Believing if the First Vision is flawed

How is it possible to retain faith in the church given the overwhelming evidence that the FV is a made-up story? I just don’t get it. So I am curious how people still retain their faith in the church if the FV has such an improbable track record?

Curt, good questions, and good post.

I’ll give my first crack at this, but likely there are others more eloquent in posting that can provide some good points for you.

I will just say that I guess I don’t share your view that there is “overwhelming evidence that the FV is a made-up story”. I have read a lot of the history you alluded too, and I still believe the First Vision and still have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet. The last year I have broadened my views as to what a prophet is, and possible ways that God can work through prophets…but I have never shed my belief that the First Vision happened, and have read nothing that proves that to me with satisfaction. I admit, a large part of this is because I had a spiritual witness of this when I was younger, and have not felt anything has prompted me otherwise. When I read a lot of accounts of church history, I often wonder how much is fact and how much is assumptions by people 100’s of years removed from the actual events, and so can’t take all the points of data as complete fact, but as “one possible way to look at it”…but nothing definitive. And so I must make up my mind based on what I see the facts lead me to.

I think Richard Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling addresses a lot of your questions pretty well, and I lean towards those explanations. Yes, the story is not as clean and crisp as what was taught to me my entire life in the church (which bothers me), but it is not impossible to think Joseph had that vision with 2 personages and just didn’t document it as such until years later understanding how important certain details really were.

There were many things Joseph was learning and figuring out importance of things as he went along. He didn’t know exactly his path and the what God wanted him to do until he went by faith, line upon line, and it became clearer to him as he did (learning from mistakes and being human). I find great comfort in that as I see application in my life. Things I learned when I was younger weren’t always clear to me how they were important until I grew older and experienced life and realized the important application of some of those things. I see Joseph’s reluctance to explain (or even understand) in detail his First Vision a very plausible scenario. And because of that, I remain in the church, realize the story could be different than how it is explained in sunday school, but to this day do not believe it was a lie or a fraud. Just a little more convoluted than we’d like it to be.

But that is just me.

[First, as always, provide links to citations for specific references. It is important in cases like this. There are many people who read and don’t comment, and they deserve links. There are very important details that are left unaddressed without the actual statements being quoted.]

Is it possible to remain a believer in the LDS church if the First Vision is a fraud?

I don’t believe it was a fraud – not given everything I’ve read about it. I’ve read almost everything there is to read, and I believe Joseph was sincere in what he believed happened to him.

re: #1) I’ve had much the same experience with emphasizing different elements of an experience to different people. I’ve actually told a story to someone on more than one occasion, years apart, and been told much the same thing – that I had made up the story because my recitations of it weren’t the same. In some cases, I’ve even left out “key elements” of events – specifically because I wasn’t focusing on those elements at the time for that particular audience. I do it ALL THE TIME in talks I give in church, where I have limited time and a very specific message for a very specific time.

I can understand totally if he shared both personages initially and, with harsh response, focused thereafter on the Being that delivered the message. There’s nothing surprising at all to me in that – again, as I’ve done much the same in sharing particular experiences I’ve had. I literally have not mentioned very central things at times knowing that the hearers would mock it or that it would detract from what I was trying to share. That happened especially in college and when I lived in the Deep South.

re #3) I’m not about to get hung up over technical definitions of revivals. The actual account in the JSH doesn’t use the word “revival” – and the general description in verse 5 absolutely fits the emotion of the time in that area. Honestly, this is one criticism that I simply have never understood – since it’s based on something that isn’t said in the actual account.

Every other point essentially is conjecture that says, in essence, “If it had happened, he would have told everyone about it, and everyone would have known about it and written about it.” Let me address that one from the standpoint of a former history teacher:

One of the most frustrating aspects of historical research is when you are sure something happened but are unable to find more than passing reference in one or two sources. This happens ALL THE TIME. Dozens, and sometimes hundreds, of people write about events of the time – and yet only one or two often mention something that, in hindsight, seems obviously important. It’s frustrating, but it’s totally understandable.

If you doubt that, think about how much newspaper coverage was devoted in the past to stories in hindsight that seemed unimportant when they occurred. Now, in our era of instant communication and 24/7 internet attention, it is inconceivable to many – but there was a time when not everyone knew and talked about everything as it happened. A young boy could share something, get smacked verbally and clam up and, as the stories of subsequent visions spread conflate the building persecution and derision as one unending stream of rejection and scorn. I see absolutely nothing in his accounts that would make it hard to reconcile that aspect.

Frankly, you use “over-whelming” and “damaging” and “defies logic” and “wishful thinking” and similar words as if they are indisputable. They aren’t. When you focus only on what he actually said, and the context of those statements, there absolutely are issues that need to be reconciled – but not ANY more so than LOTS of things in history for which there are multiple accounts, even from the same source. Again, I’ve had very similar experiences – since I wasn’t trying to be extra-careful about making each account an exact replica of the former ones.

Understand, I’m NOT saying this is an indisputable conclusion that Joseph saw what he said he saw. I just don’t see indisputable or over-whelming proof that he didn’t – especially when his own words are “vision” not “visitation” and it is easy to see someone asking what God told him and him answering with the message and not trying to give all the other details each time. I’ve lived it, so it’s not hard for me to accept that possibility.

People tend to write about what they perceive to be important, extraordinary things – and things about which they believe they have special knowledge. In that time period, it is easy to forget how mundane and un-extraordinary claims to visions were. They literally happened often, and they would have been FAR less interesting than claims of finding gold plates. That would have caused an uproar – and it did.

Finally, there is no point in believing any religious history if it has to be indisputable – or even logical. None of it is.

Swimordie, stop feeling Randy. He said he’s ticklish.

I think we really need to look at the purpose of reporting the FV. Missionaries never discussed it, and it wasn’t a part of the miracle of the restoration. Only when things were falling apart in Nauvoo did JS deliver the official and final version of the FV. The official 1838 FV was a response to the surrounding problems; a failed bank, the failed law of consecration, the problems with polygamy, and JS loosing a lot of his top dogs when Harris stood up in the temple and said he never actually saw the plates. JS was desperate to reinstate his authority as church leader. What better way than to assert it with divine authority? The first vision evolved from a nice little spiritual moment of solitude, to a full-blown mandate to save the world.

…

It makes more sense to me that JS merely said what he had to, when he had to.

Spacious, if I understand your point, you are saying it makes more sense to you that with things on the brink of collapse, JS had to make things up to keep the farce going. Another revelation for the D&C, or a detailed account of the First Vision with details that would help his current needs…or something to keep his stature as the prophet of God because he was losing control. Am I reading that right?

If so, here is my thoughts…I can see why there is skepticism and why some people don’t view Joseph as a prophet, but just another religious zealot as many who came before him or after him claimed spiritual things.

From a historical perspective, Joseph was only sketchy in writing things down at all, and in fact, Emma would say he could hardly complete a letter, let alone write detailed accounts. (Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling [don’t have the page numbers but if you want the specific reference, let me know and I’ll look it up]). He always used scribes, and most of the revelations are all from clerks or others who recorded the revelations. There were even years that would pass with Joseph writing only a few sentances in his journal. So there was never a trend throughout his life that he kept copious notes, unlike other more scholarly men like Oliver Cowdery or others. He did try later in his life to record his life story, but most of what we get is from others…so it does follow that details were never recorded, despite the gravity of the subject…as hard as that may seem for us to conceive.

However, my feelings on the subject are more rooted in testimony and spiritual witness of the content than the historical and logical origins of the material. Just as with the Book of Mormon and the establishment of the church with spiritual gifts and administrative councils…the things Joseph went about doing allowed for great truths to be taught. Even if the methods seem questionable or illogical, the content (which is what is important) is remarkable and can’t be proven false. I don’t think he was “lucky” that he could conjure up an explanation that puts all doubters in Nauvoo at ease. Maybe it would have been cleaner and without loose ends if he would have just done this at age 14 when it happened, but that is the beauty of the story about Joseph Smith. It was done very much in a way I can relate to: with human mistakes, with messy accounts that in hindsight are problematic, with communication breakdowns, and with a progression of maturity and organization. Line upon line…just as the scriptures teach God works with His children.

I think Joseph saw himself very differently when in his 30’s than when he was a teenager. That makes sense to me, I certainly see myself and my world differently than I was younger, and what was important detail to me now was not even dwelt on in my mind when I was young (of course I never had anything so earth-shattering as JS). More important, the messages Joseph revealed stand on their own, despite the timing or the doubts as to why they weren’t recorded more completely. I am not a naive dupe, just taking whatever people say as gospel and building my whole life around a theology on one man’s word…and millions like me have seen that the teachings from the First Vision are remarkably beautiful and fit in line with thousands of years of scripture. I believe it because it feels right and true, however the timing of the delivery came about. To me, it is more likely that it is based on truth, and less likely it was just some desperate story Joseph pulled out of a hat to satisfy the needs of his current predicaments, and millions since have bought into it.

I also find the differing accounts troubling, but everyone has suggested some reasonable explanations to reconcile them. I also find it troubling that the Book of Mormon has a very trinitarian view of God (such as in Abinidi’s sermon), rather than our current LDS Godhead understanding of three distinct personages. Despite hearing many lectures on “Divine investiture of authority” etc., I think the internal evidence of the Book of Mormon suggests a more trinitarian view of God, rather than an LDS Godhead. Also, it appears that our current theological understanding of the Godhead wasn’t actually cannonized until the early 20th century, making it a certainly dubious claim by the church that our “accurate” understanding of the Godhead is one of the “fruits of the first vision” restored by Joseph Smith.

Is it possible to remain a believer in the LDS church if the First Vision is a fraud?

As for your question, I’m pretty new to disaffection with the church, so I am struggling with this as well.

Hawk, very well put.

Curt, addressing your original question – have you ever allowed yourself to ponder the question:

Would removing the absolutist impressions also remove the worth?

I agree that it does tend to change the color or lighting. Sometimes we can get a better look at something in a different light.

Can we allow Joseph to have a meaningful personal experience – whatever that was, and then turn our focus to the fruits of the modern church – as we determine whether it is worthwhile for us personally or not?

I know it’s a difficult shift in focus, and it takes practice over time to gain proficiency.

MisterC, I appreciate the newness of your struggles. Hang with us!

The FV, IMO, doesn’t serve to make it clear what the nature of God is (that he has an actual physical body).’

I suppose that is true. Even if we take the church-sanctioned version of the FV, there is no indication that JS shook their hands to determine if they had bodies as resurrected personages.