. . . even in a Lord-provided line-up.
For supposedly being a "prophet of God" who knew all about God, Jesus and their glorified-angel delivery boys, Joseph Smith was a real latter-day loser. Let's review his sorry record on that score.
_____
--"First Vision" Revisions: What Else is a Bogus Prophet to Do?
Suffice to say that significant discrepancies exist between what Joseph Smith first said he experienced and what Joseph Smith later said he experienced when it came to who and what he experienced in his “First Vision” experience.
**The Godhead--One God, Two Gods ot Three Gods: Who’s Counting and Who Cares?
BYU professor, Thomas G. Alexander, notes the following in his article, “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology” “Sunstone,” July-August 1981”):
“Joseph Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision spoke only of one personage and did not make the explicit separation of God and Christ found in the 1838 version. The Book of Mormon declared that Mary ‘is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh,’ which as James Allen and Richard Howard have pointed out was changed in 1837 to ‘mother of the Son of God.’
“Abinadi's sermon in the Book of Mormon explored the relationship between God and Christ: ‘God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 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-The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son-And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.’(Mosiah 15:1-4).
“The ‘Lectures on Faith’ differentiated between the Father and Son somewhat more explicitly, but even they did not define a materialistic, tri-theistic Godhead.
“In announcing the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants which included the ‘Lectures on Faith, ‘the ‘Messenger and Advocate’ commented editorially that it trusted the volume would give ‘the churches abroad . . . a perfect understanding of the doctrine believed by this society.’
“The ‘Lectures ‘declared that ‘there are two personages who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things-by whom all things were created and made.’ They are ‘the Father being a personage of spirit,’ and ‘the Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man war, formed after his likeness, and in his image.’
“The ‘Articles and Covenants’ called the Father, Son and Holy Ghost ‘one God’ rather than the Godhead, a term which Mormons generally use today to separate themselves from trinitarians.
“The doctrine of the Holy Ghost presented in these early sources is even more striking compared to the point of view defended in our time. The ‘Lectures on Faith’ defined the Holy Ghost as the mind of the Father and the Son--a member of the Godhead, but not a personage, who binds the Father and Son together. This view of the Holy Ghost reinforced trinitarian doctrine by explaining how personal beings like the Father and Son become one God through the non-corporeal presence of a shared mind.
“As Marvin Hill and Timothy Smith have argued, much of the doctrine that early investigators found in Mormonism was similar to contemporary Protestant churches. The section on the nature of God in the Articles and Covenants, now Doctrine and Covenants 20:17-28, was similar to the creeds of other churches. In fact, what is now verses 23 and 24 is similar to passages in the ‘Apostle's Creed.’
“[B]etween 1842 and 1844 Joseph Smith spoke on and published doctrines such as the plurality of gods, the tangibility of God's body, the distinct separation of God and Christ, the potential of man to become and function as a god, the explicit rejection of ex-nihilo [out-of-nothing] creation and the materiality of everything including spirit. These ideas were perhaps most clearly stated in the King Follett discourse of April 1844.
“Because doctrine and practice changed as the result of new revelation and exegesis, some members who had been converted under the doctrines of the early 1830s left the Church. John Corrill exhibited disappointment rather than rancor and defended the Church against outside attack, but left because of the introduction of doctrine which he thought contradicted those of the Book of Mormon and the Bible.
“It seems clear that certain ideas which developed between 1832 and 1844 were internalized after 1835 and accepted by the Latter-day Saints. This was particularly true of the material anthropomorphism of God and Jesus Christ, advanced perfectionism as elaborated in the doctrine of eternal progression, and the potential godhood of man.”
(Thomas G. Alexander, “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology,” excerpts from article published in “Sunstone,” July-August 1981, at:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/changod.shtml)
_____
**God and Jesus and Their Physical Bodies: Or Was One of Them a Physical Personage and the Other Spiritual Personage?
Let’s now take a closer look at what Alexander briefly mentioned; namely, the fact that the Joseph Smith-prepared, approved and eventually now-abandoned “Lecture on Faith” (in this case, "Lecture Five"), at one time was part of (but no longer is part of) the Doctrine and Covenants.
Just why is that?
Could it be that Joseph Smith actually did not believe or teach that he had seen God the Father and Jesus Christ with separate physical bodies in his "First Vision" experience?
If that’s true, then what does this do the foundational claims of the Mormon Church with regard to the nature of God?
(Hint: It totally contradicts and destroys the fundamental underpinnings of official Mormon claims regarding the supposed physically tangible body of God the Father--thus destroying the central elements of Smith's "First Vision”).
Here are the devastating details:
Recall that Smith--in the now-officially-Mormon-Church- designated 1842 “First Vision” version (forget all the other ones from 1844, 1843, 1842, 1841, 1837, 1835 and 1831-32)--recall that Smith declared that he personally met with God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ in that grove of trees in 1820. Based on that alleged encounter, he eventually went on to declare that God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ both had separate and distinct bodies of flesh and bones.
The Mormon Church makes no mistake about that fact of Mormon faith, declaring on its official via reference to Lesson 3 of the "Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual," under the heading “I Had Seen a Vision" (p.11). There it explicitly states that “[m]any truths were revealed in the First Vision," including that "[t]he Father and the Son are real, separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bones."
(“Lesson 3: 'I Had Seen a Vision,’ Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Class Member Study Guide, What Are Some of the Truths We Can Learn from the First Vision?, " published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; see also, “'I Had Seen a Vision,' Lesson 3 – Joseph Smith History 1:1-26; 'Our Heritage,” pp. 1-4, at:
http://www.neumanninstitute.org/dc3.html)
Moreover (again on the Mormon Church's official website under the general heading "The Scriptures"), LDS canonized doctrinal teaching per the physical bodies of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ are sourced to the "Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"--namely, the Doctrine and Covenants--Section 130, v. 22, as follows:
"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."
("The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Section 130," at:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/130)
Yet, a photographic copy of p. 53 of the 1835 edition of the then-equally official version of the Mormon Church's Doctrine and Covenants states in no uncertain terms that God the Father does NOT have a body of flesh and bones but, rather, is a personage of spirit. Without any ambiguity whatsoever, this officially Joseph Smith-sanctioned version of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants declares the following about the entities of "the Father and the Son," comparing and contrasting their individual--and in this case, different--life forms:
"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, MADE OR FASHIONED LIKE UNTO MAN, or being in the form or likeness of man, and in his image; . . ." (emphasis added)
(Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "The Godhead," Chapter 7, in "The Changing World of Mormonism," at:
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech7.htm; for a complete version of the 'Fifth Lecture,' see "Lecture Fifth of Faith, Section V," at:
http://www.centerplace.org/hs/dc/lec-005.htm)
Funny. That’s what it also said in Joseph Smith’s “Fifth Lecture on Faith.” What has subsequently happened to this "Fifth Lecture” (along with all the other lectures in that official doctrinal series), which originally appeared in virtually all the early editions of the Mormon Church's canonized Doctrine and Covenants?
The answer can be found (as well as in many other places) in Jerald and Sandra Tanner's book, "The Changing World of Mormonism":
“. . . [I]n 1921, they [the 'Lectures on Faith'] were completely removed and have not appeared in subsequent editions."
The Tanners explain the reason for its sudden disappearance:
"John William Fitzgerald, who wrote his [Masters] thesis at BYU, asked Joseph Fielding Smith why they were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. One of the reasons given was that they were not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead.
"Actually, these lectures were considered complete with regard to their teachings concerning the Godhead at the time they were given.
"On p. 58 of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the following question and answer appear: 'Q: Does the foregoing account of the Godhead lay a sure foundation for the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation? A: IT DOES.'" (emphasis added)
So, what, then, is the logical explanation for the officially-doctrinal "Lectures on Faith" being subsequently and in wholesale fashion excised from the present, officially-canonized scriptures of the Mormon Church?
The reason is as plain as the non-fleshly nose on the original-but-now-surgically-enhanced Mormon Father God's face:
"The truth of the matter is that they [the 'Lectures on Faith'] contradict what is presently taught by [Mormon] Church leaders with regard to this subject.
"To avoid 'confusion and contention' over the Godhead the Mormon leaders slyly removed the 'Lectures on Faith' from the Doctrine and Covenants.
"This was done in spite of the fact that Joseph Smith himself had considered them important enough to include. Since these lectures were about 70 pages long, this amounted to a major deletion.
"On p. 345 of his thesis, 'A Study of the Doctrine & Covenants,' Mr. Fitzgerald supplies this information:
"'The 'Lectures on Faith' were voted on unanimously by the conference assembled August 17, 1835, to be included in the forthcoming book of Doctrine and Covenants. The writer could find no documentary evidence that they were voted on by a General Conference of the Church to be omitted in the 1921 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine [and] Covenants.”
(Tanner and Tanner, "The Godhead," Chapter 7, in "The Changing World of Mormonism," at:
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech7.htm)
The Tanners amplify on the makeover of Mormonism's Father God in their book, "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality":
"In 1835, the 'Lectures on Faith'--which were originally delivered before a class of the Elders, in Kirtland, Ohio--were printed in the Doctrine and Covenants. In these lectures it was definitely stated that God the Father was a personage of spirit. In the 'Fifth Lecture' we find this statement about the Godhead:
"'. . . [T]he Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power, possessing all perfection and fullness, the Son . . . a personage of tabernacle . . .' ('Doctrine and Covenants,’ 1835 Edition, p. 53) . . .
"President Joseph Fielding Smith admits that Joseph Smith helped prepare these lectures:
"'Now, the Prophet did know something about these "Lectures on Faith," because he helped to prepare them, and he helped also to revise these lectures before they were published . . . ' ('Doctrines of Salvation,' vol. 3, p. 195).
"These 'Lectures on Faith' were printed in all of the early editions of the Doctrine and Covenants but they have been removed from recent editions.
"John William Fitzgerald, in his thesis, 'A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants,' states as follows:"'The reasons for the omission of these 'Lectures' from the Doctrine and Covenants beginning in the 1921 edition and all the subsequent editions as given to the writer by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith were as follows:
"'(a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.
"'(b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.
"'(c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.
"'(d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. ('A Study of the Doctrine and Covenants,' M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, p. 344)
"The reasons Joseph Fielding Smith gave John William Fitzgerald as to why the 'Lectures on Faith' were removed from the Doctrine and Covenant' are very interesting.
"Reason (a), that they 'were not received as revelations,' could hardly be considered at all. If every section that is not a revelation was removed from the Doctrine and Covenants, it would be a much shorter book. There are a least nine, if not more, sections from the Doctrine and Covenants that are not revelations; they are Sections 102, 113, 121, 123, 128, 131, 134 and 135.
"Reason (b), that they were not doctrine does not agree with the statement on page 256 of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. This statement reads as follows: '. . . [T]he lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine . . . .' Joseph Smith himself signed a statement which was printed in the preface to the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. In this statement we read: 'The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of 'Lectures' as delivered before a theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important DOCTRINE OF SALVATION, we have arranged them into the following work.
'
"Reason (c), 'that they are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead' is getting much closer to the truth than the first two reasons. A more correct way of wording this, however, might be, 'they contradict what is now taught concerning the Godhead in the Mormon Church.' . . .
"Reason (d), that to avoid 'confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume,' is probably the true reason they were left out. Certainly it would cause confusion and contention in the Mormon Church if one of the elders started to teach that God is a personage of spirit . . ., as the 'Lectures on Faith' taught."
(Tanner and Tanner, "Lectures on Faith," in "Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?," emphasis added, pp. 166-67, at:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/lecturesonfaith.htm)
Such blatant, fundamental and deceptive revision by the LDS Church of its official doctrine on the very essence of the Mormon God Elohim has not gone unnoticed by non-LDS scholars.
James E. Walker, in his article "Re-imagining Elohim: Rethinking the Mormon Doctrine of God for the 21st Century," observes:
"Today the Mormon Church maintains the Father has a body of flesh and bones. Consequently, these 'Lectures on Faith' have been removed from recent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. Walker explains their removal as part of the Mormon Church's phased-in re-making of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ in ways that "could be described as experimental, temporary or transitional”:
"In 1834-35, less than five years after the publication of the Book of Mormon, the 'Lectures on Faith' were delivered to the School of the Elders in Kirtland, Ohio. The lectures, probably written by Joseph Smith, were printed as the first part of the Doctrine and Covenants in every edition of that LDS scripture from the first edition in 1835 to 1921, when they were removed.
"The 'Fifth Lecture’ teaches that Christ is a distinct and separate Person from the Father.. . . Also, the lecture makes a sharp distinction between the Elohim and Jesus concerning physical natures. The Father is described as a 'personage of Spirit,' in contrast with the Son who is said to be a 'personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man.' The obvious clash between this view of the Godhead and later statements by Joseph Smith himself has been offered as a possible explanation for the 'Lectures on Faith' eventual removal from post 1921 editions of the 'Doctrine and Covenants.' ['Encyclopedia of Mormonism' author and LDS apologist] Larry E. Dahl writes:
"'Many have pointed to the content of 'Lecture Five' concerning the Godhead, suggesting that it contains incomplete--if not erroneous doctrine--doctrine which was corrected or clarified in 1843 by Joseph Smith (D&C 130:22-23). The argument is that the 'Lectures' were removed to avoid these inconsistencies. Some have claimed that the removal of the 'Lectures' from the Doctrine and Covenants constitutes de-canonization of material once affirmed by the Church as scripture.'
" . . . [T]he fact that they [the 'Lectures on Faith'] were printed with the Doctrine and Covenants for over 80 years coupled with their subsequent removal and relative obscurity raises interesting questions.
"Did the 1921 change in the Doctrine and Covenants reflect an earlier re-imagining of Elohim? A strong case can be made for this hypothesis."
(James K. Walker, President, Watchman Fellowship Lecture, "Re-imagining Elohim: Re-thinking the Mormon Doctrine of God for the 21st Century," delivered at CESNUR 2004 International Convergence, "Religious Movements, Conflict and Democracy: International Perspectives," Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 17-20 June 2004, at:
http://www.cesnur.org/2004/waco_walker.htm)
To be sure, the "Fifth Lecture on Faith" was written before a finalized, LDS Church-approved version of Joseph Smith's "First Vision" was even available to the early Mormon Church membership at large.
As one critic points out:
"In 1835, the Doctrine and Covenants was printed at Kirtland, Ohio, and its preface declared that it contained 'the leading items of religion which we have professed to believe.' Included in the book were the 'Lectures on Faith,' a series of seven lectures which had been prepared for the School of the Prophets in Kirtland in 1834-35.
"It is interesting to note that, in demonstrating the doctrine that the Godhead consists of two separate personages, no mention was made of Joseph Smith having seen them, nor was any reference made to the first vision in any part of the publication . . ..
"The 'Lectures on Faith' were written in 1834 as part of Joseph Smith's curriculum for the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, and they were included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.
"So, why is Joseph Smith saying [in the ‘Fifth Lecture’] that God is a spirit but Jesus Christ has a body? If Smith had seen the First Vision 12-15 years earlier, he would have said they both have bodies, right? The reason is because the final version of the 'First Vision' story had not been written yet. It also corroborates the fact that the membership hadn't heard the story either."
("Early Mormons Didn't Know About the First Vision," by "Deconstructor," posts on Recovery from Mormonism bulletin board, under "NO EVIDENCE That Early Church Members Knew About the First Vision," original emphasis, 27 January 2004, and "More Problems with Your Apologetics," 27 January 2004, at:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon317.htm)
Former Mormon Bill Kempton, in his article, "Dear Bishop--I'm Leaving the Fold," explains how the "Fifth Lecture on Faith" completely undermines Joseph Smith's "First Vision" story:
" . . . [A]l] Doctrine and Covenants before 1921 contained the doctrine of the 'Fifth Lecture on Faith' that was bound in scripture as doctrine in 1835. The 'Fifth Lecture' basically stated that the Father is only a spirit, that only Jesus has a body, and the Holy Ghost is not a person but the same Mind (or essence) of the Father and the Son; and the Father and the Son are not two gods but one Deity, which is very similar to the Catholic Trinity . . .. How could Joseph Smith bind this doctrine in scripture if he really saw two flesh and bone persons in 1820? . . . . I decided to research this matter further . . .
"The earliest LDS members held in their hands the Doctrine and Covenants, which contained the doctrine of the 'Fifth Lecture' until 1921. LDS members believed that only Jesus had a body of flesh and bone, and the Holy Ghost was not a person! That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. I had found the murder weapon with fingerprints on it, a video of the crime taking place, and a taped confession. It was the final nail that was hammered into the coffin of my Mormon testimony. I learned that the foundation of Mormonism, the ‘First Vision,’ was unfounded. This led me to realize that like a house on a bad foundation, the LDS Church was founded on fiction, suspicious hearsay and supported not by facts but subjective emotionalism."
(Bill Kempton, "Dear Bishop--I'm Leaving the Fold," posted 6 August 2006 (updated 2009), at:
http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/pomopedia/Dear_Bishop_Im_Leaving_the_Fold/)
As Kempton asks in an earlier article (no longer Internet-provided) entitled, "The First Vision: Fact or Fiction?":
"Is the early Mormon's testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants (that stated that the Father is only a spirit . . .) any less valid than the Mormon testimony today regarding the true nature of the Godhead? If the first Mormons believed in the 'Fifth Lecture on Faith,' that was doctrine in scripture for decades, what guarantee does the Mormon today have that what they believe to be absolutely true doctrine won’t be changed tomorrow?"
Answer: This is the ever-morphing world of man-made Mormonism. You have no guarantee.
As an interesting side note for those who may want to insist that Smith wasn’t really responsible for “Lecture Five,” handwriting analysis appears to tie Smith directly to it:
". . . One of the authorship studies of the ‘Lectures on Faith’ was done by Alan J. Phipps as a master’s thesis in 1977. He compared the frequency of use of certain 'function words' in the Lectures with the use of the same words in the writings of several persons who may have had a hand in writing the Lectures, i.e., Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, William W. Phelps and Parley P. Pratt. He concludes:
"'The study showed that . . . Joseph Smith’s use of function words matched closely those in Lecture Five, with some evidence of his having co-authored or edited Two, Three, Four, and Six. . . . The data and tests appear, therefore, to assign the authorship of the Lectures on Faith mainly to Sidney Rigdon, with ‘Lecture Five’ and perhaps some parts of the other lectures, except ‘One’ and ‘Seven,’ to Joseph Smith (pp. 66–67)."
("Authorship and History of the Lectures on Faith," by Larry E. Dahl, BYU Religious Studies Center, at:
http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/lectures-faith-historical-perspective/authorship-and-history-lectures-faith)
_____
--One of Joseph Smith’s "First Vision" Versions Had Neither God and/or Jesus Making Any Kind of an Appearance: Would You Settle Instead for Just a “Glorious Angel”?
Under the heading, “Which Account Should We Believe?,” author Wesley Waters provides the following historical inconveniences for Mormon believers to deal with:
“In 1841, Joseph Smith's brother, William Smith, told the [following] story to James Murdock. This account is published in ‘A New Witness For Christ In America’ (vol. 2, pp. 414-15). This account lists Joseph as being 17 years old when he received the vision, and rather than God and Jesus appearing to him, William states that it was only a ‘glorious angel.’ Admittedly, this account is third-hand and William could certainly have been mistaken about Joseph's age. But it is not likely that he would forget that God Himself and Jesus Christ visited his brother--unless he was never told that to begin with.
“Usually we dismiss third-hand accounts in our research, believing them to usually be very unreliable. However, this account is substantiated by other sources.
“For example, . . . in at least seven other places in the ‘Journal of Discourses,’ early LDS leaders shared that it was only an unidentified angel that visited Joseph, not God and Jesus. (‘Journal of Discourses,’ vol. 2, pp. 171, 196, 197; vol. 10, p. 127; vol.13, pp. 78, 324; and vol. 20, p. 167)
“Brigham Young even stated specifically that the Lord did not visit young Joseph. In reference to this vision he said: ‘The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven . . .. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith, Jr., and informed him that he should not join any of the religions of the day, for they were all wrong . . . . (‘Journal of Discourses,’ vol. 2, p. 171)
“William Smith's account was also printed, in part, in the RLDS Church publication ‘The Saints Herald’ (vol. 31, no. 40, p. 643, 8 June 1884). No correction or retraction of the information published there was ever printed. We must keep in mind that both the LDS and RLDS (now known as the Community of Christ) share the same history for the first several years of Mormonism's existence. Contradictions regarding Smith's Vision would affect the credibility of both groups.
“Finally, this account is also worthy of special consideration because it was first brought to light by a Mormon researcher from the LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University. . . . Paul Chessman wrote his Master's thesis in 1965 entitled, ‘An Analysis of the Accounts Relating Joseph Smith's Early Visions.’ In that study, he discusses this differing account of the ‘First Vision’ in detail. It was subsequently discussed by LDS scholars in the publication, ‘Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought’ for Autumn 1966. None of these researchers and scholars dismissed the account as mere gossip; rather, they discussed it as a valid account worthy of consideration. There is no reason, then, for us not to consider it as well. . . .
“All [the] variations--particularly in the accounts that came directly from Joseph Smith himself--lead us to the inevitable conclusion that the official version of Joseph Smith's ‘First Vision’ is, at best, unreliable. Though unproveable, Joseph may have had some kind of a vision in his younger years that he expanded upon and/or changed the details of each time he re-told it. Eventually, the story was developed into the heart-rending official version that the LDS Church publishes today as fact, though it clearly is not.”
(“Joseph Smith's ‘First Vision’: Fact or Fiction?,” by Wesley Walters, at:
http://www.mrm.org/first-vision)
_____
--The Basic Corruptness of Joseph Smith’s "First Vision": Why Can’t He Keep His Story Straight?
As the website “Mormonhink” makes clear, that corruption originates with Smith’s “Sacred Grove” invention:
“The ‘First Vision’ was the foundational event of the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, occurring in the spring of 1820, when Joseph Smith was a teen\ churches. . . . [According to . . . LDS position], [n]ot only was this a pivotal event in teaching the world that none of the churches were true, thereby establishing the need to restore God's true Church, it helps members understand the actual nature of God: God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ are two separate personages.”
“Mormonthink” then goes on to point out the insurmountable problems with this claim:
“The first written version of the account by Joseph was not given until 12 years after it supposedly took place. When he first penned the account, Joseph only mentioned one person visiting him--which is no small detail to be mistaken about. There are now known at least nine different accounts given by Joseph Smith relating the ‘First Vision’ with varying degrees of changes and circumstances. If this vision was so important, why are there discrepancies and why did it take so long to write? As far as Mormon literature is concerned, there was apparently no reference to Joseph Smith's ‘First Vision’ in any published material in the 1830's, it was left out of the first publication of the Church's history written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. It was also left out of the Book of Commandments (the precursor to the Doctrine & Covenants), and the general Church membership did not receive information about the ‘First Vision’ until the 1840's--and that the story certainly did not hold the prominent place in Mormon thought that it does today.”
(“The First Vision,” at:
http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#ref1)
As if Joseph Smith’s problems with his “First Vision” versions aren’t bad enough. He also couldn’t get it straight on the angel Nephi/Moroni.
_____
--The Angel Moroni: C'mon,Joe, What Was His Actual Name?
According to the Mormon Church storyline, the Angel Moroni (as identified by not only Joseph Smith but by Smith’s inner circle of revelation-receivers) was never mistaken as anyone other than Moroni. In explaining the Mormon Church position on this matter, the website “Mormothink” notes:
“[According to LDS belief], Joseph Smith is not the only human to have interacted with Moroni. In sworn statements, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris say they saw Moroni in 1829 visions. The Church’s history is clear that the angel was named Moroni and not Nephi, and there has never been any confusion about that within the early Church. Any publications that indicate otherwise are merely typos.”
Yet, “Mormonthink” proceeds to make a contrary observation of its own:
“Critics point out conflicting accounts as to whether the angel who directed Joseph Smith to the gold plates was named Moroni or Nephi. Historians have found several early LDS sources referring to the angel as ‘Nephi.’
“For example, an 1842 publication edited by Joseph Smith recounting the miraculous visitation says, ‘When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi. That God has a work for me to do. . . . He said there was a book deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.’
(“Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” originally cited on the website of “The Joseph Smith Papers,” but no longer accessible there)
“Why, critics ask, do we see discrepancies in something as simple yet significant as the angel's name? “
In response to the paltry, strained and unconvincing LDS apologist explanation for the Moroni/Nephi mix-up,“Mormonthinlk” responds with common-sense observation:
“Why would the Church feel the need to change Joseph Smith's story? The fact of the matter is that Moroni makes much more sense than Nephi because it was Moroni who was alleged to have buried the plates in the first place. But, let's not forget, Joseph Smith said the angel was named Nephi, NOT Moroni. [original emphasis]
“This is just another example of ‘The Brethren’ changing Joseph Smith's story to make it more consistent and to remove (retroactively no less) all of the holes in Joseph's story.
“[Quoting] [c]omments from the Tanners:
"’Some Mormon apologists have tried to argue that Joseph Smith “corrected” the original manuscript from “Nephi” to “Moroni.” While it is true that the manuscript has been tampered with, the evidence shows clearly that this was done after Joseph Smith's death. The name was originally written as “Nephi,” but someone has written the name ' Moroni' above the line. . . .
"’An examination of the duplicate copy of the handwritten manuscript . . . provides conclusive evidence that the change was not made during Joseph Smith's lifetime. This manuscript was not even started until about a year after Smith's death. Like the other manuscript . . . , [I]t also has the name “Nephi” written in the text with the name ' Moroni' interpolated above the line.
"’It is obvious that if Joseph Smith had changed the first manuscript, the scribe who made the second copy would not have written the name 'Nephi' in the second manuscript.
"’It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith lived for two years after the name “Nephi” was printed in the “Times and Seasons” and never printed a retraction.
"’H. Michael Marquardt has also pointed out that after this portion of the handwritten manuscript was printed in the “Times and Seasons,” Joseph Smith himself went over it to make corrections.
"’In the “History of the Church,” vol. 7, p. 387, we find this statement attributed to Brigham Young: “Tuesday, April 1, 1845--I commenced revising the ‘History of Joseph Smith’ . . . . President Joseph Smith had corrected 42 pages before his massacre.”
"’It is obvious, therefore, that Smith intended to have his followers understand that the angel's name was “Nephi.” The version which the Church has canonized in modern editions of the Pearl of Great Price was changed so that there would be no contradictions in the prophet's stories concerning how he obtained the gold plates.’
“The Tanners also point to premier Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley's misleading attempt to explain Smith's misidentification of Moroni as’Nephi.’
“Taking his piece of LDS propaganda entitled, ‘Censoring the Joseph Smith Story,’ the Tanners point out how Nibley ‘grossly misrepresented something LaMar Petersen said in his “Problems in Mormon Text” (1957), in order to prove that “[s]ome critics . . . seem to think that if they can show that a friend or enemy of Joseph Smith reports him as saying that he was visited by Nephi [rather than Moroni], they have caught the Prophet in a fraud.” . . . Nibley gave a lengthy footnote in alleged support of this claim.
"’Nibley makes it sound as if Petersen had only given examples remote from Joseph Smith, overlooking the fact that Petersen's primary example was from the publication overseen by Joseph Smith himself. Joseph Smith had originally called the angel Nephi in this account, not Moroni. Petersen wrote to Nibley confronting his misrepresentation of his work:
“’”You infer that the identification of Nephi as the angel who visited Joseph Smith in his room is the work of critics. You fail to state that the identification was made by Joseph himself and that if it was an error he never corrected it . . . , I think you mislead the reader in your footnote . . . . You fail to note that the source of the Nephi story was the ‘Times and Seasons’ which was definitely not in England ‘far away from Joseph Smith." . . .
"’Nibley wrote back but did not address the issue of his misrepresenting Petersen. Rather, he tried to make it sound as if Petersen had a problem of not liking his words twisted by Nibley:
“’It's lucky you wrote me when you did,’ Nibley writes. ‘It is still not too late; the Lord has extended the day of our probation; you would be insane to waste this priceless reprieve, you could still be one of the few really happy men on the earth, but you'll have to stop being a damn fool’”
So there.
“Mormonthink’s” editor concludes with the following observation:
“How significant is this [Nephi/Moroni issue]? The simple answer of ‘it was just a typo’ works for one mistake that is corrected soon thereafter. However, we see five instances of this same mistake--including in the original edition of the LDS scripture, The Pearl of Great Price. We have to wonder if it was, indeed, just a typo or perhaps something more. And it wasn't corrected until years later. Also disturbing is that Joseph was an editor of the ‘Times and Seasons,’ so why wouldn't he have noticed this or ever corrected it?
“This certainly isn't proof of a deception but yet another rarely-discussed problem in the history of the One, True Church.’
(“Moroni or Nephi?,” at:
http://www.mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm#introduction; see also, “Problem Summary,” at:
http://www.mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm#significant; “Critics Response,” under “Repsonses to These Issues by the LDS Church,” at:
http://www.mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm#responses; and “Editor’s Comments," at:
http://www.mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm#editor)
I would strongly beg to disagree. I think it is most certainly proof of deception by the not-true Mormon Church, as indicated by significant historical discrepancies showing that Smith couldn’t get Moroni’s name right—and that the Mormon Church subsequently moved to cover up that fact by adulterating the historical record.
Let us re-emphazize the ways, while and counting even more ways:
**From the introductory page of the Doctrine & Covenants (1876), third paragraph;
“This took place in the early spring of 1820. In September, 1823, and at later times, Joseph Smith received visitations from Moroni, a angel of light, who revealed the resting place of the ancient record from which The Book of Mormon was afterward translated.”
**From “Joseph Smith History,” vol. 1, pp. 32-33:
“The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him, I was afraid; but the fear soon left me. 33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil…”
**Comparing the two above-cited claims to the “Times and Seasons,” vol. 3 (November 1841-October 1842): p. 753:
“The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that HIS NAME WAS NEPHI. That God had a work for me to do, and that my name should be had for good and evil . . . . ”
(“Moroni or Nephi, Who Visited Joseph That Night?--Mormon Quotes,” at:
http://lifeafter.org/moroni-or-nephi-who-visited-joseph-that-night-mormon-quotes/)
**To sum up the vexing Nephi/Moroni identity complex (with yet more inconvenient historical facts):
“Regarding the angelic visitation where Joseph was shown the gold plates, it was originally recorded:
“’He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi.’ (‘The Times and Seasons,’ vol. 3, pp. 749, 753)
“In modern printings of the ‘History of the Church,’ this has been changed to read ‘Moroni.’ It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith lived for two years after the name ‘Nephi’ was printed in ‘Times and Seasons’ and he never published a retraction.
“In August 1842, the ‘Millennial Star,’ printed in England, also published Joseph Smith's story stating that the angel's name was ‘Nephi’ (‘Millennial Star,’ vol. 3, p. 53). On p. 71 of the same volume we read that the ‘ . . . message of the angel Nephi . . . opened a new dispensation to man . . . .’
“In 1853, Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, also said the angel's name was Nephi. (‘Biographical Sketches,’ p. 79)
“The name was also published in the Pearl of Great Price (1851 edition, p. 41) as ‘Nephi.’ The original handwritten manuscript of the Pearl of Great Price dictated by Joseph Smith reveals that the name was originally written as ‘Nephi’ but that someone at a later date wrote the word ‘Moroni’ above the line. All evidence indicates that this change was made after Joseph's death. Walter L. Whipple, in his thesis written at BYU, stated that Orson Pratt ‘published the Pearl of Great Price in 1878 and removed the name of Nephi from the text entirely, and inserted the name Moroni in its place.’ (‘Textual Changes in the Pearl of Great Price,’ typed copy, p. 125)
“Lastly, in 1888, John C. Whitmer made this statement (it should be noted that a majority of the Book of Mormon is alleged to have been translated in the Whitmer home):
“’I have heard my grandmother (Mary M. Whitmer) say on several occasions that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by an holy angel, whom she always called Brother Nephi.’ (John C. Whitmer, ‘The Eight Witnesses,’ in ‘The Historical Record,’ vol. 7, October 1888, p. 621) . . .
“LDS apologists argue that the references cited above may propagate a transcription error omitted during the 1838 manuscript recitation. It is claimed that Joseph or his scribe perhaps tangled the names in the process. While this is possible, it defies credibility that the error would then go undetected for four years, pass review for inclusion in the ‘Times & Seasons,’ not be corrected in any subsequent issue, and then recur in 1851 in the printing of the Pearl of Great Price.
“[Mormon Apologist Malin Jacobs’] Response:
“ . . . Jacobs stated that this can probably be traced to a simple mistake, and that the angel is in fact referred to as Moroni in other sources:
"’The “Millennial Star’ and Lucy Mack Smith both stated that they based their information on the Times and Seasons. Furthermore:
“’1. Joseph Smith may have simply made a mistake in his dictation to his scribe, James Mulholland. According to both Joseph Smith and other early church leaders, he was visited by angels in addition to Moroni. Nephi and Alma are among those specifically mentioned.
“’2. Alternatively, Brother Mulholland may have inserted the name Nephi not from Joseph Smith's dictation, but from his own or someone else's confused memory of the name of the angel." Orson Pratt noted that:
"’” . . . [T]he discrepancy in the history . . . may have occurred through the ignorance or carelessness of the historian or transcriber. It is true, that the history reads as though the Prophet himself was writing: but . . . many events recorded were written by his scribes who undoubtedly trusted too much to their memories, and the items probably were not sufficiently scanned by Bro. Joseph before they got into print." (Orson Pratt, letter to John Christensen, 11 March 1876)
“’The angel was identified as Moroni long before the 1839 “History” was written. In 1835, Oliver Cowdery identified the angel:
"’. . . and I believe that the angel Moroni, whose words I have been rehearsing, who communicated the knowledge of the records of the Nephites, in this age . . ." (Oliver Cowdery, Letter 6, ‘Messenger and Advocate, ’ vol, 1, p. 112, April 1835)
“’The 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants also identifies the angel:
"’”Behold this is wisdom in me: wherefore marvel not for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon . . ." (Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, Section 50, v. 2 (Section 27:5 in current edition))
“’Prior to the writing of the 1839 “History,” Joseph Smith himself identified the angel in print:
"’”How, and where did you obtain the Book of Mormon? Answer: Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the Book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, being dead and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me and told me where they were and gave me directions how to obtain them. I obtained them , and the Urim and Thummim with them, by the means of which I translated the plates and thus came the Book of Mormon.’ (‘Elders Journal, “ vol. 1, pp. 42-43, July 1838)
“’The error in the 1839 “History” becomes a non-issue--one of the many insignificant errors that crop up in any human record-keeping effort.’" (Malin Jacobs, “Question 18: Who Appeared to Joseph, Moroni or Nephi?,” at:
http://www.shields-research.org/42_Questions/ques18.htm)
**A devastating response to Malin’s mumbo-jumbo(noting even more historical problems for Mormon apologists) is offered by James I. Whitefield in his essay, “Moroni, the Angel formally known as Nephi:
“In a General Conference talk in April 2005, President Gordon B. Hinckley, Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, made the following remarks:
"’I hold in my hand a precious little book. It was published in Liverpool, England, by Orson Pratt in 1853, 152 years ago. It is Lucy Mack Smith's narrative of her son's life. It recounts in some detail Joseph's various visits with the angel Moroni and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. The book tells that upon hearing of Joseph's encounter with the angel, his brother, Alvin , suggested that the family get together and listen to him as he detailed ‘the great things which God has revealed to you.’ (‘Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet and His Progenitors of [for] Many Generations’ [1853], p. 84).
“Hinckley was apparently holding an original 1853 edition of the book, quoting from p. 84. The quote actually runs from the bottom of p. 83 on to p. 84 in the original text and Hinckley, in all probability, therefore is actually holding an original copy. He calls it ‘a precious little book’ and appears to approve of the original edition.
“What he does not say is that the book was banned by Brigham Young, collected, burned and then rewritten; a falsified version later being published as if it was the original. It was initially recommended for everyone and the 16th November 1854 edition of the Church newspaper, ‘The Deseret News,’ reported it was deemed suitable for children. It was used as a ‘reader’ in Church schools in the Utah territory. It was, however, subsequently ‘disapproved’ of by Brigham Young in 1865. The original 1853 edition was then suppressed and gathered in, both in England and Utah , and burned or destroyed, according to the ‘Deseret News,’ 21 June 1865. Young then had the book ‘revised’ and eventually, in 1901 a falsified reprint of the book was published by the Church.
“It was actually rewritten--rather than being revised in the way that a historian would make revisions by adding footnotes, showing any errors and corrections. Rather, the actual text was rewritten and then published as if it was the original work with over 2,000 words added, deleted or changed without any reference, along with a further 736 words deleted with the proper indication, according to Jerald and Sandra Tanner.
“Although this may seem bizarre, it is typical of the way the LDS Church has rewritten history and thus hidden previous, sometimes more accurate and revealing accounts and records, often giving no reference to changes. . . .
“However, in Hinckley's remarks above, he indicates that the book contains details of various visits by the angel Moroni. In actual fact, if he really is referring to the 1853 edition as he says he is, then Hinckley is mistaken or even lying. In the book, Lucy refers to the angel as ‘Nephi’ and not Moroni. Page 79 specifies ‘Nephi’ as the visiting angel. In the 1954 reprint (now p. 75), it has been changed to ‘Moroni’ in the falsified text. The reason Lucy thought the angel was Nephi is because that is who Joseph Smith would have told her it was and he recorded it that way himself. Initially, Smith's records simply say that an angel visited, which in itself is strange when compared with the final official account. Apart from a couple of instances between 1835 and 1838 when Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery both quote Moroni as the angel, Smith reverted completely to the idea that it was Nephi who was the angel in his later writings and publications, none of which were changed or retracted during his lifetime. Only later was the name changed to Moroni in the accounts, without reference, by other people.
“In April 1842 Smith wrote in ‘Times and Seasons’:
"’He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me and that his name was Nephi.’
“Exactly the same statement formed part of the story in the ‘Latter Day Saints Millennial Star,’ published in England in August 1842. Smith had not ‘corrected’ it, following the April printing of ‘Times and Seasons,’ of which Smith himself was editor:
“‘He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi.’
“The name is repeated a second time in the ‘Millennial Star’ in an editorial comment, identifying that the Saints in England certainly believed the name of the angel was Nephi:
“’ . . . [T]he glorious ministry and message of the angel Nephi which has finally opened a new dispensation.’
“Smith did not die until 1844--some two years later--and he
never published any retractions or made any alterations to his own writings. Although previously using the names of both Nephi and Moroni, he ultimately seemed to settle on Nephi as his personal choice.
“Most importantly, the original handwritten manuscript of the Pearl of Great Price, dictated by Joseph Smith himself, shows that the name of the angel was Nephi. Only after Smith's death did someone add the name Moroni above the line of the handwritten text.
“Jerald and Sandra Tanner say that in 1976 they were able to examine the duplicate copy of the handwritten manuscript, Book A-2. The manuscript, which was not even started until about year after Smith's death, has the name of Nephi as the angel, just as the original, with someone later interpolating Moroni above the line, along with the original manuscript, Book A-1. This clearly shows that as an original copy of Smith's work--started after his death--the original name of Nephi was not changed by Smith but rather by someone else, well after his death.
“Details of the angelic visitations were, of course, fully documented in canonized scripture. In 1851, the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price included Smith's original statement that: ’He called me by name and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi’
“Orson Pratt ‘published The Pearl of Great Price in 1878 and removed the name of Nephi from the text entirely, and inserted the name Moroni in its place.’ This was 27 years later.
“Current editions of ‘History of the Church’ use the same words as Smith used in "Times and Seasons" in 1842 but the angel's name has since been changed from Nephi to Moroni, again without reference. This is yet another falsification which occurred after Smith's death.
“Richard L. Anderson, an LDS writer, admits the change in rhe Pearl of Great Price but argues that it was necessary as ‘the 'Nephi' reading contradicts all that the prophet published on the subject during his lifetime’ He doesn't qualify ALL that the prophet published that it contradicted; and, in fact, many of Smith's (and others) writings don't even mention the name of the angel at all. It is usually ‘the angel’ or ‘an angel of the Lord’ or a ‘messenger’ sent by commandment of the Lord. There did, however, seem to be some confusion as to which name to ultimately pick, as Oliver Cowdery called the angel a ‘messenger’ and then a few weeks later ‘Moroni,’ in 1835 and Smith did ONCE call the angel ‘Moroni,’ in 1838 in the publication, ‘Elders' Journal.’ These are the only references to Moroni, along with D&C 27:5, which includes the name Moroni but this was NOT in the original revelation. It was inserted along with well over 300 other words (attributed directly to the Lord himself), some years later, in the 1835 edition. The Book of Commandments version of the 1830 revelation contained no angel's name.
“Other than the couple of references where the name Moroni appeared in 1835 and 1838, the angel then firmly became Nephi in Smith's writings. Prior to 1835, no name is given at all. By 1842, in published newspapers, in Smith's own history and in the Pearl of Great Price, given that Smith consistently used the name of Nephi, apparently it is the name that he had settled upon and intended to be used for his angel. . . . Contrary to Anderson's sweeping statement that using ‘Nephi’ contradicted ALL that the prophet published, that was not the case at all. It was actually the other way around. It would actually have been much easier to delete the name of Moroni and use Nephi, instead. . . .
“Certainly, Smith appears to have wanted to ultimately name his visiting angel Nephi. He was, after all, Smith's first main character in his Book of Mormon. As time passed and Moroni became a more natural, appropriate and logical candidate for the role; as he had supposedly been the one to bury the fictitious gold plates, the angel ‘became’ Moroni.
“All things considered, it appears that it was a tidying-up process, after Smith's death, to make the sequence of events into a more logical, effective and believable overall story. Had the story actually been true (given the number of times Smith claims he was visited), Moroni's name (if, indeed, it was Moroni who visited Smith), should most certainly have been given from the start in most, if not all accounts, especially Smith's own records. In the event (Smith's first record of the event in 1832 m nine and five years after the 1823 and 1827 visitations respectively), [where Smith] describes the visitor as ‘an angel of the Lord’ who told him that the plates were ‘engraved by Moroni, the visiting angel [is] not giving his own name. This clearly indicates that when first considering his experience, the angel had certainly not introduced himself as Moroni (or Nephi), as the angel spoke of Moroni in the third person and did not give his own name at all.
“Had the name of Moroni been given as the name of the angel, Smith's initial writings would have had to have read differently and the name of Nephi would never have appeared in the first place.
“As with the ‘First Vision,’ the fabricated story of Moroni's visits evolved over many years. It all started with the idea of finding the gold plates using his money-digging seer stone that he found in a well; developed through to spirits and angels with no name; to finally becoming a divinely-instructed occurrence involving an angel who Smith ultimately decided to call Nephi, who is now known as Moroni. An effigy of the angel Moroni now appears, clad in gold leaf, atop LDS temples, with the angel Nephi relegated to the pages of the Book of Mormon.”
(James I. Whitefield, “Moroni, the Angel Formally Known as Nephi,” extract from forthcoming publication, “The Mormon Delusion,” original emphasis, at:
http://www.mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm#criticessay)
**********
--Conclusion
To review--
Here's what Mormons expect you to believe (that is, if you're up for believing what a clueless Joseph Smith taught at one time or another about God, Jesus and the Angel Moroni):
1) Joseph Smith declared that God and Jesus were one God and that the Holy Ghost wasn’t even part of the visible Godhead equation (instead, being assigned the job of filling in as the mind of God and Jesus).
2) Joseph Smith later changed his teachings to God and Jesus being tangible, separate Gods and the Holy Ghost eventually joining them as a special-teams spirit God.
3) When God and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in his “Sacred Grove First Vision,” God was only a spirit; it was Jesus who had the physical body.
4) Joseph Smith didn’t actually see God and/or Jesus in the “Sacred Grove” but, rather, he just saw an angel.
5) The angel who appeared to Joseph Smith to tell him where ih his backyard the gold plates were buried was really Nephi, not Moroni, despite efforts by the Mormon Church to falsify the historical record as to who Joseph Smith said the angel was (you know, Nephi).
6) Actually, Joseph Smith simply forgot to mention until years after the fact that it was not an angel who met with him in the “Sacred Grove;” instead, it was God and Jesus who showed up after all.
7) Pray about all this--no doubts allowed--and you'll know by the power of the Holy Ghost (Joseph Smith's after-thought add-on as the third leg of Smith's constantly-changing Godhead) that it's true.
Edited 25 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2013 06:53AM by steve benson.