Response to First Vision challenges

This is the second blog post I write in response to “Letter to a CES Director: Why I lost My Testimony” by Jeremy T. Runnell. This post deals with the challenges to the First Vision. You can read my first post, where I respond to challenges to the Book of Mormon, here.

The author of this letter is troubled by apparent discrepancies in the record of the First Vision.

First off, I'm going to share a personal story and my record of it, and compare it to the accounts of the First Vision.

I will never forget the day when I was 13 and my family saw my brother Grant off at the airport for his mission to Germany. I briefly mentioned it in my journal (in cursive handwriting that's even uglier than my handwriting now):

"Monday, 10-18-99 At the airport, we said by to Grant with wet eyes as he left to Utah and on his mission."

Here's what I said in 9 years later in 2008 (it took me a whole decade to make another written record of that day):

"I can still remember the day Grant left for his mission. The entry I wrote on that day (Mon, Oct 18, 1999) is an overwhelming understatement. We were at the terminal (airport security wasn't as tight back then). Dad put his around Grant and embraced him. Grant and I looked at each other and a tear dropped swiftly down his cheek. We all came unglued (except for Mark and Spencer, they don't like to cry; neither did Seth-he was only two years old). Dad, Mom, Janet, Brian, Mark and Spencer and Seth all individually hugged him several times. The tears were streaming uncontrollably. Janet (and/or Mom) told Seth to hug Grant one last before he got on the plane, but Seth chose not too. When Grant got on the plane, Seth wanted another hug but it was too late (when Grant neared the completion of his mission, Seth told us that he remembered that Grant was nice to him). We looked out the window and we could even see him (he had a window seat). As Brian cried, Dad said to him, "It's like taking away a part of you." I'll never forget that day. Grant's example inspired me to serve a mission as well. ¡Y qué bueno que sirviera una misión! No paso ningún día sin pensar en mi misión [And how great it is that I served a mission! Not a day goes by that I don't think about my mission]."

You can see that as significant as that day was, I totally omitted huge aspects of it in my first obscure journal entry. For one thing, my parents, my brother Brian, my sister Janet, and me bawled our eyes out. My younger brothers Mark and Spencer didn't cry because they don't really show emotion, and my nephew Seth was only 2, too young to understand.

I had also completely neglected to mention that that day reaffirmed my resolve to one day become a missionary (this is the first time I could remember a genuinely voluntary desire to do it).

Another detail I omitted from both of my journal entries: my brother serving his mission in Germany made me think that Germany was the coolest country and that German was the coolest language (but now as a linguist I think all languages are equally fascinating).

My record of that crucial day was spotty. And that's allowing for the fact that I kept a journal at all. I didn't keep a daily journal until about 3 years ago.

I wasn't inconsistent in the first journal entry. I merely omitted huge details. The first is not as complete as the second journal entry, yet the information is still consistent. I never made claims that contradicted what I said earlier. And all that's despite the fact that this is a historically verifiable event (between his journal, plane ticket, church records, etc.)

How is that like Joseph Smith's varying accounts of the First Vision?

Like my journal entries, none of the First Vision accounts contradict each other. They simply don't share all the same details. Here's how they easily mesh and are therefore consistent:

Jesus Christ is an angel. The conversation was primarily with Jesus Christ, the host of angels could have easily been present but he didn't appear to converse with them, and the 1838 account says Christ told him many more things besides just that all the churches were wrong, which could have easily included a remission of his sins.

It's not unreasonable to assume that Joseph wanted forgiveness for his sins AND wanted to know which Church was right. Let's also remember that Joseph reports in each account that he appealed to the Bible.

The 1832 account talks about forgiveness for Joseph's sins, but Jesus Christ still discusses the falsehood of other churches. The 1835 account mentions an unidentified personage introducing Jesus Christ. That could easily be God the Father. And again, the Father and the Son fit the bill as angels. This account also mentions the part pf the story where he was impeded from praying. Further consistency. This link makes it clear that even when Joseph started recording history, he was pretty incomplete at it.

As far as the claim that Joseph already knew that all the churches were wrong, let's look carefully at the wording of the 1832 account: “by searching the scriptures I found  that mand<mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that  they had apostatised from the true and liveing  faith and there was no society or denomination  that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament”

And the wording of the 1838 account: “My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know  which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join...(for at this time it had never  entered into my heart that all were wrong)”

The 1832 account shows that Joseph was disillusioned with society as a whole (probably non-religious as well as religious) for not actually drawing unto God. It also shows that Joseph was frustrated with the religions he had contact with, in that they didn't appear to base their teachings on the New Testament. Even the full 1838 account reveals this frustration and confusion. Both are consistent in showing his disillusionment and yearning for real answers. But the 1832 account does not say specifically that Joseph Smith though that all of the churches were totally wrong; it says specifically that that none of the churches (at least the ones he knew of) “built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament.” In other words, he felt that none of the churches truly adhered to that specific part of the Bible. He doesn't say anything like “and therefore it was obvious that all were (completely) wrong.” The 1842 account indicates that Joseph had at least a sliver of hope that one denomination might have been (at least partially) correct.

Have you ever noticed that the biographies of Joseph Smith have to rely mostly on what OTHER people said about him? That's because he never got the hang of being a thorough record keeper, not even about his own life. He had to rely on other people to be official church historians.

Plus, what teenager makes a habit of keeping records? Especially one that lives in a time and place where keeping a life record is probably the last thing on his mind. I mean, the average teenager might witness their school burning down, but if you ask them how their day went, they'd say, "Good." Then go back to whatever it is teenagers do.

Even in the 1838 account, what did Joseph say that he told his mother first? That he figured out the Presbyterian church was not for him. Talk about the biggest understatement! According to that, he made no hint that he had a prophetic experience talking to God and learned way more than just the fact that one church was not true. See what I mean about adolescents and their underwhelming descriptions of earth shattering events?

Rough Stone Rolling indicates that Joseph's understanding of the vision evolved over time. He didn't feel the need to share it the way missionaries do now. He viewed it as a personal experience, although he privately approached a minister to ask what he thought. Perhaps he feared ridicule? And given that Joseph had to be commanded by Moroni himself to tell Joseph, Sr. about Moroni's visit, it's not surprising to find out that Joseph didn't talk much about the First Vision at first. But let's not forget, Joseph did talk about the First Vision to his mother (albeit in an indirect and incomplete way, as stated previously).

The author says, “the historical record shows that there was no revival in Palmyra in 1820.” Which historical record?

In any case, the LDS church stated: “Documentary evidence, however, supports Joseph Smith’s statements regarding the revivals. The region where he lived became famous for its religious fervor and was unquestionably one of the hotbeds of religious revivals. Historians refer to the region as “the burned-over district” because preachers wore out the land holding camp revivals and seeking converts during the early 1800s.6 In June 1818, for example, a Methodist camp meeting took place in Palmyra, and the following summer, Methodists assembled again at Vienna (now Phelps), New York, 15 miles from the Smith family farm. The journals of an itinerant Methodist preacher document much religious excitement in Joseph’s geographic area in 1819 and 1820. They report that Reverend George Lane, a revivalist Methodist minister, was in that region in both years, speaking “on Gods method in bringing about Reformations.”7 This historical evidence is consistent with Joseph’s description."

Another concern he has: “Why did Joseph hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead, as shown

previously with the Book of Mormon, if he clearly saw that the Father and Son were separate

embodied beings in the official First Vision?” It's not like Joseph Smith clearly had a trinitarian view that permeated his work (as the author claims happened with the Book of Mormon). I don't know of any historical evidence where Joseph lays out on the table that he believes in a trinitarian view of the godhead.

Additionally, Runnell is the only person I know of who arrived at that conclusion. That's also keeping in mind that he's not a historian.

So it's unfair to build upon a hypothesis that he has which is shaky.

“Like the rock in the hat story, I did not know there were multiple First Vision accounts.” I'm sorry to hear that. But I did know about the multiple First Vision accounts, actually. Even before my mission: the first time I heard about it was when I saw God's Army at age 13 (incidentally, that was shortly after Grant left for Germany). It's not like the Church keeps those accounts in the dark, or disciplines anyone who asks for them. They're there. See for yourself. Granted, this website is new, but the availability and knowledge of the information is not.

The 1838 account has the most detail relevant to the message of the Restoration, which is why it was chosen to be the one publicized more than the others.

Apparently there's discrepancy in the date in the historical record (by a year or two). It's obvious that Joseph didn't keep meticulous records of that event. So is it any wonder that the exact date is fuzzy?  Even the 1838 account doesn't say what day in 1820 that it happened. So what if it's off by a year or two? Don't tell me you've never told a story about yourself that happened when you were 8, but you were actually 7, or something like that; either way, you're still consistent in referring to the approximate stage of life you're in. Either way, the First Vision can be placed in Joseph's adolescence. It would be different if he were contradictory about the stage of life he were in (i.e. claiming in one occasion it happened in his childhood then claiming it happened in adulthood on another occasion).

By the way, I've often told people that I was 12 1/2, 13, or 14 when I tell the above story. I have to refer to my journal to get my own age right.

Thus concludes my rebuttal to this portion of the letter. More responses will likely be forthcoming.