1st Vision-Was It Shared Prior To 1838?

[Nevo]

What jumped out at me as I read the original was that the first vision account was not near the story of her meeting the prophet in her home in 1837, but towards the end of the article where she specifically says this was in the home of Sister Walton (any thoughts on who this may have been?).

"Sister Walton" was Isabella Russell Walton (1791-1862). She was one of Parley P. Pratt's first converts in Toronto in 1836.

John Taylor and his wife, Leonora, received Parley hospitably but showed little initial interest in his mission. The next morning, Parley visited the local clergymen to secure a place to preach, but they each in turn refused him. He next asked the sheriff for permission to use the courthouse, and when the sheriff turned him down, he petitioned unsuccessfully for a room in the marketplace in which to preach. Having exhausted his store of ideas, he retired to a nearby grove to pray again for help. Still despairing after his prayer, Parley went back to the Taylors' house to retrieve his bags before leaving the city for good.

As Parley was picking up his bags, Isabella Russell Walton, widow of Toronto's first lord chamberlain, dropped by the Taylors' on her way across town to visit a sister. Leonora Taylor received Isabella in the room next to that in which Parley was standing and told her about him. "He has applied in vain to the clergy and to the various authorities for opportunity to fulfill his mission, and is now about to leave the place," Leonora said. "He may be a man of God; I am sorry to have him depart."

Isabella had felt inspired to visit the Taylors', and she now knew why. "Tell the stranger he is welcome to my house," she said to Leonora. "I am a widow; but I have a spare room and bed, and food in plenty. He shall have a home at my house, and two large rooms to preach in just when he pleases." Later, Isabella Walton sent her son John to the Taylors' to bring Parley back, and in the evening, she gathered her friends and relatives in her parlor to hear the missionary speak. Parley continued to hold meetings at the Waltons' and soon gathered many followers.

http://www.turley-eyring.org/documents/The....History.03.htm

Mrs. Walton was still living in Toronto at the time of Joseph Smith's visit to Upper Canada in August 1837 (see William Law to Isaac Russell, 10 November 1837, in Lyndon W. Cook, ed., William Law [Orem, UT: Grandin Book Company, 1994], 68).

[Honorentheos]

I disagree. There is positive evidence in several accounts of the First Vision that Joseph mentioned just one of the members of the Godhead. However, to my mind this positive evidence doesn't support the negative assertion that Joseph did not teach a two-personage First Vision. How could several specific positives prove a generlized negative? Logically, they can't. They merely support the specific positive assertion that Joseph did, on occasion give a one-personage version of the First Vision. Hence, there is no evidence in support of your negative, and is thus pure conjecture.As such, to your way of thinking, some late evidence from an aged eyewitness, which supports the authoritative two-personage version of the First Vision given by the principle, is somehow trumped by no evidence.Logically, this seems backwards to me. But, I suppose it is not important enough to argue over. To each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund-

We are looking at the first vision accounts differently. I'm not looking at them as a body, but rather as events on a timeline.

Think of it like this - if we begin a timeline around 1829 and start listing the first hand, contemporary accounts that were available in writing then (not reporting in 1905 something that happened in 1829) and we look at what is being said in those accounts, we get a certain view of how JS viewed God. Up to the 1832 first vision account, the contemporary records seem to demonstrate a pretty traditional protestant view of the Godhead. When JS says God at this time, and one does not redactively apply modern LDS thinking to that phrase, is there any reason to believe from those contemporary sources that he meant anything other than Christ/Lord/Bosum of the Father/Only Begotten/Trinitarian/Modal God? The 1832 first vision account supports this, the BoM supports this, the early D&C sections in their original forms support this. It was interesting, for example, to read Mudcat's questions from his rereading of the BoM this year for this reason. 1832 does seem to be a watershed year for this, though, as Sidney Rigdon and JS both begin to use Christ and God the Father in more and more separate language in the BoC sections from this year forward.

In the time of the 1835 account, we see God the father and Christ becoming something fully and distinctly different. The contemporary (again, not redactively applied 1838 accounts or modern LDS theology understanding or latter referrals to what others remember being taught in 1835) seem to be consistent with this as well. The notion of God taught in the Lectures on Faith, with a physical separate Christ and a spiritual, separate Father, fit with the First Vision accounts that are first-tier from this period. Book of Commandment sections penned through this period also show a greater distinction between God the Father and Christ than the earlier recorded sections.

Between the time the official version is penned (1838) and then made public (1842), the modern LDS theological view seems to have fully emerged.

So my contention is not that we ignore these later, "aged eyewitness" accounts. But we have to consider them for what they are - not contemporary to the documents and time period being reported on, and thus they can very easily reflect later understanding or beliefs.

"Sister Walton" was Isabella Russell Walton (1791-1862). She was one of Parley P. Pratt's first converts in Toronto in 1836. Mrs. Walton was still living in Toronto at the time of Joseph Smith's visit to Upper Canada in August 1837 (see William Law to Isaac Russell, 10 November 1837, in Lyndon W. Cook, ed., William Law [Orem, UT: Grandin Book Company, 1994], 68).

Thank you! Interesting piece of history.

[098]

Modal God . . . 1832 first vision account . . . BoM . . . D&C

Yeah, whatever.

"The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths"

http://ispart.byu.edu/publications/review/...um=2&id=392

"Joseph Smith's Early Conception of God"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_...nception_of_God

"Only One Personage Appears in the 1832 Account?"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Only_one_Personag...he_1832_account

[Honorentheos]

Yeah, whatever.

"The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths"

http://ispart.byu.edu/publications/review/...um=2&id=392

"Joseph Smith's Early Conception of God"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_...nception_of_God

"Only One Personage Appears in the 1832 Account?"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Only_one_Personag...he_1832_account

Scholarly.

The 1832 first vision account apologetic relies very heavily on an assumption - the phrase "from on high" refers to God the Father. This assumption is only viable if one accepts that the 1838 account is what happened and one is looking for evidence in all other accounts to substantiate this. If one suggests that until such statements were written down they did not exist, it is hard to accept this apologetic as reasonable.

It's not a good apologetic. And given that this seems to be the best anyone has come up with to date despite the contrary evidence using other first-tier sources that support the view that both the 1832 account and other sources maintain a consistent view of the Godhead, I find this one of the big unanswered challenges for FAIR to still resolve.

The other two links also suggest that any reference by JS of Christ referring to the Father is proof of a traditional LDS view. Yet, the language used is very, very similar to how Jesus speaks of the Father in the New Testament. There is nothing that I have seen in any of the three links that shows JS did not have a traditional view of the relationship of Christ and the Father until later on. Of some interest is also the degree of Sidney Rigdon's own beliefs in the matter and how much his and JS's views may have advanced together. Phillo Dibbles account of how Section 76 of the D&C is of interest in this regard.

[stn9]

One has to prefer a certain flavor of present historical analysis over Joseph Smith himself in order to declare that Smith's early view of the godhead changed:

"...the plurarlity of Godsâ??I have selected this text I wish to declare I have allwaysâ??& in all congregats. when I have preached it has been the plurality of Gods it has been preached 15 yearsâ??I have always decld. God to be a distinct personageâ??J.C. a sep. & distinct pers from God the Far. the H.G was a distinct personage..." (16 June 1844, in The Words of Joseph Smith, 378).

I guess that would be a pretty bold claim to make if he had not in fact been teaching for 15 years that the Godhead is comprised of three separate personages. I wonder what Brigham Young and all his other loyal followers thought of this declaration. Somehow I don't think they were suprised to hear him say this. And he used this as evidence to support his claim of the existence of yet other Gods. Were they really being asked to swallow a doubly-large pill?

[Honorentheos]

One has to prefer a certain flavor of present historical analysis over Joseph Smith himself in order to declare that Smith's early view of the godhead changed:

"...the plurarlity of Godsâ??I have selected this text I wish to declare I have allwaysâ??& in all congregats. when I have preached it has been the plurality of Gods it has been preached 15 yearsâ??I have always decld. God to be a distinct personageâ??J.C. a sep. & distinct pers from God the Far. the H.G was a distinct personage..." (16 June 1844, in The Words of Joseph Smith, 378).

I guess that would be a pretty bold claim to make if he had not in fact been teaching for 15 years that the Godhead is comprised of three separate personages. I wonder what Brigham Young and all his other loyal followers thought of this declaration. Somehow I don't think they were suprised to hear him say this. And he used this as evidence to support his claim of the existence of yet other Gods. Were they really being asked to swallow a doubly-large pill?

It's a good question, stn9. The sermon you quote from has an interesting beginning -

President Joseph Smith read the 3rd chapter of Revelation, and took for his text 1st chapter, 6th verseâ??"And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father: to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

"It is altogether correct in the translation. Now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods, and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cryâ??"The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has fallen."

"It has been my intention for a long time to take up this subject and lay it clearly before the people, and show what my faith is in relation to this interesting matter. I have contemplated the saying of Jesus (Luke 17th chapter, 26th verse)â??"And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man." And if it does rain, I'll preach this doctrine, for the truth shall be preached."

How does one read this? It is very possible to read this as JS making a public statement about something regarding which there was confusion. As you noted, this was in June of 1844. How is it that JS has, at this late date, the "intention for a long time to take up this subject and lay it clearly before the people" if it has also being clearly preached the last 15 years by the elders, as he says?

Anyway, worth considering and this sermon is worth reading (Best line I may have ever read by JS - I have it from God and get over it if you can. Nice!). And for those who prefer the source material (I know I do) the sermon can be found here -

On the Plurality of Gods

Edited to add - note that the bulk of the sermon is taken up in a biblical defence of a true trinity of beings and not on the subject of more Gods than the Godhead. For those who may have wondered if this is what JS was clarifying.