User:InProgress/Website reviews/F

FAIR Answers—back to home page

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

A FAIR Analysis of MormonThink page "The First Vision"

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that this MormonThink article appears to take are the following:

• That Joseph's different accounts of the First Vision are "relatively ignored" by the Church, despite an entire web page being devoted to them on lds.org and various mentions in the Ensign, including a statement by Gordon B. Hinckley.

FAIRMORMON'S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING DATA

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The First Vision wasn't even known by church members until 1842, and even then it wasn't very important. Joseph said that he was persecuted for telling people that he had seen a vision. There is simply no evidence that Joseph told anyone about the vision until many years later and not until after the Book of Mormon was published. There are no accounts in the newspapers, by neighbors, preachers or even by the members of Joseph's own family. There is much evidence to indicate that the First Vision either never really happened or was very different than we've been taught.

FairMormon commentary

• This is absurd. If no one knew about the vision "until 1842," why was a skeptical newspaper account describing how Mormon missionaries were teaching that Joseph had personally seen God in November of 1830? Not only had Church members heard that Joseph had seen God, but they were preaching it and a hostile press was writing about it.

Quotes to consider

• LDS missionaries were teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and received a commission from Him to teach true religion (The Reflector, vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831).
• Report in a non-LDS newspaper that Mormon missionaries were teaching at least six of the beginning elements of the First Vision story (Fredonia Censor, vol. 11, no. 50, 7 March 1832).
• When the Rev. John A. Clark published his autobiography he mixed nine First Vision story elements together with the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and said that he learned them all in the Fall of 1827 from Martin Harris (John A. Clark, Gleanings by the Way [Philadelphia: W. J. and J. K. Simmon, 1842],---).

Additional information

• No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications—There is no mention of the First Vision in non-Mormon literature before 1843. If the First Vision story had been known by the public before 1840 (when Orson Pratt published his pamphlet) the anti-Mormons “surely” would have seized upon it as an evidence of Joseph Smith’s imposture. (Link)

• No mention in non-LDS literature before 1843?—No mention of First Vision in non-LDS literature before 1843? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
James B. Allen, who served as assistant church historian, frankly admitted that the story of the first vision "was not given general circulation in the 1830's." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.33). Dr. Allen makes some startling concessions in this article. He admits, for instance, that "none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830's, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision...." Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830's "the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it."

Author's source(s)

• Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45.

FairMormon commentary

• That isn't exactly what James B. Allen said. He said that the story "at best" received "limited circulation."

The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830s, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision is convincing evidence that at best it received only limited circulation in those early days. (emphasis added)

• Why doesn't MormonThink quote any work done after 1966 on this point? Don't they realize that more documents or accounts may have been discovered?

Additional information

• Missionaries 1830 statement about Joseph seeing "God"—Critics have claimed that just because LDS missionaries were teaching around 1 November 1830 that Joseph Smith had previously seen “God” personally it cannot be assumed that this was a reference to God the Father since the Book of Mormon (completed ca. 11 June 1829) refers to Jesus Christ as “the eternal God” (title page; 2 Nephi 26:12). The argument is made that since this evidence indicates that Joseph Smith understood Jesus Christ to be “God” the statement by the missionaries may have simply meant that Joseph Smith had seen the Savior; not necessarily the Father. (Link)

• No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications—Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Why did Joseph Smith fail to mention his First Vision when he first wrote the church history in 1835? Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery wrote and published a history of the church that supposedly covered all of the important points related to its beginnings. However, Joseph Smith records a different story than the "official" one later published in 1842. In Joseph Smith's own 1835 published history of the church, he says that his first spiritual experience was in 1823 after a religious revival in Palmyra that same year.

FairMormon commentary

• Because Oliver wrote the history, not Joseph. Oliver was writing at the request of WW Phelps, and responding as Phelps wrote him letters.
• Why doesn't MormonThink mention here that Joseph wrote an account of his First Vision in his journal in 1835? Or an account in 1832? They quote a reference from the Tanner's which mentions it later on the webpage. Why not acknowledge it here?
• Did you know that Oliver wrote the two-part account of Joseph's vision as part of the Church history and not Joseph? Did you know that the first part published described exactly the conditions that led to the First Vision, including Joseph's age of 14, before describing the vision itself?
• Did you know that by the time that Oliver published the next part, that he said that he had made a mistake on the year, and changed it to three years later (age 14 to age 17) and then proceeded to describe Moroni's visit instead? Do you get the idea that Joseph told Oliver not to continue the first vision account that he had started to publish and to focus instead on Moroni's visit?
• Did you know that Oliver indicated that he had written records that he was using to create the history, and that those records likely included Joseph's 1832 journal account of the First Vision?

Additional information

• Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit—Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
[I]n the early 1800s having visions wasn't perceived to be all that uncommon. Even Joseph Smith's father claimed to have had a vision - namely the Tree of Life vision. People believed in magic, seer stones, divining rods, etc. and people claiming to have visions weren't seen as all that strange. Like much of Joseph's work, the first vision is strikingly similar to someone else's story.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  
• Since visions were not uncommon, that kind of explains why Joseph didn't really mention it to many people, or why many people didn't pay much attention if he did.
• MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, and that such things were regarded as common. They were seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid any attention to it at the time.
• Pastors of that day looked down on people who claimed to see God in a vision - such things were being discouraged.
• It was the vision of Moroni and the subsequent recovery and translation of the Book of Mormon that caused Joseph to realize that his path was different than others who had claimed to see visions. Therefore, Joseph emphasized that and only wrote the full account of his First Vision much later.

Quotes to consider

• As Richard Bushman noted:

The clergy of the mainline churches automatically suspected any visionary report, whatever its content...The only acceptable message from heaven was assurance of forgiveness and a promise of grace. Joseph's report of God's rejection of all creeds and churches would have sounded all too familiar to the Methodist evangelical, who repeated the conventional point that "all such things had ceased with the apostles and that there never would be any more of them."^[1]

Additional information

• No reference to First Vision in 1830s publications—Critics claim that there is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s, and that nothing published in this period mentions that Joseph saw the Father and Son. They also assume that it would have been mentioned in the local newspapers at the time. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Since Joseph never told anyone about the vision, he wasn't persecuted. There is simply no evidence that he was ever persecuted for the First Vision....How strange that Joseph says that the neighborhood knew enough about it to persecute this obscure boy, but his own family hadn't heard about it at all. If Joseph's story had actually occurred and caused said excitement, someone would have mentioned it. No one did....God & Christ visit a young boy, and because of local gossip, he withheld that info from his family. And yet then he receives another visitation three years later from an angel, and immediately he tells his family? Why the inconsistencies?

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  
• Joseph never said that his vision caused "excitement." He described being persecuted for it:

"Joseph did tell a Methodist preacher about the First Vision. Newly reborn people customarily talked over their experiences with a clergyman to test the validity of the conversion. The preacher's contempt shocked Joseph. Standing on the margins of the evangelical churches, Joseph may not have recognized the ill repute of visionaries. The preacher reacted quickly and negatively, not because of the strangeness of Joseph's story, but because of its familiarity. Subjects of revivals all too often claimed to have seen visions."^[2]

• MormonThink can't have it both ways: it can't be both astonishing that no one remembered Joseph talking about his First Vision in early Palmyra, and that such things were regarded as common (see above). They were seen as common (and somewhat disreputable) and so it is no surprise that no one local paid much attention to it at the time, other than to be scornful or dismissive if Joseph told them.

Quotes to consider

• Joseph did not tell his family about Moroni until he was commanded to do so by the angel. Rather than being inconsistent, this reinforces the truthfulness of Joseph's account: he apparently wasn't inclined to tell everyone until he was directed to do so. Perhaps he had learned his lesson and was "once bitten, twice shy"?
• Why do you suppose MormonThink doesn't tell us this? It's right in Joseph's official history, and yet they act like his actions are completely mysterious. Do they not know the material at all, or are they hiding something intentionally?

I shortly after arose from my bed, and, as usual, went to the necessary labors of the day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a time was quite unconscious of anything. The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger standing over my head, surrounded by light as before. He then again related unto me all that he had related to me the previous night, and commanded me to go to my father and tell him of the vision and commandments which I had received (Joseph Smith History 1:48-49).

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
If it really happened, why couldn't Joseph Smith tell a consistent story about such a powerful experience as meeting with God and Jesus Christ face-to-face? How many people forget where they were when their first child was born? Or when they got their patriarchal blessing? Or their wedding night? How many forget who they were with and what happened? If we can remember details such as year, circumstance and those involved, why couldn't Joseph Smith consistently recall basic facts about his incredible First Vision?

FairMormon commentary
  The author is using mocking language and hyperbole to try to make his or her point  —The critic intentionally exaggerates claims in order to mock believers.
Note the characterization of Joseph's "powerful experience" and "incredible" First Vision.

• Joseph did remember consistently where he was and when it happened.
• How many of you forget the date of your anniversary? Or your dates of your kids' birthdays?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
In Joseph Smith's first handwritten testimony of the first vision in 1832, he says he already knew all other churches were false before he prayed. Smith testified: "by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ."....Yet in the "official" story written years later by a scribe, it has Joseph Smith saying: "I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) and which I should join."

FairMormon commentary

• If you had come to the conclusion that mankind has apostatized from the true faith, and you suddenly found Jesus standing in front of you, wouldn't you ask Him if any of those churches was the correct one? Or would you simply tell Him, "never mind, I already figured it out for myself?"
• Besides, where is the inconsistency? How many churches did Joseph have immediate knowledge of? Three or four? Joseph determined that the churches with which he had direct experience did not adhere to the scriptures and that therefore mankind "had apostatized from the true and living faith." During his vision, he then asked the Lord which church was right, because it had not occurred to him that the Lord's church didn't exist anywhere on the face of the earth. It had never entered into his heart that all churches were wrong.

Additional information

• Contradiction about knowing all churches were wrong—In his 1832 account of the First Vision, Joseph Smith said, “I found [by searching the scriptures] that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.” But in the 1835 account he said, “I knew not who [of the denominations] was right or who was wrong.” Critics claim that thus counts as evidence that the First Vision story evolved over time. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There are earlier versions of the First Vision story in Joseph Smith's own handwriting, but they are not considered "official" and are relatively ignored by the church.

One thing is clear, the LDS Church does a great disservice to investigators of its claims by presenting Joseph Smith's 1838 account of his first vision as the only version of these events.

UPDATE: From the church's official web site, there is an article that gives the church's point of view on why there are multiple accounts of the First Vision.

FairMormon commentary
  Doesn't count:  —Critics like to claim the Church never or rarely does something, and then insist that every counter-example doesn't really count (if they mention them at all). This lets them ignore all evidence contrary to their position.

• No, it isn't clear at all: Where does the Church claim that the 1838 account is the "only version" of these events?
• Oh wait....there's an "update" all the way near the bottom of the article. Why not just update the information being shown instead of stating things at the beginning of the article that are not true, then providing a small "update" at the end of the article that corrects it?
• Did you mean to say that these accounts are "relatively ignored" except when they are mentioned in the Ensign and on the official Church website lds.org?

Quotes to consider

During a 10-year period (1832–42), Joseph Smith wrote or dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision. These accounts are similar in many ways, but they include some differences in emphasis and detail. These differences are complementary. Together, his accounts provide a more complete record of what occurred. The 1838 account found in the Pearl of Great Price is the primary source referred to in the Church.
—Accounts of the First Vision, Gospel Study, Study by Topic, located on lds.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located.
—Milton Backman Jr., "Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision," Ensign, January 1985.

Joseph's vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.
—Dennis B. Neuenschwander, “Joseph Smith: An Apostle of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, Jan 2009, 16–22.

I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.
—Gordon B. Hinckley, “‘God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear’, Ensign, Oct 1984, 2

• There is also a massive list of statements available. How can MormonThink ignore all these?
  • LDS-Authored Publications (1910-1968)—
    Brief Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1910-1968) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • LDS-Authored Publications (1969-1978)—
    Brief Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1969-1978) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • LDS-Authored Publications (1979-1983)—
    Brief Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1979-1983) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • LDS-Authored Publications (1984-1989)—
    Brief Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1984-1989) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • LDS-Authored Publications (1990-1997)—
    Brief Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1990-1997) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗
  • LDS-Authored Publications (1998-2003)—
    Brief Summary: Mentions of the various accounts of the First Vision in LDS publications (1998-2003) (Click here for full article)
    ∗       ∗       ∗

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Oliver Cowdery's account in the 1834 "Messenger and Advocate" stated that the "first vision" occurred in 1823---not a word about an 1820 vision. Cowdery's account also related that Smith's interest in religion was sparked by the preaching of Methodist elder George Lane, rather than Smith's version which claimed that he was inspired by reading in the Bible at 14. Cowdery also stated that the date of the "religious excitement in Palmyra and vicinity" was in Smith's "17th year," which would have been 1823, rather than 1820.

FairMormon commentary

•   Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
  
• MormonThink has not taken a close enough look at the available documents to understand the true nature of the criticism which they advocate.
• Oliver Cowdery did, in fact, know about the First Vision when he recorded his version of the history of the Restoration—he had physical possession of the Prophet's 1832 history.
• Cowdery's dating anomaly and confused reporting of facts likely occurred because the Prophet was extremely busy during this time period and did not have much of a chance for editorial oversight (Cowdery, in fact, was the editor).

Additional information

• Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account of the First Vision/Moroni's visit—Was Oliver Cowdery unaware of the First Vision as late as 1834–1835? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There are other contradictions which cast doubt on the "first vision," such as the Smith family joining the Presbyterian church AFTER God has supposedly told Joseph that all churches were corrupt

FairMormon commentary

• This claim is false. The "Smith family" did not join the Presbyterian church; Joseph's mother and a few siblings did. Lucy discusses another group to which she was attracted after the First Vision. She and much of the family was inclined thereto: Joseph was not, and he was the one told not to join any of them.

Quotes to consider

• Lucy Mack Smith even reports what Joseph told her:

Shortly after the death of Alvin, 'a man commenced labouring in the neigbourhood, to effect a union of the different churches [note that this is not the Presbyterians], in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind.

This scented about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers; but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time."

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's.

[p.91] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.^[3] (emphasis added)

• Lucy and some siblings were Presbyterian members, but this was likely prior to Joseph's First Vision:^[4]

[48] [Prior to Joseph Smith Sr. losing his farm in Vermont around 1802] I heard that a very devout man was to preach the next Sabbath in the Presbyterian Church; I therefore went to meeting, in the full expectation of hearing that which my soul desired—the Word of Life. When the minister commenced speaking, I fixed my mind with deep attention upon the spirit and matter of his discourse; but, after hearing him through, I returned home, convinced that he neither understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke, and I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and, taking Jesus and his disciples for my guide, to endeavour to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away. Notwithstanding this, I would hear all that could be said, as well as read much that was written, on the subject of religion; but the Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation. This course I pursued a number of years. At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after [p.49] which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year....^[5]

• MormonThink is confusing the two time frames. They do not understand the documents well at all. Why not?

Additional information

• Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians—Critics claim that since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which appears to match details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820, and that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823. This contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Cowdery's statement that Smith had wondered, several years after the alleged "first vision," as to whether "a Supreme Being did exist";

FairMormon commentary

• This sentence does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God.
• Joseph was seeking for:

1. a full manifestation of divine "approbation" [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and
2. for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."

Additional information

• Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823?—Critics claim that according to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820. But, this misunderstands both the statement and the historical chronology. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
and the fact that as late as 1851, church publications such as the "Times and Seasons" were calling the angel that visited Joseph "Nephi," rather than Moroni.

FairMormon commentary

• Did you know that the first anti-Mormon book, Mormonism Unvailed, published in 1834, referred to the angel as "Moroni?"
• Did you know that the reference to the angel as "Nephi" depended upon a single error that was copied?

Quotes to consider

• Mormonism Unvailed - 1834, reprinted as History of Mormonism in 1840 [an anti-Mormon book]

After he had finished translating the Book of Mormon, he again buried up the plates in the side of a mountain, by command of the Lord; some time after this, he was going through a piece of woods, on a by-path, when he discovered an old man dressed in ordinary grey apparel...The Lord told him that the man he saw was MORONI, with the plates, and if he had given him the five coppers, he might have got his plates again. (emphasis in original)

• There are many other early sources that use the correct name of "Moroni". Why doesn't MormonThink tell us about them?

Additional information

• Nephi or Moroni—The Church teaches that Moroni was the heavenly messenger which appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the gold plates. Yet, some Church sources give the identity of this messenger as Nephi. Critics claim that this shows that Joseph was 'making it up as he went along.' In fact, a single misprint was reprinted a few times. But, earliest sources (even hostile ones) give the name as "Moroni". (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
A young Joseph, an amazing vision, the birth of Mormonism - it all started with a great revival. Joseph Smith gave a vivid description of the revival that took place in his boyhood town of Palmyra, New York....This revival made a big impression on Joseph Smith, but what kind of mark did it leave in history? Could we pinpoint the place and date of this event and verify that it really happened? Would church records for the years immediately before and after a revival, show a sudden jump in church memberships telling us exactly when this took place? What if we found the actual records but there was no evidence of a revival?

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is begging the question:  —Critics will often assume what they are trying to prove in how they frame questions or describe issues.
  
• Where's the "vivid description" that MormonThink talks about? Joseph hardly describes the religious excitement at all, he merely says that it was there and that it made a large impression on him.
• MormonThink is begging the question: they are assuming what they want to prove. They are calling these events "a revival," when Joseph never called them by that term.

Additional information

• Were there revivals in 1820?—Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it" (Link)

• Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area—Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Multiple sources revealed evidence of a great religious excitement, with big gains in church membership for all the denominations mentioned by Joseph. But, instead of the revival beginning in 1820, it started in the autumn of 1824 and continued into the spring of 1825.

FairMormon commentary

• This is irrelevant. There was a revival in 1824-25, but there was also religious excitement and camp meetings in the correct time and place for Joseph's account.
• MormonThink is relying upon an old and discredited chronology popular with anti-Mormon sources.

Additional information

• Were there revivals in 1820?—Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it" (Link)

• Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area—Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The second detail was Joseph Smith's statement that the revival took place "sometime in the second year after our removal to Manchester" (PGP/JS History 1:5). Research into existing tax records and property assessments indicate the most likely date for the Smith family's move onto their Manchester farm is 1822. A revival occurring in the second year after 1822 fits the 1824 revival date (Inventing, pp. 7-8).

FairMormon commentary

• MormonThink is here citing a well-known anti-Mormon work, H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record (Salt Lake City, Utah: Smith Research Associates [distributed by Signature Books], 1994), 7-8.
• The U.S. Census Bureau listed the Smiths in Farmington (now Manchester) in 1820. The Smith farm, clearing the land and a log house, all supported evidence that the Smiths, and most everyone else, considered themselves in Manchester, even though they technically lived about 59 feet off their property (in Palmyra). Legal U.S. documents now considered the Smiths in Farmington (later called Manchester) even though, technically, the log house was 59 feet away on the Palmyra side of the line.
• MormonThink is not up to date, and is not citing all the documents. Why do you suppose that is?

Additional information

• Smith family place of residence in 1820—Critics claim that there are discrepancies in Joseph's account of his family's early history, which make his 1820 and subsequent revelations impossible, and that there is no evidence that the Smith family was in the Palmyra area in 1820 for the religious excitement and First Vision which Joseph reported. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
FAIR believes that there was some sort of revival in 1820. I guess it depends on how you define a revival. Some believe that an ad in the newspaper for a church camp meeting is a revival. The revival Joseph seems to be referring to that sparked his quest is more like the big revivals that started in 1824 where membership jumped dramatically.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is begging the question:  —Critics will often assume what they are trying to prove in how they frame questions or describe issues.
  
• No, FAIR does not believe that there was some sort of revival in 1820. FAIR states, based upon newspaper data, that there were Methodist camp meetings being held in the Palmyra area. FAIR never states that there was a "revival." MormonThink has locked onto the idea of a "revival," despite the fact the Joseph himself never called the "excitement" a revival.

Additional information

• Were there revivals in 1820?—Critics claim that there were no religious revivals in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820, contrary to Joseph Smith's claims that during that year there was "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion...indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it" (Link)

• Methodist camp meetings in the Palmyra area—Critics claim that any association Joseph had with Methodism did not occur until the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra, and that his claim that the "unusual excitement" started with the Methodists in 1820 is therefore incorrect. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Hyrum, Samuel, Katherine, and Joseph's mother, Lucy, became members of the Presbyterian church after one of these revivals but his father would not join because of some feelings engendered at Alvin's funeral. Thus, by implication, these family members joined near the time of Alvin's death [in November 1823]. Lucy Smith, in her account, indicated that she and several of her family became interested in joining with a church shortly after Alvin's death. This would indicate that they probably joined the Presbyterian church early in 1824.

FairMormon commentary

•   Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
  
• This claim is false. The "Smith family" did not join the Presbyterian church; Joseph's mother and a few siblings did. Lucy discusses another group to which she was attracted after the First Vision. She and much of the family was inclined thereto: Joseph was not.

Quotes to consider

• Lucy Mack Smith even reports what Joseph told her:

Shortly after the death of Alvin, 'a man commenced labouring in the neigbourhood, to effect a union of the different churches [note that this is not the Presbyterians], in order that all might be agreed, and thus worship God with one heart and with one mind.

This scented about right to me, and I felt much inclined to join in with them; in fact, the most of the family appeared quite disposed to unite with their numbers; but Joseph, from the first, utterly refused even to attend their meetings, saying, "Mother, I do not wish to prevent your going to meeting, or any of the rest of the family's; or your joining any church you please; but, do not ask me to join them. I can take my Bible, and go into the woods, and learn more in two hours, than you can learn at meeting in two years, if you should go all the time."

To gratify me, my husband attended some two or three meetings, but peremptorily refused going any more, either for my gratification, or any other person's.

[p.91] During this excitement, Joseph would say, it would do us no injury to join them, that if we did, we should not continue with them long, for we were mistaken in them, and did not know the wickedness of their hearts.^[6] (emphasis added)

• Lucy and some siblings were Presbyterian members, but this was prior to Joseph's First Vision:^[7]

[48] [Prior to Joseph Smith Sr. losing his farm in Vermont around 1802] I heard that a very devout man was to preach the next Sabbath in the Presbyterian Church; I therefore went to meeting, in the full expectation of hearing that which my soul desired—the Word of Life. When the minister commenced speaking, I fixed my mind with deep attention upon the spirit and matter of his discourse; but, after hearing him through, I returned home, convinced that he neither understood nor appreciated the subject upon which he spoke, and I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and, taking Jesus and his disciples for my guide, to endeavour to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away. Notwithstanding this, I would hear all that could be said, as well as read much that was written, on the subject of religion; but the Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation. This course I pursued a number of years. At length I considered it my duty to be baptized, and, finding a minister who was willing to baptize me, and leave me free in regard to joining any religious denomination, I stepped forward and yielded obedience to this ordinance; after [p.49] which I continued to read the Bible as formerly, until my eldest son had attained his twenty-second year....^[8]

• MormonThink is confusing the two. They do not understand the documents well at all. Why not?

Additional information

• Lucy Mack Smith and the Presbyterians—Critics claim that since there was a religious revival in Palmyra, New York in 1824-25 which appears to match details of Joseph Smith's official Church history, he must have mistakenly mixed this event in with his narrative about what happened in 1820, and that the Prophet's mother joined the Presbyterian church after Alvin Smith died in late 1823. This contradicts Joseph's statement that she joined in 1820, thereby dating Joseph's First Vision to no earlier than 1823. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
In the first history of Mormonism from 1835 written under Joseph Smith's direction, it says that the night of September 1823 Joseph Smith began praying in his bed to learn "the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him." (LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Feb. 1835) How could that possibly make sense if Smith had already seen God face-to-face some three years earlier in 1820?

FairMormon commentary

•   Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
  
• This source does not say that Joseph Smith was trying to find out if there was a God.
• Joseph was seeking for:

1. a full manifestation of divine "approbation" [or acceptance in the eyes of God, not in a God he doesn't already believe in] and
2. for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist [a parenthetical aside rather than a question Joseph was asking], to have an assurance that he was accepted of [H]im [Joseph was seeking reassurance as to his own standing with God]."

Additional information

• Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in 1823?—Critics claim that according to a historical document published in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835 the Prophet Joseph Smith did not know if God existed in the year 1823. This text, therefore, provides evidence that Joseph Smith simply made up the story about the First Vision happening in the year 1820. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Records show that in June of 1828, Joseph Smith applied for membership in his wife's Methodist Church. He also joined Methodist classes taught there. (The Amboy Journal, Amboy, IL, details Smith's activity in the Methodist Church in 1828. April 30, 1879 p. 1; May 21, 1879 p.1; June 11, 1879, p.1; July 2, 1879 p.1.)

FairMormon commentary

• The "records" are a late recollection by Hiel and Joseph Lewis; they do not say that Joseph "applied for membership." These are not church records (as one might assume from MormonThink's description) but a hostile recollection from some cousins of Emma Smith long after the fact.
• They say that the Methodist minister inscribed Joseph's name in the class book, and when the "official members" found out about this, they made certain that any association with Joseph was quickly severed.
• Did you know that Methodists required people to be investigators ("probationers") for at least six months prior to becoming members? How did Joseph Smith manage to do this in three days (which is how long the sources used by MormonThink says his name was in the class book)?
• Why doesn't MormonThink even mention these sources?

Additional information

• Do Hiel and Jospeh Lewis' account match with claims that Joseph was a member of the Methodists?—A review of the requirements of Methodist membership (at least six months probation), the necessity of baptism, and rules about how lapsed members were to be handled all make the claim that Joseph was a Methodist implausible. (Link)

• Did Joseph join other churches contrary to commandment in vision?—Critics charge that Joseph Smith joined the Methodist, Presbyterian, or Baptist churches between 1820 and 1830—despite the claim made in his 1838 history that he was forbidden by Deity (during the 1820 First Vision experience) from joining any denomination. Unfortunately for the critics, these late sources are contradicted by multiple sources that are much closer in time to the period in question. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Numerous changes to the first edition of the Book of Mormon were made for its 2nd edition.... of the nearly 4,000 alterations, some of them had to do with Joseph's evolving belief about the nature of God. Notice how these verses changed from indicating that Jesus was God the Father to Jesus being the Son of God.

FairMormon commentary

• The addition of "the Son of" to four passages in 1 Nephi does not change the Book of Mormon's teaching that Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel. This concept is taught in more than a dozen other passages whose readings remain unchanged from the original manuscripts. For example:

Quotes to consider

• • "And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself...as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up...and to be crucified...and to be buried in a sepulchre...." (1 Nephi 19:10)
  • "...he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth." (Mosiah 7:27)
  • "Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father." (Mosiah 16:15)
  • "Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Alma 11:38-39)
• There are many, many other examples: 2 Nephi 25:12; Mosiah 3:8; Mosiah 13:28,33-34; Mosiah 15:1; Helaman 8:22-23; Helaman 14:12; Helaman 16:18; 3 Nephi 11:10,14; Mormon 9:12; Ether 3:14; Ether 4:7; Ether 4:12.)
• It is simply illogical to conclude that Joseph Smith changed the four passages in 1 Nephi to conform to his supposed changing theological beliefs, but somehow forgot to change all the others.

Additional information

• "the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40—Critics charge that the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God," but in later editions this was changed to "the Son of God." They cite this as evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity. They claim Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Numerous changes to the first edition of the Book of Mormon were made for its 2nd edition. LDS leaders would have you believe it is all punctuation and grammar corrections but of the nearly 4,000 alterations, some of them had to do with Joseph's evolving belief about the nature of God. (emphasis added)

FairMormon commentary

• If "LDS leaders" are trying to get members to believe that all the Book of Mormon changes were "punctuation and grammar corrections," why do they publish statements like the following in the Ensign?

Quotes to consider

• "In a few places, however, Joseph Smith did intentionally add to the text to clarify a point. An illustration of this is the added words the son of in 1 Nephi 11:21, 32, and 13:40. The text would be correct with or without the additional words, but the addition helps the reader avoid misunderstanding." - George Horton, "Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon," Ensign (December 1983).
• "Some have alleged that these books of revelation are false, and they place in evidence changes that have occurred in the texts of these scriptures since their original publication. They cite these changes, of which there are many examples, as though they themselves were announcing revelation. As though they were the only ones that knew of them. Of course there have been changes and corrections. Anyone who has done even limited research knows that. When properly reviewed, such corrections become a testimony for, not against, the truth of the books....Now, I add with emphasis that such changes have been basically minor refinements in grammar, expression, punctuation, clarification. Nothing fundamental has been altered. Why are they not spoken of over the pulpit? Simply because by comparison they are so insignificant, and unimportant as literally to be not worth talking about. After all, they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the books are true." -Boyd K. Packer, "We Believe All That God Has Revealed," Ensign (May 1974): 94.
• Once again, the crafty LDS leaders are hiding matters by publishing them in the official magazine, and then sending a copy to each home.
• Other Church-produced or -published sources include:
  • "Intentional additions to improve clarity: The most dramatic instance of clarifying a text is found at 1 Nephi 11:18, 21, 32 and 13:40, where the words "the son of" have been added before the names God and "the Eternal Father." Joseph Smith personally made these corrections in the 1837 edition. Given the fact that these texts are clearly talking about Jesus, the Son of God, the addition of "the son of" was appropriate to give additional clarity for the reader." - George A. Horton, Jr., "Book of Mormon—Transmission from Translator to Printed Text," in Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture, edited by Paul R. Cheesman (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, Co., 1988}, 249.
  • Royal Skousen (editor), The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon : typographical facsimile of the extant text [Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, Vol. 1] (Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University, 2001). ISBN 0934893047.
  • Royal Skousen (editor), The Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon : typographical facsimile of the entire text in two parts [Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, Vol. 2, Part 1: 1 Nephi 1–Alma 17] (Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University, 2001). ISBN 0934893055.
  • Royal Skousen (editor), The Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon : typographical facsimile of the entire text in two parts [Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, Vol. 2, Part 2: Alma 18–Moroni 10] (Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, Brigham Young University, 2001). ISBN 0934893063.

Additional information

• "the Son of" added to 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32, and 1 Nephi 13:40—Critics charge that the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus as "God," but in later editions this was changed to "the Son of God." They cite this as evidence that Joseph Smith changed the Book of Mormon to conform to his changing beliefs about the Trinity. They claim Joseph was originally a solid Trinitarian (perhaps even a Modalist), and as he later began to teach that the Father and Son were two separate beings, he had to change the Book of Mormon to support his new doctrine. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Originally the Doctrine and Covenants contained the Lectures on Faith, accepted as doctrine by Joseph Smith in 1835. The Fifth Lecture on Faith (I think these lectures were actually part of the D & C until the church removed them in 1920) specifically states that the Father is a spirit, that only Jesus has a body, and that the Holy Ghost is the Mind of the Father and the Son. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon promoted this as doctrine in 1835. Yet the whole foundation of the church rests on the reality of the 1820 first vision that proves a different Godhead.

FairMormon commentary

• There is no documentary evidence that indicates exactly when Joseph Smith learned that God the Father had a glorified and perfected body of flesh and bone. And, despite our typical assumptions, there is also no indication that Joseph learned any such thing during his 1820 First Vision.
• Regardless of when this revelation was bestowed upon the Prophet, it cannot be established beyond doubt that he was responsible for the teaching about the "spirit" nature of God found in the main text of lecture #5. It may, instead, be true that the Prophet was involved in adjusting the lecture #5 text to conform with his earlier work on the translation of the Bible.

Additional information

• Is the Father embodied or a spirit?—When the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1835 it portrayed God the Father as a personage of spirit whereas Jesus Christ was portrayed as a personage of tabernacle, or one having a physical body. Yet the official LDS First Vision story portrays the Father as a physical Being. Critics claim that this is evidence of an evolution of story; and that the evolution of this story is evidence of fraud. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Another potential evidence that Joseph Smith did not see the Father and the Son in 1820, to those who believe in the restoration of the Priesthood, is the fact that in the year 1832 Joseph Smith claimed to have a revelation which stated that a man could not see God without the Priesthood. This revelation is published as Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

FairMormon commentary
When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context then an interpretation emerges that does not support the one proposed by the Prophet's critics. The relevant words read:

[19] "And this greater [i.e., Melchizedek] priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. [20] Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. [21] And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; [22] For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."

The word "this" in verse 22 does not refer to the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather to "the power of godliness."^[9] One of the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood is the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (see DC 49꞉14). As the Lord explained in an 1831 revelation, "no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God" (DC 67꞉11).

Additional information

• D&C:84 says God cannot be seen without priesthood—Critics argue that Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God in 1820 and also claimed that he received the priesthood in 1829. But in a text which he produced in 1832 (DC 84꞉21-22) it is said that a person cannot see God without holding the priesthood. Therefore, critics claim that Joseph Smith contradicted himself and this counts as evidence against his calling as an authentic prophet of God. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
It appears that The only thing Joseph Smith said that was perhaps really unique was that God the Father had a body of "flesh and bone". But who can say if he is correct or not? Even if Joseph was the first person to propose something, it is very flawed logic to assume what he proposed is true or that he is a prophet for proposing it - especially when it can't be proven one way or another.

FairMormon commentary

• Well, the interesting thing is that Joseph never said anything about the personages having "flesh and bone" in his accounts of his vision. That teaching came later.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Also, Joseph is often credited with being the first person to claim that there are three degrees of glory (which no one knows is right or wrong anyway). But this concept has also been around a long time. In 1784, Emanuel Swedenborg wrote a book called Heaven and Hell and Its Wonders about his visions of the afterlife. Swedenborg insisted: "There are three heavens," described as "entirely distinct from each other." He called the highest heaven "the Celestial Kingdom," and stated that the inhabitants of the three heavens corresponded to the "sun, moon and stars."

FairMormon commentary

• Swedenborg was hardly the first theologian or thinker to suggest that heavenly rewards were not all identical, but graduated into degrees of glory. The discussion and debate about the fate of the righteous in heaven goes back to the earliest Christian centuries.
• The charge that Swedenborg was Joseph's source was not even mentioned by those who disliked both Joseph and Swedenborg, and knew both works. Elements in Joseph's schema are present in the Bible, but not present in Swedenborg's model. The claim of "similarity" rests on a few superficial similarities between Joseph and Swedenborg and the Bible—and ignores the many marked differences between them.
• Even if one is not inclined to grant Joseph Smith prophetic status, it seems far more plausible that his view of a three-tiered heaven derives from the New Testament, and not from Swedenborg.

Additional information

• Swedenborg—Critics claim that Joseph Smith derived the idea of "three degrees of glory" in the afterlife from Emanuel Swedenborg's book, Heaven and its Wonders and Hell From Things Heard and Seen (1758). Critics also claim that Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage was similar to Swedenborg's philosophy of "spiritual wifery."
• You can read the source here: Heaven and Hell or, Heaven and its Wonders and Hell (1905) by Emanuel Swedenborg, translated by John C. Ager (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The different versions of the First Vision. The following is as close to an official response from the LDS Church that we could find: Ensign Article See the January 1985 issue of The Ensign on the church's web site. The site does not allow a direct link to the article. You'll have to use the index, just cut and paste the following into your web browser: http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm Church Publications/Magazines/Ensign/1985/January Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision by Milton V. Backman, Jr.

FairMormon commentary

• This is bizarre: You mean it doesn't allow this direct link?

Milton Backman Jr., "Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision," Ensign, January 1985.

• We found this by searching lds.org just like for any other article.
• Try Googling "Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision"—that also brings up a direct link to the article on lds.org as the first Google search result.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
It is obvious by the above statements by church leaders that the First Vision did not happen in the way the Church portrays. The church would have you believe that Joseph had the vision in 1820 and that it has always been the central part of the LDS faith. In fact the one, simple, plain truth that every member that joined the church should have known is that God the Father and Jesus Christ were separate beings. We take this for granted now but this wasn't firmly established until over 15 years after the event supposedly occurred.

FairMormon commentary

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Joseph recounted how the visitation of the angel Moroni happened on September 21, 1823. An interesting question - how is it that JS could remember the precise date of the angel's visit in 1823, but could not remember the precise date of God's appearance to him in 1820?

FairMormon commentary

• Because he was 14 years old. He probably didn't even know the date.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
We can accept that Joseph wanted to fellowship with other believers in Christ even if he didn't believe their doctrine. So we don't have a problem if Joseph merely attended an occasional Methodist church service. Most of us involved with MormonThink don't think that this particular problem with the First Vision is as serious as some critics claim. However we are somewhat disturbed if he actually tried to officially join the Methodist Church as God specifically told him not to....Joseph was welcomed, not persecuted by the Methodists.

FairMormon commentary

•   Repetition   —Critics often repeat the same claim again and again, as if repetition improved their argument. Or, they use the same 'shock-quote' multiple times.
  
•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  

MormonThink has above quoted the Amboy Journal of 1879 in an attempt to prove that Joseph joined the Methodists in 1828. Why do they not report what the Methodists did to Joseph within three days of him attending?
Quotes to consider

...while he, Smith, was in Harmony, Pa., translating his book....that he joined the M[ethodist] [Episocpal] church. He presented himself in a very serious and humble manner, and the minister, not suspecting evil, put his name on the class book, the absence of some of the official members, among whom was the undersigned, Joseph Lewis, who, when he learned what was done, took with him Joshua McKune, and had a talk with Smith. They told him plainly that such a character as he was a disgrace to the church, that he could not be a member of the church unless he broke off his sins by repentance, made public confession, renounced his fraudulent and hypocritical practices, and gave some evidence that he intended to reform and conduct himself somewhat nearer like a christian than he had done. They gave him his choice, to go before the class, and publicly ask to have his name stricken from the class book, or stand a disciplinary investigation. He chose the former, and immediately withdrew his name. So his name as a member of the class was on the book only three days.--It was the general opinion that his only object in joining the church was to bolster up his reputation and gain the sympathy and help of christians; that is, putting on the cloak of religion to serve the devil in.^[10]

• Given that Lewis says he arranged Joseph's ouster from the group within three days as soon as he heard of it, and that most people assumed Joseph was only trying to "build his reputation," to "serve the devil in," despite coming "in a very serious and humble manner" this does not sound at all like he was "welcomed...by the Methodists."
• And, remember that this late recollection is the only mention of Joseph being a Methodist at all. Several sources that are much earlier (from both friendly and hostile witnesses) assert that Joseph never joined a church.

Additional information

• Persecution after the vision?—Some claim that there is no evidence that Joseph or his family were persecuted because of the First Vision. They argue that this means that Joseph invented the story later. (Link)

• Do Hiel and Jospeh Lewis' account match with claims that Joseph was a member of the Methodists?—A review of the requirements of Methodist membership (at least six months probation), the necessity of baptism, and rules about how lapsed members were to be handled all make the claim that Joseph was a Methodist implausible. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
How do we know that it wasn't Satan (if he exists) that appeared to Joseph? Please read this insightful essay to see how Satan can appear as a Heavenly Being as described by Joseph Smith.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is making mutually exclusive claims:  —When critics need an attack against the Church, any excuse will do, even if they are mutually self-contradictory: if one argument is true, the other cannot be.
  
• The editors at MormonThink have spent a considerable amount of effort demonstrating the God really doesn't exist, but just to make sure every base is covered, they are going to suggest that it might have been Satan that appeared? If, of course, he exists. Any source will do as long as it leads to a disbelief in the Church, is that it?
• MormonThink has spent a great deal of time claiming that Joseph deceived people; now they want to turn around and claim he did see a vision, but it was satanic?

Additional information

• Moroni as an "angel of Satan"—Some critics have charged that Moroni, the resurrected prophet who gave the Book of Mormon plates to Joseph Smith, was really an angel of Satan. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
One of the best summaries and perhaps most plausible explanations for the various issues surrounding Joseph's First Vision, can be found in the last chapter of LDS Church Education System teacher Grant Palmer's book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins. After presenting an impressive series of well-documented arguments against the traditional version we've all been taught in the church, the author proposes a very plausible explanation: "After a mass exodus of high-ranking church leaders including several apostles, all three special witnesses of the BOM and three of the eight witnesses to the BOM, Joseph took to reestablishing his authority. He made many changes to the church including changing the name of the church. He began by attacking those who were circulating unsavory "reports" regarding "the rise and progress of the Church", then told a revised and more impressive version of his epiphany.

FairMormon commentary

• MormonThink describes Palmer as an "LDS Church Education System teacher." Palmer was disfellowshipped and then left the Church. Why doesn't MormonThink tell us that?
• This argument is a reference to the Kirtland crisis of 1837–38. Warren Parrish was considered by some of the Saints to be the ringleader of the Kirtland crisis. It is, therefore, all the more interesting that it was this same Warren Parrish who acted as scribe in recording a First Vision recital given by the Prophet Joseph Smith on 9 November 1835. When Parrish's 1835 account of the theophany is compared to the 1838 account it becomes glaringly obvious that the story did not change over time, as the critics would like everyone to believe.
• But, Joseph didn't just write the experience down in 1835, he was telling other people about it. This had nothing to do with "reestablishing his authority" three years later.
• Why is Palmer the first person to figure this out? If apostles and the Book of Mormon witnesses were at odds with Joseph, surely they knew what story Joseph had been telling them all along? They were very close to him from the beginning, especially people like Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer. Why did none of these men notice what Palmer wants us to accept? Why did none of them say, "Hey, Joseph, you're changing your story?" Quite simply because he didn't, and so it didn't even occur to them. Otherwise, they'd have been quick to point it out.

Quotes to consider

• From Joseph's journal:

14 November 1835 • Saturday
A Gentleman called this after noon by the name of Erastus Holmes of Newbury Clemon [Newberry, Clermont] Co. Ohio, he called to make enquiry about the establishment of the church of the latter-day Saints and to be instructed more perfectly in our doctrine &c I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old and also the visitations that I received afterward, concerning the book of Mormon, and a short account of the rise and progress of the church, up to this, date he listened verry attentively and seemed highly gratified, and intends to unite with the Church he is a verry candid man indeed and I am much pleased with him.

Additional information

• 1838 account modified to offset leadership crisis?—Critics claim that in 1838 Joseph Smith revised his personal history to say that his original call came from God the Father and Jesus Christ rather than an angel. His motive for doing this was to give himself a stronger leadership role because an authority crisis had recently taken place and large-scale apostasy was the result. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Now whenever we go out with missionaries (some of us actually still do that) as they teach the First Vision, it makes us wonder what really happened to Joseph? Did he see God the Father and Jesus or just Jesus or just angels and which of the many reported circumstances surrounding the First Vision actually occurred?

FairMormon commentary

• We don't think that MormonThink's webmaster goes out with the missionaries any more.
• None of Joseph's accounts state that he saw just angels. One account states that in addition to the two personages, that he saw "many angels."

Quotes to consider

• From Joseph's journal dated 9 November, 1835:

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 testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and I saw many angels in this vision I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication.

• Then, just five days later on 14 November, 1835, Joseph wrote the following in his journal:

I commenced and gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from 6 years old up to the time I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old.

• It is unlikely Joseph changed his story between the 9th and 14th of November. It is obvious that he interchangeably used the word "Angels" (Note the capitalization) and "personages."
• You may read the primary source here: Primary sources/Joseph Smith, Jr./First Vision accounts/1835
• Once again, no one in Joseph's day called him on the obvious "contradiction" that MormonThink wants us to accept. Why not? There was no contradiction to notice.

== Notes ==

1. [note] Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 41.
2. [note] Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 40-41.
3. [note]  Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool, S.W. Richards, 1853), 90-91.
4. [note]  Note that Lucy quotes Joseph's report that his mother and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian faith prior to his vision in Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches, 74.
5. [note]  Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches, 48.
6. [note]  Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches, 90-91.
7. [note]  Note that Lucy quotes Joseph's report that his mother and four siblings were members of the Presbyterian faith prior to his vision in Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches, 74.
8. [note]  Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches, 48.