The First Vision

[Shulem]

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

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

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

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

emphasis added

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

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

...and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart about that time my mother and but after many days I fell into transgressions and sinned in many things...

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

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

[Shulem]

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

emphasis added

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

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

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

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

22 I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.

[Shulem]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I become convicted of my sins

• I felt to mourn for my own sins

• a piller of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world

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

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

Thank you.

[Shulem]

Laying aside all the fantastic claims of Mormonism and Joseph Smith’s inventions to restore what he thought was original Christianity, it can be argued that the greatest doctrinal difference between his so-called restored Church and that of other religions was:

Trinity vs. Two Separate Persons having bodies of flesh!

But this doctrine was not established or affirmed when the Church was first organized and for several years the Mormons continued to embrace a Trinity-like doctrine that coincided with traditional Christian religions. Nothing in Smith’s revelations or testimonials reflected the doctrine of the Father being a separate person made of flesh. The Church taught and believed that God the Father was only a Personage of Spirit.

There is nothing the Church today can do or say to change that. In fact, it does not matter what the Church today says because it’s irrelevant. I don’t care what the men of Salt Lake City have to say. They are not Joseph Smith! They are not anything like him! So, it means nothing to me. All that matters is what Joseph Smith said or didn’t say. And, I am smart enough to know the difference. How about you?

[Shulem]

Believe it or not:

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (1843, D&C 130:22)

And,

• Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

• Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

• Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

[Shulem]

D&C 76 of three degrees of heaven was first published in the Church periodical, THE EVENING AND THE MORNING STAR, JULY, 1832. The Vision was a controversial piece of revelation because it challenged the traditional doctrine of “heaven and hell” as taught in the Bible and Book of Mormon. What followed was an article entitled THE EXCELLENCE OF SCRIPTURE that discussed the very doctrine of the Godhead. Here are some clips which show exactly what Joseph Smith proclaimed and please note there is nothing therein to indicate Smith believed the Father and Son are two separate physical Persons:

THE incomparable excellency which is in the sacred Scriptures, will fully appear, if we consider the matters contained in them under this threefold capacity. 1. As matters of divine revelation. 2. As a rule of life. 3. As containing that covenant of grace which relates to man's eternal happiness.

<snip>

They are matters of the greatest moment and importance for men to know. The wisdom of men is most known by the weight of the things they speak; and therefore that wherein the wisdom of God is discovered, cannot contain any thing that is mean and trivial; they must be matters of the highest importance, which the Supreme Ruler of the world vouchsafes to speak to men concerning: and such we shall find the matters which God hath revealed in his word to be, which either concern the rectifying our apprehensions of his nature, or making known to men their state and condition, or discovering the way whereby to avoid eternal misery.

<snip>

What is there which doeth more highly concern men to know, than God himself? or what more glorious and excellent object could he discover than himself to the world? There is nothing certainly which should more commend the Scripture to us, than that thereby we may grow more acquainted with God, that we may know more of his nature, and all his perfections, and many of the great reasons of his actings in the world.

<snip>

If therefore acquaintance with the nature, perfection, designs of so excellent a being as God is, be a thing desirable to human nature, we have the greatest cause to admire the excellency and adore the fulness of the Scriptures, which gives us so large, rational, and complete account of the being and attributes of God. And which tends yet more to commend the Scriptures to us, those things which the Scripture doth most fully discover concerning God, do not at all contradict those prime and common notions which are in our natures concerning him, but do exceedingly advance and improve them, and tend the most to regulate our conceptions and apprehensions of God, that we may not miscarry therein, as otherwise men are apt to do.

<snip>

...it is thence necessary that God should make known himself to the world, to prevent our misconceptions of his nature

<snip>

Such are the eternal purposes and decrees of God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the manner of the operation of the Spirit of God upon the souls of men, which are all things of great weight and moment for us to understand and believe that they are, and yet may be unsearchable to our reason, as to the particular manner of them.

If ever there was a time to reveal to the world that Smith saw two Personages in his First Vision and set the record straight, then this was it! But that did not happen because at that time Joseph’s belief embraced “The doctrine of the Trinity” which was taught in all the Christian churches!

[Physics Guy]

Mormonism is not Trinitarian in the mainstream Christian sense, but it's notoriously hard to pin down precisely what the mainstream Trinity is. In the old, credal churches, the authoritative statement of Trinitarian belief is the Athanasian Creed. (The link is to a page hosted by the Christian Reformed Church, but the creed is old and its translation into English is not controversial, so this is essentially the same text that Catholics and Anglicans and Lutherans and others recite.)

The Creed is pretty clear that "the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another, and that of the Holy Spirit still another". At the same time, the Creed insists, "And yet there are not three eternal beings; there is but one eternal being," and, "catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords." If you ask how such statements of distinctness and unity can all be true, you are poised to dive down a rabbit hole of philosophical distinction and old Greek technical terms which may well only ever have been used, in their precise Trinitarian senses, precisely in the formulation of Trinitarian theology, and which may therefore be somewhat circularly defined. The clearest statements in Trinitarian theology are usually negative, telling you bluntly that all the easily intuitive interpretations of the doctrine are heresies.

Although the concept of the Trinity has long been mocked for its incoherence, its difficulty doesn't necessarily mean that it really is nonsense. As far as I can tell, the Trinity is not much like quantum theory, but the way that it sounds absurd reminds me of how some basic quantum concepts also seem absurd—and yet they are real. We know from the example of quantum mechanics that there can be truths which are beyond human intuition, which humans can learn to use in a rote, mechanical way but which are very difficult for us to conceive with a clear intuition. The Trinity might not be one of those truths—it might instead be just an awkward snow job to cover up doctrinal problems—but on the other hand it's kind of plausible that the nature of God might be at least as tricky for humans as the nature of electrons. In that sense a paradoxical-sounding theory of God seems more plausible to me than a simplistic one. A God that we could easily understand would be too simple a thing to be God.

All of which is to say: Smith's claims to have seen the Father and the Son as two separate personages weren't necessarily contradicting the Trinity. It would depend crucially on exactly what he meant by "personage", and I doubt he ever spelled this out in enough detail to make the issue clear.

[Shulem]

Mormonism is not Trinitarian in the mainstream Christian sense...

THANK YOU for the excellent commentary by which I agree!

Joseph Smith and the early Mormons generally agreed with the Christian churches regarding their understanding of the Trinity/Godhead but rejected the authority of those Churches and claimed a universal apostasy spanned across ages of time. It wasn’t until later in Smith’s ministry that he began to attack the sectarian beliefs of the Christian churches with regard to the nature of God and rejected their creeds. Smith’s own views in hindsight transformed the Mormon doctrine of God away from traditionally accepted beliefs of the biblical God.

The Book of Mormon maintains a running commentary about the future apostasy of the Gentile Christian religion (whore of the earth) and was critical about things like rejecting miracles and the lack of spiritual gifts but NOTHING is ever said about false beliefs of the Godhead as expressed in Trinitarian faith. It wasn’t until many years later that Joseph Smith began to criticize the long established and accepted beliefs of the Godhead as taught by other churches. The declaration of seeing two Persons was an aftereffect in embellishing a new concept of God and a rebranding of Mormonism.

[Shulem]

In 1834, Joseph Smith Sr. (Patriarch of the Church) gave his son Joseph his patriarchal blessing. The blessing provides an interesting key in understanding that Smith’s visionary experience as a young boy says NOTHING about seeing two Persons as expressed in the 1838 account. The blessing is recorded in Oliver Cowdery’s handwriting and seems to pay direct reference to Joseph’s youthful visionary experience prior to his angelic visitation of the angel Moroni. What’s interesting to note is nothing is ever said about seeing two Persons or how the traditional doctrine of the Trinity/Godhead was misunderstood by both Christians and Mormons alike.

Joseph, my son, I lay my hands upon thy head in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to confirm upon thee a father’s blessing. The Lord thy God has called thee by name out of the heavens: thou hast heard his voice from on high from time to time, even in thy youth. The hand of the angel of his presence has been extended toward thee by which thou hast been lifted up and sustained; yea, the Lord has delivered thee from the hands of thine enemies and thou hast been made to rejoice in his salvation: thou hast sought to know his ways, and from thy childhood thou hast meditated much upon the great things of his law. Thou hast suffered much in thy youth, and the poverty and afflictions of thy father’s family have been a grief to thy soul.

Note how God called the prophet by name (Joseph):

“out of the heavens: thou hast heard his voice from on high from time to time,”

Wherefore I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph, and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments; and also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world, and all this that it might be fulfilled, which was written by the prophets: The weak things of the world should come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones: that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh, but that every man might speak in the name of God, the Lord, even the Savior of the world; that faith also might increase in the earth; that mine everlasting covenant might be established; that the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple, unto the ends of the world; and before kings and rulers.

Behold I am God and have spoken it: these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding; and inasmuch as they erred, it might be made known: and inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed; and inasmuch as they sinned, they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble, they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time: after they, having received the record of the Nephites; yea, even my servant Joseph...

In addition to Smith’s calling as a prophet, notice how the patriarchal blessing keys in on Joseph’s “youth” which alludes to the time of the First Vision:

“The Lord thy God has called thee by name out of the heavens: thou hast heard his voice from on high from time to time, even in thy youth”

I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life

And there you have it! Joseph’s father knew of his boyhood visionary experience and how the Lord of glory (ONE PERSON) appeared to him and called him by name. Joseph Smith Sr. continued the blessing by saying, “Thou hast been called, even in thy youth to the great work of the Lord.”

It’s really that simple. The so-called Lord of Glory is one Person and the original First Vision account testifies that Joseph saw only him!

[bill4long]

Joe said:

It is altogether correct in the translation. Our text says, “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father.” The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above

Funny that Joe's own JST revision changed by dropping the "and" preceding "his father", which contradicts Joe's claim about our God having a God/Father above him. But Joe apparently forget that he did that as he proclaimed this gross error to the crowd in the grove.

for Paul says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private. John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just so in the Revelation, Hence the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A wayfaring man,14 though a fool, need not err therein.

That idea is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Bible, the church Fathers, Rabbinical Judaism, Philo's writings, the gnostic writings, the Kabbala, or any other Judeo/Christian text, however orthodox or heterodox. Joe was utterly full of shinola.

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God—that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all. But if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, “Away with him! Crucify him! Crucify him!”

It's possible Paul was referring to lesser gods, the kind referred to in Psalm 82:6. But whatever he meant, there is no zero evidence that he was talking about any gods above our God, the one and only "Most High", Yahweh. How many "Most Highs" are there? (Gen 14, Num 24, Deut 32, etc, etc.) The Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament are clear on this matter. There's only one. (E.g. John 17:3.)

You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text.

Yeah, well, Joe, you were listening to a spirit that apparently didn't know the data.

Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James’ translators, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, “In the beginning the head of the Gods brought forth the Gods,” or, as others have translated it, “The head of the Gods called the Gods together.” I want to show a little learning as well as other fools.

An utterly false and impossible rendering of the Hebrew. Even LDS scholars who know Hebrew know this.

The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me.

Too bad you're dead, Joe. It would be easy to refute you.

In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, “Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits.”—“The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image.” I once asked a learned Jew, “If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?” He replied, “That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible.” He acknowledged I was right. I came here to investigate these things precisely as I believe them. Hear and judge for yourselves; and if you go away satisfied, well and good.

Yeah, I'm gonna call B.S. on this. No "learned Jew" told him that.

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods.

While it is true that "elohim" can mean "god" or "gods." Context determines the meaning. The most common contextual indicator is the case of the verb. Joe gets Genesis totally wrong. The verbs are singular all the way through.

The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, its sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.

Only in your delusional mind, Joe.

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. “Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me.” “Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are.” All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.

Even when I was a TBM, I thought this was a rather crass, asinine thing to say, even if he were correct.

I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house.[/b][/color]

Uh huh. That papyrus says no such thing.