By Jerald and Sandra Tanner
The Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith claimed that when he was 14 years old there was a revival in his neighborhood. Because of this excitement he went into the woods to pray, and “two personages” appeared to him. One of them pointed to the other and said: “This is my beloved Son, hear him.” The Mormon Apostle John A. Widtsoe claims that this vision of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ “is of first importance in the history of Joseph Smith. Upon its reality rest the truth and value of his subsequent work” (Joseph Smith—Seeker After Truth, page 19).
For many years Mormon writers claimed that Joseph Smith “told but one story” concerning the First Vision, but now it has become obvious that he told several conflicting stories concerning this vision.
LaMar Petersen was one of the first to learn that the Mormon leaders were suppressing important material concerning the first vision. In 1953 he met with Levi Edgar Young, head of the Seven Presidents of Seventies in the Mormon Church. The following is from notes by Mr. Petersen of the interview with Levi Edgar Young, held February 5, 1953:
His [Levi Edgar Young’s] curiosity was excited when reading in Roberts’ Doc. History reference to “documents from which these writings were compiled.” Asked to see them. Told to get higher permission. Obtained that permission. Examined the documents. Written, he thought, about 1837 or 1838. Was told not to copy or tell what they contained. Said it was a “strange” account of the First Vision. Was put back in vault. Remains unused, unknown.
Since that interview two “strange” accounts of the first vision have come to light. Paul R. Cheesman included the first in Appendix D of his thesis. We printed this account in 1965 under the title, “Joseph Smith’s Strange Account of the First Vision.” The other “strange” account appeared in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, in 1966. We reprinted these accounts in the Salt Lake Messenger and The Case Against Mormonism, vol. 1 and thousands of copies have been circulated. Some Mormons doubted the authenticity of these “strange” accounts, and the LDS Church leaders did not make any public statements concerning them. Nevertheless, we continued to circulate these accounts and predicted that the time would come when the Mormon leaders would have to face these problems. Finally, four years after we printed “Joseph Smith’s Strange Account of the First Vision,” the Church Historian’s Office has publicly confirmed the authenticity of both these “strange” accounts. The following statement appeared in the Mormon newspaper, Deseret News:
Dean C. Jessee, a staff member at the Church historian’s office in Salt Lake City, searched through documents of the Church historian’s library concerning events of the 1820’s. He located and analyzed three early accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision dictated by the Prophet himself.
Through other historical approaches and techniques, he has determined the dates, sources, and records of these accounts. Published in the BYU Studies with his report are photographic reproductions of these early accounts in the handwriting of the Prophet’s personal scribes. (Deseret News, Church Section, May 3, 1968, page 15)
From these statements a person would be led to believe that Dean C. Jessee made some new discovery, but an examination of the BYU Studies, Spring 1969, reveals that the three accounts are:
- The account we published in 1965 under the title, “Joseph Smith’s Strange Account of the First Vision.” Dean C. Jessee claims that this account was written in 1831 or 1832.
- The account published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought in 1966. This is the account Joseph Smith gave to “Joshua the Jewish Minister” in 1835.
- The official account which is published by the church in the Pearl of Great Price. Dean C. Jessee, however, has shown how it appears in the original handwritten manuscript, before the changes were made.
This issue of the BYU Studies contains photographs of all these documents. The reader may wonder why the church would allow the “strange” accounts to be published after suppressing them for over 130 years. We feel that they have been forced to own up to these documents. The LDS Church leaders apparently feel that it would be better to tell their people about these documents now than to have them eventually find out through “apostate” sources. This is certainly a most interesting example of reverse psychology. They suppressed the documents all these years, but now they allow them to be published as if they were proud of them. They claim, in fact, that 10,000 copies of the BYU Studies have been printed! Dr. Richard L. Anderson of the BYU, not only acknowledges the authenticity of the “strange” accounts, but he even calls them “official accounts of the First Vision from the Prophet”:
Before one can prove that Joseph Smith contradicts history, he must be sure of what Joseph Smith claimed. There are four official accounts of the First Vision from the Prophet. The three manuscript texts are printed in Dean Jessee’s articles in this issue. As he shows, their dates of composition are 1831-1832, 1835, and 1838. This 1838 account was published as the “History of Joseph Smith” in 1842. The fourth account is Joseph Smith’s “Wentworth Letter,” also published in 1842. (BYU Studies, Spring 1969, page 373)
One, Two, or Many?
Dr. Truman G. Madsen, of the BYU, claims that the harmony of the documents is impressive:
Now that we have copies of the three early manuscript accounts of the First Vision bound in this single volume, we are impressed with their harmony considering the very different circumstances of their writing: (1) the 1831-32 manuscript is apparently an attempt to get it on record; (2) the 1835 account relates a spontaneous interview between the Prophet and a Jewish minister, recorded by his scribe “as nearly as follows” and (3) the 1838 record was written to answer “the many reports” circulating as far west an Missouri which the Prophet said were designed to militate against the character of the Church. (BYU Studies, Spring 1969, page 240)
We feel that Dr. Madsen is not facing reality when he claims that these accounts are harmonious. In the first account Joseph Smith states:
. . . I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son Thy sins are forgiven thee. (BYU Studies, Spring 1969, page 281)
In the second account Joseph Smith stated:
A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first: he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee. He testified also unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I saw many angels in this vision. (BYU Studies, Spring 1969, page 285)
In the account published by the church in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith stated:
. . . I saw two Personages, . . . One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! (Pearl of Great Price, page 48, v. 17)
We would, of course, expect some variations in any story, but we feel that there are so many variations in Joseph Smith’s story and they are of such a nature that they make it impossible to believe.
In the first written account Joseph Smith stated that only one personage appeared to him. The second account says there were many, and the third account says there were two.
When Lauritz G. Petersen, Research Supervisor at the Church Historian’s Office, was asked concerning the different accounts of the first vision he wrote a letter in which he stated:
We are not concerned really with which of the two Versions of the First Vision is right. . . . Personally I would take the version which the Prophet Joseph Smith gave himself when he stated that he saw two personages. Regardless whether he saw one or two the fact remains that Jesus Christ is mentioned in both of them.
It is obvious from this statement that Mormon apologists are beginning to retreat from the idea that God the Father appeared to Joseph Smith. This is actually a very important matter, for Mormon leaders have used this vision as evidence for their doctrine of a plurality of gods. They have stated that this vision proves that God and Christ are two distinct personages and that they both have a body. They use this vision to prove that God Himself is only an exalted man.
The Mormon Apostle John A, Widtsoe stated:
Two personages, the Father and the Son, stood before Joseph. The Father asked the Son to deliver the message to the boy. There was no mingling of personalities in the vision. Each of the personages was an individual member of the Godhead. Each one separately took part in the vision. (Joseph Smith— Seeker After Truth, page 7)
Those who argue that the “strange” accounts of the first vision can be harmonized with Joseph Smith’s printed account might do well to read a speech given by S. Dilworth Young, of the First Council of Seventy. This speech was given sometime before the “strange” accounts became known to the public. We quote from this speech:
I cannot remember the time when I have not heard the story, . . . concerning the coming of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith. . . .
I am concerned however with one item which has recently been called to my attention on this matter. There appears to be going about our communities some writing to the effect that the Prophet Joseph Smith evolved his doctrine from what might have been a vision, in which he is supposed to have said that he saw an angel, instead of the Father and Son. According to this theory, by the time he was inspired to write the occurrence in 1838, he had come to the conclusion that there were two beings.
This rather shocked me. I can see no reason why the Prophet, with his brilliant mind, would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of the eventful day. . . . How then could any man conceive that the Prophet, receiving such a vision as he received, would not remember it and would fail to write it clearly, distinctly, and accurately? (Improvement Era, June 1957, page 436)
Now that we have the “strange” accounts we find that the first vision story did evolve. Joseph Smith originally taught that only one personage appeared, but after he changed his doctrine concerning the Godhead he also changed the story of the First Vision.
No Revival
In Joseph Smith’s story of the First Vision he tells of a great revival in his neighborhood just before he had his vision.
In 1967 the Utah Christian Tract Society published Wesley P. Walters’ study, New Light on Mormon Origins From the Palmyra (N.Y.) Revival. In the forward to this work Mr. Walters states:
Mormons account for the origin of their movement by quoting from a narrative written by their prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1838. In this account he claims that a revival broke out in the Palmyra, New York area in 1820 . . .
Information which we have recently uncovered conclusively proves that the revival did not occur until the fall of 1824 and that no revival occurred between 1819 and 1823 in the Palmyra vicinity.
(Oil Painting done from 1900 photograph)
Mormon scholars became very concerned when they saw Wesley P. Walters’ study. They were so disturbed, in fact, that a team was sent back east to do research concerning the first vision and other matters dealing with the history of the Mormon Church in New York. Although the scholars who went east “scoured libraries, studied newspapers, and sought to find private individuals who might uncover hitherto unknown source materials” (BYU Studies, Spring, page 242) they were unable to find evidence of a revival in Palmyra in 1820. In their article, “Mormon Origins in New York,” James B. Allen and Leonard J. Arrington report:
What evidence do we have, other than the word of Joseph Smith, that there was “an unusual excitement on the subject of religion” in the vicinity of Palmyra in 1820? Up to this point little such evidence has been uncovered, and Walters challenged the story in the article referred to above. (BYU Studies, Spring 1969, page 272)
Before Mr. Walters’ study appeared Mormon writers taught that the revival occurred right in Palmyra, but since the Mormon research team has been unable to find evidence of a revival in Palmyra Mormon apologists are now beginning to forsake Palmyra and search elsewhere for a revival. Lauritz G. Petersen, Research Supervisor at the Church Historian’s Office, made these statements in a letter dated November 1, 1968:
Now let me ask you a question. Where was the revival? In Palmyra? He doesn’t mention a revival at all. He mentions an unusual excitement [sic] in the “Whole district of country.” Could an excitement [sic] be caused by a revival somewhere near the area? He doesn’t mention being to a revival. If there was a revival somewhere outside of Palmyra and the news of it had already excited the village, would or could it be possible that the Smith family have travelled there to sell root beer and cakes?
Although it is true that Joseph Smith does not use the word “Palmyra,” his description makes it very clear that he was referring to this area. He states that there “was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion” (History of the Church, vol. 1, page 2).
In 1843 Joseph Smith told a reporter from the New York Spectator that the revival occurred “in the neighborhood where I lived, . . .” (Joseph Smith the Prophet, by Preston Nibley, pages 30-31).
Before Mr. Walters’ pamphlet appeared Mormon writers were claiming that there was a great deal of evidence to show that there was a revival in Palmyra in 1820. The Religious Advocate of Rochester has been cited by Mormon writers as showing that there was such a revival. The Mormon Apostle Gordon B. Hinckley stated:
One week a Rochester paper noted: “more than two hundred souls have become hopeful subjects of divine grace in Palmyra and Macedon, Manchester, Lyons, and Ontario since the late revival commenced.” The week following it was able to report “that in Palmyra and Macedon . . . more than four hundred souls have already confessed that the Lord is good.” (Truth Restored, Salt Lake City, 1969, page 2)
In The Case Against Mormonism, vol. 1, pages 111-112, we showed that these purported references from the Religious Advocate of Rochester actually appeared in the Wayne Sentinel on March 2, 1825, and therefore had nothing to do with a revival in Palmyra in 1820. Wesley P. Walters showed that the Religious Advocate was not even published in Rochester in 1820!
It is obvious that the Mormon research team has been unable to verify these references, for Richard L. Bushman states:
Mr. Walters’ main argument is that no revival occurred in Palmyra itself. But even that fact cannot be established absolutely. It is a negative claim and depends on negative evidence, which is always tenuous. Mr. Walters relies on the absence of revival reports, but just because someone failed to write a report of an event does not mean it did not occur. . . . The point is that although we think a revival should have been recorded, there are many reasons why it could have been missed. We cannot know for sure that an event did not occur unless reliable witnesses on the scene say no, and thus far Mr. Walters has found none such to testify. (Dialogue, Spring 1969, page 87)
It would appear, then, that all evidence for a revival in Palmyra and vicinity has fallen, and that Wesley P. Walters’ work has been vindicated. All that the Mormon research team have been able to do is to confirm his original findings. The result of their research is published in the BYU Studies, Spring 1969. We feel that most of these writers have not dealt with the real issues involved, nor have they given enough credit to Wesley P. Walters for the research he has done. The editors of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, on the other hand, “felt that the issues Reverend Walters raises should be dealt with directly and in the context of a full statement of his arguments.” Therefore, they printed his work, a response from Richard L. Bushman, and Mr. Walters reply to Dr. Bushman (see Dialogue, Spring 1969, pages 58-100). We must congratulate the editors of Dialogue for their honesty with regard to this matter.
In the last year a great deal of new information has come to light concerning Joseph Smith’s First Vision and the 1820 revival. Because of this new information and the increased interest in this matter we have prepared a new pamphlet entitled, The First Vision Examined—A Study of New Theories and Documents Regarding Joseph Smith’s First Vision and the 1820 Revival. In this pamphlet we provide important new evidence found in “Joseph Smith’s Manuscript History,” Book A-1, regarding two important changes in his History of the Church. We also show that the Mormon research team has failed to establish a revival in Palmyra in 1820 and that they have not dealt with the real issues involved in the controversy over the First Vision.
Originally appeared in: