I made three trips to Manti for visiting with anti-Mormons during the annual Manti Pageant. I see Allen from Mormoninfo.org is still packing around his signs advocating the deceptive website I reviewed previously. He really gets a funny look on his face when he sees me. It could be because whenever I see him I remind him that people who promote lies and distortions are themselves part of the lie or distortion. Just does not seem very Christian to me. I really don't have any problems with the Mormoninfo.org website in terms of what it says. They are entitled to ignore the majority of the Bible to promote their post-Biblical doctrines or provide limited or irrelevant scriptures to create the proper fitting strawman to try to discredit Mormonism. But they at least do not lie. But since they promote with the signs they personally carry around a website filled with lies, distortions and falsehoods, they have blood on their hands.
Rob Sivulka and Allen Dardenelle have an ethical obligation as supposed Christian ministers to Mormons to be honest, and attack evil in any form. That means even their good Christian buddies who lie or exaggerate their attacks against the Mormons. It is ethically insufficient to embrace the philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". That is really the main problem I have with them. If they will promotes lies and distortions on the signs they personally carry, then their character is totally called into question. They link to this blog from their website. The prior review of the offending website is available to them, and I personally spoke with Allen on several occasions, showing him in front of other witnesses specific distortions and falsification on the web page they promote. He is without excuse, as is Rob. They present themselves as experts on Mormonism, and yet promote falsehood.
The most telling conversation I was involved with Allen concerned his willingness to convert to Mormonism if he knew it was true. First he said there was no way to know Mormonism was 'absolutely true' as opposed to knowing 'personally' it is true, and so even if he was personally convinced the Mormon Church were God's Church on Earth, he would not change or join. There were three other people standing there when he said it, one of whom was not LDS. So ultimately he wants to carry out a crusade against a Church he feels it is impossible to know whether God accepts as His only true Church because he cannot trust any communication God may have directly with Allen. It is easy to see Rob's influence on Allen, since he wrote almost the identical reasoning to me in an email several years ago.
In my opinion it is sad that the God they profess to be all powerful is too inept to communicate in clear, unmistakable ways with His children. Image if Moses had sad "Thus sayeth the Lord, I think..." Not very compelling. Which is why my personal relationship with God, through the Holy Spirit in the name of His son Jesus Christ, is the ultimate arbitrator of truth. I know Paul thought it was possible to know things from God with absolute certainty, even as we continue exercising faith in many things. The Spirit of the Lord helps us to pray, and delivers to us truth, enlightening our minds. By this Spirit the disciples of Jesus' day recognized the truth of the scriptures which Jesus laid out for them.
I feel pity for the lost and uninformed anti-Mormons like Allen and Rob. I don't consider them a waste of time, which is a direct quote of Rob describing me to some of his visiting missionaries. God loves all of His children, wants all of them to choose to accept His gift of salvation, and sent His son to die for all mankind. Which is why I am willing to talk with anyone who will at least be sincere and polite in their presentation or questioning of the LDS faith. Rob Sivulka stopped speaking and corresponding with me because he felt I would eventually run to my testimony as a defense, and twist the scriptures and scholarly sources to defend my faith, even as he acknowledged I had never done that in any of our discussions. Frankly, false ethics and poor scholarship are the main reason most Mormons don't take anti-Mormons seriously.
The anti-Mormons don't really care about truth, don't live the Golden Rule, and don't want to really know what LDS doctrine is. If I had a dime for each time I was told that Mormons work their way to heaven, I would be rich. Yet the anti's still promote this false and pernicious doctrine. Or to have them teach that God had sex with Mary, then insist the Church really does and has taught this, despite there being not a single statement by the Church advocating this doctrine. We believe God was the Father, Sire, Begetter, artificer of the physical body of Christ. But none of those statements requires sex. The only Church leader who ever taught that God had sex with Mary had his work formally censured by the Church, with the recommendation that his speculative theological statements be cut out of the publications they were bound within and destroyed. We believe Mary was a virgin at Christ's birth. But Allen and Rob are quite content, apparently, to associate with and promote web sites and organizations which, if they really were experts on Mormon doctrine and its history, they must know are false, misleading or in error.
Brigham Young once said that whenever anti-Mormons try to kick the Church, they always kick it upstairs. Never downstairs. The Lord has so ordered it. He also said that if you persecute us, we will sit up nights and preach the Gospel. That is why we don't think the anti-Mormons are any real threat. The Lord's Church is protected by the Lord and His angelic hosts. So the truth, no matter how compromised by some, will prevail. So you anti-Mormons out there, keep it up. It gives us Mormons lots of people with questions to answer, and when they see distortions, they will know who to trust.
Stay tuned.
Bob
Monday, June 28, 2004
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Update on Josephlied.com's Sources
Since the original exchanges and posting my review of the first section of JosephLied.com's web page below (2 postings down), I have had a chance to stop in at the Tanner's bookstore to check Mr. Norton's sources. I can now say with 100% confidence that 10 of 11 sources of Mr. Norton's materials in my review are in the Tanner's works. They are all in volume 1 of the Tanner's The Case Against Mormonism. It is a tribute to the Tanner's redundancy that many of the quotes are also in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality and The Changing World of Mormonism.
As I note in my review, it seems odd to me that Mr. Norton cannot find new material germane to the issue, being a self-described "huge history buff". It appears he lifts practically all of the arguments and citations from a single source, without attribution. In college and high school we call it plagiarism to "present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source" (Merriam-Webster Online). Even if he did it with the Tanner's permission, which he may have, to rework someone else's work as if it were your own original work is just not ethical to me. I probably have different standards than Mr. Norton. In some places it appears he uses their comments about the historical citations word for word and in summary, without citation.
I find Mr. Norton's apparent plagiarism an interesting study in double standards and hypocrisy. While asserting the Mormon Church is lying and distorting its history, he fails to tell us where his stuff really comes from, and worse, he distorts the supposed impact of the isolated examples he cites. He would have you believe that practically no Mormon until the 1890's was aware that God and Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in the 1st Vision, even though virtually 100% of the Church had copies of the official History of the Church, originally published in 1842, since the early 1850's with the original publication of the Pearl of Great Price.
He also would have you believe that even the people who wrote the Church history and presented the official doctrine of the Church were themselves unaware of who was present at the First Vision. He asserts Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, George A. Smith, Orson Hyde, and many others were unaware of the appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph in 1820, even though they spoke many times in explicit terms often precisely about the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. He suppresses and ignores reports, even in some of the very citations he seems so unfamiliar with.
He also fails to tell you basic important facts, like the fact Joseph Smith's mother was absolute in her assertion of the Father and Son appearing to Joseph in 1820. One would think she would know, right, I mean she was afterall there in his youth.
Or he fails to tell you about the non-Mormon and anti-Mormon reports by people who knew Joseph in 1820, and remember him withdrawing from organized religion at that time, even though modern anti-Mormons try to move the date of his religious involment to 1824. Or the 1829 press accounts saying Joseph had spoken with God. I try to provide an abbreviated chronology of many of these confrimatory events in my review below.
So where does that lead one in figuring out whom to believe? Mr. Norton portrays the LDS Church membership as uninformed and misled, and its leaders as deceptive. And then he apparently plagiarizes his material. I think one should maybe turn to God, ask Him for His Spirit to guide them to truth. As my review indicates, and as I personally believe, we may not have an answer for every problem, but the Church's answers conform much more closely to history than the twisted representation anti-Mormons such as Mr. Norton ask us to believe.
So enjoy what you read. But you should probably check the sources, if they are listed.
Let me make one more point. This is by definition not a personal attack. It is a presentation and summary of facts. I have never met Mr. Norton face to face, nor spoken to him on the phone. We have corresponded via email, and that is it. He may be a wonderful person. But I believe he is representing the work on his website as his own, when in fact it appears mostly derived from other's published work. I believe that should give everyone pause about the trustworthiness of his conclusions. Beware of he who declares his own self-righteousness.
Furthermore, the characterizations of LDS history he makes he is entitled to make. I vigorously take issue with him about the limited data set he uses and the conclusions he draws. I cannot read his mind, so I truly do not know his motives, which is why I originally emailed him. I still do not know his motives, but I know what he says his motives are. The problem I have is now having looked closely at his work/actions, they do not seem to be in line with his expressed motives, and it makes me question everything he writes.
It has been my mantra since the first anti-Mormon material was given to me back in 1979: If the truth about the Mormons is so bad, why do anti-Mormons misrepresent their history and/or beliefs. My favorite is still when Ed Decker published a book saying that the reason Mormon chapels have spires is to impale Christ at His second coming. Literally unbelievable, and yet it gets published and some poor guy or women hears that, along with the other distortions they get, and it is one more objection to try keeping them out of the LDS Church. So whatever Mr. Norton's motives or reasons, I don't trust his scholarship or the conclusions he draws, and I would recommend the same to anyone else. This is the internet. Let the seeker beware.
As I note in my review, it seems odd to me that Mr. Norton cannot find new material germane to the issue, being a self-described "huge history buff". It appears he lifts practically all of the arguments and citations from a single source, without attribution. In college and high school we call it plagiarism to "present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source" (Merriam-Webster Online). Even if he did it with the Tanner's permission, which he may have, to rework someone else's work as if it were your own original work is just not ethical to me. I probably have different standards than Mr. Norton. In some places it appears he uses their comments about the historical citations word for word and in summary, without citation.
I find Mr. Norton's apparent plagiarism an interesting study in double standards and hypocrisy. While asserting the Mormon Church is lying and distorting its history, he fails to tell us where his stuff really comes from, and worse, he distorts the supposed impact of the isolated examples he cites. He would have you believe that practically no Mormon until the 1890's was aware that God and Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in the 1st Vision, even though virtually 100% of the Church had copies of the official History of the Church, originally published in 1842, since the early 1850's with the original publication of the Pearl of Great Price.
He also would have you believe that even the people who wrote the Church history and presented the official doctrine of the Church were themselves unaware of who was present at the First Vision. He asserts Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, George A. Smith, Orson Hyde, and many others were unaware of the appearance of the Father and the Son to Joseph in 1820, even though they spoke many times in explicit terms often precisely about the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. He suppresses and ignores reports, even in some of the very citations he seems so unfamiliar with.
He also fails to tell you basic important facts, like the fact Joseph Smith's mother was absolute in her assertion of the Father and Son appearing to Joseph in 1820. One would think she would know, right, I mean she was afterall there in his youth.
Or he fails to tell you about the non-Mormon and anti-Mormon reports by people who knew Joseph in 1820, and remember him withdrawing from organized religion at that time, even though modern anti-Mormons try to move the date of his religious involment to 1824. Or the 1829 press accounts saying Joseph had spoken with God. I try to provide an abbreviated chronology of many of these confrimatory events in my review below.
So where does that lead one in figuring out whom to believe? Mr. Norton portrays the LDS Church membership as uninformed and misled, and its leaders as deceptive. And then he apparently plagiarizes his material. I think one should maybe turn to God, ask Him for His Spirit to guide them to truth. As my review indicates, and as I personally believe, we may not have an answer for every problem, but the Church's answers conform much more closely to history than the twisted representation anti-Mormons such as Mr. Norton ask us to believe.
So enjoy what you read. But you should probably check the sources, if they are listed.
Let me make one more point. This is by definition not a personal attack. It is a presentation and summary of facts. I have never met Mr. Norton face to face, nor spoken to him on the phone. We have corresponded via email, and that is it. He may be a wonderful person. But I believe he is representing the work on his website as his own, when in fact it appears mostly derived from other's published work. I believe that should give everyone pause about the trustworthiness of his conclusions. Beware of he who declares his own self-righteousness.
Furthermore, the characterizations of LDS history he makes he is entitled to make. I vigorously take issue with him about the limited data set he uses and the conclusions he draws. I cannot read his mind, so I truly do not know his motives, which is why I originally emailed him. I still do not know his motives, but I know what he says his motives are. The problem I have is now having looked closely at his work/actions, they do not seem to be in line with his expressed motives, and it makes me question everything he writes.
It has been my mantra since the first anti-Mormon material was given to me back in 1979: If the truth about the Mormons is so bad, why do anti-Mormons misrepresent their history and/or beliefs. My favorite is still when Ed Decker published a book saying that the reason Mormon chapels have spires is to impale Christ at His second coming. Literally unbelievable, and yet it gets published and some poor guy or women hears that, along with the other distortions they get, and it is one more objection to try keeping them out of the LDS Church. So whatever Mr. Norton's motives or reasons, I don't trust his scholarship or the conclusions he draws, and I would recommend the same to anyone else. This is the internet. Let the seeker beware.
Email Exchange With JosephLied.com's Author
----- Original Message -----
From: RBV
To: mike@josephlied.com
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: What are your motives?
I have read through your web pages, and aside from understandable minor mistakes in your citations, I am trying to understand your level of scholarship. Maybe it would be better stated to ask your level of personal research into the things you write? Since your opening page outlines a 'bait-and-switch, let the buyer beware' sort of description of purported lies and distortions by the LDS Church, and your personal story mentions you did a lot of research into Church history, I am trying to reconcile what I see as basically two possibilities for your motivations in writing your follow-on WebPages. I have in the past two days done a little research, maybe 4 hours total, on your citations and sources. In particular, I researched your page on the first vision and the page on the angel Moroni vs. Nephi.
Which brings me to my hypothesis about you, which I am looking for you to confirm what is correct. Because of the gross errors in your statements I can only see two or three possibilities:
1. You are an incredibly inept historical researcher. You make statements that John Taylor, Brigham Young, Lucy Mack Smith, George A. Smith and Orson Hyde are unaware of the first vision story. Yet each of them wrote about or quoted directly from the first vision accounts stating it occurred in 1820, and that Joseph Smith was visited by two personages. The only one who is confused was William Smith, who in fact made several documented errors in his relating of historical facts, and the chief error he makes is to combine elements of the first vision with the visit from Moroni. Here is your problem. If all or most of these people correctly relate in detail the events of the first vision as currently and historically taught by the LDS Church, then their comments which you deem contradictory demand being correctly set into the historic setting of where they were delivered. In any case, they clearly are not "unaware" 40 years after the first vision of the accepted LDS version, as you falsely state.
2. (This is really a subset of #1) You have done virtually no in-depth research of your own, and therefore have relied upon anti-Mormon literature for the sources you cite. Your changes to the Book of Mormon is almost a mirror site of CARM and the Tanner's slipshod work. I have sat in on seminars by Royal Skousen, which were free to the public, and just laugh at the gross errors and poor scholarship of your posting. But it may not be your fault. Other than being the electronic version of a rumor monger, you may be genuinely ignorant of the "history" you purport to be clarifying.
3. For your own reasons, which I would like to understand better, you feel justified in lying about and distorting LDS history.
The fourth choice would have been you have correctly relayed the facts around LDS history pertaining to teachings of the first vision and the visit by the angel Moroni. The specific and concrete evidence contradicting your conclusions makes this choice unlikely.
I don't really see how there can be a fourth choice. You present as facts events out of their context and draw false conclusions. Joseph Smith always taught there had been a first vision in 1820, and a visitation from Moroni and other angels in 1823. The early leaders of the Church, and Joseph Smith's mother, also always taught this when they were concerned about being exact. John Taylor wrote a very specific and detailed tract in 1850 outlining this understanding. The fact that you say he and Brigham Young are unaware of the first vision occuring in 1820 is a lie. It may have been an error on your part, but now you have a fact to check and fix the error. If you do not, then I will be forced to conclude that hypothesis 3 is correct.
The irony of your opening page is not lost on me. You are perhaps the real bait-and-switch artist, if you are in fact inclined to hypothesis 3.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
RBV
or Bob the anti-anti as my blog says.
From: Mike [mailto:Mike@JosephLied.com]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 9:50 AM
To: RBV
Subject: Re: What are your motives?
Bob,
I do not make the claim that the contemporaries of Joseph's Myth were "unaware" of his first vision in 1820. I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though. By all means, let's see the quotes that say otherwise. The same goes for the quotes regarding his angel Nephi, later changed to Moroni.
I suppose I am also mistaken about the Kinderhook plates and the "translation" of the Book of Abraham too.
Give me a break Bob. I've been in your shoes. I too was a so called "anti-anti" and I find my job MUCH easier when I don't have to make excuses and try to defend a lie anymore. You should give it a try. It's MUCH easier when the truth is actually on your side.
Mike Norton
P.S. You talk of all these errors and yet don't give ANY specifics. Typical.
From: RBV
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 9:00 PM
To: 'Mike'
Subject: RE: What are your motives?
Thank you for the response Mike.
“But all this was swept away in one moment by the appearance of the Almighty Himself--by the appearance of God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, to the boy Joseph, as he kneeled in the forest beseeching God for knowledge concerning Him, and concerning the Gospel of salvation…The Father came accompanied by the Son, thus showing that there were two personages of the Godhead, two presiding personages whom we worship and to whom we look, the one the Father, and the other the Son. Joseph saw that the Father had a form; that He had a head; that He had arms; that He had limbs; that He had feet; that He had a face and a tongue with which to express His thoughts; for He said unto Joseph: "This is my beloved Son"--pointing to the Son--"hear Him."” George Q. Cannon, JD vol.24 page 373, September 2, 1883.
Note this quote is 6 years before your proof-text. Oops.
"There were two personages [who] appeared unto Joseph Smith, Jun.,--God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ." George Q. Cannon, April 7, 1889 Collected Discourses Vol.1
"And finally, when all the preparations were made and everything was ready, or the time had fully come, the Father and the Son appeared to the youth Joseph Smith to introduce the great work of the latter days."- John Taylor, JD, 22:298-299, August 28, 1881.
"He [Joseph Smith] presented himself before the world and informed the people that God had spoken, and that he had spoken to him. He told them that the heavens had been opened and that angels clothed in light and glory had appeared to him and revealed unto him certain things." John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, from JD, 10:127-128, March 1, 1863.
"and two glorious personages presented themselves before him, who exactly resembled each other in features" John Taylor, 1850.
What did John Taylor interpret the Two Personages to be? The Father and the Son.
“When our Heavenly Father appeared unto Joseph Smith, the Prophet, he pointed to the Savior who was with him, (and who, it is said, is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person) and said: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him." There was an evidence manifested through his servant to the world, that God lived, that the Redeemer, who was crucified and put to death to atone for the sins of the world, also lived, that there was a message which had to be communicated to the human family, and that the Son was the personage through which it should be communicated.” John Taylor, JD, 25:177-178, May 18, 1884.
"He believed that statement and went to the Lord and asked him, and the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus, and pointing to the latter, said: "This is My beloved Son, Hear Him!"" John Taylor, JD, 21:161, December 7, 1879.
The discourses of John Taylor affirming that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith during the first vision, and that they are the 'two personages' cannot be seriously questioned. They are numerous, and can be found with virtually no effort.
"Directly I saw a light, and then a glorious personage in the light, and then another personage, and the first personage said to the second, Behold my beloved Son, hear him.--I then addressed this second person, saying, O Lord, what Church shall I join? He replied, "don't join any of them, they are all corrupt."" An early non-Mormon publication of the First Vision based on an interview with Joseph Smith by the editor of the Pittsburg Gazette who visited Nauvoo in 1843. This account was published in the New York Spectator, September 23, 1843.[Odd that non-Mormons understood and published that Joseph Smith was talking with the Lord, after interviewing him, but you contend that his teachings were so shifty the members did not know? Not very tenable.--BV]
"When the Lord appeared to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him a knowledge pertaining to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the work of the last days, Satan came also with his power and tempted Joseph." George A. Smith, J.D. 11 pg 1-2. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden City, on Tuesday, November 15, 1864.
What of course is most interesting is how in this same discourse by George A. Smith, he quotes the first vision story verbatim:
"...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 air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other--'This is my beloved son, hear him.'" George A. Smith, J.D. 11 pg 1-2. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden City, on Tuesday, November 15, 1864.
So how does George A. Smith, who served as an apostle and counselor to Brigham Young, interpret the words "two personages"? As God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The same as John Taylor.
"He saw in this light two glorious personages, one of whom spoke to him, pointing to the other, saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him." This was a glorious vision given to this boy. When these persons interrogated him to know what he desired, he answered and said, "Lord show me which is the true church." " Orson Pratt, JD Vol 14, pg 141, March 19, 1871
"The Lord also informed him that, at some future period of time, if he would be faithful in giving heed to the instructions which were then imparted to him, and in his prayers to the Lord, he would impart to him his own doctrine in plainness and simplicity."Orson Pratt, JD Vol 15 page 183, September 22, 1872.
So we now have George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt, John Taylor and George A. Smith who all say the personages are God the Father and His Son or Lord.
Joseph’s 1832 account records: “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 crucified for the world, that all those who believe on my name may have eternal life.’”
"He [God] called upon his servant Joseph Smith, jun., when he was but a boy, to lay the foundation of his kingdom for the last time. Why did he call upon Joseph Smith to do it? because he was disposed to do it... Before Joseph Smith made known what the Lord had revealed to him, before his name was even known among many of his neighbours, I knew that Jesus Christ had no true Church upon the earth." Brigham Young, JD 11:253, 254
"...and we testify, to the whole world that we know, by divine revelation, even through the manifestations of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that he revealed himself to Joseph Smith as personally as he did to his Apostles, anciently, after he arose from the tomb, and that he made known unto him those heavenly truths by which alone mankind can be saved." Lorenzo Snow, JD vol. 18, page 299, October 6, 1876. Note this is a General Conference address.
Now we have Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt and George A. Smith all saying that the two personages were really God and Christ.
Now, due to the limitations of being at home, I cannot get much depth into the works of William Smith, Orson Hyde or Lucy Mack Smith. There is an excellent discussion of William Smith’s statements at http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/wmsmith.htm#6 .
But here is the problem you have. Your assertion is that the use of the word “personages” did not convey a concept of divinity, and that, according to you, it was not established to be God and Christ until much later. But Joseph in his 1832 statement says it was the Lord. All of the people I have been able to research believe the same. You must prove, to carry your argument, that those personages were thought to be angels AND that the persons using the phrase NEVER associate the participants in the first vision with God or Christ. If there is even one example of their understanding being different than your assertion that
personages = angels but not God or Christ
then your argument fails. Further, you must prove that the common and reasonable understanding of the context of the personages was generally understood to not be God and Christ. You have completely failed in that regard.
Let me now compare your statements:
"I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though."
"Isn't it odd that over 40 years after Joseph's alleged "first vision", Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?"
Both statements are now demonstrated false. Your theory is wrong. Show some honor here and admit it. And change your web site.
Since you cite only 11 sources, all but one I would say are presented out of context, I hope the 15 citations I present are adequate to fulfill your derisive comment about lacking details. By the way, I did it on purpose to see how you would answer. Do you really think I am going to walk into a debate without my facts in hand ahead of time? You don't know me, so maybe you did. But I never do. Further, I will concede that the quote by Brigham Young is weak (I will research a few more), but I think the other 14 quotes are solid. Moreover, your quote from Joseph Smith’s diary is very misleading because, as you must know, Joseph says in his 1835 recital of the first vision experience that he saw many angels in addition to the two personages when he was 14, and the fact he says in the 14 November 1835 entry that he first was visited by angels at that age is correct. By the way, you do know the word angel means messenger, right? So Christ, though divine, is the messenger of the Father, for example. Check out Acts 17:18 where Christ is described as a daimonion / strange deity in his roll between God and men.
I have other aspects to my life than to document falsehoods on anti-Mormon sites. I will get after the Moroni-Nephi discussion another day. But since I have presented unimpeachable and irrefutable proof of the falseness of your statements, I am now going to be watching to see what you do. If you do nothing, then I know that my 3rd hypothesis about your motives was correct.
I actually agree with you. It is much easier when the truth is on one's side. I cannot really offer you a break of any kind, since you have put out material easily refuted. Like I say, I will be interested to see your response. I can vigorously disagree with people and still enjoy them. What I have a tough time with is the hypocrisy of double standards. Since I have now spent a total of about 7 hours researching your material, and have easily located statements contradicting your thesis, I am still waiting to discover where you fall in the spectrum of sincerity.
I await your response.
Best wishes,
RBV
From: Mike [mailto:Mike@JosephLied.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:45 AM
To: RBV
Cc: Rob Sivulka
Subject: Re: What are your motives?
Bob, just some very quick comments. I am moving this week and simply don't have time for a long drawn out e-mail. I will make my comments in this larger blue font. First off, I feel the need to emphasize a comment made on my website about the issue of the "First Vision". On my site I wrote,
"Isn't it odd that over 40 years after Joseph's alleged "first vision", Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?
"That's because Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints. Over the years Joseph's story changed from an event in the year 1823 to 1821 to 1820."
On that note, let me comment on your comments now.
Thank you for the response Mike.
“But all this was swept away in one moment by the appearance of the Almighty Himself--by the appearance of God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, to the boy Joseph, as he kneeled in the forest beseeching God for knowledge concerning Him, and concerning the Gospel of salvation…The Father came accompanied by the Son, thus showing that there were two personages of the Godhead, two presiding personages whom we worship and to whom we look, the one the Father, and the other the Son. Joseph saw that the Father had a form; that He had a head; that He had arms; that He had limbs; that He had feet; that He had a face and a tongue with which to express His thoughts; for He said unto Joseph: "This is my beloved Son"--pointing to the Son--"hear Him."” George Q. Cannon, JD vol.24 page 373, September 2, 1883.
Note this quote is 6 years before your proof-text. Oops.
Oops indeed. Don't fret, this isn't the only example of early Church leaders having a hard time keeping the story straight. However, I find it interesting that you couldn't find a single quote from any of Joseph Smith's close friends or family members until well past 1860 (or as I said on my site, "40 years after Joseph's first vision") that clearly identified the person (or persons) in his first vision as that of God and Christ.
"There were two personages [who] appeared unto Joseph Smith, Jun.,--God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ." George Q. Cannon, April 7, 1889 Collected Discourses Vol.1
Yup. By 1889 pretty much all of "the brethren" had gotten their story straight and were consistently claiming it was God and Christ that Joseph saw in 1820. I find it interesting that in the same year that this quote was given, George Q. Cannon said of the first vision, "But suppose that the statement that Joseph Smith says the angel made to him should be true-that there was no church upon the face of the earth whom God recognized as His, and whose acts He acknowledged-suppose this were true..."
"And finally, when all the preparations were made and everything was ready, or the time had fully come, the Father and the Son appeared to the youth Joseph Smith to introduce the great work of the latter days."- John Taylor, JD, 22:298-299, August 28, 1881.
Yet, just two years before Taylor said, "None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right." Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 167 (1879)
"He [Joseph Smith] presented himself before the world and informed the people that God had spoken, and that he had spoken to him. He told them that the heavens had been opened and that angels clothed in light and glory had appeared to him and revealed unto him certain things." John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, from JD, 10:127-128, March 1, 1863.
Who was it that "...revealed unto him certain things"? Angels, Bob. Angels.
"and two glorious personages presented themselves before him, who exactly resembled each other in features" John Taylor, 1850.
Bob, are you intentionally trying to prove my point? Who on earth refers to God and Jesus Christ as "personages"?
What did John Taylor interpret the Two Personages to be? The Father and the Son.
34 years later!!!!!!
“When our Heavenly Father appeared unto Joseph Smith, the Prophet, he pointed to the Savior who was with him, (and who, it is said, is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person) and said: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him." There was an evidence manifested through his servant to the world, that God lived, that the Redeemer, who was crucified and put to death to atone for the sins of the world, also lived, that there was a message which had to be communicated to the human family, and that the Son was the personage through which it should be communicated.” John Taylor, JD, 25:177-178, May 18, 1884.
"He believed that statement and went to the Lord and asked him, and the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus, and pointing to the latter, said: "This is My beloved Son, Hear Him!"" John Taylor, JD, 21:161, December 7, 1879.
Almost 60 years after the fact and John Taylor starts to claim it was God and Christ. He will go back and forth on this issue for the next 10 years.
The discourses of John Taylor affirming that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith during the first vision, and that they are the 'two personages' cannot be seriously questioned. They are numerous, and can be found with virtually no effort.
As can quotes that show he thought it was an angel.
"Directly I saw a light, and then a glorious personage in the light, and then another personage, and the first personage said to the second, Behold my beloved Son, hear him.--I then addressed this second person, saying, O Lord, what Church shall I join? He replied, "don't join any of them, they are all corrupt."" An early non-Mormon publication of the First Vision based on an interview with Joseph Smith by the editor of the Pittsburg Gazette who visited Nauvoo in 1843. This account was published in the New York Spectator, September 23, 1843.[Odd that non-Mormons understood and published that Joseph Smith was talking with the Lord, after interviewing him, but you contend that his teachings were so shifty the members did not know? Not very tenable.--BV]
By 1843 Joseph Smith had almost become consistent when telling the story of his first vision. However, he had told everyone for so many years that it was an angel (or angels) that it is nearly impossible to find a single quote from any close friends or family members of Joseph's that identify the heavenly visitors in 1820 (or 1821 or 1823, depends on who you ask and when) as God and Jesus Christ.
"When the Lord appeared to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him a knowledge pertaining to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the work of the last days, Satan came also with his power and tempted Joseph." George A. Smith, J.D. 11 pg 1-2. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden City, on Tuesday, November 15, 1864.
What?? Were the "two personages" Jesus and Satan?! Where is God in this version? Oh, I see this was in 1864. George A. Smith didn't have his story straight until well into the 1870's as can be seen by the following quote from him in 1869: "[Joseph] was enlightened by the vision of an holy angel. When this personage appeared to him, one of the first inquiries was 'Which of the denominations of Christians in the vicinity was right?' " Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 78
Heck, even the year before the quote you share George A. Smith said, "...he [Joseph Smith] 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" Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 334
What of course is most interesting is how in this same discourse by George A. Smith, he quotes the first vision story verbatim:
"...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 air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other--'This is my beloved son, hear him.'" George A. Smith, J.D. 11 pg 1-2. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden City, on Tuesday, November 15, 1864.
I agree, it is interesting that Joseph Smith referred to the creator of all living things and the Savior of the world as simply "two personages". Oh, wait....that wasn't your point. I'm sorry, what was your point?
So how does George A. Smith, who served as an apostle and counselor to Brigham Young, interpret the words "two personages"? As God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The same as John Taylor.
When? Where?
"He saw in this light two glorious personages, one of whom spoke to him, pointing to the other, saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him." This was a glorious vision given to this boy. When these persons interrogated him to know what he desired, he answered and said, "Lord show me which is the true church." " Orson Pratt, JD Vol 14, pg 141, March 19, 1871
Sorry, according to the "official version" that is not what Joseph said. Now we have Orson Pratt putting words into Joseph's mouth 51 years after the fact. It won't be the last time that they try to change history retroactively.
"The Lord also informed him that, at some future period of time, if he would be faithful in giving heed to the instructions which were then imparted to him, and in his prayers to the Lord, he would impart to him his own doctrine in plainness and simplicity."Orson Pratt, JD Vol 15 page 183, September 22, 1872.
No, I do believe the official version says that the "personage" said something to this effect. Not "the Lord".
So we now have George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt, John Taylor and George A. Smith who all say the personages are God the Father and His Son or Lord.
No we don't. And those that did say that did so over 40 years after the fact.
Joseph’s 1832 account records: “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 crucified for the world, that all those who believe on my name may have eternal life.’”
Isn't it odd that he didn't make it more clear to his closest friends and family that it was God and Christ he saw in 1820? Hey, why didn't you mention that in the 1832 account Joseph places his first vision in 1821 (his 15th year) and makes no reference to the religious revival in town that he mentions later and makes the claim that he already knew that none of the churches were true? In the "official version" given in 1838 the entire reason Joseph went to God in prayer was to find out which church was true. But, in 1832 he claims he knew that "...there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ." Joseph also failed to mention the fact that he saw God as well. What?!?!? He saw Christ and God but failed to mention the big guy? I find that hard to believe. But, then again, Joseph was probably lucky to be alive. After all, around the same time that he wrote this account he came up with D&C 84. In verses 21 and 22 he makes it clear that without the Priesthood, "...no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.
What?!? When did Joseph get the Priesthood, Bob? Wow! Ol' Joseph is lucky to be alive in 1832. I guess he must have been the exception to the old "No-man-can-see-the-face-of-God-and-live-unless-he-has-the-Priesthood" rule.
"He [God] called upon his servant Joseph Smith, jun., when he was but a boy, to lay the foundation of his kingdom for the last time. Why did he call upon Joseph Smith to do it? because he was disposed to do it... Before Joseph Smith made known what the Lord had revealed to him, before his name was even known among many of his neighbours, I knew that Jesus Christ had no true Church upon the earth." Brigham Young, JD 11:253, 254
"...and we testify, to the whole world that we know, by divine revelation, even through the manifestations of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that he revealed himself to Joseph Smith as personally as he did to his Apostles, anciently, after he arose from the tomb, and that he made known unto him those heavenly truths by which alone mankind can be saved." Lorenzo Snow, JD vol. 18, page 299, October 6, 1876. Note this is a General Conference address.
Now we have Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt and George A. Smith all saying that the two personages were really God and Christ.
Bob, are you reading the same things I'm reading? Where in the above quote does Brigham Young say that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in the Spring of 1820? Where did Lorenzo Snow say that? Was Lorenzo Snow referring to the vision in 1821 that Joseph wrote about in 1832? Now I'm confused. Please send me the quotes that you are talking about because you clearly must be reading one thing and sending me another.
Now, due to the limitations of being at home, I cannot get much depth into the works of William Smith, Orson Hyde or Lucy Mack Smith. There is an excellent discussion of William Smith’s statements at http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/wmsmith.htm#6 .
But here is the problem you have. Your assertion is that the use of the word “personages” did not convey a concept of divinity, and that, according to you, it was not established to be God and Christ until much later. But Joseph in his 1832 statement says it was the Lord. He also said that it took place in 1821 and he failed to mention God at all. All of the people I have been able to research believe the same. But not until well after 1860. You must prove, to carry your argument, that those personages were thought to be angels AND that the persons using the phrase NEVER associate the participants in the first vision with God or Christ. I never make the claim that Joseph's contemporaries "never associate the participants in the first vision with God and Christ." You are putting words into my mouth Bob. I simply said that "...over 40 years after Joseph's alleged 'first vision', Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?
"That's because Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints. Over the years Joseph's story changed from an event in the year 1823 to 1821 to 1820.
"His motive for seeking God in prayer also changed significantly over the years. From no motive (a spirit appears with news of gold plates), to a desire to know if God exists, to a desire for forgiveness of sins, and finally, to a local religious revival.
"Most importantly, even the heavenly visitor(s) that he saw were constantly changing. Depending on the account Joseph gave, it was either a spirit, an angel, two angels, many angels, Jesus, and finally, the Father and the Son."
If there is even one example of their understanding being different than your assertion that personages = angels but not God or Christ then your argument fails.
You have yet to show me a single quote from any of Joseph's close friends or family members prior to 1860 (40 years after the vision) that show a firm belief that Joseph saw God and Christ in the Spring on 1820. C'mon...if he saw them like we are told, surely there must be a few quotes from his friends and family within 40 years of the event to back it up.
Further, you must prove that the common and reasonable understanding of the context of the personages was generally understood to not be God and Christ. You have completely failed in that regard.
They all repeatedly refer to his 1820 vision as one of "an angel". I think you would be hard pressed to find any rational person who would believe that "an angel" is the same as God and Jesus Christ.
Let me now compare your statements:
"I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though."
"Isn't it odd that over 40 years after Joseph's alleged "first vision", Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?"
Both statements are now demonstrated false. Your theory is wrong. Show some honor here and admit it. And change your web site.
Nope. Once again, you still haven't shown me a single quote from a single friend or family member of Joseph Smith that believed (or stated) prior to 1860 that Joseph saw God and Christ in 1820. Show some honor here and admit that Joseph's friends and family members clearly were unaware of this claim until well after 1860 when they put their heads together and started to get their story straight. It kind of reminds me of a bunch of teenage school boys who made statements to the police about some petty crime and then later try to put all of their stories together in an attempt to get their story straight. If they could only somehow get rid of their earlier damning statements.......
Since you cite only 11 sources, all but one I would say are presented out of context, Really? So you are now claiming that all but one of my quotes are not referring to Joseph's first vision? Ah, it is so amusing to watch the futile attempts of a Mormon apologist. When in doubt, deny deny, deny. Next you'll tell me that there are no significant changes made to the temple endowment or the D&C. I hope the 15 citations I present are adequate to fulfill your derisive comment about lacking details. All of them post 1860. By the way, I did it on purpose to see how you would answer. Do you really think I am going to walk into a debate without my facts in hand ahead of time? Yes. You see Bob, the "facts" and evidence (not to mention the truth) are on my side. You don't know me, so maybe you did. But I never do. Further, I will concede that the quote by Brigham Young is weak (I will research a few more), but I think the other 14 quotes are solid. Solidly over 40 years after the fact. Moreover, your quote from Joseph Smith’s diary is very misleading because, as you must know, Joseph says in his 1835 recital of the first vision experience that he saw many angels in addition to the two personages when he was 14, and the fact he says in the 14 November 1835 entry that he first was visited by angels at that age is correct. Which November 1835 story? The Nov. 9, 1835 story refers to two personages but in no way identifies them as God and Christ. He does however mention seeing many angels. Joseph gave another account of the first vision on Nov. 14, 1835. When this account was incorporated into the History of the Church, it was changed. It originally read “I received the first visitation of angels, which was when I was about fourteen years old” but was amended to read “I received my first vision when I was about fourteen years old”. Thus, by eliminating one account from the official church history (the one on Nov. 9th) and altering the second, a clear contradiction is removed between Joseph’s earlier claim to see angels in the first vision, and his claim in a later version to see the Father and Son in the first vision.
By the way, you do know the word angel means messenger, right? So Christ, though divine, is the messenger of the Father, for example. Check out Acts 17:18 where Christ is described as a daimonion / strange deity in his roll between God and men.
Oh, so now it appears as though you are saying, "I think you took your quotes out of context but if you are right then that's ok because the dictionary definition of angel is a heavenly messenger and I'm sure we both agree that Christ was certainly a heavenly messenger." How very sad that you need to stretch so far to rationalize your faith in Mormonism. Bob, would you ever in a million years tell people you had "seen an angel" if in fact you had just seen the Savior of the world? I sure as hell wouldn't. We are to believe that Joseph Smith would.
I have other aspects to my life than to document falsehoods on anti-Mormon sites. I will get after the Moroni-Nephi discussion another day. Sure you will Bob, sure you will. Better yet, skip right over to the false translation of the Book of Abraham. Your denial mode will need to be set to full strength for that one. But since I have presented unimpeachable and irrefutable proof of the falseness of your statements, No you haven't. All you've proven is that sometime after 1860 many LDS Church leaders started showing the belief that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in 1820. Likewise, I have proven that that belief was virtually unheard of until at least 1860. I am now going to be watching to see what you do. If you do nothing, then I know that my 3rd hypothesis about your motives was correct. Your "3rd hypothesis" was that I "...feel justified in lying about and distorting LDS history". You have yet to show where I lied. My original statement still stands: Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints until at least 40 years after the alleged incident took place.
I actually agree with you. It is much easier when the truth is on one's side. I cannot really offer you a break of any kind, since you have put out material easily refuted. You have yet to "refute" any of it. Like I say, I will be interested to see your response. I can vigorously disagree with people and still enjoy them. What I have a tough time with is the hypocrisy of double standards. Since I have now spent a total of about 7 hours researching your material, and have easily located statements contradicting your thesis, I am still waiting to discover where you fall in the spectrum of sincerity. It took you 7 hours to find evidence that "the brethren" started showing a belief in today's version of the "first vision" somewhere after 1860? You could've just asked me, "When did the story start to change?" and I could've saved you 6 hours and 58 minutes. You need to invest your time more wisely, Bob. You have found nothing that "contradicts my thesis". I was well aware of the fact that starting in the 1860's "the brethren" started to polish Joseph Smith's story to make it more consistent. I was also aware of the fact (that you seem to be unaware of) that "the brethren" have also taken great steps to change the history books retroactively in an attempt to make many inconsistencies in early Church history disappear. Joseph Smith himself started that trend with the second drafts of the Book of Mormon and the D&C. You really should compare the 1833 D&C (aka the Book of Commandments) with the 1835 D&C. The massive changes made to the D&C in 1835 prompted Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer to say, "Is it possible that the minds of men can be so blinded as to believe that God would give these revelations...and then afterwards command them to change and add to them some words which change the meaning entirely? Is it possible that a man who pretends to any spirituality would believe that God would work in any such manner?" (An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887) It should be noted that several Church leaders over the decades have denied that any changes have been made to the Doctrine & Covenants. Apostle John A. Widtsoe, for instance, maintained that the revelations "...have remained unchanged. There has been no tampering with God's Word." (Joseph Smith — Seeker After Truth, p. 119) Joseph Fielding Smith, who became the tenth president of the church, likewise maintained that there "...was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting " the revelations." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 170)
I await your response.
Best wishes,
RBV
Sorry for the delay but, like I said, I'm moving and answering e-mails is not a high priority right now. Especially e-mails from those who desire the Mormon Church to be true more than they desire the truth (no offense). Frankly Bob, the only reason that I responded at all was because I was once like you. I firmly believed in the Church and even went so far as to write letters and make phone calls to some of the biggest anti-Mormons around (FYI, I am not a fan of the term "anti-Mormon". I couldn't possibly be more "pro-Mormon". They are "my people". However, I do strongly practice "anti-Mormonism" because I have no doubt that it will cause many sincere and decent people like yourself to follow prophets to damnation. Just curious, who do you think the Savior was talking about when he warned of false prophets? Interesting how the Mormon Church (and many of its 200 splinter churches) is one of the few churches on earth that insists that it has a "Prophet" at its helm. By the way, what good is there in having a "living Prophet" if he almost never offers any new revelations? At the very least one of them could "translate" the Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith identified as "the Book of Joseph". It has been in the Church's hands since the late 1960's. Oh, wait.....I forgot, there's no need for the prophet to translate the Book of Joseph papyri. It's already been done by professional Egyptologists and they all (even the Mormon ones) are certain that the papyri has nothing to do with Joseph who was sold into Egypt.
I look forward to your response (not really, but I am trying to be polite).
Sincerely,
Mike Norton
From: RBV
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:50 PM
To: 'Mike'
Subject: RE: What are your motives?
Mike,
Interesting response. Who in the heavens, besides God and Christ, ever appears to anyone in scripture, at any time, and introduces themselves as Father and Son? You miss the logic of the argument and history in general. If you can prove that the two personages could reasonably be construed as any beings other than the Father and the Son, that is your first step. And you fail at that. Second, you must prove that the leaders are confused about the first vision characters and "Church leaders [were] having a hard time keeping the story straight". The more logical and straightforward explanation, proven from their writings, is that they felt no need to issue an exact narrative each time they spoke, like Paul the Apostle, and saw the first vision as an event to be related in summary at times, and in detail at others. Your point lacks logic that they can give a highly detailed description of the first vision before and after talks that you claim show they are confused. What evidence of confusion due you have? Dimentia? Disorientation? Fainting or calling people in the rooms by the wrong names? Hardly. What you have are various venues of stories being related to audiences familiar with the facts of the first vision, since it was widely published, and not feeling a need to meet your standard of consistency.
Further, you blatantly dodge the fact that you said "I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though." WRONG. FLAT OUT WRONG and a continued distortion. Which is it. A shifting story, or one they are unaware of . Logically you are inconsistent and contradicting yourself. Either they knew the story, which contradicts your quote above, or they just willy-nilly chose between multiple stories. But your problem is that ultimately they are retelling Joseph Smith's story, and the exemplars intact from that have Joseph speaking with the Father and Son, whom he calls Lord, and mentioning multiple appearances of angels, which makes it possible for all of the stories to be accurate in the venues they were given.
Please address your logical inconsistencies. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. Pick one. The problem with anti-Mormons in general is they don't feel the need to apply logic or history to their balderdash.
Since the Wentworth letter was widely published throughout the Church, and was more or less incorporated into the Pof GP early on, what do you think was the official position of the Church about the beings who appeared to Joseph Smith? Your quotations are certainly not representative of the general understanding of the leaders you cite, as I demonstrated, your cute comments not withstanding. You must deal with the evidence, and do that consistently, or you have no credibility. The first quote I place from George Q. Cannon devastes your assertion they were unaware of the fact it was a vision of God and Christ. You are wrong. Do you still stand by that, or are we now going to try and figure out the context and reasons why since we now know he did know it was God and Christ, why would he contract the story in a manner which you feel is unmerited? Further, we have the John Taylor, 1850 quote, less than 6 years after Joseph's death, explaining the first vision as being the Father and Son. Will you change your argument again when we pull contemporary journal and published accounts that Joseph testified of seeing the faither and son?
You are like talking to jello. Fortunately, I like jello. If we are to move forward, please actually respond to the information. I proved you were wrong. Admit it. If you want to change the subject and deal with inconsistent descriptions, that is a different point. Can you be a man about it and acknowledge that you have been flatly contradicted by history, but you want to move on? Your repetitious redirecting to the original quotes simply confirms my point: They did know it was god and christ, but in settings they used the term angel interchangeably with the two personages, whom he later id. John Taylor does it on his tract. Did you know that? Did you check? Since you particularly comment on his use of singular and plurals, let's see how he describes it in one place. He later calls the personages God and Christ, and he describes it as a visitation of an angel. Singular. And yet in the tract he describes two personages. So while you may not like the fact he mixes the number and description of the heavenly visitation, in the same letter he is comfortable with the context. Which means your attempt to portray John Taylor at the very least as being confused about the identity of the beings in the visit as wrong. Worse, John Taylor says this was related to him by Joseph Smith, and since it varies in certain unimportant ways in terms of its consistency with other accounts of the first vision, it is unmistakably genuine.
The story was widely published in official documents, something you also ignore. Get real here. Almost everyone in the audiences addressed by the extracts you want to cite knew the official version. And they did not have a problem with it. You must explain, and I honestly am dying to hear your explanation, how the widely published version of the first vision which even Lucy Smith quoted from in her book, how is it everyone had read the account, and you claim it was unknown? Really, explain that. I am all ears. You say virtually no one knew of the first vision account. Published, widespread history and the Churches 19th century critics all contradict you. This will be fun. Shall we go after this concept now? I will, since it refutes another point on your first vision page.
So pick your subject. We have established they DID know the vision was of God and Christ. Do you now want to argue some other point? Your webpage is still wrong, and honesty demands you change it. Or just acknowledge that you are not really interested in the truth, and leave it the way it is. Or leave it the way it is, and your actions will speak for you.
Peace.
Bob
From: RBV
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:52 AM
To: 'Mike'
Subject: RE: What are your motives?
Really quick, you asked what was apparently to you an insightful and devastating question: "Bob, are you intentionally trying to prove my point? Who on earth refers to God and Jesus Christ as "personages"? " Well, in early Church publications prior to 1850, there are probably at least 25 references to God and Christ as personages. And since you quote from one of the sources, "The Lectures on Faith", I would think you would already know the answer to that question.
.
136Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
136A. Two: the Father and the Son. [§5. 1.]
...
138Q. Do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the God-head?
138A. They do. [§3. 2.]
Since the lectures date from 1835, what do you think the accepted meaning of the 1838-1844 published statements of the Two personages, one of whom says "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; ". This was published in the April 1, 1842 Times and Seasons, the official publication of the LDS Church. Everyone read it. Who was the "me" ? Since the personage is quoting the OT in the first person, let's see:
Isaiah 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
So, since God and Christ are described as personages in the LDS scriptures of the day (did you forget, you point out that the Lectures were considered "The Doctrine" part of "The Doctrine and Covenants" on your web page?), and the personages quote scriptures attributed to the Lord in the first person, and since Joseph Smith had published at least since 1835 in the official LDS publications that the Lord had appeared to him in the first vision, I am certain that given all the statements I supplied you, everyone knew of the personages of the first vision being God and Christ, and you provide only a few out of context quotes from people who elsewhere get it right. They weren't having trouble "getting their story straight", they were abbreviating a story they were relating to groups that all knew for themselves the circumstances of the first vision. Remember, it wasn't a virtually unknown event to Latter-day Saints. It was widely published in the US and England. Every member of the Church old enough to read had read of the vision or had access to it.
What you need to prove, which you cannot, is that despite it being widely published, consumed by every believing Mormon, they had recurring episodes of brief amensia scattered among very clear and precise recollection of the details of the first vision. You may not want to concede something so obvious, but it is like I always say, it is logic like this that makes the anti-Mormon positions so silly to anyone who seriously researches them. The Times and Seasons articles and the 1835 accounts also refute your assertion that no contemporaries for 40 years after the death of Joseph had the story straight. It was straight for at least 9 years prior to Joseph's death, and as you mention, it is in the Lectures on Faith that two personages constitute the godhead. The words and context, as well as the accepted LDS teachings of the day made it clear the two personages were God and Christ.
For 10 years after the first vision, the Church was not formed, so knowledge of the first vision was shared in a very limited fashion. Then, after the formation of the Church, it was verbally circulated, as stated by John Taylor and Parley P. Pratt, as well as accounts by Alexander Niebaurer (sp) and the press. It was widely published and discussed by anti-Mormons as well. You are the one on your web page quoting sources in the 1880's saying they still were confused and did not know the story, but it not so, and it is clear you know it. Keep shifting to new arguments, avoid getting pinned down. I am prepared to discuss this topic, and your writings, as long as you want. But understand, I will bring the discussion back to the point every time. So respond to the quotes, the data. From at least 1835 on, the use of the term personages and angel to describe the visit of the Father and Son to Joseph was not considered out of the norm in the group using the terms. I have provided examples, you have provided only your (profane) opinion that you would not use such language if it were you. That is the definition of an anachronism. Look it up. It is a word that if you really would understand, it would explain a lot about your being offended by what people did 120+ years before you were born. They did not know or care what you might consider acceptable. Your inability to put their remarks in context is why you make mistakes in interpreting history no historian would consider acceptable. But do what you want. The whole beam and mote analogy comes to mind.
Lastly, after you see you are thrashed, you want to move to the Book of Abraham. I told you I would go to the Moroni vs. Nephi farce, because, like this first vision abstraction, it is very easy to document the errors and deception of your approach. You have lied, since you assert that I have not pointed any out. You said they did not know of God and Christ visiting Joseph in the first vision, and you say "That's because Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints." That is a lie, flat out.
I will get to the other areas of your webpage, but apparently you left the Church on the basis of not wanting to examine evidence at any depth. Let's at least get all the evidence on the table. This will make a great counter-point post to the lies on the Josephlied.com website, so I want to be thorough. And as I always say, if the evidence is so compelling, why do people need to lie and distort history. Really Mike, do you think anyone is going to take your statements seriously when you quote an 1889 George Q. Cannon text to prove he doesn't know about God and Christ appearing to Joseph, when in 1883 he quotes specifically that it was God and Christ that appeared? Or the John Taylor quotes from 1850? Or the 1842 Times and Seasons and 1835 Lectures on Faith, or D&C 130:22-23 published in April 1843? You may not care about historical facts, but I am willing to bet the average person reading this and comparing it with your webpages and statements will make the correct choice.
Game, match, set.
Let's move on to Moroni and Nephi. I will get to it next week.
Take a jello break while you move your household. Peace.
From: RBV
To: mike@josephlied.com
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: What are your motives?
I have read through your web pages, and aside from understandable minor mistakes in your citations, I am trying to understand your level of scholarship. Maybe it would be better stated to ask your level of personal research into the things you write? Since your opening page outlines a 'bait-and-switch, let the buyer beware' sort of description of purported lies and distortions by the LDS Church, and your personal story mentions you did a lot of research into Church history, I am trying to reconcile what I see as basically two possibilities for your motivations in writing your follow-on WebPages. I have in the past two days done a little research, maybe 4 hours total, on your citations and sources. In particular, I researched your page on the first vision and the page on the angel Moroni vs. Nephi.
Which brings me to my hypothesis about you, which I am looking for you to confirm what is correct. Because of the gross errors in your statements I can only see two or three possibilities:
1. You are an incredibly inept historical researcher. You make statements that John Taylor, Brigham Young, Lucy Mack Smith, George A. Smith and Orson Hyde are unaware of the first vision story. Yet each of them wrote about or quoted directly from the first vision accounts stating it occurred in 1820, and that Joseph Smith was visited by two personages. The only one who is confused was William Smith, who in fact made several documented errors in his relating of historical facts, and the chief error he makes is to combine elements of the first vision with the visit from Moroni. Here is your problem. If all or most of these people correctly relate in detail the events of the first vision as currently and historically taught by the LDS Church, then their comments which you deem contradictory demand being correctly set into the historic setting of where they were delivered. In any case, they clearly are not "unaware" 40 years after the first vision of the accepted LDS version, as you falsely state.
2. (This is really a subset of #1) You have done virtually no in-depth research of your own, and therefore have relied upon anti-Mormon literature for the sources you cite. Your changes to the Book of Mormon is almost a mirror site of CARM and the Tanner's slipshod work. I have sat in on seminars by Royal Skousen, which were free to the public, and just laugh at the gross errors and poor scholarship of your posting. But it may not be your fault. Other than being the electronic version of a rumor monger, you may be genuinely ignorant of the "history" you purport to be clarifying.
3. For your own reasons, which I would like to understand better, you feel justified in lying about and distorting LDS history.
The fourth choice would have been you have correctly relayed the facts around LDS history pertaining to teachings of the first vision and the visit by the angel Moroni. The specific and concrete evidence contradicting your conclusions makes this choice unlikely.
I don't really see how there can be a fourth choice. You present as facts events out of their context and draw false conclusions. Joseph Smith always taught there had been a first vision in 1820, and a visitation from Moroni and other angels in 1823. The early leaders of the Church, and Joseph Smith's mother, also always taught this when they were concerned about being exact. John Taylor wrote a very specific and detailed tract in 1850 outlining this understanding. The fact that you say he and Brigham Young are unaware of the first vision occuring in 1820 is a lie. It may have been an error on your part, but now you have a fact to check and fix the error. If you do not, then I will be forced to conclude that hypothesis 3 is correct.
The irony of your opening page is not lost on me. You are perhaps the real bait-and-switch artist, if you are in fact inclined to hypothesis 3.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
RBV
or Bob the anti-anti as my blog says.
From: Mike [mailto:Mike@JosephLied.com]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 9:50 AM
To: RBV
Subject: Re: What are your motives?
Bob,
I do not make the claim that the contemporaries of Joseph's Myth were "unaware" of his first vision in 1820. I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though. By all means, let's see the quotes that say otherwise. The same goes for the quotes regarding his angel Nephi, later changed to Moroni.
I suppose I am also mistaken about the Kinderhook plates and the "translation" of the Book of Abraham too.
Give me a break Bob. I've been in your shoes. I too was a so called "anti-anti" and I find my job MUCH easier when I don't have to make excuses and try to defend a lie anymore. You should give it a try. It's MUCH easier when the truth is actually on your side.
Mike Norton
P.S. You talk of all these errors and yet don't give ANY specifics. Typical.
From: RBV
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 9:00 PM
To: 'Mike'
Subject: RE: What are your motives?
Thank you for the response Mike.
“But all this was swept away in one moment by the appearance of the Almighty Himself--by the appearance of God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, to the boy Joseph, as he kneeled in the forest beseeching God for knowledge concerning Him, and concerning the Gospel of salvation…The Father came accompanied by the Son, thus showing that there were two personages of the Godhead, two presiding personages whom we worship and to whom we look, the one the Father, and the other the Son. Joseph saw that the Father had a form; that He had a head; that He had arms; that He had limbs; that He had feet; that He had a face and a tongue with which to express His thoughts; for He said unto Joseph: "This is my beloved Son"--pointing to the Son--"hear Him."” George Q. Cannon, JD vol.24 page 373, September 2, 1883.
Note this quote is 6 years before your proof-text. Oops.
"There were two personages [who] appeared unto Joseph Smith, Jun.,--God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ." George Q. Cannon, April 7, 1889 Collected Discourses Vol.1
"And finally, when all the preparations were made and everything was ready, or the time had fully come, the Father and the Son appeared to the youth Joseph Smith to introduce the great work of the latter days."- John Taylor, JD, 22:298-299, August 28, 1881.
"He [Joseph Smith] presented himself before the world and informed the people that God had spoken, and that he had spoken to him. He told them that the heavens had been opened and that angels clothed in light and glory had appeared to him and revealed unto him certain things." John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, from JD, 10:127-128, March 1, 1863.
"and two glorious personages presented themselves before him, who exactly resembled each other in features" John Taylor, 1850.
What did John Taylor interpret the Two Personages to be? The Father and the Son.
“When our Heavenly Father appeared unto Joseph Smith, the Prophet, he pointed to the Savior who was with him, (and who, it is said, is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person) and said: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him." There was an evidence manifested through his servant to the world, that God lived, that the Redeemer, who was crucified and put to death to atone for the sins of the world, also lived, that there was a message which had to be communicated to the human family, and that the Son was the personage through which it should be communicated.” John Taylor, JD, 25:177-178, May 18, 1884.
"He believed that statement and went to the Lord and asked him, and the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus, and pointing to the latter, said: "This is My beloved Son, Hear Him!"" John Taylor, JD, 21:161, December 7, 1879.
The discourses of John Taylor affirming that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith during the first vision, and that they are the 'two personages' cannot be seriously questioned. They are numerous, and can be found with virtually no effort.
"Directly I saw a light, and then a glorious personage in the light, and then another personage, and the first personage said to the second, Behold my beloved Son, hear him.--I then addressed this second person, saying, O Lord, what Church shall I join? He replied, "don't join any of them, they are all corrupt."" An early non-Mormon publication of the First Vision based on an interview with Joseph Smith by the editor of the Pittsburg Gazette who visited Nauvoo in 1843. This account was published in the New York Spectator, September 23, 1843.[Odd that non-Mormons understood and published that Joseph Smith was talking with the Lord, after interviewing him, but you contend that his teachings were so shifty the members did not know? Not very tenable.--BV]
"When the Lord appeared to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him a knowledge pertaining to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the work of the last days, Satan came also with his power and tempted Joseph." George A. Smith, J.D. 11 pg 1-2. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden City, on Tuesday, November 15, 1864.
What of course is most interesting is how in this same discourse by George A. Smith, he quotes the first vision story verbatim:
"...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 air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other--'This is my beloved son, hear him.'" George A. Smith, J.D. 11 pg 1-2. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden City, on Tuesday, November 15, 1864.
So how does George A. Smith, who served as an apostle and counselor to Brigham Young, interpret the words "two personages"? As God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The same as John Taylor.
"He saw in this light two glorious personages, one of whom spoke to him, pointing to the other, saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him." This was a glorious vision given to this boy. When these persons interrogated him to know what he desired, he answered and said, "Lord show me which is the true church." " Orson Pratt, JD Vol 14, pg 141, March 19, 1871
"The Lord also informed him that, at some future period of time, if he would be faithful in giving heed to the instructions which were then imparted to him, and in his prayers to the Lord, he would impart to him his own doctrine in plainness and simplicity."Orson Pratt, JD Vol 15 page 183, September 22, 1872.
So we now have George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt, John Taylor and George A. Smith who all say the personages are God the Father and His Son or Lord.
Joseph’s 1832 account records: “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 crucified for the world, that all those who believe on my name may have eternal life.’”
"He [God] called upon his servant Joseph Smith, jun., when he was but a boy, to lay the foundation of his kingdom for the last time. Why did he call upon Joseph Smith to do it? because he was disposed to do it... Before Joseph Smith made known what the Lord had revealed to him, before his name was even known among many of his neighbours, I knew that Jesus Christ had no true Church upon the earth." Brigham Young, JD 11:253, 254
"...and we testify, to the whole world that we know, by divine revelation, even through the manifestations of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that he revealed himself to Joseph Smith as personally as he did to his Apostles, anciently, after he arose from the tomb, and that he made known unto him those heavenly truths by which alone mankind can be saved." Lorenzo Snow, JD vol. 18, page 299, October 6, 1876. Note this is a General Conference address.
Now we have Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt and George A. Smith all saying that the two personages were really God and Christ.
Now, due to the limitations of being at home, I cannot get much depth into the works of William Smith, Orson Hyde or Lucy Mack Smith. There is an excellent discussion of William Smith’s statements at http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/wmsmith.htm#6 .
But here is the problem you have. Your assertion is that the use of the word “personages” did not convey a concept of divinity, and that, according to you, it was not established to be God and Christ until much later. But Joseph in his 1832 statement says it was the Lord. All of the people I have been able to research believe the same. You must prove, to carry your argument, that those personages were thought to be angels AND that the persons using the phrase NEVER associate the participants in the first vision with God or Christ. If there is even one example of their understanding being different than your assertion that
personages = angels but not God or Christ
then your argument fails. Further, you must prove that the common and reasonable understanding of the context of the personages was generally understood to not be God and Christ. You have completely failed in that regard.
Let me now compare your statements:
"I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though."
"Isn't it odd that over 40 years after Joseph's alleged "first vision", Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?"
Both statements are now demonstrated false. Your theory is wrong. Show some honor here and admit it. And change your web site.
Since you cite only 11 sources, all but one I would say are presented out of context, I hope the 15 citations I present are adequate to fulfill your derisive comment about lacking details. By the way, I did it on purpose to see how you would answer. Do you really think I am going to walk into a debate without my facts in hand ahead of time? You don't know me, so maybe you did. But I never do. Further, I will concede that the quote by Brigham Young is weak (I will research a few more), but I think the other 14 quotes are solid. Moreover, your quote from Joseph Smith’s diary is very misleading because, as you must know, Joseph says in his 1835 recital of the first vision experience that he saw many angels in addition to the two personages when he was 14, and the fact he says in the 14 November 1835 entry that he first was visited by angels at that age is correct. By the way, you do know the word angel means messenger, right? So Christ, though divine, is the messenger of the Father, for example. Check out Acts 17:18 where Christ is described as a daimonion / strange deity in his roll between God and men.
I have other aspects to my life than to document falsehoods on anti-Mormon sites. I will get after the Moroni-Nephi discussion another day. But since I have presented unimpeachable and irrefutable proof of the falseness of your statements, I am now going to be watching to see what you do. If you do nothing, then I know that my 3rd hypothesis about your motives was correct.
I actually agree with you. It is much easier when the truth is on one's side. I cannot really offer you a break of any kind, since you have put out material easily refuted. Like I say, I will be interested to see your response. I can vigorously disagree with people and still enjoy them. What I have a tough time with is the hypocrisy of double standards. Since I have now spent a total of about 7 hours researching your material, and have easily located statements contradicting your thesis, I am still waiting to discover where you fall in the spectrum of sincerity.
I await your response.
Best wishes,
RBV
From: Mike [mailto:Mike@JosephLied.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:45 AM
To: RBV
Cc: Rob Sivulka
Subject: Re: What are your motives?
Bob, just some very quick comments. I am moving this week and simply don't have time for a long drawn out e-mail. I will make my comments in this larger blue font. First off, I feel the need to emphasize a comment made on my website about the issue of the "First Vision". On my site I wrote,
"Isn't it odd that over 40 years after Joseph's alleged "first vision", Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?
"That's because Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints. Over the years Joseph's story changed from an event in the year 1823 to 1821 to 1820."
On that note, let me comment on your comments now.
Thank you for the response Mike.
“But all this was swept away in one moment by the appearance of the Almighty Himself--by the appearance of God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, to the boy Joseph, as he kneeled in the forest beseeching God for knowledge concerning Him, and concerning the Gospel of salvation…The Father came accompanied by the Son, thus showing that there were two personages of the Godhead, two presiding personages whom we worship and to whom we look, the one the Father, and the other the Son. Joseph saw that the Father had a form; that He had a head; that He had arms; that He had limbs; that He had feet; that He had a face and a tongue with which to express His thoughts; for He said unto Joseph: "This is my beloved Son"--pointing to the Son--"hear Him."” George Q. Cannon, JD vol.24 page 373, September 2, 1883.
Note this quote is 6 years before your proof-text. Oops.
Oops indeed. Don't fret, this isn't the only example of early Church leaders having a hard time keeping the story straight. However, I find it interesting that you couldn't find a single quote from any of Joseph Smith's close friends or family members until well past 1860 (or as I said on my site, "40 years after Joseph's first vision") that clearly identified the person (or persons) in his first vision as that of God and Christ.
"There were two personages [who] appeared unto Joseph Smith, Jun.,--God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ." George Q. Cannon, April 7, 1889 Collected Discourses Vol.1
Yup. By 1889 pretty much all of "the brethren" had gotten their story straight and were consistently claiming it was God and Christ that Joseph saw in 1820. I find it interesting that in the same year that this quote was given, George Q. Cannon said of the first vision, "But suppose that the statement that Joseph Smith says the angel made to him should be true-that there was no church upon the face of the earth whom God recognized as His, and whose acts He acknowledged-suppose this were true..."
"And finally, when all the preparations were made and everything was ready, or the time had fully come, the Father and the Son appeared to the youth Joseph Smith to introduce the great work of the latter days."- John Taylor, JD, 22:298-299, August 28, 1881.
Yet, just two years before Taylor said, "None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right." Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 167 (1879)
"He [Joseph Smith] presented himself before the world and informed the people that God had spoken, and that he had spoken to him. He told them that the heavens had been opened and that angels clothed in light and glory had appeared to him and revealed unto him certain things." John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, from JD, 10:127-128, March 1, 1863.
Who was it that "...revealed unto him certain things"? Angels, Bob. Angels.
"and two glorious personages presented themselves before him, who exactly resembled each other in features" John Taylor, 1850.
Bob, are you intentionally trying to prove my point? Who on earth refers to God and Jesus Christ as "personages"?
What did John Taylor interpret the Two Personages to be? The Father and the Son.
34 years later!!!!!!
“When our Heavenly Father appeared unto Joseph Smith, the Prophet, he pointed to the Savior who was with him, (and who, it is said, is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his person) and said: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him." There was an evidence manifested through his servant to the world, that God lived, that the Redeemer, who was crucified and put to death to atone for the sins of the world, also lived, that there was a message which had to be communicated to the human family, and that the Son was the personage through which it should be communicated.” John Taylor, JD, 25:177-178, May 18, 1884.
"He believed that statement and went to the Lord and asked him, and the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus, and pointing to the latter, said: "This is My beloved Son, Hear Him!"" John Taylor, JD, 21:161, December 7, 1879.
Almost 60 years after the fact and John Taylor starts to claim it was God and Christ. He will go back and forth on this issue for the next 10 years.
The discourses of John Taylor affirming that God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith during the first vision, and that they are the 'two personages' cannot be seriously questioned. They are numerous, and can be found with virtually no effort.
As can quotes that show he thought it was an angel.
"Directly I saw a light, and then a glorious personage in the light, and then another personage, and the first personage said to the second, Behold my beloved Son, hear him.--I then addressed this second person, saying, O Lord, what Church shall I join? He replied, "don't join any of them, they are all corrupt."" An early non-Mormon publication of the First Vision based on an interview with Joseph Smith by the editor of the Pittsburg Gazette who visited Nauvoo in 1843. This account was published in the New York Spectator, September 23, 1843.[Odd that non-Mormons understood and published that Joseph Smith was talking with the Lord, after interviewing him, but you contend that his teachings were so shifty the members did not know? Not very tenable.--BV]
By 1843 Joseph Smith had almost become consistent when telling the story of his first vision. However, he had told everyone for so many years that it was an angel (or angels) that it is nearly impossible to find a single quote from any close friends or family members of Joseph's that identify the heavenly visitors in 1820 (or 1821 or 1823, depends on who you ask and when) as God and Jesus Christ.
"When the Lord appeared to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him a knowledge pertaining to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the work of the last days, Satan came also with his power and tempted Joseph." George A. Smith, J.D. 11 pg 1-2. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden City, on Tuesday, November 15, 1864.
What?? Were the "two personages" Jesus and Satan?! Where is God in this version? Oh, I see this was in 1864. George A. Smith didn't have his story straight until well into the 1870's as can be seen by the following quote from him in 1869: "[Joseph] was enlightened by the vision of an holy angel. When this personage appeared to him, one of the first inquiries was 'Which of the denominations of Christians in the vicinity was right?' " Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 78
Heck, even the year before the quote you share George A. Smith said, "...he [Joseph Smith] 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" Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 334
What of course is most interesting is how in this same discourse by George A. Smith, he quotes the first vision story verbatim:
"...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 air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other--'This is my beloved son, hear him.'" George A. Smith, J.D. 11 pg 1-2. Delivered in the Tabernacle, Ogden City, on Tuesday, November 15, 1864.
I agree, it is interesting that Joseph Smith referred to the creator of all living things and the Savior of the world as simply "two personages". Oh, wait....that wasn't your point. I'm sorry, what was your point?
So how does George A. Smith, who served as an apostle and counselor to Brigham Young, interpret the words "two personages"? As God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. The same as John Taylor.
When? Where?
"He saw in this light two glorious personages, one of whom spoke to him, pointing to the other, saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him." This was a glorious vision given to this boy. When these persons interrogated him to know what he desired, he answered and said, "Lord show me which is the true church." " Orson Pratt, JD Vol 14, pg 141, March 19, 1871
Sorry, according to the "official version" that is not what Joseph said. Now we have Orson Pratt putting words into Joseph's mouth 51 years after the fact. It won't be the last time that they try to change history retroactively.
"The Lord also informed him that, at some future period of time, if he would be faithful in giving heed to the instructions which were then imparted to him, and in his prayers to the Lord, he would impart to him his own doctrine in plainness and simplicity."Orson Pratt, JD Vol 15 page 183, September 22, 1872.
No, I do believe the official version says that the "personage" said something to this effect. Not "the Lord".
So we now have George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt, John Taylor and George A. Smith who all say the personages are God the Father and His Son or Lord.
No we don't. And those that did say that did so over 40 years after the fact.
Joseph’s 1832 account records: “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 crucified for the world, that all those who believe on my name may have eternal life.’”
Isn't it odd that he didn't make it more clear to his closest friends and family that it was God and Christ he saw in 1820? Hey, why didn't you mention that in the 1832 account Joseph places his first vision in 1821 (his 15th year) and makes no reference to the religious revival in town that he mentions later and makes the claim that he already knew that none of the churches were true? In the "official version" given in 1838 the entire reason Joseph went to God in prayer was to find out which church was true. But, in 1832 he claims he knew that "...there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ." Joseph also failed to mention the fact that he saw God as well. What?!?!? He saw Christ and God but failed to mention the big guy? I find that hard to believe. But, then again, Joseph was probably lucky to be alive. After all, around the same time that he wrote this account he came up with D&C 84. In verses 21 and 22 he makes it clear that without the Priesthood, "...no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.
What?!? When did Joseph get the Priesthood, Bob? Wow! Ol' Joseph is lucky to be alive in 1832. I guess he must have been the exception to the old "No-man-can-see-the-face-of-God-and-live-unless-he-has-the-Priesthood" rule.
"He [God] called upon his servant Joseph Smith, jun., when he was but a boy, to lay the foundation of his kingdom for the last time. Why did he call upon Joseph Smith to do it? because he was disposed to do it... Before Joseph Smith made known what the Lord had revealed to him, before his name was even known among many of his neighbours, I knew that Jesus Christ had no true Church upon the earth." Brigham Young, JD 11:253, 254
"...and we testify, to the whole world that we know, by divine revelation, even through the manifestations of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that he revealed himself to Joseph Smith as personally as he did to his Apostles, anciently, after he arose from the tomb, and that he made known unto him those heavenly truths by which alone mankind can be saved." Lorenzo Snow, JD vol. 18, page 299, October 6, 1876. Note this is a General Conference address.
Now we have Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt and George A. Smith all saying that the two personages were really God and Christ.
Bob, are you reading the same things I'm reading? Where in the above quote does Brigham Young say that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in the Spring of 1820? Where did Lorenzo Snow say that? Was Lorenzo Snow referring to the vision in 1821 that Joseph wrote about in 1832? Now I'm confused. Please send me the quotes that you are talking about because you clearly must be reading one thing and sending me another.
Now, due to the limitations of being at home, I cannot get much depth into the works of William Smith, Orson Hyde or Lucy Mack Smith. There is an excellent discussion of William Smith’s statements at http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/wmsmith.htm#6 .
But here is the problem you have. Your assertion is that the use of the word “personages” did not convey a concept of divinity, and that, according to you, it was not established to be God and Christ until much later. But Joseph in his 1832 statement says it was the Lord. He also said that it took place in 1821 and he failed to mention God at all. All of the people I have been able to research believe the same. But not until well after 1860. You must prove, to carry your argument, that those personages were thought to be angels AND that the persons using the phrase NEVER associate the participants in the first vision with God or Christ. I never make the claim that Joseph's contemporaries "never associate the participants in the first vision with God and Christ." You are putting words into my mouth Bob. I simply said that "...over 40 years after Joseph's alleged 'first vision', Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?
"That's because Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints. Over the years Joseph's story changed from an event in the year 1823 to 1821 to 1820.
"His motive for seeking God in prayer also changed significantly over the years. From no motive (a spirit appears with news of gold plates), to a desire to know if God exists, to a desire for forgiveness of sins, and finally, to a local religious revival.
"Most importantly, even the heavenly visitor(s) that he saw were constantly changing. Depending on the account Joseph gave, it was either a spirit, an angel, two angels, many angels, Jesus, and finally, the Father and the Son."
If there is even one example of their understanding being different than your assertion that personages = angels but not God or Christ then your argument fails.
You have yet to show me a single quote from any of Joseph's close friends or family members prior to 1860 (40 years after the vision) that show a firm belief that Joseph saw God and Christ in the Spring on 1820. C'mon...if he saw them like we are told, surely there must be a few quotes from his friends and family within 40 years of the event to back it up.
Further, you must prove that the common and reasonable understanding of the context of the personages was generally understood to not be God and Christ. You have completely failed in that regard.
They all repeatedly refer to his 1820 vision as one of "an angel". I think you would be hard pressed to find any rational person who would believe that "an angel" is the same as God and Jesus Christ.
Let me now compare your statements:
"I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though."
"Isn't it odd that over 40 years after Joseph's alleged "first vision", Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?"
Both statements are now demonstrated false. Your theory is wrong. Show some honor here and admit it. And change your web site.
Nope. Once again, you still haven't shown me a single quote from a single friend or family member of Joseph Smith that believed (or stated) prior to 1860 that Joseph saw God and Christ in 1820. Show some honor here and admit that Joseph's friends and family members clearly were unaware of this claim until well after 1860 when they put their heads together and started to get their story straight. It kind of reminds me of a bunch of teenage school boys who made statements to the police about some petty crime and then later try to put all of their stories together in an attempt to get their story straight. If they could only somehow get rid of their earlier damning statements.......
Since you cite only 11 sources, all but one I would say are presented out of context, Really? So you are now claiming that all but one of my quotes are not referring to Joseph's first vision? Ah, it is so amusing to watch the futile attempts of a Mormon apologist. When in doubt, deny deny, deny. Next you'll tell me that there are no significant changes made to the temple endowment or the D&C. I hope the 15 citations I present are adequate to fulfill your derisive comment about lacking details. All of them post 1860. By the way, I did it on purpose to see how you would answer. Do you really think I am going to walk into a debate without my facts in hand ahead of time? Yes. You see Bob, the "facts" and evidence (not to mention the truth) are on my side. You don't know me, so maybe you did. But I never do. Further, I will concede that the quote by Brigham Young is weak (I will research a few more), but I think the other 14 quotes are solid. Solidly over 40 years after the fact. Moreover, your quote from Joseph Smith’s diary is very misleading because, as you must know, Joseph says in his 1835 recital of the first vision experience that he saw many angels in addition to the two personages when he was 14, and the fact he says in the 14 November 1835 entry that he first was visited by angels at that age is correct. Which November 1835 story? The Nov. 9, 1835 story refers to two personages but in no way identifies them as God and Christ. He does however mention seeing many angels. Joseph gave another account of the first vision on Nov. 14, 1835. When this account was incorporated into the History of the Church, it was changed. It originally read “I received the first visitation of angels, which was when I was about fourteen years old” but was amended to read “I received my first vision when I was about fourteen years old”. Thus, by eliminating one account from the official church history (the one on Nov. 9th) and altering the second, a clear contradiction is removed between Joseph’s earlier claim to see angels in the first vision, and his claim in a later version to see the Father and Son in the first vision.
By the way, you do know the word angel means messenger, right? So Christ, though divine, is the messenger of the Father, for example. Check out Acts 17:18 where Christ is described as a daimonion / strange deity in his roll between God and men.
Oh, so now it appears as though you are saying, "I think you took your quotes out of context but if you are right then that's ok because the dictionary definition of angel is a heavenly messenger and I'm sure we both agree that Christ was certainly a heavenly messenger." How very sad that you need to stretch so far to rationalize your faith in Mormonism. Bob, would you ever in a million years tell people you had "seen an angel" if in fact you had just seen the Savior of the world? I sure as hell wouldn't. We are to believe that Joseph Smith would.
I have other aspects to my life than to document falsehoods on anti-Mormon sites. I will get after the Moroni-Nephi discussion another day. Sure you will Bob, sure you will. Better yet, skip right over to the false translation of the Book of Abraham. Your denial mode will need to be set to full strength for that one. But since I have presented unimpeachable and irrefutable proof of the falseness of your statements, No you haven't. All you've proven is that sometime after 1860 many LDS Church leaders started showing the belief that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in 1820. Likewise, I have proven that that belief was virtually unheard of until at least 1860. I am now going to be watching to see what you do. If you do nothing, then I know that my 3rd hypothesis about your motives was correct. Your "3rd hypothesis" was that I "...feel justified in lying about and distorting LDS history". You have yet to show where I lied. My original statement still stands: Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints until at least 40 years after the alleged incident took place.
I actually agree with you. It is much easier when the truth is on one's side. I cannot really offer you a break of any kind, since you have put out material easily refuted. You have yet to "refute" any of it. Like I say, I will be interested to see your response. I can vigorously disagree with people and still enjoy them. What I have a tough time with is the hypocrisy of double standards. Since I have now spent a total of about 7 hours researching your material, and have easily located statements contradicting your thesis, I am still waiting to discover where you fall in the spectrum of sincerity. It took you 7 hours to find evidence that "the brethren" started showing a belief in today's version of the "first vision" somewhere after 1860? You could've just asked me, "When did the story start to change?" and I could've saved you 6 hours and 58 minutes. You need to invest your time more wisely, Bob. You have found nothing that "contradicts my thesis". I was well aware of the fact that starting in the 1860's "the brethren" started to polish Joseph Smith's story to make it more consistent. I was also aware of the fact (that you seem to be unaware of) that "the brethren" have also taken great steps to change the history books retroactively in an attempt to make many inconsistencies in early Church history disappear. Joseph Smith himself started that trend with the second drafts of the Book of Mormon and the D&C. You really should compare the 1833 D&C (aka the Book of Commandments) with the 1835 D&C. The massive changes made to the D&C in 1835 prompted Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer to say, "Is it possible that the minds of men can be so blinded as to believe that God would give these revelations...and then afterwards command them to change and add to them some words which change the meaning entirely? Is it possible that a man who pretends to any spirituality would believe that God would work in any such manner?" (An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887) It should be noted that several Church leaders over the decades have denied that any changes have been made to the Doctrine & Covenants. Apostle John A. Widtsoe, for instance, maintained that the revelations "...have remained unchanged. There has been no tampering with God's Word." (Joseph Smith — Seeker After Truth, p. 119) Joseph Fielding Smith, who became the tenth president of the church, likewise maintained that there "...was no need for eliminating, changing, or adjusting " the revelations." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 170)
I await your response.
Best wishes,
RBV
Sorry for the delay but, like I said, I'm moving and answering e-mails is not a high priority right now. Especially e-mails from those who desire the Mormon Church to be true more than they desire the truth (no offense). Frankly Bob, the only reason that I responded at all was because I was once like you. I firmly believed in the Church and even went so far as to write letters and make phone calls to some of the biggest anti-Mormons around (FYI, I am not a fan of the term "anti-Mormon". I couldn't possibly be more "pro-Mormon". They are "my people". However, I do strongly practice "anti-Mormonism" because I have no doubt that it will cause many sincere and decent people like yourself to follow prophets to damnation. Just curious, who do you think the Savior was talking about when he warned of false prophets? Interesting how the Mormon Church (and many of its 200 splinter churches) is one of the few churches on earth that insists that it has a "Prophet" at its helm. By the way, what good is there in having a "living Prophet" if he almost never offers any new revelations? At the very least one of them could "translate" the Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith identified as "the Book of Joseph". It has been in the Church's hands since the late 1960's. Oh, wait.....I forgot, there's no need for the prophet to translate the Book of Joseph papyri. It's already been done by professional Egyptologists and they all (even the Mormon ones) are certain that the papyri has nothing to do with Joseph who was sold into Egypt.
I look forward to your response (not really, but I am trying to be polite).
Sincerely,
Mike Norton
From: RBV
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 1:50 PM
To: 'Mike'
Subject: RE: What are your motives?
Mike,
Interesting response. Who in the heavens, besides God and Christ, ever appears to anyone in scripture, at any time, and introduces themselves as Father and Son? You miss the logic of the argument and history in general. If you can prove that the two personages could reasonably be construed as any beings other than the Father and the Son, that is your first step. And you fail at that. Second, you must prove that the leaders are confused about the first vision characters and "Church leaders [were] having a hard time keeping the story straight". The more logical and straightforward explanation, proven from their writings, is that they felt no need to issue an exact narrative each time they spoke, like Paul the Apostle, and saw the first vision as an event to be related in summary at times, and in detail at others. Your point lacks logic that they can give a highly detailed description of the first vision before and after talks that you claim show they are confused. What evidence of confusion due you have? Dimentia? Disorientation? Fainting or calling people in the rooms by the wrong names? Hardly. What you have are various venues of stories being related to audiences familiar with the facts of the first vision, since it was widely published, and not feeling a need to meet your standard of consistency.
Further, you blatantly dodge the fact that you said "I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though." WRONG. FLAT OUT WRONG and a continued distortion. Which is it. A shifting story, or one they are unaware of . Logically you are inconsistent and contradicting yourself. Either they knew the story, which contradicts your quote above, or they just willy-nilly chose between multiple stories. But your problem is that ultimately they are retelling Joseph Smith's story, and the exemplars intact from that have Joseph speaking with the Father and Son, whom he calls Lord, and mentioning multiple appearances of angels, which makes it possible for all of the stories to be accurate in the venues they were given.
Please address your logical inconsistencies. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways. Pick one. The problem with anti-Mormons in general is they don't feel the need to apply logic or history to their balderdash.
Since the Wentworth letter was widely published throughout the Church, and was more or less incorporated into the Pof GP early on, what do you think was the official position of the Church about the beings who appeared to Joseph Smith? Your quotations are certainly not representative of the general understanding of the leaders you cite, as I demonstrated, your cute comments not withstanding. You must deal with the evidence, and do that consistently, or you have no credibility. The first quote I place from George Q. Cannon devastes your assertion they were unaware of the fact it was a vision of God and Christ. You are wrong. Do you still stand by that, or are we now going to try and figure out the context and reasons why since we now know he did know it was God and Christ, why would he contract the story in a manner which you feel is unmerited? Further, we have the John Taylor, 1850 quote, less than 6 years after Joseph's death, explaining the first vision as being the Father and Son. Will you change your argument again when we pull contemporary journal and published accounts that Joseph testified of seeing the faither and son?
You are like talking to jello. Fortunately, I like jello. If we are to move forward, please actually respond to the information. I proved you were wrong. Admit it. If you want to change the subject and deal with inconsistent descriptions, that is a different point. Can you be a man about it and acknowledge that you have been flatly contradicted by history, but you want to move on? Your repetitious redirecting to the original quotes simply confirms my point: They did know it was god and christ, but in settings they used the term angel interchangeably with the two personages, whom he later id. John Taylor does it on his tract. Did you know that? Did you check? Since you particularly comment on his use of singular and plurals, let's see how he describes it in one place. He later calls the personages God and Christ, and he describes it as a visitation of an angel. Singular. And yet in the tract he describes two personages. So while you may not like the fact he mixes the number and description of the heavenly visitation, in the same letter he is comfortable with the context. Which means your attempt to portray John Taylor at the very least as being confused about the identity of the beings in the visit as wrong. Worse, John Taylor says this was related to him by Joseph Smith, and since it varies in certain unimportant ways in terms of its consistency with other accounts of the first vision, it is unmistakably genuine.
The story was widely published in official documents, something you also ignore. Get real here. Almost everyone in the audiences addressed by the extracts you want to cite knew the official version. And they did not have a problem with it. You must explain, and I honestly am dying to hear your explanation, how the widely published version of the first vision which even Lucy Smith quoted from in her book, how is it everyone had read the account, and you claim it was unknown? Really, explain that. I am all ears. You say virtually no one knew of the first vision account. Published, widespread history and the Churches 19th century critics all contradict you. This will be fun. Shall we go after this concept now? I will, since it refutes another point on your first vision page.
So pick your subject. We have established they DID know the vision was of God and Christ. Do you now want to argue some other point? Your webpage is still wrong, and honesty demands you change it. Or just acknowledge that you are not really interested in the truth, and leave it the way it is. Or leave it the way it is, and your actions will speak for you.
Peace.
Bob
From: RBV
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 10:52 AM
To: 'Mike'
Subject: RE: What are your motives?
Really quick, you asked what was apparently to you an insightful and devastating question: "Bob, are you intentionally trying to prove my point? Who on earth refers to God and Jesus Christ as "personages"? " Well, in early Church publications prior to 1850, there are probably at least 25 references to God and Christ as personages. And since you quote from one of the sources, "The Lectures on Faith", I would think you would already know the answer to that question.
.
136Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
136A. Two: the Father and the Son. [§5. 1.]
...
138Q. Do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the God-head?
138A. They do. [§3. 2.]
Since the lectures date from 1835, what do you think the accepted meaning of the 1838-1844 published statements of the Two personages, one of whom says "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; ". This was published in the April 1, 1842 Times and Seasons, the official publication of the LDS Church. Everyone read it. Who was the "me" ? Since the personage is quoting the OT in the first person, let's see:
Isaiah 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
So, since God and Christ are described as personages in the LDS scriptures of the day (did you forget, you point out that the Lectures were considered "The Doctrine" part of "The Doctrine and Covenants" on your web page?), and the personages quote scriptures attributed to the Lord in the first person, and since Joseph Smith had published at least since 1835 in the official LDS publications that the Lord had appeared to him in the first vision, I am certain that given all the statements I supplied you, everyone knew of the personages of the first vision being God and Christ, and you provide only a few out of context quotes from people who elsewhere get it right. They weren't having trouble "getting their story straight", they were abbreviating a story they were relating to groups that all knew for themselves the circumstances of the first vision. Remember, it wasn't a virtually unknown event to Latter-day Saints. It was widely published in the US and England. Every member of the Church old enough to read had read of the vision or had access to it.
What you need to prove, which you cannot, is that despite it being widely published, consumed by every believing Mormon, they had recurring episodes of brief amensia scattered among very clear and precise recollection of the details of the first vision. You may not want to concede something so obvious, but it is like I always say, it is logic like this that makes the anti-Mormon positions so silly to anyone who seriously researches them. The Times and Seasons articles and the 1835 accounts also refute your assertion that no contemporaries for 40 years after the death of Joseph had the story straight. It was straight for at least 9 years prior to Joseph's death, and as you mention, it is in the Lectures on Faith that two personages constitute the godhead. The words and context, as well as the accepted LDS teachings of the day made it clear the two personages were God and Christ.
For 10 years after the first vision, the Church was not formed, so knowledge of the first vision was shared in a very limited fashion. Then, after the formation of the Church, it was verbally circulated, as stated by John Taylor and Parley P. Pratt, as well as accounts by Alexander Niebaurer (sp) and the press. It was widely published and discussed by anti-Mormons as well. You are the one on your web page quoting sources in the 1880's saying they still were confused and did not know the story, but it not so, and it is clear you know it. Keep shifting to new arguments, avoid getting pinned down. I am prepared to discuss this topic, and your writings, as long as you want. But understand, I will bring the discussion back to the point every time. So respond to the quotes, the data. From at least 1835 on, the use of the term personages and angel to describe the visit of the Father and Son to Joseph was not considered out of the norm in the group using the terms. I have provided examples, you have provided only your (profane) opinion that you would not use such language if it were you. That is the definition of an anachronism. Look it up. It is a word that if you really would understand, it would explain a lot about your being offended by what people did 120+ years before you were born. They did not know or care what you might consider acceptable. Your inability to put their remarks in context is why you make mistakes in interpreting history no historian would consider acceptable. But do what you want. The whole beam and mote analogy comes to mind.
Lastly, after you see you are thrashed, you want to move to the Book of Abraham. I told you I would go to the Moroni vs. Nephi farce, because, like this first vision abstraction, it is very easy to document the errors and deception of your approach. You have lied, since you assert that I have not pointed any out. You said they did not know of God and Christ visiting Joseph in the first vision, and you say "That's because Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints." That is a lie, flat out.
I will get to the other areas of your webpage, but apparently you left the Church on the basis of not wanting to examine evidence at any depth. Let's at least get all the evidence on the table. This will make a great counter-point post to the lies on the Josephlied.com website, so I want to be thorough. And as I always say, if the evidence is so compelling, why do people need to lie and distort history. Really Mike, do you think anyone is going to take your statements seriously when you quote an 1889 George Q. Cannon text to prove he doesn't know about God and Christ appearing to Joseph, when in 1883 he quotes specifically that it was God and Christ that appeared? Or the John Taylor quotes from 1850? Or the 1842 Times and Seasons and 1835 Lectures on Faith, or D&C 130:22-23 published in April 1843? You may not care about historical facts, but I am willing to bet the average person reading this and comparing it with your webpages and statements will make the correct choice.
Game, match, set.
Let's move on to Moroni and Nephi. I will get to it next week.
Take a jello break while you move your household. Peace.
Monday, June 21, 2004
When People Lie About Joseph Smith
LiarsAboutJoseph.cons
By RBV
There is a webpage called Josephlied.com which deserves enough attention to ignore it in the future. It has 9 sections covering a range of some seemingly plagiarized stuff from the Tanner’s works:
1. Where are God & Christ in the "First Vision"?
2. Why was the Angel Nephi changed to Moroni?
3. What's up with all the Masonic things in Mormonism?
4. Is the Hill Cumorah in New York the site of 2,230,000 deaths?
5. What if Mormons treated their cars like they do their religion?
6. The most compelling evidence of fraud yet [aka the Kinderhook Plates]
7. Impossible Book of Mormon demographics
8. Changes made to the Book of Mormon since 1830
9. The WHOLE story of why I left Mormonism
Other than a less than believable self-portrait showing the webpage’s author as the only champion of truth among the deluded masses of Mormon spiritual fakers, the rest is a retread of tired, and answered, anti-Mormon arguments. There is nothing new or remarkable, just the same old attacks we see time and again.
So, time to evaluate the arguments and approach.
Universally, the arguments are presentations of half-stories. Tell you about the use of the word angel, in section 1 for example, but forget to tell you that the early LDS Church leaders used it often to describe Christ, and in some instances even God and Christ. They delivered a message, that made them Angels, but since Christ primarily spoke, the First Vision is sometimes described as a visitation of an angel or of angels.
Or in chapter two, tell you about Moroni being called Nephi by some early leaders. Forget to mention it all stems from a single erroneous entry in Joseph Smith’s journal made by one of his scribes. Forget also to tell people that Joseph Smith, the D&C and virtually every early Mormon knew the story backward and forwards to be Moroni.
And so every chapter goes. Provide facts out of context, provide what sounds like a solution to those abridged facts, and then cast aspersions on anyone who tries to set the record straight.
This paper will review each section, starting with section 1 for now, provide some context and historical facts, and share some correspondence with the website’s owner to be certain his motives and intents are correctly portrayed.
Section 1 God and Christ appear to Joseph Smith.
True it is that Joseph Smith did not compose a narrative of the First Vision for the public until 1838, subsequently published in the 1842 Times and Seasons. But he told people about the First Vision starting in 1820 .[1] We know he personally wrote a brief sketch of some of the events of the First Vision in 1832, which Oliver Cowdery used as source material for some of his writings in December 1834.[2]
It is very important to try to understand what words meant to the people who used them. For example, the word “angel” is rarely used today to describe Christ. Yet it was very common in the 19th Century LDS Church to use the word for exactly that purpose. Likewise, Revelations Chapter 10 and Revelations 11:1-3 make it clear that Jesus acts as an angel in delivering the messages of God to men. This is also brought out by the dictionary of the day:
Webster 1828 Dictionary definition of Angel:
4. Christ, the mediator and head of the church. Rev. 10.
Further, in 1835 the LDS Church published the Lectures on Faith in conjunction with early revelations of the Church as part of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. In the Lectures on Faith, the nature of God, Christ and the Holy Ghost is discussed, and the following statement is made:
136Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
136A. Two: the Father and the Son. [§5. 1.]
...
138Q. Do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the God-head?
138A. They do. [§3. 2.]
In 1850, John Taylor writes a brochure describing Joseph Smith’s First Vision, noting in the opening paragraph “an holy angel appeared”[3] to Joseph Smith, but then goes on to state “two glorious personages presented themselves before him”. [4] Note how to John Taylor, who was very acquainted with Joseph Smith and Church doctrine, there is no contradiction to Joseph being visited by “an holy angel”(singular), and there being “two glorious personages” (plural) present.
The fact is that since Christ did virtually all of the talking, and was acting as a spokesman for God the Father, there is no contradiction in the minds of the speakers of the early Church between calling the First Vision a visitation of an angel, of angels, or personages or of God the Father and His son Jesus Christ. What may seem imprecise to us today was perfectly consistent with those 19th century speakers. Ultimately, if claims of confusion or obstruction are going to be made based upon the vocabulary used, then it should be based on historical realities and not anachronistic prejudice.
Now for a brief timeline of citations of the First Vision. Eldin Watson has a very good page on the subject, which I recommend to anyone interested. He also includes a harmony of several of the early accounts, and does an analysis of the statements by Joseph Smith’s younger brother, William Smith. http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/1stVIntro.htm
1820, Spring First Vision occurs. Supported by Lucy Mack Smith in 1845/1853 biography of the prophet. His statements concerning the message given in the First Vision are remembered by Orsamus Turner, who moved from Palmyra in late 1820, and also by long time anti-Mormon, Pomeroy Tucker.
1832 Joseph writes his first account of the First Vision in his personal history. It emphasizes his desire for forgiveness, and only talks about the Lord appearing to him, not God the Father. It was written by Joseph Smith and a scribe, and sets the year as 1820 or 1821 for the First Vision, as the age of Joseph is difficult to discern. [Ed. Note: Having seen only a copy of the original text, I think it could be either a 15 or a 16 in referring to the year of his age at the time of the vision. Dean C. Jesse places it as his 16th year without comment in The Papers of Joseph Smith, vol.1, pg 6.
1834 Joseph Smith, Sr. gives Joseph Jr. a blessing, noting the Lord had spoken to Joseph out of the heavens in his youth. [5] Since he was 14 in 1820, and next time he receives revelations are in 1828, when he is 22, it would be unusual to consider the physically large young man a youth at that time.
1834 Edward Stevenson recalls hearing Joseph Smith preach about his First Vision visit by the Father and the Son.[6]
1834-35 Oliver Cowdery uses the 1832 manuscript by Joseph as the basis of writing his own history of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, but liberally adapts it for his purposes. He notes he has confused some details, but he initially puts the religious excitement of Joseph Smith in the 1819-1820 period, then moves it to 1821-1823, and then gives the account of Moroni’s visit. Confusing, yes, but also confirming of an 1823 date for Moroni, and setting the historical framework for an earlier visit from God and Christ.
1835 First edition of the Doctrine and Covenants published, which includes the Lectures on Faith. In the Lectures on Faith, God and Christ are described as two personages .[7] This is published in every edition of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1921. The identification of them as “personages” is therefore extremely well known and common among the LDS.
1835, 9 November Joseph is visited by “Joshua, the Jewish Minister”, and describes seeing two personages and many angels. He notes it happened when he was 14, and when he was 17 he had another vision in his bedroom about the Book of Mormon. One “personage” forgives Joseph Smith’s sins, an indication this is not an angel like Gabriel or Michael. It is obviously a divine personage, which is how the Pof GP describes God and Christ.
1835, 14 November Joseph is visited by a non-Mormon and describes seeing angels for the first time when about 14 years old (Dec. 1819-Dec. 1820 is the specific time when he was 14 years old). This is important because it is clear from these two entries that the use of personages and angel or angels is interchangeable for Joseph Smith in describing God and Christ in the First Vision.
1840 Orson Pratt publishes his pamphlet of the First Vision, describing two personages who exactly resemble each other. Published in Scotland, it had wide circulation among the English speaking converts. This was the first publicly detailed account of the First Vision. Sets the year of the First Vision at 1820-1821, and notes that he sees two personages. Elder Pratt must have heard this telling of the First Vision prior to his leaving for England, which was August 19, 1839. It contains remarkable conformity with the official History of the Church, showing a consistency of delivery by Joseph Smith at least starting with the contemporary written accounts from 1835 noted above. It also clearly verifies that Joseph is telling people about the First Vision, even if he has not published it.
1842, 1 March Wentworth letter published in Times and Seasons. Sees two personages, sets the time at when he was 14 years old. This would have been read and seen by virtually every active LDS person in the USA. This is 3-4 years after Joseph has written the official version of the History of the Church, so we can conclude that depending on the audience, Joseph nuances the story for best effect.
1842 (1838/9) 15 March 1842 Times and Seasons; Originally written by Joseph Smith in 1838, copied by Mulholland into Church History in 1839. This became the official position and history of the LDS Church. Virtually identical to current Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price. Sets the date at 1820, two personages appear, and they are speaking in the first person as the Lord when quoting Old Testament scriptures.
1842 Orson Hyde publishes a pamphlet in German. Describes seeing two glorious personages.
1843, 15 September Pittsburg Gazette reporter David Nye White publishes an interview with Joseph Smith, and quotes him as saying that when he was 14 years old he saw two personages, one of whom he calls the Lord. This shows that personages and divine beings are synonymous phrases to Joseph Smith, and would convey that same understanding to the reading public. This also shows the absurdity of Mr. Norton's position that the members of the Church did not know God and Christ appeared to Joseph, when non-LDS reporters and newspapers are publishing the First Vision accounts using the wording of the official History of the Church, found in the Pearl of Great Price (see entry below).
1844 An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States, Daniel Rupp, ed. A response to an inquiry to provide an entry into this denominational survey, Joseph Smith primarily uses the Wentworth Letter. Notes the two personages and his age as 14.
1844, 24 May Alexander Neibaur recorded this account of the First Vision just a month before Joseph Smith’s murder. Sees two “persons”, one of whom speaks in the first person for God. The first person directs Joseph to not join the Methodists, and then instructs him to hearken to the person next to him; “this is my beloved son”. Some interesting details not in any other account. Very clear that he is understood to be talking about God and Christ appearing to Joseph Smith.
1850 John Taylor publishes his account of the First Vision. He describes it as a visit of “an holy angel” visiting the “about” 15 year old boy, and then notes there are “two glorious personages” in the vision, who looked exactly alike.
1851, 15 June First edition of the Pearl of Great Price is published in England, and gives the 1842 History of the Church as official. Since ¾ of the Church’s membership resided in the British Isles, it is no exaggeration to say that most of the Church knew and understood the official History of the Church version of the First Vision. For many years after this time, the only scriptures published by the Church, D&C and Book of Mormon, were published in England. It proves very popular among the US Church members as well, and by 1878 John Taylor is directing a US edition be prepared.
1853 Lucy Mack Smith’s biography of Joseph Smith is published. She inserts the version of the First Vision found in the Times and Seasons, which is cited as the official History of the Church. She notes it is more complete and accurate than she could have otherwise dictated. This establishes Lucy’s understanding of the date of the First Vision to 1820, and to the two personages being God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. Lucy's accuracy of early events involving the family in her book is spectacularly accurate, so her use of the official History of the Church version is not insignificant as a statement of historical fact. Brigham Young wants changes made to the text, owned by the Church, due to inaccuracies involving certain events of later history and her exaggerated role of William Smith in later Church history. President Young does not have the First Vision changed, indicating at least an acceptance of the official version published in the Times and Seasons.
1880, 10 October Pearl of Great Price is canonized as LDS scripture, ratifying the 1842 Times and Seasons official Church History as doctrine. There can be no doubt that every member of the Church in the USA or England knew of the circumstances of the first vision. Therefore statements referring to personages or an “angel” appearing to Joseph Smith cannot be taken in a context of confusion on the part of the speakers involved. They were using shorthand in speech, since all of the English speaking members of the Church possessed a copy of the First Vision account.
Before we look at each citation and assertion by the website’s author, let me insert a comment he wrote to this author about the First Vision, and its use among the 19th century Church. After being questioned about his statements that seem to say “…that John Taylor, Brigham Young, Lucy Mack Smith, George A. Smith and Orson Hyde are unaware of the first vision story”, he responds with this contemptuous statement:
“I do not make the claim that the contemporaries of Joseph's Myth were "unaware" of his first vision in 1820. I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though.”
In his personal story of his journey out of the Church, he makes this statement:
“One of the things that I found most disturbing was the fact that Brigham Young and countless other early Church leaders had obviously not been familiar with the "first vision" story as we know it now. As I read through the Church History and the Journal of Discourses I had found numerous quotes from friends and family members of Joseph Smith that made it painfully obvious that the belief that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in the Spring of 1820 was a doctrine that was totally unfamiliar to virtually every Mormon until nearly 1890 (see www.josephlied.com/list.html for the numerous quotes I found on this subject).” (Emphasis added).
This statement contradicts his direct correspondence with this author:
“I was well aware of the fact that starting in the 1860's "the brethren" started to polish Joseph Smith's story to make it more consistent.”
So did they know about the story, or didn’t they? Were the contemporary accounts recorded during Joseph Smith’s lifetime widely known, since they were widely reported, or unknown?
One more point. From his webpage, he let’s you know that he is a “huge history buff”. [8] He also wants you to know that he has done an enormous amount of study to come up with the ‘facts’.[9] The interesting thing is that apparently there is nothing new to be researched, as every quotation he cites as evidence appears taken from the work of the Tanners. This begs the question, “How big a history buff are you really?”
Now we can look at each quote and misquote.
Brigham Young - "The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven ... 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" Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 171 (1855)
Without citation, this quote is found on page 165 of the Tanners’, Changing World of Mormonism, which is also out of their 1972 Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, page 153. But it is this reviewers opinion he actually obtained this citation from the Tanner's "The Case Against Mormonism", as all 11 of his citations are found in that particular work. That may not bother anyone, but at least it shows that no matter how much independent study Mr. Norton did, the known universe of relevant citations is to be found in the Tanner's work. That really makes an apologist's job easier.
This is the context of the quote as President Young is speaking to an audience in the Tabernacle:
“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.”
President Young uses the word angel, which is not controversial since it means “Jesus Christ” in the context of the First Vision. Comparing Pres. Young’s remarks with known versions of the First Vision accounts, he seems to come closest to the official History of the Church in terms of what is communicated to Joseph Smith, particularly his use of the phrase “he should not join any of the religious sects of the day”, as virtually all other accounts of the First Vision use “go not after them”. In any event, he adds an otherwise unknown detail, “He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him”. Such information was unpublished, suggesting the facts of this account come from a private conversation with Joseph Smith, as well as whatever contact he had with published or available sources.
Wilford Woodruff - "The same organization and Gospel that Christ died for ... is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world ... He told him the Gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world" Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 196 (1855)
To the next quote, coincidentally also to be found in the Tanners' work. Not a big surprise, really. But there is a real advantage from doing original research, and reading the citations: You can read the whole statement. At the end of the above paragraph, as Pres. Woodruff winds up his thought, he makes this statement:
“This man to whom the angel appeared obeyed the Gospel; he received it in meekness and humility, and bowed down before the Lord and worshipped Him, and did the best he could in his illiterate state;” JD, vol. 2, pg. 198.(1855) (Emphasis added)
As the valley girls say: “Oh my gosh!” We know Pres. Woodruff was very familiar with the statements of the official History of the Church, and we see that like John Taylor, he freely uses the term ‘angel’ to speak of Christ. Looking too hard for contradictions can lead to stretching the evidence, as we have now seen.
Orson Hyde - "Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?' Because to the angels was committed the power of reaping the earth, and it was committed to none else." Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 335 (1854)
It would be refreshing if Mr. Norton would actually quote a passage in some form of context. This passage has nothing to do with the First Vision. It is about angels being given the power for the harvesting of converts and gathering them in the Last Days. Judge for yourself:
Since Elder Hyde wrote a pamphlet in 1842 precisely detailing two glorious personages appearing to Joseph in his 15th year (1820), and in that pamphlet describes the later visitation of Moroni, these 1855 comments are 100% in line with his other statements. It would seem a string of academic/historic oversights are piling up here for this “historical buff”.
Turn now to the next quotation, which like all the previous quotations, can also be found in the Tanners works:
George A. Smith - "...he [Joseph Smith] 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" Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 334 (1863)
Well, he deserves credit for doing some research here. He copied this out of the original printed text of the Journal of Discourses. How can one tell? Because the type in the printed editions improperly set, making the 1868 look like 1863. So he looked for himself at this quote, but managed to get the date incorrect. Mr. Norton contends he discovered all of the citations in the original books, the Journal of Discourses. This bears him out to some degree. He just happens to have 100% agreement with the Tanner's previously published material. I can see how that could happen. My calculations tell me this is more likely than the Bible being printed as a result of an explosion in a type shop, so it could happen.
In this passage, George A. Smith, Joseph’s first cousin, seems to blend the two accounts. We know this because in the previous paragraph, Elder. G.A. Smith correctly places the date of the First Vision as 1820, but then mixes the First Vision with Moroni’s visit in 1823. He has all the details sort of blurred together. Consider the following:
G.A. Smith was one of the assemblers and finishers of the History of the Church,
G.A. Smith was one of the editors assigned to revise Lucy Mack Smith’s biography of Joseph Smith,
G.A. Smith quotes verbatim the official History of the Church version in a talk in 1864 [10], 4 full years before this talk.
Either the scribe got the details wrong as the speech proceeded, or Elder Smith just got confused. The paragraphs of this particular talk are quite long, and but for the omission of a word or two, there would be both visions described here. Or maybe he just misspoke, and the scribe got the details correct. Or maybe a little of each. The problem for Mr. Norton is that all the details are very accurate, just slightly confused, and it is obvious from Elder Smith’s talks he knows Joseph Smith’s official version. Compare Elder Smith’s statement with Joseph Smith’s official history:
G.A. Smith: [Joseph] “inquired which of all these denominations was right and which he should join”
Joseph Smith 1839 History: “ I asked … which of all the sects was right, … and which I should join”
The detail of which of the denominations/sects to join is only found in the 1839 account of the First Vision, so either he received this information directly from Joseph, which is quite possible, or he copied it out of the published History of the Church account, which we know he quotes ealier.
George A. Smith - "[Joseph] was enlightened by the vision of an holy angel. When this personage appeared to him, one of the first inquiries was 'Which of the denominations of Christians in the vicinity was right?' " Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 78 (1869)
Elder Smith uses a familiar format, calling Jesus an “angel” in this account. Elder Smith has all of the details correct, and as stated above, there is no question he knows, teaches and believes the ‘angel’ which appeared to Joseph Smith was Christ. It is utterly indefensible to suggest it is anything else.
Next citation also to be found in the Tanners' work:
John Taylor - "None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right." Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 167 (1879)
The offending word for Mr. Norton is the use of “angel” again by John Taylor. Consider this:
1850 Elder Taylor writes a detailed account of the First Vision describing the visitation of “an holy angel” in the opening narrative, then describing in the text the visitation composed of “two personages”.
1878 President Taylor authorizes the printing of the first American edition of the Pearl of Great Price, which included the History of the Church’s account of the First Vision.
1880 Pearl of Great Price is canonized as scripture in the same meeting as President Taylor is sustained as President of the Church. It is beyond imagination that he would be unaware of the content of the official version of the First Vision.
It is literally impossible to believe President Taylor misspoke. To speak of Christ as an angel was completely acceptable and common to 19th century Latter-day Saints.
Moving on to the next quote:
George Q. Cannon-"But suppose that the statement that Joseph Smith says the angel made to him should be true-that there was no church upon the face of the earth whom God recognized as His, and whose acts He acknowledged-suppose this were true..." Journal of Discourses, vol. 24, pg. 135 (1889)
Two paragraphs earlier, Elder Cannon says this:
“He was told that there was no church which God recognized as His own, while there were many that had parts of the truth, portions of the Gospel. There was no church which God acknowledged amid the multiplicity of sects as His. He was told to wait until the Lord should give the power and communicate the authority. Now, though he had received this communication from heavenly messengers, Joseph Smith did not presume to take one step towards organizing a church because of the fact that he had received communications of this character.” Journal of Discourses, vol. 24, pg. 135 (1889)
He speaks of “the angel” in one paragraph, but “heavenly messengers” in the earlier paragraph of the same talk. Remember, angel commonly meant Jesus to 19th century Mormons and Christians. Below is a comment from Elder Cannon from 6 years before the above citations, but importantly, those comments are made three years after the adoption of the Pearl of Great Price which includes the official History of the Church account. By this point in time the circumstances of the 1820 First Vision account found in the History of the Church was known and understood by over 90% of the Church membership, based upon the printing of the Pearl of Great Price in England and its unanimous adoption in General Conference in 1880. Which explains this understanding expressed in 1883 by Elder Cannon:
“But all this was swept away in one moment by the appearance of the Almighty Himself--by the appearance of God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, to the boy Joseph, as he kneeled in the forest beseeching God for knowledge concerning Him, and concerning the Gospel of salvation…The Father came accompanied by the Son, thus showing that there were two personages of the Godhead, two presiding personages whom we worship and to whom we look, the one the Father, and the other the Son. Joseph saw that the Father had a form; that He had a head; that He had arms; that He had limbs; that He had feet; that He had a face and a tongue with which to express His thoughts; for He said unto Joseph: "This is my beloved Son"--pointing to the Son--"hear Him."” George Q. Cannon, JD vol.24 page 373, September 2, 1883.
Do the circumstances of the adoption of the official First Vision account and the comment above make anyone out there think, as Mr. Norton asserts, that “the belief that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in the Spring of 1820 was a doctrine that was totally unfamiliar to virtually every Mormon until nearly 1890.”
On to the next previously published statement to be found in the Tanners' work, but used here by Mr. Norton. He is very thorough, since this did not come out of Journal of Discourses, but from a long out of print book by Joseph Smith's younger brother, William. My Gospel link library has over 1000 LDS publications, and to find this needle in a haystack is incredible. To find this without referring to the Tanner's research should be hailed as almost miraculous, and his work deserves the fullest measure of respect for its originality and refreshing insight. Behold the next Fawn Brodie.
William Smith- "He accordingly went out into the woods and falling upon his knees called for a long time upon the Lord for wisdom and knowledge. While engaged in prayer a light appeared in the heavens, and descended until it rested upon the trees where he was. It appeared like fire. But to his great astonishment, did not burn the trees. An angel then appeared to him and conversed with him upon many things. He told him that none of the sects were right..." William Smith On Mormonism , By William Smith, Joseph Smith's brother. pg. 5 (1883)
For some excellent background about William Smith and his value as a witness of Joseph’s First Vision account, see http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/wmsmith.htm or Richard Anderson’s article, quoted above, in BYU Studies .[11]
As Brother Watson ably demonstrates at the above weblink, William Smith’s writings prove he misunderstands the First Vision and Moroni’s visit. He admits that he has the details wrong by directing the reader of his account to Joseph’s “more elaborate and accurate description”.[12]
The reader will note that the confusion in this account is because of some problem on the part of William Smith in keeping the visions separated, not the vision (singular) he erroneously portrays, and tells the reader to get the accurate details from the published and official history written by Joseph Smith. This is important to further discredit Mr. Norton’s revisionist presentation of history, since it is clear from William Smith’s comment the official History of the Church account was readily available to the readers of William Smith’s narrative. The book was published in Lamoni, Iowa, but the Pearl of Great Price had officially been adopted as scripture by the Church three years earlier, and the official version of the First Vision had been published in Nauvoo 41 years earlier. If the official version of the First Vision were unknown to most of the Church until nearly 1890, why would William Smith invite his readers to compare his work to it to get the more accurate account?
Next completely independently researched citation, also coincidentally to be found in the Tanners' widely circulated work.
" The angel again forbade Joseph to join any of these churches, and he promised that the true and everlasting Gospel should be revealed to him at some future time. Joseph continues: 'Many other things did he (the angel) say unto me which I cannot write at this time' " Church Historical Record, Vol. 7, January, 1888 [It should be noted here that in this quote the first reference to "the angel" was later changed to "the Holy Being" and the second reference to "the angel" was changed to "the Christ"]
Same as before. Angel in early LDS usage, and society at large, had the connotation of, among other things, Jesus Christ. Since this is not Joseph Smith speaking or writing, but someone’s comments upon the First Vision accounts, it is a confirmation that the words “holy being” and “Christ” are inserted to prove their understanding of who was in fact speaking, and the unambiguous meaning in this context of the word “angel”.
Next great insightly citation. He even includes commentary about the citation's content, some nearly exactly like the Tanner’s comments about the changes (1972 Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, pages 149-150). It appears to be a case of spontaneous composition.
Joseph Smith, Nov. 1835 - "...I received the first visitation of Angels when I was about 14 years old..." Personal writings of Joseph Smith, pg. 84 [It should be noted that this entry has been changed in the History of the Church, Vol. 2, pg. 312. It now reads "my first vision" instead of "visitation of Angels"]
As noted in the historical outline above, this event transpires on Nov. 14, 1835. Five days earlier, Nov. 9, 1835, Joseph is describing the First Vision to Joshua the Jewish Minister, and mentions seeing two personages and many angels. The visit on Nov. 14 is from a non-member, and the journal entry itself was written by Warren Cowdery, and was a summary of a conversation lacking any detail of what was specifically said. Br. Cowdery was obviously aware of the more complete telling of the story he had written five days prior, and nothing can be deduced from what is essentially an abstract of a conversation. It is consistent with his statement from 5 days earlier, and what we know of the First Vision. More cannot be read into the statement, since accusatory detail is lacking. At most, one could be upset a complete retelling is not included, but nothing more.
Next:
Brigham Young - " Do we believe that the Lord sent his messengers to Joseph Smith, and commanded him to refrain from joining any Christian church, and to refrain from the wickedness he saw in the churches, and finally delivered to him a message informing him that the Lord was about to establish his kingdom on the earth..." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 18, pg. 239
First of all, remember this is a speech given by President Young, not a citation from a book by him. Each of the points is a detail, not necessarily a continuous dialog. Let’s change the presentation, but keeping the words and expanding to include the full context of the quotation, which is, incidentally, about Moroni to start with:
1. “Has the angel flown through the midst of heaven and delivered the Gospel to the children of men? Yes, we believe all this.
2. Do we believe that the Lord
a. sent his messengers to Joseph Smith,
b. and commanded him to refrain from joining any Christian church,
c. and to refrain from the wickedness he saw in the churches,
3. and finally delivered to him a message informing him that the Lord was about to establish his kingdom on the earth
4. and led him on step by step until he gave him the revelation concerning the plates?
5. Yes, this is all correct. Did Joseph receive these revelations?
6. Did the heavenly messengers come to Joseph, and commit to him the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood? Yes, we believe all this.
7. Did the Lord speak from the heavens through Joseph, commanding his people to gather out from the wicked before the scourges--sickness, pestilence, wars, bloodshed, and the various calamities spoken of by the Prophets and Apostles, should pass over the nations? Yes, we believe the Lord has called upon the people who received the Gospel to come out of Babylon, to separate themselves from the wicked and to stand in holy places preparatory to the coming of the Son of Man.”
Notice in Point 2, the main point is the Lord, as each of the sub-points are actually taking their commands from the Lord, singular, not plural. This is brought out fully in point 2.c., “the wickedness he saw in the churches.” Singular pronoun, relating back to the Lord, not plural relating back to the “messengers”. Notice Point 5. Not one revelation, but several revelations. Notice point 6. Who committed the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery? It was John the Baptist. Yet as a figure of speech, as part of the group of messengers being sent to Joseph, President Young says “messengers”, plural instead of singular. President Young’s talk, like Orson Hyde’s from 1854, is describing the role and work of angels in the restoration and gathering. Point 7 could equally be about the First Vision, since it seems to describe a direct revelation by the Lord to Joseph. But that is really silliness.
President Young is not trying to relate a precise written history. President Young was very involved in getting the History of the Church completed, and reediting Lucy Mack Smith’s history of Joseph Smith. He also favorably looked upon the British publication of the Pearl of Great Price. His statement which Mr. Norton challenges is correct. The Lord did send messengers to Joseph Smith. He also did command him to not join any Church. Those are two separate thoughts in a stream of thoughts in a speech. Like the original Book of Mormon printer’s manuscript, the punctuation of the passage is not Brigham Young’s. It is illogical to force an error into something which is on its face correct.
From here on out, Mr. Norton moves to a series of misleading and often erroneous statements to try and justify a twisted reading of history.
Isn't it odd that over 40 years after Joseph's alleged "first vision", Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?
We have shown this is completely untrue. While writing and speeches by Brigham Young are mostly after 1860 which support his understanding of the First Vision, we have no doubt in the case of John Taylor. This statement is false. By 1860, the official version of the First Vision, found in today’s Pearl of Great Price, was in the hands of over 90% of the Church. It was well known throughout the Church. This is just a completely baseless statement. How big of a history buff is Mr. Norton?
That's because Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints. Over the years Joseph's story changed from an event in the year 1823 to 1821 to 1820.
This is another set of falsehoods. At most we can say the First Vision accounts varied between 1820-1821, but since Mr. Norton contends those accounts were “virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints”, one must wonder what he believes this proves. Joseph Smith’s accounts and Lucy Smith, Orson Hyde, John Taylor, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt all state it occurred in 1820 with but one variation in one of Joseph Smith’s unpublished accounts, which this author from the photocopy seen of the journal believes could also confirm an 1820 date. The date since 1840, when the first published account of the First Vision was made public, have all stated it occurred in 1820. No inconsistency there whatsoever.
His motive for seeking God in prayer also changed significantly over the years. From no motive (a spirit appears with news of gold plates), to a desire to know if God exists, to a desire for forgiveness of sins, and finally, to a local religious revival.
At this point, one really starts to question the motives of Mr. Norton. He uses an interesting literary tool here. “From no motive…to...to…and finally, to…” This would seem to be a time line of changes. But that is not at all what Joseph Smith writes. He is concerned about which Church to join in most accounts, but also about his standing before God. Others may ascribe motives, but Joseph’s direct writings and comments on the situation are very consistent.
Most importantly, even the heavenly visitor(s) that he saw were constantly changing. Depending on the account Joseph gave, it was either a spirit, an angel, two angels, many angels, Jesus, and finally, the Father and the Son.
Joseph Smith relates in his very first, brief account that it was the Lord who appeared. In his second account, he says there were two personages, and many angels, but the personages are obviously God and Christ, since his sins are forgiven, a divine function. There is no question that the understanding of all early Latter-day Saints was that God and Christ appear. The use of the term ‘angel’ is contextually and historically accurate when referring to Christ, and certainly ‘angels’ is correct in the context of bringing the messages to Joseph from Heaven. This is another example of trying to create a tempest in a teapot.
LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley stood in General Conference and said "Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith,” Ensign, Nov. 2002, pg.78) If this "First Vision" of Joseph Smith did occur, it certainly didn't happen the way the Church wants us to believe it did.
At the end of the day, everyone he cites voted to accept the Pearl of Great Price as scripture, and thereby endorsed the official account as told by the Prophet Joseph Smith. The only two exceptions were William Smith and Lucy Mack Smith, who actually invite readers to get the details correct by reading Joseph Smith’s official version. There can be no doubt the First Vision accounts as published are not 100% accurate, since Joseph repeatedly taught he was not allowed to reveal all of the details delivered to him. But we have the version he felt should be disseminated to the world, and his contemporaries and family agree in its essential detail. What we really need to know is that it happened. And from all the evidence, in 1820 something happened to Joseph to change the course of his life, and told him that all Churches were in error. Absent other first hand plausible accounts, the most logical choice is the first vision as told in the Pearl of Great Price.
Have a look at the next page to see that Joseph's "first vision" wasn't the only story that has changed over time.
The point to be taken away from this review is how really small the variations are. We have several retellings of the same event, with a few different details related in each account. Hardly the stuff of a conspiracy or faith destroying experience. Quite the opposite. The variation in details and language indicate a complete lack of conspiracy, and if Mr. Norton and the Tanners can ever get over the correct 19th century usage of the word ‘angel’, he would literally have nothing to complain about. More obvious, however, is how blatantly false Mr. Norton's statements are that until 1890, most members did not know God and Christ appeared to Joseph Smith, and his citation of talks by General Authorities of the Church to supposedly support this view. It is completely false, and as documented above, a distortion lifted from the works of the Tanners. If the truth is so devastating to the LDS position, why distort history? The answer appears to be because history is actually quite supportive of the LDS position.
Footnotes
1. Lucy Mack Smith notes Joseph told her and others (“religionists”, pg 79) in 1820 that he knew all churches were wrong, and suffered persecution for it. Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations, Liverpool, 1853.
Richard L. Anderson also discusses Orsamus Turner and Pomeroy Tucker’s experiences around 1820 with Joseph Smith, and their published comments, showing their knowledge of his statements that all the Churches were wrong and his withdrawal from exploring Methodism. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision through Reminiscences," BYU Studies 9 (Spring 1969): 378-84.
2. Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision through Reminiscences," BYU Studies 9 (Spring 1969): 373-404.
3. “The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was first organized in the Town of Manchester, Ontario County, State of New York, U.S.A., 6th April 1830. Previous to this an holy angel appeared unto a young man about fifteen years of age, a farmer's son, named Joseph Smith, and communicated unto him many things pertaining to the situation of the religious world, the necessity of a correct church organization, and unfolded many events that should transpire in the last days, as spoken of by the Prophets.”
4. “While he was thus engaged, he was surrounded by a brilliant light. and two glorious personages presented themselves before him, who exactly resembled each other in features, and who gave him information upon the subjects which had previously agitated his mind.”
5. Anderson, page 403.
6. As cited by Watson http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/wmsmith.htm#29 29. Edward Stevenson, "Reminiscences of Joseph, the Prophet, and the Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon," Published by the Author, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1893, p 4.
7. “How many personages are there in the Godhead? Two: the Father and Son. Lecture 5:1”, N.B. Lundwall reprint of Lectures on Faith, 1835, page 49.
8. “Being a huge history buff and a very active and believing Mormon, I thought I should put my love of history and my love of the Church together and purchase an original Hoffman forgery of perhaps a Joseph Smith or Brigham Young document.” http://www.josephlied.com/bicentennialboy.html
9. “As I read through the Church History and the Journal of Discourses I had found numerous quotes from friends and family members of Joseph Smith that made it painfully obvious that the belief that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in the Spring of 1820 was a doctrine that was totally unfamiliar to virtually every Mormon until nearly 1890…However, I was determined to not use any anti-Mormon sources for my information because I didn't want the "facts" to be skewed by those people who might have an ax to grind with the Church…”
10 George A. Smith, JD, vol. 11, pages 1-2, delivered in the Ogden Tabernacle November 15, 1864.
11 Anderson, pages 398-401.
12 As quoted by Watson. The entire context of Watson’s citation is as follows: “In this 1883 account, William specifically and sequentially details events from both visions, which were separated by more than three years, and then wrote: "A more elaborate and accurate description of his vision, however, will be found in his own history." The words "his vision" make it clear that he considered the two visions to be a single event. By the above comment William also acknowledges that Joseph's account is more accurate than his own. Remember that this account was personally composed and hand written, as opposed to being recorded by someone taking notes of a verbal discussion. William incorrectly perceived the 1820 first vision and the 1823 visitation of the angel Moroni as a single event, which he believed occurred on September 21, 1823.”
By RBV
There is a webpage called Josephlied.com which deserves enough attention to ignore it in the future. It has 9 sections covering a range of some seemingly plagiarized stuff from the Tanner’s works:
1. Where are God & Christ in the "First Vision"?
2. Why was the Angel Nephi changed to Moroni?
3. What's up with all the Masonic things in Mormonism?
4. Is the Hill Cumorah in New York the site of 2,230,000 deaths?
5. What if Mormons treated their cars like they do their religion?
6. The most compelling evidence of fraud yet [aka the Kinderhook Plates]
7. Impossible Book of Mormon demographics
8. Changes made to the Book of Mormon since 1830
9. The WHOLE story of why I left Mormonism
Other than a less than believable self-portrait showing the webpage’s author as the only champion of truth among the deluded masses of Mormon spiritual fakers, the rest is a retread of tired, and answered, anti-Mormon arguments. There is nothing new or remarkable, just the same old attacks we see time and again.
So, time to evaluate the arguments and approach.
Universally, the arguments are presentations of half-stories. Tell you about the use of the word angel, in section 1 for example, but forget to tell you that the early LDS Church leaders used it often to describe Christ, and in some instances even God and Christ. They delivered a message, that made them Angels, but since Christ primarily spoke, the First Vision is sometimes described as a visitation of an angel or of angels.
Or in chapter two, tell you about Moroni being called Nephi by some early leaders. Forget to mention it all stems from a single erroneous entry in Joseph Smith’s journal made by one of his scribes. Forget also to tell people that Joseph Smith, the D&C and virtually every early Mormon knew the story backward and forwards to be Moroni.
And so every chapter goes. Provide facts out of context, provide what sounds like a solution to those abridged facts, and then cast aspersions on anyone who tries to set the record straight.
This paper will review each section, starting with section 1 for now, provide some context and historical facts, and share some correspondence with the website’s owner to be certain his motives and intents are correctly portrayed.
Section 1 God and Christ appear to Joseph Smith.
True it is that Joseph Smith did not compose a narrative of the First Vision for the public until 1838, subsequently published in the 1842 Times and Seasons. But he told people about the First Vision starting in 1820 .[1] We know he personally wrote a brief sketch of some of the events of the First Vision in 1832, which Oliver Cowdery used as source material for some of his writings in December 1834.[2]
It is very important to try to understand what words meant to the people who used them. For example, the word “angel” is rarely used today to describe Christ. Yet it was very common in the 19th Century LDS Church to use the word for exactly that purpose. Likewise, Revelations Chapter 10 and Revelations 11:1-3 make it clear that Jesus acts as an angel in delivering the messages of God to men. This is also brought out by the dictionary of the day:
Webster 1828 Dictionary definition of Angel:
4. Christ, the mediator and head of the church. Rev. 10.
Further, in 1835 the LDS Church published the Lectures on Faith in conjunction with early revelations of the Church as part of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. In the Lectures on Faith, the nature of God, Christ and the Holy Ghost is discussed, and the following statement is made:
136Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
136A. Two: the Father and the Son. [§5. 1.]
...
138Q. Do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the God-head?
138A. They do. [§3. 2.]
In 1850, John Taylor writes a brochure describing Joseph Smith’s First Vision, noting in the opening paragraph “an holy angel appeared”[3] to Joseph Smith, but then goes on to state “two glorious personages presented themselves before him”. [4] Note how to John Taylor, who was very acquainted with Joseph Smith and Church doctrine, there is no contradiction to Joseph being visited by “an holy angel”(singular), and there being “two glorious personages” (plural) present.
The fact is that since Christ did virtually all of the talking, and was acting as a spokesman for God the Father, there is no contradiction in the minds of the speakers of the early Church between calling the First Vision a visitation of an angel, of angels, or personages or of God the Father and His son Jesus Christ. What may seem imprecise to us today was perfectly consistent with those 19th century speakers. Ultimately, if claims of confusion or obstruction are going to be made based upon the vocabulary used, then it should be based on historical realities and not anachronistic prejudice.
Now for a brief timeline of citations of the First Vision. Eldin Watson has a very good page on the subject, which I recommend to anyone interested. He also includes a harmony of several of the early accounts, and does an analysis of the statements by Joseph Smith’s younger brother, William Smith. http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/1stVIntro.htm
1820, Spring First Vision occurs. Supported by Lucy Mack Smith in 1845/1853 biography of the prophet. His statements concerning the message given in the First Vision are remembered by Orsamus Turner, who moved from Palmyra in late 1820, and also by long time anti-Mormon, Pomeroy Tucker.
1832 Joseph writes his first account of the First Vision in his personal history. It emphasizes his desire for forgiveness, and only talks about the Lord appearing to him, not God the Father. It was written by Joseph Smith and a scribe, and sets the year as 1820 or 1821 for the First Vision, as the age of Joseph is difficult to discern. [Ed. Note: Having seen only a copy of the original text, I think it could be either a 15 or a 16 in referring to the year of his age at the time of the vision. Dean C. Jesse places it as his 16th year without comment in The Papers of Joseph Smith, vol.1, pg 6.
1834 Joseph Smith, Sr. gives Joseph Jr. a blessing, noting the Lord had spoken to Joseph out of the heavens in his youth. [5] Since he was 14 in 1820, and next time he receives revelations are in 1828, when he is 22, it would be unusual to consider the physically large young man a youth at that time.
1834 Edward Stevenson recalls hearing Joseph Smith preach about his First Vision visit by the Father and the Son.[6]
1834-35 Oliver Cowdery uses the 1832 manuscript by Joseph as the basis of writing his own history of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, but liberally adapts it for his purposes. He notes he has confused some details, but he initially puts the religious excitement of Joseph Smith in the 1819-1820 period, then moves it to 1821-1823, and then gives the account of Moroni’s visit. Confusing, yes, but also confirming of an 1823 date for Moroni, and setting the historical framework for an earlier visit from God and Christ.
1835 First edition of the Doctrine and Covenants published, which includes the Lectures on Faith. In the Lectures on Faith, God and Christ are described as two personages .[7] This is published in every edition of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1921. The identification of them as “personages” is therefore extremely well known and common among the LDS.
1835, 9 November Joseph is visited by “Joshua, the Jewish Minister”, and describes seeing two personages and many angels. He notes it happened when he was 14, and when he was 17 he had another vision in his bedroom about the Book of Mormon. One “personage” forgives Joseph Smith’s sins, an indication this is not an angel like Gabriel or Michael. It is obviously a divine personage, which is how the Pof GP describes God and Christ.
1835, 14 November Joseph is visited by a non-Mormon and describes seeing angels for the first time when about 14 years old (Dec. 1819-Dec. 1820 is the specific time when he was 14 years old). This is important because it is clear from these two entries that the use of personages and angel or angels is interchangeable for Joseph Smith in describing God and Christ in the First Vision.
1840 Orson Pratt publishes his pamphlet of the First Vision, describing two personages who exactly resemble each other. Published in Scotland, it had wide circulation among the English speaking converts. This was the first publicly detailed account of the First Vision. Sets the year of the First Vision at 1820-1821, and notes that he sees two personages. Elder Pratt must have heard this telling of the First Vision prior to his leaving for England, which was August 19, 1839. It contains remarkable conformity with the official History of the Church, showing a consistency of delivery by Joseph Smith at least starting with the contemporary written accounts from 1835 noted above. It also clearly verifies that Joseph is telling people about the First Vision, even if he has not published it.
1842, 1 March Wentworth letter published in Times and Seasons. Sees two personages, sets the time at when he was 14 years old. This would have been read and seen by virtually every active LDS person in the USA. This is 3-4 years after Joseph has written the official version of the History of the Church, so we can conclude that depending on the audience, Joseph nuances the story for best effect.
1842 (1838/9) 15 March 1842 Times and Seasons; Originally written by Joseph Smith in 1838, copied by Mulholland into Church History in 1839. This became the official position and history of the LDS Church. Virtually identical to current Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price. Sets the date at 1820, two personages appear, and they are speaking in the first person as the Lord when quoting Old Testament scriptures.
1842 Orson Hyde publishes a pamphlet in German. Describes seeing two glorious personages.
1843, 15 September Pittsburg Gazette reporter David Nye White publishes an interview with Joseph Smith, and quotes him as saying that when he was 14 years old he saw two personages, one of whom he calls the Lord. This shows that personages and divine beings are synonymous phrases to Joseph Smith, and would convey that same understanding to the reading public. This also shows the absurdity of Mr. Norton's position that the members of the Church did not know God and Christ appeared to Joseph, when non-LDS reporters and newspapers are publishing the First Vision accounts using the wording of the official History of the Church, found in the Pearl of Great Price (see entry below).
1844 An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States, Daniel Rupp, ed. A response to an inquiry to provide an entry into this denominational survey, Joseph Smith primarily uses the Wentworth Letter. Notes the two personages and his age as 14.
1844, 24 May Alexander Neibaur recorded this account of the First Vision just a month before Joseph Smith’s murder. Sees two “persons”, one of whom speaks in the first person for God. The first person directs Joseph to not join the Methodists, and then instructs him to hearken to the person next to him; “this is my beloved son”. Some interesting details not in any other account. Very clear that he is understood to be talking about God and Christ appearing to Joseph Smith.
1850 John Taylor publishes his account of the First Vision. He describes it as a visit of “an holy angel” visiting the “about” 15 year old boy, and then notes there are “two glorious personages” in the vision, who looked exactly alike.
1851, 15 June First edition of the Pearl of Great Price is published in England, and gives the 1842 History of the Church as official. Since ¾ of the Church’s membership resided in the British Isles, it is no exaggeration to say that most of the Church knew and understood the official History of the Church version of the First Vision. For many years after this time, the only scriptures published by the Church, D&C and Book of Mormon, were published in England. It proves very popular among the US Church members as well, and by 1878 John Taylor is directing a US edition be prepared.
1853 Lucy Mack Smith’s biography of Joseph Smith is published. She inserts the version of the First Vision found in the Times and Seasons, which is cited as the official History of the Church. She notes it is more complete and accurate than she could have otherwise dictated. This establishes Lucy’s understanding of the date of the First Vision to 1820, and to the two personages being God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. Lucy's accuracy of early events involving the family in her book is spectacularly accurate, so her use of the official History of the Church version is not insignificant as a statement of historical fact. Brigham Young wants changes made to the text, owned by the Church, due to inaccuracies involving certain events of later history and her exaggerated role of William Smith in later Church history. President Young does not have the First Vision changed, indicating at least an acceptance of the official version published in the Times and Seasons.
1880, 10 October Pearl of Great Price is canonized as LDS scripture, ratifying the 1842 Times and Seasons official Church History as doctrine. There can be no doubt that every member of the Church in the USA or England knew of the circumstances of the first vision. Therefore statements referring to personages or an “angel” appearing to Joseph Smith cannot be taken in a context of confusion on the part of the speakers involved. They were using shorthand in speech, since all of the English speaking members of the Church possessed a copy of the First Vision account.
Before we look at each citation and assertion by the website’s author, let me insert a comment he wrote to this author about the First Vision, and its use among the 19th century Church. After being questioned about his statements that seem to say “…that John Taylor, Brigham Young, Lucy Mack Smith, George A. Smith and Orson Hyde are unaware of the first vision story”, he responds with this contemptuous statement:
“I do not make the claim that the contemporaries of Joseph's Myth were "unaware" of his first vision in 1820. I stand by my claim that they were unaware that it was a vision of God and Christ though.”
In his personal story of his journey out of the Church, he makes this statement:
“One of the things that I found most disturbing was the fact that Brigham Young and countless other early Church leaders had obviously not been familiar with the "first vision" story as we know it now. As I read through the Church History and the Journal of Discourses I had found numerous quotes from friends and family members of Joseph Smith that made it painfully obvious that the belief that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in the Spring of 1820 was a doctrine that was totally unfamiliar to virtually every Mormon until nearly 1890 (see www.josephlied.com/list.html for the numerous quotes I found on this subject).” (Emphasis added).
This statement contradicts his direct correspondence with this author:
“I was well aware of the fact that starting in the 1860's "the brethren" started to polish Joseph Smith's story to make it more consistent.”
So did they know about the story, or didn’t they? Were the contemporary accounts recorded during Joseph Smith’s lifetime widely known, since they were widely reported, or unknown?
One more point. From his webpage, he let’s you know that he is a “huge history buff”. [8] He also wants you to know that he has done an enormous amount of study to come up with the ‘facts’.[9] The interesting thing is that apparently there is nothing new to be researched, as every quotation he cites as evidence appears taken from the work of the Tanners. This begs the question, “How big a history buff are you really?”
Now we can look at each quote and misquote.
Brigham Young - "The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven ... 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" Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 171 (1855)
Without citation, this quote is found on page 165 of the Tanners’, Changing World of Mormonism, which is also out of their 1972 Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, page 153. But it is this reviewers opinion he actually obtained this citation from the Tanner's "The Case Against Mormonism", as all 11 of his citations are found in that particular work. That may not bother anyone, but at least it shows that no matter how much independent study Mr. Norton did, the known universe of relevant citations is to be found in the Tanner's work. That really makes an apologist's job easier.
This is the context of the quote as President Young is speaking to an audience in the Tabernacle:
“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.”
President Young uses the word angel, which is not controversial since it means “Jesus Christ” in the context of the First Vision. Comparing Pres. Young’s remarks with known versions of the First Vision accounts, he seems to come closest to the official History of the Church in terms of what is communicated to Joseph Smith, particularly his use of the phrase “he should not join any of the religious sects of the day”, as virtually all other accounts of the First Vision use “go not after them”. In any event, he adds an otherwise unknown detail, “He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him”. Such information was unpublished, suggesting the facts of this account come from a private conversation with Joseph Smith, as well as whatever contact he had with published or available sources.
Wilford Woodruff - "The same organization and Gospel that Christ died for ... is again established in this generation. How did it come? By the ministering of an holy angel from God, out of heaven, who held converse with man, and revealed unto him the darkness that enveloped the world ... He told him the Gospel was not among men, and that there was not a true organization of His kingdom in the world" Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 196 (1855)
To the next quote, coincidentally also to be found in the Tanners' work. Not a big surprise, really. But there is a real advantage from doing original research, and reading the citations: You can read the whole statement. At the end of the above paragraph, as Pres. Woodruff winds up his thought, he makes this statement:
“This man to whom the angel appeared obeyed the Gospel; he received it in meekness and humility, and bowed down before the Lord and worshipped Him, and did the best he could in his illiterate state;” JD, vol. 2, pg. 198.(1855) (Emphasis added)
As the valley girls say: “Oh my gosh!” We know Pres. Woodruff was very familiar with the statements of the official History of the Church, and we see that like John Taylor, he freely uses the term ‘angel’ to speak of Christ. Looking too hard for contradictions can lead to stretching the evidence, as we have now seen.
Orson Hyde - "Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?' Because to the angels was committed the power of reaping the earth, and it was committed to none else." Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 335 (1854)
It would be refreshing if Mr. Norton would actually quote a passage in some form of context. This passage has nothing to do with the First Vision. It is about angels being given the power for the harvesting of converts and gathering them in the Last Days. Judge for yourself:
“When we take a more extensive view of the subject, we find that the grand harvest is reserved until the last--until the winding up scene; for it is said, "The harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels," by whose agency this reaping dispensation was committed to the children of men.
Some one may say, "If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Saviour come himself to communicate this intelligence to the world?" Because to the angels was committed the power of reaping the earth, and it was committed to none else. And after the mighty champions that hold the keys of this dispensation came and brought the intelligence that the time of the harvest was now--that the time of the end was drawing nigh,--when this proclamation was made, and the announcement saluted the ears of the children of men, what was to be done next? Behold, the gathering of the Saints begins.” Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 335 (1854)
Since Elder Hyde wrote a pamphlet in 1842 precisely detailing two glorious personages appearing to Joseph in his 15th year (1820), and in that pamphlet describes the later visitation of Moroni, these 1855 comments are 100% in line with his other statements. It would seem a string of academic/historic oversights are piling up here for this “historical buff”.
Turn now to the next quotation, which like all the previous quotations, can also be found in the Tanners works:
George A. Smith - "...he [Joseph Smith] 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" Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, p. 334 (1863)
Well, he deserves credit for doing some research here. He copied this out of the original printed text of the Journal of Discourses. How can one tell? Because the type in the printed editions improperly set, making the 1868 look like 1863. So he looked for himself at this quote, but managed to get the date incorrect. Mr. Norton contends he discovered all of the citations in the original books, the Journal of Discourses. This bears him out to some degree. He just happens to have 100% agreement with the Tanner's previously published material. I can see how that could happen. My calculations tell me this is more likely than the Bible being printed as a result of an explosion in a type shop, so it could happen.
In this passage, George A. Smith, Joseph’s first cousin, seems to blend the two accounts. We know this because in the previous paragraph, Elder. G.A. Smith correctly places the date of the First Vision as 1820, but then mixes the First Vision with Moroni’s visit in 1823. He has all the details sort of blurred together. Consider the following:
G.A. Smith was one of the assemblers and finishers of the History of the Church,
G.A. Smith was one of the editors assigned to revise Lucy Mack Smith’s biography of Joseph Smith,
G.A. Smith quotes verbatim the official History of the Church version in a talk in 1864 [10], 4 full years before this talk.
Either the scribe got the details wrong as the speech proceeded, or Elder Smith just got confused. The paragraphs of this particular talk are quite long, and but for the omission of a word or two, there would be both visions described here. Or maybe he just misspoke, and the scribe got the details correct. Or maybe a little of each. The problem for Mr. Norton is that all the details are very accurate, just slightly confused, and it is obvious from Elder Smith’s talks he knows Joseph Smith’s official version. Compare Elder Smith’s statement with Joseph Smith’s official history:
G.A. Smith: [Joseph] “inquired which of all these denominations was right and which he should join”
Joseph Smith 1839 History: “ I asked … which of all the sects was right, … and which I should join”
The detail of which of the denominations/sects to join is only found in the 1839 account of the First Vision, so either he received this information directly from Joseph, which is quite possible, or he copied it out of the published History of the Church account, which we know he quotes ealier.
George A. Smith - "[Joseph] was enlightened by the vision of an holy angel. When this personage appeared to him, one of the first inquiries was 'Which of the denominations of Christians in the vicinity was right?' " Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 78 (1869)
Elder Smith uses a familiar format, calling Jesus an “angel” in this account. Elder Smith has all of the details correct, and as stated above, there is no question he knows, teaches and believes the ‘angel’ which appeared to Joseph Smith was Christ. It is utterly indefensible to suggest it is anything else.
Next citation also to be found in the Tanners' work:
John Taylor - "None of them was right, just as it was when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right." Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 167 (1879)
The offending word for Mr. Norton is the use of “angel” again by John Taylor. Consider this:
1850 Elder Taylor writes a detailed account of the First Vision describing the visitation of “an holy angel” in the opening narrative, then describing in the text the visitation composed of “two personages”.
1878 President Taylor authorizes the printing of the first American edition of the Pearl of Great Price, which included the History of the Church’s account of the First Vision.
1880 Pearl of Great Price is canonized as scripture in the same meeting as President Taylor is sustained as President of the Church. It is beyond imagination that he would be unaware of the content of the official version of the First Vision.
It is literally impossible to believe President Taylor misspoke. To speak of Christ as an angel was completely acceptable and common to 19th century Latter-day Saints.
Moving on to the next quote:
George Q. Cannon-"But suppose that the statement that Joseph Smith says the angel made to him should be true-that there was no church upon the face of the earth whom God recognized as His, and whose acts He acknowledged-suppose this were true..." Journal of Discourses, vol. 24, pg. 135 (1889)
Two paragraphs earlier, Elder Cannon says this:
“He was told that there was no church which God recognized as His own, while there were many that had parts of the truth, portions of the Gospel. There was no church which God acknowledged amid the multiplicity of sects as His. He was told to wait until the Lord should give the power and communicate the authority. Now, though he had received this communication from heavenly messengers, Joseph Smith did not presume to take one step towards organizing a church because of the fact that he had received communications of this character.” Journal of Discourses, vol. 24, pg. 135 (1889)
He speaks of “the angel” in one paragraph, but “heavenly messengers” in the earlier paragraph of the same talk. Remember, angel commonly meant Jesus to 19th century Mormons and Christians. Below is a comment from Elder Cannon from 6 years before the above citations, but importantly, those comments are made three years after the adoption of the Pearl of Great Price which includes the official History of the Church account. By this point in time the circumstances of the 1820 First Vision account found in the History of the Church was known and understood by over 90% of the Church membership, based upon the printing of the Pearl of Great Price in England and its unanimous adoption in General Conference in 1880. Which explains this understanding expressed in 1883 by Elder Cannon:
“But all this was swept away in one moment by the appearance of the Almighty Himself--by the appearance of God, the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, to the boy Joseph, as he kneeled in the forest beseeching God for knowledge concerning Him, and concerning the Gospel of salvation…The Father came accompanied by the Son, thus showing that there were two personages of the Godhead, two presiding personages whom we worship and to whom we look, the one the Father, and the other the Son. Joseph saw that the Father had a form; that He had a head; that He had arms; that He had limbs; that He had feet; that He had a face and a tongue with which to express His thoughts; for He said unto Joseph: "This is my beloved Son"--pointing to the Son--"hear Him."” George Q. Cannon, JD vol.24 page 373, September 2, 1883.
Do the circumstances of the adoption of the official First Vision account and the comment above make anyone out there think, as Mr. Norton asserts, that “the belief that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in the Spring of 1820 was a doctrine that was totally unfamiliar to virtually every Mormon until nearly 1890.”
On to the next previously published statement to be found in the Tanners' work, but used here by Mr. Norton. He is very thorough, since this did not come out of Journal of Discourses, but from a long out of print book by Joseph Smith's younger brother, William. My Gospel link library has over 1000 LDS publications, and to find this needle in a haystack is incredible. To find this without referring to the Tanner's research should be hailed as almost miraculous, and his work deserves the fullest measure of respect for its originality and refreshing insight. Behold the next Fawn Brodie.
William Smith- "He accordingly went out into the woods and falling upon his knees called for a long time upon the Lord for wisdom and knowledge. While engaged in prayer a light appeared in the heavens, and descended until it rested upon the trees where he was. It appeared like fire. But to his great astonishment, did not burn the trees. An angel then appeared to him and conversed with him upon many things. He told him that none of the sects were right..." William Smith On Mormonism , By William Smith, Joseph Smith's brother. pg. 5 (1883)
For some excellent background about William Smith and his value as a witness of Joseph’s First Vision account, see http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/wmsmith.htm or Richard Anderson’s article, quoted above, in BYU Studies .[11]
As Brother Watson ably demonstrates at the above weblink, William Smith’s writings prove he misunderstands the First Vision and Moroni’s visit. He admits that he has the details wrong by directing the reader of his account to Joseph’s “more elaborate and accurate description”.[12]
The reader will note that the confusion in this account is because of some problem on the part of William Smith in keeping the visions separated, not the vision (singular) he erroneously portrays, and tells the reader to get the accurate details from the published and official history written by Joseph Smith. This is important to further discredit Mr. Norton’s revisionist presentation of history, since it is clear from William Smith’s comment the official History of the Church account was readily available to the readers of William Smith’s narrative. The book was published in Lamoni, Iowa, but the Pearl of Great Price had officially been adopted as scripture by the Church three years earlier, and the official version of the First Vision had been published in Nauvoo 41 years earlier. If the official version of the First Vision were unknown to most of the Church until nearly 1890, why would William Smith invite his readers to compare his work to it to get the more accurate account?
Next completely independently researched citation, also coincidentally to be found in the Tanners' widely circulated work.
" The angel again forbade Joseph to join any of these churches, and he promised that the true and everlasting Gospel should be revealed to him at some future time. Joseph continues: 'Many other things did he (the angel) say unto me which I cannot write at this time' " Church Historical Record, Vol. 7, January, 1888 [It should be noted here that in this quote the first reference to "the angel" was later changed to "the Holy Being" and the second reference to "the angel" was changed to "the Christ"]
Same as before. Angel in early LDS usage, and society at large, had the connotation of, among other things, Jesus Christ. Since this is not Joseph Smith speaking or writing, but someone’s comments upon the First Vision accounts, it is a confirmation that the words “holy being” and “Christ” are inserted to prove their understanding of who was in fact speaking, and the unambiguous meaning in this context of the word “angel”.
Next great insightly citation. He even includes commentary about the citation's content, some nearly exactly like the Tanner’s comments about the changes (1972 Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, pages 149-150). It appears to be a case of spontaneous composition.
Joseph Smith, Nov. 1835 - "...I received the first visitation of Angels when I was about 14 years old..." Personal writings of Joseph Smith, pg. 84 [It should be noted that this entry has been changed in the History of the Church, Vol. 2, pg. 312. It now reads "my first vision" instead of "visitation of Angels"]
As noted in the historical outline above, this event transpires on Nov. 14, 1835. Five days earlier, Nov. 9, 1835, Joseph is describing the First Vision to Joshua the Jewish Minister, and mentions seeing two personages and many angels. The visit on Nov. 14 is from a non-member, and the journal entry itself was written by Warren Cowdery, and was a summary of a conversation lacking any detail of what was specifically said. Br. Cowdery was obviously aware of the more complete telling of the story he had written five days prior, and nothing can be deduced from what is essentially an abstract of a conversation. It is consistent with his statement from 5 days earlier, and what we know of the First Vision. More cannot be read into the statement, since accusatory detail is lacking. At most, one could be upset a complete retelling is not included, but nothing more.
Next:
Brigham Young - " Do we believe that the Lord sent his messengers to Joseph Smith, and commanded him to refrain from joining any Christian church, and to refrain from the wickedness he saw in the churches, and finally delivered to him a message informing him that the Lord was about to establish his kingdom on the earth..." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 18, pg. 239
First of all, remember this is a speech given by President Young, not a citation from a book by him. Each of the points is a detail, not necessarily a continuous dialog. Let’s change the presentation, but keeping the words and expanding to include the full context of the quotation, which is, incidentally, about Moroni to start with:
1. “Has the angel flown through the midst of heaven and delivered the Gospel to the children of men? Yes, we believe all this.
2. Do we believe that the Lord
a. sent his messengers to Joseph Smith,
b. and commanded him to refrain from joining any Christian church,
c. and to refrain from the wickedness he saw in the churches,
3. and finally delivered to him a message informing him that the Lord was about to establish his kingdom on the earth
4. and led him on step by step until he gave him the revelation concerning the plates?
5. Yes, this is all correct. Did Joseph receive these revelations?
6. Did the heavenly messengers come to Joseph, and commit to him the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood? Yes, we believe all this.
7. Did the Lord speak from the heavens through Joseph, commanding his people to gather out from the wicked before the scourges--sickness, pestilence, wars, bloodshed, and the various calamities spoken of by the Prophets and Apostles, should pass over the nations? Yes, we believe the Lord has called upon the people who received the Gospel to come out of Babylon, to separate themselves from the wicked and to stand in holy places preparatory to the coming of the Son of Man.”
Notice in Point 2, the main point is the Lord, as each of the sub-points are actually taking their commands from the Lord, singular, not plural. This is brought out fully in point 2.c., “the wickedness he saw in the churches.” Singular pronoun, relating back to the Lord, not plural relating back to the “messengers”. Notice Point 5. Not one revelation, but several revelations. Notice point 6. Who committed the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery? It was John the Baptist. Yet as a figure of speech, as part of the group of messengers being sent to Joseph, President Young says “messengers”, plural instead of singular. President Young’s talk, like Orson Hyde’s from 1854, is describing the role and work of angels in the restoration and gathering. Point 7 could equally be about the First Vision, since it seems to describe a direct revelation by the Lord to Joseph. But that is really silliness.
President Young is not trying to relate a precise written history. President Young was very involved in getting the History of the Church completed, and reediting Lucy Mack Smith’s history of Joseph Smith. He also favorably looked upon the British publication of the Pearl of Great Price. His statement which Mr. Norton challenges is correct. The Lord did send messengers to Joseph Smith. He also did command him to not join any Church. Those are two separate thoughts in a stream of thoughts in a speech. Like the original Book of Mormon printer’s manuscript, the punctuation of the passage is not Brigham Young’s. It is illogical to force an error into something which is on its face correct.
From here on out, Mr. Norton moves to a series of misleading and often erroneous statements to try and justify a twisted reading of history.
Isn't it odd that over 40 years after Joseph's alleged "first vision", Church leaders like Brigham Young and John Taylor were still unaware of Joseph Smith's claim of seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?
We have shown this is completely untrue. While writing and speeches by Brigham Young are mostly after 1860 which support his understanding of the First Vision, we have no doubt in the case of John Taylor. This statement is false. By 1860, the official version of the First Vision, found in today’s Pearl of Great Price, was in the hands of over 90% of the Church. It was well known throughout the Church. This is just a completely baseless statement. How big of a history buff is Mr. Norton?
That's because Joseph's "first vision" was a consistently changing story that was virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints. Over the years Joseph's story changed from an event in the year 1823 to 1821 to 1820.
This is another set of falsehoods. At most we can say the First Vision accounts varied between 1820-1821, but since Mr. Norton contends those accounts were “virtually unknown to early Latter-day Saints”, one must wonder what he believes this proves. Joseph Smith’s accounts and Lucy Smith, Orson Hyde, John Taylor, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt all state it occurred in 1820 with but one variation in one of Joseph Smith’s unpublished accounts, which this author from the photocopy seen of the journal believes could also confirm an 1820 date. The date since 1840, when the first published account of the First Vision was made public, have all stated it occurred in 1820. No inconsistency there whatsoever.
His motive for seeking God in prayer also changed significantly over the years. From no motive (a spirit appears with news of gold plates), to a desire to know if God exists, to a desire for forgiveness of sins, and finally, to a local religious revival.
At this point, one really starts to question the motives of Mr. Norton. He uses an interesting literary tool here. “From no motive…to...to…and finally, to…” This would seem to be a time line of changes. But that is not at all what Joseph Smith writes. He is concerned about which Church to join in most accounts, but also about his standing before God. Others may ascribe motives, but Joseph’s direct writings and comments on the situation are very consistent.
Most importantly, even the heavenly visitor(s) that he saw were constantly changing. Depending on the account Joseph gave, it was either a spirit, an angel, two angels, many angels, Jesus, and finally, the Father and the Son.
Joseph Smith relates in his very first, brief account that it was the Lord who appeared. In his second account, he says there were two personages, and many angels, but the personages are obviously God and Christ, since his sins are forgiven, a divine function. There is no question that the understanding of all early Latter-day Saints was that God and Christ appear. The use of the term ‘angel’ is contextually and historically accurate when referring to Christ, and certainly ‘angels’ is correct in the context of bringing the messages to Joseph from Heaven. This is another example of trying to create a tempest in a teapot.
LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley stood in General Conference and said "Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud." (Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith,” Ensign, Nov. 2002, pg.78) If this "First Vision" of Joseph Smith did occur, it certainly didn't happen the way the Church wants us to believe it did.
At the end of the day, everyone he cites voted to accept the Pearl of Great Price as scripture, and thereby endorsed the official account as told by the Prophet Joseph Smith. The only two exceptions were William Smith and Lucy Mack Smith, who actually invite readers to get the details correct by reading Joseph Smith’s official version. There can be no doubt the First Vision accounts as published are not 100% accurate, since Joseph repeatedly taught he was not allowed to reveal all of the details delivered to him. But we have the version he felt should be disseminated to the world, and his contemporaries and family agree in its essential detail. What we really need to know is that it happened. And from all the evidence, in 1820 something happened to Joseph to change the course of his life, and told him that all Churches were in error. Absent other first hand plausible accounts, the most logical choice is the first vision as told in the Pearl of Great Price.
Have a look at the next page to see that Joseph's "first vision" wasn't the only story that has changed over time.
The point to be taken away from this review is how really small the variations are. We have several retellings of the same event, with a few different details related in each account. Hardly the stuff of a conspiracy or faith destroying experience. Quite the opposite. The variation in details and language indicate a complete lack of conspiracy, and if Mr. Norton and the Tanners can ever get over the correct 19th century usage of the word ‘angel’, he would literally have nothing to complain about. More obvious, however, is how blatantly false Mr. Norton's statements are that until 1890, most members did not know God and Christ appeared to Joseph Smith, and his citation of talks by General Authorities of the Church to supposedly support this view. It is completely false, and as documented above, a distortion lifted from the works of the Tanners. If the truth is so devastating to the LDS position, why distort history? The answer appears to be because history is actually quite supportive of the LDS position.
Footnotes
1. Lucy Mack Smith notes Joseph told her and others (“religionists”, pg 79) in 1820 that he knew all churches were wrong, and suffered persecution for it. Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations, Liverpool, 1853.
Richard L. Anderson also discusses Orsamus Turner and Pomeroy Tucker’s experiences around 1820 with Joseph Smith, and their published comments, showing their knowledge of his statements that all the Churches were wrong and his withdrawal from exploring Methodism. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision through Reminiscences," BYU Studies 9 (Spring 1969): 378-84.
2. Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision through Reminiscences," BYU Studies 9 (Spring 1969): 373-404.
3. “The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was first organized in the Town of Manchester, Ontario County, State of New York, U.S.A., 6th April 1830. Previous to this an holy angel appeared unto a young man about fifteen years of age, a farmer's son, named Joseph Smith, and communicated unto him many things pertaining to the situation of the religious world, the necessity of a correct church organization, and unfolded many events that should transpire in the last days, as spoken of by the Prophets.”
4. “While he was thus engaged, he was surrounded by a brilliant light. and two glorious personages presented themselves before him, who exactly resembled each other in features, and who gave him information upon the subjects which had previously agitated his mind.”
5. Anderson, page 403.
6. As cited by Watson http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/wmsmith.htm#29 29. Edward Stevenson, "Reminiscences of Joseph, the Prophet, and the Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon," Published by the Author, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1893, p 4.
7. “How many personages are there in the Godhead? Two: the Father and Son. Lecture 5:1”, N.B. Lundwall reprint of Lectures on Faith, 1835, page 49.
8. “Being a huge history buff and a very active and believing Mormon, I thought I should put my love of history and my love of the Church together and purchase an original Hoffman forgery of perhaps a Joseph Smith or Brigham Young document.” http://www.josephlied.com/bicentennialboy.html
9. “As I read through the Church History and the Journal of Discourses I had found numerous quotes from friends and family members of Joseph Smith that made it painfully obvious that the belief that Joseph Smith saw God and Christ in the Spring of 1820 was a doctrine that was totally unfamiliar to virtually every Mormon until nearly 1890…However, I was determined to not use any anti-Mormon sources for my information because I didn't want the "facts" to be skewed by those people who might have an ax to grind with the Church…”
10 George A. Smith, JD, vol. 11, pages 1-2, delivered in the Ogden Tabernacle November 15, 1864.
11 Anderson, pages 398-401.
12 As quoted by Watson. The entire context of Watson’s citation is as follows: “In this 1883 account, William specifically and sequentially details events from both visions, which were separated by more than three years, and then wrote: "A more elaborate and accurate description of his vision, however, will be found in his own history." The words "his vision" make it clear that he considered the two visions to be a single event. By the above comment William also acknowledges that Joseph's account is more accurate than his own. Remember that this account was personally composed and hand written, as opposed to being recorded by someone taking notes of a verbal discussion. William incorrectly perceived the 1820 first vision and the 1823 visitation of the angel Moroni as a single event, which he believed occurred on September 21, 1823.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)