The First Vision

[Shulem]

The church claims that the First Vision is the cornerstone to the foundation of the church and that without it the church is a sham. Joseph’s own mother, in her memoirs, does not even mention the first vision. Apostles later inserted the official version into her book to correct this glaring omission. Is this a simple oversight?

The Church today would like us to think it was an oversight that mother Smith never mentioned the First Vision and neither did others who would have been informed. Here is the apologetic excuse offered on the Church website to counter the oversight of what was allegedly the greatest event of the restoration of the gospel:

• Joseph’s accounts of the First Vision suggest he considered the experience to be personal and may have been reluctant initially to share details of the vision with his family.

• Joseph’s family, like other early members of the Church, were accustomed to thinking of the appearance of Moroni as the beginning of the Prophet’s calling. For this reason, they may have omitted the First Vision from their accounts.

emphasis added

It’s preposterous to suggest that Joseph considered the First Vision too sacred to discuss with his family and closest associates during the early years when nobody said anything about it other than what we first learn in the 1832 account. To even suggest that those in the know omitted it when testifying of the restoration because Moroni’s appearances takes precedence is ludicrous. The First Vision was the opening and the very foundation of the so-called restoration! And nobody said anything?

But wait! The 1832 account about Smith’s First Vision is written in the handwriting of Joseph Smith and his closest associate who happened to be his personal scribe and a counselor in the Presidency of the High Priesthood (D&C 81). Thus, Williams was fully aware of the visionary account written in Letterbook 1 and there is nothing therein (or in other First Vision accounts) that suggests the vision of the Lord of Glory was too sacred to discuss. As a matter of fact, the 1832 account notes how the vision was supposed to be a matter of public interest:

...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 about that time my mother and but after many days I fell into transgressions and sinned in many things...

Note above in pink how Smith confessed, in writing, during the summer of 1832, that he had previously made attempts to convince others that he had seen a vision! But he was unable to find anyone that believed the heavenly vision! That would have included his own mother in whose name was crossed out undoubtedly due to being shamed! So, this confession of telling others about his so-called sacred vision fell on deaf ears! And, this totally negates the apologetic excuse tendered on the Church website about how Joseph “considered the experience to be personal and may have been reluctant initially to share details of the vision with his family.”

Thus, the apologetic excuse tendered by Church apologists is false!

[Shulem]

• Joseph’s accounts of the First Vision suggest he considered the experience to be personal and may have been reluctant initially to share details of the vision with his family.

emphasis added

It’s preposterous to suggest that Joseph considered the First Vision too sacred to discuss with his family and closest associates during the early years when nobody said anything about it other than what we first learn in the 1832 account.

The official 1838 First Vision account makes it perfectly clear that Smith told plenty of people about his vision. How apologists can even suggest that Smith was reluctant to tell family or friends about details of the vision flies against Smith’s own testimonials. But to be clear, Smith did not positively identify seeing two separate Persons as the Father and Son at the same time prior to dictating the 1838 account. There is no evidence that anyone prior to 1832 ever heard Smith make that claim!

Nonetheless, in 1838 Joseph testified he had told a lot of people details of the vision:

21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

22 I soon found, however, 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 I 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.

[Shulem]

There is no reference to Smith ever saying anything about his alleged First Vision prior to organizing the church in 1830. Traditional Christian belief of the God of the Bible is what Joseph preached. The Trinitarian teachings of the Book of Mormon were capped with this revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants:

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

BUT, with that said, we may compare a bit in Section 20 that seems to pay direct reference to Smith’s boyhood visionary experience that was later recorded in his Letterbook and references the forgiveness of sins. The narrative expresses how Smith (first elder) received a remission of sins, fell away again, and then repented prior to being visited by Moroni.

5 After it was truly manifested [FIRST VISION] unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world;

6 But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel [MORONI], whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness;

• I become convicted of my sins

• I felt to mourn for my own sins

• a piller of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the 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

Now, with that said, Section 20 would have been the ideal revelation in which to bear witness of how Joseph learned the Father and Son were two separate physical beings during the First Vision, but such was not the case. Rather, the doctrine of the Trinity is what’s expressed and the notion of the unchangeable and infinite one God was Smith’s testimony. It wasn’t until he obtained the papyrus that he learned the Father and Son were separate Persons. The idea of the Father having a body of flesh came later which is what the premise of this thread is all about.

And that my friends, is a bloody revelation for this message board!

Thank you.