Joseph Smith's Four Accounts of the First Vision

[Nevo]

Hi Consig,

At the risk of adding another "thread stopper," here is a brief synopsis I compiled of the messages in the various accounts:

• 1832: "I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life <behold> the world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned aside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to thir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which <hath> been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] written of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father" ("Joseph Smith History, 1832," in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. [salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996-2004], 1:28).
  
• 1835: "he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" ("Joseph Smith Recital to Robert Matthews, 9 November 1835," EMD 1:44)
  
• 1839: "I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right . . . and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said that all their Creeds were an abomination in his sight, that those professors were all corrupt, that 'they draw near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me, They teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. He again forbade me to join with any of them and many other things did he say unto me which I cannot write at this time" ("Joseph Smith History, 1839," EMD 1:61).
  
• 1840: "He was informed, that his sins were forgiven. He was also informed upon the subjects, which had for some time previously agitated his mind, viz.--that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines; and, consequently, that none of them was acknowledged of God, as his church and kingdom. And he was expressly commanded, to go not after them; and he received a promise that the true doctrine--the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him; after which the vision withdrew" ("Orson Pratt Account, 1840," EMD 1:151)
  
• 1842a: "They informed him that his prayers had been answered and that the Lord had decided to grant him a special blessing. He was also told that he should not join any of the religious sects or denominations, because all of them were mistaken in their doctrine and not recognized by God as his church and kingdom. He was further commanded to wait patiently until a future time, when the true doctrine of Christ and the fullness of the gospel should be revealed to him" ("Orson Hyde Account, 1842," EMD 1:163; translated from German by Dan Vogel).
  
• 1842b: "They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to 'go not after them,' at the same time receiving a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me" ("Joseph Smith to John Wentworth, 1 March 1842," EMD 1:170).
  
• 1843a: "I then, addressed this second person, saying, 'O Lord, what Church shall I join.' He replied, 'don't join any of them, they are all corrupt.' The vision then vanished. . . ." ("Joseph Smith Interview with David White, 29 August 1843," EMD 1:182).
  
• 1843b: "They told me that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to 'go not after them,' at the same time receiving a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me" ("Joseph Smith to I. Daniel Rupp, 1843," EMD 1:184).
  
• 1844: "Mr Smith then asked must I join the Methodist Church--No--They are not my People, [they] have gone astray there is none doeth good no not one, but this is my Beloved son, harken ye him, the fire drew nigher Rested upon the tree enveloped him comforted Indeavored to arise but felt uncommon feeble . . . ." ("Joseph Smith Recital to Alexander Neibaur, 24 May 1844," EMD 1:190).
  

I found it interesting that Joseph's letters to Wentworth and Rupp relied, in large part, on Orson Pratt's wording. Neibaur's diary version is interesting in that it contains a description of the first personage "in the fire": "light complexion blue eyes a peice of white cloth drawn over his shoulder his right arm bear . . ."

[Lamanite]

Sig,

I Welch's, Opening the Heavens he uses thse fancy editor markings used when transcribing original documents; <> {} [] beyond beheld etc. I have no idea how to decipher this stuff.

Welch's 1838 account reads, "One of <them> spake unto me..." pg 15

Any English comp majors out there that can tell me what that means?

BIg UP!

Lamanite

[consiglieri]

I was struck by the repetition of the phrase, "They told me that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom." It first appears in Orson Pratt's account and Joseph appropriates it twice in later written accounts. Neibaur's diary version is interesting in that it contains a description of the first personage "in the fire": "light complexion blue eyes a peice of white cloth drawn over his shoulder his right arm bear . . ."

Thanks for the thread-stopper, Nevo!

And great comments, as usual!

Neibaur's version is interesting, I agree, especially since he recorded it in his personal journal dated May 24, 1844, as having heard it directly from Joseph Smith, to whom he taught German and Hebrew.

Cheesman quotes it on page 25 of his book, but doesn't want to look into the interesting details, merely saying after the quote, "As in the case of other secondhand accounts, there are some astonishing embellishments in this diary, but the major point--the appearance of two persons--is still there."

I think that, given the provenance of the Neibaur quote, the details he mentions deserve a little more attention.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[emeliza]

BTW. It is not a debate, it is what happened. I can not believe the whitewashing.

The debate would be over why it happened, not that it did happen. As for the whitewashing, I think you must be relatively new to religion in general. I grew up Presbyterian. We didn't talk about anything really that Calvin or Knox had done. In fact we barely brought them up at all even though their intrepretations were what we ended up following. Generally speaking we just stuck with the scriptures and creeds, but we never spoke of how the creeds came about. I never thought of it as whitewashing and I still don't. They focused on the gospel. Why should the CoJCoLDS be any different.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Sig,

I Welch's, Opening the Heavens he uses thse fancy editor markings used when transcribing original documents; <> {} [] beyond beheld etc. I have no idea how to decipher this stuff.

Welch's 1838 account reads, "One of <them> spake unto me..." pg 15

Any English comp majors out there that can tell me what that means?

BIg UP!

Lamanite

IIRC such a thing indicates an above-the-line insertion of a word. Check the front of the book where it explains the editorial marks but I am pretty sure that is what it indicates in that book.

Bravo for a great thread.

[Lamanite]

[*]1844: "Mr Smith then asked must I join the Methodist Church--No--They are not my People, [they] have gone astray there is none doeth good no not one, but this is my Beloved son, harken ye him, the fire drew nigher Rested upon the tree enveloped him comforted Indeavored to arise but felt uncommon feeble . . . ." ("Joseph Smith Recital to Alexander Neibaur, 24 May 1844," EMD 1:190).

Neibaur was a Jewish speaking German who taught Joseph both languages to Joseph. Reports are that he was still struggling with the English language at the time he recorded his entry in his diary. Also the you've transposed the events of the "methodist" statement and the "theophany" from the original document. There is also a portion of the page missing after "comforted" so it doesn't read congruently to "Indeavored".

Not sure if he's the most reliable source.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

IIRC such a thing indicates an above-the-line insertion of a word. Check the front of the book where it explains the editorial marks but I am pretty sure that is what it indicates in that book.

Bravo for a great thread.

I looked for a key to the editor markings. BUPKIS!

edit to add: the section from Welchs' book that I'm working from was written by Jessee

edit to add: the key was found hidden in the last paragraph of the section heading. I use "hidden" to somehow absolve myself of any overt acts of idiocy.

[stn9]

It is ridiculous that we can not tell the whole truth in the True Church.

Are you serious? I wonder why so many people feel this way (I see this idea expressed quite often around here). Have you ever tried to get through 3 major doctrines in a block of text in a 45 min gospel doctrine class?

Firstly, we don't even know the whole truth but only that portion which has been revealed or which we can get at through methods of historical inquiry; secondly, there is never enough time on any given Sunday meeting to mention the portion of the truth which we do have on any given subject; thirdly, we are commanded to reveal truth only as mankind or even just the Church as a whole is ready for it as directed in these scriptures:

D&C 84:85

Neither take ye thought beforehand what ye shall say; but treasure up in your minds continually the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion that shall be meted unto every man.

D&C 41:6

For it is not meet that the things which belong to the children of the kingdom should be given to them that are not worthy, or to dogs, or the pearls to be cast before swine.

D&C 6:9

Say nothing but repentance unto this generation;...

Well, maybe the Lord really meant to say: "Say nothing but repentance unto this generation; oh, and you should also preach the following: The history of religious revivals in upstate New York, 1810-1830 and whether Joseph Smith could have been influenced by such revivals during the years he said he was; treasure seeking in early American history; how the Three and Eight Witnesses were fooled, were co-conspirators, or men who were testifying truthfully; etc."

[lostindc]

Are you serious? I wonder why so many people feel this way (I see this idea expressed quite often around here). Have you ever tried to get through 3 major doctrines in a block of text in a 45 min gospel doctrine class?

...

Well, maybe the Lord really meant to say: "Say nothing but repentance unto this generation; oh, and you should also preach the following: The history of religious revivals in upstate New York, 1810-1830 and whether Joseph Smith could have been influenced by such revivals during the years he said he was; treasure seeking in early American history; how the Three and Eight Witnesses were fooled, were co-conspirators, or men who were testifying truthfully; etc."

Now thats funny and truthful

[Lamanite]

edit:delete

[stn9]

These kinds of threads make my head hurt. The fact that one can go "too far" indicates trouble with the veracity of the accounts. Someone asking "how far is too far" is like a parent saying "how far do I have to stretch the truth to keep my kids believing in Santa," while at the same time still believing in Santa.

If Joseph was telling the truth, then there is no such thing as "too far." There is only a "too far" if Joseph was lying, you know he was lying, and you want to protect naive members from testimony damaging information.

Asking how far is too far may be something as simple as "What can I cover in 45 mins?" or "How many criticisms about the different accounts can I reasonably address in one lesson?" or "How far from the lesson manual can I go without people objecting to the bishop?" or "Do I include in the discussion only accoutns dictated or written by Joseph Smith or do I include account from Pratt and others?" or "Do I bring up every difference between the accounts and let them decide which are important for us to discuss as a class?" or "Do I even bring up criticisms at all?" or "Do I merely mention the different accounts, where to easily find them, and leave it up to interested individuals to research it on their own?" or "How far from the intent of the lesson will I be if I focus on different accounts instead of on the doctrines we derive from the First Vision?" or "How far should I go in the details, such as the scholarly debate about the dating of religious revivals in the Palmyra area from 1815 to 1827?" or "Do I have a discussion about using primary v. secondary sources, contemporary v. late sources, and friendly v. hostile sources so the class can properly assess the value of each account?" And I could probably think of a dozen more questions that don't imply Joseph was lying.

So, consig, what did you mean by asking how far is too far?

[Shadowolf]

Are you serious? I wonder why so many people feel this way (I see this idea expressed quite often around here). Have you ever tried to get through 3 major doctrines in a block of text in a 45 min gospel doctrine class?

Firstly, we don't even know the whole truth but only that portion which has been revealed or which we can get at through methods of historical inquiry; secondly, there is never enough time on any given Sunday meeting to mention the portion of the truth which we do have on any given subject; thirdly, we are commanded to reveal truth only as mankind or even just the Church as a whole is ready for it as directed in these scriptures:

D&C 84:85

Neither take ye thought beforehand what ye shall say; but treasure up in your minds continually the words of life, and it shall be given you in the very hour that portion that shall be meted unto every man.

D&C 41:6

For it is not meet that the things which belong to the children of the kingdom should be given to them that are not worthy, or to dogs, or the pearls to be cast before swine.

D&C 6:9

Say nothing but repentance unto this generation;...

Well, maybe the Lord really meant to say: "Say nothing but repentance unto this generation; oh, and you should also preach the following: The history of religious revivals in upstate New York, 1810-1830 and whether Joseph Smith could have been influenced by such revivals during the years he said he was; treasure seeking in early American history; how the Three and Eight Witnesses were fooled, were co-conspirators, or men who were testifying truthfully; etc."

I think the key to the first vision account is that the prophet himself set the record straight between all the accounts. He took the time to tell it as he best recollected. He is telling us: if you really want to know what happened here it is plain and simple ( "...so far as I have such fact in my possesion")

JSH verses 1 and 2:

1 Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of aLatter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to militate against its character as a Church and its progress in the worldâ??I have been induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind, and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the bfacts, as they have transpired, in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession.

2 In this history I shall present the various events in relation to this Church, in truth and righteousness, as they have transpired, or as they at present exist, being now [1838] the aeighth byear since the organization of the said Church.

Why we go around trying to figure out what he meant on each account is beyond me, when we are getting it from the prophet's mouth, specifically to do just that, remove doubts and clarify his version of the first vision

Just my two cents

Thanks

Shadowolf

[Lamanite]

Muchado about nothing. Sig you were right on the button. Sorry about that. I compared the wrong portion of the text.

Jessee does indeed include the phrase"or one of them did". The only editorial mark was that of "<un>to me" in that section of the text.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[emeliza]

I am really interested to see how this lesson goes and wondering what my teacher will choose to do.

[Lamanite]

I am really interested to see how this lesson goes and wondering what my teacher will choose to do.

Tell me about it. I've got enough information in front of me to lecture for 6 hours. Perhaps I'll share my testimony and dismiss the class

Big UP Em!

Lamanite

[cdowis]

Nevo, thanks very much.

[Nevo]

Neibaur was a Jewish speaking German who taught Joseph both languages to Joseph. Reports are that he was still struggling with the English language at the time he recorded his entry in his diary. Also the you've transposed the events of the "methodist" statement and the "theophany" from the original document. There is also a portion of the page missing after "comforted" so it doesn't read congruently to "Indeavored".

Not sure if he's the most reliable source.

Who reports that Neibaur was "still struggling with the English language" in 1844? His English looks fine to me. As for transposing the "events of the 'methodist' statement and the 'theophany' from the original document," I have no idea what you are talking about. And the page is torn before the word "comforted," not after--so the word "Indeavored" does immediately follow "comforted." Neibaur's diary entry, apparently written the same day he heard Joseph tell the story, is probably a good deal more reliable than later second-hand reminiscences (from Edward Stevenson and others).

[stn9]

Who reports that Neibaur was "still struggling with the English language" in 1844? His English looks fine to me. As for transposing the "events of the 'methodist' statement and the 'theophany' from the original document," I have no idea what you are talking about. And the page is torn before the word "comforted," not after--so the word "Indeavored" does immediately follow "comforted." Neibaur's diary entry, apparently written the same day he heard Joseph tell the story, is probably a good deal more reliable than later second-hand reminiscences (from Edward Stevenson and others).

Hear! Hear!

Here:

After dinner...called at Brother Joseph Smith. Met Mr. Bonney. Brother Joseph told us first call. He had a revival meeting, his Mother, Brother and Sisters got religion. He wanted to get religion too--wanted to feel and shout like the rest, but could feel nothing. opened his Bible. The first passage that struck him was, "If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not". went into the woods to pray, knelt himself down, his tongue was closed: cleaved to roof--could utter not a word. felt easier after a while. saw a fire towards heaven come nearer and nearer. saw a personage in the fire, light complexion, blue eyes, a piece of white cloth drawn over his shoulders, his right arm bear. After a while, another person came to the side of the first. Mr. Smith then asked, "Must I join the Methodist Church?" "No, they are not my people, have gone astray. There is none that doeth good, not one, but this is my Beloved Son, hearken ye him." The fire drew nigher, rested upon the tree, enveloped him comforted. I endeavored to arise but felt uncommon feeble. got into the house told the Methodist priest said, "This is not an age for God to reveal himself in vision revelation: ceased with the New Testament."

Does it read like someone who can't speak or comprehend English very well, or more like notes? Neibaur lived in England for quite some time before he joined the Church.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Agreed.

[Lamanite]

Who reports that Neibaur was "still struggling with the English language" in 1844? His English looks fine to me. As for transposing the "events of the 'methodist' statement and the 'theophany' from the original document," I have no idea what you are talking about. And the page is torn before the word "comforted," not after--so the word "Indeavored" does immediately follow "comforted." Neibaur's diary entry, apparently written the same day he heard Joseph tell the story, is probably a good deal more reliable than later second-hand reminiscences (from Edward Stevenson and others).

"On May 24, 1844, Neibaur, still struggling to master the English language, recorded in his diary what the Prophet had said that day while Neibaur visited in Joseph's home." Jessee.

The transposing of events I spoke of relates to the account on pg 25-26 of Opening the Heavens. The discussion of the Methodist Church follows the account of the "personage". But you are correct that the discussion of "my Beloved son" follows.

You are right about the [page torn] placement. I'm sorry about that one. Thanks for the correction.

I would generally agree that any primary source, (I would consider his account primary in this instance. The concept is subjective in historiography, so you can pick if you feel it secondary), is better than most. English as a third language may have introduced some problems for the account. That's all I was really saying.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[stn9]

I would have to disagree with Jessee on that to a degree. He certainly left out words, but look at the clarity of thought. He both understood Joseph and could write down a coherent account from memory. It is much more complete than most of Willard Richards's notes; if you were only to read his notes you might well conclude he wasn't a native English speaker!

[Nevo]

"On May 24, 1844, Neibaur, still struggling to master the English language, recorded in his diary what the Prophet had said that day while Neibaur visited in Joseph's home." Jessee.

Like my friend stn9, I have to respectfully disagree with Brother Jessee. I think Jessee's adding a bit a color to his narrative that isn't really justified by the actual diary entries. Idiosyncratic spellings and punctuation were common even among native English speakers in those days (see, notably, Joseph Knight's Recollection of Early Mormon History).

[Anijen]

hmm he gave 11. Last I heard anyway.

I guess technically we could say every time he discussed the first vision it was different. I can not say repeat the same talk in church without saying something different, or changing to the level to the audience, or adding a better scripture I found later, or taking out something that I could say better a different way etc etc etc........

What we need to remember is that the views are not contrary or opposing to each view they are the same context.

[stn9]

Would someone like to list all the versions for those of us who are otherwise busily engaged?

[Mudcat]

Would someone like to list all the versions for those of us who are otherwise busily engaged?

I pasted this list from www.irr.org/mit/first-vision/fvision-accounts.html

# 1827 — Account of Joseph Smith, Sr., and Joseph Smith, Jr., given to Willard Chase, as related in his 1833 affidavit.

# 1827 — Account by Martin Harris given to Rev. John Clark, as published in his book Gleanings by the Way, printed in 1842, pp. 222-229.

# 1830 — Interview of Joseph Smith by Peter Bauder, recounted by Bauder in his book The Kingdom and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, printed in 1834, pp. 36-38.

# 1832 — Earliest known attempt at an ‘official’ recounting of the ‘First Vision, from History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.

# 1834-35 — Oliver Cowdery, with Joseph Smith’s help, published the first history of Mormonism in the LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Dec. 1834, vol.1, no.3

# 1835 — Account given by Joseph Smith to Joshua the Jewish minister, Joseph Smith Diary, Nov. 9, 1835.

# 1835 — Account given by Joseph Smith to Erastus Holmes on November 14, 1835, originally published in the Deseret News of Saturday May 29, 1852.

# 1838 — This account became the official version, now part of Mormon Scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:7-20. Though written in 1838, it was not published until 1842 in Times and Season, March 15, 1842, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 727-728, 748-749, 753.

# 1844 — Account in An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States, edited by Daniel Rupp. Joseph Smith wrote the chapter on Mormonism.

# 1859 — Interview with Martin Harris, Tiffany’s Monthly, 1859, New York: Published by Joel Tiffany, vol. v.—12, pp. 163-170.