The video lists nine different and differing versions of what are purportedly First Vision accounts, hoping to convince the viewer that Joseph couldn't keep his story straight.
|
|
Of these nine accounts of the First Vision, four are very clearly accounts of the later visit of the angel Moroni (the first three mentioned, and the 1834 account). They do not belong in a list of "First Vision" accounts, and represent either extremely sloppy research or a deliberate attempt to deceive.
Of the other five accounts
- 1838 was the one eventually canonized in the Pearl of Great Price.
- 1835 [interview with Joshua, November 9; MS 15 (1853): 396]; and 1844 [presumably the book by I. Daniel Rupp] both refer to "two personages."
We need to ask why the video has ignored:
- the 1843 letter from Joseph Smith to the editor of the Pittsburgh Gazette, which refers to the Father and Son.
- the Wentworth letter, written by Joseph Smith, and published in his lifetime, which also refers to two unidentified personages.
- the Neibaur diary account of a sermon delivered by Joseph Smith in 1844, which also refers to two personages.
Hence, of the eight accounts which actually refer to the First Vision, two refer to the Father and the Son specifically; four others refer simply to "two personages."
This leaves
- the 1832 account, which is a rough draft which uses the same structure as Paul's vision of Christ. The Father is not named specifically, but His words and witness are clearly present. FAIRWiki link
- Erastus Holmes account? November 14 = MS 15 (1853): 424 [needs work]
There is also extensive evidence that Joseph Smith was teaching about two members of the Godhead at a very early date. FAIRWiki link
Through false information, distortion, and refusing to let the documents speak for themselves, the video attempts to manufacture a problem where none exists.
To read more:
|
Claim: "It is most likely these inconsistencies which led Brigham Young in 1855 to preach a sermon in which he denied that the Lord came to Joseph Smith in the First Vision. Young stated that Joseph had actually been visited by an angel which informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day. 'The Lord did not come...but He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith...and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day....' (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2 pg. 171)"
|
|
Note the use of ellipses in this quote, indicating that information has been left out from the original source. A reading of the original source indicates that Brigham Young was not saying that the Lord didn't come—just that the "Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory," to visit Joseph Smith. This is true; He did not. What did He do? He visited simply, with His Son, and then He sent further messengers, just as Brigham states.
It is clear from other sermons by Brigham Young that he was quite aware of the details of the First Vision as published by Joseph Smith in 1842, well before the 1855 address cited above:
- Joseph Smith called at age fourteen: JD 8:353–54 (1861); JD 12:67-68 (1867)
- He was called as a youth: JD 2:171 (1855); JD 7:243 (1859)
- There was a revival or reformation: JD 12:67–68 (1867)
- He was told the churches were wrong, and not to join any church: JD 2:171 (1855); JD 12:67–68 (1867)
Late in his life Brigham Young stated:
- Why was Joseph Smith persecuted? Why was he hunted from neighborhood to neighborhood, from city to city, and from State to State, and at last suffered death? Because he received revelations from the Father, from the Son, and was ministered to by holy angels.
- —Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 18:231. off-site wiki (17 September 1876)
The charge that President Brigham Young said an angel inaugurated the last dispensation instead of Deity cannot be supported. Evidence suggests that President Young's 1855 sermon is closely paraphrasing distinct First Vision story elements that were publicly available to all of the Saints in 1842.
To read more:
|
The video tries to imply that not much was known about the First Vision among early members.
|
|
This idea is ridiculous, and easily shown to be false. However, the video did not avail itself of any of the dozens of documents which show they are wrong.
To read more:
|
QUESTION
|
|
ANSWER
To read more:
|
QUESTION
|
|
ANSWER
To read more:
|
QUESTION
|
|
ANSWER
To read more:
|
|
|
