The "New" Mormon Reformation

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Ack!
see no evil hear no evil see no evil hear no evil

Y'all are a tough crowd:

A genuine vision

Scholars have rebutted arguments from naysayers



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


May 26, 2007

By R. Scott Lloyd
Church News staff writer
This is one in a series of occasional articles dealing with troubling questions and adversarial criticisms against the Latter-day Saint faith. Responses are not presented as official Church statements but rather as insights and analyses from faithful and knowledgable Church members.


Latter-day Saints affirm the validity of Joseph Smith's First Vision, despite objections from critics about differing accounts.

Copyright Intellectual Reserve

Readers are encouraged to submit suggestions for future topics. Write to R. Scott Lloyd at LDS Church News, P.O. Box 1257, Salt Lake City, Utah 84110; e-mail to rscott@desnews.com.

Was Joseph Smith's First Vision a fanciful tale that evolved over the years? Or was it a genuine theophany in which he was indeed visited by the Father and the Son?
In the recent two-part documentary "The Mormons," presented over the Public Broadcasting Service, one of the individuals interviewed makes this remark:
"The first version of the vision was written in Joseph Smith's own hand in 1832.... Subsequently, over the next 12 years, there were other versions that emerged from Joseph Smith, where the story got more detailed and more colorful. And one of the later versions became the official version."
This is immediately followed in the program by a comment from another man, who says: "Finally, in 1838, we have God and the Son visiting him, telling him to join none of the other churches. And it begs the question, was Joseph Smith building a story as he went, because the story certainly evolved and the story certainly took on more miraculous, more remarkable characteristics."
The clear insinuation is that Joseph invented the account from the beginning and embellished it as time went on. Unfortunately, the documentary provides nothing in the way of rebuttal from faithful Church members to counter that notion, and viewers, perhaps, are left with impression that Mormons have no rebuttal.
Not so, say LDS scholars and other students of Church history.
"People have so many misconceptions about the 'various accounts,"' wrote James B. Allen, a retired BYU history professor, in response to a Church News e-mail. "I have often given firesides about it, emphasizing the fact that, of course, there are differences between the accounts, but that there are some remarkable and important consistencies, and that, most important, they all reflected Joseph Smith's honest effort, at different times, under different circumstances, and to different people, to explain what happened to him.
"Why would we not expect some differences to occur — after all, which of us tells a story exactly the same way every time?"
Brother Allen's article "Eight Contemporary Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision — What Do We Learn from Them?" appeared in the April 1970 issue of the Improvement Era, forerunner to today's Ensign magazine, drawing upon a 1965 master's thesis by Paul R. Cheesman.
Since then, other treatments of the several first vision accounts have been written by Milton V. Backman, Richard Lloyd Anderson and others, including a 2005 update by Brother Allen, co-authored with John W. Welch, as a chapter in the book Opening the Heavens.
Do these authors see variations in the accounts as shedding doubt on the veracity of the experience? On the contrary, they relish them as illuminating and providing greater detail to it.
"Although each narrative emphasizes different ideas and events, none is incompatible with other accounts," Brother Allen wrote in the Improvement Era piece. "There is a striking consistency throughout all the narratives, and if one wishes he may combine them into an impressive report that in no way contradicts any of the individual accounts. Moreover, the descriptions given of events related to the vision but that happened outside the grove are consistent with our knowledge of contemporary events."
Here is a brief listing of eight of the narratives:


An 1832 account written by a 26-year-old Joseph Smith 12 years after the experience. It emphasized his remorse and forgiveness for personal sins and the guidance he received from the Savior.

An 1835 account given by the Prophet to a visitor and recorded by a scribe. It referred to the appearance of two heavenly beings, one coming after the other, and mentioned "many angels."

The familiar 1838-39 account that today is part of the Pearl of Great Price. As such, it is canonized scripture and the Church's official account of the vision.

An 1840 account written by apostle Orson Pratt and published in England. It elaborated on some details of the 1838-39 version.


An 1842 account by another apostle, Orson Hyde, published in a missionary tract in Germany, similar to Elder Pratt's account.

An 1842 account, part of the letter Joseph wrote to John Wentworth, editor of the Chicago Democrat newspaper.

An 1843 account given by Joseph to the editor of the Pittsburgh Gazette, which appeared in the New York Spectator on Sept. 23.

An 1844 entry in the diary of German immigrant Alexander Neibaur endeavoring to retell the story after hearing it from the Prophet.

A chart accompanying the 1970 Improvement Era article provides a harmony of the different versions, showing elements common to them.
Since 1970, two other accounts have surfaced, one an 1843 diary entry by Levi Richards of Nauvoo, and the other an additional 1835 account given to and recorded by another visitor to the Prophet.
Despite persuasive arguments to the contrary by Church scholars, critics have continued over the years to hammer away at the variations in the accounts, claiming they cast doubt on the experience, often ignoring rebuttals that have already been made. To date, their contentions have not been conclusive or even convincing.
Here is a sample of some antagonists' arguments accompanied by responses thereto:
Criticism: The 1832 account mentions only one heavenly visitor, not two.
Response: Nothing in the account claims there was only one personage.
Writing in the April 1996 Ensign, Richard Lloyd Anderson, BYU professor of ancient scripture, noted: "The Prophet writes poignantly about seeking God and adds: 'And the Lord opened the heavens upon me, and I saw the Lord,' Then follow the words of the Savior... . Possibly the term Lord referred to the Father in the first instance, while afterward referring to the Son, who declared (H)is atonement for the sins of all. This is the most personalized of all the vision accounts, and Joseph Smith is preoccupied with Christ's assurance, evidently only hinting at the presence of the Father."
Criticism: The 1838-39 account describes a religious revival, yet no such movement can be documented in the town of Palmyra, N.Y., in the spring of 1820.
Response: The account doesn't mention Palmyra specifically, but rather, refers to "the place where we lived" (Manchester township) and the "whole district of country," which could be interpreted broadly. And it says the religious excitement took place "in the second year after our removal to Manchester," which could have been in 1819 or 1820.
"Professor Milton Backman has demonstrated conclusively that there was considerable religious excitement in the general area of the Burned-over District of western New York in 1819 and 1820, and that 'spiritual quickenings' were particularly intense in 1819," Brother Allen wrote in his 1970 article.
Criticism: Some have pointed to a possible discrepancy between the 1832 account and later versions. In 1832, Joseph said he had decided after studying the scriptures that no denomination was built upon the New Testament gospel. Yet in the original 1838 account is the parenthetical statement that "at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong."
Response: In a January 1985 Ensign article, Milton V. Backman, BYU professor of Church history, reasoned: "Perhaps the statements are not contradictory. Through a study of the Bible (an intellectual analysis) Joseph Smith may have decided that all the churches he knew of were wrong. At the time he entered the grove, however, and at other times, he may have believed in his heart that God's true church existed somewhere — he just didn't know where."
Viewed in another way, the foregoing may have fit what young Joseph came to learn — and what Church members have been taught through the years — is the pattern for receiving personal revelation: First, study and ponder the problem in one's mind; then arrive at a tentative conclusion; finally seek confirmation from the Lord in prayer (see Doctrine and Covenants 9:8-9).
In this case, such confirmation came in a very dramatic fashion, one that has eternally blessed mankind.
Resources:
James B. Allen and John W. Welch, "Appearance of the Father and the Son," in Welch, Opening the Heavens, BYU Press and Deseret Book, pp. 35-75.
Milton V. Backman Jr., "Joseph Smith's Recitals of the First Vision," Ensign, January 1985, pp. 8-17.
Richard L. Anderson, "Joseph Smith's Testimony of the First Vision," Ensign, April 1996, pp. 10-21.
Michael R. Ash, "The First Vision," Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), 2003, www.fair-lds.org.
Matthew B. Brown, "Revised or Unaltered? Joseph Smith's Foundational Stories," address at 2006 Conference of Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR); transcript accessible at www.fair-lds.org.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Y'all are a tough crowd:

I do apologize. When copyright issues arise I tend to get out my horn-rimmed glasses and turn into the crotchety old librarian... hair-bun, frumpy sweater and all.

[RC Vikings]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I do apologize. When copyright issues arise I tend to get out my horn-rimmed glasses and turn into the crotchety old librarian... hair-bun, frumpy sweater and all.

The world needs more frumpy sweaters like that.

[Tex]

That's an interesting article, and a nice summary of the questions surrounding the First Vision. Now comes my question to Requiem, or anyone else who wants to answer:

Why is this being discussed as a "new period of enlightened thinking"?

The article referenced was published in 1970, almost 40 years ago. I personally fielded similar accusations about the First Vision from an anti-Mormon as late as 7 years ago. I wasn't aware of the 1970 article or that there were eight recognized accounts, but I was familiar with the first three (as was my opponent).

I'm all for renewed discussion of the topic if that's what folks want, but in this case neither the complaints nor the discussion is new.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Ack!
see no evil hear no evil see no evil hear no evil

Oops. Forgot there was a librarian in the house.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm all for renewed discussion of the topic if that's what folks want, but in this case neither the complaints nor the discussion is new.

It is the combination of events and the methods/forums of delivery - not just this article (which I agree is not new information). It appears the Church is making a genuine effort to be more candid in terms of our history and doctrine. For example, I no longer have to defend to my colleagues the content of "Man His Origin and Destiny", or the statements of BRM as representing the official LDS Church position on evolution (President Hinckley's statement on this topic was brilliant). It does not threaten me that early Church leaders uttered misstatements on non-doctrinal matters, or that our history reflects the fallibility of men (not women).

[All-American]

I think we will look at President Hinckley's tenure much the way we now look at President McKay's tenure: a period of growth, a renewed emphasis on the church outside of Utah and the US, a noticeable relaxation of orthodoxy, et cetera. You even have a Romney running for president during both eras. I don't know that we look at that period of time, significant though it was, as being so important as to label it a "reformation," and I don't think this era will be that different. Growth? Yes. Change? Yes. Reform? Not quite.

And regarding Joseph Smith's first visions: one fly in the ointment explains a lot of the inconsistencies (sufficiently for my tastes, anyway; others may be more difficult to please). In the 1838 account that we now find in the pearl of great price, Joseph says that Jesus told him "many other things . . . which I cannot write at this time." I've done some studies myself on the different accounts of the first vision, and it seems at times that Joseph wonders how much he can talk about, and is gingerly exploring.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by All-American

I don't know that we look at that period of time, significant though it was, as being so important as to label it a "reformation," and I don't think this era will be that different. Growth? Yes. Change? Yes. Reform? Not quite.

So has Mormonism ever experienced a "true" reformation? Or is that considered antithetical to being a restored church? Or will we have to wait for the BKP era? Do I ask too many questions?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Requiem

So has Mormonism ever experienced a "true" reformation? Or is that considered antithetical to being a restored church? Or will we have to wait for the BKP era? Do I ask too many questions?

"Reform" implies a major transformation to me. Certainly, the protestant reformation was a period of major transformation. I don't think this particular period of time qualifies. There may have been some noticeable shifts in policies and practices, but there haven't been any major doctrinal, hierarchical, or ideological changes, no matter where SU tells you they've stuffed Joseph Smith.

The closest thing to a reformation I would look at in Mormonism would be either the end of the practice of polygamy or of the priesthood ban, to which the current era doesn't compare as far as reformation goes.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by All-American

"Reform" implies a major transformation to me. Certainly, the protestant reformation was a period of major transformation. I don't think this particular period of time qualifies. There may have been some noticeable shifts in policies and practices, but there haven't been any major doctrinal, hierarchical, or ideological changes, no matter where SU tells you they've stuffed Joseph Smith.

The closest thing to a reformation I would look at in Mormonism would be either the end of the practice of polygamy or of the priesthood ban, to which the current era doesn't compare as far as reformation goes.

I'm not going to nit pick you here, AA, but the fact is that the mullahs are trying to downplay what's going on ("Move along, there's nothing to see here!"), because they are the ones being taken to the woodshed. We could disagree about what counts as "reform" and "revival" until the cows come home, but the fact is there have been several periods of attempted course correction in the Church. Brigham Young in the 1850s, Joseph F. Smith in the wake of the Smoot hearings, and even David O. McKay.

The hagiographic wall, a wall that CES types and mullahs have been trying to build for decades is showing alot of cracks (they've been trying to build it all along, really, but they've been more sucessful since CES has gone fundy--I know, not every CES employee is that way, but those who aren't are often embattled), When Mormons respond to a Church-sponsored survey and say that they want their Church to level with them in terms of its history, the seasons are changing (in the Ecclesiastes 3 sense). When the Church actually asks for feedback about the PBS documentary from its members, the seasons are changing. When a Church publication discusses scholarly responses to various versions of the First Vision, something that it has very much downplayed in recent years (there has been the occasional Ensign article on a "touchy" historical or doctrinal topic, and especially during the Hoffmann stuff, but nothing like the old Improvement Era days. For the most part manuals, conference talks and so on have been 'correlated'), the seasons are changing. When a document comes through official Church channels declaring a few core doctrines, affirming heterodoxy and Christian life in the face of the plurality of perspectives throughout it's history, the seasons are changing (note: I don't think the Church's heterodoxy ever really changed, but the mullahs have had their way in official publications in recent years). When members talk about the "web Church" and the "Official Church" while my stake can't get 10 people to show up for an Institute class, the seasons are changing. When my HT family stops me in the foyer to ask me about polyandry and half a dozen people gather around to listen to my answer, the seasons are changing. When Elder Packer backs off of his famous CES talk that slammed intellectuals on national television, the seasons are changing...