What do you think?
Rate this book
Exploring the First Vision
Today's scholars of Joseph Smith's First Vision stand on the shoulders of giants. This volume reproduces some of the seminal articles written by the giants who have studied it for half a century. It is a monument to their contributions.
The past of First Vision scholarship is indispensable to the present. Those who study the First Vision today depend very much on the works of the scholars that are reprinted in this volume. Moreover, these scholars discovered and published much of the source material on which their articles are based and on which we depend.
Scholarly debate and criticism are important elements of the historical discipline because the contest of ideas leads to deeper research and more thorough analysis. Certain historians setting out to discredit Joseph Smith's claims were central to the formation of subsequent First Vision scholarship because their work proposed the questions that later formed the historical debate. Subsequently, Latter-day Saint scholars responded to the challenges with an increase energy that greatly benefited the study of early Mormonism.
The past of First Vision scholarship is indispensable to the present. Those who study the First Vision today depend very much on the works of the scholars that are reprinted in this volume. Moreover, these scholars discovered and published much of the source material on which their articles are based and on which we depend.
Scholarly debate and criticism are important elements of the historical discipline because the contest of ideas leads to deeper research and more thorough analysis. Certain historians setting out to discredit Joseph Smith's claims were central to the formation of subsequent First Vision scholarship because their work proposed the questions that later formed the historical debate. Subsequently, Latter-day Saint scholars responded to the challenges with an increase energy that greatly benefited the study of early Mormonism.
- GenresReligion
338 pages, Hardcover
First published October 11, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
March 29, 2020
I've heard many of my friends who have left the Church of Jesus Christ cite the multiple accounts of Joseph Smith's first vision as one of the issues that damaged their testimony. They may say different accounts are "inconsistent", the story is "historically inaccurate," or they feel "lied to" because they didn't know about the multiple accounts. These questions were asked and answered over 50 years ago.
First, it's important to note that we didn't even discover the 1832 and 1835 accounts of the First Vision until the 1960's. They were parts of unpublished, unfinished journal histories written by Joseph Smith. Knowing how long our culture takes to change, it's not surprising that it has taken so long for them to become common knowledge. As Samuel Dodge, editor of this book, points out, the interest in these accounts was actually ignited by Wesley Walters, a Presbyterian minister who used the accounts to write a pamphlet that "proved" the First Vision was historically inaccurate. This forced a group of BYU professors to investigate his claims, and we learned much more about the historical context of the Joseph Smith's First Vision. Their research was published in the 1969 BYU Studies Journal. This book mainly consists of several of those articles, some of which have been updated with notes form the original authors.
Dean C. Jessee (as well as other authors like John W. Welch) walks through each of the accounts to explain their historical context and how that sets the tone for each one. First, it is important to note that Joseph Smith came from an agricultural background. His family did not keep journals, so it was not his habit. Even after he received a revelation in 1830 instructing him to keep a history of the Church, it took him several tries before he consistently wrote things down. He was never able to publish a full history until after the turmoil of being exiled from Kirtland and Independence into Nauvoo. So, the gap between his experience and the initial record is not evidence of him inventing it, as some claim; it is consistent with his upbringing.
Jessee goes on to describe Joseph's 1832 account, which is the most personal. Joseph was not the only American in the 1800's to have a conversion story involving a vision, so he may not have seen it as the "founding moment" of the Church. At this point, his description of the vision focused on his quest for personal salvation and seeking forgiveness of his sins. He mentions that he began wondering about salvation when he was 12 (something Walters ignored in his research). His scribe, Frederick G. Williams, added a note that the vision occurred in his 16th year, but other accounts written by Joseph say he was 14 (his "15th year"). Some critics point out that this is the only account not to mention two heavenly beings, but that may not be correct. Joseph says that "the Lord" opened the heavens and then "the Lord" appeared. Compared to other accounts, this is consistent with the Father appearing first and revealing the Son. It is obvious that Joseph simply wasn't sure how to describe the difference, and there are scriptures in the Bible that do the same thing (like Psalms 110).
Joseph Smith's later accounts, which were published in Nauvoo, become more focused on what the First Vision means for the Church as a whole. They are critical of other churches (which is natural after the persecution they had been facing), and give members of the Restored Church a starting point for Joseph's journey to become a prophet. Even including the secondhand accounts, Jessee concludes that there is remarkable consistency among all of them. There are variations in phrasing and focus, but there are no real contradictions.
Richard L. Anderson and Milton V. Backman write articles to address Reverend Walters' claim that the First Vision was false because there was no revival in Palmyra in 1820. First, Walters ignores that Joseph says his personal turmoil began at age 12 (year 1818). Anderson and Backman show that there is plenty of evidence of revivals in the area surrounding Palmyra (Joseph never says it occurred in his village). There are anti-Mormon accounts mention seeing Joseph at a Methodist camp meeting, where he may have been an "exhorter" who kept track of attendance. Western New York was so active in 1816-1821 that it was called the "Burned Over District."
Even if you don't believe Joseph's vision, it should make sense that a new religious movement would start in an excitement like this. Some critics point to Oliver Cowdery and William Smith's accounts which place the vision in 1824 (another year of revivals) to "prove" it was invented. But the historians show that both of their stories were written much later and had further inconsistencies, leading us not to accept every single detail at face value. There is also sufficient evidence to support the idea that Lucy Smith and her older sons, Alvin & Hyrum, attended the Presbyterian church, as Joseph claimed. There is also evidence that the Smith family traveled around the county to sell refreshments at these meetings.
The most insightful article was from James B. Allen. He explains that although the First Vision was well-known among Latter-day Saints and Anti-Mormons in the 1830's, it wasn't officially published until the 1840's. For Joseph Smith, it was never a definitive statement of doctrine, only his personal conversion story. He was wary of creating a written "creed" about God's nature that members would have to swear to, like Methodism. To him, the appearance of Moroni and the translation of the Book of Mormon was the official beginning of the Restoration (as prophesied in Revelation 14:6).
Allen shows that it was not until the 1880's, when the Pearl of Great Price was canonized as scripture, that the First Vision began to be used as a source of doctrinal teaching. Artists produced hymns and paintings of the vision. The Church obtained the original Sacred Grove property, allowing members to make a "pilgrimage" there and see the First Vision as a personal experience for themselves. The "second generation" of Church leaders, especially George Q. Cannon and B.H. Roberts, began to use the First Vision to demonstrate the nature of the Godhead and the apostasy. While most of their doctrinal conclusions are correct, they (and leaders since) did occasionally make some historical assumptions that are incorrect, such as implying that no one believed in visions for a corporeal God at the time. It's important for us to remember that our culture now is not the same as the world Joseph was living in, and we shouldn't assume more than is evident in the historical record.
Richard L. Bushman explains that enemies of the Church constantly attacked Joseph's character, which is why his later accounts may have avoiding discussing the fact that he needed "forgiveness of sins." Bushman refutes Walters' idea that because the 1824 revivals were larger, that must have been what Joseph was referring to as an "unusual excitement." The fact is, the revivals of 1818-1821 may have seemed "unusual" for a boy living at the time, just as World War I seemed like the largest war ever at the time, since people did not know a greater war would come later. Bushman concludes that there is not sufficient evidence to "disprove" the First Vision from a historian's perspective. I that the critics who say the accounts are "inconsistent" or "historically inaccurate" are making too many assumptions about the way things "should have" happened, and then refusing to be open to the idea that it could have happened differently and still be true.
For me, there is only one more open historical question, which Bushman discusses in an article not included in this volume, "The Visionary World of Joseph Smith" published in BYU studies in 1997. Here, Bushman notes that over 30 people published pamphlets with divine visions in the 50 or 60 years before Joseph Smith did. But there are important differences. These people usually had an apocalyptic message, and they published their accounts with severe warnings. Joseph, on the other hand, never used the vision to attract attention. He focused more on building Zion, God's Kingdom on Earth. Ironically, though he waited many years to publish it, his was the only one of these visions that built a successful religious following. For example, Solomon Chamberlin had a vision in which God promised that the apostolic Church would be restored, and when he met the Smiths in the early 1830's, he felt they were the answer to his quest. The critics' idea that Joseph must have copied his vision from previous accounts leads to the question: are all visions copies of previous accounts? Surely, at some point, you have to accept that some of them are genuine. You can try to explain them as hallucinations if you don't believe visions are possible, but similar descriptions of God in visions does not disprove them. In fact, it could be used to argue that Joseph's vision is more credible.
Stephen C. Harper (another young editor of the book, not one of the original 1969 historians), closes the book by reminding us to be careful of our assumptions. Wesley Walters, Fawn Brodie, and the minister who told Joseph Smith not to share his vision all had the "a priori" assumption that such a vision would not be possible, so they sought to find evidence that supported their belief. Likewise, we should not assume we know everything about how the first vision happened, and we need to be willing to learn new things.
As James Allen said, Joseph Smith probably did not understand all the theological implications of the vision the moment he left the sacred grove, precisely because it was his first vision. Likewise, it's okay if it takes us many years to develop a full understanding of the historical and doctrinal context for the first vision. And, just as Walters' anti-Mormon pamphlet prompted historical research in the 1960's, I'm glad that the current wave of anti-Mormon material on the internet is forcing us to understand the accounts of the First Vision and what they mean to us today.
First, it's important to note that we didn't even discover the 1832 and 1835 accounts of the First Vision until the 1960's. They were parts of unpublished, unfinished journal histories written by Joseph Smith. Knowing how long our culture takes to change, it's not surprising that it has taken so long for them to become common knowledge. As Samuel Dodge, editor of this book, points out, the interest in these accounts was actually ignited by Wesley Walters, a Presbyterian minister who used the accounts to write a pamphlet that "proved" the First Vision was historically inaccurate. This forced a group of BYU professors to investigate his claims, and we learned much more about the historical context of the Joseph Smith's First Vision. Their research was published in the 1969 BYU Studies Journal. This book mainly consists of several of those articles, some of which have been updated with notes form the original authors.
Dean C. Jessee (as well as other authors like John W. Welch) walks through each of the accounts to explain their historical context and how that sets the tone for each one. First, it is important to note that Joseph Smith came from an agricultural background. His family did not keep journals, so it was not his habit. Even after he received a revelation in 1830 instructing him to keep a history of the Church, it took him several tries before he consistently wrote things down. He was never able to publish a full history until after the turmoil of being exiled from Kirtland and Independence into Nauvoo. So, the gap between his experience and the initial record is not evidence of him inventing it, as some claim; it is consistent with his upbringing.
Jessee goes on to describe Joseph's 1832 account, which is the most personal. Joseph was not the only American in the 1800's to have a conversion story involving a vision, so he may not have seen it as the "founding moment" of the Church. At this point, his description of the vision focused on his quest for personal salvation and seeking forgiveness of his sins. He mentions that he began wondering about salvation when he was 12 (something Walters ignored in his research). His scribe, Frederick G. Williams, added a note that the vision occurred in his 16th year, but other accounts written by Joseph say he was 14 (his "15th year"). Some critics point out that this is the only account not to mention two heavenly beings, but that may not be correct. Joseph says that "the Lord" opened the heavens and then "the Lord" appeared. Compared to other accounts, this is consistent with the Father appearing first and revealing the Son. It is obvious that Joseph simply wasn't sure how to describe the difference, and there are scriptures in the Bible that do the same thing (like Psalms 110).
Joseph Smith's later accounts, which were published in Nauvoo, become more focused on what the First Vision means for the Church as a whole. They are critical of other churches (which is natural after the persecution they had been facing), and give members of the Restored Church a starting point for Joseph's journey to become a prophet. Even including the secondhand accounts, Jessee concludes that there is remarkable consistency among all of them. There are variations in phrasing and focus, but there are no real contradictions.
Richard L. Anderson and Milton V. Backman write articles to address Reverend Walters' claim that the First Vision was false because there was no revival in Palmyra in 1820. First, Walters ignores that Joseph says his personal turmoil began at age 12 (year 1818). Anderson and Backman show that there is plenty of evidence of revivals in the area surrounding Palmyra (Joseph never says it occurred in his village). There are anti-Mormon accounts mention seeing Joseph at a Methodist camp meeting, where he may have been an "exhorter" who kept track of attendance. Western New York was so active in 1816-1821 that it was called the "Burned Over District."
Even if you don't believe Joseph's vision, it should make sense that a new religious movement would start in an excitement like this. Some critics point to Oliver Cowdery and William Smith's accounts which place the vision in 1824 (another year of revivals) to "prove" it was invented. But the historians show that both of their stories were written much later and had further inconsistencies, leading us not to accept every single detail at face value. There is also sufficient evidence to support the idea that Lucy Smith and her older sons, Alvin & Hyrum, attended the Presbyterian church, as Joseph claimed. There is also evidence that the Smith family traveled around the county to sell refreshments at these meetings.
The most insightful article was from James B. Allen. He explains that although the First Vision was well-known among Latter-day Saints and Anti-Mormons in the 1830's, it wasn't officially published until the 1840's. For Joseph Smith, it was never a definitive statement of doctrine, only his personal conversion story. He was wary of creating a written "creed" about God's nature that members would have to swear to, like Methodism. To him, the appearance of Moroni and the translation of the Book of Mormon was the official beginning of the Restoration (as prophesied in Revelation 14:6).
Allen shows that it was not until the 1880's, when the Pearl of Great Price was canonized as scripture, that the First Vision began to be used as a source of doctrinal teaching. Artists produced hymns and paintings of the vision. The Church obtained the original Sacred Grove property, allowing members to make a "pilgrimage" there and see the First Vision as a personal experience for themselves. The "second generation" of Church leaders, especially George Q. Cannon and B.H. Roberts, began to use the First Vision to demonstrate the nature of the Godhead and the apostasy. While most of their doctrinal conclusions are correct, they (and leaders since) did occasionally make some historical assumptions that are incorrect, such as implying that no one believed in visions for a corporeal God at the time. It's important for us to remember that our culture now is not the same as the world Joseph was living in, and we shouldn't assume more than is evident in the historical record.
Richard L. Bushman explains that enemies of the Church constantly attacked Joseph's character, which is why his later accounts may have avoiding discussing the fact that he needed "forgiveness of sins." Bushman refutes Walters' idea that because the 1824 revivals were larger, that must have been what Joseph was referring to as an "unusual excitement." The fact is, the revivals of 1818-1821 may have seemed "unusual" for a boy living at the time, just as World War I seemed like the largest war ever at the time, since people did not know a greater war would come later. Bushman concludes that there is not sufficient evidence to "disprove" the First Vision from a historian's perspective. I that the critics who say the accounts are "inconsistent" or "historically inaccurate" are making too many assumptions about the way things "should have" happened, and then refusing to be open to the idea that it could have happened differently and still be true.
For me, there is only one more open historical question, which Bushman discusses in an article not included in this volume, "The Visionary World of Joseph Smith" published in BYU studies in 1997. Here, Bushman notes that over 30 people published pamphlets with divine visions in the 50 or 60 years before Joseph Smith did. But there are important differences. These people usually had an apocalyptic message, and they published their accounts with severe warnings. Joseph, on the other hand, never used the vision to attract attention. He focused more on building Zion, God's Kingdom on Earth. Ironically, though he waited many years to publish it, his was the only one of these visions that built a successful religious following. For example, Solomon Chamberlin had a vision in which God promised that the apostolic Church would be restored, and when he met the Smiths in the early 1830's, he felt they were the answer to his quest. The critics' idea that Joseph must have copied his vision from previous accounts leads to the question: are all visions copies of previous accounts? Surely, at some point, you have to accept that some of them are genuine. You can try to explain them as hallucinations if you don't believe visions are possible, but similar descriptions of God in visions does not disprove them. In fact, it could be used to argue that Joseph's vision is more credible.
Stephen C. Harper (another young editor of the book, not one of the original 1969 historians), closes the book by reminding us to be careful of our assumptions. Wesley Walters, Fawn Brodie, and the minister who told Joseph Smith not to share his vision all had the "a priori" assumption that such a vision would not be possible, so they sought to find evidence that supported their belief. Likewise, we should not assume we know everything about how the first vision happened, and we need to be willing to learn new things.
As James Allen said, Joseph Smith probably did not understand all the theological implications of the vision the moment he left the sacred grove, precisely because it was his first vision. Likewise, it's okay if it takes us many years to develop a full understanding of the historical and doctrinal context for the first vision. And, just as Walters' anti-Mormon pamphlet prompted historical research in the 1960's, I'm glad that the current wave of anti-Mormon material on the internet is forcing us to understand the accounts of the First Vision and what they mean to us today.
April 4, 2020
A great resource for anyone interested in Church history. I assume it was due to an interest to be comprehensive the book was at times redundant. However it provided a great chapter that converges the existing accounts into a coherent single narrative and gives a great overview of the historical understanding of the First Vision as the Church has grown.
October 20, 2020
This is not an easy or quick read but it is well worth reading. A series of essays by LDS scholars, it helps the reader understand the world in which the Prophet Joseph Smith lived and the climate surrounding the restoration of the Gospel.
February 20, 2014
Wonderful overview of the Joseph Smith's First Vision. Many different angles look at the first vision. The chapter by Richard Bushman and James Allen are very good.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews