Joseph Smith's Four Accounts of the First Vision

[consiglieri]

I learned that one of the Primary reasons Joseph went to the Lord, was not to see which Church was right, but how he could become "saved", in other words how to receive forgiveness.

This is an important point, and one that tends to get lost nowadays, Lamanite.

My understanding is that most modern-day Mormons would be surprised to find out that the First Vision was not the foundation stone of Mormonism to 19th century Mormons the way it became in the 20th century (and now into the 21st).

The Church is really not based in any significant way on the First Vision. A big clue to that is the fact there were not two witnesses. There is no doctrine or practice that would be lost from the Church had the First Vision never occurred.

The First Vision was a very personal experience for Joseph Smith, not the foundation of the Church that was still a decade in the offing.

As such, perhaps the best things that we can learn about it are those things of a personal nature.

*takes some more notes for Gospel Doctrine class*

[stn9]

I know when I studied the 1832 account for the first time. It really affected me for some reason when I learned that one of the Primary reasons Joseph went to the Lord, was not to see which Church was right, but how he could become "saved", in other words how to receive forgiveness. It touched me that the Lord called Joseph by name and told him his sins were forgiven (I'm paraphrasing). At that moment in my life I didn't need to hear God wax thick about the abominations of Church's, I needed to hear the personal journey and message of and to Joseph Smith.

Precisely the type of thing we need to hear more about in Church! Then-Elder Eyring's comments at the unveiling ceremony of "The Vision" by Avard Fairbanks at BYU are beautiful to me:

I would like to pay tribute to the artist, Avard Fairbanks, and make a wish for the way this statue should be viewed by those who come here. My tribute to Avard Fairbanks is for what he didn't show. One of the marks of great art is not what it portrays but what it suggests. There are other figures not sculpted here which I would like you to imagine with an eye of faith. God the Eternal father and His Beloved Son Jesus Christ appeared to open this dispensation.

From studying the various accounts of the First Vision, we learn that young Joseph went into the grove not only to learn which church he should join but also to obtain forgiveness for his sinsâ??something he seems not to have understood how to do. And in more than one account the Lord addressed the young truth seeker and said, "Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee."

I hope that as young people through the generations see this statue, they will realize that though the building is named for Joseph Smith, and though the statue portrays him, this piece of art represents that moment when Joseph learned there is a way for the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ to be unlocked fully. Because of what Joseph saw and what began at this moment, the Savior was able, through this great and valiant servant and others that He sent, to restore power and privilege. That power and privilege allows us, and all who will live, to have the benefit of Jesus Christ's Atonement work in our lives. Joseph Smith is looking up at the figures not shown.

I testify to you that Jesus is the Christ. He lives. I know He lives. I know Joseph saw Him, and I know that because He lives and because Joseph looked up and saw Him and because He sent other messengers, you and I may have the thing that the Prophet Joseph wanted as he went to the grove: to know, not just to hope, that our sins can be washed away.

(I hate it when apostles don't stick to the lesson manual.)

[Lamanite]

This is an important point, and one that tends to get lost nowadays, Lamanite.

My understanding is that most modern-day Mormons would be surprised to find out that the First Vision was not the foundation stone of Mormonism to 19th century Mormons the way it became in the 20th century (and now into the 21st).

The Church is really not based in any significant way on the First Vision. A big clue to that is the fact there were not two witnesses. There is no doctrine or practice that would be lost from the Church had the First Vision never occurred.

The First Vision was a very personal experience for Joseph Smith, not the foundation of the Church that was still a decade in the offing.

As such, perhaps the best things that we can learn about it are those things of a personal nature.

*takes some more notes for Gospel Doctrine class*

It really is quite fascinating that 12 yrs later (1832) it still has a very personal flavor to it. 35 to 38 it begins to take on a more prominent role as a vision for which the Church as a whole can benefit from. This progression from personal to Church wide importance is a wonderful reflection of Joseph maturing into a Prophet.

Isn't this all very fun and amazing and fantastic? Who doesn't want to read and learn about this all day long?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[zerinus]

This is an important point, and one that tends to get lost nowadays, Lamanite.

My understanding is that most modern-day Mormons would be surprised to find out that the First Vision was not the foundation stone of Mormonism to 19th century Mormons the way it became in the 20th century (and now into the 21st).

The Church is really not based in any significant way on the First Vision. A big clue to that is the fact there were not two witnesses. There is no doctrine or practice that would be lost from the Church had the First Vision never occurred.

You are joking, right? The most distinctive doctrinal feature of Mormonism is the belief in the separate identity of the two members of the Godhead, the Father and the Son, as two distinct and separate personages; and that is established above all else by the First Vision. How is that in any way not "significant"?

The First Vision was a very personal experience for Joseph Smith, not the foundation of the Church that was still a decade in the offing.

As such, perhaps the best things that we can learn about it are those things of a personal nature.

*takes some more notes for Gospel Doctrine class*

Ummm! I sure like to sit in that class, and watch how it goes!

zerinus

[mfbukowski]

We will be discussing Joseph Smith's First Vision this coming Sunday in Gospel Doctrine class.

I plan on reviewing the four accounts Joseph Smith gave of this singular experience.

My question for the board is, "How far should I go?"

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I am SO glad I don't live in Utah!

[consiglieri]

You are joking, right? The most distinctive doctrinal feature of Mormonism is the belief in the separate identity of the two members of the Godhead, the Father and the Son, as two distinct and separate personages; and that is established above all else by the First Vision. How is that in any way not "significant"?

D&C 130.

Ummm! I sure like to sit in that class, and watch how it goes!

Please draw a target on your forehead.

zerinus

[Lamanite]

You are joking, right? The most distinctive doctrinal feature of Mormonism is the belief in the separate identity of the two members of the Godhead, the Father and the Son, as two distinct and separate personages; and that is established above all else by the First Vision. How is that in any way not "significant"?

Ummm! I sure like to sit in that class, and watch how it goes!

zerinus

I can't tell if I should respond or not.

From 1832 "I cried unto the lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in <the> attitude of calling upon the Lord...and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go they<way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world..."

Things we learn

1. Joseph wanted relief from sin and salvation

2. He knew he could obtain mercy from the Lord.

3. Prayer is the means by which we approach God. He both hears and answers prayers. even from farm boys and half breed Tongans.

4. God cared about a seemingly insignificant farm boy and by extension I believe he cares equally as much about me.

5. He called Joseph by name which means he knows and loves us all personally.

6. He called Joseph his son. That has too many implications to list.

7. He frankly forgave Joseph his sins; and I have hope he will do likewise with my own

8. He requires obedience

9. He declares the act of the Atonement as the foundation for all that has just taken place.

Is this insignificant drivel zerinus?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[stn9]

Lamanite, I think you misunderstood: zernius is saying it is significant. However that may be to our understanding now, there isn't a single point among your 9 that can't be established by any number of passages in the Doctrine & Covenants. I wouldn't be too harsh on consig's comment, zern. He right to a degree as evidence by the vision's use--or more correctly, lack of widespread use--in the earliest days of the Church.

[Lamanite]

stn9,

I'm not sure about your reading of Z's comments. Sig's comments were based on my comments.

Could we get zerinus in here to clarify?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[mfbukowski]

hmm he gave 11. Last I heard anyway.

Well at some point one has to ask what counts as an "account"? How about when he told each of his relatives, friends, etc.? Does each telling count? There are probably hundreds. I have told my conversion story probably at least that many times. And it is never identical twice.

[PrettyNewMommy]

In my relatively uneducated ward, I find the membership more open to hearing new things than in wards where there is a generally higher level of education.

What I am interested in knowing from you, PrettyNewMommy, is whether the adjective "pretty" is meant to modify "new" or "mommy."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Mommy.

[zerinus]

I wouldn't be too harsh on consig's comment, zern. He right to a degree as evidence by the vision's use--or more correctly, lack of widespread use--in the earliest days of the Church.

How "early" do you want to take it? It is true that in the "earliest" days of the Church the First Vision story was not published as part of the scriptural canon of the Churchâ??but neither was the Doctrine and Covenants; neither was the Pearl of Great Price. Neither was the First Presidency established, and lots of other doctrinal and organizational aspects of the Church. "Initially," the Church was not fully organized. That organization came over time. The Lord gave to the Church "line upon line and precept upon precept". You don't expect the Church to be what it is today, doctrinally or organizationally, on the first day that it was created. But that development was quite rapid. By the time the Church reached the Nauvoo period, or by the time Joseph Smith was martyred, the organizational and doctrinal foundation of the Church was well established, and the belief in the separate identity of the members of the Godhead (based on the First Vision) was already a fundamental and distinctive feature of Mormonism.

zerinus

[consiglieri]

But that development was quite rapid. By the time the Church reached the Nauvoo period, or by the time Joseph Smith was martyred, the organizational and doctrinal foundation of the Church was well established, and the belief in the separate identity of the members of the Godhead (based on the First Vision) was already a fundamental and distinctive feature of Mormonism.

zerinus

You do realize you are playing into the critics' hands on this one?

And the thought had crossed my mind that the description of God with a robe over one shoulder occurred in 1844 after the institution of the temple endowment.

Though I suppose blue eyes already existed in 1820.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Lamanite]

You do realize you are playing into the critics' hands on this one?

And the thought had crossed my mind that the description of God with a robe over one shoulder occurred in 1844 after the institution of the temple endowment.

Though I suppose blue eyes already existed in 1820.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

In upstate NY Joseph wasn't exposed to any Polynesians. Joseph was exposed more often to the white skinned blue eyed Nordic people of Western Europe with little opportunity to experience of a Plethora of Polynesians. Therefore he naturally described Jesus with blue eyes. But had the Tongans and Samoans had a small branch in Palmyra at the time--he would have been able to properly describe Jesus as having BROWN EYES, with brown and delightsome skin.

Kind of the same thing as Tapir's and Elephants

Big UP!

Lamanite

[zerinus]

You do realize you are playing into the critics' hands on this one?

No I didn't. Do you want to tell me more about it?

zerinus

[stn9]

I seem to recall some prominent early member saying they had never heard of the First Vision until a certain year. Anyone recall that? Anyway, that the First Vision was not widely used in early years when telling the story of Mormonism--to both non-members and members--I thought was pretty well established. I do not doubt it's historicity as a matter of faith and scholarship; but my faith is not hindered by the fact it was not used then as it is today. The same goes for the Book of Mormon: I recall only ever seeing 2 or 3 instances where Joseph preach from it or mentioned a doctrine established or settled by it.

[littlechild]

Well, the manual indicates the use of Church magazines.

And I am currently printing off the 1985 Ensign article which sets forth all four of Joseph Smith's four accounts of the First Vision.

I think that means that I am within the guidelines of the manual in exploring them.

Having settled that question, I am still interested in the thoughts of others as to how far I should go with this.

I mean, the entire class period is devoted to this one subject.

And I think my class members are already pretty familiar with the 1838 version.

Where does the manual indicate the use of Church magazines? Oh, I found it here:

This manual is a tool to help you teach the doctrines of the gospel from the scriptures and Church history. It has been written for youth and adult Gospel Doctrine classes and is to be used every four years. Additional references and commentaries should not be necessary to teach the lessons. Elder M. Russell Ballard said:

â??Teachers would be well advised to study carefully the scriptures and their manuals before reaching out for supplemental materials. Far too many teachers seem to stray from the approved curriculum materials without fully reviewing them. If teachers feel a need to use some good supplemental resources beyond the scriptures and manuals in presenting a lesson, they should first consider the use of the Church magazinesâ? (in Conference Report, Apr. 1983, 93; or Ensign, May 1983, 68).

Interestingly, it is not contained in the Materials You Should Use section.

[littlechild]

Oh, nothing major. Just the complaints to the Bishop that I was citing non-manual sources etc...

The Bishop approached me and said he and others enjoyed my lessons but that a few people were uncomfortable with "outside" information being taught in class.

The last thing I wanted to do was to make class members uncomfortable.

I understand - when I was High Priest Group Leader in my former ward - I asked my assistant to teach class. He took the opportunity to compare the leadership and administration of church affairs, and the preparation needed for it, to secular and governmental leadership. He chose to dwell upon the careers of diplomats, going into extensive detail about their training and background. One class member asserted that this amounted to a discussion of politics, and went on to say that most discussions led by this particular instructor ended up being politics.

The controversy was heightened however, when the following lesson was accompanied by a book about Ronald Reagan, and his personal diary. This was intended to enlighten us about keeping journals. Also included in this discussion was a bonus 4 page poem written by the instructor on his feelings during the unfolding of events during 9-11. The last five minutes however, we had a token discussion about what was actually in the manual.

After that second lesson - I approached him in what I thought was a gentle way, and told him that the manual specifically requested that we not use outside materials - that the focus of the lesson was the material that the lesson itself provided.

He took offense, said he would have to pray about it, because he felt he was inspired to say those things. He further claimed that "one of us has the Spirit, I don't know which one it is, but I'm going to pray and find out. Until then, I am not teaching anymore."

To make a long story short, he prayed about it and a month later told me that I lacked the Spirit and he was going to inform the stake presidency of his findings. Which he did.

Very interesting incident.

Bear in mind, I love discussing politics, but not in Church. Anyway, I'm sure that doesn't apply to your situation. But it made me sensitive to the fact that the lessons are prepared from the leadership of the church, and there has never been an occasion when - to give the subject a full hearing - we have been able to cover all the points in depth that are being made in the manual. So for me, the manual provides all the lesson I need to cover, and then some.

[zerinus]

Where does the manual indicate the use of Church magazines? I have looked and cannot find this.

I understand - when I was High Priest Group Leader in my former ward - I asked my assistant to teach class. He took the opportunity to compare the leadership and administration of church affairs, and the preparation needed for it, to secular and governmental leadership. He chose to dwell upon the careers of diplomats, going into extensive detail about their training and background. One class member asserted that this amounted to a discussion of politics, and went on to say that most discussions led by this particular instructor ended up being politics.

The controversy was heightened however, when the following lesson was accompanied by a book about Ronald Reagan, and his personal diary. This was intended to enlighten us about keeping journals. Also included in this discussion was a bonus 4 page poem written by the instructor on his feelings during the unfolding of events during 9-11. The last five minutes however, we had a token discussion about what was actually in the manual.

After that second lesson - I approached him in what I thought was a gentle way, and told him that the manual specifically requested that we not use outside materials - that the focus of the lesson was the material that the lesson itself provided.

He took offense, said he would have to pray about it, because he felt he was inspired to say those things. He further claimed that "one of us has the Spirit, I don't know which one it is, but I'm going to pray and find out. Until then, I am not teaching anymore."

To make a long story short, he prayed about it and a month later told me that I lacked the Spirit and he was going to inform the stake presidency of his findings. Which he did.

Very interesting incident.

Bear in mind, I love discussing politics, but not in Church. Anyway, I'm sure that doesn't apply to your situation. But it made me sensitive to the fact that the lessons are prepared from the leadership of the church, and there has never been an occasion when - to give the subject a full hearing - we have been able to cover all the points in depth that are being made in the manual. So for me, the manual provides all the lesson I need to cover, and then some.

Thank you for your appropriate and timely comments. The manual does in fact suggest the use of Church magazines; but only as a last resort, not as the first port of call. The quote is as follows:

â??Teachers would be well advised to

study carefully the scriptures and their manuals before reaching out for supplemental materials. Far too many teachers seem to stray from the approved curriculum materials without fully reviewing them

. If teachers feel a need to use some good supplemental resources beyond the scriptures and manuals in presenting a lesson, they should first consider the use of the Church magazinesâ? (in Conference Report, Apr. 1983, 93; or Ensign, May 1983, 68) [emphasis added].

I think the emphasized bits in the above quote are more important than "reaching out for supplemental materials".

zerinus

[stn9]

I wonder how many General Conference talks in the past 30 years have been prepared using only the scriptures and Church-produced manuals.

Part of the issue, I think, is related to the size of the Church: we have so many teaching positions and relatively few skilled and informed teachers. That's not a criticism of the Church or the teachers, just a natural fact (cf. Abraham 3:19). So, we've in a sense corporatized teaching: "Here's a manual. Read it carefully and follow it carefully in your lessons; and if you are worthy you'll be a successful teacher. You've got a franchize in the kingdom now, so follow the formula and you'll be fine!"

This is in part what has produced the conventional wisdom about the boringness of gospel doctrine classes. I even know one of the Brethren who said he can't stand to go to gospel doctrine because he hears such nonsense and has a hard time refraining himself from correcting all the doctrinal mistakes he hears (a commentary on both the quality of teachers and the membership as a whole). Again, I think this is a natural consequence of the size of the Church: not everyone is so interested in the gospel so as to really study it and embrace it with passion and zest; and even if one does this, that doesn't necessarily make them a good teacher. So lessons are frequently prepared a few days before, the night before, or the meeting before, and they are carefully mapped out for you which allows this to be so; and most members don't really study the lessons (to wit, the ubiquitous question "How many of you have read the lesson?" and the 25% or so of hands that go up).

This is a far cry from "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." And what has happened to "Appoint among yourselves a teacher, and let not all be spokesmen at once; but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege"? I mean, how many classes are dominated by a small number of people who always have something to say, classes where for a number of reasons the vast majority sit silent? Part of the reason is there is no time to let everyone speak in 45 mins, less time if you count the prayers, a possible hymn, and any non-lesson conversation or announcements.

So, you go, consig. See if you can use an occasional Ensign article to spur on interest in the gospel; bring up an occasional issue that might cause them to think; even, follow the Brethren and use an occasional story or historical document to supplement your scripture-manual-based teaching.

[zerinus]

I wonder how many General Conference talks in the past 30 years have been prepared using only the scriptures and Church-produced manuals.

Conference talks are not Sunday School lessons.

Part of the issue, I think, is related to the size of the Church: we have so many teaching positions and relatively few skilled and informed teachers. That's not a criticism of the Church or the teachers, just a natural fact (cf. Abraham 3:19). So, we've in a sense corporatized teaching: "Here's a manual. Read it carefully and follow it carefully in your lessons; and if you are worthy you'll be a successful teacher. You've got a franchize in the kingdom now, so follow the formula and you'll be fine!"

The course of study for Gospel Doctrine lessons are in fact the standard works. It is not the manual. The manual is there to assist the teacher teach the standard works.

zerinus

[stn9]

Conference talks are not Sunday School lessons.

Hrm. Do you think I was saying that they are? But since the Brethren don't teach Sunday School classes, where and when do they have the opportunity to teach the membership? I don't care what label you want to place on it: general conferences and stake conferences and CES firesides and mission conferences are all occasions at which the general authorities teach. What manuals do they use for that?

The course of study for Gospel Doctrine lessons are in fact the standard works. It is not the manual. The manual is there to assist the teacher teach the standard works.

I almost expressed this idea in my last post. Indeed, the scriptures are the things we are to teach. So, would you go so far as to say that anything in the scriptures is then fair game for inclusion in a lesson?

[why me]

This is the main reason I wish I were the teaching this class: two Lords are in the 1832 account ("...the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord..."), but by not reading the other accounts we don't get a clear sense of this fact and why one Lord appeared before the other. Nor do we realize how much Joseph was really alluding to in this first known recorded version.

In the 1832 version, JS's audience was quite different from the 1838 account. In 1832, JS was perhaps concerned that by referring to two distinct personages many christian pastors would be offended. However, by reading into the 1832 vision two lords, JS takes care of it. There is no reason to repeat the word 'lord' unless it does refer to two personages.

[The Nehor]

I can't stand manuals and ignore most of what they say. I do follow the scriptures or topic assigned though. Ideally we wouldn't need manuals and teachers would teach by the Spirit using the scriptures.

[why me]

In that case, I am thinking maybe you should lie in wait in your class and, at an appropriate moment, raise your hand, blink those big, beautiful eyes of yours, and ask that tart of a teacher why she hasn't brought up Joseph Smith's earliest account in which he mentions only one Lord.

You may want to consider sitting by the exit.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Putting the E in SSCE")

As I stated, by referring to the word 'lord' twice JS may have implied two personages but because of his audience he did not say it clearly. The protestant pastors would have been aggrieved with anyone who claimed two distinct personages. For many, Jesus and Heavenly Father were one and the same.

Also, both visions were known by early members and no problem developed. It could be JS explained the difference to the satisfaction of all. But we have no record of it. But we also have no record of problems developing because of it.

Also, JS was very much aware of the problem. And of course, when he wrote the 1838 vision account, he tried to set the record straight. And it seemed to have worked until many years later after he was murdered.