Mormon Identity the FIRST VISION, PART 1

Episode 14 Mormon Identity THE FIRST VISION, PART 1 [BEGIN MUSIC] HOST: Welcome to Mormon Identity. A 30 minute talk radio program that addresses Church topics important to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Our host is Robert L. Millet, professor of Religious Education at Brigham Young University. [END MUSIC] ROBERT MILLET: We welcome you once again to this episode of Mormon Identity. I’m Bob Millet, professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. I’m here with my colleague and friend Kent Jackson who is the Associate Dean of Religious Education and also professor of ancient scripture. Welcome Kent. KENT JACKSON: Thank you, Bob. Glad to be here. ROBERT MILLET: Today we want to discuss the matter of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. It’s a subject that is so significant that we want to devote two periods to this particular topic. The first period we’ll talk about the different accounts of the First Vision; something that many Saints have come to understand and perhaps something that many of you have not. We’ll talk about the different accounts and what they contribute to our understanding. And then the second segment of this whole episode, the second period, we’ll talk about the doctrinal significance of the First Vision. What place, what role it plays in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So part one, let’s talk about the four accounts. Kent, it’s inevitable that our critics should over time to begin to notice things such as Joseph Smith’s description of his First Vision experience and to notice that there were more than one, as I recall more than one account. As I recall, in the 1960s our friend, now deceased, Brother Paul Chesman, as part of his master’s thesis, began to discover that there was more than one account. We have, of course, had the Pearl of Great Price account, what we call the 1838 account. But Paul began to discover some others and some of the critics of the Church really picked up on this. Do you want to talk about that? KENT JACKSON: Yes, there’s really not much to pick up on. Really in terms of criticism against the Church it’s true the prophet told his story on different occasions and that he in doing so he didn’t choose the exactly the same words to tell the story much like you and I telling something that happened to us. If we tell it to one group and express in some terms and when we tell it to another group we’ll express it in other words. So there’s nothing remarkable about that. Each of these accounts was done on different occasions perhaps with different audiences in mind. And that helps explain points of emphasis that differ between one and the other. 1 ROBERT MILLET: I thought about experiences I’ve had with my own journal. Some years ago I was browsing journal entries from the 1980s and happened upon an experience that was pretty personal and sacred to me and as I read it through I felt that same feeling I had felt in the 1980s, but I found myself wanting to add some things and say, “By this I’m sure it meant that.” Here I am 20 plus years, 25 years removed from it and I had some perspective on it that I didn’t have in the 1980s. So I think Joseph Smith would have had much the same experience with the First Vision. KENT JACKSON: And over the course of time you understand better things that happen in your life than you did when they took place. ROBERT MILLET: You know it’s not uncommon for people outside the Church who are critical of the Church to talk about a difference in accounts signaling fraudulent accounts. How do we respond to that Kent? KENT JACKSON: They…. ROBERT MILLET: You’ve mentioned, you’ve mentioned, of course, different audiences and different occasions. KENT JACKSON: Sure. Just one example would be some of these accounts were written expressively for the purpose of location. The 1842 account was written for publication to non LDS audience, the 1838 account--the Pearl of Great Price--was written for Latter-day Saints, and the 1835 account was a journal entry. So the anticipated audience is going to determine to some degree how you’re going to express it. I think one thing that needs to be pointed out, it appears that the prophet was reticent for many years to even talk about the First Vision. Aside from these accounts that we know of, we don’t even have diary accounts of people saying Joseph Smith told me how God appeared to him when he was 14 years old. And there’s evidence in that the prophet wanted to emphasize and telling the story of the restoration coming forth the Book of Mormon which represented the heavens being opened, new doctrines being revealed, God speaking today. ROBERT MILLET: A physical evidence of the restoration. KENT JACKSON: A physical evidence. And then he did tell the story of the coming of John the Baptist, especially because that represented the restoration of authority from God. It’s interesting that after he comes back from the First Vision itself he goes into the house. He’s exhausted from the experience, leans up on the fireplace and his mother asks him, “What happened to you?” And do you remember his answer? “I’ve learned for myself that Presbyterian is not true.” ROBERT MILLET: Which would have been very, very strong element in society at that time. KENT JACKSON: Sure and, and none the less that was a dramatic understatement. This is his response after the First Vision: “I’ve learned for myself that Presbyterian is not true.” ROBERT MILLET: It’s a very specific statement isn’t it? Rather then saying, “I’ve learned that all the churches are wrong.” 2 KENT JACKSON: Yeah, or that God came to me and Jesus came to me and they talked to me and the devil tried to kill me. He didn’t tell any of those. ROBERT MILLET: I think you would have had some hesitation too, Kent. Because after his first experience he’s clearly climbed on by the Methodist minister who rebukes him and tells him such things do not come from God. And again this is a 14-year-old boy. KENT JACKSON: Yes, and even to his mother that answer was tailor made for her because that was the big question. The question wasn’t just which church should I join, but it was should I join the Presbyterian Church like my mother and some of my siblings. ROBERT MILLET: And three other his siblings had. You know Kent, I want to come back in just a moment and talk about scriptural parallels where we find things in the Bible for example. Were there differences, but we’ll come to that in a moment. Let’s just note for the benefit of our listeners that this is not an unusual thing that Joseph Smith’s great and significant First Vision, it began things for him and as Kent has suggested appropriately for sometime the First Vision wasn’t the, the lead item in the preaching of the gospel. It probably was the Book of Mormon. Because here as we’ve said, here was a physical … KENT JACKSON: That they could put in there hands. ROBERT MILLET: Something as President Hinckley used to say, you hold in your hands, you can turn the pages. In other words you have to do something with this. We’ll be back in just a moment. Welcome back to Mormon Identity. I’m Bob Millet I’m joined by Kent Jackson of the Department of Ancient Scripture. We’re discussing the First Vision and particularly the fact that the prophet Joseph Smith seems to have dictated at least four accounts of the First Vision through the years from 1830 to through 1842. Ken, you know I’m thinking of biblical things. If we were to look for parallels from the Bible, what do you think of? KENT JACKSON: On the terms of big parallels we have first and second Samuel, first and second Kings, first and second Chronicles that overlap there corresponding retelling of the same stories. ROBERT MILLET: Such as, when did, for example, when did David meet Saul? If you read the different account you’re not quite sure. KENT JACKSON: And then in the New Testament, of course, we have in terms of big things we have four gospels. And they don’t always deal with same things but there’s a number of places where there’s many, many places where Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell the same stories, but there’s even some places where Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all tell the same stories and they’re not in the same words. Sometimes they approach it a little bit differently so there’s nothing odd about that. ROBERT MILLET: I was thinking, you know, on the resurrection. One of the gospel writers may say that there was one angel, another will say there was two angels. I think most of us aren’t too troubled by that. Whoever was there it was, it was a true resurrection and I don’t think any of us would think to question the veracity of the resurrection. 3 KENT JACKSON: No. ROBERT MILLET: And so it was, I think, with Joseph Smith.

Load more