Array

Mormonism and Wikipedia/First Vision/Interpretations and responses to the vision: Difference between revisions

(template)
m (bot use legacy Detail template)
 
(97 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__
{{Main Page}}
{{H2
|L=Mormonism and Wikipedia/First Vision/Interpretations and responses to the vision
|H=An analysis of the Wikipedia article "First Vision"
|S=
|L1=
}}
{{FAIRAnalysisWikipedia
{{FAIRAnalysisWikipedia
|title=[[../]]
|title=[[../]]
|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision
|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision
|uplink=[[../|First Vision]]
|uplink=[[../|First Vision]]
|section=How people have responded to the First Vision
|section=Interpretations and responses to the vision
|previous=[[../How the vision story has been presented|How the vision story has been presented]]
|previous=[[../Recorded accounts of the vision|Recorded accounts of the vision]]
|next=
|next=
|notes={{WikipediaDisclaimer}}
|notes={{WikipediaDisclaimer}}
}}
}}
=An analysis of the Wikipedia article "First Vision"=
 
{{Epigraph|The article is indeed one of the most neutral articles about Mormon doctrine on Wikipedia, and I'll do my best to keep it as neutral as one non-Mormon can.<br>
{{Epigraph|The article is indeed one of the most neutral articles about Mormon doctrine on Wikipedia, and I'll do my best to keep it as neutral as one non-Mormon can.<br>
&mdash;Wikipedia editor John "Foxe" (6 October 2007) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_Vision/Archive_7}} }}
&mdash;Wikipedia editor John Foxe (6 October 2007) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_Vision/Archive_7}} }}
{{parabreak}}
{{parabreak}}
==How people have responded to the First Vision==
==Interpretations and responses to the vision {{WikipediaUpdate|9/17/2011}}==
===Acceptance of the First Vision===


{{BeginWikipediaTable|link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision|section=Acceptance_of_the_First_Vision|article=First Vision}}
===== =====
=====1A=====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
||
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
The importance of the First Vision within the Latter Day Saint movement evolved over time. Early adherents were unaware of the details of the vision until 1840, when the earliest accounts were published in Great Britain. An account of the First Vision was not published in the United States until 1842, shortly before Joseph Smith's death. Jan Shipps has written that the vision was "practically unknown" until an account of it written in 1838 was published in 1840.
|claim=
||
Among [[Latter Day Saint movement|contemporary denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement]], the First Vision is typically viewed as a significant (often the ''most'' significant) event in the [[Restoration (Latter Day Saints)|latter day restoration]] of the [[Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)|Church of Christ]].  However, the faiths differ in their teachings about the vision's precise meaning and details.  Secular scholars and non-Mormons view the vision as a lie, false memory, delusion, or hallucination, or some combination of these.
*Jan Shipps, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 30.  
|authorsources=<br>
*The first extant account of the First Vision is the manuscript account in Joseph Smith, "Manuscript History of the Church" (1839);  
#
*the first published account is Orson Pratt, ''An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records'' (Edinburgh: Ballantyne and Hughes, 1840);  
}}
*and the first American publication is Joseph Smith's letter to John Wentworth in ''Times and Seasons'', 3 (March 1842), 706-08, only two years before Smith's assassination. (These accounts are available in Dan Vogel, ed., ''Early Mormon Documents'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996), volume 1.)  
*This is a summary of the following sections.
*As the LDS historian Richard Bushman has written in his authoritative biography, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), "At first, Joseph was reluctant to talk about his vision. Most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision." (39)
 
||
 
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}  
===Early awareness by Latter Day Saints===
*From Bushman:
 
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
The importance of the First Vision within the [[Latter Day Saint movement]] evolved over time. Early adherents were unaware of the details of the vision until 1840, when the earliest accounts were published in [[Great Britain]]. An account of the First Vision was not published in the United States until 1842, shortly before [[Death of Joseph Smith, Jr.|Joseph Smith's death]]. [[Jan Shipps]] has written that the vision was "practically unknown" until an account of it was published in 1842.
|authorsources=<br>
#Jan Shipps, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985), 30. The first extant account of the First Vision is the manuscript account in Joseph Smith, "Manuscript History of the Church" (1839); the first published account is Orson Pratt, ''An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions and of the Late Discovery of Ancient American Records'' (Edinburgh: Ballantyne and Hughes, 1840); and the first American publication is Joseph Smith's letter to John Wentworth in ''Times and Seasons'', 3 (March 1842), 706-08, only two years before Smith's assassination. (These accounts are available in Dan Vogel, ed., ''Early Mormon Documents'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996), volume 1.) As the LDS historian [[Richard Bushman]] has written in his authoritative biography, [[Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling]] (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), "At first, Joseph was reluctant to talk about his vision. Most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision." (39)
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaMissingRef}}This simply is not true:  Pratt's article was discussed in England and Scotland almost immediately after its publication, the London one being reprinted in Philadelphia:
“The Book of Mormon and the Mormonites”, The Athenaeum 701 (April 3, 1841): 251-3; the Athenaeum article is also reprinted in The Museum of Foreign Literature, Science and Art (Philadelphia) 42 (July 1841): 370-374.
*Furthermore, Orson Pratt published it three times in New York City immediately after returning from England: Heber C. Kimball, letter to Millennial Star editor, Nauvoo, July 15, 1841: 
<blockquote>“On the 4th June I started for home, in company with Elders Young and Taylor.—Elder O. Pratt remained in New York to republish the book he had printed in Edinburgh, Scotland, giving a history of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and of which he intended to publish 5,000 copies…. [78] Elder Orson Pratt arrived here this week…” (Millenial Star 2 (1841): 77-78).
</blockquote>
*That this refers to ''Remarkable Visions'' is clear from Pratt’s history: 
<blockquote>
“In the spring of 1841, set sail from Liverpool with several of the Twelve, and arrived in New York city, where I republished the Remarkable Visions”, (Millennial Star 27 (1865): 88).
</blockquote>
*We have the publication data of those three editions.
*Milton Backman wrote in 1992: 
<blockquote>
“The widespread popularity of Remarkable Visions is evident by the fact that three editions were printed in New York in 1841-1842. Other editions were published in Liverpool, England, in 1848 and in Australia in 1851. It also served as the basis for a missionary tract published in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1842. After securing a copy of this work, Elder Orson Hyde, another apostle who was a close associate of Joseph Smith, verified the accuracy of this publication by translating it (with only few modifications) into German.” Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Defender of the First Vision”, in Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman, Jr., and Susan Easton Black, eds., Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint History: New York. (Provo: BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine, 1992): 38.
</blockquote>
*Furthermore, Pratt's work was noticed in Times and Seasons, Vol. 2.19 (2 August 1841): 502 [Also August 16, September 1, 1841]:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
At first, Joseph was reluctant to talk about his vision. Most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision. "The angel of the Lord says that we must be careful not to proclaim these things or to mention them abroad," he told his parents after one early vision. A subsequent vision of the angel who led him to the gold plates was not mentioned in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. (Bushman, ''Rough Stone Rolling'', p. 39)
4.  An interesting account of SEVERAL REMARKABLE VISIONS, and of the late discovery of ANCIENT AMERICAN RECORDS, which unfold the history of this continent from the earliest ages after the flood, to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era.  With a sketch of the rise, faith, and doctrine of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.  By O. Pratt.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
|-  
*Here it was commented on: “This last work will be found to contain information of great importance, as it will save the traveling elders the labor of constantly relating, over and over again, those things in which every new enquirer is so deeply interested, and upon which he is so very anxious to obtain correct information.”
|
The scene was certainly being set for the publication of Joseph’s own history, which began March 1842.
 
 
===Interpretation and use by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints===


=====1B=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
The canonical First Vision story was not emphasized in the sermons of Smith's immediate successors Brigham Young and John Taylor. Hugh Nibley noted that although a "favorite theme of Brigham Young's was the tangible, personal nature of God," he "never illustrates [the theme] by any mention of the first vision."
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
||
|claim=
*''Improvement Era'' (November 1961), 868.
The canonical First Vision story was not emphasized in the sermons of Smith's immediate successors [[Brigham Young]] and [[John Taylor (1808-1887)|John Taylor]] within [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]. [[Hugh Nibley]] noted that although a "favorite theme of Brigham Young's was the tangible, personal nature of God," he "never illustrates [the theme] by any mention of the first vision."
||
|authorsources=<br>
*{{WikipediaCitationAbuse|editor=John "Foxe"|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=71684183&oldid=71681719}} Note that the editor originally wrote "Hugh Nibley admitted" rather than "noted," thus implying that something was being hidden. The wiki editor has distorted Nibley's intent&mdash;He was pointing out that reticence about mentioning the First Vision does not mean that Brigham didn't believe that it didn't occur, but that such matters were so sacred that they should not be talked about lightly, or without permission.
#''Improvement Era'' (November 1961), 868.
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaCITE|editor=John Foxe|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=71684183&oldid=71681719}} The wiki editor has misrepresented Nibley's intent&mdash;He was pointing out that reticence about mentioning the First Vision does not mean that Brigham didn't believe that it didn't occur, but that such matters were so sacred that they should not be talked about lightly, or without permission.
*{{WikipediaMissingRef}}In the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City on 1 September 1859 Brigham Young referred to Joseph Smith’s published history, which includes the 1838 First Vision account. He asked,  
*{{WikipediaMissingRef}}In the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City on 1 September 1859 Brigham Young referred to Joseph Smith’s published history, which includes the 1838 First Vision account. He asked,  
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Line 54: Line 91:
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
*It is also interesting to note that critics make contradicting claims regarding Brigham's treatment of the First Vision: <br>1) It is claimed that Brigham never mentioned the First Vision <br>(See: [[Brigham Young never mentioned the First Vision]]) <br>2) It is claimed that when Brigham spoke of the First Vision, that he claimed that it was an angel that came <br>(See: [[Brigham Young said the Lord didn't appear]])
*It is also interesting to note that critics make contradicting claims regarding Brigham's treatment of the First Vision: <br>1) It is claimed that Brigham never mentioned the First Vision <br>(See: [[Brigham Young never mentioned the First Vision]]) <br>2) It is claimed that when Brigham spoke of the First Vision, that he claimed that it was an angel that came <br>(See: [[Brigham Young said the Lord didn't appear]])
|-
|


=====1C=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
John Taylor gave a complete account of the First Vision story in an 1850 letter written as he began missionary work in France,
John Taylor gave a complete account of the First Vision story in an 1850 letter written as he began missionary work in France,
||
|authorsources=<br>
*"[Joseph Smith] mind was troubled, he saw contention instead of peace; and division instead of union; and when he reflected upon the multifarious creeds and professions there were in existence, he thought it impossible for all to be right, and if God taught one, He did not teach the others, "for God is not the author of confusion." In reading his bible, he was remarkably struck with the passage in James, 1st chapter, 5th verse, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." Believing in the word of God, he retired into a grove, and called upon the Lord to give him wisdom in relation to this matter. While he was thus engaged, he was surrounded by a brilliant light, and two glorious personages presented themselves before him, who exactly resembled each other in features, and who gave him information upon the subjects which had previously agitated his mind. He was given to understand that the churches were all of them in error in regard to many things; and he was commanded not to go after them; and he received a promise that the 'fulness' of the gospel should at some future time be unfolded unto him: after which the vision withdrew, leaving his mind in a state of calmness and peace." John Taylor, Letter to the Editor of the Interpreter Anglais et Français, Boulogne-sur-mer (25 June 1850).
#"[Joseph Smith] mind was troubled, he saw contention instead of peace; and division instead of union; and when he reflected upon the multifarious creeds and professions there were in existence, he thought it impossible for all to be right, and if God taught one, He did not teach the others, "for God is not the author of confusion." In reading his bible, he was remarkably struck with the passage in James, 1st chapter, 5th verse, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." Believing in the word of God, he retired into a grove, and called upon the Lord to give him wisdom in relation to this matter. While he was thus engaged, he was surrounded by a brilliant light, and two glorious personages presented themselves before him, who exactly resembled each other in features, and who gave him information upon the subjects which had previously agitated his mind. He was given to understand that the churches were all of them in error in regard to many things; and he was commanded not to go after them; and he received a promise that the 'fulness' of the gospel should at some future time be unfolded unto him: after which the vision withdrew, leaving his mind in a state of calmness and peace." John Taylor, Letter to the Editor of the Interpreter Anglais et Français, Boulogne-sur-mer (25 June 1850).  
||
|authorsources=<br>
*Editor John "Foxe" presents this odd argument to justify an attempt to remove Taylor's quote, which now appears in the footnote:  
#
}}
*Editor John Foxe presents this odd argument to justify an attempt to remove Taylor's quote, which now appears in the footnote:  
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
I eliminated the quotation from the Taylor letter of 1850 on the grounds that it doesn't refer to the First Vision; at best it's a conflation of the First Vision and the Moroni Vision. Again, you could always say that 'apologists argue.' John "Foxe" (20 October 2007) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_Vision/Archive_7#Evolving_importance}}
I eliminated the quotation from the Taylor letter of 1850 on the grounds that it doesn't refer to the First Vision; at best it's a conflation of the First Vision and the Moroni Vision. Again, you could always say that 'apologists argue.' John Foxe (20 October 2007) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_Vision/Archive_7#Evolving_importance}}
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
*"Apologists" need argue no such thing&mdash;simply read Taylor's account and compare it to Joseph's 1838 account.
*"Apologists" need argue no such thing&mdash;simply read Taylor's account and compare it to Joseph's 1838 account.
*'''1850''':John Taylor, Letter to the Editor of the ''Interpreter Anglais et Français'', Boulogne-sur-mer (25 June 1850).  (emphasis added)  Reprinted in {{MS|author=John Taylor|article=|vol=12|num=15|date=1 August 1850|start=235|end=236}}
*'''1850''':John Taylor, Letter to the Editor of the ''Interpreter Anglais et Français'', Boulogne-sur-mer (25 June 1850).  (emphasis added)  Reprinted in {{MS|author=John Taylor|article=|vol=12|num=15|date=1 August 1850|start=235|end=236}}
*'''1850''':John Taylor, ''Aux amis de la vérité réligieuse.  Récit abregé du commencement, des progres, de l’éstablissement, des persecutions, de la foi et de la doctrine de l’Église de Jésus-Christ des Saints des Derniers Jours''  (Paris 1850).  [Translation: To friends of religious truth.  An abridged account of the beginning, progress, establishment, persecutions, the faith, and the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.]
*'''1850''':John Taylor, ''Aux amis de la vérité réligieuse.  Récit abregé du commencement, des progres, de l’éstablissement, des persecutions, de la foi et de la doctrine de l’Église de Jésus-Christ des Saints des Derniers Jours''  (Paris 1850).  [Translation: To friends of religious truth.  An abridged account of the beginning, progress, establishment, persecutions, the faith, and the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.]
|-
|


=====1D=====
 
||
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
and he may have alluded to it in a discourse given in 1859.
and he may have alluded to it in a discourse given in 1859.
||
|authorsources=<br>
*"What could the Lord do with such a pack of ignorant fools as we were? There was one man that had a little good sense, and a spark of faith in the promises of god and that was Joseph Smith-a backwoods man. He believed a certain portion of scripture which said-"If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who to all men liberally and upbraideth not." He was fool enough in the eyes of the world, and wise enough in the eyes of God and angels, and all true intelligence to go into a secret place to ask God for wisdom, believing that God would hear him. The Lord did hear him, and told him what to do." ''Deseret News'' (Weekly), December 28, 1859, 337
#"What could the Lord do with such a pack of ignorant fools as we were? There was one man that had a little good sense, and a spark of faith in the promises of god and that was Joseph Smith-a backwoods man. He believed a certain portion of scripture which said-"If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who to all men liberally and upbraideth not." He was fool enough in the eyes of the world, and wise enough in the eyes of God and angels, and all true intelligence to go into a secret place to ask God for wisdom, believing that God would hear him. The Lord did hear him, and told him what to do." ''Deseret News'' (Weekly), December 28, 1859, 337
||
|authorsources=<br>
*Why bother to imply that there was an "allusion" in 1859, when it has already been demonstrated that Taylor had a clear understanding of the First Vision in 1850?  
#
}}
*{{WikipediaNPOV}}Why bother to imply that there was an "allusion" in 1859, when it has already been demonstrated that Taylor had a clear understanding of the First Vision in 1850?  
*{{WikipediaMissingRef}}On 13 August 1857 John Taylor and several members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve placed a copy of the Pearl of Great Price (containing the First Vision story) inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Brigham Young Journal)
*{{WikipediaMissingRef}}On 13 August 1857 John Taylor and several members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve placed a copy of the Pearl of Great Price (containing the First Vision story) inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Brigham Young Journal)
|-
|


=====1E=====
 
||
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
However, when Taylor discussed the origins of Mormonism in 1863, he did so without alluding to the canonical First Vision story,
However, when Taylor discussed the origins of Mormonism in 1863, he did so without alluding to the canonical First Vision story,
||
|authorsources=<br>
*"How did this state of things called Mormonism originate? We read that an angel came down and revealed himself to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him in vision the true position of the world in a religious point of view. He was surrounded with light and glory while the heavenly messenger communicated these things unto him, after a series of visitations and communications from the Apostle Peter and others who held the authority of the holy Priesthood, not only on the earth formerly but in the heavens afterwards." [http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_10/refJDvol10-28.html ''Journal of Discourses'' 10: 123@ 127]
#"How did this state of things called Mormonism originate? We read that an angel came down and revealed himself to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him in vision the true position of the world in a religious point of view. He was surrounded with light and glory while the heavenly messenger communicated these things unto him, after a series of visitations and communications from the Apostle Peter and others who held the authority of the holy Priesthood, not only on the earth formerly but in the heavens afterwards." [http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_10/refJDvol10-28.html ''Journal of Discourses'' 10: 123@ 127]
||
|authorsources=<br>
*{{WikipediaOR|editor=John "Foxe"|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=155688471&oldid=155686193}} Is the use of the word "however" supposed to imply that Taylor had forgotten about the First Vision by 1863? Recall that we just learned that he wrote about it in detail a pamphlet in ''1850''. The wiki editor relies on a primary source (Taylor's 1863 discourse) to create a new "fact" in the wiki article which implies that Taylor felt that the First Vision was of little importance.  
#
}}
*{{WikipediaOR|editor=John Foxe|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=155688471&oldid=155686193}} Is the use of the word "however" supposed to imply that Taylor had discounted the importance of the First Vision by 1863? Recall that we just learned that he wrote about it in detail a pamphlet in ''1850''. The wiki editor relies on a primary source (Taylor's 1863 discourse) to create a new "fact" in the wiki article which implies that Taylor felt that the First Vision was of little importance.  
*{{WikipediaMissingRef}}John Taylor references to the First Vision between 1863 and 1877:
*{{WikipediaMissingRef}}John Taylor references to the First Vision between 1863 and 1877:
*'''1876''': "When God selected Joseph Smith to open up the last dispensation, which is called the dispensation of the fullness of times, the Father and the Son appeared to him, arrayed in glory..."<br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_18/Burial_Services,_an_Ancient_Practice,_etc.|vol=18|pages=325-6; 329, 330.}}
*'''1876''': "When God selected Joseph Smith to open up the last dispensation, which is called the dispensation of the fullness of times, the Father and the Son appeared to him, arrayed in glory..."<br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=41|vol=18|start=325|end=326; 329, 330}}
*'''1877''': "the heavenly messengers, even God himself, came to break the long, long silence of ages, revealing through his Son, Jesus Christ, and the holy angels, the everlasting Gospel?..."<br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_19/The_Trusteeship,_etc.|vol=19|pages=123}}
*'''1877''': "the heavenly messengers, even God himself, came to break the long, long silence of ages, revealing through his Son, Jesus Christ, and the holy angels, the everlasting Gospel?..."<br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=22|vol=19|start=123}}
*'''1877''': "But when the Lord manifested himself to Joseph Smith, presenting to him his Son who was there also, saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him;" he then knew that God lived;"<br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_19/Gathering_the_Result_of_Revelation,_etc.|vol=19|pages=152}}
*'''1877''': "But when the Lord manifested himself to Joseph Smith, presenting to him his Son who was there also, saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him;" he then knew that God lived;"<br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=27|vol=19|start=152}}
|-
 
|


=====1F=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
and in 1879, he referred to Joseph Smith having asked "the angel" which of the sects was correct.
and in 1879, he referred to Joseph Smith having asked "the angel" which of the sects was correct.
||
|authorsources=<br>
*[http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_20/JD20-158.html ''Journal of Discourses'' 20: 158 @ 167.]  
#[http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_20/JD20-158.html ''Journal of Discourses'' 20: 158 @ 167.] For Mormon apologetic response see [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_Early_LDS_Leaders_Misunderstand_the_First_Vision.html FairLDS.org]
*For Mormon apologetic response see [http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Did_Early_LDS_Leaders_Misunderstand_the_First_Vision.html FairLDS.org]
|authorsources=<br>
||
#
*The link given in Wikipedia is to the FAIR web site, which contains no specifics on John Taylor's view of the First Vision. The actual "Mormon apologetic response" is addressed below and in the FAIR Wiki here: [[John Taylor's understanding of the First Vision]].  
}}
*The implication that John Taylor was confused as to the nature of the First Vision is unsupportable. There is a considerable amount of supporting primary source material that is hidden by the reference to the "Mormon apologetic response" in the wiki article. Any history professor with an interest in Mormonism would never have ignored so many easily accessible supporting references.
*{{WikipediaNPOV}}John Taylor mentioned the visit of the Father and the Son numerous times during his discourses. The wiki article focuses on one instance in which he referred to "the angel," and ignores another statement made the ''same day'' that refers to the Father and the Son. This is intended to imply that Taylor was confused about the details of the vision or that it was of diminishing importance in his mind.  
*Another odd comment from John "Foxe":
*The actual "Mormon apologetic response" is addressed below and in the FAIR Wiki here: [[John Taylor's understanding of the First Vision]].  
*The implication that John Taylor was confused as to the nature of the First Vision is unsupportable. There is a considerable amount of supporting primary source material that is hidden by the reference to the "Mormon apologetic response" in the wiki article.  
*Another odd comment from John Foxe:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
"I accept that John Taylor mentioned the First Vision at least twice. That he did not emphasize it during his tenure as President is just as true as ever." John "Foxe" (21 October 2007) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_Vision/Archive_8#Objective_definition_of_.27fairness_of_tone.27}}
"I accept that John Taylor mentioned the First Vision at least twice. That he did not emphasize it during his tenure as President is just as true as ever." John Foxe (21 October 2007) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_Vision/Archive_8#Objective_definition_of_.27fairness_of_tone.27}}
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
*{{WikipediaMissingRef}}The article only mentions ''one'' of John Taylor's 1879 talks which refer to the First Vision. This is a very common tactic of critics. Note that a second talk by Taylor''given the very same day (March 2nd, 1879) as the one cited in the Wikipedia article'' states,
*{{WikipediaMissingRef}}The article only mentions ''one'' of John Taylor's 1879 talks which refer to the First Vision. This is a very common tactic of critics. Note that a second talk by Taylor ''given the very same day (March 2nd, 1879) as the one cited in the Wikipedia article'' states,
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
"When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith..."<br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_20/The_Interest_of_Humanity_Should_be_Observed|vol=20|pages=257}} (2 March 1879)
"When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith..."<br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=33|vol=20|start=257}} (2 March 1879)
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
*In addition to the clear reference made on the ''same day'' as the "angel" comment, there are additional missing references which show that Taylor clearly understood the nature of the First Vision and actively talked of it&mdash;as one can clearly see from the following citations, any attempt to imply that Taylor didn't know about the First Vision or emphasize it is absurd:
*In addition to the clear reference made on the ''same day'' as the "angel" comment, there are additional missing references which show that Taylor clearly understood the nature of the First Vision and actively talked of it&mdash;as one can clearly see from the following citations, any attempt to imply that Taylor didn't know about the First Vision or emphasize it must ignore a mountain of historical evidence:
*'''25 February 1879''': "God Himself, accompanied by the Savior, appeared to Joseph...."<br>John Taylor letter to A. K. Thurber at Richfield, Utah (25 February 1879).
*'''25 February 1879''': "God Himself, accompanied by the Savior, appeared to Joseph...."<br>John Taylor letter to A. K. Thurber at Richfield, Utah (25 February 1879).
*'''28 November 1879''': "He came himself, accompanied by his Son Jesus, to the Prophet Joseph Smith."<br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_21/Eternal_Nature_of_the_Gospel,_etc.|vol=21|pages=116}}  
*'''28 November 1879''': "He came himself, accompanied by his Son Jesus, to the Prophet Joseph Smith."<br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=14|vol=21|start=116}}  
*'''7 December 1879''': "...the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus, and, pointing to the latter, said: "This is my beloved Son, hear him."<br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_21/How_a_Knowledge_of_God_is_Obtained,_etc.|vol=21|pages=161}}
*'''7 December 1879''': "...the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus, and, pointing to the latter, said: "This is my beloved Son, hear him."<br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=19|vol=21|start=161}}
*'''4 January 1880''': "...the Lord appeared unto Joseph Smith, both the Father and the Son, the Father pointing to the Son said "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him."<br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_21/Comprehensiveness_of_the_Lord%E2%80%99s_Prayer,_etc.|vol=21|pages=65}}
*'''4 January 1880''': "...the Lord appeared unto Joseph Smith, both the Father and the Son, the Father pointing to the Son said "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him."<br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=9|vol=21|start=65}}
*'''27 June 1881''': "And hence when the heavens were opened and the Father and Son appeared and revealed unto Joseph the principles of the Gospel..."<br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_22/The_Privileges_of_the_Saints,_Etc.|vol=22|pages=218}}
*'''27 June 1881''': "And hence when the heavens were opened and the Father and Son appeared and revealed unto Joseph the principles of the Gospel..."<br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=27|vol=22|start=218}}
*'''28 August 1881''': "...the Father and the Son appeared to the youth Joseph Smith to introduce the great work of the latter days."<br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_22/Duties_of_the_Saints,_etc.|vol=22|pages=299}}  
*'''28 August 1881''': "...the Father and the Son appeared to the youth Joseph Smith to introduce the great work of the latter days."<br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=40|vol=22|start=299}}  
*'''20 October 1881''': "In the commencement of the work, the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith. And when they appeared to him, the Father, pointing to the Son, said, "This is my beloved Son, hear him."<br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_26/The_Work_of_God_Only_Partially_Understood,_etc.|vol=26|pages=106-107}}  
*'''20 October 1881''': "In the commencement of the work, the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith. And when they appeared to him, the Father, pointing to the Son, said, "This is my beloved Son, hear him."<br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=12|vol=26|start=106|end=107}}  
*'''1882''': John Taylor, ''Mediation and Atonement'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Company, 1882; Photo lithographic reprint, Salt Lake City, 1964), 138.
*'''1882''': John Taylor, ''Mediation and Atonement'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Company, 1882; Photo lithographic reprint, Salt Lake City, 1964), 138.
*'''5 March 1882''': "After the Lord had spoken to Joseph Smith, and Jesus had manifested himself to him..."<br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_23/The_Dispensation_of_the_Fulness_of_Times,_etc.|vol=23|pages=32}}
*'''5 March 1882''': "After the Lord had spoken to Joseph Smith, and Jesus had manifested himself to him..."<br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=5|vol=23|start=32}}
*'''29 May 1882''': "God the Father, and God the Son, both appeared to him; and the Father, pointing, said, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him."<br>{{MS|author=John Taylor|article=|vol=44|num=22|date=29 May 1882|start=337|end=338}} (emphasis added)
*'''29 May 1882''': "God the Father, and God the Son, both appeared to him; and the Father, pointing, said, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him."<br>{{MS|author=John Taylor|article=|vol=44|num=22|date=29 May 1882|start=337|end=338}} (emphasis added)
*'''23 November 1882''': "It is true that God appeared to Joseph Smith, and that His Son Jesus did;" <br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_23/Man%27s_Natural_Spirit_and_the_Spirit_of_God,_etc.|vol=23|pages=322}}
*'''23 November 1882''': "It is true that God appeared to Joseph Smith, and that His Son Jesus did;" <br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=37|vol=23|start=322}}
*'''18 May 1884''': "When our Heavenly Father appeared unto Joseph Smith, the Prophet, He pointed to the Savior who was with him, (and who, it is said, is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person) and said: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him."<br>{{JDwiki|author=John Taylor|url=http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_25/Manifestations_to_Be_Looked_For,_etc.|vol=25|start=177|end=178}}
*'''18 May 1884''': "When our Heavenly Father appeared unto Joseph Smith, the Prophet, He pointed to the Savior who was with him, (and who, it is said, is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person) and said: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him."<br>{{JDfairwiki|author=John Taylor|disc=23|vol=25|start=177|end=178}}
*'''1892''': "God revealed Himself, as also the Lord Jesus Christ, unto His servant the Prophet Joseph Smith, when the Father pointed to the Son and said: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him.’"<br>John Taylor, cited in B. H. Roberts, ''Life of John Taylor'' (1989; 1st published 1892), 394.
*'''1892''': "God revealed Himself, as also the Lord Jesus Christ, unto His servant the Prophet Joseph Smith, when the Father pointed to the Son and said: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him.’"<br>John Taylor, cited in B. H. Roberts, ''Life of John Taylor'' (1989; 1st published 1892), 394.
|-
|


=====1G=====
||
Three non-Mormon students of Mormonism, Douglas Davies, Kurt Widmer, and Jan Shipps agree that the LDS emphasis on the First Vision was a "'late development', only gaining an influential status in LDS self-reflection late in the nineteenth century."
||
*"Historians have pondered the various phrases of this vision's evolution and tend to see its present form as a 'late development,' only gaining an influential status in LDS self-reflection late in the nineteenth century." Douglas J. Davies, ''An Introduction to Mormonism'' (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 136; 
*Kurt Widner, ''Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1833-1915'' (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2000), 92-107;
*Jan Shipps, ''Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition'' (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1985), 30-32.
*Nevertheless, LDS apologists assert that the doctrine played a significant part in new religion by the time of Smith's martyrdom [http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php/Seldom_mentioned_in_LDS_publications_before_1877_%28long%29 www.fairwiki.org - historical timeline of First Vision presentation]
||
*{{WikipediaOR|editor=John "Foxe"|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=159611225&oldid=159589480}} Note the reference in the footnote to "LDS apologists" asserting that the "doctrine" of the First Vision played a "significant part in [the] new religion." This is incorrect. The event called the "First Vision" is being conflated with "doctrine" by the wiki editor. The FAIR Wiki article referenced does not make any claims regarding the influence of the First Vision on the formation of doctrine, nor does it make any claims regarding whether or not it played a "significant part in [the] new religion." The article is designed to respond specifically to the critical claim that the First Vision was seldom mentioned in Latter-day Saint publications during the early years of the Church, and the critical assertion that members were not familiar with the event. The article does, in fact, state in the conclusion that Church members became aware of the First Vision "by reading LDS books, LDS newspapers, LDS pamphlets, and LDS educational primers."
*The actual title of the FAIR Wiki article referenced is "[[Seldom mentioned in LDS publications before 1877|Seldom mentioned in LDS publications before 1877?]]."
|-
|


=====1H=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
Three non-Mormon students of Mormonism, Douglas Davies, Kurt Widmer, and [[Jan Shipps]] agree that the LDS emphasis on the First Vision was a "'late development', only gaining an influential status in LDS self-reflection late in the nineteenth century."
|authorsources=<br>
#"Historians have pondered the various phrases of this vision's evolution and tend to see its present form as a 'late development,' only gaining an influential status in LDS self-reflection late in the nineteenth century." Douglas J. Davies, ''An Introduction to Mormonism'' (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 136;  Kurt Widner, ''Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1833-1915'' (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2000), 92-107; Jan Shipps, ''Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition'' (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1985), 30-32.
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
 
 
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
Mormon historian James B. Allen also argues that the First Vision "did not figure prominently in any evangelistic endeavors by the Church until the 1880s."
Mormon historian James B. Allen also argues that the First Vision "did not figure prominently in any evangelistic endeavors by the Church until the 1880s."
||
|authorsources=<br>
*Allen, 43-69, summarized in Kurt Widner, ''Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1833-1915'' (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2000), 103.
#Allen, 43-69, summarized in Kurt Widner, ''Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1833-1915'' (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2000), 103.  
||
}}
|-
===== =====
|
{{IndexClaimItemShort
=====1I=====
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
||
|claim=
The first important visual representation of the First Vision was painted by the Danish convert C. C. A. Christensen sometime between 1869 and 1878, and George Manwaring, inspired by the artist, wrote a hymn about the First Vision (later renamed "Oh, How Lovely Was the Morning") first published in 1884.
The first important visual representation of the First Vision was painted by the Danish convert [[C. C. A. Christensen]] sometime between 1869 and 1878, and [[George Manwaring]], inspired by the artist, wrote a hymn about the First Vision (later renamed "Oh, How Lovely Was the Morning") first published in 1884.
||
|authorsources=<br>
*{{Harvnb|Allen|1980|p=53-54}}.
#{{Harvnb|Allen|1980|pp=53–54}}.
||
|authorsources=<br>
*The article points out that Manwaring wrote his song Joseph's first prayer in 1884.  That is not so: it was written in 1878, and published then and at least 3 more times before becoming part of the hymnal.
#
|-
}}
|
*{{WikipediaCITE}}The article points out that Manwaring published his song Joseph's first prayer in 1884.  That is not so: it was written in 1878, and published then and at least 3 more times before becoming part of the hymnal.
 
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
Kurt Widner states that it was primarily through "the post 1883 sermons of LDS Apostle [[George Q. Cannon]] that the modern interpretation and significance of the First Vision in Mormonism began to take shape."
|authorsources=<br>
#Kurt Widner, ''Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1833-1915'' (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2000), 93; ''Journal of Discourses'', 24: 340-41, 371-72. "The emergence of the First Vision is a syncretic approach to deal with past doctrinal inconsistencies on a broad scale. What it attempts to do is, in one giant sweep, gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies, such as a plurality of Gods, God being an exalted man, the purpose of the Church, and the calling of Joseph Smith, and place it into an earlier time frame." Widner, 105.
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaNPOV}}This assumes, of course, that we ignore the repeated references to the event in conference talks by John Taylor between 1876 and 1883.
 


=====1J=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
Kurt Widner states that it was primarily through "the post 1883 sermons of LDS Apostle George Q. Cannon that the modern interpretation and significance of the First Vision in Mormonism began to take shape."
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
||
|claim=
*Kurt Widner, ''Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1833-1915'' (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2000), 93; ''Journal of Discourses'', 24: 340-41, 371-72. "The emergence of the First Vision is a syncretic approach to deal with past doctrinal inconsistencies on a broad scale. What it attempts to do is, in one giant sweep, gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies, such as a plurality of Gods, God being an exalted man, the purpose of the Church, and the calling of Joseph Smith, and place it into an earlier time frame." Widner, 105.
As the sympathetic but non-Mormon historian [[Jan Shipps]] has written, "When the first generation of leadership died off, leaving the community to be guided mainly by men who had not known Joseph, the First Vision emerged as a symbol that could keep the slain Mormon leader at center stage."
||
|authorsources=<br>
*This assumes, of course, that we ignore the repeated references to the event in conference talks by John Taylor between 1876 and 1883.
#Jan Shipps, ''Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition'' (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1985), 32.
|-
|authorsources=<br>
|
#
}}
*{{WikipediaNPOV}}Only in Wikipedia is it necessary for Jan Shipps to be qualified as a "sympathetic but non-Mormon" historian!


=====1K=====
||
As the sympathetic but non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps has written, "When the first generation of leadership died off, leaving the community to be guided mainly by men who had not known Joseph, the First Vision emerged as a symbol that could keep the slain Mormon leader at center stage."
||
*Jan Shipps, ''Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition'' (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1985), 32.
||
*Only in Wikipedia is it necessary for Jan Shipps to be qualified as a "sympathetic but non-Mormon" historian!
|-
|


=====1L=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
The centennial anniversary of the vision in 1920 "was a far cry from the almost total lack of reference to it just fifty years before."
The centennial anniversary of the vision in 1920 "was a far cry from the almost total lack of reference to it just fifty years before."
||
|authorsources=<br>
*{{Harvnb|Allen|1980|p=57}}: "The Mutual Improvement Associations issued a special commemorative pamphlet, the vision was memorialized in music, verse and dramatic representations, and the church's official publication, the ''Improvement Era'', devoted almost the entire April issue to that event."
#{{Harvnb|Allen|1980|p=57}}: "The Mutual Improvement Associations issued a special commemorative pamphlet, the vision was memorialized in music, verse and dramatic representations, and the church's official publication, the ''Improvement Era'', devoted almost the entire April issue to that event."
||
}}
|-
===== =====
|
{{IndexClaimItemShort
=====1M=====
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
||
|claim=
By 1939, even George D. Pyper, an LDS Sunday School superintendent and manager of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, found it "surprising that none of the first song writers wrote intimately of the first vision."
By 1939, even [[George D. Pyper]], an LDS Sunday School superintendent and manager of the [[Mormon Tabernacle Choir]], found it "surprising that none of the first song writers wrote intimately of the first vision."
||
|authorsources=<br>
*George D. Pyper, ''Stories of Latter-day Saint Hymns: Their Authors and Composers'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Press, 1939), 34. Pyper noted that Parley Pratt's earlier "An Angel from on High" and "Hark Ye Mortals" "referred to Cumorah and the ''Book of Mormon''" rather than to the First Vision.
#George D. Pyper, ''Stories of Latter-day Saint Hymns: Their Authors and Composers'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Press, 1939), 34. Pyper noted that [[Parley Pratt]]'s earlier "An Angel from on High" and "Hark Ye Mortals" "referred to [[Cumorah]] and the ''Book of Mormon''" rather than to the First Vision.
||
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*Why is the surprise expressed by Pyper, quoted in the wiki article, worthy of note?  the First Vision had been published dozens and dozens of times by many many members of the church, prior to the penning of Manwaring's song.  If it had not been widely spoken of, there would have been no context in which Manwaring could have written the song.  Manwaring didn't popularize the first vision; he merely put it into poetic form.
*Why is the surprise expressed by Pyper, quoted in the wiki article, worthy of note?  the First Vision had been published dozens and dozens of times by many many members of the church, prior to the penning of Manwaring's song.  If it had not been widely spoken of, there would have been no context in which Manwaring could have written the song.  Manwaring didn't popularize the first vision; he merely put it into poetic form.
{{EndTable}}


===Beliefs about the First Vision===
====The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints====
{{BeginWikipediaTable|link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision|section=The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|article=First Vision}}
=====2A=====
||
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has canonized Smith's 1838 account of the First Vision within the book Joseph Smith—History in the Pearl of Great Price, and it is a foundational belief of the Church.
||
*{{Harv|Bitton|1994|p=86}} as quoted in{{Harv|Anderson|1996}}
||
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
*See: [[First Vision/Accounts/1838]]
|-
|


=====2B=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
LDS Church president [[Joseph F. Smith]] is credited with having fully raised the First Vision to its modern status as a pillar of Mormon theology.  Largely through Joseph F. Smith's influence, Smith's 1838 account of the First Vision became part of the canon of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] in 1880 when the faith canonized Smith's [[Joseph Smith—History|early history]] as part of the [[Pearl of Great Price (Mormonism)|Pearl of Great Price]].
|authorsources=<br>
#{{Harv|Bitton|1994|p=86}}as quoted in{{Harv|Anderson|1996}}
}}
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
After [[plural marriage]] ended at the turn of the 20th century, the First Vision was promoted heavily by [[Joseph F. Smith]], and it soon replaced polygamy in the minds of adherents as the main defining element of [[Mormonism]] and the source of the faith's perception of persecution by outsiders.
|authorsources=<br>
#{{Harvtxt|Flake|2004|pp=120–21}}.
}}
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
As a result, belief in the First Vision is now considered fundamental to the faith, second in importance only to belief in the divinity of Jesus.
|authorsources=<br>
#{{Harvtxt|Allen|1966|p=29}}.
}}
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
An official website of the Church calls the First Vision "the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ."
An official website of the Church calls the First Vision "the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ."
||
|authorsources=<br>
*JosephSmith.net, a website of the LDS Church. {{link|url=http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith/menuitem.da0e1d4eb6d2d87f9c0a33b5f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=497679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD}}
#http://www.josephsmith.net/portal/site/JosephSmith/menuitem.da0e1d4eb6d2d87f9c0a33b5f1e543a0/?vgnextoid=497679179acbff00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD JosephSmith.net, a website of the LDS Church.
||
|authorsources=<br>
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
#
|-
}}
|
*From the cited source,
<blockquote>
Joseph Smith's first vision stands today as the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After centuries of darkness, the Lord opened the heavens to reveal His word and restore His Church through His chosen prophet.
</blockquote>
 


=====2C=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
In 1998, Gordon B. Hinckley, then Church President and Prophet, declared,
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
In 1998, [[Gordon B. Hinckley]], then Church [[President of the Church (Latter Day Saints)|President]] and [[Prophet, seer, and revelator|Prophet]], declared,
<blockquote>Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. It was the parting of the curtain to open this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life.
<blockquote>Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. It was the parting of the curtain to open this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life.
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
||
|authorsources=<br>
*{{cite journal| title=What Are People Asking about Us? | author=Gordon B. Hinkley | journal=Ensign |month=November | year=1998 | accessdate=2007-05-12 | url=http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7c86605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
#{{Citation| title=What Are People Asking about Us? | author=Gordon B. Hinkley | journal=Ensign |month=November | year=1998 | accessdate=2007-05-12 | url=http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7c86605ff590c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a ____&hideNav=1
}}.
}}.
||
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
|-
|


=====2D=====
 
||
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
In 1961 Hinckley went even further, "Either Joseph Smith talked with the Father and the Son or he did not. If he did not, we are engaged in a blasphemy."
In 1961 Hinckley went even further, "Either Joseph Smith talked with the Father and the Son or he did not. If he did not, we are engaged in a blasphemy."
||
|authorsources=<br>
*''Improvement Era'' (December 1961), 907.  
#''Improvement Era'' (December 1961), 907. [[David O. McKay]], the ninth president of the LDS Church, also declared the First Vision to be the foundation of the faith. David O. McKay, ''Gospel Ideals'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1951), 19.
*David O. McKay, the ninth president of the LDS Church, also declared the First Vision to be the foundation of the faith. David O. McKay, ''Gospel Ideals'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1951), 19.
|authorsources=<br>
||
#
}}
*{{WikipediaNPOV}}This quote was used in order to include the word "blasphemy" as a preface to what comes later. Note that the wiki editor considers Hinckley's statements regarding the First Vision to be a "boon to us non-Mormons since he's willing to bet the farm on a date that creates all sorts of problems for apologists." (John "Foxe," 29 September 2007) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_Vision/Archive_7#The_Cabin}}
*In 1961, Gordon B. Hinckley "went even further" than he did 37 years later in 1998?
*In 1961, Gordon B. Hinckley "went even further" than he did 37 years later in 1998?
*Note that the wiki editor considers Hinckley's statements regarding the First Vision to be a "boon to us non-Mormons since he's willing to bet the farm on a date that creates all sorts of problems for apologists." (John "Foxe," 29 September 2007) {{link|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_Vision/Archive_7#The_Cabin}}
*This quote was used in order to include the word "blasphemy" as a preface to what comes later.
|-
|


=====2E=====
 
||
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
Likewise, in a January 2007 interview conducted for the PBS documentary "The Mormons," Hinckley said of the First Vision, "[I]t's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world....That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith."
Likewise, in a January 2007 interview conducted for the PBS documentary "The Mormons," Hinckley said of the First Vision, "[I]t's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world....That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith."
||
|authorsources=<br>
*[http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/hinckley.html PBS interview with Hinckley]
#[http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/hinckley.html PBS interview with Hinckley] The full quotation mentions the ultimate reality of Moroni and the Book of Mormon translated from the plates: "Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.
||
|authorsources=<br>
*{{WikipediaCitationAbuse|editor=John "Foxe"|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=152941096&oldid=152937806}}The wiki author makes Hinckley's quote sound like it is ''only'' referring to the First Vision by omitting mention of Moroni, the Book of Mormon and priesthood restoration.
#
*Gordon B. Hinckley's statement without omissions. He is talking about more than just the First Vision:
}}
<blockquote>
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.
</blockquote>
|-
|


=====2F=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
According to the LDS church the vision teaches that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bone; that mankind was literally created in the image of God; that Satan is real but God infinitely greater; that God hears and answers prayer; that no other contemporary church had the fullness of Christ's gospel; and that revelation has not ceased. In the twenty-first century, the Vision features prominently in the Church's program of proselytism.
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
||
|claim=
*Kurt Widmer, ''Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1833-1915'' (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2000), 92.
According to the LDS church the vision teaches that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bone; that mankind was literally created in the image of God; that Satan is real but God infinitely greater; that God hears and answers prayer; that no other contemporary church had the fullness of Christ's gospel; and that revelation has not ceased. In the 21st century, the Vision features prominently in the Church's program of proselytism.
||
|authorsources=<br>
#Kurt Widmer, ''Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1833-1915'' (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2000), 92.
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*Note the deliberate counterpoint between the use of the words "blasphemy" and "great fraud" in the previous statements by Gordon B. Hinckley with a list of beliefs that evangelical Christians consider blasphemous. Is there any doubt as to which audience this wiki article is targeted?
*Note the deliberate counterpoint between the use of the words "blasphemy" and "great fraud" in the previous statements by Gordon B. Hinckley with a list of beliefs that evangelical Christians consider blasphemous. Is there any doubt as to which audience this wiki article is targeted?
{{EndTable}}


====Community of Christ====
 
{{BeginWikipediaTable|link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision|section=Community_of_Christ|article=First Vision}}
===Perspectives within the Community of Christ===
=====3A=====
 
||
===== =====
William B. Smith, a younger brother of Joseph Smith, Jr., and a key figure in the early Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, renamed Community of Christ in 2001) gave several accounts of the First Vision, although in 1883 he stated that a "more elaborate and accurate description of his vision" was to be found in Joseph Smith's own history
{{IndexClaimItemShort
||
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
*William Smith, "On Mormonism," in Vogel, ''EMD'', 1:496.
|claim=
||
[[William Smith (Latter Day Saints)|William B. Smith]], a younger brother of Joseph Smith, Jr., and a key figure in the early Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, renamed [[Community of Christ]] in 2001) gave several accounts of the First Vision, although in 1883 he stated that a "more elaborate and accurate description of his vision" was to be found in Joseph Smith's own history
|authorsources=<br>
#William Smith, "On Mormonism," in Vogel, ''EMD'', 1:496.
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
|-
*REMAINDER OF SECTION SKIPPED - NOT RELEVANT
|


=====3B=====
||
REMAINDER OF SECTION SKIPPED - NOT RELEVANT
{{EndTable}}


====The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)====
====The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)====
Line 297: Line 376:
Skipped
Skipped


===Criticism of the First Vision===
===Skeptical criticism===
====Alleged chronological problems====
====Alleged chronological problems====
{{BeginWikipediaTable|link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision|section=Alleged_chronological_problems|article=First Vision}}
=====4A=====
||
Writing of the revivals described in the 1838 First Vision story (which has been canonized by the LDS Church), Milton V. Backman, Jr., associate professor of history and religion at Brigham Young University said that although "the tools of the historian" could neither verify nor challenge the First Vision, "records of the past can be examined to determine the reliability of Joseph's description regarding the historical setting."
||
*{{Harvnb|Backman|1969|p=2}}
||
*{{WikipediaOR|editor=74s181|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=156604419&oldid=156597228}} The 1838 account never mentions "revivals." It does mention "an unusual excitement on the subject of religion."
|-
|


=====4B=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
Grant Palmer and others claim that there are serious discrepancies between the various accounts, as well as anachronisms revealed by lack of contemporary corroboration.
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
||
|claim=
*The best recent skeptical summary of the First Vision stories is Grant Palmer, ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 235-54. Palmer, a retired paid LDS religious instructor was disfellowshipped by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after publishing this book. Palmer concludes his chapter, "The 1832 account describes Joseph's experience most accurately. Joseph's 1832 description does not forbid him from joining a church, nor does it mention a revival or persecution. Instead, he became convicted of his sins from reading the scriptures and received forgiveness from the Savior in a personal epiphany. He stated that his call to God's work came in 1823 from an angel, later identified as Moroni. When a crisis developed around the Book of Mormon in 1838, he conflated several events into one. Now he was called by God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1820 during an extended revival, was forbidden to join any existing church, and was greatly persecuted by institutions and individuals for sharing his vision of God. This version is not supported by historical evidence."(253-54)
Writing of the "unusual excitement on the subject of religion" described in the First Vision story canonized by the LDS Church, [[Milton V. Backman, Jr.]], associate professor of history and religion at Brigham Young University, said that although "the tools of the historian" could neither verify nor challenge the First Vision, "records of the past can be examined to determine the reliability of Joseph's description regarding the historical setting."
||
|authorsources=<br>
#{{Harvnb|Backman|1969|p=2}}
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
 
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
[[Grant Palmer]] and others claim that there are serious discrepancies between the various accounts, as well as [[anachronisms]] revealed by lack of contemporary corroboration.
|authorsources=<br>
#A recent skeptical summary of the First Vision stories is [[Grant H. Palmer|Grant Palmer]], ''An Insider's View of Mormon Origins'' (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 235-54. Palmer, a retired LDS religious instructor was [[Excommunication#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints|disfellowshipped]] by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after publishing this book. Palmer concludes his chapter, "The 1832 account describes Joseph's experience most accurately. Smith's 1832 description does not forbid him from joining a church, nor does it mention a revival or persecution. Instead, he became convicted of his sins from reading the scriptures and received forgiveness from the Savior in a personal epiphany. He stated that his call to God's work came in 1823 from an angel, later identified as Moroni. When a crisis developed around the Book of Mormon in 1838, he conflated several events into one. Now he was called by God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1820 during an extended revival, was forbidden to join any existing church, and was greatly persecuted by institutions and individuals for sharing his vision of God. This version is not supported by historical evidence."(253-54)
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaMissingRef}}Once again, Joseph's 1835 account is ignored. From Joseph's 1835 diary:
*{{WikipediaMissingRef}}Once again, Joseph's 1835 account is ignored. From Joseph's 1835 diary:
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Line 322: Line 407:
&mdash;[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Diary_of_Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr._(1835-1836) Diary of Joseph Smith, Jr. (1835-1836)]
&mdash;[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Diary_of_Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr._(1835-1836) Diary of Joseph Smith, Jr. (1835-1836)]
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
*{{WikipediaOpinion|editor=John "Foxe"|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=155908468&oldid=155882682}}The wiki editor inserts his own opinion into the article as fact by calling Palmer's view of the First Vision "the best recent skeptical summary." There a ''many'' who would disagree with that assessment.
*{{SeeCriticalWork|author=Grant Palmer|work=An Insider's View of Mormon Origins}}
*See "A FAIR Analysis of ''[[An Insider's View of Mormon Origins]]''"
|-
|


=====4C=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
For instance, in his 1838 account, Smith said that when he shared his vision with a Methodist minister, the latter treated his "communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days." Smith said that he became the "subject of great persecution, which continued to increase."
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
||
|claim=
*"I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them. I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase."{{Harv|Smith|1842c|p=748}}
For instance, in the canonized account, Smith said that when he shared his vision with a Methodist minister, the latter treated his "communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days." Smith said that he became the "subject of great persecution, which continued to increase."
||
|authorsources=<br>
#"I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them. I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase."{{Harv|Smith|1842c|p=748}}
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
*See: [[First Vision/Accounts/1838]]
*{{Detail_old|First Vision/Accounts/1838}}
|-
 
|
 
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
But according to emeritus Brigham Young University history professor [[James B. Allen (historian)|James B. Allen]], there is no known evidence beyond Smith's word that he ever mentioned his vision to a minister—or in fact, to anyone else—for years after the event is supposed to have occurred. Nor is there any known evidence that the young Smith was persecuted for telling the First Vision story during the 1820s.
|authorsources=<br>
#"The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830’s, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision is convincing evidence that at best it received only limited circulation in those early days.” [[James B. Allen (historian)|James B. Allen]], “The Significance of Joseph Smith's First Vision in Mormon Thought,” ''[[Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought]]'', 1 (Autumn 1966). In ''[[No Man Knows My History]]'' (New York: [[Alfred A. Knopf]], 1971), the skeptical [[Fawn Brodie]] is more biting: "Joseph's first published autobiographical sketch of 1834, already noted, contained no whisper of an event that, if it had happened, would have been the most soul-shattering experience of his whole youth." (24) "If something happened that spring morning in 1820, it passed totally unnoticed in Joseph's home town, and apparently did not even fix itself in the minds of members of his own family." (25)
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaCITE|editor=John Foxe|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=155621964&oldid=155621499}}The wiki editor is using Allen, by name, to support the assertion that "there is no known evidence beyond Smith's word that he ever mentioned his vision to a minister," yet Allen actually says that it "received limited circulation." Allen does not express an opinion regarding Joseph's conversation with the minister. He certainly does ''not'' state that there is no evidence that Joseph ever mentioned his vision to a minister.
 
====Discrepancies cited by critics====
 
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
Critics of the First Vision cite the multiple versions of the First Vision as evidence that it may have been fabricated by Smith.
|authorsources=<br>
#{{Citation
|title=Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?
|first=Jerald and Sandra
|last=Tanner
|publisher=Utah Lighthouse Ministry
|year=1987 (5th ed)
|pages=143–162}}
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{Detail_old|First Vision/Accounts}} 
 
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
Critics specifically identify the following discrepancies between the various versions:
|authorsources=<br>
#{{Citation
|title=One Nation Under Gods
|first=Richard
|last=Abanes
|publisher=Four Walls
|year=2002
|pages=14–19
}}
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{SeeAlso|Specific works/One Nation Under Gods|l1=A FairMormon Analysis of ''One Nation Under Gods''}}
 
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
Was Smith 14 or 15 at the time of the vision?
|authorsources=<br>
#|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{Detail_old|First Vision/Accounts/1832/Different age provided}}
 
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
Did Smith attend a contemporaneous religious revival?
|authorsources=<br>
#|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{Detail_old|First Vision/Accounts/1832/Doesn't mention a revival}}
 
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
Did the supernatural personages tell Smith his sins were forgiven?
|authorsources=<br>
#|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{Detail_old|First Vision/Accounts/1832/Motivation is different}}
 
===== =====
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
Were the supernatural personages angels, Jesus, God or some combination?
|authorsources=<br>
#|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{Detail_old|First Vision/Accounts/1832/Only one Personage appears|First Vision/Accounts/1835/Mentions "Angels"}}


=====4D=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
But according to emeritus Brigham Young University history professor James B. Allen, there is no evidence beyond Smith's word that he ever mentioned his vision to a minister—or in fact, to anyone else—for years after the event is supposed to have occurred. Nor is there any evidence that the young Smith was persecuted for telling the First Vision story during the 1820s.
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
||
|claim=
*"The fact that none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830’s, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision is convincing evidence that at best it received only limited circulation in those early days.” James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith's First Vision in Mormon Thought,” ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'', 1 (Autumn 1966).
Did the vision declare all contemporary churches (or specifically the Methodist church) corrupt, or did Smith believe this to be true before he experienced the vision?
*In ''No Man Knows My History'' (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), the skeptical Fawn Brodie is more biting: "Joseph's first published autobiographical sketch of 1834, already noted, contained no whisper of an event that, if it had happened, would have been the most soul-shattering experience of his whole youth." (24) "If something happened that spring morning in 1820, it passed totally unnoticed in Joseph's home town, and apparently did not even fix itself in the minds of members of his own family." (25)
|authorsources=<br>
||
#|authorsources=<br>
*{{WikipediaCitationAbuse|editor=John "Foxe"|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=155621964&oldid=155621499}}The wiki editor is using Allen, by name, to support the assertion that "there is no evidence beyond Smith's word that he ever mentioned his vision to a minister," yet Allen actually says that it "received limited circulation." Allen does not express an opinion Joseph's conversation with the minister. He certainly does ''not'' state that there is no evidence that Joseph ever mentioned his vision to a minister. This is blatant abuse of the citation.
#
*{{WikipediaProvingNegative|editor=John "Foxe"|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=155621964&oldid=155621499}}The use of the phrases "there is no evidence" and "nor is there any evidence" is intended to lead the reader to the conclusion that evidence does not exist. It would be more correct to say that there is no ''known'' evidence.
}}
{{EndTable}}
*{{Detail_old|First Vision/Accounts/1832/Doesn't forbid joining a church}}


====Contradictions====
{{BeginWikipediaTable|link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision|section=Contradictions|article=First Vision}}
=====5A=====
||
In the 1832 account Smith said that by "Searching the Scriptures" he had concluded that "there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Christ".
||
*...from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the situation of the world of mankind the contentions and divisions the wickedness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the minds of mankind my mind become exceedingly distressed for I become convicted of my Sins and by Searching the Scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament..." in ''EMD'' 1: 28.
||
*{{WikipediaSYN}} This is a major violation of the synthesis rule. The wiki editors are quoting portions of different primary sources in order to contrast them: he is performing the original research. There are no secondary sources involved. For example, Bushman could have been used as a source here. Bushman notes:
<blockquote>
His confusion did not prevent him from trying to find a religious home. Two printer's apprentices at the ''Palmyra Register'' who knew Joseph Jr. remembered Methodist leanings. One said he caught "a spark of Methodism in the camp meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road." The other remembered Joseph joining the probationary class of the Palmyra Methodist Church.
(Bushman, ''Rough Stone Rolling'', p. 37)
</blockquote>
|-
|


=====5B=====
====Joseph Smith's Accounts====
||
{{WikipediaOR}}The entire chart comparing details of different accounts of the First Vision constitutes original research. The chart was not taken from a specific source&mdash;it was created by Wikipedia editors. Per Wikipedia rules, editors should be quoting published authors' opinions regarding the comparison of accounts. Instead, Wikipedia editors have examined the primary sources and analyzed phrases from them by synthesizing them into a chart for the purpose of comparison. <br><br>
In the 1838 account, he said that he was unable to determine which, if any, of the churches he studied were correct
{{WikipediaNPOV}}Note that this section is simply labeled "Joseph Smith's Accounts," while the following section is labeled "Apologetic Responses." This section is portrayed as "data" rather than criticism, while the following section is portrayed as a defense by believers.
||
*JSH:1:10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be aright, which is it, and how shall I know it?
||
*{{WikipediaSYN}}Continued synthesis violation.
|-
|


=====5C=====
{| class="wikitable" style="width:99%" border="2"
||
and then that it had never entered into his heart that all churches were wrong.
||
*JSH:1:18 ... No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
||


*{{WikipediaSYN}}Continued synthesis violation.
!width=5%|-
!width=20%|Source of First Vision
!width=20%|Supernatural beings
!width=20%|Messages from beings
!width=15%|Notes
!width=20%|FAIR Commentary
|-
|-
|
|  
 
===== =====
=====5D=====
||'''1832 Joseph Smith's own handwriting from his Letterbook'''  ''The Papers of Joseph Smith'', v1, p5-7, [[Dean Jessee]] (ed.), Deseret Book Company 1989.{{Citation
|title=The Papers of Joseph Smith: Autobiographical and Historical Writings
|city=Salt Lake City: Deseret Book. ISBN 0875791999.
|first = Dean
|last=Jessee
|year=1989
|publisher=Deseret Book Company
}}And ''Early Mormon Documents'', v 1, p27-29, Dan Vogel, Signature Books, 1996.
|| "The Lord"
|| "Thy sins are forgiven thee". 
|| Smith decides for himself that all churches are corrupt. Vision in Smith's "16th year" (i.e. when he is 15 years old).  All other accounts state his age as 14.
||
||
FARMS, an informal group of Brigham Young University scholars,
*{{Detail_old|First Vision/Accounts/1832}}
||
*The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) is part of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, formerly known as the Institute for the Study and Preservation of Ancient Religious Texts, at Brigham Young University (BYU), which is operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
||
*{{FalseStatement}}The organization called "FARMS" no longer exists under that name&mdash;it is the Maxwell Institute.
|-
|-
|
|


=====5E=====
===== =====
||'''1835, Nov. 9 - Joseph Smith diary (Ohio Journal, handwritten, [[Warren Parrish]] scribe)''' ''The Papers of Joseph Smith'',  [[Dean Jessee]] (ed.), v2, p68-69. Deseret Book Company 1989.
|| Two unidentified personages, and "many angels"
|| "Thy sins are forgiven thee" and Jesus is the "son of God"
|| No message of revivals or corrupt churches.
||
||
does not dispute the difference between the accounts but argues that the "point of the 'official' version of Joseph Smith's story is that he received a revelation on the issue [, which does] not preclude the idea that he had already determined the answer and needed confirmation."
*{{Detail_old|First Vision/Accounts/1835}}
||
*[http://farms.byu.edu/faq.php?id=10&table=questions FARMS FAQ webpage]
||
*The link to the Maxwell Institute web page does not work.
*Referring people to the Maxwell Institute's FAQ webpage does nothing to absolve wiki editors of their major synthesis violation.
|-
|-
|
|


=====5F=====
===== =====
||'''1835, Nov. 14 - Joseph Smith diary (Ohio Journal, handwritten, [[Warren Parrish]] scribe)''' ''The Papers of Joseph Smith'',  [[Dean Jessee]] (ed.), v2, p79. Deseret Book Company 1989.
|| "visitation of angels"
|| None.
|| No mention of revival, or sins forgiven, or corrupt churches.
||
||
According to Smith, he indirectly mentioned the vision to his mother shortly after it occurred.
*{{Detail_old|First Vision/Accounts/1835}}
||
*JSH 1:20 ... And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.” ...
||
*{{WikipediaSYN}}Another synthesis violation. The wiki editors now quote two more primary sources (Joseph and Lucy Mack Smith) in order to contrast their own words. There is no published author being quoted here.
|-
|-
|
|


=====5G=====
===== =====
||
||'''1838/1839 - History of the Church, Early Draft (James Mulholland Scribe)'''
In her several recollections of the events that led to the founding of the LDS Church, there is no extant record that Lucy Mack Smith ever mentioned Joseph having had a vision before his bedroom visitation from Moroni in 1823. Lucy also said that Joseph's vision of Moroni followed a family discussion about the "diversity of churches."
|| Two personages appear, and one says "This is my beloved Son, hear him".
||
|| The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt.
*Lucy Mack Smith notes that after the family's third wheat harvest in Palmyra/Manchester (1823), "we were sitting till quite late conversing upon the subject of the diversity of churches that had risen up in the world and the many thousands opinions in existence as to the truths contained in scripture. Joseph never said many words upon any subject but always seemed to reflect more deeply than common persons of his age upon everything of a religious nature. After we ceased conversation he went to bed and was pondering in his mind which of the churches were the true one but he had not laid there long till he saw a bright light enter the room where he lay he looked up and saw an angel of the Lord standing by him." Lucy Smith, "Preliminary Manuscript" LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah in ''EMD'', 1: 289.
|| No mention of "sins forgiven".  A revival is mentioned.  
||
||
 
*{{Detail_old|First Vision/Accounts/1838}}
*{{WikipediaSYN}}Continued synthesis violation.
|-
|-
|
|


=====5H=====
===== =====
||
||'''1842, March - ''[[Times and Seasons]]''  ''' March 1, 1842, v3 no 9, p706-707.  
Joseph Smith may have become involved with at least two Methodist churches between 1820 and 1830.
|| Two personages appear, and one says "This is my beloved Son, hear him". 
||
|| The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt.
*He may have even spoken during some Methodist meetings—a childhood acquaintance of Smith's, Orsamus Turner (1801-1855), described him as a "very passable exhorter," which Dan Vogel has interpreted to mean some involvement with the Methodists "during the 1824-25 revival in Palmyra. Nevertheless, Vogel admits that Smith "could not have been a licensed exhorter since membership was a prerequisite."''EMD'', 3: 50, n. 15; {{Harvnb|Turner|1851|p=429}}
|| No mention of "sins forgiven".  A revival is mentioned.  
*Turner says that "after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings." According to the ''Oxford English Dictionary'', an "exhorter" is either "One who exhorts or urges on to action" or "a person appointed to give religious exhortation under the direction of a superior minister." Exhorters were common in early Methodism. (For instance, see Abel Stevens, ''History of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States of America'' (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1884), 2: 235.)
|-
*Nevertheless, according to Craig N. Ray, the word "exhorter" refers to Smith's activities in a debating club, not in Methodist meetings. (No other reputable scholar has adopted this interpretation.){{Harvnb|Brown}} The full text of the Turner quote can be found at [http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1851Trn1.htm#p-429a Olivercowdery.com] It is a single very lengthy sentence, but in summary, it says: "...the mother's intellect occasionally shone out in him feebly, especially when he used to help us to solve some portentous questions of moral or political ethics, in our juvenile debating club... and, subsequently, after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp-meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings."
|
*Smith was also said to have been influenced by the preaching of the Rev. George Lane, a Methodist presiding elder.{{Harvnb|Cowdery|1834|p=13}}; {{Harvnb|Smith|1883}}
===== =====
||
||'''1842, March  - ''[[Times and Seasons]]'' ''' March 15, 1842, v3 no 11, p727-728, April 1, 1842, v3, no 11, p748-749.  This version was later incorporated into [[The History of the Church]], and later into the [[Pearl of Great Price]]and thus is sometimes refered to as the "canonized version".
*{{WikipediaOpinion|editor=John "Foxe"|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=150822549&oldid=150819472}} The phrase "No other reputable scholar has adopted this interpretation" is the author's opinion.
|| Two personages appear, and one says "This is my beloved Son, hear him".
*{{InternalContradiction|The footnote in the following section states that Joseph's "first dabble" with Methodism occurred in 1828.}}
|| The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt.
*The bloated footnote represents a rather interesting attempt to confuse and obscufate the source mentioning Joseph as an "exhorter."
|| No mention of "sins forgiven". A revival is mentioned.   When this version was incorporated into the [[History of the Church]], it was put into a context that suggests it was composed in 1838, but 1842 is the first known publication of this version.
*See: [[First Vision/Methodist camp meetings]]
|-
*See: [[First Vision/Joseph became "partial to the Methodist sect" in 1820]]
|  
===== =====
||'''1843, July - Letter from JS to D. Rupp''' '' An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States'', Daniel Rupp, Philadelpha, 1844. p404-410.
|| Two personages appear.   No mention of "this is my son".  
|| The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt.
|| No mention of "sins forgiven". No revival mentioned. Available online [[wikisource:The Rupp Letter|here]].  See also the [[Wentworth letter]].
|-
|-
|
|  
===== =====
||'''1843, Aug 29 - Interview with journalist David White'''  Reprinted in  [[Dean Jessee|Jessee]] v1 p443-444.
|| Two personages appear.  "Behold my beloved son, hear him".
|| The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt.
|| Revival ''is'' mentioned.  No mention of "sins forgiven".
|| 
|}
 
====Accounts of Others====
 
{| class="wikitable" style="width:99%" border="2"


=====5I=====
!width=5%|-
||
!width=20%|Source of First Vision
While he almost certainly never formally joined the Methodist church, he did associate himself with the Methodists "at some point between 1821 and 1829" after he said he had been instructed by God not to join any established denomination.
!width=20%|Supernatural beings
||
!width=20%|Messages from beings
*Bushman, 69-70
!width=15%|Notes
*{{Harvnb|Matzko|2007|p=78}} Non-Mormon historian [[John A. Matzko|John Matzko]] notes, "At some point between 1821 and 1829, Smith served as 'a very passable exhorter' at Methodist camp meetings 'away down in the woods, on the Vienna Road.' Matzko also makes the point that "[s]ince the Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, the camp meetings were almost certainly held after that date."
!width=20%|FAIR Commentary
||
*Bushman states,
<blockquote>
Joseph attended Methodist meetings with Emma, probably to placate her family.
</blockquote>
*{{WikipediaMissingRef}} Two articles in the ''Palmyra Register'' show that a Methodist camp meeting occurred in June 1820.
**''Palmyra Register'' June 28, 1820:
**''Palmyra Register'' July 5, 1820
**The two articles from the ''Palmya Register'' show that the Methodist's were holding at least one camp meeting in June 1820, prior to their acquisition of property. This contradicts that assertion that "Since the Methodists did not acquire property on the Vienna Road until July 1821, the camp meetings were almost certainly held after that date."
See: [[First Vision/Methodist camp meetings]]
|-
|-
|
|  
 
===== =====
=====5J=====
||'''1840, September - ''[[wikisource:Interesting_Account_of_Several_Remarkable_Visions|Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions]]'' ''',  [[Orson Pratt]], Ballantyne and Huges publ, 1840 (reprinted in [[Dean Jessee|Jessee]], v1 p 149-160).
||
|| Two unidentified "glorious personages, who exactly resembed each other in their features". 
In 1828, following the death of Smith's first-born son and the loss of 116 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript, Smith asked to be enrolled in a Methodist class in Harmony Township, Pennsylvania,
|| "his sins were forgiven".  The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt.
||
|| This is the first published version.  No mention of revival. Online [[wikisource:Interesting_Account_of_Several_Remarkable_Visions/First_Vision|here]].
*({{Harvnb|Lewis|Lewis|1879}};
*{{Harvnb|McKune|1879}}).
||
|-
|-
|
|  
 
===== =====
=====5K=====
||'''1841, June -  ''A Cry from the Wilderness'' ''', [[Orson Hyde]], published in German, Frankfurt, 1842 (reprinted in [[Dean Jessee|Jessee]], v1 p405-409).
||
|| Two unidentified "glorious personages" who resembed "each other in their features".
but a cousin of his wife "objected to the inclusion of a 'practicing necromancer' on the Methodist roll."
|| No specific message.
||
|| No mention of "sins forgiven" or revival.   Smith determines for himself that all churches are corrupt.
*Joseph Lewis and Hiel Lewis, Statement, in ''EMD'', 4: 305.
*Richard Bushman writes: "Sometime in this dark period, Joseph attended Methodist meetings with Emma, probably to placate her family. One of Emma's uncles preached as a Methodist lay minister, and a brother-in-law was class leader in Harmony. Joseph was later said to have asked to be enrolled in the class. Joseph Lewis, a cousin of Emma's rose in wrath when he found Joseph's name....He confronted Joseph and demanded repentance or removal. For some reason Joseph's name remained on the roll for another six months, although there is no evidence of attendance." Bushman, 69-70.
||
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
|-
|-
|
|  
===== =====
||'''1844, May 24 - as told to Alexander Neibaur''' Alexander Neibaur Journal, reprinted in  [[Dean Jessee|Jessee]], v1, p 459-461.
|| Two personages appear. One has a "light complexion" and "blue eyes".  "This is my beloved son harken ye him".
|| Methodist churches are wrong.  All churches are corrupt.
|| Revival ''is'' mentioned.  No mention of "sins forgiven". 
|}


=====5L=====
===Apologetic Responses===
||
{{WikipediaNPOV}}The title "Apologetic Responses" is pejorative. Most readers unfamiliar with the term will interpret "apologist" as one who "apologizes" for their position. Although this section is titled "Apologetic Responses," we see no apologists quoted here. We see Church leaders, a BYU professor, and an evangelical theologian. It is inaccurate to classify any and all believers as "apologists."
Grant Palmer has noted that Joseph Smith had a clear motive for changing his story in 1838, a period of crisis within the Latter Day Saint Movement. At the time there was open dissent against Smith's leadership. A quarter of the original Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and some 300 members—perhaps fifteen percent of the total membership—had left the church. Palmer argues that Smith "fearing the unraveling of the church," wrote a new "more impressive version of his epiphany" in which Smith claimed that his original call had come from God the Father and Jesus Christ rather than from an angel.
||
*Palmer, 248-252. Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were excommunicated on April 12-13, 1838. The following week Smith contemplated rewriting his history. On April 26, he renamed the church. The next day he "started dictating a new first vision narrative." (248)
||
*Palmer's claim is, however, absurd, and contradicts some material which is used earlier in the wikipedia article.  There are several early pieces of evidence which describe Joseph's vision of God:
**LDS missionaries were teaching that Joseph Smith had seen God "personally" and received a commission from Him to teach true religion (''The Reflector'', vol. 2, no. 13, 14 February 1831).
** Joseph's 1832 account says he saw Jesus, "the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world"&mdash;already more impressive than an angel.
** A hymn by William W. Phelps published a reference to the First Vision in October 1835 in the Church's newspaper (''Messenger and Advocate'', vol. 2, no. 1 (whole no. 13), October 1835, 208), describing how "the world in darkness lay."  Joseph "sought a better way," "heard the Savior say," and then later saw an angel who "brought the priesthood back again."
**The First Vision reference by William W. Phelps was republished as part of hymn #26 in the Saints' first hymnal&mdash;March 1836 (see ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism,'' 1176).
**Most notably, the very existence of Joseph's 1835 First Vision account contradicts Palmer's claim that he created the story in 1838 to counter a leadership crisis. From Joseph's 1835 diary:
<blockquote>
a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and I saw many angels in this vision I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication;
<br>
&mdash;[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Diary_of_Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr._(1835-1836) Diary of Joseph Smith, Jr. (1835-1836)]
</blockquote>
*See {{CriticalWork:Palmer:Insider|pages=248-252}}
{{EndTable}}


===Apologetic Responses===
===== =====
Although this section is titled "Apologetic Responses," we see no apologists quoted here. We see Church leaders, a BYU professor, and an evangelical theologian. It is inaccurate to classify any and all believers as "apologists."
{{IndexClaimItemShort
{{BeginWikipediaTable|link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision|section=Apologetic_Responses|article=First Vision}}
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
=====6A=====
|claim=
||
Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have acknowledged that the First Vision as well as the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith himself constitute "stumbling blocks for many." [[Apostle (Latter Day Saints)|Apostle]] [[Neal A. Maxwell]] wrote:
Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have acknowledged that the differences in the accounts can be troublesome. Apostle Neal A. Maxwell wrote:  
<blockquote>In our own time, Joseph Smith, the First Vision, and the Book of Mormon constitute stumbling blocks for many—around which they cannot get—unless they are meek enough to examine all the evidence at hand, not being exclusionary as a result of accumulated attitudes in a secular society. Humbleness of mind is the initiator of expansiveness of mind."
<blockquote>In our own time, Joseph Smith, the First Vision, and the Book of Mormon constitute stumbling blocks for many—around which they cannot get—unless they are meek enough to examine all the evidence at hand, not being exclusionary as a result of accumulated attitudes in a secular society. Humbleness of mind is the initiator of expansiveness of mind."
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
||
|authorsources=<br>
*Neal A. Maxwell, ''Meek and Lowly'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1987), 76).
#Neal A. Maxwell, ''Meek and Lowly'' (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1987), 76).
||
|authorsources=<br>
*{{WikipediaOR|editor=74s181|wikipedialink=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Vision&diff=161053483&oldid=161041627}} Elder Maxwell nowhere states that the First Vision as a "stumbling block" is the result of "differences in the accounts." He speaks of "Joseph Smith, the First Vision, and the Book of Mormon" as "stumbling blocks" to certain people.
#
}}
*The various accounts of the First Vision are addressed in the January 1985 ''Ensign''. The article is by Milton V. Backman, Jr.: [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=33e605481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision]. The article discusses the 1832, 1835, 1838 and 1842 accounts. Backman states,
*The various accounts of the First Vision are addressed in the January 1985 ''Ensign''. The article is by Milton V. Backman, Jr.: [http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=33e605481ae6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision]. The article discusses the 1832, 1835, 1838 and 1842 accounts. Backman states,
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
In an important way, the existence of these different accounts helps support the integrity of the Latter-day Saint Prophet. It indicates that Joseph did not deliberately create a memorized version which he related to everyone. In the legal profession, attorneys and judges recognize that if a witness repeats an incident by using precisely the same language, the court might challenge the validity of such a statement.  
In an important way, the existence of these different accounts helps support the integrity of the Latter-day Saint Prophet. It indicates that Joseph did not deliberately create a memorized version which he related to everyone. In the legal profession, attorneys and judges recognize that if a witness repeats an incident by using precisely the same language, the court might challenge the validity of such a statement.  
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
|-
|


=====6B=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
Some believers view differences in the accounts as overstated. Richard L. Anderson, a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University wrote, "What are the main problems of interpreting so many accounts? The first problem is the interpreter. One person perceives harmony and interconnections while another overstates differences."
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
||
|claim=
*"One person perceives harmony and interconnections while another overstates differences. Think of how you retell a vivid event in your life—marriage, first day on the job, or an automobile accident. A record of all your comments would include short and long versions, along with many bits and pieces. Only by blending these glimpses can an outsider reconstruct what originally happened. The biggest trap is comparing description in one report with silence in another. By assuming that what is not said is not known, some come up with arbitrary theories of an evolution in the Prophet’s story. Yet we often omit parts of an episode because of the chance of the moment, not having time to tell everything, or deliberately stressing only a part of the original event in a particular situation. This means that any First Vision account contains some fraction of the whole experience. Combining all reliable reports will recreate the basics of Joseph Smith’s quest and conversation with the Father and Son." {{Harv|Anderson|1996}}
Some believers view differences in the accounts as overstated. [[Richard L. Anderson]], a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University wrote, "What are the main problems of interpreting so many accounts? The first problem is the interpreter. One person perceives harmony and interconnections while another overstates differences."
||
|authorsources=<br>
#"One person perceives harmony and interconnections while another overstates differences. Think of how you retell a vivid event in your life—marriage, first day on the job, or an automobile accident. A record of all your comments would include short and long versions, along with many bits and pieces. Only by blending these glimpses can an outsider reconstruct what originally happened. The biggest trap is comparing description in one report with silence in another. By assuming that what is not said is not known, some come up with arbitrary theories of an evolution in the Prophet’s story. Yet we often omit parts of an episode because of the chance of the moment, not having time to tell everything, or deliberately stressing only a part of the original event in a particular situation. This means that any First Vision account contains some fraction of the whole experience. Combining all reliable reports will recreate the basics of Joseph Smith’s quest and conversation with the Father and Son."{{Harv|Anderson|1996}}
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
|-
|


=====6C=====
 
||
===== =====
Other believers view the differences in the accounts as reflective of Smith's increase in maturity and knowledge over time. In a recent PBS interview, Marlin K. Jensen, General authority and Church Historian said:  
{{IndexClaimItemShort
<blockquote>I've actually studied the various accounts of Joseph's First Vision, and I'm struck by the difference in his recountings. But as I look back at my missionary journals, for instance, which I've kept and other journals which I've kept throughout my life, I'm struck now in my older years by the evolution and hopefully the progression that's taken place in my own life and how differently now from this perspective I view some things that happened in my younger years.
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
</blockquote>
|claim=
||
Other believers view the differences in the accounts as reflective of Smith's increase in maturity and knowledge over time. In a recent [[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]] interview, [[Marlin K. Jensen]], [[General authority]] and [[Church Historian and Recorder|Church Historian]] said:
*[http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/jensen.html Interview with Marlin Jensen for PBS documentary "The Mormons"]
<blockquote>I've actually studied the various accounts of Joseph's First Vision, and I'm struck by the difference in his recountings. But as I look back at my missionary journals, for instance, which I've kept and other journals which I've kept throughout my life, I'm struck now in my older years by the evolution and hopefully the progression that's taken place in my own life and how differently now from this perspective I view some things that happened in my younger years.</blockquote>
||
|authorsources=<br>
#[http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/jensen.html Interview with Marlin Jensen for PBS documentary "The Mormons"]
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
|-
|


=====6D=====
===== =====
||
{{IndexClaimItemShort
In another interview on the same PBS documentary, Richard Mouw, an evangelical theologian and student of Mormonism summarized his feelings about the First Vision in this way:
|title=the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision<ref name="at_the_time>Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.</ref>
|claim=
In another interview on the same [[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]] documentary, [[Richard Mouw]], an [[Evangelicalism|evangelical]] [[Theology|theologian]] and student of Mormonism summarized his feelings about the First Vision in this way:
<blockquote>My instinct is to attribute a sincerity to Joseph Smith. And yet at the same time, as an evangelical Christian, I do not believe that the members of the godhead really appeared to him and told him that he should start on a mission of, among other things, denouncing the kinds of things that I believe as a Presbyterian. I can't believe that. And yet at the same time, I really don't believe that he was simply making up a story that he knew to be false in order to manipulate people and to gain power over a religious movement. And so I live with the mystery.</blockquote>
<blockquote>My instinct is to attribute a sincerity to Joseph Smith. And yet at the same time, as an evangelical Christian, I do not believe that the members of the godhead really appeared to him and told him that he should start on a mission of, among other things, denouncing the kinds of things that I believe as a Presbyterian. I can't believe that. And yet at the same time, I really don't believe that he was simply making up a story that he knew to be false in order to manipulate people and to gain power over a religious movement. And so I live with the mystery.</blockquote>
||
|authorsources=<br>
*[http://www.pbs.org/mormons/etc/script.html Interview with Richard Mouw for PBS documentary "The Mormons"]
#[http://www.pbs.org/mormons/etc/script.html Interview with Richard Mouw for PBS documentary "The Mormons"]
||
|authorsources=<br>
#
}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}
*{{WikipediaCorrect}}


{{EndTable}}


==References==
{{Endnotes sources}}
{{WikipediaRefList:First Vision}}

Latest revision as of 07:04, 31 May 2024

An analysis of the Wikipedia article "First Vision"



Recorded accounts of the vision
A FairMormon Analysis of Wikipedia: Mormonism and Wikipedia/First Vision
 A work by a collaboration of authors (Link to Wikipedia article here)
The name Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. Wikipedia content is copied and made available under the GNU Free Documentation License.

The article is indeed one of the most neutral articles about Mormon doctrine on Wikipedia, and I'll do my best to keep it as neutral as one non-Mormon can.
—Wikipedia editor John Foxe (6 October 2007) off-site

∗       ∗       ∗

Interpretations and responses to the vision  Updated 9/17/2011

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Among contemporary denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement, the First Vision is typically viewed as a significant (often the most significant) event in the latter day restoration of the Church of Christ. However, the faiths differ in their teachings about the vision's precise meaning and details. Secular scholars and non-Mormons view the vision as a lie, false memory, delusion, or hallucination, or some combination of these.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  • This is a summary of the following sections.


Early awareness by Latter Day Saints

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

The importance of the First Vision within the Latter Day Saint movement evolved over time. Early adherents were unaware of the details of the vision until 1840, when the earliest accounts were published in Great Britain. An account of the First Vision was not published in the United States until 1842, shortly before Joseph Smith's death. Jan Shipps has written that the vision was "practically unknown" until an account of it was published in 1842.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  References not included in the Wikipedia article
    This simply is not true: Pratt's article was discussed in England and Scotland almost immediately after its publication, the London one being reprinted in Philadelphia:

“The Book of Mormon and the Mormonites”, The Athenaeum 701 (April 3, 1841): 251-3; the Athenaeum article is also reprinted in The Museum of Foreign Literature, Science and Art (Philadelphia) 42 (July 1841): 370-374.

  • Furthermore, Orson Pratt published it three times in New York City immediately after returning from England: Heber C. Kimball, letter to Millennial Star editor, Nauvoo, July 15, 1841:

“On the 4th June I started for home, in company with Elders Young and Taylor.—Elder O. Pratt remained in New York to republish the book he had printed in Edinburgh, Scotland, giving a history of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and of which he intended to publish 5,000 copies…. [78] Elder Orson Pratt arrived here this week…” (Millenial Star 2 (1841): 77-78).

  • That this refers to Remarkable Visions is clear from Pratt’s history:

“In the spring of 1841, set sail from Liverpool with several of the Twelve, and arrived in New York city, where I republished the Remarkable Visions”, (Millennial Star 27 (1865): 88).

  • We have the publication data of those three editions.
  • Milton Backman wrote in 1992:

“The widespread popularity of Remarkable Visions is evident by the fact that three editions were printed in New York in 1841-1842. Other editions were published in Liverpool, England, in 1848 and in Australia in 1851. It also served as the basis for a missionary tract published in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1842. After securing a copy of this work, Elder Orson Hyde, another apostle who was a close associate of Joseph Smith, verified the accuracy of this publication by translating it (with only few modifications) into German.” Milton V. Backman, Jr., “Defender of the First Vision”, in Larry C. Porter, Milton V. Backman, Jr., and Susan Easton Black, eds., Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint History: New York. (Provo: BYU Department of Church History and Doctrine, 1992): 38.

  • Furthermore, Pratt's work was noticed in Times and Seasons, Vol. 2.19 (2 August 1841): 502 [Also August 16, September 1, 1841]:

4. An interesting account of SEVERAL REMARKABLE VISIONS, and of the late discovery of ANCIENT AMERICAN RECORDS, which unfold the history of this continent from the earliest ages after the flood, to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. With a sketch of the rise, faith, and doctrine of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. By O. Pratt.

  • Here it was commented on: “This last work will be found to contain information of great importance, as it will save the traveling elders the labor of constantly relating, over and over again, those things in which every new enquirer is so deeply interested, and upon which he is so very anxious to obtain correct information.”

The scene was certainly being set for the publication of Joseph’s own history, which began March 1842.


Interpretation and use by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

The canonical First Vision story was not emphasized in the sermons of Smith's immediate successors Brigham Young and John Taylor within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Hugh Nibley noted that although a "favorite theme of Brigham Young's was the tangible, personal nature of God," he "never illustrates [the theme] by any mention of the first vision."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Violates Wikipedia: Citing sources off-site— There is either no citation to support the statement or the citation given is incorrect.
    Violated by John Foxe —Diff: off-site
    The wiki editor has misrepresented Nibley's intent—He was pointing out that reticence about mentioning the First Vision does not mean that Brigham didn't believe that it didn't occur, but that such matters were so sacred that they should not be talked about lightly, or without permission.
  •  References not included in the Wikipedia article
    In the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City on 1 September 1859 Brigham Young referred to Joseph Smith’s published history, which includes the 1838 First Vision account. He asked,

“[H]ave I yet lived to the state of perfection that I can commune in person with the Father and the Son at my will and pleasure? No... Joseph Smith in his youth had revelations from God. He saw and understood for himself. Are you acquainted with his life? You can read the history of it. I was acquainted with him during many years. He had heavenly visions; angels administered to him” (Providences of God, etc., Journal of Discourses 7:243])

  • Full context of the Nibley quote (full text available online here):

If among a hundred fairly consistent reports of the first vision story three or four differ radically, that is simply to be expected; their existence does not discredit the consensus. And where such intimate and personal things as unique revelations to individuals are concerned it would be very strange indeed if wild aberrations and wide discrepancies did not appear in the reports. We know the policy of the early leaders regarding the reporting of revelations. A favorite theme of Brigham Young's was the tangible, personal nature of God, which he never illustrates by any mention of the first vision. Why not? He has explained at length:

That man who cannot know things without telling any other living being upon the earth, who cannot keep his secrets and those that God reveals to him, never can receive the voice of his Lord…Should you receive a vision of revelation from the Almighty…you should shut it up and seal it as close, and lock it as tight as heaven is to you, and make it as secret as the grave. The Lord has no confidence in those who reveal secrets, for he cannot safely reveal Himself to such persons…If a person understands God…and the Lord reveals anything to that individual no matter what, unless he gives permission to disclose it, it is locked up in eternal silence.[1]

[1] Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 4:287-88., (emphasis added).

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

John Taylor gave a complete account of the First Vision story in an 1850 letter written as he began missionary work in France,

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  • Editor John Foxe presents this odd argument to justify an attempt to remove Taylor's quote, which now appears in the footnote:

I eliminated the quotation from the Taylor letter of 1850 on the grounds that it doesn't refer to the First Vision; at best it's a conflation of the First Vision and the Moroni Vision. Again, you could always say that 'apologists argue.' John Foxe (20 October 2007) off-site

  • "Apologists" need argue no such thing—simply read Taylor's account and compare it to Joseph's 1838 account.
  • 1850:John Taylor, Letter to the Editor of the Interpreter Anglais et Français, Boulogne-sur-mer (25 June 1850). (emphasis added) Reprinted in John Taylor, Millennial Star 12 no. 15 (1 August 1850), 235–236.
  • 1850:John Taylor, Aux amis de la vérité réligieuse. Récit abregé du commencement, des progres, de l’éstablissement, des persecutions, de la foi et de la doctrine de l’Église de Jésus-Christ des Saints des Derniers Jours (Paris 1850). [Translation: To friends of religious truth. An abridged account of the beginning, progress, establishment, persecutions, the faith, and the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.]


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

and he may have alluded to it in a discourse given in 1859.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Violates Wikipedia: Neutral Point-of-View off-site— All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

    Why bother to imply that there was an "allusion" in 1859, when it has already been demonstrated that Taylor had a clear understanding of the First Vision in 1850?
  •  References not included in the Wikipedia article
    On 13 August 1857 John Taylor and several members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve placed a copy of the Pearl of Great Price (containing the First Vision story) inside the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple (Wilford Woodruff Journal, Brigham Young Journal)


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

However, when Taylor discussed the origins of Mormonism in 1863, he did so without alluding to the canonical First Vision story,

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Violates Wikipedia: No Original Research off-site— Do not use unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.
    Violated by John Foxe —Diff: off-site
    Is the use of the word "however" supposed to imply that Taylor had discounted the importance of the First Vision by 1863? Recall that we just learned that he wrote about it in detail a pamphlet in 1850. The wiki editor relies on a primary source (Taylor's 1863 discourse) to create a new "fact" in the wiki article which implies that Taylor felt that the First Vision was of little importance.
  •  References not included in the Wikipedia article
    John Taylor references to the First Vision between 1863 and 1877:
  • 1876: "When God selected Joseph Smith to open up the last dispensation, which is called the dispensation of the fullness of times, the Father and the Son appeared to him, arrayed in glory..."
    John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 18:325-326; 329, 330.
  • 1877: "the heavenly messengers, even God himself, came to break the long, long silence of ages, revealing through his Son, Jesus Christ, and the holy angels, the everlasting Gospel?..."
    John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 19:123.
  • 1877: "But when the Lord manifested himself to Joseph Smith, presenting to him his Son who was there also, saying, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him;" he then knew that God lived;"
    John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 19:152.


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

and in 1879, he referred to Joseph Smith having asked "the angel" which of the sects was correct.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Violates Wikipedia: Neutral Point-of-View off-site— All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

    John Taylor mentioned the visit of the Father and the Son numerous times during his discourses. The wiki article focuses on one instance in which he referred to "the angel," and ignores another statement made the same day that refers to the Father and the Son. This is intended to imply that Taylor was confused about the details of the vision or that it was of diminishing importance in his mind.
  • The actual "Mormon apologetic response" is addressed below and in the FAIR Wiki here: John Taylor's understanding of the First Vision.
  • The implication that John Taylor was confused as to the nature of the First Vision is unsupportable. There is a considerable amount of supporting primary source material that is hidden by the reference to the "Mormon apologetic response" in the wiki article.
  • Another odd comment from John Foxe:

"I accept that John Taylor mentioned the First Vision at least twice. That he did not emphasize it during his tenure as President is just as true as ever." John Foxe (21 October 2007) off-site

  •  References not included in the Wikipedia article
    The article only mentions one of John Taylor's 1879 talks which refer to the First Vision. This is a very common tactic of critics. Note that a second talk by Taylor given the very same day (March 2nd, 1879) as the one cited in the Wikipedia article states,

"When the Father and the Son and Moroni and others came to Joseph Smith..."
John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 20:257. (2 March 1879)

  • In addition to the clear reference made on the same day as the "angel" comment, there are additional missing references which show that Taylor clearly understood the nature of the First Vision and actively talked of it—as one can clearly see from the following citations, any attempt to imply that Taylor didn't know about the First Vision or emphasize it must ignore a mountain of historical evidence:
  • 25 February 1879: "God Himself, accompanied by the Savior, appeared to Joseph...."
    John Taylor letter to A. K. Thurber at Richfield, Utah (25 February 1879).
  • 28 November 1879: "He came himself, accompanied by his Son Jesus, to the Prophet Joseph Smith."
    John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 21:116.
  • 7 December 1879: "...the Lord revealed himself to him together with his Son Jesus, and, pointing to the latter, said: "This is my beloved Son, hear him."
    John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 21:161.
  • 4 January 1880: "...the Lord appeared unto Joseph Smith, both the Father and the Son, the Father pointing to the Son said "this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him."
    John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 21:65.
  • 27 June 1881: "And hence when the heavens were opened and the Father and Son appeared and revealed unto Joseph the principles of the Gospel..."
    John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 22:218.
  • 28 August 1881: "...the Father and the Son appeared to the youth Joseph Smith to introduce the great work of the latter days."
    John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 22:299.
  • 20 October 1881: "In the commencement of the work, the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith. And when they appeared to him, the Father, pointing to the Son, said, "This is my beloved Son, hear him."
    John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 26:106-107.
  • 1882: John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Company, 1882; Photo lithographic reprint, Salt Lake City, 1964), 138.
  • 5 March 1882: "After the Lord had spoken to Joseph Smith, and Jesus had manifested himself to him..."
    John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 23:32.
  • 29 May 1882: "God the Father, and God the Son, both appeared to him; and the Father, pointing, said, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him."
    John Taylor, Millennial Star 44 no. 22 (29 May 1882), 337–338. (emphasis added)
  • 23 November 1882: "It is true that God appeared to Joseph Smith, and that His Son Jesus did;"
    John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 23:322.
  • 18 May 1884: "When our Heavenly Father appeared unto Joseph Smith, the Prophet, He pointed to the Savior who was with him, (and who, it is said, is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person) and said: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him."
    John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 25:177-178.
  • 1892: "God revealed Himself, as also the Lord Jesus Christ, unto His servant the Prophet Joseph Smith, when the Father pointed to the Son and said: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him.’"
    John Taylor, cited in B. H. Roberts, Life of John Taylor (1989; 1st published 1892), 394.


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Three non-Mormon students of Mormonism, Douglas Davies, Kurt Widmer, and Jan Shipps agree that the LDS emphasis on the First Vision was a "'late development', only gaining an influential status in LDS self-reflection late in the nineteenth century."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Correct, per cited sources


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Mormon historian James B. Allen also argues that the First Vision "did not figure prominently in any evangelistic endeavors by the Church until the 1880s."

Author's sources:
  1. Allen, 43-69, summarized in Kurt Widner, Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Evolution, 1833-1915 (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2000), 103.

FAIR's Response

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

The first important visual representation of the First Vision was painted by the Danish convert C. C. A. Christensen sometime between 1869 and 1878, and George Manwaring, inspired by the artist, wrote a hymn about the First Vision (later renamed "Oh, How Lovely Was the Morning") first published in 1884.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Violates Wikipedia: Citing sources off-site— There is either no citation to support the statement or the citation given is incorrect.

    The article points out that Manwaring published his song Joseph's first prayer in 1884. That is not so: it was written in 1878, and published then and at least 3 more times before becoming part of the hymnal.

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Kurt Widner states that it was primarily through "the post 1883 sermons of LDS Apostle George Q. Cannon that the modern interpretation and significance of the First Vision in Mormonism began to take shape."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Violates Wikipedia: Neutral Point-of-View off-site— All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

    This assumes, of course, that we ignore the repeated references to the event in conference talks by John Taylor between 1876 and 1883.


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

As the sympathetic but non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps has written, "When the first generation of leadership died off, leaving the community to be guided mainly by men who had not known Joseph, the First Vision emerged as a symbol that could keep the slain Mormon leader at center stage."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Violates Wikipedia: Neutral Point-of-View off-site— All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

    Only in Wikipedia is it necessary for Jan Shipps to be qualified as a "sympathetic but non-Mormon" historian!


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

The centennial anniversary of the vision in 1920 "was a far cry from the almost total lack of reference to it just fifty years before."

Author's sources:
  1. Allen (1980) , p. 57: "The Mutual Improvement Associations issued a special commemorative pamphlet, the vision was memorialized in music, verse and dramatic representations, and the church's official publication, the Improvement Era, devoted almost the entire April issue to that event."

FAIR's Response

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

By 1939, even George D. Pyper, an LDS Sunday School superintendent and manager of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, found it "surprising that none of the first song writers wrote intimately of the first vision."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  • Why is the surprise expressed by Pyper, quoted in the wiki article, worthy of note? the First Vision had been published dozens and dozens of times by many many members of the church, prior to the penning of Manwaring's song. If it had not been widely spoken of, there would have been no context in which Manwaring could have written the song. Manwaring didn't popularize the first vision; he merely put it into poetic form.


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

LDS Church president Joseph F. Smith is credited with having fully raised the First Vision to its modern status as a pillar of Mormon theology. Largely through Joseph F. Smith's influence, Smith's 1838 account of the First Vision became part of the canon of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1880 when the faith canonized Smith's early history as part of the Pearl of Great Price.

Author's sources:
  1. Bitton (1994) , p. 86as quoted inAnderson (1996)

FAIR's Response

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

After plural marriage ended at the turn of the 20th century, the First Vision was promoted heavily by Joseph F. Smith, and it soon replaced polygamy in the minds of adherents as the main defining element of Mormonism and the source of the faith's perception of persecution by outsiders.

Author's sources:
  1. Flake (2004) , pp. 120–21.

FAIR's Response

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

As a result, belief in the First Vision is now considered fundamental to the faith, second in importance only to belief in the divinity of Jesus.

Author's sources:
  1. Allen (1966) , p. 29.

FAIR's Response

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

An official website of the Church calls the First Vision "the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  • From the cited source,

Joseph Smith's first vision stands today as the greatest event in world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. After centuries of darkness, the Lord opened the heavens to reveal His word and restore His Church through His chosen prophet.


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

In 1998, Gordon B. Hinckley, then Church President and Prophet, declared,

Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. It was the parting of the curtain to open this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Correct, per cited sources


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

In 1961 Hinckley went even further, "Either Joseph Smith talked with the Father and the Son or he did not. If he did not, we are engaged in a blasphemy."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Violates Wikipedia: Neutral Point-of-View off-site— All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

    This quote was used in order to include the word "blasphemy" as a preface to what comes later. Note that the wiki editor considers Hinckley's statements regarding the First Vision to be a "boon to us non-Mormons since he's willing to bet the farm on a date that creates all sorts of problems for apologists." (John "Foxe," 29 September 2007) off-site
  • In 1961, Gordon B. Hinckley "went even further" than he did 37 years later in 1998?


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Likewise, in a January 2007 interview conducted for the PBS documentary "The Mormons," Hinckley said of the First Vision, "[I]t's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world....That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Correct, per cited sources

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

According to the LDS church the vision teaches that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bone; that mankind was literally created in the image of God; that Satan is real but God infinitely greater; that God hears and answers prayer; that no other contemporary church had the fullness of Christ's gospel; and that revelation has not ceased. In the 21st century, the Vision features prominently in the Church's program of proselytism.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  • Note the deliberate counterpoint between the use of the words "blasphemy" and "great fraud" in the previous statements by Gordon B. Hinckley with a list of beliefs that evangelical Christians consider blasphemous. Is there any doubt as to which audience this wiki article is targeted?


Perspectives within the Community of Christ

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

William B. Smith, a younger brother of Joseph Smith, Jr., and a key figure in the early Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS, renamed Community of Christ in 2001) gave several accounts of the First Vision, although in 1883 he stated that a "more elaborate and accurate description of his vision" was to be found in Joseph Smith's own history

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Correct, per cited sources
  • REMAINDER OF SECTION SKIPPED - NOT RELEVANT


The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite)

Skipped

Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

Skipped

Skeptical criticism

Alleged chronological problems

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Writing of the "unusual excitement on the subject of religion" described in the First Vision story canonized by the LDS Church, Milton V. Backman, Jr., associate professor of history and religion at Brigham Young University, said that although "the tools of the historian" could neither verify nor challenge the First Vision, "records of the past can be examined to determine the reliability of Joseph's description regarding the historical setting."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Correct, per cited sources

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Grant Palmer and others claim that there are serious discrepancies between the various accounts, as well as anachronisms revealed by lack of contemporary corroboration.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  References not included in the Wikipedia article
    Once again, Joseph's 1835 account is ignored. From Joseph's 1835 diary:

a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and I saw many angels in this vision I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication;
—Diary of Joseph Smith, Jr. (1835-1836)

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

For instance, in the canonized account, Smith said that when he shared his vision with a Methodist minister, the latter treated his "communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days." Smith said that he became the "subject of great persecution, which continued to increase."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

But according to emeritus Brigham Young University history professor James B. Allen, there is no known evidence beyond Smith's word that he ever mentioned his vision to a minister—or in fact, to anyone else—for years after the event is supposed to have occurred. Nor is there any known evidence that the young Smith was persecuted for telling the First Vision story during the 1820s.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Violates Wikipedia: Citing sources off-site— There is either no citation to support the statement or the citation given is incorrect.
    Violated by John Foxe —Diff: off-site
    The wiki editor is using Allen, by name, to support the assertion that "there is no known evidence beyond Smith's word that he ever mentioned his vision to a minister," yet Allen actually says that it "received limited circulation." Allen does not express an opinion regarding Joseph's conversation with the minister. He certainly does not state that there is no evidence that Joseph ever mentioned his vision to a minister.

Discrepancies cited by critics

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Critics of the First Vision cite the multiple versions of the First Vision as evidence that it may have been fabricated by Smith.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Critics specifically identify the following discrepancies between the various versions:

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

See also: A FairMormon Analysis of One Nation Under Gods

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Was Smith 14 or 15 at the time of the vision?

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Did Smith attend a contemporaneous religious revival?

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Did the supernatural personages tell Smith his sins were forgiven?

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Were the supernatural personages angels, Jesus, God or some combination?

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Did the vision declare all contemporary churches (or specifically the Methodist church) corrupt, or did Smith believe this to be true before he experienced the vision?

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response


Joseph Smith's Accounts

 Violates Wikipedia: No Original Research off-site— Do not use unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.

The entire chart comparing details of different accounts of the First Vision constitutes original research. The chart was not taken from a specific source—it was created by Wikipedia editors. Per Wikipedia rules, editors should be quoting published authors' opinions regarding the comparison of accounts. Instead, Wikipedia editors have examined the primary sources and analyzed phrases from them by synthesizing them into a chart for the purpose of comparison.

 Violates Wikipedia: Neutral Point-of-View off-site— All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Note that this section is simply labeled "Joseph Smith's Accounts," while the following section is labeled "Apologetic Responses." This section is portrayed as "data" rather than criticism, while the following section is portrayed as a defense by believers.

- Source of First Vision Supernatural beings Messages from beings Notes FAIR Commentary
1832 Joseph Smith's own handwriting from his Letterbook The Papers of Joseph Smith, v1, p5-7, Dean Jessee (ed.), Deseret Book Company 1989.Jessee, Dean, (1989), The Papers of Joseph Smith: Autobiographical and Historical Writings Deseret Book Company And Early Mormon Documents, v 1, p27-29, Dan Vogel, Signature Books, 1996. "The Lord" "Thy sins are forgiven thee". Smith decides for himself that all churches are corrupt. Vision in Smith's "16th year" (i.e. when he is 15 years old). All other accounts state his age as 14.
1835, Nov. 9 - Joseph Smith diary (Ohio Journal, handwritten, Warren Parrish scribe) The Papers of Joseph Smith, Dean Jessee (ed.), v2, p68-69. Deseret Book Company 1989. Two unidentified personages, and "many angels" "Thy sins are forgiven thee" and Jesus is the "son of God" No message of revivals or corrupt churches.
1835, Nov. 14 - Joseph Smith diary (Ohio Journal, handwritten, Warren Parrish scribe) The Papers of Joseph Smith, Dean Jessee (ed.), v2, p79. Deseret Book Company 1989. "visitation of angels" None. No mention of revival, or sins forgiven, or corrupt churches.
1838/1839 - History of the Church, Early Draft (James Mulholland Scribe) Two personages appear, and one says "This is my beloved Son, hear him". The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt. No mention of "sins forgiven". A revival is mentioned.
1842, March - Times and Seasons March 1, 1842, v3 no 9, p706-707. Two personages appear, and one says "This is my beloved Son, hear him". The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt. No mention of "sins forgiven". A revival is mentioned.
1842, March - Times and Seasons March 15, 1842, v3 no 11, p727-728, April 1, 1842, v3, no 11, p748-749. This version was later incorporated into The History of the Church, and later into the Pearl of Great Priceand thus is sometimes refered to as the "canonized version". Two personages appear, and one says "This is my beloved Son, hear him". The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt. No mention of "sins forgiven". A revival is mentioned. When this version was incorporated into the History of the Church, it was put into a context that suggests it was composed in 1838, but 1842 is the first known publication of this version.
1843, July - Letter from JS to D. Rupp An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States, Daniel Rupp, Philadelpha, 1844. p404-410. Two personages appear. No mention of "this is my son". The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt. No mention of "sins forgiven". No revival mentioned. Available online here. See also the Wentworth letter.
1843, Aug 29 - Interview with journalist David White Reprinted in Jessee v1 p443-444. Two personages appear. "Behold my beloved son, hear him". The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt. Revival is mentioned. No mention of "sins forgiven".

Accounts of Others

- Source of First Vision Supernatural beings Messages from beings Notes FAIR Commentary
1840, September - Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions , Orson Pratt, Ballantyne and Huges publ, 1840 (reprinted in Jessee, v1 p 149-160). Two unidentified "glorious personages, who exactly resembed each other in their features". "his sins were forgiven". The personages tell Smith that all churches are corrupt. This is the first published version. No mention of revival. Online here.
1841, June - A Cry from the Wilderness , Orson Hyde, published in German, Frankfurt, 1842 (reprinted in Jessee, v1 p405-409). Two unidentified "glorious personages" who resembed "each other in their features". No specific message. No mention of "sins forgiven" or revival. Smith determines for himself that all churches are corrupt.
1844, May 24 - as told to Alexander Neibaur Alexander Neibaur Journal, reprinted in Jessee, v1, p 459-461. Two personages appear. One has a "light complexion" and "blue eyes". "This is my beloved son harken ye him". Methodist churches are wrong. All churches are corrupt. Revival is mentioned. No mention of "sins forgiven".

Apologetic Responses

 Violates Wikipedia: Neutral Point-of-View off-site— All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

The title "Apologetic Responses" is pejorative. Most readers unfamiliar with the term will interpret "apologist" as one who "apologizes" for their position. Although this section is titled "Apologetic Responses," we see no apologists quoted here. We see Church leaders, a BYU professor, and an evangelical theologian. It is inaccurate to classify any and all believers as "apologists."

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have acknowledged that the First Vision as well as the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith himself constitute "stumbling blocks for many." Apostle Neal A. Maxwell wrote:

In our own time, Joseph Smith, the First Vision, and the Book of Mormon constitute stumbling blocks for many—around which they cannot get—unless they are meek enough to examine all the evidence at hand, not being exclusionary as a result of accumulated attitudes in a secular society. Humbleness of mind is the initiator of expansiveness of mind."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  • The various accounts of the First Vision are addressed in the January 1985 Ensign. The article is by Milton V. Backman, Jr.: Joseph Smith’s Recitals of the First Vision. The article discusses the 1832, 1835, 1838 and 1842 accounts. Backman states,

In an important way, the existence of these different accounts helps support the integrity of the Latter-day Saint Prophet. It indicates that Joseph did not deliberately create a memorized version which he related to everyone. In the legal profession, attorneys and judges recognize that if a witness repeats an incident by using precisely the same language, the court might challenge the validity of such a statement.

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Some believers view differences in the accounts as overstated. Richard L. Anderson, a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University wrote, "What are the main problems of interpreting so many accounts? The first problem is the interpreter. One person perceives harmony and interconnections while another overstates differences."

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Correct, per cited sources


The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

Other believers view the differences in the accounts as reflective of Smith's increase in maturity and knowledge over time. In a recent PBS interview, Marlin K. Jensen, General authority and Church Historian said:

I've actually studied the various accounts of Joseph's First Vision, and I'm struck by the difference in his recountings. But as I look back at my missionary journals, for instance, which I've kept and other journals which I've kept throughout my life, I'm struck now in my older years by the evolution and hopefully the progression that's taken place in my own life and how differently now from this perspective I view some things that happened in my younger years.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Correct, per cited sources

The author(s) of the wikipedia article on Joseph's First Vision[1] make(s) the following claim:

In another interview on the same PBS documentary, Richard Mouw, an evangelical theologian and student of Mormonism summarized his feelings about the First Vision in this way:

My instinct is to attribute a sincerity to Joseph Smith. And yet at the same time, as an evangelical Christian, I do not believe that the members of the godhead really appeared to him and told him that he should start on a mission of, among other things, denouncing the kinds of things that I believe as a Presbyterian. I can't believe that. And yet at the same time, I really don't believe that he was simply making up a story that he knew to be false in order to manipulate people and to gain power over a religious movement. And so I live with the mystery.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

  •  Correct, per cited sources


Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.29 1.30 1.31 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.35 1.36 1.37 Due to the nature of wikipedia, articles can change. This analysis applies to the article as it stood circa September 2011.
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Mormonism_and_Wikipedia/First_Vision/Interpretations_and_responses_to_the_vision&oldid=262643"