On page 154 of their book, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (5th ed.; Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987, 2008), the Tanners would claim that early Church leaders were ignorant of the First Vision:
Source of Confusion
After Joseph Smith’s death the Mormon leaders made some very
confusing statements concerning the First Vision. Now that we have Joseph
Smith’s first written accounts of the vision we are able to understand why they
were in such a state of confusion. Wesley P. Walters states: “. . . the shift
from an angel to Christ, then to angels, and finally to two personages
introduced such haziness that even the Mormon leaders appeared confused as to
the nature of the story itself” (Dialogue, Spring 1969, p. 73).
Below are a few examples which show the confusion concerning the
First Vision which existed after Joseph Smith’s death.
In 1855 Brigham Young, the second President of the Church, gave a
sermon in which he denied that the Lord came to Joseph Smith in the First
Vision:
But as it was in the days of our Savior, so was it in the advent
of this new dispensation. It was not in accordance with the notions,
traditions, and pre-conceived ideas of the American people. The messenger did
not come to an eminent divine of any of the so-called orthodoxy, he did not
adopt their interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. The Lord did not come with
the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers
panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek,
the lowly, and the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the
knowledge of God. But he did send his angel to this same obscure person,
Joseph Smith jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, and
informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for
they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of
the Lord Jesus; . . . (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 171)
John Taylor, the third President of the Mormon Church, made the
following statement on March 2, 1879:
. . . when the Prophet Joseph asked the angel which of the
sects was right that he might join it. The answer was that none of them are right.
What, none of them? No. We will not stop to argue that question; the angel
merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right. (Journal
of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 167)
George A. Smith, who was sustained as first counselor in the First
Presidency in 1868, made the following statement in November of the same year:
When Joseph Smith was about fourteen or fifteen years old, . . . there
was a revival of religion, and the different sects in the portion of the State—
. . . He had read the Bible and had found that passage in James which says, “If
any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God that giveth to all men liberally and
upbraideth not,” and taking this literally, he went humbly before the Lord and
inquired of Him, and the Lord answered his prayers, and revealed to Joseph, by
the ministration of angels, the true condition of the religious world.
When the holy angel appeared, Joseph inquired which of all these denominations
was right and which he should join, and was told they were all wrong,—. . . (Journal
of Discourses, vol. 12, pp. 333-334)
Heber C. Kimball, the First Counselor to Brigham Young, made the
following statement: “Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph
Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; But God did not come himself and
call, . . .” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 29). Heber C. Kimball went
on to explain that rather than God coming Himself, He sent messengers to Joseph
Smith. He went on to state:
Why did he not come along? Because he has agents to attend
to his business, and he sits upon his throne and is established at
headquarters, and tells this man, “Go and do this;” and it is behind the vail just
as it is here. You have got to learn that. (Journal of Discourses, vol.
6, p. 29)
Many other confusing statements about the First Vision were made
by Mormon leaders after Joseph Smith’s death (see our Case, vol. 1, pp.
119-128).
D.
Charles Pyle and Cooper Johnson wrote up a very good article refuting the Tanners
on this score about 20 years ago:
Did
Early LDS Leaders Misunderstand the First Vision?
However,
it should be noted that LDS scholars refuted the Tanners on this issue decades
previous!
The
following comes from:
Paul R. Cheesman, "An Analysis of the Accounts
Relating Joseph Smith's Early Visions," (MA Thesis; BYU, 1965), 31-38
Please
note: Cheesman’s thesis is referenced and quoted a number of times in the
chapter on the First Vision by the Tanners; they knew about this section but conveniently
(read: deceptively) ignored it as it would show their arguments to be based on
pure fraud.
An
Explanation of Some Obscure Statements
In
some of the secondary sources, isolated comments or statements give the impression
that it is not clear whether it was one or two personages that came to the
young boy, and that the identity of his visitor or visitors is uncertain. An
analysis of the vision, assuming Joseph's report to be correct, shows that the
communication centered on one of the personages more than the other. The Father
is reported to have said only seven words, while the Son conversed upon many
subjects with the youth.
An
example of this confusion surrounding this story of the first vision comes from
a discourse by John Taylor, dated March 2, 1879:
. . . just as it was when the Prophet
Joseph asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. The
answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. We will not
stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them
that none of them were right. (JOD 20:166)
Yet
in December of the same year, John Taylor stated that there were two personages
and described the events as Joseph had done many years before. (JOD 21:161)
A
problem of consistency is seen in the fact that John Taylor referred to the
heavenly messenger as an angel. Joseph Smith, on the other hand, said that it
was the Father and the Son who appeared to him in response to his inquiry
concerning which church is right. It is clear from other references, however,
that John Taylor believed that the Father and the Son had appeared, and it is
therefore safe to assume that he used the word angel to refer to Christ. That such
use of the word was not without precedent might be inferred from a sermon by
Joseph Smith on a different topic:
Jesus
Christ became a ministering spirit (while His body was lying in the sepulchre)
to the spirits in prison, to fulfill an important part of His mission, without
which He could not have perfected His work, or entered into His rest. After His
resurrection He appeared as an angel to His disciples. (D.H.C. 4:425)
Another
possible misunderstanding could be illustrated by the recorded sermon of Heber
C. Kimball, an early authority of the church, delivered in 1857:
Do
you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God
called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do
it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that
he had got the plates, Did God come himself? No. He sent Moroni and told him. .
. . (JOD 6:28)
In
this situation the whole sermon must be read in order to understand the full
meaning. Heber C. Kimball took for his text on this occasion, "God Acts
Through Agents." Analysis of the sermon clearly indicates that he taught
that God had designated certain resurrected persons to be responsible for
certain aspects of the government of His kingdom. Heber C. Kimball pointed out
that God would not come down and do their work since He had designated them to
do it; therefore, God wil not come down: He will send His messengers. It seems
evident that Heber C. Kimball, in this sermon, was speaking of events
subsequent to the first vision of Joseph Smith. A sermon by Apostle Orson Hyde
in 1854 followed this same line of reasoning:
Some one may say, "If this work
of the last days be true, why did not the Savior come himself to communicate the
intelligence to the world?" Because to their angels was committed the
power of reaping the earth, and it was committed to none else. (JOD 6:335)
Critics
who use part of sermons to refute the story of the first vision must in
fairness present these statements in context, relating them with previous and
subsequent remarks, and thus learn their true intent. Orson Hyde published, in
1842, a complete account of the first vision, wherein he presented very clearly
the story of the visit of the two personages. It is clear from the writings and
sermons of all these men that they believed in the actual appearance of the
Father and the Son. Isolated passages, therefore, must be especially interpreted
in the light of what we know about these men and their philosophies.
John
Taylor, who became the third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, has provided an insight into the philosophy of the followers
of Joseph Smith. Said he on November 23, 1882.
Now, it is the rule of God which is
desired to be introduced upon the earth, and this is the reason why the Father
and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, why John the Baptist conferred the
Aaronic Priesthood, why Peter, James, and John conferred the Melchizedek
priesthood, why Moses came to bestow the dispensation of the gathering, and why
other manifestations have been given us as a people, his elect, whom he has
chosen from among the nations. (JOD 23:323)
John
Taylor taught that it was to introduce the rule and government of God on earth;
the order was that after God and His Son had come to usher in a dispensation,
the messengers who hold the keys to various aspects of the kingdom were sent to
discharge certain responsibilities concerning their part of the government of
God.
Orson
Pratt emphasized this principle when he said on December 10, 1871:
. . . for when the Lord first revealed
to that little boy, he was only between fourteen and fifteen years of age. Now,
can we imagine or suppose that a great imposter could be made out of a youth of
that age, and one that could reveal the doctrine of Christ as he has revealed
it to this generation? Would he stand forth and bear testimony that he had seen
with his own eyes a messenger of light and glory, and that he heard the words
of His mouth as they dropped from His lips and had received a message from the
Most High, at that early age? And then after having declared it, to have the
finger of scorn pointed at him with exclamations, "There goes the
visionary boy! No visions in our day! Why, he is deluded, he is a
fanatic!" And to have this scorn and derision and still continue to
testify, in the face and eyes of all this, while hated and derided by his
neighbors, that God had sent His angel from heaven. Can you imagine that a
youth would do this? (JOD 14:352)
It
is evident that Orson Pratt was talking about the visitation of the Lord in the
first instance since he named Him. In the second instance he may or may not be
referring to the Lord. This is confusing and must be compared with his other
statements about the story, in order to ascertain what Pratt really believed.
Comparing this quotation with his narrative in the Appendix [RB: Cheeman is referencing Orson Hyde's Ein
Ruf aus der Wüste (A Cry out of the Wilderness) [1842]], it seems that
there is no contradiction; however, the sermon could have been more clear.
One
can begin to see that in the sermons of these men, certain representations must
be read carefully to gain the correct meaning.
Orson
Pratt said on December 19, 1869:
By and by an obscure individual, a man
rose up and in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that
God had sent an angel to him; that through his faith, prayers and sincere
repentance he had beheld a supernatural vision, that he had seen a pillar of
fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with
this pillar of fire, whose countenances shone like the sun at noonday; that he
heard one of these personages say, pointed to the other, "This is my
beloved Son, hear ye Him." This occurred before this young man was fifteen
years of age. (JOD 13:65-66)
Again
on September 22, 1872, Orson Pratt spoke on this same subject and verified the
story that Joseph was not yet fifteen years of age when he had his first
vision; that two glorious personages appeared to him and identified themselves;
and that later an angel appeared to him and showed him, in vision, the gold
plates and explained their purpose. (JOD 15:180-81)
In
still another discourse, Orson Pratt affirmed the visit of two personages who
identified themselves as the Father and the Son. (JOD 14:140-41)
The
problem of identifying the personalities involved in the first vision becomes
more intriguing in light of some of the statements of George A. Smith, cousin
to the prophet and an early apostle. In a sermon delivered in Salt Lake,
November 15, 1863, he made the following comments:
. . . the Lord answered his prayer,
and revealed to Joseph, by the ministration of angels, the true condition of
the religious world. When the holy angel appeared, Joseph inquired which of all
these denominations was right and which he should join, and was told they were
all wrong, . . . they had all gone astray, transgressed the laws, changed the
ordinances and broken the everlasting covenant, and that the Lord was about to
restore the priesthood and establish His Church, which would be the only true
and living Church on the face of the whole earth.
Joseph, feeling that to make known
such a vision would be to subject himself to the ridicule of all around him,
knew not what to do. But the vision was repeated several times, and in
these repetitions, he was instructed to communicate that which he had seen to
his father. His father was not a member of any church, but was a man of
exemplary life. His mother and brother, Hyrum, were members of the Presbyterian
church. Joseph communicated what he had seen to his father who believed his
testimony, and told him to observe the instructions that had been given him.
These visits led, in a short time, to
the bringing forth of the record known as the Book of Mormon, which contained
the fulness of the Gospel as it had been preached by the Saviour and His
apostles to the inhabitants of this land; also a history of the falling away of
the people who dwelt on this contingent and the dealings of God with them. (JOD
12:334)
After
a careful reading it seems evident that the phrase, "these visits,"
refers to the combination of all the visitations of the young boy, Joseph,
since he introduced his subject with the phrase, "ministration of
angels."
Another
example of George A. Smith's unique method of discussing this subject is seen
in a sermon delivered on June 20, 1869.
He sought the Lord by day and by
night, and was enlightened by the vision of an holy angel. When this personage
appeared to him, one of his first inquiries was, "Which of the
denominations of Christians in the vicinity was right?" He was told that
they had all gone astray, they had wandered into darkness, and that God was
about to restore the Gospel in its simplicity and purity to the earth; he was,
consequently, directed not to join any one of them, but to be humble and seek
the Lord with all heart, and that from time to time he should be instructed in
relation to the right way to serve the Lord.
These
visions continued from time to time, and 1830 he published to the world the translation
of the book known as the Book of Mormon. (JOD 13:78)
Again
George A. Smith used the phrase "these visions" to refer to all the
manifestations given to Joseph, up to that time. It should also be observed
that he seems to be using the same identification for Christ that Joseph Smith
and John Taylor used when he referred to the Savior as an angel. (D.H.C. 4:425;
JOD 20:166)
From
all of the preceding references we might conclude that it is difficult to identify
the meaning of spoken words which have been quoted out of context. It might
also be remembered that the sermons given in that day were taken down by clerks
in longhand and could not be absolutely correct. These things go far in
accounting for alleged discrepancies in the oft-repeated story of Joseph
Smith's visions.
One
critic has complained that Brigham Young never mentioned the First Vision in
his discourses. (Jerald Tanner, Mormonism [Salt Lake: Tanner, pamphlet], p. 79)
However, Brigham Young once said:
I never saw anyone until I met Joseph
Smith, who could tell me anything about the character, personality and dwelling-place
of God, or anything satisfactory about angels, or the relationship of man to
his Maker. (JOD 16:46)
In
other sermons, Brigham Young said more specifically:
. . . The Lord sent forth His angel to
this same obscure person, Joseph Smith, Jr., who afterwards became a Prophet,
Seer and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the
religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following
the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that he had a work for him to perform,
inasmuch as he should prove faithful before him. (JOD 2:171)
The Lord chose Joseph Smith, called
him at fourteen years of age, gave him visions, and led him along, guided and directed
him in his obscurity until he brought forth the plates and translated them, and
Martin Harris was prevailed upon to sustain the printing of the Book of Mormon.
(JOD 8:334)
When the Lord called upon Joseph he
was but a boy—a child, only about fourteen years of age. He was not filled with
traditions; his mind was not made up to this, that, or the other. I very well
recollect the reformation which took place in the country among the various
denominations of Christians. . . . He did not know what the Lord was going to
do with him, although He had informed him that the Christian churches were all
wrong, because they had not the Holy Priesthood. (JOD 12:67)
When
the same men who knew this philosophy of Joseph Smith referred to God, Christ,
Moroni, or other heavenly personages as angels, they seem to have been
following an accepted pattern. This title does not seem to belittle the calling
of the Son; it only describes a special mission. As Joseph Smith used the term
angel, he suggested that an angel is one who is chosen to be a messenger. In
this sense all of the visiting personages could be termed angels. This is
admittedly conjecture, but since Joseph Smith did use this title to describe
Christ it may be that some of his associates also thought along this line. The
close associates of Joseph Smith who used the word "angel" in
reference to God, Christ, Moroni, et al., also on other occasions explicitly
referred to the Father and Son as separate personages who appeared in the First
Vision. This would suggest that they were using the term "angel" in
the generic sense to identify any heavenly messenger, even God.
Cheesman
and the Tanners also discuss William Smith. The best treatment of this issue is
that of Elden Watson’s article, The William Smith Accounts of
Joseph Smith's First Vision (1999)
