FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Array
Joseph Smith's First Vision/Personages that appeared referred to by Church leaders as "angels": Difference between revisions
m (→Criticism) |
m (→Response) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
==Response== | ==Response== | ||
To begin with, it must be made clear that Andrew Jenson was | To begin with, it must be made clear that Andrew Jenson was ''not'' a Church historian in 1888 when he wrote the text in question. A book produced by Jenson himself indicates that “his services were engaged by the First Presidency, and he was blessed and set apart by Apostle Franklin D. Richards [on] April 16, 1891, as ‘an historian’ in the Church.”{{ref|fn2}} | ||
The next point to keep in mind is that nobody is responsible for the initial 1888 text or the 1890 revision except for Andrew Jenson himself; he is plainly listed as both the editor and publisher of each text. There is no indication that the LDS Church was ever responsible for the content of Jenson's article. | The next point to keep in mind is that nobody is responsible for the initial 1888 text or the 1890 revision except for Andrew Jenson himself; he is plainly listed as both the editor and publisher of each text. There is no indication that the LDS Church was ever responsible for the content of Jenson's article. | ||
One thing that the critics never bring up in their | One thing that the critics never bring up in their account is the fact that near the top of the page of Andrew Jenson's revised article he provides an important note about source material. There he clearly states that his record was “Compiled in part from the history of Joseph Smith, published in the ''Millennial Star'', and from Geo[rge] Q. Cannon’s writings about Joseph, the Prophet, as published in the ''Juvenile Instructor''.” This is very important information, since a consultation of Brother Cannon’s writings reveals that precisely twenty-two years earlier he had been teaching in the ''Juvenile Instructor'' that Joseph Smith “had the glorious privilege of beholding the Father and the Son.” There is no doubt at all in this text about the precise identity of the two Personages seen by the Prophet Joseph Smith.{{ref|fn3}} And, of course, the accounts of the First Vision printed in the ''Millennial Star'' (the 1838 official Church history and the 1842 Wentworth Letter) identify the Prophet's visitants as the Father and the Son. | ||
It has never been noted in print by the critics that even in Andrew Jenson's 1888 article '''the identity of the "angel" is unambiguous''' | It has never been noted in print by the critics that even in Andrew Jenson's 1888 article '''the identity of the "angel" is unambiguous'''—He is referred to, in capital letters, as '''the "BELOVED SON"'''. | ||
The only real question regarding this episode, then, is—Why did Andrew Jenson decide to attach the title of "angel" to Jesus Christ in his 1888 text? One plausible explanation is that this was a perfectly acceptable nineteenth century convention, and Jenson saw nothing inappropriate about utilizing it. A standard nineteenth century English dictionary lists "Christ" under the entry for "Angel".{{ref|fn4}} | |||
Another plausible explanation is that Andrew Jenson (an acknowledged history buff) may have been uncritically drawing information from the published Joseph Smith journal entry for 14 November 1835 which reads: "I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14 years old."{{ref|fn5}} If Jenson did not compare this entry with the 9 November 1835 entry—which was published two weeks earlier{{ref|fn6}} he may have drawn the faulty conclusion that Joseph Smith referred to both the Father and the Son as "Angels", instead of the correct conclusion that the Prophet actually "saw many angels" during the First Vision—along with the Father and the Son. | |||
==Conclusion== | ==Conclusion== | ||
Revision as of 07:35, 1 January 2007
Template:FirstVisionPortal
This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.
Criticism
Critics insist that as late as the end of the nineteenth century there was uncertainty among LDS Church officials about the identity of Joseph Smith's First Vision visitants. This is evident in an 1888 history article printed by Church historian Andrew Jenson wherein he twice called one of them an "angel".[1] Two years later LDS Church leaders revised Jenson's text without providing a note to alert the reader about the revision; critics insist that the leaders were thereby engaged in a cover-up.
Source(s) of the criticism
- Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st Century Mormonism (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004), 31, 337 nt. 57.
Response
To begin with, it must be made clear that Andrew Jenson was not a Church historian in 1888 when he wrote the text in question. A book produced by Jenson himself indicates that “his services were engaged by the First Presidency, and he was blessed and set apart by Apostle Franklin D. Richards [on] April 16, 1891, as ‘an historian’ in the Church.”[2]
The next point to keep in mind is that nobody is responsible for the initial 1888 text or the 1890 revision except for Andrew Jenson himself; he is plainly listed as both the editor and publisher of each text. There is no indication that the LDS Church was ever responsible for the content of Jenson's article.
One thing that the critics never bring up in their account is the fact that near the top of the page of Andrew Jenson's revised article he provides an important note about source material. There he clearly states that his record was “Compiled in part from the history of Joseph Smith, published in the Millennial Star, and from Geo[rge] Q. Cannon’s writings about Joseph, the Prophet, as published in the Juvenile Instructor.” This is very important information, since a consultation of Brother Cannon’s writings reveals that precisely twenty-two years earlier he had been teaching in the Juvenile Instructor that Joseph Smith “had the glorious privilege of beholding the Father and the Son.” There is no doubt at all in this text about the precise identity of the two Personages seen by the Prophet Joseph Smith.[3] And, of course, the accounts of the First Vision printed in the Millennial Star (the 1838 official Church history and the 1842 Wentworth Letter) identify the Prophet's visitants as the Father and the Son.
It has never been noted in print by the critics that even in Andrew Jenson's 1888 article the identity of the "angel" is unambiguous—He is referred to, in capital letters, as the "BELOVED SON".
The only real question regarding this episode, then, is—Why did Andrew Jenson decide to attach the title of "angel" to Jesus Christ in his 1888 text? One plausible explanation is that this was a perfectly acceptable nineteenth century convention, and Jenson saw nothing inappropriate about utilizing it. A standard nineteenth century English dictionary lists "Christ" under the entry for "Angel".[4]
Another plausible explanation is that Andrew Jenson (an acknowledged history buff) may have been uncritically drawing information from the published Joseph Smith journal entry for 14 November 1835 which reads: "I received the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14 years old."[5] If Jenson did not compare this entry with the 9 November 1835 entry—which was published two weeks earlier[6] he may have drawn the faulty conclusion that Joseph Smith referred to both the Father and the Son as "Angels", instead of the correct conclusion that the Prophet actually "saw many angels" during the First Vision—along with the Father and the Son.
Conclusion
When the light of historical scholarship shines upon this particular charge of the critics, it quickly becomes apparent that this is a non-issue. By the time that Andrew Jenson had published his anomalous First Vision account in 1888 the Pearl of Great Price rendition of the same story had already been canonized by the Church for eight years. Latter-day Saints had long been familiar with the official version of events that took place in the Sacred Grove and the precise identities of Joseph Smith's heavenly visitors.
Endnotes
None