The First Vision – The Joseph Smith Story ◄ Click to read it on Jim's site
First published in August 2011 by Lulu Press Inc. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. First Edition – August 2011 Copyright © Jim Whitefield 2011 ISBN 13: 978-1-4478-1256-2 This book is registered with the British Library Catalogue System. Lulu ID: 11049405 All rights reserved. No part of the hard copy publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the author.
The download version may be reproduced and distributed by individuals or organisations only as a complete document and must include this page. Reproduced with permission of the author. Copyright © Jim Whitefield 2011. All rights reserved. The text of the article may not be altered or added to.
Copies distributed must be given and may not be sold. A download is exclusively available from the publisher: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/themormondelusion
Reproduced here with permission from Jim Whitefield:
The First Vision - The Joseph Smith Story
“Mormonism, as
it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith.
He was either a prophet of God,
and commissioned,
this world has ever seen.
There is no
middle ground.
…the doctrines
of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth.
If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear
many errors and
contradictions,
Joseph Fielding Smith, President of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles; later Mormon Church President.
(Doctrines
of Salvation, 1954, vol. 1, p. 188).
The
following account contains no personal opinions and no suppositions. It is
history, as recorded by Joseph Smith himself in his various writings
Members and
investigators of the Mormon Church are taught that in the spring of the year
1820, Joseph Smith experienced a glorious vision of God and Jesus Christ.
Mormons believe Smith was persecuted from the start for telling all and sundry
of his visionary experience. It is assumed by members of the Mormon Church that
he immediately told his family about the occurrence. Most Mormons think the
version we read in ‘Joseph Smith–History’ was the first and the
only
version of claimed events, recorded shortly after his experience.
People take that concept to the Lord
in prayer and then consider their subsequent ‘testimony’ that it really
happened, to have come to their minds in an answer to that prayer from the Lord
himself. After that, they rely on their faith to sustain them regarding any
awkward questions that arise. After all, if Smith had that vision and later
translated the Book of Mormon, a ‘testimony’ of which is also gained through the
very same ethereal means, verification of the rest hardly seems necessary.
However, suppose Joseph Smith was not telling the
truth. How would we ever determine that? The fact of the matter is that if Smith
did lie, then the ‘witness’ one
received could not have come from God
after all; it was just the result of wishful thinking.
So… what really did happen, and what evidence is
there to prove the real sequence of events which led to Smith’s claim? Only that
will determine the truth. The following evidence should fully answer that
question.
The first thing to understand is that Joseph Smith
did not record the ‘official version’
of his ‘First Vision’, as now used by the Mormon Church, until the year 1838,
and it wasn’t even published until 1842, some twenty-two years
after his supposed experience.
This was a complete surprise to me, as Joseph Smith
claimed he told anyone and everyone who would listen all about it immediately
following the event. However, it will be discovered that this was
not the case at all.
Regarding Smith’s original claim of a First Vision;
he first considered the concept in 1832.
Smith’s record, dated in 1832, appears within the work A History of the life
of Joseph Smith, partly written by his then scribe, Frederick G. Williams
and partly (including this version of events) in Smith’s very own
handwriting. In it, Smith declares that between the ages of twelve and fifteen
he became exceedingly distressed concerning the situation of the world and of
his own sins, and concluded that mankind had: “apostatised [sic] from the true
and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon
the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
This is an astonishing conclusion for Smith to have written down in his own hand
in 1832 as it completely contradicts the official version (written in 1838 and
first published in 1842) wherein Smith claims that he went to the grove “to know
which of the sects was right” and that “at this time it had never entered into
my heart that all were wrong.” We now know this was not the case from
Smith’s personally handwritten claim of 1832.
Smith’s 1832 account goes on to state that he was in his sixteenth year
of age [age 15]. In the later official version, he was only fourteen.
Within the pillar of light – originally written as ‘fire’, which Smith crossed
out – the Lord, assumed to be Jesus Christ, appeared alone and
addressed Smith as his son.
It is also interesting to note that this account is very similar to reported
experiences of several other young men of the time who, seeking forgiveness of
sins also claimed to have seen the Lord. A number of accounts were published
which Joseph Smith had ready access to.1
Smith’s own claim never appeared anywhere at the supposed time of 1820, or when
he wrote this in 1832.
The location, later represented as a grove of trees, is not mentioned and there
is no mention of any revival. In this account, Smith is not tormented by an evil
force; he is filled with the spirit of God and has his sins forgiven, consistent
with published stories of other young people who had claimed similar
experiences.
In 1835, within a week, Smith attempted two further
First Vision accounts.
In the first one, Smith relates what he told “Joshua the Jewish Minister” (an
alias for ‘Matthias the Prophet’ who was actually from another cult). One
personage appeared in the pillar of “flame”, then a second personage appeared
who forgave Smith’s sins and testified that “Jesus Christ is the son of God”,
thus clearly identifying the fact that neither visitor was actually the
Saviour as He is only spoken of in the third person. Neither ‘personage’ is
specifically identified but Smith confirms he saw “many angels” during the
vision and that is all. Smith states that he was about fourteen years old: “when
I received this first communication.”
Smith then continues in his diary to relate to Joshua “another vision of angels”
when he was seventeen, thus indicating that the First Vision was deemed by
Smith, in 1835, to be one of angels rather than one of deity.
One would expect to see this record included in Mormon Church history alongside
others appearing in
History of the Church,
Vol. 2
but it is conspicuous by its absence. The Church has simply ignored the account
(along with Smith’s visitor) and it has been left out of ‘Joseph Smith–History’
altogether. Presumably, this is because it is inconsistent with the 1838
official version which they prefer. Nevertheless, it was all recorded in Smith’s
own personal journal in 1835 and it completely
contradicts what he claimed three
years later in 1838.
Erastus Holmes visited Joseph Smith the following Saturday afternoon, on 14
November 1835, enquiring about the Church and asking to be instructed. Smith
recorded what he said to Holmes, in his diary. Relating the experience of his
First Vision, Smith states that he was about fourteen years old when “I received
the first visitation of Angels”, unambiguously confirming his intended
meaning when he had spoken to Joshua a few days earlier. Smith also writes that
he told Holmes about later visitations concerning the Book of Mormon.
Clearly, in late 1835, Smith was still sticking with the idea, in two separate
accounts in his own diary, that it was an angel (or angels) rather than deity
that first visited him in 1820 at age fourteen.
The exact wording of this version of the First Vision from Smith’s diary
was later faithfully published, word for word, in the Church newspaper. (
However, when the account was entered into History of the Church
(V2:312), Joseph Smith’s own wording was deliberately altered. Rather
than tell the truth about what Joseph Smith claimed at the time he wrote of the
experience, the account was falsified.
It was changed from “first visitation of angels” to read “first vision” instead,
in order to make it consistent with the later, more dynamic idea the
First Vision ultimately became, which was not to be one of angels as Smith had
earlier claimed, but one of actual deity. As noted above, the 9th
November account as related to Joshua does not even appear in History of the
Church at all. Sequentially, it should appear in Vol. 2:312
– but it is not included.
This method of falsifying truth went on to become a
regular habit within the Mormon Church. They actually have a name for it. They
call it ‘lying for the Lord’ and it still continues to this day.
The fact that Smith’s own record was changed and falsified to suit later
thinking clearly shows that the idea of a vision of deity had evolved over time
from one of angels rather than it being a first time, first hand, true account
of something that actually transpired in 1820. It also evidences the
utter contempt the Mormon Church has for historical accuracy and the truth.
Smith’s diaries and journals have been published and are available.2
When questioned, the Mormon Church claims each
account gradually reveals what happened in the vision, yet the reality is they
contradict each other in almost every
way. Smith was clearly making it up as he went along. Unless pressed, of course
the Mormon Church doesn’t mention the fact there were several conflicting
accounts of the vision nor that the official version did not get published for
twenty-two years.
If you carefully read JS-History, you will find the following claims (in sequence) made by Joseph Smith himself in the ‘Official Account’ of his ‘First Vision’. The Church extracted the relevant part and included it in the Pearl of Great Price. The following link is to the current ‘First Vision’ page on the Mormon web site containing their scriptures. ‘Joseph Smith–History.’
http://lds.org/scriptures?lang=eng
It should however be noted that Smith did not write
this account; it was penned by his scribe, so no one knows for certain whether
all the ideas contained in it were Smiths or if some were provided by other
people.
At the start of this, in
History of the Church Vol. 1,
there is a statement that: “…a
history more correct in its details than this was never published.”
Well, we shall see…
1.
My father, Joseph Smith, Senior: left…
2.
There was a
religious revival in the district [in 1820].
3.
Great multitudes joined various religious parties.
4.
Four of Smith’s family joined the Presbyterians.
5.
Smith personally came across and pondered on the scripture, James 1:5.
6.
He went to a grove to ask God “which of all the sects was right, that I might
know which to join.”
7.
Smith was told to join with none of them.
8.
“A few days later…” the persecution started.
Once you are
satisfied that those are Smith’s own
surrounding statements, then you are ready to proceed.
Regarding each of
the above eight claims that Smith made, the following is the true historical
position:
1.
The Smiths early moves seem correct. However, the family did
not move to
2.
There was no religious revival in that area in 1820. There was minor one a
couple of years earlier, in 1818, and there was certainly one there in 1824
(possibly even spanning from late 1823-1825 overall).4
3.
‘Great multitudes’ did not join anything
in 1820. Half a dozen less Methodists
were recorded that year, with a small handful of extra Baptists and
Presbyterians (the three main players of the period). During the 1824 revival,
there were recorded increases in membership of 99 Presbyterians, 94 Baptists and
208 Methodists.
5
4.
Four of the Smith family members did not
join the Presbyterians prior to an 1820 First Vision. How do we know?
Because Joseph Smith’s mother independently recorded that she and three of
Smith’s siblings joined the Presbyterians following the death of Smith’s brother
Alvin, in late 1823. That conversion, later mentioned in the
Messenger and Advocate, despite
apologetic claims, could not have
occurred earlier than late 1823-1824.6
5.
Smith may well have claimed in 1838 to have found James 1:5 all by himself in
1820, but considering that he didn’t live in the area – where there was no
revival – when no multitudes joined any various sects – it is not surprising to
learn he also failed to mention the fact that he, along with all the Smith
family, attended a sermon given by a Methodist minister (Elder George Lane) who
preached on the subject “What Church shall I Join” where his text was James 1:5
which Lane recommended to his listeners. The problem with this for Smith is that
Lane didn’t arrive in the area until July of 1824 when the entire Smith family
attended the sermon.7
6.
Smith’s claim to have gone to a grove of trees to ask God which Church was right
is in direct conflict with his earlier personally handwritten statement
confirming that he had already concluded they were
all wrong.8
7.
God told Smith twice in his ‘official’ 1838 account that he should join none of
the Churches as they were all wrong. Later in his narrative, Smith reminds us
for a third time that he was told
this. Yet in 1828, eight years after the supposed vision, Smith joined the
Methodist Sunday School – only to be asked to leave again as he was considered
an undesirable due to his reputation as a ‘glass-looker’ (a money-digging con
artist).9
8.
No persecution was encountered during the period in question; a fact that is now
unequivocally accepted and admitted by historians from Mormon Church owned
Brigham Young University (BYU). I will come back to this important lie later as
it ties in with other evidence.
So,
every single detail Joseph Smith claimed to have surrounded the vision
experience is provably fictitious. But that is just the start. What of the
vision itself. Did Smith see God and Jesus as two separate beings with
bodies in 1820 as the Church now
claims? The answer lies in what Smith actually believed himself at the time.
Bear
in mind that the ‘official’ version of the vision was first written down in
1838. Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in 1829; it was published (and the
Church was also formed) in 1830; his ‘Inspired Revision’ (IR) of the Bible was
written between 1831 and 1834. The Book of Commandments was published in 1833.
The 'Lectures on Faith' were written in 1834 and published within the first
edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835. Let’s start with the first – The
Book of Mormon.
When
Smith and others conspired to write the Book of Mormon, Smith was still entirely
monotheistic in his theological outlook. He remained this way until about 1836
when his ‘plurality of Gods’ theology first started to emerge. Thus, both of the
handwritten manuscripts as well as the 1830 first edition of the Book of Mormon
were monotheistic throughout, with no
mention of God having a body.
Smith
altered the text of the Book of
Mormon in the 1837 edition as it then conflicted with his
new theology. This shows not only
that God was not involved with the
Book of Mormon but also that Smith could not possibly have had an 1820 vision of
the type he claimed in 1838.
With
that information in mind, let’s look firstly at what the original handwritten
manuscripts and also the first edition of the Book of Mormon actually stated.
The 1830 first edition did not have verses but the
equivalent page numbers and lines are shown for reference.
1830 Edition: p.25 lines 3-5.
And he said unto
me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner
of the flesh.
Modern Editions: 1 Nephi 11:18.
And he said unto
me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of
the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
___________________________________________________________________________
1830 Edition: p.25 lines 10-11.
And the angel
said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!
Modern Editions: 1 Nephi 11:21.
And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even
the
Son of
the Eternal Father!
___________________________________________________________________________
1830 Edition: p.26 lines 8-10.
...And I looked
and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the
Everlasting God, was judged of the world...
Modern Editions: 1 Nephi 11:32.
...And I looked and
beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea,
the Son of the Everlasting
God, was judged of the world...
___________________________________________________________________________
1830 Edition: p.32 lines 9-11.
...and shall make known
to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father
and the Savior of the world...
Modern Editions: 1 Nephi 13:40
...and shall make
known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is
the Son of the Eternal
Father and the Savior of the world…
__________________________________________________________________________
(Emphasis and underlining added to the above references to
identify the later falsifications where the words
“the son of” were added in each
case).
Evidence first disclosed by Jerald and Sandra Tanner in
‘Mormonism: Shadow or Reality’.
The last ‘scripture’ was originally
not just another definitive affirmation of Jesus Christ
being God; it was an
instruction to ensure that everyone
knew that, so it was clearly an important aspect in Smith’s theological thinking
when he wrote it. If the original words were indeed revealed directly from God,
then 1 Nephi 13:40 could never
justifiably be changed and it was certainly what the Nephites taught hundreds of
years ago – if one accepts they were a real people.
It cannot be argued that Smith simply
misunderstood the translation, because his face was buried in a hat when he
translated and he didn’t even look at the gold plates. They were either tied up
in a linen cloth or even buried elsewhere when he supposedly ‘translated’ them.
The Church accepts that this was the case and their own Ensign magazine
published an article referring to it. (A
Treasured Testament. Russell M.
Nelson, Ensign, July 1993:61).
The words are claimed to have been revealed
precisely to Smith, one at a time, in
his hat, by means of the very same seer stone that he had used in his money
digging (glass-looking) days when he was arrested and taken to court for being a
con artist.10
That the conviction occurred in 1826, long
after the supposed vision of 1820 and
after the first supposed visit of
After the Book of Mormon was finished, remember, a
voice from heaven supposedly declared it ‘correct’.
In 1964, Mormon author, Sidney B. Sperry, claimed in
his book, The Problems of the Book of
Mormon, that the four ‘omissions’ were simply printer’s errors.
“Why were
these changes made in the text? …the
early
leaders in the Church… knew that typographical errors had crept into the 1830
edition in the course of printing. So they attempted to correct those errors by
comparing the original manuscripts with the 1830 text. The changes they made...
are simple corrections of error in the First Edition.”
However, that was not the case, as
both the original handwritten manuscripts confirm otherwise. Jerald and Sandra
Tanner (http://www.utlm.org/)
did check the original manuscripts.
In the
Joseph Smith was not particularly religious in 1820.
He was just a money-digging con artist, often working with his father or brother
Hyrum and others, from about 1819 through to 1828.13
When the Church was organised in 1830, Smith and his
followers were monotheistic. He
remained this way until at least 1835-1836. This is reflected in
everything he ever wrote, starting
with the Book of Mormon.
We just don’t notice what is
still there in the Book of Mormon
even today. There isn’t one single reference to God and Jesus as separate and
distinct beings anywhere, as Smith
considered them at the time he wrote it to be one and the same being. To Joseph
Smith, God was a being of spirit with no physical attributes. Jesus was ‘in the
bosom of the father’ which means he was
God, and God Himself came to earth as a man – in the form of Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit (or the ‘Holy Ghost’ in Mormonism
these days) was the mind or the will of the Lord – three in one; Trinitarianism;
Monotheism.
Consider the following – look them up in a copy of
the Book of Mormon – available free from the Mormon Church or check them online
at
Here, Zeezrom is
speaking with Amulek.
28. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29. And he answered, No.
And yet years later, Smith went on to claim there are
many Gods.
38. Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal
Father? (Emphasis added).
Zeezrom’s direct question is simply ‘is Jesus God?’ Now, here is a very
good chance for Amulek to say – No, in fact, they are two separate and distinct
beings – both with bodies – but what does he
actually say?
39. And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of
heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and
the end, the first and the last; (Emphasis added).
Amulek here confirms that ‘the Son of God’ IS ‘the very Eternal Father’ –
as in traditional monotheism.
Mosiah 15:1-4
still reads:
1. And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God
himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God,
and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father
and the Son—
3. The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son,
because of the flesh; thus becoming
the Father and Son—
4. And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of
earth. (Emphasis added).
We just don’t
‘see’ Smith’s monotheistic theology in the Book of Mormon, as we are
taught otherwise. Yet it stares you
in the face when you read it in the cold light of day with foreknowledge of his
then current theology and without a mind-controlled perception. If members do
question, they are told that it means ‘one in purpose’ and they go away
accepting that – yet feeling somewhat uneasy. Now we can understand why.
Here are some
more examples of monotheism in the Book of Mormon
today.
2 Nephi 25:12 …the Only Begotten of the Father, yea, even
the Father of heaven and of earth, shall
manifest himself unto them in the flesh, behold, they will reject him…
(Emphasis added).
2 Nephi 26:12 …the Gentiles be convinced also that
Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;
(Between 559 and 545 BCE).
(Emphasis added).
As an aside, the above ‘scripture’ uses the name of Jesus and the title of Christ, five-and-a-half centuries BCE. The name ‘Jesus’ and the title ‘Christ’ were CE inventions unknown before the time of Jesus
If anyone suggests that God
‘translated' whatever words were supposedly originally used to read ‘Jesus
Christ’ for our benefit – then ask
why He didn’t bother to also translate ‘curelom’ or ‘cumom’ for us; fictional
animals found in Ether 9:19. As of 22 July 2011, running a search for ‘curelom’
or ‘cumom’ on the lds.org/scriptures web site returns: “Sorry,
your search returned no results.” Only when Ether 9 is open does a result
appear. Is the Mormon Church now embarrassed about these mythical
creatures?
God might have given a better description of some
items mentioned in KJV: Isaiah 3. Smith plagiarised this as 2 Nephi 13, complete
with Jacobean terminology used in the KJV so people of the day could understand
the items, but which most people in Smith’s day would not readily comprehend at
all.
“In that
day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments, and cauls,
and round tires like the moon; The chains and the bracelets, and the mufflers;
The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets,
and the ear-rings; The rings, and nose jewels; The changeable suits of apparel,
and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping-pins; The glasses, and the
fine linen, and hoods, and the veils.”
It takes just a
couple of clicks today to discover what items such as cauls, round tires like
the moon, mufflers, tablets, glasses and crisping-pins were, but in nineteenth
century America neither Smith or his God seemed to have a clue – and left things
as they were.
3
Ne. 19:18. And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus,
calling him their Lord and their God. (Emphasis added).
The Book of
Mormon is supposed to contain the
fullness of the Gospel, yet Mormons are categorically forbidden to pray
directly to Jesus. Here, the Nephites
did. Why? Because they considered Him to
be God.
Well, that is,
Smith did – so when he wrote the Book of Mormon, of course his characters also
believed it.
3
Nephi 5:20 …bless my God and my Savior
Jesus Christ, that he brought our fathers out of the
Ether 3:14. I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son…
Mormon 9:12. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the
Father and the Son…
(Emphasis added to all the above).
18:5. Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his
father, that there was a Great Spirit.
18:18 …king Lamoni … said unto him: Who art thou? Art thou that Great Spirit, who knows all things?”
18:26. Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?
18:28. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?
22:9. And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our
fathers out of the
22:10. And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and
he created all things…
22:11. And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all
things… (Emphasis added to all the above).
In the Book of Mormon, God is a spirit.
In Mosiah, we learn that it is God
Himself who will come to Earth in the form of a man…
Mosiah 13:28. And moreover, I say unto you, that
salvation doth not come by the law alone; and
were it not for the atonement, which
God himself shall make for the sins and
iniquities of his people...
13:32 …there could not any man be
saved except it were
through the
redemption of God.
13:34. Have they not said that
God himself should
come down
among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man,
and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?
13:35. Yea, and have they not said also that
he should
bring to pass the resurrection of the
dead, and that he, himself, should be oppressed and afflicted?
(Emphasis added to all the above).
The Book of Mormon unequivocally confirms that God
is
the Redeemer.
No ‘body’ is mentioned regarding God
anywhere in the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon title page STILL reads:
-
And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST,
the ETERNAL God, manifesting himself unto all nations -
(Capitals in original).
The Testimony of
Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon still includes: “And the honor be to the
Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which
is one God. Amen.”
So, Jesus IS God manifesting himself and the ‘three’ IS ONE GOD
(singular; not even ‘are one
God’, let alone ‘form the Godhead’). That is what they ALL believed
throughout the early years of the Church.
When the Mormon Church
was organised in 1830, Smith penned a revelation confirming his monotheism.
D&C.
20:27 …believe in the gifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost, which beareth
record of the Father and of the Son;
28. Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (Emphasis added)
Next, came the Inspired Revision of the Bible. Did Smith, in 1831-1834, take the opportunity to ‘clarify’ the Bible anywhere, confirming that God has a physical body? No, he did not. In Moses 6:9 he does say: “In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them…” but whether Smith is referring to a spiritual or physical body in 1831-1834 remains unclear – so we must look further…
KJV.
John 14:9. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how
sayest thou then, Shew [Show] us the Father? (Smith changed ‘Shew’ to ‘Show’).
John 14:9 confirms God and Jesus are one and the same. Smith did
notice this verse because he altered
the Early Modern English word ‘shew’ to read the Modern English ‘show’ for no
apparent reason other than to make himself look clever. However, he did
not alter the text. Thus we need to
look still deeper…
Did Smith, being monotheistic, just perhaps, change anything that could have
been contrived to mean God and Jesus were two separate beings, and
alter it to read that in fact they
are one and the same being, thus fully evidencing his then monotheistic outlook?
You bet your life he did! This is what I found:
In the King James Version, Luke 10:22 reads:
“…no
man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son,
and he to whom the Son will reveal him.”
Now, that could
be construed as slightly ambiguous. It could be argued, although weakly,
considering what the rest of the Bible contains, that it means God and Jesus are
two separate and individual beings. So, Smith – in monotheistic mode –
changed it. It becomes verse 23
in his ‘Inspired Revision’, and it reads as follows:
I.R.
Luke 10:23.
…no man knoweth that the Son is
the Father, and the Father is
the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.
(Emphasis added).
It couldn’t be clearer than that now could it?
The Lectures on Faith (1834) include references to God as a
spirit alone. This is an example:
Lecture Fifth…
“There are two personages
who constitute the great matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things
… They are the Father and the Son—the
Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all
perfection and fullness, the Son,
who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle …”
(Emphasis added).
Elsewhere in the lectures, God is referred to as an
omnipresent spirit which means He
dwells everywhere at once, and that is yet another traditional monotheistic
Christian concept.
The ‘holy spirit’ by the
way, is the ‘mind of God’ in these lectures and is
nowhere referred to as a ‘personage’
of spirit. Most Mormons have no idea the concept of the Holy Ghost being a
personage of spirit didn’t actually surface until the
twentieth century.
(Sunstone Jul/Aug 1980. pp. 24-33).
Talking of the Inspired Revision – here’s an example of Smith’s ever changing
ideas where he completely ignores what went before. This happened over and over
again, proving he was anything but a
prophet. In his infamous King Follett sermon (at the funeral of a man who was
killed by a bucket of bricks falling on his head during a well construction)
Smith starts on about plural Gods for the
first time in public. This was on 7 April 1844, a couple of months or so
before Smith’s death. Following the disclosures in his talk, many Mormons left
the fold as they considered it to be heresy. Reading what he came out with, this
is perfectly understandable.
Smith takes as his text: Revelation 1:6. He says:
“God … is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the
great secret.”
“…He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt
on an earth … and I will show it from the Bible.”
A recent Mormon prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, at least
twice, publicly stated he does not
know that they teach it and he does not know much about it.
(See: San Francisco Chronicle, 13 Apr 1997:3/Z1 Don Lattin,
religion editor; also Time Magazine, 4 Aug1997).
Smith declared “It is plain beyond disputation…” He quotes Revelation 1:6
directly from the KJV: “And
hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father; to him be glory and
domination forever and ever. Amen.”
Note the phrase, “God and His Father”. Smith then states “It is
altogether correct in the translation”. This is because he wants to propound his
new concept that God had a
father and that there are
many Gods. However, Smith either
forgot, or more likely simply ignored, the fact that when he had been ‘inspired’
to correct Biblical scripture in his
earlier ‘Inspired Revision’ he altered
that very verse in order to clarify the tradition that God of course
does not
have a father. Yet here, in 1844, he completely ignores his own earlier
‘Inspired Revision’ and claims the KJV is ‘altogether
correct’
– just to suit his newly developed thinking.
Inspired
Revision:
Rev 1:6
…and hath made us kings and priests unto God his Father. To him be glory
and domination, forever and ever. Amen. (Emphasis added).
If Smith’s claim that the KJV is “altogether correct” is accepted by the Church
in order to justify his plural Gods theology; then they must also accept that he
lied in the IR. Either way, he
is caught in his duplicity and his lies – and
that is a true mark of a
false prophet.
If the First Vision happened as Smith claimed,
in 1820, when was it
ever mentioned in print
anywhere before 1840? The answer –
absolutely nowhere! The following publications all came into print and there was
no word about any kind of ‘First Vision’ ever recorded in
any of them.
▀ 1829-1830.
The Book of Mormon. (The ‘First Vision’ would have made an excellent preface).
▀ 1832.
Delusions, An Analysis of the Book of Mormon; Alexander Campbell.
(Anti-Mormon book).
▀ 1832-1834.
Evening and Morning Star. (Mormon Church newspaper).
▀ 1833.
Book of Commandments. (Early revelations; yet the first and most important is
not mentioned).
▀ 1834.
Mormonism Unvailed [sic]; E. D. Howe. (Another Anti-Mormon book – no mention of
a ‘First Vision’).
▀ 1834-1835.
Lectures of Faith. (No mention of a ‘First Vision’ but talks of God being an
‘omnipresent spirit’).
▀ 1835.
Doctrine & Covenants. (Early revelations; and still no mention of the first and
most glorious one).
▀ 1834-1836.
Latter Day Saints
Messenger and Advocate. (Church newspaper – no ‘First Vision’ account ever).
▀ 1837.
A Voice of Warning. Parley P. Pratt. (Missionary booklet with well over 200
pages – includes revelations and restoration details etc., and yet no mention of
a ‘First Vision’ whatsoever).
▀ 1839-1846.
Times and Seasons. (Church newspaper – no ‘First Vision’ mentioned before the
1842 publication).
▀
1840-1970.
Millennial Star. (UK Mormon publication – again no mention of any ‘First Vision’
prior to 1842).
▀
1842.
Mormonism in All Ages; J. B. Turner. (Yet another anti-Mormon book, published
twenty-two years after the supposed event, with still no mention of any such
thing as a claim to a glorious ‘First Vision’ by Joseph Smith).
Who ever knew
about this First Vision in the early years? What did the non-Mormon newspapers
have to say about Joseph Smith during those first few years? Well, absolutely
nothing before the year 1831. For the first decade, Smith was practically
unknown to anyone outside his own small circle. In 1831, ironically, the local
paper ran three articles which actually provide evidence –
not that Smith made such a claim as
having had a glorious vision in the spring of 1820 – but as it happens, just the
opposite.
“It however appears quite certain that the prophet himself never made any
serious pretensions to religion until his late pretended revelation [the
discovery of the Book of Mormon].” (
“It will be born in mind that no divine interposition had been dreamed of at the
period.” (
“It is well known that Joe Smith never pretended to have any communication with
angels, until a long period after the pretended finding of his book.”
(
So… who ever did know about this
mysterious First Vision in 1820 or
shortly thereafter? Who did Joseph Smith ever actually tell?
Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, started her autobiography in the year
after her sons were killed. Lucy’s autobiography clearly states it was the
angel that appeared to Smith in his
bedroom who told him “there is not a true Church on earth, no not one”. The
original text of Lucy’s book does not mention a single word about any ‘First
Vision’ whatsoever.
When it was published by Orson Pratt in
In 1859, Martin Harris, in an interview for Tiffany’s, recounts what happened
after Smith claimed to find the gold plates in late 1827.
“Joseph had before this described the manner of his finding the plates. He found
them by looking in the stone found in the well of Mason Chase. The family had
likewise told me the same thing. Joseph said the angel told him he must quit the
company of the money-diggers. That there were wicked men among them. He must
have no more to do with them. He must not lie, nor swear, nor steal. He told him
to go and look in the spectacles, and he would show him the man that would
assist him. That he did so, and he saw myself, Martin Harris, standing before
him.”
Harris confirms Smith located the plates by an occult method and that an angel
guided him. But that’s not the important part. What Harris says next tells the
tale:
“But I had the account of it from Joseph, his wife, brothers, sisters, his
father and mother. I talked with them
separately that I might get the truth of the matter.” (Tiffany’s Vol.
V:IV:163-170).
The point here is
that Smith was desperately trying to get Harris to sell part of his farm in
order to finance the publication of the Book of Mormon. Had the First Vision
been a ‘shared’ reality – surely ONE of them, if not Joseph himself, would have
mentioned it to further convince Harris? Not one of ten members of the Smith
family mentioned a single word to Martin Harris about a glorious first encounter
with God and Jesus in 1820 which set the ‘restoration’ in motion. Why? At that
time Joseph Smith had yet to invent the idea.
The first ever published mentions of any kind of ‘First Vision’ were:
Orson Pratt. 1840.
An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, and of the Late Discovery
of Ancient American Records.
Pratt includes a short narrative in which two ‘unidentified’ personages appear.
I will come back to Pratt’s account in a moment when we look at the BYU take on
the matter.
Orson Hyde. 1842.
A Cry from the Wilderness, a Voice from the Dust of the Earth.
(Printed in German).
Hyde
uses almost identical wording to Pratt but this time it reads “two glorious
personages”.
In Hyde’s case at
least he clearly considered Smith’s First Vision to be one of
angels rather than deity as he later
made the following statement:
“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. V.6:335. Orson Hyde. 6 April 1854).
(Emphasis added).
Now it is time to
come back to the idea of Smith’s ‘persecution’ during the first decade
(1820-1830).
The following
stance is now taken by BYU on the whole idea of Smith telling anyone and
everyone.
“Orson Pratt’s ‘Interesting account of Remarkable Visions’ . . . ranks as one of
the great Mormon books as it contains
the first printed account of Joseph Smith’s 1820 vision. Only three
manuscript accounts antedating Remarkable Visions exist in the
Those three accounts are of course the 1832 and the two 1835 Joseph Smith
accounts we reviewed earlier.
Then BYU makes this astonishing admission
“…reflecting that Joseph Smith
discussed this transcendent vision only privately with a few trusted
friends during the Church’s first decade.” (Emphasis added).
http://relarchive.byu.edu/MPNC/descriptions/interesting.html
In a complete turnaround to all that Mormons have ever been taught, the Church,
faced with the facts I have just covered, appears to be accepting them as
proven and therefore
agreeing that Smith never told anyone
about his vision in those early years.
The problem is that they do not address the fact that in so doing, they also
make a complete liar out of
Smith over and over again. Read on in
JS-History and you will discover the many claims that Smith made about
severe persecution – which clearly never actually occurred.
Smith claimed he was: “hated and persecuted for saying I had seen a
vision.”
The ‘Church inserted’ header above v.21 states:
“Persecution
heaped upon Joseph Smith.”
v. 20: “Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost
in my infancy?”
v. 21: Smith met a Methodist minister a few days later and: “…took occasion to
give him an account of the Vision.”
v. 22: “…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…”
v.
23: “…a
little over fourteen years of age … the most bitter persecution and reviling.”
v. 25. “…they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of
evil against me.”
v.
27. “…severe
persecution
at the hands of all classes of men”
Smith then even dates the
claimed persecution to the three year period from 1820 to 1823.
v. 28. “…between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and
twenty-three … [I was] persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends.”
(Emphasis added in all of the above).
The Church, in order to accommodate the absolute
fact that Smith made
no First Vision claim in the
early years, settles instead on confirming that he
lied – in at least
seven
consecutive statements.
If Smith is confirmed as telling repeated lies about all that, then what
credence can be given to anything
else he ever said at all? But it doesn’t end there; that was just the
beginning of Joseph Smith’s hoax.
To summarise –
if
the First Vision did happen
as Joseph Smith claimed,
in the spring of 1820,
then it occurred:
2
years before the Smiths moved to the claimed area.
4
years before there was a revival in that area.
4
years before any significant recorded increases in membership to Methodists,
Baptists and Presbyterians.
4
years before four members of the Smith family joined the Presbyterians.
4
years before
6
years before Smith was
in court for being a money-digging con artist.
7-8
years before the only so-called
persecution – which came from other money-diggers. Joseph Smith was part of a
syndicate where no one had ever found anything so they all agreed that if anyone
ever actually did locate something of worth, they would
all share in the spoils. Then, in
September 1827, Smith claimed to have found some gold plate which was rightfully
equally theirs. The money-diggers were the only people to ever chase after
Joseph Smith, who, as far as they were concerned, had reneged on the agreement
and they were after his blood. It is said that Martin Harris may have paid them
off to get rid of the threat. That’s as close as it ever got to any so-called
persecution during the first decade.
8
years before he joined the Methodists. (In his 1838 official account the Lord
told Smith twice not to.)
10
years before the publication of a
monotheistic Book of Mormon.
11-12
years before Smith wrote ‘The Book of Moses’ (with dozens of references to ‘God’
in the singular).
11-14
years before his ‘Inspired Revision’ of the Bible, which also remained
monotheistic throughout.
12
years before Smith recorded that he saw only Jesus in a First Vision experience.
12
years before the ‘Book of Commandments’ was published – with no First Vision
account included.
14
years before the ‘Lectures on Faith’ stated that God is an ‘omnipresent spirit’
which means He has no body.
15
years before Smith recorded two more First Vision accounts consisting
specifically and only of angels.
15
years before ‘The Book of Abraham’ was written which included dozens of
references to ‘Gods’ in the plural –
completely contradicting Smith’s own earlier ‘Book of Moses’ – but no mention of
God with a body.
15
years before the ‘Doctrine and Covenants’ was published – still with no First
Vision account included.
18
years before Smith
finally concocted his whole new
vision idea that became the ‘Official Version’ which he backdated to 1820.
22
years before the publication of the official account.
It is perfectly
clear from verifiable history (including original Mormon Church historical
records and Joseph Smith’s own writings) that
none of the circumstances
which Smith claimed had surrounded a First Vision in 1820 could possibly be
true. Furthermore, it is equally clear that the account of the vision itself was
an ever evolving concept in Smith’s overactive imagination that he first
conceived in 1832, revisited in 1835, and which culminated in the 1838 ‘official
version’ which he then backdated eighteen years – to 1820. Notwithstanding
Joseph Smith’s final attempt at a plausible starting point for his religion, a
myriad of impossible claims utterly and completely exposes the fraud.
Despite publications by Mormon authors regarding
discrepancies in various accounts of the First Vision, you will find
nothing in any lesson manuals (including the missionary lessons) raising
this topic for discussion.
In
the following statement, Mormon Apostle, Hugh B. Brown got just one word wrong,
and that word is ‘If’.
(If) this First Vision was but a figment of
Joseph Smith’s imagination,
then the Mormon Church is what its detractors declare it to be
- a wicked and deliberate imposture.
Apostle Hugh B. Brown. The Abundant Life. 1965:310-11.
_______________
Our entire case as members of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision..
Nothing on which we base our doctrine,
nothing we teach, nothing we live by
is
of greater importance than this initial declaration…
This is the hinge on which turns the gate
that leads to the
path of salvation and eternal life.
(President Gordon B. Hinckley. Gen Conf. Oct 1998. Ensign Nov 1998:70-1. Also
see: Ensign, May 2005).
In which case, that gate is closed, locked and bolted;
the hinge has rusted; it will never open to anything at all;
and certainly not to any form
of salvation or eternal life.
____________
End
Notes.
1.
Marquardt
& Walters 1994. Inventing Mormonism.
2.
Faulring,
Scott H. (editor). 1989.
An American Prophet’s Record: The Diaries
and Journals of Joseph Smith.
Nelson, Leland R.
(compiler). 1979. The Journal of
Joseph Smith.
3.
Marquardt
& Walters 1994. Inventing Mormonism.
4.
‘…his
neighborhood in 1820 experienced no revival such as he described, in which
“great multitudes” joined the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches. The
Presbyterian records for the Palmyra Presbyterian Church show that it
experienced no revival in 1820. (See
5.
Ibid.
6.
Lucy also confirmed that the revival was actually in
1824,
as her son
The revival noted
in the following account could only
have occurred during 1824, as the Methodist minister mentioned did not arrive in
the area until July that of year, and the ‘great awakening’ was not even close
to 1820. (See note 4 above).
“It is necessary to premise this
account by relating the situation of the public mind relative to religion, at
this time:
7.
Smith,
William B. 1883. William Smith on Mormonism.
Roberts, B.H. 1978. Comprehensive History of the
Church.
8.
See note
2.
9.
Marquardt
& Walters 1994. Inventing Mormonism.
The Amboy Journal, 11 June 1879, p. 1. Available at Utah Lighthouse Ministry: http://www.utlm.org/
Newell, Linda King & Avery, Valeen Tippetts 1994.
2nd Edition. Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith.
10.
Smith had been convicted of being a ‘glass
looker’ and ‘a disorderly person and an impostor’ in 1826 by the Bainbridge
court, for falsely claiming that he could locate buried treasure. The Mormon
Delusion. Vol. 2:52; c.
Frazer’s Magazine. Feb 1873 Vol. VII:229-230;
Tanner,
Jerald and Sandra 1970.
Joseph Smith and Money Digging.
Tanner,
Jerald and
Sandra 1987.
Mormonism - Shadow or Reality? 5th Edition.
Brodie, Fawn M. 1963.
No Man Knows My History: The Life of
Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet.
11.
A summary and full references for twenty-five separate accounts appears in
The Mormon Delusion Vol. 2:76-7.
In these
accounts:
1 refers to a dream about
treasure.
1 refers to an unidentified ghost
in a dream.
3 refer to an unidentified spirit
or spirit of the almighty in a dream.
3 refer to an unidentified angel
(or angel of light or of God) in a dream.
1 refers to an unidentified
spirit in a vision.
7 refer to an unidentified angel.
(One angel tells Joseph Smith that
1 refers to an unidentified
personage or messenger.
2 refer to the angel
6 refer to angel Nephi.
(1838 on; 4 by Smith, 1 quoting him, and 1 by Lucy Mack
Smith).
Joseph Smith only
referred to the angel as
12.
Tanner,
Jerald and Sandra 1987. Mormonism - Shadow or
Reality? 5th Edition.
13.
See: Quinn, D. Michael. 1998.
Early Mormonism and the Magic World View.
____________________
Jim
Whitefield. Copyright © 2011.
See:
The Mormon Delusion, Vols.
2 & 4 for a more
in depth treatment of the First Vision story.
____________________
This article is also available as a booklet and PDF download for sharing.
It is available at the TMD Bookstore. Please click on the link for details.
Visit:
TMD BOOK STORE
