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.
But at least you remembered WHO was leaving on a mission. Ol' Joe couldn't even remember who appeared to him.
ReplyDeleteWhen a suspect changes his story several times, the cops think he is:
a) lying
b) telling the truth
Thank you for reading my post. I mean that. It really boosts my ego to know that someone has read my blog and thought about it. And I don't even care whether they like it or agree with it.
DeleteThere's nothing contradictory about who he speaks to:
1832 He says he saw and spoke to Jesus.
1835 One personage appears, then another. A "personage appeard in the midst, of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God;70 I was about 14. years old" The Father and the Son can easily fit as the two personages.
1838 Says he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. The Father introduced Jesus, and Joseph and Jesus had a conversation (no evidence from this account that Joseph spoke directly to the Father).
1842 Says he "saw two glorious personages." Like the 1835 account, he didn't specify who those were, but Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ fit that bill.
Joseph didn't change the story of WHO he saw and talked to. Like I said, he just didn't specify it every time.
May I also ask how I know you? I don't know if we've met.
DeleteHey, someone linked your article to reddit.com/r/exmormon and I commented on it thinking the poster was you. After finding out such was not the case, I decided I wanted to link my thoughts on your post here (I'm TigranMetz):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/2mq3jt/profound_thoughts_response_to_first_vision/cm75jpv
I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
All the best!
First off: thanks for reading my blog and taking time to give me feedback. It doesn't matter to me if you like my writing or agree with it, if you take time to read it and think about it, you're A-ok in my book (to boot, your response is respectful).
DeleteThe link in your comment doesn't seem to work. No worries, though. My brother helped me find the reddit discussion. I didn't know my blog post made waves. Some comments there aren't even worth responding to because they're just rude. On the other hand, you seem to want to have a fair discussion.
I might have to write another blog post to do your comment justice. For now, here's my thoughts:
-I like that you validated my comparison of my brother going on his mission. Others seemed to scorn that idea.
-I think Mosiah 15 actually does a good job explaining how The Father and the Son can be considered one yet be different persons.
I might provide a more adequate response once I've done more in depth research on Joseph's teachings on the godhead.
Thanks for taking the time to respond! I agree that name calling and ad hominem attacks are counterproductive.
DeleteI would be very interested to hear a verse by verse breakdown of Mosiah 15:1-5, because in my reading of it, I see the description of the Godhead as it is written to be the exact opposite of your viewpoint, namely that the Father and Son are two beings, but are ultimately one God (an extremely Trinitarian viewpoint).
I am also curious to hear how you fit the JST and the fact that the "divine investiture" language stops in 1836 into the discussion.
Again, thanks for taking the time to reply and take care!