, in 1816. Joseph Smith, Sr., headed to New York prior to the rest of the family, arriving in 1817. In late 1819 or early 1820, the rest of the family arrived as well. They lived in Palmyra until 1822 when they moved to Manchester. Two years later there was a revival in the area, which extended into the spring of 1825. This is the revival spoken of by William Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and, aside from simply the error in the date, Joseph Smith himself.
You can see, immediately, some of the major problems this creates with LDS history. First, the 1820 date is a part of the canonized Scripture of the LDS Church — if the date is wrong, so is LDS “revelation.” Secondly, if the revivals do not take place until 1824, and the first “spring day” that Smith can go into the woods to pray is in the spring of 1825, what happens to the “second vision” that supposedly takes place on September 21, 1823? Further, Smith says that he is undergoing this terrible persecution in 1820, yet, if no revivals have taken place, is he not lying about this “persecution”? It would seem so. If the “beginning of latter-day revelation” (as McConkie said above) is found to be incorrect, how can one trust the rest of it?
If you dig into these things, Elder Hahn, you will find that various Mormon scholars have been rather creative in their work of rescuing Joseph’s story from hopeless contradiction. By centering only on one particular piece of information, it is possible to come up with some kind of alternative to the scenario presented above. Many of the attempted defenses have centered upon the Smiths’ log cabin and its proximity to the border between Palmyra and Manchester. I honestly believe, however, that it is not possible to deal with all of the information and come up with a consistent historical story that allows Smith to have the First Vision in 1820. It just doesn’t work.
Milton Backman, Jr., wrote a work entitled Joseph Smith’s First Vision. Clearly, Backman attempts to deflect the impact of some of this information in his writing. Backman provides a number of appendices, some of which attempt to provide answers to the criticisms arising from Wesley Walters’ 1967 article on the revivals. For example, “Appendix P” is entitled “Reports of Revivals Appearing in the Palmyra Register in 1820.” The revivals reported, however, are not in Palmyra, but elsewhere, and none of them, of course, were connected with Reverends Lane or Stockton. None resulted in “multitudes” joining the churches in Palmyra. It seems that many modern LDS scholars would like to extend the meaning of “in the place where we lived” to an area covering hundreds of square miles, so desperate are they to find some kind of revival in 1820. The fact that the revival of 1824 is so obviously the same revival spoken of by Cowdery and William Smith is seemingly overlooked.
In the next appendix, we find “A Reply to the Critics.” In an obvious attempt to stretch the time periods given by Smith in his history, Backman asserts that the revivals might have taken place prior to 1819 and that Smith’s “confusion” over what church he should join may have started much earlier in his life. Aside from the fact that this results in an obviously strained reading of Smith’s history, it again only deals with one issue, not all together. Cowdery and William Smith are clear on which revivals resulted in Smith’s going into the woods to pray — in fact, William Smith’s account indicated that it was Reverend Lane who suggested the passage from James 1:5 to Joseph in the first place! As we know, Lane was nowhere near Joseph Smith until 1824; Backman’s suggestion is shown to be mere wishful thinking.
The next issue presented is the idea that revivals did not always result in increases in church membership. While this is hardly ever true, the fact is that the revival of 1824/25 did result in an increase in church membership, and Joseph plainly indicated that the converts “united themselves to the different religious parties” to the point where some of his own family joined the Presbyterian Church! Simply pointing out that some revivals did not produce great increases in church membership does not prove that the revival mentioned by Smith did not. Smith’s own words indicate otherwise.
Later in the same appendix, Backman addresses the issue of the supposed “early persecution” of Smith. A quick perusal of the comments given shows that absolutely no positive evidence is brought forward that Smith ever even claimed to have seen God the Father in the l820s. Rather, the main defense given is that “circumstantial evidence confirms Joseph Smith’s testimony that in the early I820s he was persecuted.” But what does this mean? I will discuss in another letter how Smith was arrested and tried in 1826 for the crime of “glass looking,” but that is a far cry from “persecution” for claiming to have seen God the Father and Jesus Christ! What “circumstantial evidence” does Backman produce? The only such evidence produced is the fact that various other individuals experienced religious bigotry or persecution during that time period. That’s it. Nothing more. And while that in and of itself might be true, what does it have to do with Joseph Smith? Obviously, there is no answer to the simple fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that Smith claimed to have seen God the Father prior to the mid — 1830s. In fact, this seems to be tacitly admitted by Backman when he writes,
While tangible and circumstantial evidence confirms Joseph Smith’s historical descriptions of events that occurred about the time of the First Vision, this evidence does not prove that he was visited by the Father and the Son in a peaceful grove in upper New York in the spring of 1820. The only route by which earnest seekers after truth will learn of the reality of the Restoration is through the guidance and power of the Holy Ghost. Faith is a gift of God, and a conviction that one of the greatest visions in the history of the world occurred in 1820 is one important element of that gift.
While I agree that faith is a gift of God, faith always has as its object the truth of God. True, Christian faith is placed in the Lord Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith Or his claims and visions. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit Of truth, and He does not lead people to believe in that which is in reality untrue. Smith’s story must be examined in the light of the fact that it claims to have really happened at a point in history. The facts of history, however, tell a different story. All the religious feelings in the world cannot change that fact.
I have decided to wait until my next letter to address the specific prophecies of Joseph Smith. I spent more time on the First Vision than I planned. I will start work on that letter at my earliest opportunity. If you don’t mind, I will send that material to you as soon as I complete it, whether you reply to this letter first or not. If you have specific questions or would like to talk, please remember that you have my number. I truly hope you will look into these things, Elder Hahn. If you continue to tell people that you know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, you must have the integrity to wrestle with these issues — not to find “some way out” but to really know the truth. If that means abandoning your faith in Joseph Smith, then please be willing to do so. May God bless you as you seek His will.
Sincerely,
James White
Return to Table of Contents –––> Next Chapter
Letters To A Mormon Elder is available on Amazon.