| CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON |
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |
|
| CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON |
| Nine Points Of Difference Between The Bible And Mormon Doctrine - PART 3 |
|
|
On Doctrine - Files and Transcripts Sent A. 1832fvis.jpg - Photo of the 1832, handwritten version of Joseph Smith's, FIRST VISION. B. Transcript: 1832 version of Joseph Smith's, FIRST VISION with comments inserted. "Joseph Smith lived a little more than twenty-four years after this first vision. During this time he told but one story..." Preston Nibley, "Joseph Smith the Prophet", 1944, p. 30 Perhaps, if Preston Nibley had seen a copy of this record of the First Vision, written sometime in 1832, he would have not been so sure of his claim. Below is a transcript of Joseph Smith's First Vision. The first and last portion was written by his scribe, Frederick G. Williams. The portion presenting the vision itself was written by Joseph Smith. BEGINNING OF TRANSCRIPT1832 FIRST VISION In this version of the First Vision, Joseph Smith claims to have seen the Lord, "the Lord of glory" who "was crucifyed (sic) for the world", meaning that he saw Jesus Christ. This was the only person that he recorded as being seen. If he saw the Father then he did not record it, an omission that just cannot be believed. [LATER ADDITION TO COMMENT: One major difficulty in the narrative of the vision, is Joseph Smith's explanation of what the "Lord of glory" said to him. I Saw the Lord and he Spake unto me Saying Joseph [my son] thy Sins are forgiven thee. The difficulty is the fact that Jesus Christ, in Mormon doctrine, is not the father but the son of the father and the brother of all human beings, including Joseph Smith. How Jesus Christ could refer to Joseph Smith as "my son", instead of "my brother," is quite strange. Perhaps in his haste, Joseph Smith made an error. The problem with that explanation is that the words "my son" were an addition to the original manuscript; a correction made by Joseph Smith himself after the original document had been completed. So, it was a deliberate inclusion into the narrative. Joseph Smith was either equating Jesus Christ with the father, or he was describing a modalistic godhead in which the father was simply appearing in the image of Jesus Christ which he would have done at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Either way, the difficulty is compounded by the realization that what Joseph Smith was describing was not the separate and individual gods found in current Mormon doctrine, but Jesus Christ who he considered to be god, or god himself who appeared in a modalistic form.] 1835-1836 FIRST VISION Another version of the First Vision was discovered in the diary of Joseph Smith, recorded by his scribe Warren Parrish in the portion from 1835-1836. "... a personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame ... another personage soon appeared like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee... and I saw many angels in this vision." Only two or three years after his 1832 version, Joseph Smith changed his account of the first vision. Instead of one personage (Jesus Christ), he then says he saw two personages who he did not identify, and in addition he saw many angels. In the 1832 version, Joseph Smith referred to a pillar of fire that came down on him, he was filled with the Spirit of God, and then the heavens were opened and he saw the Lord. He then amended the manuscript, striking out pillar of fire and inserting "pillar of light." So, there was no pillar of fire in the original version of the vision. However, in the 1835-1836 version, the pillar of fire (omitted in the 1832 version) appeared above his head and the "personage" appeared in the pillar of flame, but there is no mention of his being filled with the Spirit of God which was noted in the 1832 version. There are no angels in the 1832 version, but there were "many angels" in the 1835-1836 version. C. 1852fvis.gif - Photo of the First Vision account given to Erastus Holmes by Joseph Smith and printed in the Deseret News, May 28, 1852. 1835 FIRST VISION [printed in 1852] The version of the First Vision told to Erastus Holmes and was part of the original Joseph Smith "History of The Church" and was printed in the "Deseret News", May 29, 1852. "I gave him a brief relation of my experience while in my juvenile years, say from six years old up to the time I received the first visitation of angels..." After the printing of this account in 1852, the "History of the Church" was changed from "..I received the first visitation of angels..." to read "... I received my first vision..." 1842 FIRST VISION The version of the First Vision published in the Times and Season" and now part of the "Pearl of Great Price". "... 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..." This account was adopted by the church as the official version, with Joseph Smith stating that he saw the Father and the Son, but not mentioning anything about angels. Very serious problems are encountered by the church in relation to the First Vision, because it was not a part of the teaching in the original years of the church. The "Messenger and Advocate" which was the official church publication, began a printing of the church history. Oliver Cowdery wrote the history, and he stated that Joseph Smith had offered to assist in the preparation and that it was "a correct statement of events," volume 1, October 1834, p. 13. In an article, Volume 1, February 1835, which was a letter written by Oliver Cowdery to W.W. Phelps, he states the following: "You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. Smith Jr's age -- that was an error in the type -- it should have been in the 17th. -- You will please remember this correction, as it will be necessary for the full understanding of what will follow in time. This would bring the date down to the year 1823." "And it is only necessary for me to say, that while this excitement continued, he continued to call upon the Lord in secret for a full manifestation of divine apporobation [sic], and for, to him, the all important information, if a Supreme being did exist, to have an assurance that he was accepted of him." "It was, however, followed with a clamness [sic] and serenity of mind, and an overwhelming rapture of joy that surpassed nnderstanding (sic), and in a moment a personage stood before him." "... and from other items in the sacred scriptures we have the fact recorded where angels appeared an conversed with men, and there was no difficulty on the part of the individuals, to endure their presence; and others where their glory was so conspicuaous [sic] that they could not endure. The last description of appearance is the one to which I refer, which I say that it is no easy task to describe their glory." "Though fear was banished from his heart, yet his surprise was no less when he heard him declare himself to be a messenger sent by commandment of the Lord, to deliver a special message, and to witness to him that his sins were forgiven, and that his prayers were heard..." Now, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever made a claim that this account was incorrect and he never asked for or caused to be printed a retraction or correction in the official church publication. It is very clear, that prior to the First Vision account of 1832, the church was taught the account noted by Oliver Cowdery in early 1835. And must have still been the "official" account as late as the publication date of February 1835. It was not until after this publication that Joseph Smith then resurrected what he had written in 1832 and began the revision that resulted in the later version of the First Vision. But, there are other problems with the version of the First Vision as related by Oliver Cowdery. He notes that the night of the vision, the date was 1823, Joseph Smith wished to know "...if a Supreme being did exist..." and "...for a manifestation in some way that his sins were forgiven..." Now, if Joseph Smith had a vision in 1820 in which the Father and the Son appeared to Him, why is he looking for a verification of a supreme deity, when he had already seen two of them three years earlier? If he was looking for a confirmation that he had been accepted by God, why did he not accept his own 1832 account of the First Vision. He stated that Jesus Christ appeared to him in 1820 and said "...Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee..." Or maybe he could have referred to the version of the account that he later recorded in 1835-1836, where two personages appeared to him (he did not say who they were) and one of them "...said unto me they sins are forgiven thee..." In addition, the account by Oliver Cowdery said that the vision occurred at night, after the family retired, and Joseph Smith "...but supposes it must have been eleven or twelve, and perhaps later, as the noise and bustle of the family, in retiring, had long since ceased." But the First Vision occurred in the day, in all previous versions, the official version printed in the "Pearl of Great Price" stating: "It was the morning of a beautiful claear [sic] day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty..." The Mormon Challenge Monday, August 13th. First, I have to say that your latest e-mail is massive! Second, I have just enrolled on a course at the local college although this does not start until next month. Therefore, this reply being started on the above date, may take some time to answer, if I am able to answer it at all. Several factors may stop me from completing a satisfactory answer; 1. my forthcoming study schedule, 2. my understanding of the information which you have given me, and 3. my ability to reply in a manner which puts over my opinion and not what you may consider is the Church's opinion which I have taken on. Whenever I have received any new information from the Church ie bulletins from the First Presidency, I have tried to ascertain for myself if the information is true by studying the message and then praying about it and, I have to say, sometimes I have not received the answer I needed or wanted. Whether this was a fault on my part or a result of untruths being given to me only time will tell. I will read through and insert numbers, (1), (2), (3) etc. where I want to make a comment and then answer at the end of the document. This way there will be no problem with any re-formatting after e-mailing. --------------------------- My reply (1) Yes, it is odd that Joseph, having seen the Father and the Son, would forget either on or the other although I must admit that it is just possible, though not likely, having had a conversation with the Saviour, he some time later forgot to mention the Father's present. There is one point that I think should be mentioned. It has always been my belief that when any prophet speaks officially, as it were, he is, or should be, infallible. But when any prophet speaks as a man then his opinions are his own and he may or may not make mistakes. After all, Moses claimed no great gifts as a speaker and needed Aaron to speak for him. Now Moses is accepted by many people as the archetypal prophet. Can we then accept Joseph Smith's words has coming out of two mouths, as it were, 1, the mouth of a prophet, and 2. the mouth of a man? I have tried to put myself in the same position as Joseph, difficult at the best of times, and imagine what I would do and say if I were a twelve year old boy having seen the Father and the Son. Quite apart from being terrified out of my mind by the vision, I would also have the problem of telling my family and friends. Could I do it? Could you do it? When I first decided to join the Church my parents asked me why and I had some difficulty in explaining myself without being embarrassed and tongue-tied and I having had a secondary education and being somewhat more at ease with grammar and spelling than Joseph Smith. And I had only had the discussions, not The Vision. That was the easy bit. I will now try to attempt the larger chunk of text you sent me. Until then, bear with me, in all areas. M— On Doctrine Reply Hello M—, The file really did become huge. I am sorry for the typographical errors that were left in my last reply. For some reason I failed to run the spell-check on several sections. I also need to replace my keyboard, as all the keys do not respond to the same pressure. I'll try to do better. It is great that you are going to school. I wish you much success. My days in college were the most busy of my life: going to school full-time, working full-time, leadership of church college group and choir duties at the same time. It is amazing that I survived. I have no schedule requiring a quick answer. You may choose to reply at any time you wish or choose not to reply at all. I leave that up to you. Nice to read your reply regarding the First Vision. I hope you read that section again, very carefully, because the First Vision is the cornerstone on which the Mormon church builds its authority and faith. If the First Vision never occurred, then everything that the Mormon church claims and believes is false and a forgery by its leaders. I think you allowed Joseph Smith to escape your scrutiny much too easily. In spite of how he is portrayed, as being a semi-literate, country rustic, he was quite informed and was better read than he is given credit. Although he used very poor grammar, and was a rough and crude personality, he was quite capable of expressing himself both in writing and by the spoken word at a time when many of his contemporaries could only sign their name with an "X". He made up for his lack of formal training by having a very bright mind and natural abilities that no one can deny. He claimed to have read the Bible and studied it extensively from the ages of 12-15 years. Joseph Smith did not attain to his position by being illiterate, or by being ignorant through a lack of knowledge because he did not read. Many times I have read the claim that it was not possible for Joseph Smith to have written the Book of Mormon himself, proving that he was a translator, because he did not have the education or training to produce it. But the argument is weak, because Joseph Smith was resourceful, capable, imaginative and did have the ability to read and write. It might have been a difficult situation for a 14 year old boy to explain his vision to his family and friends, however there is no record available that indicates that Joseph Smith told his family, friends or anyone about the vision when it happened. There is no record in the decade of the 1820's and there is no record in the decade of the 1830's, even after the establishment of the church, that anyone had even heard about the First Vision. There is apparently no church record, journal or diary entries or letters of correspondence from any Mormon person or source, and no mention from Joseph Smith's opponents that alludes to the event, even in passing, during those two decades. Orson Pratt published the first description in 1840 and in 1842 Joseph Smith published his version, 22 years after the event happened. Even the 1832 version was not known or published. The various accounts of that vision, by Joseph Smith, were not written by a 14 year old boy, but by a man when he was 28, 31 and 37 years of age. These were accounts made after he claimed to receive the authority of the priesthood and after he established the church. So, instead of there being the possibility that a 14 year old boy was writing poorly because of lack of training, or out of confusion, it was a prophet and church organizer who was writing, claiming that what he was saying about the vision was and is the foundation and authority for all that he then claimed to be, as a prophet, priest, president and seer. In that case, the account of the First Vision should be not be confused, but it should be crystal clear. However, the various versions are muddy and confusing instead. One of the problems with the First Vision is that Mormon doctrine does not allow for it to happen, and the revelation came from Joseph Smith himself in 1832: "And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; for without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live." Doctrine and Covenants, 84:21-22 Joseph Smith claimed to have seen both the Father and the Son, in the 1820 First Vision, prior to receiving the priesthood. So, another contradiction is introduced by the prophet. The claim that the First Vision occurred is the only evidence that Joseph Smith could present, and it is a claim that he made simply by making the declaration. He had no confirmation to present, no credentials to present, no booming words from the heavens to present, no miracles to confirm his claims and no witnesses who could even testify that he had told them about his vision in 1820. Unlike Moses, who could part the sea and command water to come out of a rock; or Elijah who could call fire from heaven; or Jesus Christ who healed virtually every person in Israel and could raise the dead, Joseph Smith presented nothing to confirm what he claimed. In addition, if his claims, in different versions of the same occurrence, are not consistent with each other, then the problem of believing in the reality of what he said is compounded. Regardless of whether he is speaking as a man or a prophet, consistency in what he said and reported about the First Vision is of primary consideration. If Joseph Smith was unsure about what he saw and heard, then where is his claim of authority? If a man, today, would step forward in the Mormon church and say that he received a revelation from God, that the priesthood was taken from the Mormon church and given to him because the church had become apostate. That he had a book which revealed the true Gospel of Jesus Christ when He appeared to the Chinese people. That he miraculously translated the book, from reformed-Chinese writing on golden plates, the location of which an angel sent from God revealed to him, from their hiding place in the Great Wall. That the book was more perfect than any other book ever written, and that he had 500 witnesses who would attest to the reality of the book that he had translated. But, the original golden plates were no longer available and that none of the witnesses had the ability to read the original golden plates, and that some of the 500 witnesses, although they originally signed that they attested to the validity of the new book, now state that they never saw the golden plates and never touched them. Would that person be accepted by the Mormon leadership and granted the status of president, prophet and seer in the Mormon church? That is what Joseph Smith did by declaring that all other churches were apostate, and that he was told by God not to join any of the other churches, although he did join the Methodist church, June 15, 1828, in violation of that command. He did the same in relation to his visions and the Book of Mormon - so it should come as no surprise that his claims are questioned and in those claims are found discrepancies that are difficult, if not impossible to resolve. A claim does not make a prophet, a book does not make a prophet, but the credentials of consistency, truthfulness, fulfillment and speaking the words of God do make a prophet. When a prophet speaks as a prophet, then what he speaks must come true and what he speaks at one time must be consistent with what he speaks at another time or he is no prophet. The question is, did Joseph Smith speak as a prophet in regards to his visions? The claim is made, at least as to one, because the second version of the First Vision has been canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants. If the one version is scripture, why are not the other versions scripture also? Or is it presumed that he spoke the other versions just as a man, therefore they did not have to be accurate or consistent with the former? Did he prophesy and were those prophesies accurate? But even more importantly, as a prophet, a man must speak the words of God. This is a very serious issue and the question that I direct to you is the one most critical for you to consider. How many false prophesies does it take to prove that a prophet is false? Does it take 1, 2, 3, 20 or more? David Whitmer, one of the original three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, who later apostatized, wrote that when the original Book of Mormon was to be published, the group did not have the money to have it printed. Hyrum Smith said that the copyright should be sold in Canada for a considerable sum of money. The question was then put to Joseph Smith: "Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copy-right, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts... Well, we were all in great trouble, and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: 'Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.' So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copy-right was not of God, but was of the devil, or the heart of man." David Whitmer, "An Address To All Believers In Christ", 1887, pp. 30-31 Joseph Smith prophesied in the name of the Lord, claimed that the Lord had given him the revelation but the prophecy was false, because he did not speak the words of God. He attempted to excuse his error by claiming that the devil gave him the revelation or that it was a reflection of his own mind. Regardless of the options that he presented, the prophecy given in the name of the Lord was false and JOSEPH SMITH ADMITTED THAT HE HAD NO WAY TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. He did not know if a prophecy was from God, the devil or from his own mind. He was willing to claim that all of his prophecies were from God, even though they might be from the devil or from his own mind. But in his attempt to justify his earlier false prophecy, he resorted to yet another prophecy, the source or which he could not be sure. This time he was just as sure it was from God as he was with the false prophecy - still, he had no way to know, stating it was from the Lord just like he had said in the one previously, which was false. Joseph Smith cannot be excused by claiming that he spoke as a man, because he spoke as a prophet in the name of the Lord. Again, I must ask, how many prophecies does it take to prove that a prophet is false? I make these comments in a most pointed manner, because this is extremely serious business, as the claim of Joseph Smith to be a prophet is the core of Mormon doctrine and the foundation of faith. The test of a prophet is found in Deuteronomy 18:21-22. The test is one false prophecy and the result is that the "prophet" should not be feared. Not as to one being afraid of him physically, but that he has no power or authority to dictate any spiritual doctrine or pronouncement that is binding on any person, because his words are not from God and therefore are not true. The First Vision is the beginning of the claims that Joseph Smith used to fashion his position of authority, and position as a prophet. Both elements failing, because of the inconsistencies in the accounts of the vision and in the speaking of a false prophecy in the name of the Lord. I know it is not pleasant for someone, who you don't even know, to question the grounds for your faith and the character and integrity of the founder of what you believe. But, you know, people have attacked the grounds for my faith for centuries and everyday the character and integrity of the Jesus Christ taught in the Bible comes under attack, so do not think that I make these comments lightly. I do know how you feel and I respect you very much for being an honorable person by reading what I have written to you. I hope you understand that I have not taken the time to converse with you out of some need to debate, but because I am genuinely concerned about you and the system with which you have become involved. You realized from the start that I consider the Mormon church to be in a great error, but I do not hold that belief without reason, and I have sincerely tried to present to you some of the errors that constitute the greater, but are only a portion of those that could be introduced. I know that you may continue in your Mormon belief, but if you do so, you should not be unaware of the lives and claims of Mormon personalities, the doctrinal history of the church that presents to itself many entanglements and contradictions, and the logical conclusions of what is taught and claimed. I am sure you are realizing that there is a great deal of difference in what I have already presented against what is officially taught in the church and to which you have been exposed. As you read, I would hope the reasons for those differences become more clear. I have continued too long as I promised I would not do. I continue to be available to answer any questions or comments that you have. Gary Hand Nine Points Of Difference Between The Bible And Mormon Doctrine |
|
|
 COPYRIGHT © 2001 by ON
DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved
|
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |
