CLAIM: Joseph Smith said that a mortal person had to have the priesthood in order to see God and live. But since he didn't have the priesthood in 1820 he could not have really seen God as he claimed.
|
|
When D&C 84:21-22 is analyzed in context, it is apparent that the critics have misread LDS scripture. The pertinent passage says:
- [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." This power becomes available to mortals when they become one with the Spirit of God. 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). Joseph Smith described this quickening in several of his First Vision recitations. He was thereby enabled to see God face to face and live.
To read more:
|
CLAIM: Joseph Smith gave nine different accounts of what happened during the First Vision. He just couldn't keep his story straight - even when it came to who his heavenly visitors were.
|
- The first three accounts listed are obviously not about the 1820 First Vision, but rather the 1823 angel Moroni visitation. The critics lump this material together with verifiable First Vision accounts because they want to create the perception of a problem where none exists. They want to make it appear as though Joseph Smith's first claimed visionary experience was of an angel but he later changed it into an encounter with Deity to be more impressive—the angel story then being refashioned as a second meeting with divine beings. The records do not support this scenario.
- The fourth account listed is from an 1832 unpublished history which was written partly by the Prophet himself. Critics focus on the fact that in this text only Jesus Christ is described as making an appearance to Joseph Smith—the Father is mentioned by name but not as a visitor. But they fail to notice that the Father's First Vision testimony is, in fact, mentioned in the opening paragraph of this historical document and it directly precedes the recounting of the First Vision event. And they also do not seem to be aware of the fact that the Prophet deliberately constructed the 1832 narrative to parallel the theophany experienced by the apostle Paul. FAIRWiki link
- The fifth account listed as 1834 was produced by Oliver Cowdery. The critics do not seem to be aware that this two-part narrative (spanning 1834/35) began by telling the orthodox First Vision story but then suddenly switched over to the Book of Mormon story because of a written request made by William W. Phelps. When this document is carefully evaluated its usefulness for the anti-Mormon agenda quickly evaporates. FAIRWiki link
- The sixth account is 1835a. It could also be labeled as the Robert Mathias interview of November 9th. The two personages who are listed as appearing in this recital are obviously the Father and the Son. This becomes apparent when the text is compared to the 1832, 1838, and 1842 accounts.
- 1835a - "another personage soon appeared like unto the first"
- 1842 - "two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness"
- 1835a - "he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
- 1838 - "This is my beloved Son"
- 1835a - "he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee"
- 1832 - "he spake unto me saying, 'Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee'"
- The seventh account is 1835b. It could be referred to as the Erastus Holmes interview of November 14th. This is another instance of trying to create a problem out of thin air. The critics cry "inconsistency" when they point out that the Prophet says in this text that when he was fourteen years old he had his "first visitation of angels." But just five days previous—in the 1835a account—the Prophet stated that he saw "many angels" IN ADDITION TO the two main personages of the vision. Thus, it is proper to say that Joseph Smith's first visitation of angels occurred during the First Vision experience, but they were not the only heavenly beings who were present.
- The eighth account listed is the 1838 recital which was eventually included in the canon of the LDS Church. The two celestial visitants are clearly identifiable in this document as the Father and the Son.
- The ninth account is somewhat difficult to identify in the DVD format because there are no references provided. It could be the 1844 I. Daniel Rupp reprint of the 1842 Wentworth Letter, or it could be the Alexander Neibaur 1844 diary entry. The claim is made in the DVD that the Prophet's visitors are "unidentified" in this account. If this is the Rupp reprint then the comment is irrelevant since the Prophet also published the official Church history in 1842 and the Father and the Son are certainly identifiable in that account. If reference is being made to the Neibaur dairy entry the DVD comment is similarly unimpressive because the Neibaur notes do indeed identify the personages as the Father and the Son.
The DVD fails to mention a substantial number of additional First Vision recitals given during the Prophet's lifetime. Where are the following accounts?
- 1831 sermon by the Prophet reported by Lorenzo Snow
- 1833 remarks by the Prophet reported by John Alger
- 1834 sermon by the Prophet reported by Joseph Curtis and Edward Stevenson
- 1835 missionary statements reported by Samuel Richards
- 1837 sermon by the Prophet reported by Mary Horne
- 1839 interview with the Prophet's parents reported by Wandle Mace
- 1840 missionary pamphlet published by Orson Pratt
- 1842 missionary pamphlet published by Orson Hyde
- 1843 sermon by the Prophet reported by Levi Richards
- 1843 interview with Joseph Smith published in the Pittsburgh Gazette
These eyewitnesses badly damage the anti-Mormon viewpoint on Joseph Smith's First Vision story because they demonstrate consistency in identifying the visitors in the Sacred Grove.
|
CLAIM: Joseph Smith was "known around the country as a fabricator of stories." Even his own mother was concerned about his habit of making things up.
|
|
The claim of Joseph Smith being known "around the country" as a liar is not backed up with any specific reference in the DVD. Joseph's father-in-law is mentioned as a source for this accusation, but the audience is not told that he (Isaac Hale) was an embittered man because Joseph Smith eloped with his daughter when he would not consent to their marriage. Isaac did not believe in the divine calling of his son-in-law but his daughter Emma (Joseph's wife) did because she played an active role in the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and gained a witness of its truthfulness for herself. It is extremely difficult for critics to pretend that Joseph Smith was a bare-faced liar about his divine calling when other people stood in the presence of angels with him, saw the same heavenly visions that he beheld, and heard the audible voice of God at the same time that he did.
The claim of the DVD that Joseph Smith's mother was "concerned" about Joseph telling stories is a case of wrenching a quotation out of proper context. Lucy Mack Smith simply said in her autobiography that her son told the family about information connected with the angel and the Book of Mormon plates (see Anderson, ed., Lucy's Book, 345). Lucy told the same information to Wandle Mace about seven years prior to producing her 1845 autobiography and clarified that this information was connected with the Book of Mormon "Nephites" and was shown to her son by vision.
In Joseph Smith's own official history he confirmed that he learned this information through the power of visions (Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 9, 1 March 1842, 707) and Oliver Cowdery made note of the same thing (Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1, no. 7, April 1835, 112). Thus, the origin of the stories mentioned by Joseph's mother in her autobiography was a heavenly one—she was not even remotely implying that her son was a teller of tall tales.
|
CLAIM: There is inconsistency in Joseph Smith's dating of the First Vision event and also in the message that was said to be delivered during the experience.
|
|
These are oft-repeated charges, despite the fact that they have been repeatedly and publicly debunked.
See the following FAIRwiki, FAIRlds.org, and published articles:
For several detailed charts demonstrating the consistency of the elements contained within Joseph Smith's First Vision recitals see the following:
- Michael R. Ash, "The First Vision PDF link
- James B. Allen and John W. Welch, "The Appearance of the Father and Son to Joseph Smith in 1820," in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations 1820–1844 (Documents in Latter-day Saint History), edited by John W. Welch with Erick B. Carlson, (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press / Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 2005), 56, 60, 62, 66–68. ISBN 0842526072. This book has recently been reprinted, in paperback. BYU Studies and Deseret Book (July 13, 2011)
|
Claim: President Brigham Young "denied that the Lord came to Joseph Smith in the First Vision. Young stated that Joseph had actually been visited by an angel, [who] informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day."
|
|
The edited version of Brigham Young's remarks that critics like to use read as follows:
- "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, 2:171).
Note the use of ellipses in this quote, indicating that information has been left out from the original source. A reading of the unedited quote 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, along with His Son, and then He sent further messengers, just as Brigham stated.
It is clear from other sermons delivered by Brigham Young that he was well aware of the details of the First Vision as published by Joseph Smith in 1842—long before the 1855 address cited above. President Young taught:
- Joseph Smith was 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 involved: JD 12:67–68 (1867).
- Joseph was told the churches were wrong, and not to join any of them: 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 many years before in 1842.
To read more:
For further reading on the First Vision, please see:
|
|
Jump to...
|
Special Features
Other Materials
Other Protestant attacks on the Church of Jesus Christ:
|
|
