Is there any evidence that Joseph Smith ever discussed at the time with anybody, as he claimed he did, having his first vision way back in 1820?

What first brought the question to my mind was Howe's Mormonism Unvailed, the first antiMormon book dating from 1834. I had checked it out (I believe from the BYU library, of all places) purely as a curiosity, to see what ridiculous things the Anti's were saying back in Joseph's day. But what struck me most was not what was in it, but what was Not in it. I couldn't find a mention of the Fisrt Vision. What!? How is that possible, I thought? Everything was concentrated on Joe's money digging and his gold bible. But no mention of a first vision.

I jumped to the obvious conclusion: Could it be possible that Joseph Smith had not yet mentioned a first vision? Because if he had it most certainly have been discussed in Mormonism Unvailed.

This was troubling to me. I was TBM and remained so for another decade. But I knew then that something was wrong with the Official Story. I think this incident opened me to accept the many more issues that came before me later.

So back to my question, is there any evidence of Joseph having ever mentioned his vision, before he started writing about it in the '30s?

The first written account was given twelve years after the First Vision allegedly took place. In this account, Joseph mentions a visitation by only one personage.

"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 even then, the story did not hold the prominent place in Mormon thought that it does today."

http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm

If there was, don't you think it would be quoted in the essay on The First Vision?

JS says in one version that he told no one, but in the official version he says he told the local clergy and was persecuted. For me, the question of whether he told or not was the most damning difference between the various versions, because it is the one difference that involves other people. Apparently, none of the people who were supposedly told of the vision at the time that it happened recorded it. Not even his mother.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2014 07:38PM by releve.

You would think the local clergy would know JS and his family. They would have remembered him claiming to see God, even if they thought he was nutters.

You would think his mother would have remembered something like that, especially if she believed him.

You would also think that the newspaper reports of his various arrests would mention that he was the guy who had claimed to see God.

Actually, JS didn't ever specify who the two personages were. There is a version where he mentions only the Lord or the Savior I don't remember the exact wording, but the versions that mention two personages do not identify them. It could be any father and son.

It wasn't until much later that a GA identified the personages as God the Father and Jesus Christ.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2014 01:10PM by releve.

Lucy, Hyrum, and two of Joe's sisters joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin's death, right? Alvin died late in 1823, so this was in 1824 or 1825. One of Joe's vision accounts says that he came home and simply told his mother that he had learned for himself that Presbyterianism wasn't true. If there's ANY truth to this account, this likely happened in 1824 or later. You would think that Lucy would have asked what he meant, but I guess she just let it go and kept attending her false church for another 4 or 5 years.

Another problem with the timeline is that Joe gave an actual date for Moroni's first visit. The 1835 history of the church describes this 1823 visit as Joe's first heavenly visitation and the event that got the ball rolling. Early critics mentioned this visit, connected with the BoM, but not any earlier visit. There's no evidence that Lucy even knew about this as early as 1824 though, and I find it hard to believe that she would join the Presbyterian church after the "first vision" or Moroni's visit.

years ago someone was offering money for ANY reference of Joe speaking with God and JC - iirc the terms were pretty generous: could be just about anything (diary entry, a personal letter, etc.) from pretty much anyone - and it covered a long time span - at least a decade or more after the supposed event in 1820

i'm sure his money is (still) safe...

Joseph's First Vision, aka Joseph's umpteenth lie.

Should read "Joseph's First Visions" - with an "s" at the end.

Or, better yet, "Joseph's Visions" since they can't all be "first".

:)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/22/2014 08:25PM by exodus.

Listening to Grant Palmer on Mormon Stories, Joey's "first vision" only came about because he was losing top leaders and membership from one of his scams so created this lie to try to keep people from leaving.

Let's be clear with what we *should* expect to find. Joseph Smith claimed persecution by "all the sects" and "all classes of men, both religious and irreligious" because he affirmed and "continued to affirm" his vision. This persecution is mentioned to have occurred from 1820 through 1827 when he finally acquired the plates.

Not only does Howe's book not mention it, but three people very close to Joseph Smith: Oliver Cowdery, William Smith, and his own mother (Lucy Mack Smith), reported that his prayers for guidance during the revival were answered by an angel who told him about the plates. These retellings are also consistent with several GAs in the 1850/60s (including President Brigham Young), who explicitly stated that God did NOT come himself to restore the gospel, but that he sent his angels.

In other words, this is not just a matter of an absence of evidence, but an abundance of counter-evidence that proves Joseph Smith's 1838 history was a fabrication. Another example is the anachronistic reference by Moroni in the 1838 history to the Urim and Thummim way back in 1823. No one had even thought of the Urim and Thummim connection until W.W. Phelps in the early 1830s.

BTW, I had never made the connection that Joseph's critics in "Mormonism Unvailed" failed to mention anything about the First Vision. I would just generically state that it was unknown and unmentioned in an era where newspapers routinely reported local gossip. The Howe reference is much more concrete.

Thanks Mr. Schlong for pointing this out (assumed male gender for obvious reasons).

The ONLY account, written by JS himself, on the first vision was in the summer of 1832. Why did it take him 12 years to write it down? Why did he only write a watered down version in his own journal? This is one of the first lies that shattered my shelf.

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/history-circa-summer-1832?p=1

Nope. It was clearly a later invention. In fact, there remains no evidence of religious excitement as described in 1820 either, and Joseph Smith's timeline is all screwed up as well.

I remember reading that the Smiths didn't even live in Palmyra yet in 1820.

They lived in Palmyra. They didn't move to Manchester until 1822-1823, even though Joseph Smith clearly said the move to Manchester came 2 years before the First Vision. They didn't even purchase the vacant Manchester property until July of 1820, well past Spring.

Minor correction: Joseph Smith did not claim that the move to Manchester occurred 2 years prior to the FV. He actually wrote, "Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion."

There is no indication how early in the 2nd year that it occurred. The most conservative estimate would be 12 months + some days into the first month of the 2nd year. My best guess as to what he probably meant in his tall tale, was 12 months + 3-4 months--leastwise, that is what the spirit confirms to me as the truth about his lie.

Touche' - though I would like to offer the rebuttal that what he really meant was the truth according to the historical record. They built a cabin on the Manchester property and moved into it in the Winter of 1822-23, according to Lucy's autobiography and the Manchester assessment rolls. Then the religious excitement began early-to-mid 1824, shortly after the arrival of Reverend Benjamin Stockton and just before the arrival of Reverend George Lane. That's roughly 1.5 years.

Of course that would place the First Vision around the Spring of 1825, but who's counting? Definitely not Joseph Smith.

I like your assessment better, since it is based more on fact than intuition. Thanks for the additional info!

No. Because it didn't happen. Why won't the church just come out and do their spin thing, but admit it did not happen the way JS claimed it did. He DID NOT, out of the blue because of some scripture in James, go to the woods and pray and see God the Father and Jesus Christ. He didn't claim then that it happened, there is not one reference anywhere to anyone saying he said it or persecuting him for saying it. His mother did not say anything about it in her history and the ANTIs did not even mention it. He made it up years later, adding that he knew it happened and God knew he knew. One powerful BS sentence and that's what they hang on. That and his claim of how persecuted he was for it.

If there are tons and tons of old writings, newspaper articles, etc. about his claim of finding buried gold plates and the angel Moroni telling him where they were, you'd think there would be one mention SOMEWHERE about his seeing God and Jesus--a slight more miraculous happening if you ask me.

Oh wait, I know! God sucked it all back into heaven. He took all the anti material, the newspaper articles, the journals--everything. Just like he did the gold plates and the sword of Laban and the breast plate and all the Nephite and Lamanite coins and swords and steel and everything their civilization ever produced that couldn't be confused with Mayan, Aztec and Olmec ruins. It's all up there in the heavenly vault cause if he left it here, he wouldn't be able to test our faith and know who was worthy to make it into his Celestial harem because they're able to believe what, on its face appears to be total and utter bulllshit.

I don't have a specific reference for this (maybe someone on the board can find it. But as I recall, someone tracked down David Whitmer in the latter half of the nineteenth century and asked him about his experiences in mormonism. One of the questions was about how he reacted to Joseph Smith's account of the first vision. David Whitmer replied that he never heard Joseph Smith mention anything about such a vision.

That would be a good reference to have. This topic reminds me of that sh*tty "Work and Glory" series that I listened to as a TBM. I wondered at the time why the author portrayed Joseph Smith as so secretive and shy about sharing his FV account with anyone. He explained that it was so sacred and special, and that initial reactions had been so severe that he was reluctant to ever share it with anyone. Of course, this ignores JSH where he claims to have been persecuted by "all the sects" and "all classes of men, both religious and irreligious" because he affirmed and "continued to affirm" his vision from 1820 until at least 1827.

I don't recall reading that. The first vision wasn't a big deal in the 19th century. Even Brigham Young didn't know much about it. I don't think it was discussed enough to be much of a controversy until the 20th century. David Whitmer was interviewed quite a bit, though, and talked a lot about how he never heard anything about the restoration of the priesthood, even though he was living right there and as close to Joseph and Oliver as anyone could be when it allegedly happened.

bezoar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't have a specific reference for this (maybe
> someone on the board can find it. But as I
> recall, someone tracked down David Whitmer in the
> latter half of the nineteenth century and asked
> him about his experiences in mormonism. One of
> the questions was about how he reacted to Joseph
> Smith's account of the first vision. David
> Whitmer replied that he never heard Joseph Smith
> mention anything about such a vision.

That was whitmer talking about the restoration of the priesthood. Also totally made up. JS and oliver were living in Whitmers house at the time that he later claimed to have John the Baptist come to him to restore the Aaronic priesthood. Here is what whitmer said about it in an interview later in his life:

“…I conversed freely with them upon this great work they were bringing about, and Oliver stated to me in Joseph’s presence that they had baptized each other seeking by that to fulfill the command in the book. I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5, or [183]6 – in Ohio. My information from Joseph and Oliver upon this matter as I have stated, and they were commanded to do this by revelation through Joseph. I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver as state and believe by some. I regard this as an error, a misconceptions…” – Early Mormon Documents, 5:137

I like the answer given in "God's Army" when Richard Deutcher was LDS; Joe was "teaching different audiences." I'm glad Richard left the cult.

How arrogant to put Joe on the same level of teacher as Jesus and the apostles.

Yes, I too had a problem with apologist position: "The multiple accounts of the First Vision were prepared at different times and for different audiences. In these accounts, Joseph Smith emphasized different aspects of his experience of the First Vision..."

If I was telling a story about an accident, I would say "The Ford truck hit the Chrysler" no matter what other details might be relevant.

In an email discussion, John Tvedtnes appealed to differences in the telling of the Saul/Paul vision in Acts vs. one of the Pauline letters. Aside from the absudity of using fiction to affirm fiction, it is even worse that the two accounts had different authors, and thus a much lower expectation for consistency.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2014 12:10PM by Facsimile 3.

This just pisses me off so bad.

Remember the short film the church had in the 70's/80's called The First Vision? I saw that film constantly during seminary. Got the warm tingles and all every time. As a missionary I would show this whenever possible as it had become such an integral part of my testimony and tether to the church and ultimately home.

When I discovered there were multiple first vision accounts I about blew a gasket. I felt betrayed.

And the church really has trouble realizing why we are bitter?

Love this thread.

As I was reading the posts on this thread, my mind was picturing the huge picture that used to be in the visitor's center on temple square, no clue if it is still there. You know, the one where young Joseph is on his knees praying in the woods engulfed in heavenly beams streaming down from heaven. The first time I saw it I was in my teens and it was one of the sights that made a big impression on me.

This picture of young Joseph praying and talking with God and being talked back to, is something the cult does not want to wash from people's minds. I think they will hold fast to this first vision made-up story until they go down struggling for air.

It is a very powerful icon, and they know it.

The first known account of Joseph Smith claiming the first vision was 1832.

However, there many statements from neighbors, preachers, etc. about Joseph Smith as a teenager - all of them tellingly silent on the first vision.

It is especially telling that the biography of Joseph Smith written by his mother doesn't talk about the first vision at all despite going into major detail of Joseph Smith Sr.s visions. (Note: The edited, published version did include the first vision, but that was not included by her.)

From what I've read, I believe that J.S. originally claimed his "first vision" was when 17 about the Book of Mormon. He later split it out to claim 2 distinct visions. I find it interesting that many of the early accounts of his 17 year old vision had similar elements of the 14 year old first vision - for example praying for forgiveness from his sins.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2014 01:47PM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.

I am fond of referring to the 17 year-old version as the first *official* published version of the First Vision, since it was published in the Church periodical by Oliver Cowdery under the supervision of Joseph Smith. This version is placed in the context of the religious revivals with the most telling part being that he was praying to know whether God existed when the angel appeared.

Yep, I find this account to be pretty damning:

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/7160

Vol. 1, No. 5, February 1835 - Letter IV